Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
→Maddox (writer) again: Yeah. |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1,037: | Line 1,037: | ||
[[Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion]] is showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think it's a error in editng, rather than a deletion request, but I can't find it. Can someone give me a hand? Thanks. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk:Toddst1|talk]])</small> 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
[[Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion]] is showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think it's a error in editng, rather than a deletion request, but I can't find it. Can someone give me a hand? Thanks. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk:Toddst1|talk]])</small> 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Please help request for arbitration== |
|||
I cannot submit it for some reason. I asked Carcharoth to submit it for me. |
|||
Basically, an administrator who supports Barack Obama and opposes Hillary Clinton has gone on a rampage (along with 2 sockpuppets) to ban anyone they don't like. One of the socks has vandalized pages and blanked out user pages. |
|||
This is such a big problem and has been going on for more than a year. Rather than laugh it off and blanking this request, ArbCom should get to the bottom of it. ArbCom has proof, including driver licenses to prove the identity of several people proving that they can't be socks as they are accused by this renegade administrator. |
|||
If you blank this request then you should be prepared to answer to ArbCom to why you are destroying a request for arbitration (when you don't have the evidence and personal identification that ArbCom has). |
|||
Diff: See Carcharoth's user talk page or below. |
|||
=== {Jersyko and Archtransit} === |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Harry59b|Harry59b]] ([[User talk:Harry59b|talk]]) '''at''' 12:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Involved parties ==== |
|||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|Harry59b}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Mrs.EasterBunny}} |
|||
*{{admin|Jersyko}} |
|||
*{{admin|Archtransit}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|VK35}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Greenwinged}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Lethe}} |
|||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*Request exemption as Jersyko cannot desysop himself and other parties are blocked and their user page page protected. Most users have been notified by e-mail. |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> |
|||
*Special case involving ArbCom desysoping |
|||
==== Statement by {Harry59b} ==== |
|||
ArbCom needs to settle this long running problem of an administrator harming Wikipedia by banning people by falsely accusing them of sockpuppetry. This has been going on for over a year. |
|||
The definition of sockpuppetry is faking a consensus by multiple voting or sharing the same editorial opinion. This has not happen. Yet, Wikipedia culture is that if you are accused of being a sock, others will join the attack creating a gang-like cabal. |
|||
I request immediate and permanent desysoping and blocking of administrator Jersyko for premeditated abuse of his powers. Several months ago, in a personal and self-serving rampage, admin Jersyko blocked me. There was no checkuser proof and no other evidence. Jersyko is abusing his admin powers in a widespread fashion and manipulating others to help him to support his support of 2 American politicians or whenever he just doesn't like someone and wants to ban them. He must be desysoped and blocked because his scheme is hurting the encyclopedia. |
|||
Jersyko is a political supporter of American politician John Edwards and Barack Obama (and may be an opponent of Hillary Clinton). His actions to block supporters of Hillary Clinton shows he is manipulating Wikipedia for his own political purposes. He has also edited these articles so is abusing his sysop privileges by blocking those who edit the same articles. |
|||
After contacting some others, I have learned that Jerysko's abuse is widespread. I do not know of all of the details of the others but have compiled a summary of e-mail evidence that I have received (mostly from Mrs.EasterBunny, who compiled responses from others). |
|||
I Harry59b have lost my password to Harry59 and have created this username. |
|||
Jersyko is the subject of this request for arbitration. He has accused Archtransit and Dereks1x and me of being socks. Therefore, all three of us are included. Frankly, I'm only interested in getting myself unblocked but this is just the tip of an iceberg of Jersyko attacking others. Where is his proof that I (Harry59) is a sock? ***************************8 |
|||
==== Statement by {Mrs.EasterBunny} paraphrased and/or cut and pasted by Harry60 with occasional Harry60 ideas added - compiled from her e-mail between others ==== |
|||
Everyone except Harry59b is blocked so Harry59b is helping with this. |
|||
One of the major questions is sockpuppetry. Jersyko is employing meatpuppets (especially Tvoz and Bobblehead to further his political purposes). You can see countless times when all 3 of them chime in to attack political opponents. Diffs are not needed as they post together frequently and act as meatpuppets (equivalent of sockpuppets). |
|||
Harry59 first was alerted of the huge problem when Jerysko accused admin Archtransit of being Dereks1x in WP:ANI |
|||
====Mrs.EasterBunny: Why we need to resolve this problem==== |
|||
The Dereks1x issue needs to be reviewed because the basis of the problem is Jerysko's false accusation of sockpuppetry. Once someone is accused of being a sock, WP users will generally attack the person without stopping to consider whether the accuser (Jersyko) is actually the sock. |
|||
Resolving this Dereks1x issue has the potential to create peace in Wikipedia once and for all. It would be a dis-service if ArbCom made the assumption that Dereks1x is bad because the root problem would remain unresolved. |
|||
Jerysko's manipulation has created a big dis-service to Wikipedia not only because he did it for personal reasons but it diverts resources from encyclopedia building. The bottom line is that the many users that Jersyko has accused of being socks have been extremely productive editors. In contrast, Jersyko/Tvoz/Bobblehead/Thatcher are not very productive editors. If they are blocked, Wikipedia will not lose anything because they don't edit productively. They harm Wikipedia by falsely accusing others of sockpuppetry. |
|||
====Mrs.EasterBunny: Summary of events==== |
|||
Dereks1x appeared in early 2006 and wrote some well referenced but negative information about Barack Obama and John Edwards. Jersyko edits some of those along with meatpuppets Tvoz/Bobblehead. Jersyko banned Dereks1x accusing him of sockpuppetry. His accused sock had unanimous consensus of the severity of John Edwards' wife's cancer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Edwards&diff=119599062&oldid=119562177], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrew73&diff=119701804&oldid=119585352], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrew73&diff=119701804&oldid=119585352]. If there was a question of socks, Jerysko should have politely explained the rules but not imposed his own political views as Jersyko had no scientific consensus but the accused sock did. Understanding at this point would have ended the problem forever. Instead, Jersyko went on a rampage which has created nearly 1.5 years of problems for Wikipedia (Therefore, desysop is the proper response). |
|||
====VK35==== |
|||
VK35 was an extremely productive editor. His contributions were first rate. Blocking him was a big mistake for those who want to build the encyclopedia. VK35 has stated in e-mails that he doesn't want to get involved and will only consider contributing in a few months if he is unblocked. He will not fight to be unblocked. |
|||
VK35 says Jimbo Wales unblocked him after he proved that he is a doctor. Since Dereks1x is accused of impersonating a doctor through DocUnitedStates, VK35 cannot be Dereks1x because he IS a doctor. Jimbo Wales received proof of identity. Jersyko later reused old checkuser information (which was available to Jimbo) to block him after Jimbo made his decision and left the scene. This checkuser information showed that VK35 uses the same ISP but different computer as Dereks1x. Blocking of VK35 is completely wrong and a stain for Wikipedia because it opposing the actions of Jimbo Wales and conclusively proves that he is not Dereks1x because Dereks1x is accused of impersonating a doctor. |
|||
VK35 does not want to get involved and declines to give testimony. |
|||
====Heidianddick==== |
|||
Heidianddick was blocked as a sock even though she admitted from the start that she is related to VK35. This is wrong and only shows vindictiveness. |
|||
====Mrs.EasterBunny: Proof of identity==== |
|||
The key breakthrough was that Mrs.EasterBunny asked a lot of people to give their identity. If they are different people, they cannot be socks. They are not meatpuppets because they don't generally edit the same articles and don't vote in the same elections. |
|||
Mrs.EasterBunny: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin (Wikipedia legal counsel). Age: 20's, female, Japanese, surname: Ya.... |
|||
Lethe: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin. Age: 60's, male, caucasian, surname: Mu....... |
|||
Archtransit: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin. Age: 40's, male, caucasian, surname: No..... |
|||
Fairchoice: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin. Age: 50's, female, Latino, surname: Ph.... |
|||
Greenwinged: located in Texas, far away from all the others. |
|||
Harry59/Harry60: located in a different continent. |
|||
These people can't be relatives because they don't share the same surnames. They are of vastly different ages and races. |
|||
====Summary of Lethe statement==== |
|||
Sorry that he was a joker and told Archtransit that there was a vandal named "Lethe" around. Archtransit blocked Lethe and was desysoped by ArbCom for blocking someone with the same or neighboring IP address. |
|||
====Archtransit problem==== |
|||
Archtransit was an outstanding editor. Several have said how good he was. Jersyko accuses him of being a Dereks1x sock. However, they edit completely different articles. This shows how destructive Jersyko is. |
|||
Archtransit admits that his problem was that he wanted WP to be kind and open to everyone. So when his friend played a trick on him by saying "hey, there's a vandal named Lethe", ArbCom thought that Archtransit was making a sock to block. This doesn't make sense because Archtransit never bragged about blocking this sock, he just did and moved on. |
|||
Others started a RFC on Archtransit because they hold the ideal "admins are part of the cabal and must not block each other / we must have solidarity to block others and must rarely unblock others" Archtransit admits that this was his downfall. He was merely following WP rules about who can be blocked and unblocked so he request re-sysopping. Looking at the RFC, there was a consensus (albeit small number of people) who supported Archtransit blocks. THERE IS NO SUPPORT THAT ANY OF HIS LATER BLOCKS WERE WRONG. So people just didn't like Archtransit for his compassion but couldn't find anything wrong with his blocks or unblocks (see the RFC). |
|||
When a legislator was blocked, Archtransit calmly and politely contacted this person to make him feel better. As such, he is a better ambassador for WP then the countless admin who are rude and bite newbies. |
|||
Archtransit was desysopped because of sockpuppetry accusations. This reason looks to some to be a mere excuse because none of the socks ever voted in the same election or edited in the same articles. He was never given a chance to defend himself. ArbCom had no emergency that they had to deny the opportunity for a defense. |
|||
====Statement by Archtransit as interpreted by Harry60 and received by Mrs.EasterBunny==== |
|||
"I am a good contributor. The community acted solely on ArbCom's actions. ArbCom may contact me for a statement. Resolving this problem and the Bobblehead problem would help WP" |
|||
====Thatcher problem / Bobblehead socks==== |
|||
Thatcher attacked Archtransit by fishing for information to hurt him. The nature of socks is that you should have evidence of sockpuppetry first (voting in the same elections, editing the same article), not fish for IP's. This is the wrong way to look for socks. Many people have other users close to them. |
|||
Thatcher has not attacked Jersyko's sock/meatpuppet Bobblehead even though there is evidence that Bobblehead has several socks who attacked Archtransit. Bobblehead had a bad AFD rejected and promptly launched several socks to blank out Archtransit's user page. All of Bobblehead's socks begin with the letter B and are short names. A checkuser would prove that Bobblehead is behind this. |
|||
====Evidence discovered by bureaucrat WJBscribe==== |
|||
Well before this started, he made comments that the request for unblock by Fairchoice was hysterical. He said that Archtransit request for unblock was very rationale and calm and was focused on his inability to help WP while he was doing a task (see Archtransit's RFA). This shows independent assessment of different writing styles. In contrast, opponents will often use flimsly and specious evidence to allege that people are socks because of writing style. |
|||
====Mrs.EasterBunny and others: implications of ArbCom failing to act==== |
|||
This is a long running saga that ArbCom should consider and unblock certain people. If ArbCom assumes that they are all socks, how does ArbCom explain all the evidence that they are not socks? If ArbCom assumes that they are all socks, how can one person make so many excellent editorial contributions (about 10,000 per year, most of very high quality--if this is the work of one person, that person is one of the best editors in the history of Wikipedia). Doesn't ArbCom want to build the encyclopedia or is that just Jimbo Wales long forgotten ideal? |
|||
====Requested conclusions that ArbCom should consider==== |
|||
1. Archtransit is a good contributor. His RFC showed that nobody could rationally state why his recent blocks or unblocks are bad. He is re-sysop on the condition that he act with restraint.<br /> |
|||
1a. Archtransit never bragged about the blocks or unblocks. Therefore, accusations that he blocked his socks are not logical.<br /> |
|||
2. VK35 is a good contributor. He is invited to resume editing.<br /> |
|||
3. Mrs.EasterBunny is a good contributor. She may resume editing.<br /> |
|||
4. Greenwinged is completely separate from everyone according to checkuser proof. He was never given the chance to edit.<br /> |
|||
5. Harry60 is completely separate from everyone according to checkuser proof.<br /> |
|||
6. Lethe is admonished for playing tricks. He may resume editing in 6 months if he agrees never to play tricks on others.<br /> |
|||
7. Jersyko is not a productive article builder. Jersyko edited articles and then had others blocked who disagreed with him, even when they obtained a consensus. He is de-sysopped. He is blocked for 1 month.<br /> |
|||
8. Tvoz has been repeated incivil and has acted as a meatpuppet to Jerysko/Bobblehead. Tvoz is to blocked for 1 month.<br /> |
|||
9. Bobblehead is a vandal. He is a meatpuppet of Tvoz/Jersyko. Because he was part of a scheme to have others blocked, he is blocked for 6 months.<br /> |
|||
10. Thatcher is admonished for checkuser fishing. He is instructed to stop using the checkuser for 2 months.<br /> |
|||
11. When accusing people of sockpuppetry, the user should give utmost consideration to the other users' contributions and not be focused on the edit which the accuser disagrees with. Sock complaints should be made only if WP is harmed by the sockpuppetry and not used as an excuse to attack others.<br /> |
|||
12. User talk page page protection must not be abused. Page protecting a page (such as Mrs.EasterBunny so that she has a harder time of gather evidence and communicating is wrong) is only appropriate with repeated abuse of the unblock template. Even then, repeated request can be simply denied as unblock review is a voluntary process and is rarely backlogged.<br /> |
|||
13. Admins (such as Jersyko) must not use sysop powers to block others who contribute to articles that they contribute.<br /> |
|||
14. Admins must not block others because of political viewpoints that oppose their own. Wikipedia rules for establishing consensus must take priority.<br /> |
|||
==== Clerk notes ==== |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ==== |
|||
* |
|||
== User Dbachmann == |
== User Dbachmann == |
Revision as of 12:19, 29 March 2008
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
Appropriateness of images of children posted by Dr harlwo
New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at [1].(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget Team America. They could use a change of scene. HalfShadow (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Wikipedia. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- A quick comment replying to the editors above: WP readers in the UK could find themselves in serious legal trouble if they have images of nude children on their machines. The UK law is much stricter that the US law - people have been sentenced for compiling collections of images of children that were broadcast on uk television. (The images were unaltered, apart from being collected.) This isn't something that WP should deal with, but it's something that editors in the UK might want to think about. Especially if admins are being asked to look at an image before deciding to delete it. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, nudity <> pornography, but [2] is a pretty clear red flag. I have shown the good doctor the door. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I were to phone the FBI about the doctor they would agree with me on this that this guy possessed pedophillia items. Rio de oro (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks guy. -- Naerii 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good block. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I support the block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late but I have to say - I don't know about the picture but the mention of the child's genitalia gives pretty direct evidence of what the editor wanted the focus of the picture to be. I support this ban and I back the summary delete. Padillah (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also a bit late, but I must agree: good block. Yes, the mention of genitlia in the filename (or is it in the description) is a dead ringer. That having been said, still, a nude image of a child does not necessarily equal child pornogrpahy. Take, for instance, the cover image of the Nirvana album, Nevermind. As DeadEyeArrow mentioned, that image (as well as many other album cover images) is not child pornography. Of course, that says nothing about the image in question though.
- As far as calling the authorities goes, rio de oro, you're jumping a little ahead of yourself. Not that it matters, but you don't come across to me as a U.S. citizen (based on your use of British spelling and lack of knowledge of U.S. law). So just for your knowledge, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Secret Service would probably not be hunting down child pornographers and/or pedophiles. That is the job of local law enforcement and, in the case of large illegal rings, the FBI. Regardless, though, Jimbo and the executives and directors of Wikimedia are not responsible if a user posts illegal material. Wikimedia cannot possibly know what's on every page of the site at every moment. Of course, if one of them does see something illegal on a Wiki page, s/he must take action -- and I'm sure s/he would. But there is not a legal expectation that they (or the operators of any other large sites -- e.g. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft message board sites) be psychic! So don't overdo it, Rio! Your tone is way out of line. You're not against anyone here. We're all on the same side, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any child porno or pedophile supporters here. So please pipe down a bit, and I'm sure we can all get along. ask123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point was more to do with past problems of inappropriate pro-pedophile activism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- So if someone uploads images of minor children which depict their genitals, there is a policy which allows summararily deleting the images and warning the poster, with repeat postings leading to an indefinite block? The captions Harlwo used made the point that the genitals of prepubescent children were shown. Does that trigger specific legal rules in some jurisdiction where Wikipedia's offices or servers are, or does location matter? They were deleted on a licensing issue. Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guy has been a staunch opposer of what he calls pro-pedophile activism, but he doesn't speak for most editors on this matter. His actions regarding such things might be supported, but this is due to the presence of activism in general, which is never appropriate on Wikipedia. We call that POV-pushing, and it wouldn't matter of the POV was pro- or anti-pedophilia. In response to Edison, no, the photo probably wouldn't have been deleted based on its title or description, assuming this wasn't sexually explicit (ie. depicting a sexual act or an emphasis on the genitalia, which is the difference between pornography and plain nudity). The user would have been warned or blocked for the context the photo was used in and/or for the associated text, however, as was done in this case. The deletion of the image, while motivated by its perceived pedophilia aspect, was separate and justified due to the license issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:25, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- So if someone uploads images of minor children which depict their genitals, there is a policy which allows summararily deleting the images and warning the poster, with repeat postings leading to an indefinite block? The captions Harlwo used made the point that the genitals of prepubescent children were shown. Does that trigger specific legal rules in some jurisdiction where Wikipedia's offices or servers are, or does location matter? They were deleted on a licensing issue. Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point was more to do with past problems of inappropriate pro-pedophile activism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edison, I don't think we have a single written policy that covers the situation, but it's what we do. We aren't a hidebound institution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Policy schmolicy, as you say. Actually Foundation and ArbCom are pretty firm on this, though. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted
AFAIK, Jimmy Wales is not a member of the Taliban. Count Iblis (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this AFD has gotten crazy and I'm at a loss as to what to do or who to talk to, but I know something needs doing. The deletion discussion has gotten massively off-topic, with what can only really be described as rants, and arguments that essentially are about policies and guidelines, or the researchers involved in the eponymous equations, rather than the article in question. The two main editors who are possibly doing something wrong as R physicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cheeser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it's possible that only one of them is doing anything wrong; if that's the case, then it's debatable which. It's a bit too complex to summarise with diffs, but essentially Cheeser1 has been telling R physicist that he's not behaving correctly for an AfD, and either collapsing or moving to the talk page his less appropriate contributions, as well as one or two by other editors. Personally, I agree with those moves. R physicist has been making these rants in the first place, and moving things back from talk to the main AFD page. In so doing, he's been referring to Cheeser1 as a vandal and other less-than-complementary things.
I'm bothered by the degeneration both in terms of civility, and the difficulty any admin will have in closing it. My view is that Cheeser1 was, at least at first, perfectly reasonable in his acts; R physicist was behaving unreasonably for an AfD, including a very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD. The more important part is that the AfD discussion itself is now basically useless in terms of allowing an administrator to determine consensus. SamBC(talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg/100px-Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg)
- Do we have a nomination for a close of USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE as seen here? Or do you think this debate is salvageable? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's basically what I suggested in my entry in the (slightly strange) "preparing to sum up" section... I worded it differently, though. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I note for the record that, despite the length of the debate (80kb and growing) (!), the article was nominated on 22 March; In theory, two days remain for discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That discussion makes me want to ask, “Where are we going? And, what are we doing in a handbasket?” —Travistalk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I should probably point out that R physicist has also rejected the collapsing of his comments as, variously, "vandalism", "unauthorised", and probably some other things. It probably would be good for someone (uninvolved) to sit down with R physicist and talk about the whole thing, if they can persuade him to keep calm and not decide that he disagrees with the way we run the process and therefore will run it his own way. He's also completely refactored the page and is talking about having himself and the article author do "summing up". I'm about agreeing with the handbasket comment... SamBC(talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- To me the issue seems to rest with R physicist as the author seems cooperative enough. This isn't grad class or symposium roundtable it's an AfD. I'm now sensing that the AfD might be overly compromised if its wonkiness was offputting to creating concensus and dialog. In any case I too ask if an uninvolved editor could intuit a way to reach R physicist. Banjiboi 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:
- Valid Keep votes: 9
- Valid Delete votes: 5
- Invalid Keep votes: 0 (note that Ngn 92.46.72.14 was moved up to valid after he made an effort to clarify things further down)
- Invalid Delete votes: 5 (2 SPA accounts, 3 SPA IPs)
- Other votes:
- Possibly rename: 1
- Possible move (destination unknown): 2
- Close as a train wreck and renominate with closer mediation: 1
- Other side discussions: Long, mostly illogical discussion on bad faith; slightly more logical discussion on notability and how it relates to expertise; discussions about single-purpose accounts; a long tirade about how admins are abusing their power, blah blah, didn't bother to read it all; more attacks by the nominator against editors; a bonafide attempt to re-rail the discussion; back to rants from the nominator and resulting shouting matches; a confusing section where everyone's apparently supposed to repeat themselves?!?!
- Yeah, that's a mess. Right now, I'd have to say that if there is any consensus, it would be to keep, however there's more random babble in there than actual discussion, so I am all in favor of the speeding train wreck close as soon as possible. Don't really care one way or another when this gets renominated, but the bottom line is this is an incomprehensible mess. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:
I will point out that I came here for help when this started to look bad, didn't get any, and tried my best to handle the situation, leading to endless frustration, even more gigantic rants (check Hans Adler's talkpage for even more fun!) and me looking a bit like a prick even though all I'd ever been doing was to keep things in order (hell, I voted delete just like the nom wanted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Closure
Should the AfD discussion be closed early, as suggested above, as No Consensus / Trainwreck?
- Support —Travistalk 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support and volunteer as someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the creation date for the discussion and noticed that it was done on March 20, not March 22 as signed by the nominator. Therefore, according to this discussion, I went ahead and closed it. —Travistalk 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Last word?
I left a long comment on the talk page after User:TravisTX closed the AfD. I'd just like to say here that I don't think either User:R_Physicist or the JSC Kazakhtelecom anon identifiable with G. N. Nugmanova (a collaborator of Ratbay Myrzakulov) was nominating or editing in bad faith. I don't know either of these parties, but I do have a friendly interest in expositioning related mathsci topics, and as my comment shows, despite long experience (in 2006) with AfDs, this was an unusually difficult case. One of the enduring problems with Wikipedia is that thoughtful comments in such AfDs, which often have much wider applicability, are lost to the community as soon as the discussion closes. ---CH (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will say that good faith contributions can still quite easily be disruptive ones. Simply, R physicist may have been trying really hard to get across his expert opinion, but when he starts dropping longwinded essays about the nature of Wikipedia, especially when they stoop so low as to take pot-shots at Jimbo Wales, his behavior has crossed the line into "really not appropriate" territory. But yeah, so maybe he meant to do that all in good faith, but refusing to stop disrupting the AfD is the real problem. As an expert, he is entitled to alot in his career, in real life, etc. But on Wikipedia, experts do not get special privileges based on merit. This has been sacrificed to allow true consensus-based encyclopedia-building. Yes, experts are sometimes bogged down with nonsense from uninformed people. But sometimes "experts" aren't really experts, or they don't really have a good sense of what they're really supposed to be doing here, or (worst of all) they're completely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I granted R physicist as much good faith and generosity as possible, and was completely willing to do so. But he refused to work within the guidelines of how we build our encyclopedia, and that just doesn't work (clearly). No amount of merit or expertise gives someone a free pass to disrupt AfDs or otherwise impede others' efforts to properly build Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that R physicist came at this one head-first and got so heated, but he was told repeatedly not to disrupt Wikipedia, and he outright refused. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
While I was leaving some comments, User:R_Physicist joined myself in the ranks of the Departed. To repeat, I don't know any of the parties in this matter, I simply thought some of the comments in the 2nd AfD were worthy of comment as a contribution to much needed wikireform. Cheeser1, one point you might be missing here is that one argument for reforming the ruleset is that otherwise good users are less likely to wind up giving the appearance of misbehavior. (Admittedly, I didn't look very hard at R_Physicist's edits due to lack of time, so you may have seen something I didn't--- I was struck by his/her departure just after I added a brief comment to his former talk page, which I presume was a coincidence.)
It is a sad and telling comment that my arguments from 2006 (a few tiny traces of which can be seen in this old page) have been lost to the community. Why? See step one in my advice here. Is it really any wonder that when people ask me about Wikipedia I send them here? I wish I thought there was a better place, I really do.---CH (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The AfD process is not the place to stage disruptive "wikireform" - especially when others ask you to stop and you make it 10 times worse instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- (I think the "you" in the above comment did not refer to CH.) And I'm not sure the inappropriate comments in the discussion were all from one party; consider remarks such as [3]. DGG (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, let's compare Mt. Everest to an ant pile. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- if we want analogies, I'd compare it to provoking an avalanche. Each justified though angry reply from established editors here was followed by another very long defense. Experienced people should know better than that. They at least should know to confine the discussions to the merits of the article. DGG (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you're confusing my posts with R physicist's. I attempted to keep the AfD on topic, related to the merits of the article, by repeatedly moving (not even removing, just moving) polemical and irrelevant essays, rants, etc. to the talk page, where they are at least slightly more appropriate. Outside editors repeatedly complained of the horribly convoluted state of the AfD, and I attempted in good faith to clean it up, and like I said above, apparently it makes me look like the bad guy. Fine. I'm evil. At least I tried to stave off what has been thoroughly determined to be an extraordinarily muddled, disruptived, messed-up AfD. God forbid I ever step in to try to clean anything up ever again. Next time a flock of what are now admitted meatpuppets steps in to gravely disrupt an AfD, I'll just ask you to step in and make sure nobody cleans it up. And you're the one with a mop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cheeser, you did snap somewhat, and it's not out of line to point that out. I think it was understandable that you snapped and were rude, but that doesn't make it right.
- On a secondary point, admitted meatpuppets? Where's the admission? I don't doubt you, I just want to see it, maybe feel some closure to all this mess. SamBC(talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you're confusing my posts with R physicist's. I attempted to keep the AfD on topic, related to the merits of the article, by repeatedly moving (not even removing, just moving) polemical and irrelevant essays, rants, etc. to the talk page, where they are at least slightly more appropriate. Outside editors repeatedly complained of the horribly convoluted state of the AfD, and I attempted in good faith to clean it up, and like I said above, apparently it makes me look like the bad guy. Fine. I'm evil. At least I tried to stave off what has been thoroughly determined to be an extraordinarily muddled, disruptived, messed-up AfD. God forbid I ever step in to try to clean anything up ever again. Next time a flock of what are now admitted meatpuppets steps in to gravely disrupt an AfD, I'll just ask you to step in and make sure nobody cleans it up. And you're the one with a mop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- if we want analogies, I'd compare it to provoking an avalanche. Each justified though angry reply from established editors here was followed by another very long defense. Experienced people should know better than that. They at least should know to confine the discussions to the merits of the article. DGG (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, let's compare Mt. Everest to an ant pile. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- (I think the "you" in the above comment did not refer to CH.) And I'm not sure the inappropriate comments in the discussion were all from one party; consider remarks such as [3]. DGG (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Cheeser1, when you wrote "others ask you to stop and you make it ten times worse instead", I hope you were talking about R_Physicist and not me! In hindsight, I probably was wasting time--- at last my time--- by attempting to comment yesterday "from beyond the wikigrave". I think any "disruption" my comments may have caused was very minor, but I have removed them. ---CH (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was not talking about your comments, rather, the comments you were defending. That should have been (but apparently was not) clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Determined trolling of Refdesks
There have been a number of trolling posts made lately by a user and an IP that are obviously the same person. I have been removing the posts, and the troll has been putting them back. Can he be stopped? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Milkbreath is trying to inappropriately eliminate an opposing perspective by labeling me a troll and then harassing me through vandalism by acting on that label. It is Milkbreath's inappropriate labeling and wrongful vandalism which needs to be stopped rather than the opportunity for others to offer comment and to provide references for the research I am doing. Thanks. Multimillionaire (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The user Multimillionaire really does seem to be trolling, with irrelevant flame-starters like "I know White women who have provided compensation in the form of bearing Black children as Barack Obama's grandmother did.". It's lame. --Sean 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs for the claimed trolling. Do not leave it to every reader of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to individually research all the edits by the user you are complaining about. I looked at some of Multimillionaire's edits and saw probable violations of the Ref Desk's rule "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox" in the form of discussion of white women "compensating" for past oppression of black men by bearing their children. But this is clearly far from a vandalism only account, since many posts were fine such as [4]. . A caution against inflammatory soapboxing might be in order, if there are additional such posts. Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Controversial topics with very loaded questions recently started by Multimilionier or someone in the ip range 71.100.*.*
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201045940&oldid=201045659
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200832624&oldid=200831282
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=200000256
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=200421664&oldid=200415415
- These are usually followed by a number of minor edits fixing style punctuation, etc.
- Reinstatement of deleted question : (Edit tagged as "minor")
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200996573&oldid=200994795
- Recreation of a deleted question : (Notice how the political catch-phrase he's trying to push has been moved to the title, probably in the hopes that only the question text would be deleted.)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201171693&oldid=201171673
- I'm pretty sure that this is not all of them. They are a pain to locate with all the traffic the ref desks get and his dynamic IP.
- Note that he appears to fully acknowledge that (some or all) of the 71.100.*.* posts are him, as he responds to criticism as though he were the original poster. APL (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:::FWIW, along with the IPs, User:Millionaire now redirects to User:Pedist There was a name change in October, 2006, but not many edits, if any, since then, at User:Pedist. User came back to WP as User:Millionaire several days ago, and now has moved Millionaire's User and Talk pages to User:Pedist. It doesn't appear that Millionaire's conrtibutions have been moved however, as I can't find any of the awkward Ref Desk questions in User:Pedist's contributions. Is this the norm? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) OOOPs~ Apologies to User:Millionaire and User:Pedist, and thanks to User:FiggyBee. It's very reassuring to know that I can count on at least one Wikipedian who can read. Once again, apologies for the disruption. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bielle, the user at issue is User:Multimillionaire, not User:Millionaire, who appears to be completely unrelated. FiggyBee (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- See also his bizarre answers in this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Changing_fortunes_of_the_Nazi_Party APL (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- For another diff, now there is this. This is also user:Barringa and user:Leasing Agent. The history goes back over a year, see 1), 2), and 3), and see also threads 7, 15, 17, and 18 at the reference desk's current talk page version. I don't know what can be done. It's a tedious nuisance, is all. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is an edit which makes it clear that User:Multimillionaire is also User:71.100.164.179. If (as has been alleged several times) 71.100.*.* is in fact banned user Barringa, I'd say it makes sense to block User:Multimillionaire, and as many of the 71.100.*.* IP's as we care to. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Mimus polyglottos appears to be a new sock of the same user, posting "questions" about interracial marriage and editing posts signed 71.100.*.* FiggyBee (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Possible Twinkle Abuse by User:Diligent Terrier
Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) appears to be misusing the script. Ive left several messages on his talk page, which he somewhat avoided, and eventually archived, i was not satisfied with his response, so ive brought the issue here. My issues are as follows;
- According to WP:TWINKLE, the script is to be used to assist them [wikipedia users] in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism, I fail to see how this, this, or this falls into maintenance or vandalism. He was reverting a long-standing administrator, without prior discussion. The edit is not any form of maintenance. For further clarification of the revert by Orderinchaos, see here and here.
- He also reverted an IP (User:76.98.204.203) for his edit to the Goldfish article (diff), in his edit summary, he claimed the edit was Blaitant vandalism. It was not vandalism, the edit certainly didnt add anything to the article, but it was a good faith edit, trying to add content to the article. After his revert, he placed not one, but two user-warning templates on their talk page (see here), the IP has only ever made [one edit to wikipedia.
- Hes moved on to reverting a user who removed a warning by another user and added content to his user talk page (see here). According to WP:TALK, this user is free to delete comments from his talk page. After reverting this user, he slapped a user warning template for his edit (see here). It may be worth noting that after his warning on his talk page, the good-faith IP never returned.
Diligent Terrier is hardly a new editor, having been on wikipedia since October 2006, but seriously editing Since July 2007. see here for earliest contributions. Thanks. Twenty Years 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've only looked at the first bullet point, but they were valid reverts (although should have been done with a proper edit summary). WP: redirects are not considered cross-namespace, and even then CSD:R2 only proscribes redirects to Talk:, User talk:, and User: namespaces. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Twenty Years has had it in for me ever since our disagreements regarding a WikiProject. After that, he has been closely monitoring my edits (which he has admitted), and looking for something wrong with them. I use Twinkle to revert vandalism very often, and if people decide to disable my use of it, I will not participate in serious vandalism reversion ever again. Twenty Years has also lied, saying that I didn't respond to his comments and archived him. Instead, I did respond to those comments, and they are not archived (you can see them on my talk). Furthermore, I have notified Twenty Years about his own habit of being uncivil and not assuming good faith. For someone who lies in order to say that people don't respond to his comments, you would think Twenty Years would respond to my comments. Instead, Twenty Years has ignored my comments, and said that he will not respond. Twenty Years originally posted this here, and he never even let me know after reporting me to both of these venues (WP:ANI and the page I just linked to). As you can see at that page, several people have noticed that if this is Twinkle abuse, then half of the Wikipedia comminity that uses Twinkle will also have to be blocked. Also, CSD R2 does say that the redirect must go from the article space, so it was wrong of Orderinchaos to speedy delete them without any valid speedy deletion criteria. After I notified Orderinchaos of what he was doing, he was somewhat speechless, as he was probably hoping I wouldn't notice. In the past Orderinchaos has called the cabals childish, which leads me to believe there is a possible conflict of interest which makes him want to delete the shortcuts. - DiligentTerrier and friends 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I don't think this misuse is worthy of removal yet, doing this after the person complains on your talk page about your use of Twinkle is, at the least, a pretty stupid idea. Mr.Z-man 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- We had a discussion on my talk page, in which I cited some valid examples of uncivilness and not assuming good faith. I can find more if people still don't think those are good enough examples. - DiligentTerrier and friends 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the problem was that a fairly established user accuses you of misusing Twinkle, so you go to his talk page and drop a "Welcome to Wikipedia ..." template warning using Twinkle! Giving a patronizing template warning like that to an established user is almost always considered rude, but doing it with Twinkle after they complained about your use of Twinkle?? If you really don't understand the problem with reverting non-vandalism with no explanation (and Orderinchaos did reply to your comment, so I don't see how he could be considered speechless) and why the template warning I mentioned was a tremendously bad idea, I might reconsider my initial comment. Mr.Z-man 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that Twenty Years has recently quit WikiProject homeschooling (a project which Diligent Terrier founded) because of a rift between the two of them. From my perspective, TY has, had it in, if you will, for DT and quite frankly the rest of the members in the WikiProject. But that's just from my point of view. Also, that WP:DTTR you linked to is an essay, not a guideline. Kimu 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Its called common sense and common courtesy. Someone who's been on Wikipedia for more than a year certainly doesn't need a "Welcome to Wikipedia..." message with a link to a welcome page. Was that (especially as it was done with Twinkle) supposed to help the situation? If I had to guess, I would say it probably had the opposite effect. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it also common courtesy to be civil on another user's talk page and to not speak ill of a WikiProject? Also, I believe that DT didn't do anything wrong, and that TY is just trying to get him trouble. Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sharing it and if people don't like it, then they can Put a helmet on. Kimu 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reality is that Twenty Years has had it in for me all along even before I sent him the message about assuming good faith. I was actually at first thinking about dropping him a custom message asking him to assume good faith, but I figured the template message would say the same almost the same thing, so that is why I did that. By the time I noticed the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit, and went to remove it, Twenty Years was already at my talk page asking for citations. - DiligentTerrier and friends 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Its called common sense and common courtesy. Someone who's been on Wikipedia for more than a year certainly doesn't need a "Welcome to Wikipedia..." message with a link to a welcome page. Was that (especially as it was done with Twinkle) supposed to help the situation? If I had to guess, I would say it probably had the opposite effect. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that Twenty Years has recently quit WikiProject homeschooling (a project which Diligent Terrier founded) because of a rift between the two of them. From my perspective, TY has, had it in, if you will, for DT and quite frankly the rest of the members in the WikiProject. But that's just from my point of view. Also, that WP:DTTR you linked to is an essay, not a guideline. Kimu 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the problem was that a fairly established user accuses you of misusing Twinkle, so you go to his talk page and drop a "Welcome to Wikipedia ..." template warning using Twinkle! Giving a patronizing template warning like that to an established user is almost always considered rude, but doing it with Twinkle after they complained about your use of Twinkle?? If you really don't understand the problem with reverting non-vandalism with no explanation (and Orderinchaos did reply to your comment, so I don't see how he could be considered speechless) and why the template warning I mentioned was a tremendously bad idea, I might reconsider my initial comment. Mr.Z-man 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- We had a discussion on my talk page, in which I cited some valid examples of uncivilness and not assuming good faith. I can find more if people still don't think those are good enough examples. - DiligentTerrier and friends 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I don't think this misuse is worthy of removal yet, doing this after the person complains on your talk page about your use of Twinkle is, at the least, a pretty stupid idea. Mr.Z-man 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Twenty Years has had it in for me ever since our disagreements regarding a WikiProject. After that, he has been closely monitoring my edits (which he has admitted), and looking for something wrong with them. I use Twinkle to revert vandalism very often, and if people decide to disable my use of it, I will not participate in serious vandalism reversion ever again. Twenty Years has also lied, saying that I didn't respond to his comments and archived him. Instead, I did respond to those comments, and they are not archived (you can see them on my talk). Furthermore, I have notified Twenty Years about his own habit of being uncivil and not assuming good faith. For someone who lies in order to say that people don't respond to his comments, you would think Twenty Years would respond to my comments. Instead, Twenty Years has ignored my comments, and said that he will not respond. Twenty Years originally posted this here, and he never even let me know after reporting me to both of these venues (WP:ANI and the page I just linked to). As you can see at that page, several people have noticed that if this is Twinkle abuse, then half of the Wikipedia comminity that uses Twinkle will also have to be blocked. Also, CSD R2 does say that the redirect must go from the article space, so it was wrong of Orderinchaos to speedy delete them without any valid speedy deletion criteria. After I notified Orderinchaos of what he was doing, he was somewhat speechless, as he was probably hoping I wouldn't notice. In the past Orderinchaos has called the cabals childish, which leads me to believe there is a possible conflict of interest which makes him want to delete the shortcuts. - DiligentTerrier and friends 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the situation here is that Twenty Years was involved with an unrelated project, WikiProject Alternative education (not Homeschooling as Kimu asserts in 16:31 above). Diligent Terrier, after months of having it in his own userspace, started WikiProject Homeschooling about a month ago and immediately went to try and close down AE. Twenty Years and others objected to the way in which this was done, and DT persisted almost to the point where he had to be ordered off the chase after extreme levels of canvassing for "votes" on his going-nowhere proposals to have the thing shut down (the movement of which had ironically triggered activity on the normally quiet AE project). Naturally, when something like this occurs, one comes under significantly more scrutiny, and breaches of policy and issues with behaviour, not to mention a lot of WP:OWN stuff going on within the wikiproject itself (to the point of welcome messages telling new users who the "founder" was!) were found all over the place with relation to this project. I was asked for a third opinion relating to the AE stuff and have been following it, and have ended up in a range of bizarre arguments with the two lead characters in the Homeschooling project. As I keep telling them, things will be much better for them when they start developing the encyclopaedia and cease with the user talk/"cabals" stuff and making bad faith accusations against people. Additionally, I believe DT has misused Twinkle especially regarding warning of most-likely-good-faith newbies and IPs - Twinkle like the rollback function is in my view a "no big deal" thing and I would support its removal if his behaviour in that area continues. DT should be advised that all users are open to scrutiny - this is a wiki - and his complaints that TY is looking for him "doing something wrong" ring hollow given how much TY and others have found with relatively little investigative work. Orderinchaos 05:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, first of all, I was never trying to shut down the Alternative education project. All I was doing was proposing a possible merger. Second, what I did was not "canvassing". Instead, I simply left a message on the talk pages of the active members of the project, which told them that there was an ongoing discussion regarding the future of the project, and pointed them to the project talk page. Twenty Years did the same thing with some other members, and I can show you the diffs if you don't believe me. I also know that I never misused Twinkle, and I have an explanation for each of the diffs above. One, for example, was a mistake when I was dealing with two vandals simultaneously. In another instance, the user was editing others' comments, and not just making test edits. However, you have never address my comments about why you speedy deleted those shortcuts without any speedy deletion criteria. - DiligentTerrier and friends 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this issue has been more than sorted out by the involved parties, and does not need administrator assistance. Thanks for your time. Twenty Years 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear this is over. This has already taken up enough of my time. - DiligentTerrier and friends 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maddox (writer) again
User:Arisedrink is a part of the influx of open proxy vandals that had a go at the article a few days ago, which led to lots of blocks and semi-protection. Now he´s using his established account to resume the edits, which led to full protection but no action against the sockpuppeteer. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maddox_(writer)&action=history and compare [5] to [6], [7], [8], [9], followed by Arisedrinks three minutes later [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. The mere fact that he uses open proxies to avoid 3RR and introduces terms such as "Bullshit" and "Rant" as genres makes any attempt of WP:AGF laughable. I´m tired of defending this article earning me 3RR blocks against a vandal. --Servant Saber (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- See also previous sysop comment at [15]. --Servant Saber (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, what is it you require of sysops? The article is protected and the editor has been inactive on Wikipedia since protection was applied; are you requesting a topic ban, or a block of the editor based on past demeanour and possible abuse of socks (via proxy ip's)? Personally, I would support a topic ban - but that isn't an admin opinion, just a third party one. Is there any consensus on the article talkpage - and if there isn't, shouldn't you be finding one? - in how to deal with this, one which an admin might be able to enact? I realise you may be tired of the matter, but it is best to present us admins with a suggested course of action which we can then consider. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do not require, I request a block on this abusive user. Evidently it´s a single-purpose vandalism-only account with no intention to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way than defamation of Maddox. It´s really up to you how to deal with this, you´re the admin, you´re supposed to know the whole "how to deal with vandalism" thing. All I know is that it is vandalism and that someone has to deal with it. --Servant Saber (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- After such a sweetly reasoned response I am surprised that the entire sysop community hasn't rushed in to do your willing... I would point out that admins are not some sort of overseer, making judgements on editors and their contributions - although I suspect that there may be some who have suddenly sat up a bit on reading this - and going forth and "righting wrongs", but basically editors with the ability to execute some particular actions. As such admins only act according to the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, of which WP:Consensus is a pillar. It is up to the community, via the policies etc. or by discussion, to decide what to do and for the sysops to enact that concensus. I suggest that you find a consensus that Arisedrink is a disruptive influence that can best be countered by having the account blocked, and then you can request a block - until there is a consensus then this is a content dispute and admins do not get involved in content disputes.
- As an uninvolved editor (with sysop privileges) my opinion is that a topic ban would be most appropriate. If you disagree you need to convince me (as a representative of the community) why a block is more appropriate, or find others who share your preferences. That is how consensus works.
- In the meantime the article is protected until 1st April, but not the talkpage, so you have the opportunity to produce the required consensus. Or you can wait to April, and report any obvious vandalism to AIV. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh, I'll not get into word fighting over a petty vandal. WP:PROXY is a policy that prohibits the use of open proxies. Above I presented evidence that Arisedrink uses proxies (to avoid WP:3RR, no less). What's the issue? If you can't get yourself to actually check the article history but expect a group of editors to present "consensus" that the user should be blocked you are very mistaken about your role. Put some effort into it or leave it to others. --Servant Saber (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pot, kettle. How you doin? -- Kesh (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh, I'll not get into word fighting over a petty vandal. WP:PROXY is a policy that prohibits the use of open proxies. Above I presented evidence that Arisedrink uses proxies (to avoid WP:3RR, no less). What's the issue? If you can't get yourself to actually check the article history but expect a group of editors to present "consensus" that the user should be blocked you are very mistaken about your role. Put some effort into it or leave it to others. --Servant Saber (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do not require, I request a block on this abusive user. Evidently it´s a single-purpose vandalism-only account with no intention to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way than defamation of Maddox. It´s really up to you how to deal with this, you´re the admin, you´re supposed to know the whole "how to deal with vandalism" thing. All I know is that it is vandalism and that someone has to deal with it. --Servant Saber (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, what is it you require of sysops? The article is protected and the editor has been inactive on Wikipedia since protection was applied; are you requesting a topic ban, or a block of the editor based on past demeanour and possible abuse of socks (via proxy ip's)? Personally, I would support a topic ban - but that isn't an admin opinion, just a third party one. Is there any consensus on the article talkpage - and if there isn't, shouldn't you be finding one? - in how to deal with this, one which an admin might be able to enact? I realise you may be tired of the matter, but it is best to present us admins with a suggested course of action which we can then consider. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Real-world threat?
Is this a real-world threat? ["Hope I never come face-to-face with you."] --Milkbreath (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't think so. It sounds like a wish to not meet the other party in RL, something that I would apply to plenty of people I've met here. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Me, too, but I think you are failing to parse the sentence correctly. It means "You should hope that I never...", not "I hope I never...". I call that a threat. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- This one, though, is pretty close to a Personal Attack. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could it not mean "as a censor, you are not very good"? Seriously, though, you're right, the IP is skating around the acceptable at the moment. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- What about this one? (Not a threat, not acceptable either though). The conversation should probably be continued up here. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Calling someone pathetic is an insult, whereas saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face is both acceptable and entirely applicable for many people I've dealt with here. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would prefer a more direct refutation or rejection of my contention, expressed above, that the correct reading in context constitutes a threat. I can only suppose that my prior comment above (13:23, 27 March 2008 ) escaped your attention and that it was in no way your intention to blow me off with your comment here. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Milkbreath is true that the verb "hope" could be interpreted as an imperative in this sentence. However, that is a very uncommon usage for that particular word, and I think that's why most editors simply aren't seeing it as a threat. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, I thought I was plenty direct when I said "calling someone pathetic is an insult" and "saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face" was not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would prefer a more direct refutation or rejection of my contention, expressed above, that the correct reading in context constitutes a threat. I can only suppose that my prior comment above (13:23, 27 March 2008 ) escaped your attention and that it was in no way your intention to blow me off with your comment here. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Calling someone pathetic is an insult, whereas saying that you don't want to meet someone face-to-face is both acceptable and entirely applicable for many people I've dealt with here. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- What about this one? (Not a threat, not acceptable either though). The conversation should probably be continued up here. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just block the IP address? It doesn't appear to be contributing anything useful? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free. The Holocaust remark was pretty unpleasant, although unexceptional comparatively. I'm not inclined to feed it by blocking, personally, but that's because I'm jaded having seen (and been on the end of) so much worse. On the day we came this close to losing a great editor on the back of the awful, threatening conduct of a total psycho living out its problems online like 72.76.x.x, this type of thing feels like very small fry. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Allen Lee Remis
Allen Lee Remis (talk · contribs) looks like another sockpuppet of the users Soiled himself (talk · contribs), Bonny Eberndu (talk · contribs), etc. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sunderland University Lecturers Watchdog (talk · contribs) is another, impersonating an administrator. Trip to Sunderland (talk · contribs) may be another. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another: Pope Barry George (talk · contribs), impersonating admin again. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just had to rollback an edit from Mr. Remis, might we just WP:RBI here and move on? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Userpage jokes about pedo alone are worth blocking. Trolling just makes it that much more obvious of a solution. --Onorem♠Dil 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked, feel free to ignore. I'll delete the userpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The other accounts mentioned above bear watching by those with a bit more time than I can spare at present, so I'm not yet calling this resolved. Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked, feel free to ignore. I'll delete the userpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Userpage jokes about pedo alone are worth blocking. Trolling just makes it that much more obvious of a solution. --Onorem♠Dil 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just had to rollback an edit from Mr. Remis, might we just WP:RBI here and move on? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- This matter has reactivated at Another sockpuppet disrupting AFD again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
University of Southern California: Dispute on a line of text, requesting another admin to review as a 3rd party
I don't know what to do here. I'm an admin, but I'm mainly looking for a third opinion (preferably from an admin). I am currently in conflict with a relatively new user who keeps trying to delete information about a notorious period in USC student politics of the mid-20th century; something I only found out about by reading articles (noted in this CNN article, detailed in this Daily Trojan article) and then the screenplay to the classic film All the President's Men --for more you can also read our own article on Ratfucking, a term which originates from USC student politics of the time. There is a brief line on the issue, and its been the center of concern. Right now it's teetering close to 3RR territory (though spread over a number of days).
The user keeps coming back with different argumentation, but the arguments appear to be of the baseless, kitchen-sink variety. I will go edit-change by edit-change in chronological order:
- First, he argued that it was "NPOV" (we'll assume POV) which isn't correct because the information is cited to an NPOV source and a famous contemporary screenplay.
- Next, the argument tweaked to saying that the statement was tainted POV, I lated reverted back because
- Next, a new argument that the information allegedly opinion and does not appear in the source cited, which I pointed it out is incorrect as the statements are completely supported by the article and screenplay
- The next edit mischaracterized the article as being about one individual, this is not true by any reading of the article and I made that clear. At this point he contacted me on my talk page as well as the article's discussion page.
- I made an extensive reply on how his assertion is incorrect by a plain reading of the citations. Among the arguments addressed, in his assertion he claimed that the actions described in the article were not explicitly described as "corruption" when the actions themselves all meet the very definition (to help clarify the M-W definition was linked in the response).
- I restored the article, and in trying to help clarify any confusion, I also took a swipe at confusing language and POV terms had been introduced over the months by anon accounts: [16][17][18][19]
- The new argument, at which point I started to believe this user is not interesting in discussion, is that the line somehow violates "original research" and "unverified claims"; an absurd argument against information that's been cited. Of course, the user used this argument to revert the article.
At this point I realized this was going close to 3RR so I've come here for a third opinion (from another admin) to clarify how this should be handled. I don't feel I've been wrong in anyway, but after a while on Wikipedia you start to worry about inadvertently breaking rules.
Additionally, I suspect this is a user that, with good intentions, wants articles to look good for USC (which I should state is my own alma mater), because I've previously had to explain that the infobox for USC Trojan football cannot have claimed titles (see this edit, and part of the discussion on his talk page), but wire titles as per WikiProject College football. The dispute there was settled properly. I am not sure what to do here. --Bobak (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Removing (or severely modifying) that statement would seem to be pretty unquestionably correct. The statement makes it sound like the corruption is a continual and ongoing thing, when the sources say it was something in the 1960s. "Has been corrupt" has a different connotation from"was corrupt in the 1960s". --B (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate that this is a forum with a great number of experienced and prudent editors. However, this does seem to be a question of content, and not one of conduct per se. So, this is not an appropriate forum, unless I misunderstand the nature of the complaint. A talk page discussion, a request for comment, or mediation are all good places to take the issue. While that may seem nit-picky, it is important to respect the tradition that administrators have no special privileges with respect to content. Hence, posting requests for comment on content here while specifying feedback "preferably from an admin" is to be discouraged. Unit56 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed - this is a content dispute and has nothing to do with admins It might be a good idea to drop by the Universities Wikiproject and ask for input and assistance there. If I have time, I'll stop by the article and take a look since I heavily concentrate on American higher education. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to sidetrack this request. Please, I request that you do not straw man me with one quibble about the kind of help I was asking for. From my (apparently incorrect) understanding: this is the "Administrators' noticeboard", not the "Village Pump", and I think I was completely reasonable in asking for advice from veteran editors --the easiest way to categorize them is by Admins since they require at least some consensus that they're veteran. I found it weird that someone created an account just to go after that point, as though I was going to go on some rampage against them --I have no record of doing that and I don't appreciate the implication. In the interest of my main concern with this section, I am not going to argue for mere admin support anymore. --Bobak (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the top of the page it says Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. This is the incident noticeboard, not a content discussion forum. Just a bit further down, under "what this page is not", it states However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. In other words, this is explicitly not the place to bring a content dispute. I believe you are looking for RFC, where a great number of veteran editors, including many non-admins, are available for comment. I cannot fathom why you choose to make an issue of my recent creation of a user name, as though it were something nefarious -- talk about a strawman. I resent that accusation, not implication, that I was anything other than completely courteous and straightforward. I expect any admin to be able to take courteous feedback in the spirit in which it is intended and presented, without returning an ad hominem attack. Unit56 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
On topic: I liked B's suggestion, and will rewrite the sentence to reflect that the Student Government found its way into the famous screenplay (as this has a famous film school, there's an interesting link). However, after another user came into the fray (on my end), the original user reverted, has taken a less-than-positive tone, and brought up other fairly weak arguments, and I have responded. I am going to rewrite the passage as per B's suggestion. --Bobak (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- On a new search, I found a Rolling Stone article that notes "That was Jack Abramoff. Like those famed USC student "ratfuckers" who went on to hold the ultimate panty raid in the Watergate Hotel" --and [another from the Daily Kos. --Bobak (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Organised off-wiki POV-pushing campaign on Israel-Palestinian issues?
I noticed an intriguing interview which the Jerusalem Post ran yesterday featuring Richard Landes, a political activist and conspiracy theorist. It leads me to wonder whether an organised campaign of POV-pushing is underway on Israeli-Palestinian articles. To quote:
- [Interviewer] But doesn't the blogosphere also work in favor of the radical anti-Zionists and anti-Americans? Aren't they cranking it out faster than the West can refute it?
- [Landes] Well, yes, they are cranking it out faster than we can refute it - on every front - but there are certain significant fronts on which we are fighting back effectively. Take Wikipedia, for example. There's a fight going on right now at Wikipedia about the nature of information accuracy, truth, history, etc. [20]
I really don't like the sound of that "fighting back effectively" bit - who is this "we", and what does he mean by "fighting back" (I'm pretty sure he's not talking about NPOV)? I don't have much visibility of articles in this topic area, as it's not an area I get involved with to any significant extent. However, I've noticed a sudden influx of new editors on Pallywood, an article about Landes' main conspiracy theory which I've been monitoring for a while. There has been a certain amount of disruption as the newbies have not been familiar with NPOV and V and have needed to be educated rapidly. Has anyone noticed an influx of partisan newbies on other Israelistinian articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edit-warring and POV-pushing on Israeli-Palestinian issues is like pissing into an ocean of urine. Sceptre (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Amused and agreed. I've lost track of how many organizations on both sides of that are trying to POV push on our articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it raises another issue. A few days ago I proposed an article, Ouze Merham, for deletion or merging (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham). There's currently roughly a 50:50 split between "keep" !voters and those supporting either deletion or merging. However, two things have happened in the course of the AfD which have raised some warning signs. I had forgotten to post the AfD notice to the Israeli-Palestinian WikiProjects (I'm not a member of any of them). As soon as another editor did that, a flood of rival partisans descended on the AfD and !voted in entirely predictable ways (all on one side !voting one way, all on the other !voting the other way). The whole AfD has been corrupted into little more than a headcount of partisans. It is emphatically not a cross-section of the Wikipedia community. Secondly, in the last few days a series of new editors, all with similar firstname-lastname usernames, have !voted on the article. It's an odd pattern.
- The AfD is due to be closed tomorrow, 29 March, any time after 19:30 GMT. It will need careful handling and a willingness to review the arguments, not just the headcount - hopefully one of our more experienced AfD closers can take on the task. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I just commented on that AfD. Sorry for possibly further reducing the signal to noise ratio. Oh, and it looks like I may have given an opinion favoring what I'd be expected to given my ethnic group. Sorry. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've no idea what your ethnic group is, so I'm not going to comment on that. :-) However, I've noticed that AfDs on political issues can end up with the discussions being dominated by purely partisan concerns ("keep because it shows how awful the other side is" / "delete because it's a lie perpetrated by the other side"). I'm really not sure what can be done about this, unfortunately. I should add that the comments you just added don't fall into that category, but all too often it comes down to ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT and whichever one has the bigger numbers wins the day. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I just commented on that AfD. Sorry for possibly further reducing the signal to noise ratio. Oh, and it looks like I may have given an opinion favoring what I'd be expected to given my ethnic group. Sorry. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Amused and agreed. I've lost track of how many organizations on both sides of that are trying to POV push on our articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- ChrisO, you might consider posting your comment to Jayjg's talk page to see if he has any comment. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Jayjg's unfortunate accident with his mailing list last December, I have to say in fairness that there's no evidence that he has any involvement in the activities that Landes seems to be describing. It's unclear how Landes is participating in the activities of the group he describes collectively as "we", and there's no indication of who else might be involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Everything related to that issue should be placed under editing probation so that administrators can remove disruptive folks on sight. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but as soon as an admin does anything in that area, they then become classed as an "involved admin" by various parties and are harangued until they give up. There are at least five editors in that sphere who should be topic-banned, but it'll never happen. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The solution there is to hand out lengthy blocks to people who try to rules lawyer in such a fashion. Such behaviour is not acceptable. Jtrainor (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but as soon as an admin does anything in that area, they then become classed as an "involved admin" by various parties and are harangued until they give up. There are at least five editors in that sphere who should be topic-banned, but it'll never happen. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Everything related to that issue should be placed under editing probation so that administrators can remove disruptive folks on sight. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Rollback rights getting silly
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I did bad, I got an informal wikiban, I done gone after. I personally think that rollback rights should be for all editors or confined to administrators. Rollback rights are prob here for good, but the system is a mess.
I have been trying TOOOOO hard for 3 months since the roll out. In my last attempt the editor before me passed with 71 edits and I am still living down a little confrontation from 11 jan. What will happen when flagged revisions start? Will any sysop grant me rollback just so that I can say I have grown up? This is really getting silly. BpEps - t@lk 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you had rollback now would you still think it was silly? (1 == 2)Until 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I personally counldn't care for rollback rights but I believe it is akin to caste like flagged will be. BpEps - t@lk 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't a class of user, it is a judgment on if one can use the tool responsibly. It conveys no special authority, only ability. That is the key difference. (1 == 2)Until 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I believed that Rollback rights were being used as a caste system, I'd be the first to get involved. I've seen no evidence of that. Lacking evidence to the contrary, this is a straw man argument. - Philippe | Talk 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"I personally counldn't care for rollback rights but I believe it is akin to caste like flagged will be." is equivalent in meaning to "I don't want the tool because I will make use of it; I want it because I want to feel like I'm better than other people". Rollback is neither a badge of honour nor a most-improved award. Hesperian 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)Its only a class of users if you choose to view it as such and put too much personal emphasis on it ("I have been trying TOOOOO hard for 3 months"). From what I've seen, most people requesting it use a reason like "To revert occasional vandalism on pages I watch" or "to assist in RC patrol," nothing to suggest that they were actively trying to get it. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC)Oy it's not a hissy fit - We have defined users of the mop on Wikipedia unfortunately Rollback is granted to people with 71 edits. Thats a real mop? Please just consider the proplems we will have with flagged revisions, I think this is going to be an ad hoc - he's good without consensus. BpEps - t@lk 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I imagine that, since flaggeds revs will be harder to monitor, there will be a bit tighter restrictions on it than there are for rollback, which is easy to spot when its being misused, and easy to revert. Anyway, i'm fairly sure that there have been very few cases of roll-back being taken away, it hasn't popped up on here many times, so the system would appear to be working--Jac16888 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the major problem is that you try for it just to have it. You've made many requests in the past few months. Just get twinkle. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)You do realize the nonsense in that comment right? "A real mop?" A mop is what one uses to clean up vomit on a hard surface. We give the rollback mop (the least effective of all the mops) to people that show they know how to clean up vomit and know not to try to mop the carpet. Mr.Z-man 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, which user with 71 edits got rollback rights? no offense but I am quite skeptic, that ammount of edits is covered by me in less than three days, one day if things are hectic. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue here is how rollback is given out. (1 == 2)Until 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Alcamari passed just check the contribs and count Swirlboy39 nows thats 71 edits ;-)
- User account "Alcamari" is not registered. Nakon 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Alcamari passed just check the contribs and count Swirlboy39 nows thats 71 edits ;-)
- Do you mean User:Acalamari? If Swirlboy39 abuses the tool it will be taken away. While I would have refused that one, if the person does not abuse it they are welcome to it. (1 == 2)Until 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
C#::I agree we all do bad sometimes, rollback is probably here for good and it caused a great deal of debate. I wantto know why I can't have it and other people can apart from obtuse answers like you want it too much or its not a prize. If its useful surely every editor should have it. I haven't abused Wikipedia wot is the problem? BpEps - t@lk 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to give it to you now, so you'll stop wasting people's time with multiple requests and now this ANI thread (not sure what the incident is), but I'm hesitant since you seem to think it will make you better than other editors which is most certainly not the case. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly the reason he's been denied rollback so many times. John Reaves 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ZMan that has never been my point - I want it because its given out like candy, but because of my objections nobody will give it to me. When I object to Flagged Revision will i be a candidate there, some guy will fell me before the first hurdle. WIKI? I don't think its the path we are going down. Sadly. BpEps - t@lk 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about? We're not not giving it to you because you are objecting to the process or something, we are withholding it because you still fail to grasp the reason its being denied to you. Flagged revisions will be a totally different system, but there will still be no class system and if you still fail to grasp that the rights to flag revisions are not some sort of status symbol or something that will make you better than others, then yes you can expect to be denied for that as well. Mr.Z-man 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ZMan that has never been my point - I want it because its given out like candy, but because of my objections nobody will give it to me. When I object to Flagged Revision will i be a candidate there, some guy will fell me before the first hurdle. WIKI? I don't think its the path we are going down. Sadly. BpEps - t@lk 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- John Reaves - oy that aint nice WP:AGF, that bypassed you? BpEps - t@lk 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just today, I denied his request at WP:RFR. Now he is just forum shopping. Tiptoety talk 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- lol its not forum shopping Tipptoety - its like my 6th refusal since January, people get blocked and come good - I do good and still get refused. You gave me and took away like the first time its not fair. BpEps - t@lk 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You ever wonder why it is your 6th refusal? It has been denied, execpt it and stop trying to work around the system. Tiptoety talk 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly the reason he's been denied rollback so many times. John Reaves 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just install Twinkle and use it wisely. You can have that, it will have all the ability except without the "status". "I want it because its given out like candy" really says it all, that is not really a good reason to want it. (1 == 2)Until 02:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to this he's had Twinkle since New Year's. MBisanz talk 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've considered asking for the rollback rights that I got without asking for them to be removed because they get in the way of twinkle. I seriously don't understand any of the obsession with this whole rollback thing. Do what you can with the tools that you have, and don't worry about whatever status you think a tool gains for you. Your worth comes from what you do, not what tools you have access to. --Onorem♠Dil 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thats not the point - My continual refusal is surely the point. Yes I have tools. But surely tools shouldn't be given away on the basis of "you did this on 11th January". I have never vandalised. I have never disrupted. What on earth is the point in denying me something that somebody with 71 edits can have? I can't understand the reasoning? BpEps - t@lk 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You do not consider multipile RfR requests in a few days period and this thread disruption? Tiptoety talk 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reason you were denied was because you gave no indication that you improved from your mistakes. The hypothetical person with 71 edits who was accorded rollback (evidence of this person is still missing) may not suffer from such a problem. —Kurykh 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- What does it matter? You have twinkle, you use twinkle, twinkle is 100x better than average rollback, so I don't see your need, just want. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I say just use Twinkle and stop worrying about getting something pretty much an equivalent. jj137 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to this he's had Twinkle since New Year's. MBisanz talk 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bpeps, you are under two false assumptions. First, and foremost, the rollback tool does not confer any special status. It only gives you a tool. Second thing, you are not entitled to rollback. All the tools here are privileges, not entitlements, and it has been determined that at this juncture the privilege of the rollback tool cannot be accorded. If you're asking for my honest advice, this thread sounds like sour grapes. And this is something that's coming from someone who's about your age, give or take a year. Your efforts are better spent improving the encyclopedia (that's the point of this whole thing) rather than pining about a privilege many feel you do not deserve. —Kurykh 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I wan't something that keeps on getting taken off me before I can ever use it. I am an Bur on a wikia site, never used rollback there (well only to test) but I did one thing wrong and I seem to be castigated for it. everytime i apply they say come back in two weeks and i still get refused its really driving me mad. BpEps - t@lk 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The implicit meaning behind the "come back in two weeks" advice is that you would show that you have learned from the mistake and, in the course of vandal patrol, did not perform that mistake, not for you to wait out two weeks and expect it to be handed out to you. —Kurykh 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I wan't something that keeps on getting taken off me before I can ever use it. I am an Bur on a wikia site, never used rollback there (well only to test) but I did one thing wrong and I seem to be castigated for it. everytime i apply they say come back in two weeks and i still get refused its really driving me mad. BpEps - t@lk 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- All in favor of closing, say aye. *Aye!* Justin(Gmail?)(u) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aye. jj137 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- *Raises hand* Aye! Tiptoety talk 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aye* I'll write an essay on no consensus priviledges BpEps - t@lk 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rollback is not a privilege, it's a tool. Corvus cornixtalk 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a privilege, however, to use the tool. —Kurykh 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Offensive unsourced picture with no license
User Truely obstacle uploaded an offensive picture with no license and tried to use it in the subjects article. Could someone delete it? Also, I'm out of reverts by reverting vandalism and related stuff on the Fitna article (the movie) and if someone could help me out by undoing me here, this would take care of the OR which he put in as well. I've warned him not to vandalize again. thanks --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the copyright on that photo is almost certainly a lie. See [21] (knew I had seen that photo before). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Image has been shot. --Carnildo (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, all that remains is undoing of this edit, which the same user put in (unsourced OR). I would be grateful if someone could do that as well since I'm out of reverts. thanks in advance. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Matt, the good news is that you are unlikely to run out of reverts by reverting vandalism. There are plenty of types of revert you can make without falling foul of 3RR. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There are severe civility issues with this user. I'd elaborate, but he has <30 edits, almost all of which that were in article space he was warned about for various reasons by multiple editors. He has harassed an editor via email to the point where he was warned he might lose his email ability, and he posted an uncalled-for remark that really had nothing ot do with anything on my talk page that was a blatant PA. AGF is out the window (and has been for some time), and I'd like an admin to look into the situation and consider some sort of action. MSJapan (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- See my thread above: #Procedure for making a block for abuse of the e-mail function?. This is the user I was referring to. -MBK004 04:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31 hours for harassment & incivility, email also disabled for that time. He may explain his conduct using the unblock template if he wishes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- For transparency, I have fully protected this user's talk page after they have posted a semi-abusive message (which I have left displayed) saying that we are abusing him and he needs the ability to block us, and also blanking the page and the block notice. I did not take this action lightly, because the original block has e-mail disabled. I will not consider another admin reversing my protection as a wheel war and will not object. If I have done something out of policy, please let me know so I won't do it again. -MBK004 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- He could have used the unblock template but chose not to, issuing a diatribe instead. Endorse protection. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- For transparency, I have fully protected this user's talk page after they have posted a semi-abusive message (which I have left displayed) saying that we are abusing him and he needs the ability to block us, and also blanking the page and the block notice. I did not take this action lightly, because the original block has e-mail disabled. I will not consider another admin reversing my protection as a wheel war and will not object. If I have done something out of policy, please let me know so I won't do it again. -MBK004 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
.
Could someone take a look into this AFD(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society). We have several new users, even the nominators' first edit was making the AFD. I just went through and labeled everyone involved as being a Single Purpose Account so far. We have IPs doing half the nominating, and some are already claiming to be leading authorities in the field. I'm not sure what message board they are all on planning this one out, and I haven't even begun to wade into the mess that is the actual article. But I just spent the last hour trying to sort out the page, and I'm guessing Admin intervention will be required in some form or another. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, one thing was a definite ... all versions of the article after March 6 were cut-and-paste copyvios of the society Web site. So reverted. Blueboy96 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Pope Barry George blocked
I've blocked Pope Barry George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef for series of edits [22][23][24][25] suggesting he may be a trollpuppet. Posting here for a review. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't have me convinced until the last diff, but that was clear enough. Endorse block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Get the feeling he returned as Swirl Face (talk · contribs), link between them is the upload of a wrong photo here, which Pope Barry George (talk · contribs) had on his userpage. --Van helsing (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops! I hadn't actually noticed that the upload was vandalism! I'd assumed Van helsing (talk · contribs) was on a bad faith reversion spree. Feel free to revert as you please. (And btw, I am not Pope Barry George (talk · contribs). Swirl Face (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah... so both Pope and you (after pope was blocked) fiddling with the unblock request of Confederate till Death is entirely coincidental? --Van helsing (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's interesting that Swirlface also attempted to close an AfD, which is precisely what I warned Pope Barry George for earlier yesterday. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's another unblock request open at User talk:Martin Bean, which was also reviewed by Swirlface, here. I have reverted that review. While I am not particularly interested in the feelings of proven bad-faith users, I'm also bothered when we jerk them around by telling them they're unblocked, and then they find that they are not, etc. This is a problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...And, while possibly a coincidence, it is interesting as well that Swirl Face was registered at 23:04, 19 November 2007, just over 30 minutes after Pope Barry George was registered. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah... so both Pope and you (after pope was blocked) fiddling with the unblock request of Confederate till Death is entirely coincidental? --Van helsing (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops! I hadn't actually noticed that the upload was vandalism! I'd assumed Van helsing (talk · contribs) was on a bad faith reversion spree. Feel free to revert as you please. (And btw, I am not Pope Barry George (talk · contribs). Swirl Face (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Get the feeling he returned as Swirl Face (talk · contribs), link between them is the upload of a wrong photo here, which Pope Barry George (talk · contribs) had on his userpage. --Van helsing (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
indef block of Swirl Face (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After a quick review of the above editors contributions I have enacted an indef block of the account. I have not posted this for review, but for praise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum The username appears to refer to a paedophile, per User:Swirl Face. I also note that Barry George is the name of the alleged killer of British celebrity Jill Dando, as adapted by User:Pope Barry George. Does anybody else hear distant quacking? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Praise- oh LessHorrid, we are not worthy to so much as receive your words through the medium of wiki. special, random, Merkinsmum 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, all hail LessHeard, etc etc. PBG did threaten to use another sock in his unblock request, after all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Distant quacking? That duck woke me up this morning it was so loud. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, all hail LessHeard, etc etc. PBG did threaten to use another sock in his unblock request, after all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Praise- oh LessHorrid, we are not worthy to so much as receive your words through the medium of wiki. special, random, Merkinsmum 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe add Bob from lostpedia (talk · contribs) to that? Only one edit though, but same guy, registered the account in the same timeframe. And uploaded a photo of an unknown individual to Image:Hurleylost.PNG which Pope Barry George used on his userpage and Swirl Face reverted to. --Van helsing (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let sleeping ducks lie? Is it worth the effort of a CU for a single edit, per the evidence above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet, disrupting AFD again
Andrew Craigie (talk · contribs) an account also registered on the same day, is vandalising and closing AFD's. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The user has been blocked by LessHeard vanU. The MO is the same; closing AfDs as Delete, removing tags from articles as Speedy Delete, and copying their user page from that of an experienced user while retaining that user's name or information (thus). The registration date is unlikely to be coincidence, but the fact that this user began editing within 12 minutes of Silly Face being blocked is even more telling. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that you can't block me and you will never stop me. I have loads of these accounts, and I don't EVER intend to stop impersonating administrators. Hahahahaha Oli Mitchell (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The vandal might consider that we know where he edits from, that his employer is not likely to look kindly upon misuse of enterprise computers, and the privacy policy does all the Foundation to release IP information to deal with long term disruption and vandalism. Thatcher 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Might it be time to lay the banhammer down? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked that one before they could 'grant' any more unblocks.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that you can't block me and you will never stop me. I have loads of these accounts, and I don't EVER intend to stop impersonating administrators. Hahahahaha Oli Mitchell (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Time for a CU request? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ho yes - Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser/Case/Wannabe Admin, perhaps? I know the more appropriate name is probably Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pope Barry George, but it pays to be descriptive sometimes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you like... can you handle it, as I have never done it (only a real sysop would admit to that!) Please can you include the one edit user in the section above, just to make sure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Any others to add? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You did get the users here too right? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did now. Is there a Longterm abuse or SSP file on that set? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You did get the users here too right? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Any others to add? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser case has been filed and transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pope Barry George. Please add whatever data you wish, as I did not follow the issues surrounding this User:Allen Lee Remis asshat vandal. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Disruption by Kyaa the Catlord
Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) resurrected three Oh My Goddess characters that had been redirected (by TTN) after several discussions. I left the user a note about establishing a consensus to do so prior to bringing these back and the need for sources and I re-redirected the articles. The note has been removed. We've has one cycle of undoing each other (and I'll recuse for the day, now). User has since redirected Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare) to Macbeth#Characters which seems to me a rather pointy move. Lando Calrissian, too.
- Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Too many articles for minor characters
- Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!#Merge character articles
- Keiichi Morisato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Urd (Oh My Goddess!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lady Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — now here
- Lando Calrissian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — also redirected, just before I posted this
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted POINTy redirects, warned user. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should start a discussion for these minor characters. It seems to be your role in Wikipedia, Jack. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...you know, current policy clearly states that main characters are allowed to have their own articles (provided said article is written properly. All the characters listed above are actually main characters in the manga/anime they're from. In any case, TTN is not allowed to make redirects as of the end of the arbcom case concerning him-- when were these articles redired by him? Jtrainor (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it appears that there was a discussion of merging the minor character articles, but someone overzealously merged major characters as well and Jack is using the discussion of minor characters as carte blanche to revert my correction of TTN's mistake. I have started a new section on the un-merging of these articles at the list. Further, Jack's own words say "The template {{Oh My Goddess}} currently lists Keiichi Morisato, Belldandy, Urd (Oh My Goddess!) and Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) as "main characters" so it would seem reasonable to keep those as stand alone articles with brief summaries in the list." in the discussion he links to. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, where does policy clearly state this? I'm far from experienced in fictional areas. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't, anywhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- 2008-01-28, for all three articles. ([26] [27] [28]) He cites some discussion in his edit summaries, but since this looks like one of those fun cases where the various threads arguing whether or not an article is a waste of time and disk space are now ten times as long as the article, I don't know which one. --erachima formerly tjstrf 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the first two links I gave above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the first two links you gave. There is no consensus there to redirect main characters as you claim. The discussion was around minor characters. The three I unredirected were mistakenly redirected by our friend TTN and I corrected his error. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the first two links I gave above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ...you know, current policy clearly states that main characters are allowed to have their own articles (provided said article is written properly. All the characters listed above are actually main characters in the manga/anime they're from. In any case, TTN is not allowed to make redirects as of the end of the arbcom case concerning him-- when were these articles redired by him? Jtrainor (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I admit the redirects of Lady Macbeth and Lando Calrissian may appear to be dumbass things to have done, however, in my opinion and based off following the arbitration case, these could be valid redirects. I have begun discussion for Lando and will start the same for Lady MacBeth when I find the time. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lady MacBeth is certainly among the more notable fictional characters in all of history, so you should probably assume that extensive sources exist and that it's a question of finding them. You may, pun noted, have a point with Calrissian, we'll see; I've not looked at that article. Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And amazingly there are none used to Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare). I assume you will be correcting that? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are expecting me to chase-down all of your disruption? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I have no expectations of you whatsoever. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse Kyaa's edits. Consensus can change and so there is no harm in reverting controversial redirects. I also ask Jack to not assume bad faith against that user. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are expecting me to chase-down all of your disruption? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And amazingly there are none used to Lady Macbeth (Shakespeare). I assume you will be correcting that? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lady MacBeth is certainly among the more notable fictional characters in all of history, so you should probably assume that extensive sources exist and that it's a question of finding them. You may, pun noted, have a point with Calrissian, we'll see; I've not looked at that article. Jack Merridew 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If editors are expected to start a discussion when they want to merge something, it can be assumed that anyone wanting to de-merge should start a discussion as well, especially when it comes to reviving something that constituted a policy and guideline violation before the merge/redirect. Discussion hasn't happened, so the redirects still have the consensus from when TTN last edited them. – sgeureka t•c 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to merge anything but minor characters at the time. TTN's claims do not hold up under scrutiny. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have returned Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) to its pre-RFAR redirected status. The fact that TTN redirected an article is, unless it is an obviously tendentious redirect, absolutely no reason to revert it without discussion. Black Kite 10:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Stub articles on Ontario communities
Have an eye here. User keep on making stubbed article that has less information. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Less information than what? I'm not sure I understand the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ZOMG!! Editor creating content, in the form of stubs, of inherently notable places of habitation!? I mean, isn't this place about zapping socks and clubbing out vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had looked at it. Its all stub stuffs that should be further expanded. There is nothing wrong in the massive creations. Unfortunately most of them were tagged for deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is something wrong - none of these stubs are supported by a source. Neither is the list that they come from. Articles should not be created without a source to support them as this is a good way of keeping false/erroneous information out. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had looked at it. Its all stub stuffs that should be further expanded. There is nothing wrong in the massive creations. Unfortunately most of them were tagged for deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- ZOMG!! Editor creating content, in the form of stubs, of inherently notable places of habitation!? I mean, isn't this place about zapping socks and clubbing out vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am creating the stubs first. Much articles are missing. What is need to do first is to start the articles, the next step is development. This is in the same line of French communes. But I am facing problem. Special:Contributions/WilliamMThompson. User:WilliamMThompson is tagging the stubs for speedy deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. As long as it is not crufts, it shouldn’t be deleted. (User:WilliamMThompson, please see WP:INSPECTOR).
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)- He seems to be taking a break from tagging them, gods be praised. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Foretunately, none seem to have been deleted. WilyD 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. As long as it is not crufts, it shouldn’t be deleted. (User:WilliamMThompson, please see WP:INSPECTOR).
Sometimes it is easier to stub them first. As long as details are added after then I don't see a problem. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you have against crufts anyway?:) special, random, Merkinsmum 14:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
BLP problem on Emma Griffiths
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Restored at a previous non-BLP version.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Emma Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just came across this article at random, but it was suffering some major BLP issues so I deleted it for now. It was entirely unsourced, focused very heavily on her personal life, and she seems to be of minor notability as well. I'd like to get some input on this, before we restore it. Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, doesn't look like anything that can't be taken care of by editing. If we stubbify the article, she's got enough notability to be here. I'm sure some sources can be found for the article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This version by admin Kingboyk seems reasonable. Should we restore at this point? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It still needs sourcing, but I would say that's a good starting point. ^demon[omg plz] 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit war at SUCI article
An edit war is going on a the Socialist Unity Centre of India and several related articles. Input from other editors would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- On the one hand you have an SPA and his army of socks who talk in honorific first person and who is dead bent on having the article as his party wants it, whitewashing out every piece of criticism and adding all sorts of nonsensical eulogies and tall claims. On the other hand you have me, a banned user. Please note that the SPA claims to be a collectively operated account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- adding; And Soman a very valuable user, is hardly a neutral party in this. He has been too eager to ingratiate the SPA account and its collective army of sock and meat puppets. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no claim there in which has not been cited as of now. Puppet of User: Kuntan is doing vandalism in the SUCI page. His personal vendetta towards some individuals of the organization is clear from his own words. He is also abusive in his language. Editors, please take a stand in dealing with this puppet of User: Kuntan. He is logging in from various IP numbers every day but that does not make him a different individual. If you check his ip numbers you can see that they all are from two towns of Kerala namely Calicut and Beypore. This proves that he is the same individual.--Suciindia (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
:Soman's ill-mannered comments stem from his spite at being spurned for ignorance of WP policies as well as his uninformed reverts. He just reverts and reverts and it was a very hard task to make him discuss. My efforts have certainly improved the page which Soman and the SPA comic fellow smugly shared between them with own/self published sources. User:Relata refero's intervention made soman change a wee bit. Soman is time and again relying on the puppet argument (in unbelievably cretinous manner, see his reference to two towns) in order to get around discussion of the article in the light of policies.Soman has virtually promoted this spa's honorific wei'sm and have always tried to ingratiate into their good books by reverting good faith edits. The article is about a very narrow fringe group. A party that never had a member in the parliament or any considerable presence in any of the more than 20 legislative assemblies (mostly with several hundred members). At best they had a couple of members in a couple of states. Soman wants to pose this party as "the genuine communist party" of India. I never denied that I am the banned user. Any one can check my contributions (from the range) and find if I am an SPA or not. The question is, should WP be at the mercy of a bunch of determined apparatchiki who want to use it as their propaganda medium. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)- Sorry, it was not Soman, but the comic SPA who referred to the two towns based on some pre-conceived notions. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The point of posting a notice here is to widen the participation in the discussion beyond the currently three involved parties (Kuntan, Suciindia and myself). That is the only way to move forward, not only in conflict resolution but also in improving the articles in question. I don't wish to evalute my own role myself, but briefly I'd say the following about the dynamics of the conflict:
- I have pointed out that there is an obvious WP:COI problem regarding User:Suciindia. That say, my feeling is that User:Suciindia does not indulge in spamming. Moreover, I must say that I personally prefer that User:Suciindia is open about their party affiliation, rather than working through anon accounts or socks.
- Regarding the anon accounts managed by User:Kuntan, it is obvious that he conducts systematic bad-faith edits. He repeatedly stated his own personal dislike for this party, and it is clear that it is this particular dislike that is his motivation in the edit war, as opposed to the intention in the edit conflict rather than improving the articles in question. The recent addings of notability tags on Sambhunath Naik is an obvious case of this.
- Kuntan writes that "Soman wants to pose this party as "the genuine communist party" of India". This is clearly wrong. I have stated that SUCI considers themselves as 'the only genuine communist party in India', a very notable fact for understanding SUCI's relation to other Indian left groups.
--Soman (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Articles that are related to the conflict: Sambhunath Naik, Probodh Purkait, All India Democratic Youth Organisation, --Soman (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- My single claim: After soman's and spa's sharing it between themselves for nearly two years it had no single third party source. My intervention brought about that. Can either deny this? "Regarding the anon accounts managed by User:Kuntan", I am not allowed to use an account. I have never hidden behind anonymity. Soman's pretense of neutrality is obviated by the fact that he hides more than he reveals about the SPA. The SPA has indulged in sockpuppetry in the dirtiest manner possible.
See this check user case and Soman's active involvement for the puppeting accounts. [29] And also this [30] Soman prefers that account. Good for him. About systematic bad faith edits. Soman is plainly lying. I started by discussing the issue with Soman. I discussed and Soman blindly reverted. That was the beginning. Then he and the SPA began tag team editing. That the article currently have third party source (poor and insufficient ones though they are) is the refutation of Soman's venomous charge. Soman need ot learn the basics of NPOV editing, it seems. The party in question is a minuscule organisation with merely a few pockets of influence. Without stating this fact Soman wants to front their claim to being the only genuine communist party, which is plainly deceptive. What Soman needs is some good advice on wp's core principles. Block me or not. I have by and large stuck to what an encyclopedia is (the repeated revert war to bring this to some forum,excluding). Soman's role has beenlargely to abet the other guy in soapboxing. 59.91.253.92 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been trying to make sense of this, and haven't got very far. What banned user:Kuntan (incidentally, why was he banned? I can't find the community discussion/ArbCom case, and the only definite reason in his block log is "inappropriate username", which seems over the top for a ban) is apparently claiming is that User:suciindia, which is an admitted role account for party members of the Socialist Unity Centre of India - which is indeed a relatively marginal organisation - is exerting ownership over a set of four or five related articles. This appears to be true enough.
- He also seems to think that User:Soman is aiding in this somehow. Frankly, I have not seen any evidence of this. The only evidence Kuntan provides is that Soman used self-published sources extensively, which may be true; but this is undercut by the fact that Soman has a consistent approach across all the many political party articles he edits, which is to ensure that their own self-published sources are used, and accurately and fairly represented, and I don't see any evidence that this is an exception.
- I think more eyes are now on these articles, so their quality will naturally improve; the fact that party members are exerting ownership over the articles will have to be managed somehow; and we can hope that, now that student elections in India are over, this furore will die down slightly. In the meantime, I will try and keep an eye watch these articles myself, though some help would be welcome. Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some points: 1) any attempt to portray myself as part of a SUCI cabal is doomed to fail. I was accused of being a paid CPI(M) agent (in a series of edit conflict that extended to Nandigram violence, a conflict in which CPI(M) and SUCI are at diametrically opposite sides). Anecdotically, I've also been accused of being a Sikh extremist. 2) sources is a problem in the SUCI article. I've tried my best to go through JSTOR as well as my personal library, but nowhere is there any systematic academic study of SUCI. Mention of SUCI is generally limited to occasions when SUCI has entered into electoral alliances with other parties. In that backdrop, using SUCI's own sources for describing their public positions is better that no sources at all. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, I remember the extended Nandigram wars, though you must point me towards the Sikh extremism diff, as I always get a good laugh out of seeing other people inexplicably accused of bias. I've looked for sourcing myself slightly, but its true there isn't that much online. This is the sort of thing that people have studied, is inherently notable, but isn't available through a simple search - the very essence of WP:BIAS. Given that, I agree that, suitable qualified, SUCI's own publications are definitely better than nothing. Relata refero (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some points: 1) any attempt to portray myself as part of a SUCI cabal is doomed to fail. I was accused of being a paid CPI(M) agent (in a series of edit conflict that extended to Nandigram violence, a conflict in which CPI(M) and SUCI are at diametrically opposite sides). Anecdotically, I've also been accused of being a Sikh extremist. 2) sources is a problem in the SUCI article. I've tried my best to go through JSTOR as well as my personal library, but nowhere is there any systematic academic study of SUCI. Mention of SUCI is generally limited to occasions when SUCI has entered into electoral alliances with other parties. In that backdrop, using SUCI's own sources for describing their public positions is better that no sources at all. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Editors, We read about the conflict of interest regulations in Wiki and the issue related to the use of 'WE'. We would like to expain our stand in these issues.
The use of 'WE' is only because that the article on SUCI is about an organization and that any edits on it from our side needs to be recognized as by the party and not as of any individual. At any given moment, it is defenitely a single editor who is accessing it as User: Suciindia, however, he/she will never use a singular phrase to make the edits. This is because, we don't believe in individualism and that is our political stand, inside or outside Wiki. We live in communes and thus live a collective life. Every issue, including Wiki is discussed and approaches are formulated. Our interest, as we have mentioned it a long time back in the discussion page associated to SUCI page, is to keep up with the spirit of Wiki. Only that we don't want to be misrepresented. This also addresses the COI issue, as a careful reader will always know what was created by the party and what was not. When we initially noticed the article in Wiki about us, we realized that there were many misrepresentations about us there in. For example 'SUCI emerged as a splinter group of RSP' which is not true and this issue was discussed and settled in the discussion pages.
We also don't claim any ownership of the articles. Infact we are happy that User: Soman created articles about us and is striving for the up keep of them as he does for many other articles. We acknowledge that fact that the true owners of the article is the Wiki community who built it.
So also, the party which attaches to the 6th largest trade union in India is not a minor one. If you want to state us as minor, then you should first do that on the pages of a number of parties that are confined only to few states. That will demand a minor/major classification of political parties based on some criteria in the Indian Political Parties project in wiki. If such a criteria is formulated and applied to all parties including SUCI, we will agree to it. Recently we also sought the advice of User: Soman on citing articles in regional languages to make points only to improve the present page and not to make Wiki our propoganda medium.
We will eventually add secondary sources as references. But as they are not available digitally, it needs time to pool up and cited. One must realize that Wiki is not the only thing that we need to deal with, limiting our time on updating the wiki page. But you may have noticed that over time, based on constructive discussions with User: Soman (and not with User: Kuntan) we have improved the articles with third party citations.
After all, Wiki is not through which the working class will get to know of us. --Suciindia (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Related Articles
As an interested observer, I'd like to mention two other articles also involved in this: Sambhunath Naik and Probodh Purkait. These pages have a similar edit history to the SUCI page. This flag once was red 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This user has persistently been trying to create an article that reflects what he thinks about plastic pipe systems. His sources for his information were wholly fabricated. He went so far as to fabricate conversation on the talk page of Plastic pressure pipe systems to try to show there was some interest in the subject. There were issues of OWN and 3RR. However, when his socks were blocked, discussion on the article miraculously ceased. The user's socks are readily identifiable (his latest tried to close an AFD on the article as snow for third contrib or so), and there have been numerous forks to various related "plastic pipe system"-type titles.
There's no need for RFCU (been done 3 or 4 times already anyway), as the socking is blatant (8 confirmed, 2 suspected), but is there anything else that can be done? MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing I can see to do would be to block his IP address (again), but unless it's conclusively not a shared IP, we can't block it for too long, and we certainly can't block it indefinitely either way. An abuse report to the ISP could be in order at this point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it hasn't been done already, you could make a request in the "IP check" section of WP:RFCU to identify and block the underlying IP. This may not be technically feasible, though. In which case, I'll watchlist the article and you can let me know if you see more suspected socks pop up; I'll try to respond quickly. MastCell Talk 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Strangely enthusiastic recent-change patrolling.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hot200245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Complaints/requests on his talkpage in the last 24 hours or so:[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36].
Templating of regulars, unacceptably lax determination of what constitutes vandalism, and biting of newbies by dropping vandalism templates for probable good-faith, relevant edits. All additions to his talkpage are immediately reverted without comment. Is there standard procedure in these cases? I'm afraid I have a suspicious mind about relatively new accounts that behave like this.
Relata refero (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it seems that this user is using Twinkle and abusing it by posting the incorrect warnings. Possible abuse? -MBK004 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just as I thought. This user's first edit was to install Twinkle on their monobook. Definitely does not seem like an inexperienced noob. -MBK004 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This user has accused me of "vandalism" because of my edits to design of experiments. I have a Ph.D. in statistics and I care about the subject. I added some material and cited a reference that can be found in university libraries. Two other users have said I must be wrong. I patiently explained my position on the talk page. In particular, I asked them to explain why it makes sense to speak of "variance" at all if, as they suggested, this is supposed to be about a binary comparison. I asked them to check the math. I asked them to go to the library and check the reference. User:Hot200245 has not said that he or she has done any of those things, but has accused me of vandalism. I demand an explanation of the evidence that I have committed any vandalism. Very few people have more experience editing Wikipedia math articles than I do. Very few people have more experience editing Wikipedia generally than I do. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've commented to him several times (all erased and bad-behavior continued) about it. He actually did respond to one comment someone else made about his behavior, by essentially accepting that he had made a mistake and repeating his accusation that the other editor was the one who was wrong. Enthusiastic vandal-reverting? Good. Enough mistakes that all his edits need others to look over his shoulder? Very bad. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Urk. This user has been reverting good edits like this [37] calling them vandalism. Not good. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is that edit "good"? Batman? Tan | 39 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Batman (military). Corvus cornixtalk 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And this is why you check a link instead of assuming. HalfShadow (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. The link did not go to a military batman, and as I have not been in the military, I was unaware of this term. The whole phrase has been (properly) removed now anyways. Tan | 39 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to Hot200245 anyway. It mentions he was David Niven's batman in the first sentence of the 'Career Highlights' section. HalfShadow (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. The link did not go to a military batman, and as I have not been in the military, I was unaware of this term. The whole phrase has been (properly) removed now anyways. Tan | 39 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And this is why you check a link instead of assuming. HalfShadow (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Batman (military). Corvus cornixtalk 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is that edit "good"? Batman? Tan | 39 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This would be, among others, the blocked User:Hot20024 and User:Dmits. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And now blocked indef. Nakon 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm going through his edits and reverting if necessary. Seems he targetted edits by anon IP's (including those placing links to foreign language wikis). --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- What a freaking mess. Last warnings and only warnings given for good first edits. I've removed a few but there's going to be some confused anon editors out there. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This user is now requesting an unblock claiming they are not a sockpuppet and stating they are considering legal action against the blocking admin. -MBK004 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Boy, that'll sure get him unblocked faster. Corvus cornixtalk 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unblock declined. I'm waiting to see what his reaction is before I lock the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another request up. I'm not sure this person get it. -MBK004 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unblock declined. I'm waiting to see what his reaction is before I lock the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Boy, that'll sure get him unblocked faster. Corvus cornixtalk 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now that's what I call a response to an incident report. Relata refero (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I ZEE NOTHINK! HalfShadow (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanctions
Note - copied from User_talk:Bkonrad#Wikistalkers_by_erstwhile_administrators_deserve_severe_sanction.. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and his coconspirator, Barek. The dispute arose because I had put in a link to a Central Michigan University timeline on lighthouses in Michigan in an article on Marquette, Michigan the link was perfectly appropriate, and was not a commercial site or spam. I received a note from Barek saying he had deleted the link on the Discussion page. I told him it was a perfectly fine link and that his action was ill-advised. The next thing I knew, Hu12 intervened. The two of them started Wikistalking me together, removing not just the link, but removing the link from every page where I had put it. Additionally, they started doing blind "Undos" and obliterating large portions of articles that I had contributed. There was no reason for any of this. When I protested their course of action, they suspended my editing privileges. This was done precipitously. BK Conrad has investigated this matter, and deems the blind edits to be 'unfortunate.'
I complained to BK Conrad, an administrator. He undid the suspension, but did not deal with my substantive complaint about this administrator. He suggested that I could contact you.
I would also add that Hu12 deleted my complaints to him from his talk page (I put them back), and has now (conveniently) archived the pages.
Additionally, one of my correspondents, Asher196, had noted in the history section of an article that the deletion was unwarranted. I contacted him and reported the Wikistalking.
Indeed, what you will uncover, should you choose to look, is that Hu12 and Barker were engaged in wholesale eradication of my contribution from articles, sometimes to the point where the article virtually disappeared. There was no excuse for this. It is the very definition of Wikistalking.
As I said, when I protested this, I was suspended.
I have done a whole lot of editing here. -- Many thousands of edits. I have never before been accused of spamming the system. I wasn't doing this here, either.
While I agree with BK that it would be best if I could just avoid these bullies, the matter is not so easily resolved. They sought me out. They attacked me. They abused their administrative privileges.
While I could turn a blind eye to this, it will only encourage this untoward behavior. When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind. Someone needs to report this and stop this untoward and unspeakable behavior. Based on my reading of Hu12's talk page (before it disappeared), the man has attitude problems that have surfaced before.
Wikistalking by administrators will frustrate the contributors, and cause them to quit Wikipedia. They've already done that to me. Let there not be a repetition. The very lifeblood of your organization is at stake.
I have attacked copies of my correspondence to and from BK Conrad and Asher196.
If you need further information, please advise.
I will send this to Asher196 and BKConrad, so they are informed of my complaint. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
- BK:
- Thank you.
- However, this has soured me, and I will cure myself of my wikiaholic behavior. I quit. They've achieved their victory, and Wiki will lose my modest contributions.
- That being said, I think you should look close at what they edited, and come to your own conclusion. They gutted whole articles. This was WIKISTALKING and they went FAR beyond what they complained about. This was search and destroy, pure, simple and unvarnished. It was a clear abuse of power. I will not abide an abuse of power, and will not let this rest without their being brought to justice -- they are bullies, and this was wrong.
- I for one would not stand silently and idly by while the Wehrmacht makes the Jews disappear into the railroad cars.
- Moreover, their actions showed an intent (and attempt) to bully me into silence about their misconduct. It was a cover up.
- Accountability in this system is important. Those who abuse their powers do not deserve to be trusted to hold the reins. They deserve the severest sanctions, and should be stripped of administrative privileges.
- What they did here was very destructive of the goals of an organization that depends on the good will and volunteer efforts of contributors.
- 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
- Coincidentally, Hu12 chose this interregnum of completely delete (archive) his user talk. This is after he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
- I would just like to make a stand with 7&6=thirteen. I can't believe these "admins" treated him this way. He is a dedicated and prolific Wikipedia editor, and has done tremendous work on many articles. Trying to add a link which provides valuable information, he is labeled a spammer. Trying to defend his actions, he is blocked. What are we doing here if this is how the good guys are treated?----Asher196 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm sorry about the situation. If you'd like to file a complaint about Hu12, the place to do that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hu12's block of you was precipitous and the blind reverts unwarranted. However you did accuse him of being a sock puppet and make what could be interpreted as a vague threat. I might note that Hu12 consistently archives talk page messages -- although this is an annoying practice, it is not prohibited and it is not necessarily evidence that the user was trying to cover up anything. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including editors with limited social skills. Unless their behavior clearly crosses the line and becomes disruptive, it is best to simply avoid engaging with such persons. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
<---Outdent. I think the rollback performed by hu12 was a bit much. Especially since the link added was in reference to the lighthouses (and most of the articles the link was added to were Michigan Lighthouses). The bigger issue to me was the rollback wiped out a hell of a lot of information from Charity Island Lighthouse. Blind reverts should not be used period. Especially since 7&6 is a good editor that adds information to esoteric topics. I don't condone the wording used by 7&6 but for someone who doesn't interact with others much as they edit in very low traffic topics, seeing all their worked wiped out by two people that appear to be tag teaming would not provoke a positive reaction in most cases. spryde | talk 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please Is this supposed to be reasoned discussion? Corvus cornixtalk 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- No it is not. However hu12 wiping it off the page without talking to him (and templating someone with more than a 6000 edits) is not a reasoned course either. spryde | talk 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Hu12 seems to make a habit of this sort of thing; I've butted heads with him over the same thing before (and the block I collected over it is one of the proudest moments of my WP career). I think the problem is one of instruction-creep: the people over at the Spam-fighting project seem to have made up their own definition of spam, which doesn't match any reasonable criteria, and go about enforcing it as if it were Divine Law. It seems to me that they've taken some signs which are indeed good indicators that something might be spam, and should be looked at closely, and have turned them into definitions of spam, so that when they find something that matches the pattern they feel no need to investigate any further, because by their definition it is spam, and the editor who added it is by their definition a spammer, all of whose edits are to be presumed invalid, and who is to be templated and hounded off Wikipedia, for the good of the project. That certainly saves the spam-hunters valuable time and effort, but it isn't right. They're not doing this with any malice in their hearts; they've just let their enthusiasm run away with them, and they've turned spam-hunting from a necessary chore in maintaining an encyclopaedia into an end in itself. But, malice or not, valuable contributions are being lost to WP, and people are getting their feelings hurt, and sooner or later something needs to be done about it. -- Zsero (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
List of the articles where improper editing is alleged
Lest you think it was only the Charity Island Light, here is a more complete list.
Extended content
|
---|
This is from my Watchlist. * (diff) (hist) . . Manistee County, Michigan; 19:07 . . (+6) . . 24.231.235.202 (Talk) (→Townships) * (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Hu12; 18:50 . . (+302) . . Corvus cornix (Talk | contribs) ({{ANI-notice}}) * (diff) (hist) . . Paul Bunyan; 18:41 . . (+2) . . 74.75.55.40 (Talk) (→Tourist attractions) * (diff) (hist) . . Lumber; 18:25 . . (+431) . . Pradtke (Talk | contribs) (expanded "timber" definition) * (diff) (hist) . . Jackson, Michigan; 18:11 . . (0) . . 76.20.155.1 (Talk) (→External links) * (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Asher196; 17:39 . . (+6,011) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (complaint about wikistalkers) * (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Bkonrad; 17:38 . . (+6,011) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Wikistalkers complaint) * (diff) (hist) . . Yankee Air Museum; 17:36 . . (+5) . . 209.212.28.50 (Talk) (→Collection) * (diff) (hist) . . m User:Barek; 17:14 . . (+37) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (add link to edit counters) * (diff) (hist) . . Flint, Michigan; 17:08 . . (+4) . . 68.188.254.50 (Talk) (→Track and Field) * (diff) (hist) . . Michigan; 17:04 . . (0) . . Thomas Paine1776 (Talk | contribs) (→Important cities and townships) * (diff) (hist) . . m Charity Island Light; 17:03 . . (-29) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (add ref and cleanup text) * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Huron Lightship; 16:22 . . (+50) . . Rodw (Talk | contribs) ( 27 March 2008 * (diff) (hist) . . Northern Michigan; 23:12 . . (+229) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409711 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Saginaw River Light; 23:11 . . (+1,851) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408810 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Old Presque Isle Light; 23:09 . . (+550) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408862 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Upper Peninsula of Michigan; 23:09 . . (+161) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409722 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . South Manitou Island Light; 23:07 . . (+187) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408834 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Nb Talk:Joseph H. Albers; 23:05 . . (+33) . . SoxBot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging (Plugin++) Added {{OH-Project}}. using AWB) * (diff) (hist) . . Point Betsie Light; 23:02 . . (-283) . . Beetstra (Talk | contribs) (no need for address .. WP:SOAPBOX) * (diff) (hist) . . Port Austin Lighthouse; 23:00 . . (+883) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408798 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . m Alpena, Michigan; 22:56 . . (-313) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201437354 by 7&6=thirteen (talk) linkspam) * (diff) (hist) . . Tawas Point Light; 22:55 . . (+1,258) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408850 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . Fort Gratiot Light; 22:54 . . (+1,109) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201408785 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . b Talk:Toledo War; 22:54 . . (+34) . . SoxBot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging (Plugin++) Added {{OH-Project}}. using AWB) * (diff) (hist) . . Lighthouses in the United States; 22:52 . . (+792) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409692 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . List of museums in Michigan; 22:51 . . (+412) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201409918 by Hu12 (talk)) * (diff) (hist) . . New Presque Isle Light; 22:48 . . (+392) . . 7&6=thirteen (Talk | contribs) * (diff) (hist) . . m Talk:Charity Island Light; 22:36 . . (-482) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (add project tag) * (diff) (hist) . . Leelanau County, Michigan; 21:40 . . (+50) . . 24.247.132.68 (Talk) * (diff) (hist) . . m Lake Huron; 21:12 . . (-20) . . VoABot II (Talk | contribs) (BOT - Reverted edits by 216.113.43.109 {possible vandalism} to last version by VoABot II.) * (diff) (hist) . . m Sturgeon Point Light Station; 20:59 . . (+161) . . Barek (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 201412860 by Barek (talk) rv my own edit on this one) * (diff) (hist) . . m Southeast Michigan; 20:45 . . (-232) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Cgord) * (diff) (hist) . . m Western Michigan; 20:45 . . (-197) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Cgord) * (diff) (hist) . . m Grosse Ile Township, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Bkonrad) * (diff) (hist) . . m Monroe, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Les woodland) * (diff) (hist) . . m Traverse City, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Iulus Ascanius) * (diff) (hist) . . m Ludington, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Bkonrad) * (diff) (hist) . . m Muskegon, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-162) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Broadbot) * (diff) (hist) . . m Cheboygan, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-316) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Trekphiler) * (diff) (hist) . . m Rogers City, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 216.216.101.146) * (diff) (hist) . . m Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 199.67.140.154) * (diff) (hist) . . m Lower Peninsula of Michigan; 20:45 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Cgord) * (diff) (hist) . . m Manistee, Michigan; 20:44 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by DumZiBoT) * (diff) (hist) . . m Charlevoix, Michigan; 20:44 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 216.216.101.146) * (diff) (hist) . . m Frankfort, Michigan; 20:44 . . (-161) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by 216.216.101.146) * (diff) (hist) . . m Pentwater, Michigan; 20:43 . . (-847) . . Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 7&6=thirteen (talk) to last version by Zeagler) * (diff) (hist) . . m Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; 20:41 . . (-161) . . Hu12 |
If there is a big number put in by me, it is because these gentlemen had taken it out. You can go to the article histories and see for yourselves. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
- 7&6, temper your language. I know you are upset but calling them 'goons' does not help anyone out here. The lighthouse articles was an appropriate place for them and possibly a few others. If there is a content dispute, you need to talk to them instead of reverting and readding. spryde | talk 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Luckilly, I have this page on my watchlist or I wouldn't have known I was being discussed. One thing that I would like to clarify; the initial complaint implies that I am an admin, which is incorrect. I am not an admin, nor have I ever claimed to be one on Wikipedia.
I would like to add a few facts to the discussion. I encountered 7&6=thirteen on the Marquette, Michigan article, where he had added a link documenting the years that lighthouses throughout the state of Michigan had been built or rebuilt; as I stated on that article's talk page, it's a valuable link in appropriate articles; I just didn't see where a brief mention of various cities justified linkspamming it to what appeared to me to be roughly 100 city/township articles (note: as I explained to 7&6=thirteen on that talk page, my use of the term "spam" refered to the behavior of inserting it to a large number of only marginally related articles, not that the link itself is spam). I informed him that I was reporting it to WP:WPSPAM (here's the link, this appears to be where Hu12 became involved) I also asked 7&6=thirteen to look at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY to understand why I saw the link as inapropriate on city and township articles.
I was aware that Hu12 had removed the links from a large number of articles - although I did not know until now that he had used a blanket revert that appears to have reverted multiple edits by 7&6=thirteen on articles beyond just the link addition; nor did I know until now that 7&6=thirteen had been banned. As I was not involved in either of those actions, I will not comment other than to say that Hu12 likely should have asked for a 3rd party admin to get involved rather than applying the ban himself.
Afterwards, I also removed the link from a handful of additional city/township articles which I spotted via Special:Linksearch. Via that same tool, I also stumbled accross the Charity Island Light article that someone commented on above. I found it in a bit of a mess, and cleaned it up to its current state. I would like to point out that the link which initially started this chain of events still exists within that article, only I used it within a ref tag rather than listed as an EL.
If you have any additional questions or concerns on my actions in this issue, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, the only action I would fault you with is the report to the spam project. If it is a new contributor and the link is of dubious origin, I would have reported it. However, in the context used (all MI stuff, mostly coastal lighthouse areas) and the contributor has a extensive history of MI lighthouse/history work, I would have discussed it with him first. 7&6 can be interesting to work with to say the least. He does a lot of good things but personal interaction is not in his top ten :) spryde | talk 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Some good advice to people coming to this page to complain about other editors: Avoid over-labelling your adversaries and their behaviour. The more you refer to "goons" and "wikistalking", the less seriously people will take you. Comparing them to Nazis ("When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind.") is right out. Bovlb (talk)
- I added a collapsing box above for usability, and made this section a sub-section of the original. Bovlb (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Barek's explanation does not hold up. This is from the List of Museums in Michigan, which was deleted.
Extended content
|
---|
+ Line 104: Line 105: + + + +
Line 255: Line 260: + Line 321: Line 327: |
Go take a look for yourselves. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
- Another collapsing box, and another fix to heading level. Bovlb (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is the first I've ever looked at that article, the edit history shows that I have never been involved with editing it. My comments above were to explain my actions, not those of yourself, Hu12, or anyone else for that matter. There is no contradiction to the explaination of my actions that I provided. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say that list needs serious pruning. Wikipedia isn't a directory, it's fine to have redlinks for notable museums that don't yet have articles, but almost everything in that list is a redlink and the weblinks smell strongly to me of the fine comestibles purveyed by Messrs. Hormel Foods. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
First, adding hundreds of links, without discussion fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. But it seems the multiple attemps at reasoned discussion by others to communicate this fact, resulted in some serious wholsale violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:HARASS by 7&6=thirteen.
- "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune. "
- "Wikistalkers, I'm being wikistalked by Barek and HU12."
- "Hu12 and Barek engaged in a deliberate and willful concerted and personal attack on me"
- "Wikistalker and sock puppet, Lay off. I will have recourse. You are not immune"
- "Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanction"
- "I for one would not stand silently and idly by while the Wehrmacht makes the Jews disappear into the railroad cars."
- "...will not let this rest without their being brought to justice -- they are bullies..."
- "This was WIKISTALKING "
- "he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up."
- "I want these peoples' administrative privileges removed "
- " have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and his coconspirator, Barek"
- "It is the very definition of Wikistalking"
- "When Czeckoslovakia falls, Poland can't be far behind"
- "Here is a list of the articles these goons hatcheted"
...Wikistalking, ...sockpupptry, ...Watergate, ..."Goons", ...Nazis, ..."Jews disappearing into the railroad cars"?? is this reasoned discussion? --Hu12 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh cry me a river. All that and all you can do is complain that he called you semi-uncivil names? Your actions are not justified by what he called you afterwards, and they're completely inexcusable. I'm losing faith in this place daily, how on Earth could such an editor become an admin to begin with? Krawndawg (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've been here less than a month (20 days [38]), perhaps reading WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:HARASS would familiarize you with how wikipedia operates. Hateful anti-semetic comments about nazi war crimes, and making baseless arguments and threats against other wikipedians is compleately unacceptaple and completely inexcusable. you should pay particular attention to WP:CIVIL. Also see What wikipedia is not--Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Judge them for what they did
The accusation is wikistalking. There is no contrary evidence. There being none, judgment should be entered against the Defendants. Their argument ad hominem is not evidence. They have not answered the charges. They have not offered an explanation. Period. The hearsay of Barek does not establish the facts asserted by Hu12. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
- Guy, the "contrary evidence" has already been listed above, and all that's happened is that a greater light has been shone on your own behavior. You've dug yourself a hole, and the First Law of Holes is that if you find yourself in one, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fix yet another header. When adding to a section, please don't add new level-two headers. Consider not adding a new header at all, especially if it's going to be snarky. Bovlb (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a trial. No one is a "defendant" of any sort. We're not here to pass "judgment" of any sort. I find your accusations of their posts being ad hominem attacks to be rather ironic if this is how you're treating the issue. In any case, please continue the discussion in a civil manner. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and the only judgement we recognise is the one where everybody tries in good faith to get along. This is all getting a bit silly. Orderinchaos 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
SPA on AfD for Raljoball
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Lots of SPA activity on this AfD, plus the vandalizing of the user page of User:Baseball Bugs Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just mark their posts with {{spa}}. No need to do much else, unless the accounts start vandalizing; the admin who closes that AfD will take the SPAs into account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've given a vandalism warning to the SPA which did the userpage vandalism. Hut 8.5 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a participant in the discussion, just wanted to affirm the SPAs. Ed, you've already indicated in the AfD the sock accounts that were seemingly created for the purpose of bolstering !votes. Nice job - I'm sure the closing admin will not miss this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I feel kind of sorry for the SPA's, even the one that called me a "fag" (strangely, I've never been compared to a cigarette before). Without the SPA's, the "deletes" would be nearly unanimous. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
User:i123Pie
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Would someone please intercede to User:i123Pie. This user is pastering my talk page with WP:AGF after I reported a user to WP:AIV. I've reverted their edits on my talk page as they're non-constructive.
I am a longstanding editor with good standing. If one were to view my contribs, there are no issues nor warnings of civility nor WP:ABF, and I resent this editor for implying as such. Yngvarr (c) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since I flew off the handle, and we've apparently worked it out amongst ourselves. Yngvarr (c) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- She was not following WP:ASG, she should have told that anon. user about WP:MOS first. – i123Pie biocontribs 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Refactoring and edit-warring by User:JHunterJ
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- (This complaint should not have been archived without action by the MiszaBot II bot without action. As it concerns inappropriate behavior by an admn, I think it bears closer look. Towards that end, I am resubmitting the complaint from the recent archival action. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the HP (disambiguation) page, user (and admin) JHunterj has been repeatedly altering (1, 2 3) the section titles of the recent archive to titles that were not being used prior to the archival, to titles that reflect JHunterj's personal, original feelings on the subject.
- Furthermore, JHunterj has been altering the titles of these sections in the Discussion page's summary links (3, 4 5) to that archive, to reflect his/her personal point of view.
- Repeated requests (6) for explanation as to why JHunterj was making these inappropriate changes to the archive went unanswered, except to say that he was making corrections to alterations made to his statements - which never, ever occurred during the archival or linking process. When finally, the user was warned that further actions (placing them beyond the threshold of a 3RR violation) would prompt action, user JHunterj made the same edits again and curtly stated that I should take further action as necessary, with the edit summary of "good luck".
- I feel uncomfortable posting a complaint about any admin's behavior, as I am concerned about reprisals from his fellow admins, but no one gets to refactor existing section headers after they have been archived, personal feelings or not, possessing The Mop or not. Clearly, the admin isn't anting/needing to listen to me; perhaps some of his colleagues may have more of an impact. I am not sure de-sysopping is called for here, but an admin needs to follow the rules even more closely than the regular editors, as they set the example. If this admin chooses not to, then perhaps the yoke of adminship is too heavy to bear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It also bears pointing out that JHunterj has (as of this filing) violated 3RR in both archive 2 of the HP dab page (1, 2, 3) and the discussion page (4, 5).
- As 3RR covers cumulative edits of a disruptive nature within the same article, I think the violation is somewhat clear. I don't mind filing the 3RR, but it might be easier to address it here, as the violations are part of the same problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- A section header was inserted in front of a comment I made after the fact, and once I became aware of it, I edited it to restate what I was saying in the comment. No comments were refactored, and no "closed" discussions were reopened. I answered all comments on my talk page prior to this ANI being opened. Enough time has been wasted; perhaps another editor can address the Talk:HP (disambiguation) and its archive if i'm not supposed to, or give me the all-clear to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, I also ignored the patently false claims of 3RR violations: 24-hour window? No. Same edit? No. More than 3 reverts even outside of the 24-hours window? No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- A section header was inserted in front of a comment I made after the fact, and once I became aware of it, I edited it to restate what I was saying in the comment. No comments were refactored, and no "closed" discussions were reopened. I answered all comments on my talk page prior to this ANI being opened. Enough time has been wasted; perhaps another editor can address the Talk:HP (disambiguation) and its archive if i'm not supposed to, or give me the all-clear to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the noting of the 3RR claim isn't false, as the multiple reverts occurred in the same article (repeatedly altering discussions and archves- which are still a part of the article - count towards that total).
- I think that to simplify matters, allow me to demonstrate why they weren't "maintenance edits." With respect:
- 1. You did not add the section header into the article;
- 2. An amount of time passed between the insertion of that header and the archiving of the older information; and
- 3. You altered the archive to reflect your point of view in all three archived sections, including removing completely one of the archived sections and their links.
- 4. The alteration you performed retitled sections as "anti-cruft blinders", a term you (and only you) had used in discussion.
- Ergo, not maintenance edits. I am unsure how I am misinterpreting your actions here, J. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Archiving without action generally means that nobody could see, wanted to or thought necessary any action. Looking at the above, I agree. This is neither a matter for administrators nor an incident. If anything, it's a content dispute and provision of a mop doesn't give you any extra or any less rights in one of those. Perhaps you were looking for dispute resolution? ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. No action is necessary here. No need to continue this discussion. Seek dispute resolution via WP:RFC or WP:MEDIATION or WP:3O instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Threatening to cut a users ISP
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
A user called User:Police,Mad,Jack threatened to report another user, Mikkalai, to his ISP with the intention of getting them to cut his internet connection[46], while anyone who knows anything about Mikkalia knows this is meaningless gibberish from Jack it is still an unacceptable threat, can an admin please intervene and at the very least warn Jack not to make such threats ever again. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And has now apoloigised [47] which is something. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good call, Redvers. This is Mikkalai's latest[48]. I know Jack from way back and don't wish to discourage him from editing, I don't think any of us do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism and personal attacks from 172.188.187.67
172.188.187.67 has been on fire over the past several days, with repeated and consistent blogspam to the OSx86 article, a personal attack on the talk page here, and now he is moving on to vandalize more articles. The most recent was to another project of mine, the Golden Bear (ship) article, as can be seen here. He also left a vandalism notice and personal attack on my talk page via 2 edits, as seen here. Something should be done, I leave the decision of what to the admins. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rudget semi-protected his/her target article, so that's out of the way for the moment. The IP, as you've noticed yourself, is dynamic, so a block would be almost pointless at this point. If your user pages are being used to attack you or make you uncomfortable, a similar protection on any or all of them is available - please ask me. Rest assured, s/he will get bored eventually - they always do. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The larger problem seems to be, though, that they followed me to other articles I had worked on and vandalized them as well. Seems like they might've calmed down a tad for now, but then did before too. *shrug* we'll see what happens. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Semperfi76 Person vs. man
I just warned User:Semperfi76, so if he stops then a block is probably not in order. But an eye needs to be kept on his edits. Check any of his contribs and you will see my point -- replacing "craftspeople" with "craftsmen", "congressperson" with "congressman," etc., in places where it is not particularly appropriate, and occasionally in places where it breaks a template. I will try to keep an eye on the edits and will report back if he continues after the warning. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the quaintly old-fashioned sexism (the guy must have been born in about 1822 to be worked up about these things), the cut-and-paste moves from the bias-free usage to the male usage were annoying. I've reverted them, but with brute force - some minor edits were lost, but that was far easier than getting deep into history merges for such a small matter. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Lets wait for the next move. I've watchlisted his talk page to see if this starts again, but lets see if the warnings do their job before we jump on any blocks or anything yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This AFD has been opened for way too long (14 days/2 weeks). It needs the attention of a uninvolved sysop. nat.utoronto 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just for future reference: in hopes to keep the notice board a little less "full" the proper place for a request like this would be WP:AN, no worries though. Tiptoety talk 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Spam linking by User:NostalgiaVista?
The above newly created account seems to be doing little else but adding a link to the external links section of various articles which indicates that they sell copies of the radio programs, primarily, the articles are about. What should be done with the links and the account? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the links, we are not free advertising space. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And if someone would warn the user for spamming, then we could look at removing the user when they continued. Whilst they are left to edit unwarned, little or nothing can be done. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- There we go, issued then with both a {{welcome}} (if they're selling such things, they may know something about them, useful for article building) but also a {{uw-spam1}}. So now they're better informed all round. If they continue, keep upping the UW-templates, then off to WP:AIV if they go past UW-4. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion
Hello, I deleted this as a WP:SYN. In essence, the editor who added attempted to legitimiza a driving technique that he is advocating using sources that mention something similar but not quite the same thing. He thinks that I have something against him, and seems to not understand wikipedia policy. Can anybody lend a hand. In essence, I would like to see a reliable source documenting that driving technique. Thank you so much, Brusegadi (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- All of the statements the editor made are true, however I don't know that the cites back them up (I didn't look). And I don't see how they are relevent to the article where you IMHO properly removed them. These are also techniques that typically aren't taught to beginning drivers. Drifting is tailgating, and tailgating regardless of the gearshift position is bloody stupid anywhere other than an oval track with professional drivers (and merely dangerous there). Its true that it will buy you gas milage in some cases. If you live to enjoy it. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure about the techniques, but my point is that the sources are poor and I just wanted someone to let him know that. I am trying to avoid an edit war. To do that I need either him to provide better sources or a third person in the talk page to explain what a reliable source is (I tried.) The sources were websites about driving in the snow, but not about saving gas... (synthesis.)Brusegadi (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cabals
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving - too much troll food. The first edit should have been reverted and ignored.--Docg 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
How are the following "cabals" appropriate for Wikipedia?
- User:Diligent Terrier/Nerd Cabal
- User:RyRy5/Cool Cabal
- User:ComputerGuy890100/Road Cabal
- User:Diligent Terrier/Smiley Cabal
Wikipedia is NOT a social networking site and these serve no purpose but to cause server overload. They should be speedily deleted by an admin and their creators warned, because if we put these pages through an AFD all the "members" would vote keep. Wikipedia should not continue on this trend towards MySpace and Facebook. --End the Madness (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hell-o there, Mister Single-Purpose account! HalfShadow (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind being called that because I am protecting the integrity of this site.--End the Madness (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the giant banner with the word "humorous" highlighted doesn' t mean much, this is not the kind of stuff that belongs in AN/I this is maybe MFD material, Mr. SPA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind being called that because I am protecting the integrity of this site.--End the Madness (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Server overload is not a concern. This is a communal effort in building an encyclopedia and folk are permitted to have a few light hearted moments. Can you provide any evidence that these nunseekrit cabals are detrimental to the community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did as the user's name suggests and ended the madness. Autoblock not enabled, if this user has another, productive account, they can go back to it. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bad block. A single unpopular idea expressed politely is not reason to indefinitely block someone. --Onorem♠Dil 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looked at the contributions? The guy is just yanking our collective chain. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, single-purpose accounts were a no-no. HalfShadow (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Only sort of. WP:SPA is informative, not policy, but even WP:SPA has a large measure of "look before you leap and don't bite the newbies" to it.
- On this particular block ... speaking as a non-admin, I don't know if I'd have banned Madness, but I certainly don't know that Guy's decision was a bad decision. WP:IAR can cut both ways--as "End the Madness" just discovered. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, simply being a single purpose account wasn't a reason to indef block. --Onorem♠Dil 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is it likely they would have contributed anything worthwhile? No. Is it likely that this thread was going to achieve anything? No. I still think it's a bad block of someone who simply had an unpopular opinion. --Onorem♠Dil 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spas are not blockable for being spas - all accounts by definition start out as spas. ViridaeTalk 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, this was an encyclopaedia, not a social network. Making your first edit to a meta-page discussing what looks awfully like anold grudge against someone - or maybe just being pointy - is not one of the things I think we ought to encourage. The individual has clearly edited before, let them go back to their main account. Unless, of course, it's banned or blocked. Nothing to do with the opinion, which is simply ignorable, and everything to do with not encouraging trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- How ironic that others using WP as a social network is exactly what they were trying to stop, and reporting something they do not feel to be useful to the growth of the encyclopedia is not social networking. THe block is invalid, please overturn it. ViridaeTalk 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this was not a good block. Kelly hi! 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I checked there is a procedure to be followed when blocking editors; I have placed a {{subst:uw-block3}} template on their talkpage so at least they are able to explain to an uninvolved admin why they should be unblocked - if they so desire. Guy, when defending the encyclopedia against the Forces of Evil please try and follow the policies and practices that the community have decided that we all are supposed to adhere to. There's a good chap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought this sort of thing was addressed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. Kelly hi! 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not even close to being addressed, but it is certainly the sort of thing being commented upon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- What, you mean my failure to assume good faith of an accounts whose first act is to report some harmless user pages to the admin noticeboard is considered an issue by people whose opinion is worth hearing? I'd be faintly surprised, to be honest. I don't think more than a handful of real Wikipedians seriously consider that "brand new editors" whose first action is to troll the admin noticeboards require arbitration before we can quietly show them the door. Like I said, it entirely implausible that this is genuinely this user's first action on Wikipedia, he can go back to his original account and then we can accurately establish the basis of his dispute. Seriously this one absolutely screams sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, I thought you promised to do better at throwing around bad-faith terms like "troll" and "sockpuppet". Kelly hi! 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- What, you mean my failure to assume good faith of an accounts whose first act is to report some harmless user pages to the admin noticeboard is considered an issue by people whose opinion is worth hearing? I'd be faintly surprised, to be honest. I don't think more than a handful of real Wikipedians seriously consider that "brand new editors" whose first action is to troll the admin noticeboards require arbitration before we can quietly show them the door. Like I said, it entirely implausible that this is genuinely this user's first action on Wikipedia, he can go back to his original account and then we can accurately establish the basis of his dispute. Seriously this one absolutely screams sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not even close to being addressed, but it is certainly the sort of thing being commented upon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought this sort of thing was addressed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. Kelly hi! 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- How ironic that others using WP as a social network is exactly what they were trying to stop, and reporting something they do not feel to be useful to the growth of the encyclopedia is not social networking. THe block is invalid, please overturn it. ViridaeTalk 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, this was an encyclopaedia, not a social network. Making your first edit to a meta-page discussing what looks awfully like anold grudge against someone - or maybe just being pointy - is not one of the things I think we ought to encourage. The individual has clearly edited before, let them go back to their main account. Unless, of course, it's banned or blocked. Nothing to do with the opinion, which is simply ignorable, and everything to do with not encouraging trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, single-purpose accounts were a no-no. HalfShadow (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse this block. A brand new account comes on ANI, citing Wikipedia policy and process to get a bunch of user subpages deleted? Odds of being an actual good-faith brand-new user: 0.0000001%. Mr.Z-man 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looked at the contributions? The guy is just yanking our collective chain. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bad block. A single unpopular idea expressed politely is not reason to indefinitely block someone. --Onorem♠Dil 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no cabal. And I'm reporting all participants in this conversation to the cabal immediately. Fnord. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no cabal. (1 == 2)Until 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Back the the topic at hand, and ignoring whether the messenger is a single purpose account — have these pages been to MFD yet? I can't see how they support our mission, but I can see how they violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh leave it, nominating them for deletion will cause more wailing and gnashing of teeth than it's worth. -- Naerii 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Had a look at one of the people running it an they are a productive editor. If the same applies for the rest its not worth upsetting them. ViridaeTalk 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that things that do not contribute to the mission can be seen as bad. But in all reality, do these cabals detract from the mission? Justin Eiler (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
All now listed at MFD - surely that's quicker and less hassle than the drama being played out here, right? George The Dragon (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- If otherwise productive users want to have a little club on the side, there's nothing wrong with a little social atmosphere. Now that they are at MfD, they might as well go through the process, but I doubt much will come of it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've always viewed WP:NOT#MYSPACE as a restriction on unduly concentration on the editor's userspace instead of working on the encyclopedia. If these pages do not distract editors and do not detract from the collaborative atmosphere of the encyclopedia, then WP:NOT#MYSPACE should not apply. —Kurykh 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The concern isn't about the collaborative atmosphere. The concern is that we want the media and others to see our editors as professional, mature contributors (regardless of their actual age). Things like this make our editors look immature and unprofessional, regardless of their age. What news reporter is going to take Diligent Terrier seriously after looking at these pages? If our user space looks like a game, it's natural for others to infer that our content pages are only a game as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This encyclopedia is by definition informal and casual in order to reflect a more inclusive atmosphere for laymen such as us to contribute. Wikipedia is not meant to be prissy and uptight and prudish rather than actually being helpful. We are not Citizendium, trying to maintain a "learned scholars only" type of thing (not that I have anything against them or what they are doing). By adopting the "anyone can edit" banner, we have eschewed that sort of mentality in favor of a laid-back, Google-workplace type of thing. On the media's view of us, if we're going to keep on worrying too much about what others perceive us as, this project isn't going to get anywhere. —Kurykh 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Our mission is to create a free encyclopedia. Certainly others' perception of the product we create is at least a tiny bit important... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, of course I'm not saying disregard our dignity entirely. :) I'm just saying don't overemphasize it, given our mission and our means to achieve it. —Kurykh 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've got some work to do, then, Carl. Here you go: Category:Wikipedia humor, and when you've finished you canmake a start on Category:Wikipedia essays, since we wouldn't want to give the impression that any action is outside of a rigid set of rules codified and voted on by t'committee. Or is it teh cabal? Guy (Help!) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Our mission is to create a free encyclopedia. Certainly others' perception of the product we create is at least a tiny bit important... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- This encyclopedia is by definition informal and casual in order to reflect a more inclusive atmosphere for laymen such as us to contribute. Wikipedia is not meant to be prissy and uptight and prudish rather than actually being helpful. We are not Citizendium, trying to maintain a "learned scholars only" type of thing (not that I have anything against them or what they are doing). By adopting the "anyone can edit" banner, we have eschewed that sort of mentality in favor of a laid-back, Google-workplace type of thing. On the media's view of us, if we're going to keep on worrying too much about what others perceive us as, this project isn't going to get anywhere. —Kurykh 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
70.113.74.123
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Nothing but vandalism from this IP address, who has been warned several times. [49] Can someone take care of this? Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP for 24 hours, but if you encounter this sort of abuse in the future, the proper venue for the complaint is here. —Travistalk 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rogereeny. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
User:TheWrench and Street Fighter character articles
- TheWrench (talk · contribs) insists on adding to the Street Fighter character articles references to an unofficial Chinese movie, "Future Cops", which borrows likenesses of the characters, in a way that makes it appear official. He has replaced them. I don't wish to edit war so I haven't reverted him, but it seems to me like a movie that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article probably shouldn't be mentioned in the articles in ways which make it appear to have any bearing on the characters themselves. This is probably a content dispute, I suppose, but the reason I go here instead of filing an RfC is because this spans multiple articles and if this is not a matter for ANI, I'd like to be guided to what I should do next (the content dispute pages tend to confuse me. ^_^) JuJube (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism problem
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
68.191.179.217 is making vandalism in articles. A few users warned him but he simply doesn't care, he continues to vandalize. Just check his talk page. I'll warn him, and if he vandalizes wikipedia again, he should get blocked.
--Mr Alex (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it continues, simply report the anon to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Point making on Jeremiah Wright article
Die4Dixie does not want Imprecations (Bible) wikilinked over at the Jeremiah Wright article and he is making a bit of a point about it. TheslB (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not true. I want it linked when the word is mentioned in the quote.One time. other editors have wanted several links so I have obliged. It is point making. I will voluntarily stop . Please consider having the article link to it one time when it is directly quoted so not to have undue weight. I tried to discuss it several times on the talk page, but no one will go there to build consensus. please investigate. I concede the point of my point making, but that article needs some help.--Die4Dixie 05:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
- In fact, this is where I want it linked:
"Marty further explains that Wright's style is similar to the imprecatory topoi ...."and I had it that way until other editors kept adding links to the same subsection giving undue weight to one theologians opinion. It appears that the article in quest was created solely to be able to be linked by the editor that wanted it linked more than once originally . --Die4Dixie 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jannisri, disruptive, ignoring copyvio questions
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Gentlemen, I call to your attentions with regards to the above-mentioned user being disruptive in using an identical image of a posed shot of an airline advertisement for use in the page Malaysia Airlines. The first image is here:Image:MHcabin.jpg (history · last edit) and the second image is here:Image:Malaysia Airlines Cabin Crew.jpg (history · last edit) . Both image are one and the same from a Malaysia Airlines advertisement dated 2002 which I can't recalled where exactly it can be located, but Jannisri (talk) claims it to be his work immediately after I told him of the possibility of copyvio. He subsequently reposted another image in its place from another user, whom I have good reasons to suspect is a sock puppet account or vice versa. -- Dave1185 (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- No point argueing. Jannisri (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unused in articles, extremely dubious attribution - can be deleted via CSD:I9. These are Commons images, so you'd need a Commons admin to do it, though.Black Kite 10:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Continual spamming despite repeated warnings not to do so. Needs to be blocked permanently. --SJK (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Erledigt - by User:Faithlessthewonderboy. AIV is thataway, for future reference. GBT/C 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This user constantly dumps information about Indian books into Wikipedia, in a completely nonsencial manner. --SJK (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is questionable. Special:Contributions/Nareshgupta. I have no idea what to do. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The user is a owner of a publishing house and is spamming Wikipedia to sell this books.Many are blant copyright violations[Spaming pages with advertisements for books.some appear to be copyright violations as well like [50].He is a publisher [51] It appears to be spam only account.Even in other articles he appears to be adding references of his books.[52][53]Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also look at this edit [54]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism by an Admin on St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine
The admin JzG has vandalized the article St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine by removing large sections of verifiable and sourced facts from the article and recently deleted material that was added from a government database that was verifiable and sourced. Something needs to be done about this rogue admin and his disregard for core Wikipedia policy. 67.177.149.119 (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, JzG (Guy)'s removal was a pretty good one [55]. The material he removed was mostly from primary sources, and a lot of the info smelled like original research. As he said in an intermediate edit summary, we should stick to secondary sources (most of te time, anyway). Primary sources aren't accompanied by any third-party analysis, so by themselves they can't demonstrate any true meaning or indicate what is worth noting. You should also consider asking him about it before coming here to cry ADMIN ABUSE; many editors are liable to think you're wrong just from reading the section title. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion is showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think it's a error in editng, rather than a deletion request, but I can't find it. Can someone give me a hand? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please help request for arbitration
I cannot submit it for some reason. I asked Carcharoth to submit it for me.
Basically, an administrator who supports Barack Obama and opposes Hillary Clinton has gone on a rampage (along with 2 sockpuppets) to ban anyone they don't like. One of the socks has vandalized pages and blanked out user pages.
This is such a big problem and has been going on for more than a year. Rather than laugh it off and blanking this request, ArbCom should get to the bottom of it. ArbCom has proof, including driver licenses to prove the identity of several people proving that they can't be socks as they are accused by this renegade administrator.
If you blank this request then you should be prepared to answer to ArbCom to why you are destroying a request for arbitration (when you don't have the evidence and personal identification that ArbCom has).
Diff: See Carcharoth's user talk page or below.
{Jersyko and Archtransit}
Initiated by Harry59b (talk) at 12:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Harry59b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Mrs.EasterBunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jersyko (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Archtransit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- VK35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Greenwinged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques
- Request exemption as Jersyko cannot desysop himself and other parties are blocked and their user page page protected. Most users have been notified by e-mail.
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Special case involving ArbCom desysoping
Statement by {Harry59b}
ArbCom needs to settle this long running problem of an administrator harming Wikipedia by banning people by falsely accusing them of sockpuppetry. This has been going on for over a year.
The definition of sockpuppetry is faking a consensus by multiple voting or sharing the same editorial opinion. This has not happen. Yet, Wikipedia culture is that if you are accused of being a sock, others will join the attack creating a gang-like cabal.
I request immediate and permanent desysoping and blocking of administrator Jersyko for premeditated abuse of his powers. Several months ago, in a personal and self-serving rampage, admin Jersyko blocked me. There was no checkuser proof and no other evidence. Jersyko is abusing his admin powers in a widespread fashion and manipulating others to help him to support his support of 2 American politicians or whenever he just doesn't like someone and wants to ban them. He must be desysoped and blocked because his scheme is hurting the encyclopedia.
Jersyko is a political supporter of American politician John Edwards and Barack Obama (and may be an opponent of Hillary Clinton). His actions to block supporters of Hillary Clinton shows he is manipulating Wikipedia for his own political purposes. He has also edited these articles so is abusing his sysop privileges by blocking those who edit the same articles.
After contacting some others, I have learned that Jerysko's abuse is widespread. I do not know of all of the details of the others but have compiled a summary of e-mail evidence that I have received (mostly from Mrs.EasterBunny, who compiled responses from others).
I Harry59b have lost my password to Harry59 and have created this username.
Jersyko is the subject of this request for arbitration. He has accused Archtransit and Dereks1x and me of being socks. Therefore, all three of us are included. Frankly, I'm only interested in getting myself unblocked but this is just the tip of an iceberg of Jersyko attacking others. Where is his proof that I (Harry59) is a sock? ***************************8
Statement by {Mrs.EasterBunny} paraphrased and/or cut and pasted by Harry60 with occasional Harry60 ideas added - compiled from her e-mail between others
Everyone except Harry59b is blocked so Harry59b is helping with this.
One of the major questions is sockpuppetry. Jersyko is employing meatpuppets (especially Tvoz and Bobblehead to further his political purposes). You can see countless times when all 3 of them chime in to attack political opponents. Diffs are not needed as they post together frequently and act as meatpuppets (equivalent of sockpuppets).
Harry59 first was alerted of the huge problem when Jerysko accused admin Archtransit of being Dereks1x in WP:ANI
Mrs.EasterBunny: Why we need to resolve this problem
The Dereks1x issue needs to be reviewed because the basis of the problem is Jerysko's false accusation of sockpuppetry. Once someone is accused of being a sock, WP users will generally attack the person without stopping to consider whether the accuser (Jersyko) is actually the sock.
Resolving this Dereks1x issue has the potential to create peace in Wikipedia once and for all. It would be a dis-service if ArbCom made the assumption that Dereks1x is bad because the root problem would remain unresolved.
Jerysko's manipulation has created a big dis-service to Wikipedia not only because he did it for personal reasons but it diverts resources from encyclopedia building. The bottom line is that the many users that Jersyko has accused of being socks have been extremely productive editors. In contrast, Jersyko/Tvoz/Bobblehead/Thatcher are not very productive editors. If they are blocked, Wikipedia will not lose anything because they don't edit productively. They harm Wikipedia by falsely accusing others of sockpuppetry.
Mrs.EasterBunny: Summary of events
Dereks1x appeared in early 2006 and wrote some well referenced but negative information about Barack Obama and John Edwards. Jersyko edits some of those along with meatpuppets Tvoz/Bobblehead. Jersyko banned Dereks1x accusing him of sockpuppetry. His accused sock had unanimous consensus of the severity of John Edwards' wife's cancer [56], [57], [58]. If there was a question of socks, Jerysko should have politely explained the rules but not imposed his own political views as Jersyko had no scientific consensus but the accused sock did. Understanding at this point would have ended the problem forever. Instead, Jersyko went on a rampage which has created nearly 1.5 years of problems for Wikipedia (Therefore, desysop is the proper response).
VK35
VK35 was an extremely productive editor. His contributions were first rate. Blocking him was a big mistake for those who want to build the encyclopedia. VK35 has stated in e-mails that he doesn't want to get involved and will only consider contributing in a few months if he is unblocked. He will not fight to be unblocked.
VK35 says Jimbo Wales unblocked him after he proved that he is a doctor. Since Dereks1x is accused of impersonating a doctor through DocUnitedStates, VK35 cannot be Dereks1x because he IS a doctor. Jimbo Wales received proof of identity. Jersyko later reused old checkuser information (which was available to Jimbo) to block him after Jimbo made his decision and left the scene. This checkuser information showed that VK35 uses the same ISP but different computer as Dereks1x. Blocking of VK35 is completely wrong and a stain for Wikipedia because it opposing the actions of Jimbo Wales and conclusively proves that he is not Dereks1x because Dereks1x is accused of impersonating a doctor.
VK35 does not want to get involved and declines to give testimony.
Heidianddick
Heidianddick was blocked as a sock even though she admitted from the start that she is related to VK35. This is wrong and only shows vindictiveness.
Mrs.EasterBunny: Proof of identity
The key breakthrough was that Mrs.EasterBunny asked a lot of people to give their identity. If they are different people, they cannot be socks. They are not meatpuppets because they don't generally edit the same articles and don't vote in the same elections.
Mrs.EasterBunny: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin (Wikipedia legal counsel). Age: 20's, female, Japanese, surname: Ya.... Lethe: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin. Age: 60's, male, caucasian, surname: Mu....... Archtransit: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin. Age: 40's, male, caucasian, surname: No..... Fairchoice: driver's license sent to MikeGodwin. Age: 50's, female, Latino, surname: Ph.... Greenwinged: located in Texas, far away from all the others. Harry59/Harry60: located in a different continent.
These people can't be relatives because they don't share the same surnames. They are of vastly different ages and races.
Summary of Lethe statement
Sorry that he was a joker and told Archtransit that there was a vandal named "Lethe" around. Archtransit blocked Lethe and was desysoped by ArbCom for blocking someone with the same or neighboring IP address.
Archtransit problem
Archtransit was an outstanding editor. Several have said how good he was. Jersyko accuses him of being a Dereks1x sock. However, they edit completely different articles. This shows how destructive Jersyko is.
Archtransit admits that his problem was that he wanted WP to be kind and open to everyone. So when his friend played a trick on him by saying "hey, there's a vandal named Lethe", ArbCom thought that Archtransit was making a sock to block. This doesn't make sense because Archtransit never bragged about blocking this sock, he just did and moved on.
Others started a RFC on Archtransit because they hold the ideal "admins are part of the cabal and must not block each other / we must have solidarity to block others and must rarely unblock others" Archtransit admits that this was his downfall. He was merely following WP rules about who can be blocked and unblocked so he request re-sysopping. Looking at the RFC, there was a consensus (albeit small number of people) who supported Archtransit blocks. THERE IS NO SUPPORT THAT ANY OF HIS LATER BLOCKS WERE WRONG. So people just didn't like Archtransit for his compassion but couldn't find anything wrong with his blocks or unblocks (see the RFC).
When a legislator was blocked, Archtransit calmly and politely contacted this person to make him feel better. As such, he is a better ambassador for WP then the countless admin who are rude and bite newbies.
Archtransit was desysopped because of sockpuppetry accusations. This reason looks to some to be a mere excuse because none of the socks ever voted in the same election or edited in the same articles. He was never given a chance to defend himself. ArbCom had no emergency that they had to deny the opportunity for a defense.
Statement by Archtransit as interpreted by Harry60 and received by Mrs.EasterBunny
"I am a good contributor. The community acted solely on ArbCom's actions. ArbCom may contact me for a statement. Resolving this problem and the Bobblehead problem would help WP"
Thatcher problem / Bobblehead socks
Thatcher attacked Archtransit by fishing for information to hurt him. The nature of socks is that you should have evidence of sockpuppetry first (voting in the same elections, editing the same article), not fish for IP's. This is the wrong way to look for socks. Many people have other users close to them.
Thatcher has not attacked Jersyko's sock/meatpuppet Bobblehead even though there is evidence that Bobblehead has several socks who attacked Archtransit. Bobblehead had a bad AFD rejected and promptly launched several socks to blank out Archtransit's user page. All of Bobblehead's socks begin with the letter B and are short names. A checkuser would prove that Bobblehead is behind this.
Evidence discovered by bureaucrat WJBscribe
Well before this started, he made comments that the request for unblock by Fairchoice was hysterical. He said that Archtransit request for unblock was very rationale and calm and was focused on his inability to help WP while he was doing a task (see Archtransit's RFA). This shows independent assessment of different writing styles. In contrast, opponents will often use flimsly and specious evidence to allege that people are socks because of writing style.
Mrs.EasterBunny and others: implications of ArbCom failing to act
This is a long running saga that ArbCom should consider and unblock certain people. If ArbCom assumes that they are all socks, how does ArbCom explain all the evidence that they are not socks? If ArbCom assumes that they are all socks, how can one person make so many excellent editorial contributions (about 10,000 per year, most of very high quality--if this is the work of one person, that person is one of the best editors in the history of Wikipedia). Doesn't ArbCom want to build the encyclopedia or is that just Jimbo Wales long forgotten ideal?
Requested conclusions that ArbCom should consider
1. Archtransit is a good contributor. His RFC showed that nobody could rationally state why his recent blocks or unblocks are bad. He is re-sysop on the condition that he act with restraint.
1a. Archtransit never bragged about the blocks or unblocks. Therefore, accusations that he blocked his socks are not logical.
2. VK35 is a good contributor. He is invited to resume editing.
3. Mrs.EasterBunny is a good contributor. She may resume editing.
4. Greenwinged is completely separate from everyone according to checkuser proof. He was never given the chance to edit.
5. Harry60 is completely separate from everyone according to checkuser proof.
6. Lethe is admonished for playing tricks. He may resume editing in 6 months if he agrees never to play tricks on others.
7. Jersyko is not a productive article builder. Jersyko edited articles and then had others blocked who disagreed with him, even when they obtained a consensus. He is de-sysopped. He is blocked for 1 month.
8. Tvoz has been repeated incivil and has acted as a meatpuppet to Jerysko/Bobblehead. Tvoz is to blocked for 1 month.
9. Bobblehead is a vandal. He is a meatpuppet of Tvoz/Jersyko. Because he was part of a scheme to have others blocked, he is blocked for 6 months.
10. Thatcher is admonished for checkuser fishing. He is instructed to stop using the checkuser for 2 months.
11. When accusing people of sockpuppetry, the user should give utmost consideration to the other users' contributions and not be focused on the edit which the accuser disagrees with. Sock complaints should be made only if WP is harmed by the sockpuppetry and not used as an excuse to attack others.
12. User talk page page protection must not be abused. Page protecting a page (such as Mrs.EasterBunny so that she has a harder time of gather evidence and communicating is wrong) is only appropriate with repeated abuse of the unblock template. Even then, repeated request can be simply denied as unblock review is a voluntary process and is rarely backlogged.
13. Admins (such as Jersyko) must not use sysop powers to block others who contribute to articles that they contribute.
14. Admins must not block others because of political viewpoints that oppose their own. Wikipedia rules for establishing consensus must take priority.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
User Dbachmann
Hello, I have worked relly hard on an article i was working on its called Mahamada and I actually went to my local Library and picked up an Holy Book that is related to my artcile and added information that contains material meant for the article. and that user:Dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada. The article was created to post views from all Holy Books and user:Dbachmann seems to be annoyed with information i am providing. whats a user to do? --DWhiskaZ (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note --> This is my review [59] and that user:dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada.(see [60]) to Bhavishya Purana an article that is another holy book that contains information .--DWhiskaZ (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)