위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive731

위키백과:Deletion_review/Log/2011_12월_2#Ulital_Actual_votes_at_Afd

나는 아마도 AfD를 조기폐쇄한 것으로 추정되는 (폐쇄 지침이 7일 이후에 닫으라고 하는 12일 후의 일)에 대해 폐업 관리자에 대한 약탈이 정말로 우려된다.그것은 정말 고약해지고 있고, 정말로 진정되는 개입이 필요하다.86.*** IP (대화) 03:04, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

뭘 기다려?지침이 7이라고 되어 있을 때 12일 후에 닫는 것은 어떻게 "프리미엄"을 고려하는가?--v/r - TP 03:10, 2011년 12월 10일(UTC)[응답]

이것은 기괴하다.AFD는 합의가 있을 때까지 공개되어야 한다는 주장인 것 같다.이는 (a) 어떤 '합의 없음' 폐쇄가 무효라는 것을 의미하며, (b) 관리자가 AfD를 먼저 평가한 후 종결 여부를 결정해야 한다는 것을 의미할 것이다.그것이 행해지는 방식이 아닐 뿐만 아니라 (현행 관행이 이와 일치한다고 생각하지만) 다수의 행정관이 '합의'에 대한 평가를 반복하고, 가장 먼저 '합의'라고 부르는 것이 결정을 내리는 것은 전체 절차를 망언할 것이다.바보들...Andy TheGrump (talk) 03:23, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

: Aiii - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 03:56, 2011년 12월 10일(UTC)[답글]

CSD 해석에 대한 질문

안녕. 나는 최근에 (a) UT 페이지는 속도가 나지 않고 (b) Mover가 주 기여자와 다른 경우(i,i) 리디렉션되지 않는다는 이유로 이름이 바뀐 사용자의 이전 사용자 및 토크 페이지 두 개의 CSD(1, 2)를 거절했다.사용자에게 MFD로 가져가라고 조언했지만, 그들은 나의 CSD-템플릿 제거 작업을 취소했다.이에 대한 대안적인 해석은 관리자가 UT 페이지를 빠르게 할 수는 없지만 Crats는 빠르게 할 수 있다는 것이다(아무도 속도를 낼 수 없다는 뜻으로 받아들이지만 Crats는 MFD나 개인 상담 후에 삭제할 수 있다).누가 옳은가?It Is Me Here 14:02, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

당신이 연관되어 있는 그 규칙들은 꽤 분명해 보인다: 당신이 옳다.츄우우우히:2011년 12월 10일(UTC) Seb Az86556 14:16[응답]

매우 기본적인 수준에서 사용자는 감소된 빠른 삭제 요청을 복원해서는 안 된다.WP:FORMOPShopping 및 Bad Thing™.신속한 요청이 거절될 경우 사용자는 적절한 XFD를 사용하여 토론해야 한다.사용자가 관리자의 결정에 동의하지 않아도, 결정은 내려지고, 삭제 진행을 위해서는 커뮤니티의 의견을 구해야 한다. --Jayron32 15:25, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

잘못 생각하여 되돌림

snarky 편집 요약을 사용하여 [1]과 같은 게시물 되돌리기."여기서 편집 요약"은 위키백과에 도움이 되지 않으며, WP에 의해 지원되지 않는다.TPG 정책.그렇다 모든 모자는 무례한 고함이고 요점은 잘못되었다.그럼에도 불구하고, 우리는 모두 예의 바르게 행동해야 하고, 단지 그 자리를 버리는 것은 무례한 행동이다.그것을 무시하고, 반박하고, 꼭 해야 한다면 무시해라.모든 편집자, 신인, 베테랑, 행정가, 관료, 인형, 금지된, 모든 POV는 위키피디아에서 다음 존경 수준을 높이려는 것 외에 다른 이유가 없다면 존중하여 다루어야 한다.편집자가 차단되어서는 안 된다는 말은 아니다. 단지 정중하게 차단되어야 한다.포스터가 양말 인형이라면 --> WP:스피게라드 (대화) 15:29, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

편집 요약을 다루지는 않겠지만, 게시물 삭제는 지지한다.그것은 실행 가능한 사건이나 상황에 대한 어떠한 관련 세부사항도 제시하지 않은 채 사용자에 대한 신랄한 비난에 지나지 않았다.오노잇츠재미 15:33, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)의미 있는 편집 요약 없이 삭제한 다음 다시 설치하기 전에 먼저 연락을 받는 "강제"로 이동하십시오.더 불필요한 드라마.누수 솥 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC) 15:35, 응답

(분쟁 편집)x3 위에서 잘못 선택한 것 같다.네가 "잘못"이라고 썼을 때 "글쎄"라는 단어를 쓰려고 했던 것 같아.스나키 편집 요약은 별것 아니었을지 모르지만, 그 게시물의 제거는 충분히 정당화되었다.아무데도 안 가, 그냥 도끼로 갈고 있는 사용자야.유저에 대한 공격을 그대로 두어도 소용없었다. --Jayron32 15:37, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 틀린 단어를 선택했다고 가정하는 것은 타당하지 않다.만약 편집자가 제거 작업을 지지했다면, "잘 생각해 보시오"라는 섹션을 추가하면, 그 부분에 끌렸을 것이다.과거의 증거는 그것이 편집자에 대한 경멸적인 논평을 그대로 둔 오랜 선례라는 것을 보여준다. 그래서 어떤 기준이 삭제의 정당성을 위해 사용되는지는 불분명하다.Gerardw (대화) 15:44, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

자세한 내용은 wikt:facial을 참조하십시오.한숨. --Jayron32 15:46, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

"고의적으로 부적절한 유머."알겠습니다.당신은 그것이 위키피디아 WP와 일치한다고 생각하십니까?시민 의식의 기둥?Gerardw (대화) 15:50, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

비아냥거리지 말자.위키피디아를 공헌할 가치가 있는 것으로 만드는 것은 공동체의 인간적인 요소다.이건 그냥 농담이야, 그만 두자.또한, WP:TPG는 지침이지 정책이 아니다.바살리스크 _berate½ 16:06, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

여러 IP 주소에 의한 여러 위반

• 99.88.121.104 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 134.186.130.250 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 153.48.52.241 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 제다이크나이트95758 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

134.130.250은 현재 일시적으로 차단되어 있다.

153.48.52.241은 이전에 같은 이유로 차단되었다.

모두에게 즉각적인 영구 차단을 요청한다.

이것들은 아마도 제다이크나이트95758로 의심되는 양말 퍼펫일 것이다.

1. 같은 기사를 같은 편집으로 편집하고
2. 기사 토크 페이지 의견(서로에 대한 의견)을 삭제한다.
3. 그들은 같은 문제에 대해 경고를 받는다.
4. 동일한 방식으로(때로는 서로에 대한) 사용자 대화 경고를 삭제한다.
5. 그리고 이 사건에는 (나에 대한) 모욕적인 진술이 게시되어 있다.

그것들은 캘리포니아 새크라멘토에서 또는 근처의 티일 데이터 센터를 통해 개최되는 것으로 보인다.그들은 다른 캘리포니아 수정부 공유 IP 주소와 공통적인 요소를 가지고 있는 것으로 보인다.

가장 최근의 경고

• 99.88.121.104 대화 페이지 반달리즘 레벨 3
• 134.109.130.250 현재 스팸 차단
• 153.48.52.241 의심형 Socketpuppet(2개 이상과 동일)

경고 삭제 중

• 2011-09-23T23:12:31 134.186.130.250('=2011년 9월==')으로 콘텐츠 교체
• 2011-09-24T09:42:11 99.88.121.104('=2011년 9월 ==')로 내용 바꾸기
• 104-2011-09-25T00:59:20 99.88.121.104
• 104-2011-09-26T13:29:31 99.88.121.104
• 2011-09-30T01:04:10 134.186.130.250이 153.48.52.241에서 경고를 삭제함
• 2011-09-30T01:09:38‎ 134.186.130.250

삭제된 다른 경고는 여기를 참조하십시오.

• (다중 수정 153.48.52.241 (대화), 삭제된 경고 복원)

모욕적 진술

• 2011-09-24T09:58:15‎ 99.88.121.104
• 2011-09-30T23:09:40‎ 134.186.130.250

모두 통지함.
--윌리엄 앨런 심슨 (대화) 2011년 12월 10일 16:13 (UTC)[응답]

다시 삭제된 통지

• by 99.88.155.1983(3개 편집)
• by 99.88.1987.1987(1실행 취소)

PROD 변경?

나는 Runtry라는 새로운 기사를 보고 "공인성 요건을 충족하지 못한다, WP: 참조:우선"

나는 반짝이를 사용했지만, 글 삭제를 원하지 않으면:

• 페이지를 편집하다
• 다음과 같은 텍스트를 삭제하십시오. {{proposed 삭제/날짜...}}
• 페이지를 저장하다

[[2]]

이게 무슨 일이야?PROD가 눈에 띈다고 생각한다고 해서 PROD를 제거하기 위해 이런 글을 쓰는 것이 과연 최선일까? Chzz ► 02:31, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 치즈, 그게 프로드의 방식이야그것들은 논란의 여지가 없는 삭제들이다.누군가가 제거하면, 그 말은 경합이...--v/r - TP 02:37, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사실 ANI 문제는 아니지만 이것에 대해 내 의견을 말할게.IMV, PROD는 아무도 신경 쓰지 않는 기사에 가장 적합하다.(그러나 "아무도 상관하지 않는다"가 삭제의 유일한 이유가 되어서는 안 된다)그러므로 최근에 만들어진 것이나 최근에 주요한 편집 활동이 있는 것은 점프 스트리트에서 AFD로 보내야 한다.만약 어떤 사람이 PROD를 활성 기사에 사용한다면, 누군가가 "쥐에게 엉덩이를 내주고" PROD 태그를 제거한다는 것이 밝혀졌을 때 그들은 당황하지 말아야 한다.또한, 조작으로 의심되는 기사도 AFD로 먼저 가서 오락과 환불 요청에 면역이 되도록 해야 할 것이다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 14:53, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)

이것은 어떤 형태든 ANI에게 문제가 되지 않는다.현재 버전과 일치하지 않는 경우 해당 템플릿을 편집하십시오. {{sofixit}}적용. --slakr^{\ talk /} 02:44, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇긴 하지만, 그것은 매우 교활한 방법으로 통과된 것으로 보인다.{{Proposed deletion notify-rand}}추적하기 어렵게 만든 것: 어느 쪽이든{{Proposed_deletion_notify-rand/default}}또는{{Proposed deletion notify-rand/new}}시간 기준으로. --slakr^{\ talk /} 02:50, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

"일반적으로" PROD 통지서에는 다음과 같은 이유로 "기사 <X>가 삭제 제안되었다"고 되어 있다.

이 행사는 별로 눈에 띄지 않는 것 같다; 나는 구글 뉴스에서 어떤 정보도 찾을 수 없고, 내가 (구글을 통해) 찾을 수 있는 유일한 것은 관련 회사들의 신뢰할 수 없는 출처와 홍보뿐입니다.위키피디아에 대한 모든 기여는 인정되지만, 내용이나 기사는 여러 가지 이유 중 하나로 삭제될 수 있다.공지사항을 삭제하여 제안된 삭제를 방지할 수 있지만, 편집 요약본이나 기사의 토크 페이지 <연계>에 그 이유를 설명하십시오.

보아하니, 최근의 일부 개정은 PROD를 명백히 다른 의미로 바꾼다.그것이 내가 묻고 있는 것이다. Chzz ► 02:55, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

WMF는 이 문제를 실행하기 전에 어디서 논의했는가?나는 관련 토크를 몇 장 둘러보았지만 아무것도 볼 수 없었다.젠크스24 (대화) 03:45, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 왜 그들이 대담해지라는 우리의 권고를 면제받는지 모르겠다.물론, 내가 아는 한 다른 편집자들이 WMF를 되돌리는 것을 막는 것은 아무것도 없다...하지만 네가 왜 그러고 싶어하는지 모르겠어새로운 템플릿이 하는 모든 일은 Prod가 어떻게 작동하는지 더 자세히 설명하는 것이다.TParis가 말했듯이, 편집자들은 항상 어떤 이유로든 전혀 이유 없이 프로드를 제거할 수 있었다. 비록 그들이 문제를 해결하지 않았더라도-- 정의상, Prod는 완전히 논란의 여지가 없는 삭제를 위한 것으로 되어 있다.Qwyrxian (대화) 05:07, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 그럼, 볼드(BOLD)에서 면제되지 않는다면 BRD(BRD)에서 면제되는 건 아니지?[3] Chzz : 05:36, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

WMF는 다양한 템플릿이 편집기 경험과 보존을 향상시키는지를 측정하기 위해 일련의 테스트를 실행하고 있다.일반적으로 위키백과를 참조하십시오.WikiProject 사용자 경고/테스트 및 위키백과:WikiProject 사용자 경고/Testing/Twinkle 계획된 Tests에 대한 경고/Twinkle이것은 영구적인 변화를 의도한 것이 아니라 시험일 뿐이다.--쿠비굴라 (토크) 05:52, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

보류 중인 변경 사항도 짧은 테스트에 불과했다.미안해, 지금은 회의적이야.우리의 사랑스러운 위키에서 이 테스트에 대한 어떤 제안도 본 적이 없어. Chzz ► 05:55, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

허걸을 통해 기대했던 것과는 다른 메시지를 남기는 내 자신을 처음 발견했을 때 나는 너무 화가 났다.하지만, 나는 궁극적으로 호기심이 생겼고 그들이 하고자 하는 일의 가치를 보았다.그들은 일반적으로 제안된 시험에 대해 널리 알리고 코멘트를 요청하려고 노력하지만, 여전히 템플리트를 사용하는 사람들에게는 놀라움으로 끝나는 경우가 많다.이 특정한 테스트가 어디서 논의되었는지 구체적인 내용에 대해서는 말할 수 없다.--쿠비굴라 (토크) 06:06, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

허글의 대체 템플릿을 사용하는 실험이 진행 중이다.허글은 사용자들이 잠시 동안 처음 부팅했을 때 경고해 왔고, 개인 차원에서 꺼낼 수 있는 선택사항이 있었다.일반적으로 허글 경고 실험은 좋은 것처럼 보이지만, 지역사회가 더 나은 피드백 옵션을 갖는 것은 좋을 것이다.나는 Huggle을 위한 새로운 공유 IP 블록 템플릿이 "블록"이라는 단어에 대한 어떤 언급도 삭제한 것처럼 보여서 실제로 차단되었다고 사람들에게 말해 사람들의 기분을 상하게 하지 않는 것 같아 거칠지 않다.—톰 모리스 (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC) 10시 11분[응답]

누가 공유 IP 블록 템플릿을 변경했는지 확실하지 않지만, 그것은 우리가 아니었다 :) 우리의 모든 테스트, 과거, 현재, 그리고 미래는 WP에 문서화되어 있다.UWTEST, 템플릿의 변경 사항이 갑자기 나타나면 언제든지 확인할 수 있다.

피드백에 관해서는, 우리는 그것을 얻게 되어 기쁘고 더 많은 것을 원해!트윙클 사람들이 우리에게 말을 걸 때까지 우리는 사실상 잃어버린 강아지처럼 주위를 따라다녔다.경험으로 말하면, 대부분의 도구, 봇, 반달팽이들은 이러한 경고의 내용에 그다지 신경 쓰지 않는 것 같고 우리가 원하는 것을 테스트해도 전혀 문제가 없는 것 같다.하지만 어떤 사람들은 WMF 시그니처를 가진 사람이 어떤 것에든 변화를 줄 때마다 매우, 매우 깊이 관심을 갖는다.나는 그 우려를 이해하지만, 모든 면에서 훨씬 더 많은 AGF를 제외하고는 그것에 대한 실질적인 해결책이 보이지 않는다.오, 그리고 우리가 CentralNotice 배너를 가동하고 테스트를 할 생각을 할 때마다 대량 이메일을 보낼 수 있을 것 같은데...다들 좋아할 것 같은데 :) 마리아나 (WMF) (토크) 19:09, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

명확성을 위한 빠른 참고사항으로서 WP:PROD는 조금도 변하지 않았다.이 정책은 개입 여부에 관계없이 모든 사용자가 태그를 제거함으로써 제안된 삭제에 합법적으로 반대할 수 있다는 것이 첫날부터 명백해졌다.태그의 표현은 이것이 어떻게 이루어지는지에 대해 더 명확하고 명확하게 하기 위해 바뀌었지만, "최근의 몇몇 개정은 상당히 다른 것을 의미한다"는 말은 사실 정확하지 않다.심그레이토크 13:10, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

지시사항이 좀 더 명확해진 것 같다.그러한 변화를 만드는 데 사용된 프로세스에 대해서는 확실하지 않지만, 그 변화는 타당해 보인다.쳇, 정책적으로 뭐가 바뀌었다고 느끼나?호빗(토크) 14:08, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:사용자를 되돌린 경우:슬래커의 템플릿 변경:제안된 삭제 통지-랜트/뉴(New)로, 정책에 맞지 않고 불합리하다고 생각했다.필자도 '기사를 삭제하지 않으려면'이 아닌 '이 글을 삭제하면 안 된다고 생각한다면'으로 굵은 글씨로 다시 썼다.요에닛(토크) 16:40, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 얘들아, PROD 리디렉션은 위키프로젝트 사용자 경고의 테스트 태스크 포스의 일부로 무작위 A/B 테스트로 바뀌었어. 그냥 교활하게 대담해지려는 시도는 아니었어.그것은 Twinkle talk 페이지에 대한 사전 통지와 Aza의 직접적인 동의로 이루어졌다.토스(주 개발자)우리는 테스트를 시작하는 가장 낮은 임팩트 방식이었기 때문에 리디렉션을 변경했는데, 그것은 우리가 스크립트를 직접 망치고 GitHub repo를 업데이트하지 않아도 된다는 것을 의미했기 때문이다.다행히 시험 시작 후 30일 표시에서 템플릿 랜덤화기를 돌려서, :) 시험 일정과 정확히 일치시켰고, 이 시점에서는 결과 분석 외에 다른 작업을 수행할 필요가 없다.설명서의 경우...프로젝트 구성원이 올린 모든 테스트는 태스크포스 페이지에 광범위하게 기록되어 있으며, 우리는 이전에 Signpost에서 다룬 적이 있으며, 우리는 토크 페이지 뉴스레터를 구독하는 모든 사람에게도 제공한다.Steven Walling (WMF) • 토크 18:06, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)

이전[5]과 비교하여 수정된 템플릿[4]의 문제는 이전 템플릿[4]에서 "제안된 삭제를 방지할 수 있지만 [...] 이유를 설명하십시오."(나의 대담함).즉, 우려사항을 설명하고, 사용자가 해당 문제를 해결하려고 노력할 것을 제안한다.새 템플릿은 이유를 고려하지 않고 삭제 중지하는 간단한 지시처럼 읽힌다.

나는 개정된 템플릿이 더 많은 사람들에게 그것을 제거하도록 격려할 것이라고 확신한다. 하지만 그것이 좋은 일인가?만약 어떤 기사가 정당한 이유로 PRODedded 된 것이라면, 우려를 해소하지 않고 단순히 삭제하는 것은 a) 위키백과에 받아들일 수 없는 기사를 남기거나, b) 내가 언급한 특정 사례에서 그랬던 것처럼 삭제 토론을 통해 추가 작업을 만들 가능성이 높다.위키백과:삭제/실행 시도 관련 기사 - 7명의 다른 편집자가 현재 '허용' 가능성이 현실적으로 없는 내용을 평가하는 데 시간을 할애했다.

나는 이유 없이 누구나 그것을 제거할 수 있다는 PROD 개념에 전적으로 찬성한다. 하지만, 그 이유에 대해 신경 쓸 필요가 없다는 것을 보여주는 것은 부적절하다.

그것은 아마도 "좋은 통계"를 만들겠지만, 나는 그것이 유익하다고 생각하지 않는다. 또한 나는 이 재판이 단지 두 명의 사용자만이 응답한 다소 모호한 하나의 대화 페이지보다 더 광범위하게 논의되었어야 했다고 생각한다. Chzz ► 02:21, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

PROD 정책은 다음과 같이 말하고 있다: "제안된 삭제를 반대하여 영구적으로 방지하려면 기사에서 {{proposed deletion} 태그를 제거하십시오.당신은 용기를 얻었지만, 꼭...할 필요는 없다.편집 요약이나 대화 페이지에서 제안된 삭제에 동의하지 않는 이유를 설명하십시오."

그렇기 때문에 단계 후 템플릿의 다음 행은 "편집 요약이나 기사의 토크 페이지에서 그 이유를 설명하는 데 도움이 된다"는 것이다.동의하지 않을 경우 제안된 삭제 정책을 변경해 보십시오. 준수할 수 있도록 템플릿을 다시 작성해 보십시오.어쨌든 30일 테스트만 하고 끝났어.스티븐 월링(WMF) • 토크 02:45, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

법적 위협

사용자가 Duncan Lunan 페이지에 법적 위협을 가했다.이해충돌을 겪고 있는 것으로 보이며 자신의 페이지가 삭제되기를 바라는 DALunan은 [6]을 참조하십시오.에든버러 원더러 22:38, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자에게 통지함.MarnettD Talk 22:48, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[답글]

... 및 WP에 대한 우려:DOLT, 나는 그를 일시적으로 차단했을 뿐이고, 그들의 토크 페이지 (대화→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]에서 토론에 임하려고 하고 있다.

...그리고 나는 지금 OTRS에 연락했다 (대화→BWilkins tracktrack) 23:00, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• DLunan(대화 · 기여)도 같은 편집자일 가능성이 높다는 점에 유의하십시오. - The Bushranger 04:03, 2011년 12월 10일(UTC)[응답]

• 두 사람 모두에게 {{Uw-ublock 유명}}통지서를 주었다.Bwilkins, 편집자와 연락하는 것 외에 OTRS가 무엇을 필요로 하는지는 잘 모르겠지만, 티켓 추적을 원하신다면 알려주십시요. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:15, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 참고 항목:던컨 루난 (토크 · 기여) --스티븐 J. 앤더슨 (토크) 13:23, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그것도 유명해질까? - 부시 레인저 21:47, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 루난 씨는 몇 년 전부터 페이지 편집에 참여하고 있는 것 같다.며칠 전 이 편집으로 그는 WP에 다음과 같이 자신의 의사를 밝혔다.페이지를 소유하십시오.그것이 잘 안 되자 그는 그것을 백지화하고 그것에 대한 불만을 기사 본문에 올리기 시작한 것 같다.아직 그 내용에 대한 그의 이의에 장점이 있는지 자세히 살펴보지 못했다. --Steven J. Anderson (토크) 13:29, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

크립토스의 혼란

WP에 문제가 있는 경우:SPA 편집자 벡코나미스트(토크·기여)는 크립토스 기사에서 지장을 초래하고, 소스가 제대로 되지 않은 정보를 삽입하기 위해 편집-전쟁을 벌이며, 편집 요약[7]과 토크페이지에서 모두 인신공격을 하고 있다.[8][9] 내가 직접 처리하겠지만, 기사 편집(및 공격의 대상)에 관여하고 있으므로, 무임승차한 관리자의 도움을 받을 수 있다. --Elonka 04:38, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

좀 더 경험이 많은 관리자가 처리하도록 하겠지만, 이 사용자는 우리가 꼭 지켜야 할 사람이 아닌 것 같다.72시간 거리면 닿을 수 있을 거야 하지만 그리 유망하진 않아북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 04:57, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

72시간 동안 Warring 편집 및 WP:AGF 위반.이 사용자가 보다 협업적인 방식으로 행동할 의사가 있다는 징후를 보일 경우, 관리자는 조기에 차단을 해제할 수 있다.물론 내 블록은 누구나 리뷰할 수 있으니, 이 블록이 나쁜 블록인지 알려줘. --Jayron32 15:33, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 그건 합리적인 행동인 것 같아.더 이상 문제가 있으면 알려줄게. --엘론카 22:33, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

마샬 바그라미안과 바시오의 전쟁 편집

마샬 바그라마얀이라는 이름의 편집자는 마지막 편집에서 편집 전쟁을 했다([10], [11], [12]).정보원은 아케란 충돌 전에 사건이 발생했다고 주장하지만(이것이 (그 충돌의 주된 이유였을 가능성이 상당히 높다) 이용자는 논의조차 하지 않고 이 사실을 기사에서 지우고 싶어하는 것 같다.나는 이 사실을 보도하기 전에 그와 협상하고 싶지만, 그는 예레반과 카르스 기사에서 다른 파괴적인 편집을 했고, 그의 편집에 대한 논의 중에 의견 일치를 얻기 위해 거의 관심을 보이지 않았다.한 가지 특별한 경우, 기사 Kars에서 그는 아르메니아어 철자만을 반복적으로 시에 삽입했고 그의 주된 이유는 토크 페이지(매우 논란이 많은 진술)에 어떤 '협조'가 있다는 것이었다.그는 다른 편집자들이 자신의 버전을 내세우도록 내버려두고 선의로 가정하는 대신 ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], 목록이 너무 길어서 몇 년으로 거슬러 올라가지만, 올해만 위키피디아를 전쟁터로 만들었다.참고로, 사용자 마샬 바그라마얀은 아르메니아-아제르바이잔 기사에서 반복적으로 금지되어 왔다(그의 차단 리스트는 WP에서 볼 수 있다).ARBAA2) 마샬 바그람얀은 아제르바이잔-아메니아와 터키의 주제 이외에는 어떠한 편집 전쟁과 파괴적 편집에도 관여하지 않았지만, 우리가 이러한 주제에 대해 이야기할 때 그는 불행하게도 위키피디아에 대해 나쁜 행동을 보인다.

사용자의 경우:바시오 사건, 나는 그의 토크 페이지에서 이런 경고를 알아차렸다.하지만 지난 며칠 동안, 그는 분명히 이 경고에 표시된 용어를 위반했다.특히 마지막 편집에서 편집전에 임하여 기사([23], [24], [25], [26], [27])에서 소스가 잘 된 자료를 삭제하였다.불행하게도, 이러한 반전을 하기 전에, 그는 관련 기사의 토론 토크를 전혀 하지 않았다.누군가 이전 양식을 복원하면 다시 토론에 관심을 보이지 않고 다시 반전을 일으킬까 두렵다. --Verman1 (토크) 18:22, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 며칠 전 베르만1에 대한 나의 원래 보고에 대한 보복처럼 보인다.나는 이런 날조된 주장으로부터 내 자신을 방어하는데 시간을 낭비하지 않을 것이고 행정부와 중립적인 관찰자들은 내가 처음 불평할 때 베르만1의 골치 아픈 편집 행동에 관한 다른 편집자들의 논평들을 연구하는 것을 환영한다.나는 모든 사용자들을 참여시켜 토크 페이지를 사용하게 하고 그들의 관점을 수 없이 분명하게 말하려고 노력했지만 모두 소용이 없었다.그런데 내가 규칙에 따라 경기했다는 보고를 받고 있는 거야?lol --Marshal Bagramyan (대화) 18:38, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 부분을 해결된 것으로 표시하고 편집된 전쟁 게시판으로 옮기고 있는데, 그것은 애초에 어디로 가야 할 것인가 하는 것이다.그곳의 사건에는 행정관이 참석한다. m.o.p 19:04, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자를 위한 의견 제시.Verman1이 언급했듯이, 나는 2009년에 AA2 편집 제한 하에 있었다.그러나 지금까지 나는 이러한 제한, 특히 1회 되돌리기/주 단위 규칙을 고수했다.두 명의 IP가 아무런 동기부여도 없이 정보를 삭제하고 있었던 아마라스 수도원 기사는 예외다.
Verman1에 대한 코멘트.버먼, 그 기사들에 대해 나와 의논하려고 한 적 없지?그러므로 WP:AGF 그리고 내가 일을 의논할 의사가 없다고 비난하지 마라.또한 출처가 아르메니아인이기 때문에 중립이 아니라 다른 기사에서 아제르바이잔 사원에 대한 아제르바이잔의 출처를 사용한다는 주장과 함께 아르메니아 교회([28][29])에 대한 정보를 옮기는 이유를 설명할 수 있는가?지금 한 가지 더 하고 싶은 것은 왜 아르메니아 수도원 기사에서 사실상의 정보를 옮겼는가 하는 것이다.보셨다시피 디쥬르 정보를 옮기려 한 적이 없어서 편집 전쟁 혐의로 고발하는 것은 당신에게는 그다지 공평하지 않다고 생각한다. --vacio 19:36, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

외계인 vs.프레데터 편집 전쟁

At Alian vs. 프레데터(영화) 편집자는 단순히 편집 전쟁을 멈추기를 거부한다.그것은 내가 그를 반달리즘으로 되돌려야 했던 곳에 이르렀고, 그는 "만약 내 의견이 너에게 반달리즘의 가치가 있다면, 너의 의견은 나에게 반달리즘이다!"라고 말하며 되돌아갔다.편집 역사는 여기 있고, 더 확대되었고 그는 위키피디아의 지침을 따르지 않을 것이다.녹슨 AutoParts (토크) 22:59 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)

편집 및 3rr 위반을 위해 50시간 차단된 Thunderlipps(대화/논문)또 다른 관리자는 묻지 않아도 30시간 내외로 단축할 수 있지만, 나는 회전의 횟수로 인해 더 긴 시간이 필요하다고 느꼈고, "만약 내 의견이 당신에게 공공성을 파괴할 가치가 있다면, 당신의 의견은 내게는 그보다 덜하다"는 요약본을 편집했는데, 이것은 그들이 더위를 식히는데 평소보다 조금 더 긴 시간이 필요하다는 신호다.아직 이 문제를 해결했다고 표시하지 맙시다. 다른 관리자들이 이 블록을 줄이기를 원하면 나는 조금 더 많은 도움을 주고 싶다.Ks0stm^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:13, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 편집요약("나는 승리한다", "나는 진실만 있으면 된다" 등)을 감안할 때, 나는 좋은 블록이라고 말하고 싶다. - 부시 레인저 23:54, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

물론 편집전쟁은 용납될 수 없지만, "내가 그를 반달리즘으로 되돌려야 했던 곳에 이르렀다"는 말은 이해할 수 없다. 편집전쟁은 반달리즘이 아니다.(사실 그렇다면 편집 전쟁의 다른 면을 반달리즘으로 되돌리는 것은 3RRR의 반달리즘에 대한 면제에 의해 다루어질 것이고, 이것은 단지 전쟁에서 다른 쪽이 반달리즘이라고 주장하는 양측과의 편집 전쟁을 영구화하여 면책될 것이다.) --82.19.4.7 (대화) 00:41, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그가 지금 의도적으로 되돌아가고 있었기 때문에, 그것은 그가 이성적인 논의에는 관심이 없다는 것을 의미한다고 말했다.녹슨 AutoParts (토크) 2:35 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)

다시 한번 편집 전쟁에 어느 쪽이든 투입하면 그들은 다른 편집자들이 진실을 이해하고 싶어하지 않아서 맹목적으로 되돌아가고 따라서 반달리즘이라고 주장할 수 있다.편집 전쟁은 공공 기물 파손이 아니다.당신의 되돌리기는 정말로 편집 전쟁에 뛰어드는 것일 뿐이지, 이전에 너무 많이 관여하지 않았다면, 단지 자신을 속이지 말고, 그것은 반달리즘을 되돌리는 것이라고 착각하지 마라. --82.19.4.7 (대화) 09:30, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• "그들이 열을 식히려면 평소보다 조금 더 긴 시간이 필요할지도 모른다"…음, 사실 그것은 유효한 블록 사유가 되지 않아야 한다.나는 내가 단지 여기서 트집을 잡는다는 것을 안다; 그리고 나는 블록에 동의한다 - IJS. — 체드 : ? 03:14, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

실수로 붙여넣은 포스트는 다음 포스트와 함께 삭제한다.

로버트 레빈슨

Talk할 IP 게시:로버트 레빈슨은 페르시아어로 글을 올렸으며 그의 행방에 대한 레빈슨 씨 가족에게 보내는 메시지일 수도 있다.불행하게도 구글 번역기가 나와 협조하지 않아서 나는 확신할 수 없다.누군가가 이것을 제대로 번역해서 WMF가 그것을 적절한 당국에 전달하도록 하는 것이 가능한가?피어슨 (대화) 00:48, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

IP가 이란의 어딘가로 되돌아오고 있다.온라인상의 페르시아어 번역자 중 어느 것도 도움이 되지 않는다.Calabe1992 01:48, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

구글 번역이 갑자기 들어왔다.다음 항목으로 변환:

아프가니스탄의 파르완 교도소에서 봤어

친애하는 Robert Lyvynsvn 가족에게 3년 전 나는 아프가니스탄 파르완의 감옥에서 보았다.그는 자신이 이란을 위해 스파이 활동을 한 혐의를 받고 있다고 말했다.이 영화는 새로운 것이 아니며 그가 비디오 카메라로 촬영될 당시 고문과 심문을 받으며 사우디에 있었기 때문일 것이다.

Calabe1992 01:53, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아가 아닌 당국에 정보를 제공해야 한다는 내용의 글을 올렸다.나는 그 사건에 대한 지식이 없으니, 그 말이 옳은 말이 아니라면 고쳐주십시오. --전IP (대화) 03:14, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

이란 사람들이 실제로 납치 사건에 연루되어 있고 그를 간첩이라고 비난했다고 가정할 때, 나는 포스터에 그의 지역인 미국이나 스웨덴 대사관에 연락해 달라고 부탁했다.피어슨 (대화) 04:45, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

Racconish 및 ConcernedVancouverite는 존재하지 않는 출처로부터 견적을 계속하여 수정 작업을 취소함

친애하는 행정관님,

편집자인 Racconish와 ConcernedVancouverite는 존재하지 않는 출처로부터 인용하는 것을 고집하며 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman의 기사에 대한 수정을 반복적으로 취소한다.

나는 Sockpuppetry와 COI로 고발당했다.이 두 주장 모두 불공정하고 부정확하다.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman&diff=465042298&oldid=464947464

참고 항목: 존재하지 않는 소스가 제거되고 번역이 수정됨

"아이패드를 손에 넣으셨습니까?이제 검정색 아이드레스가 필요해"밴쿠버 선: 2010년 6월 1일 페이지 C.3.ISSN 08321299.2049290071"은 존재하지 않는다.

니콜라스 A.더 밴쿠버 선의 수석 편집자인 파머는 이 기사가 사실적으로 부정확하다는 것을 확인했고 삭제되었다."아이패드를 손에 넣으셨습니까?"라는 글의 색인화.이제 검정색 아이드레스가 필요해"밴쿠버 선: 2010년 6월 1일 페이지 C.3.ISSN 08321299.ProQuest 2049290071"은 ProQuest, OCLC 및 WorldCat의 데이터베이스에서 삭제되었으며 더 이상 존재하지 않는다.

Cambio의 다음 기사는 잘못 번역되었다: "Vestirs con iPad también se puso de moda"(스페인어)레비스타 캄비오.2010년 6월 8일.게일 A237227979."데이비나 라이히만, 게렌테 데 라 엠페레사 [...] 엘 감독 크레아티보 데 라 엠페레사 에스 루크 스테디, 에스페리스타 엔 하서 프렌다스 우아함, 센시야스 이 클라시카스 파라 다비나 라이히만, 퀴엔 데사롤로 엘 콘셉트."

의 스페인어 번역.

"데이비나 라이히만, 게렌테 데 라 엠페레사 [...] 엘 감독 크레아티보 데 라 엠페레사 에스 루크 스테디, 에스페리스타 엔 하서 프렌다스 우아함, 센시야스 이 클라시카스 파라 다비나 라이히만, 퀴엔 데사롤로 엘 콘셉트."

영어로는

'데이비나 라이히만, 회사의 상무[...] 이 회사의 크리에이티브 디렉터는 여성들을 위한 우아하고 심플하고 클래식한 의류를 만드는 전문가인 루크 스테디와 그 개념을 개발한 다비나 라이히먼이다.'

상대 대명사 "quien"은 복수형 "quienes"의 단수형이다.

Cambio는 "그들이 그 개념을 개발했다"고 명시하지 않았다.Cambio는 "Davina Reichman, Quien desarrollo el concepto." – 번역본 "Davina Reichman, the conception"을 말한다.

"페이지, 엠마(2010년 11월 4일)"고전적이지만 기발한 디자인"모스만 데일리: 56쪽.2011년 11월 4일 회수했다."는 iClothing에 대해서는 언급하지 않아 관련 없는 소식통이다.

이 점에 있어서 당신의 도움에 감사한다.

진심으로, 올리비아블론드 (대화) 2011년 12월 10일 01:26 (UTC) 올리비아블론드[응답]

우선, 너는 그 두 편집자에게 이 주제를 알려야 한다.둘째로, 당신의 사용자 페이지에는 "내 이름은 올리비아다.나는 Davina의 걱정스러운 친구다.내 베테 누아르란 사람들이 논쟁하고 주목할 만한 기사들을 방해하는 것이다."라고 당신이 덧붙여 말했다[30].그것은 "나는 COI로 고발당했다... 틀렸다"와 모순된다.다비나의 친구(플리커에 사진이 있다)인 도메니코.y는 너를 다비나로 확인했다.R 플랫메이트 [31].간단히 말해, 왜 AN/I 시간을 낭비하는 거야, 데이비나는 COI에 차단되었어.그녀를 대신해서 "의식적인 친구"로 행동하는 것은 너무 지나치다.Ma®usBritish 01:33, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 동의한다(그녀가 템플릿을 망쳤음에도 불구하고 두 편집자에게 통보했다는 것을 제외한다면).나는 오래 전에 라이히만 기사를 그만 보는 것을 그만두었다. - 너무 사소한 소문에 시달렸다.---Bb23 (대화) 01:37, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에는 다소 얽힌 세 가지 주제가 있는 것 같다 (1) 다비나 라이히먼에 대한 출처에 대한 일반적인 논쟁과 특히 특정 신문기사를 인용할 수 있는지 혹은 문제의 신문이 그것을 철회했는지에 대한 논쟁이 있다.이것은 Talk에서 갈라졌다.Davina Reichman to Wikipedia:삭제 조항/데이비나 라이히먼(2차 지명)여러 편집자가 최적과는 거리가 먼 행동을 표시했다. (2) 다비나와 같은 사용자인지에 대해서는 논의가 있다.R(토크·캐릭터), 올리비아블론드(토크·캐릭터), 도메니코.y(토크·캐릭터)는 양말이나 고기 양말이며, 이와 같이 취급해야 한다.이것은 위키피디아에서 행해지고 있다.Sockpuppet 조사/Davina.올리비아블론이 다소 현명하지 않게 소싱 분쟁을 재개하여 대응하기로 한 R. (3) (2)에서 언급된 편집자들이 이해충돌을 하고 있다는 우려가 있다.쿠솝 딩글 (대화) 18:28, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

여기는 2와 3만이 중요하다.그 계정은 분명히 SPA이고 COI는 명백하다.양말이나 고기, 어느 쪽이든 나는 양말이 이 차단된 것보다 주제와 훨씬 덜 관련되는 것을 보아왔다.우리는 올리비아블런드가 플랫메이트라는 것을 알고 있다.그러나 우리는 COI의 완전한 확장을 알지 못한다 – 단지 평지동료만이 근원을 찾고 집주인의 경력에 대한 친밀한 세부사항을 아는가?올리비아B가 누군지 어떻게 알아?Davina R에 대한 직원, 심지어 PR도 아니다.우리는 그녀가 진실을 말하는 것을 믿을 수 없다는 것을 안다. 그녀 자신, 다비나 R. 그리고 다비나와 개인적인 친구인 도메니코.y는 3가지 기사의 개발에 지장을 주고 AfDs에서 투표를 했다.나는 패션에 대한 관심이 부족하여 기사에 기여하는 것에 관여하지 않았다. 나는 단지 원본 초안 중 하나에 RFF를 수행했고 Domenico.y에게 명성에 대해 설명하고 홍보물[32]을 피하라고 조언했다. Racconish와 ConsidedVancouverite가 관여하기 훨씬 전에.도메니코는 단지 그의 많은 출처들에 문제가 있는 것을 "알지" 않고, 다비나와 오랫동안의 과거와 현재의 관계에 대해 거짓말을 했다.R, 그리고 그의 COI가 갑자기 Davina가 확인되었다.R은 여기서 일을 어렵게 만들고, 그녀가 주목할 만한 것으로 여기지 않는 편집자들에게 입버릇처럼 떠들어댔고, 그래서 그녀의 블록을 매우 개인적으로 받아들였고, 그 직후에 이 기사, 편집자, 그리고 개발을 어렵게 만들기 위해 AfDs와 함께 일했던 올리비아 블론드가 그 뒤를 이었다.만약 경험이 부족한 편집자 3명이, 모두 주제와 직접적으로 관련이 있고, "Keep" 또는 "Davina와 그녀의 제품"을 외치는 것이 눈에 띄었다면, 그 다음에 COI를 억제하고 어떤 안건도 중단시킨 보고 편집자들이 있다면, 나는 그것이 무엇인지 보기 싫다.알려진 COI가 있고, 「관계 있는 친구」가 자극이나 상업적 관심 없이 알 수 있는 지식이 다소 더 많이 사용되고 있기 때문에, 이 보고서에 더 열중할 이유가 없다.올리비아 블론드는 막아야 해만약 도메니코.y가 다시 파괴되기 시작한다면, 그 역시 차단되어야 한다.문제는 해결됐습니다.나는 두 사람이 문제에 대해 불평하는 비슷한 COI는 없다고 본다. 그 불평은 보복을 목적으로 한다.그들이 사용하고 있는 자료와 출처에 대한 우려가 있을 수 있지만, 경합하는 COI 계정이 제거되면 편집자들 사이에서 정리될 수 있다.Ma®usBritish 21:06, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

사실 (1)은 다소 목적적합하다. 그 근본적인 원인이 이 페이지에 대한 문제가 아닌 내용적 논쟁이지만, 나는 그 분쟁과 관련된 여러 당사자들의 행동을 언급했기 때문이다.위키피디아에는 상당한 양의 비파괴적 행동이 있었다.삭제/Davina Reichman(2차 지명)에 대한 조항으로, 이 컨텐츠 페이지 분쟁을 추진하려는 다양한 편집자들이 작성했다.예로는 User를 들 수 있다.Davina.R, [33], [34](내용 분쟁 조정 및 불신임 고발)사용자:MarcusBritish[35] (개인적인 모욕);사용자:Racconish[36], [37], [38], [39](내용 분쟁을 미팅 수준으로 적용), 사용자:[40](다른 사용자에 대한 개인 의견).내가 여기 온 유일한 이유는 모든 토론이 너무 통제 불능이 되어 내가 직접 가져갈 뻔했기 때문이야.쿠솝 딩글 (대화) 08:00, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 말하고자 하는 것은 (1) AfDs는 미개한 발언에 근거하지 않고, 공신력, 참고자료, COI, WP와 같은 것에 관한 의견과 의견들에 근거하고 있기 때문에 무관하다는 것이다.ISNOT 프로모션 이슈 등하지만, 다비나.R은 AfD가 진행되기도 전에 그녀가 이름을 댈 수 있는 모든 편집자를 맹비난했다.아니면 좀더 적절한 묘사를 원한다면, 그녀는 선풍기에 똥을 던져넣고 생각했다. 왜냐하면 그녀는 문제가 된 기사의 주제였기 때문이다. 그것은 그녀에게 자동 불면을 허락했다.틀렸어! AfD가 시작된 순간부터의 그녀의 태도처럼 그녀의 게임 계획에도 결함이 있었어.당신이 AFD를 시작하고 "편집자는 모두 바보야!"로 그것을 열지 않고, 또한 재기를 기대하지 않는 것처럼, 당신은 구직 면접에 들어가 "모든 고용주는 바보야!"라고 외치지 않는다.그녀가 초대한 것 외에 거기에는 부당한 예의범절 문제는 없다 – 그러나 그것은 이제 오래된 소식이다.우리 모두는 몇몇 편집자들이 나를 포함하지 않고 그녀의 평판을 떨어뜨리는 데 상당한 역할을 했다는 것을 잘 알고 있다. 나는 단지 3개의 편집만 했다. 즉, 1개의 복사 편집, 2개의 되돌림, 어떤 맥락/ref 변화도 없었다. 그래서 나는 AfD 결과로부터 얻거나 잃을 것이 없었다.데이비나의 공격은 당연히 내 반응을 자극했다.다른 편집자들에 대해서는, 그들은 그들 자신을 대변할 수 있다.다비나로 봐서는.R + Domenico.y + OliviaBlond는 완전히 받아들일 수 없는 COI 결합을 형성하고, 하나는 실제 대상(상업적 이해관계를 가진), 두 명의 친한 친구(상업적 유대관계는 알려지지 않음), 그 중 하나는 내가 엄청난 양의 AGF를 향해 확장시켰고, 더 많은 편집자 중 누구라도 내가 Domenico.y를 향해 확장한 인내심을 증명할 수 있을 것이다.완전히 순진하게 보이도록 만들어졌는데, 왜냐하면 그는 우리 모두를 즐거운 게임으로 이끌었기 때문인데, 그것은 내가 위키에 대한 신뢰를 넓히는 능력에 큰 영향을 끼쳤다는 것을 인정한다. 한번 물리면 두 번 수줍어한다.그럼에도 불구하고, 그녀의 도발은 받아들여지지 않았고, 그녀가 제시한 COI를 더 확장시켰으며, 파괴적인 행동에 대한 감사 차단을 이끌어냈다.이 AN/I 스레드는 문제를 찾아 대처하기 위한 것이기 때문에, 올리비아블런드는 기사 주제에 대단한 직관을 보이는 자명한 '의식적인 친구'로, 다비나와 무관하게 편집한 적이 없기 때문에 SPA이다.COI는 위키에 대해 반대한다.그녀의 변명을 막아라.문제는 해결됐습니다.주제 마감.Ma®usBritish 08:27, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

COI와 꼭두각시에 대한 우려는 확실히 타당해 보이며, 이에 대한 조사가 필요하다.다비나의 행동.AFD에서의 R은 받아들일 수 없었고, 블록은 허용되었지만, 다른 사람들의 나쁜 행동을 용서하지 않는다."그녀가 시작했다"는 말은 정당한 변명이 아니다.쿠솝 딩글 (대화) 10:02, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

변명은 지긋지긋하다.이 실타래는 COI와 양말의 주장을 부정하기 위한 시도로 올리비아 블론드에 의해 열렸으며, 그것이 중요한 전부다.다른 건 필요없고 아래에서 다투는 쓰레기처럼 실타래만 끌고 다니는데, AFD에선 Davina에게 "f-ked"라고 말하는 사람이 없으니 그만 징징거려.11월 24일부터는 어떤 행정관도 AFD에서 불임으로 행동하지 않을 것이다. 특히 주 가해자가 현재 차단되어 있기 때문이다.그러니 애초에 내동댕이쳐질 그 막대기조차 고르지 않는 편이 나을지도 모른다.아무도 신경 쓰지 않는다.요점만 말해도, SPI에서 불평등 청구가 아직 CU나 관리자 반응을 얻지 못했고, 나는 Davina가 그럴지 의심스럽다.R 차단하고 도메니코.너는 이미 상했다.COI에 대해서는, 아주 명백하게, 당신 얼굴의 코처럼, 다시 말하지만, 그들이 COI를 논쟁하든 말든 간에, 다른 편집자들을 손가락질해서 얻을 것은 아무것도 없다. 왜냐하면 COI는 여전히 주요 쟁점이기 때문이다. 그리고 당신은 2주 늦게 여기서 문제를 제기함으로써 어떤 메달도 얻을 수 없을 것이다.COI에 집중하는 게 좋을 것 같아, 대충 훑어보고, 끝.아무도 당신의 행동 문제 결론에 관심이 없다. 하지만 COI는 여전히 사실이다.자세히 조사할 필요가 없고, 그것을 증명하는 다양한 연결고리들이 있다.그녀 자신의 사용자 페이지가 그것을 증명한다.아마 지금 당신 자신의 조언을 조금 제정하고, 이 주제가 주요 이슈로부터 사람들을 산만하게 하는 문제들로 끌어들이지 못하게 해야 할 것이다.왜냐하면 앞으로 일어날 모든 일은 당신이 이름지은 그 미개한 편집자들이 그것을 마음에 새길 것이기 때문에, 당신은 벌레 한 깡통을 열게 될 것이다.협상가나 밀고자로 위키에서 친구를 사귀기를 기대할 수는 없지만, AfD는 종결되었다.우리 모두 더 좋은 일이 있다.Ma®usBritish 10:23, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

슬프게도, 이 벌레 통조림은 이미 열려있고, 나는 공동체의 이익을 위해 몇 마리의 벌레들을 풀어내려고 노력하고 있다.MB의 반응은 다소 격앙된 것 같으며, 그는 아마도 "빌어먹을", "윙잉", "겟팅", "핑거핑", "스니치"와 같은 문구를 사용하지 않는 것이 좋을 것이다.쿠솝 딩글 (대화) 11시 12분, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

아니 그렇지 않다.여기 온 지 5개월도 안 됐는데, 강아지네, 여기 너보다 큰 개들이 있는데, 그 사람들은 그 문제에 관심이 없어.그 공동체는 어떤 얼빠진 아우시 포켓 디자이너나 그녀에 대한 그녀의 가장 친한 친구의 따분한 의견에는 관심이 없다.그리고 나쁜 믿음으로 잘못 인용하지 않는 법을 배워라. 이 문제는 나에 관한 것이 아니다. 그리고 감히 내 방식대로 책임을 떠넘기려 하지 마라!사건이 종결되었다.Ciao, Ma®usBritish 13:00, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

공동체는 호주 디자이너들에게 관심이 있을 수도 있고 없을 수도 있지만, 그것은 확실히 건설적이든 아니든 개별 편집자들의 행동에 관심이 있다.그러한 행위는 COI와 부정직을 통한 극도의 비도덕성을 통한 인형극에서부터 사소한 욕설까지 다양할 수 있다.나는 다른 편집자들이 아무리 크더라도 MB의 개에게 어떻게 생각해야 할지 말 것을 묻지 않고 이 문제에 관심이 있는지 여부를 결정할 수 있다고 확신한다.쿠솝 딩글 (대화) 13:13, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:HORSMEAT WP:MYOB Ma®usBritish 13:24, 2011년 12월 11일(UTC)[응답]

• - 코멘트 - 올리비아 블론드의 코멘트가 꽤 맞는 것 같다.두 편의 기사에서 주제가 파트너였다고 진술했는데, 이것은 주제가 논쟁을 벌였고 주제가 기사를 삭제한 것으로 보인다.일부 위키 편집자들은 이 주제에 대해 지나치게 관여하고 있으며, 약간 잘못된 보도인 것처럼 보이는 것을 계속 반복하기를 고집하고 있다.Youreycan (대화)20:17, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

적어도 그런 취지의 프리마 케이스가 있다.쿠솝 딩글 (대화) 11시 12분, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• 관심 있는 모든 사람들을 위한 짧은 이야기:올리비아 블론드는 기사 제목에 COI가 있어그 논문은 매우 주목할 만한 것이 가장 좋다.이 기사에 관심을 갖는 사람들은 다비나와 그녀의 친구들, 그리고 이 헛소리를 우연히 발견한 몇 명의 무작위 편집자들뿐이다.엄청난 시간 낭비야.--밀로운트 • 16:31, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]
• 의견 - 두 개의 계정이 기술적으로 상호 교환될 수 있음을 확인하는 CU로 SPI가 폐쇄되었으며, 세 번째 계정은 여기에서 이루어질 가능성이 높다[41].ANI와 직접 관련되지는 않았지만, 관련 계정 그룹이 기사를 철회했다고 주장하며 반복적으로 삭제한 자료에 대한 비난이 제기되어 왔기 때문에, 나는 여기 기록 보관소에 있는 그 문제에 대한 내 자신의 연구에 관한 기사의 토크 페이지에 글을 올렸다. [42].ANI 문제보다는 내용 문제로 보이는 만큼 해당 기사의 토크 페이지에 기사 인용에 대한 논의를 계속하는 것이 최선이라고 생각한다.ConnectedVancouverite (대화) 16:37, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

올리비아는 이제 완전히 봉쇄되었으니, 이 ANI는 닫아야 한다.Davina와 연결되지 않은 사람은 어떠한 콘텐츠 분쟁도 해결할 수 있고 삶은 계속될 것이다.--Milowent • 16:41, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

내 아들 마샬, 내 아들 에미넴 문제

이전에 다른 편집기를 세 번 되돌렸기 때문에 사용자:이크스터는 내가 제거한 콘텐츠에 내가 직접 추가한 콘텐츠를 다시 추가해 3RR에 태그가 붙었다.태그가 붙은 정보는 DYK에 해당하지 않도록 만들 것이라고 설명했다.SL93 (대화) 02:26, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

3RR 위반이라 되돌아왔다.이크스터 (대화) 02:30, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 실제로 3RR을 위반하지 않는다.내가 추가한 콘텐츠에서 편집자 태그를 제거하는 것으로 시작했어.그리고 나서 나는 태그 때문에 그리고 DYK에서 그것을 원했기 때문에 내용물을 제거하기로 결정했다.SL93 (대화) 02:33, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

1시간도 안 되는 공간에서 만든 6번의 역전(SL93)을 세어본다.--Bbb23(토크) 02:42, 2011년 12월 10일(UTC)[응답]

마지막 세 사람은 기사가 메인페이지에 들어갈 수 있도록 되어 있었다.SL93 (대화) 02:43, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서? 그게 WP:3RR에 대한 면제 중 하나인가?와줘서 놀랐어.--Bb23 (대화) 02:46, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

특집 기사의 경우 허용된다.DYK의 경우 동일해야 한다.SL93 (대화) 02:47, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

당신이 언급하고 있는 면제 조항은 다음과 같다: "특집 기사가 메인 페이지에 나타나는 동안 편집자들이 품질을 유지하기 위해 되돌아갈 수 있는 여력이 주어진다." (강요가 추가됨.기사 메인 페이지 어디에도 없는 거지?--Bbb23 (토크) 02:50, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 다른 편집자에 의해 삭제되었다.SL93 (대화) 02:51, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 DYK 기사는 메인 페이지의 태그로 승인될 수 없다.SL93 (대화) 02:52, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

(갈등 편집) 그럼, 되돌릴 당시 메인 페이지에 있었다는 말씀이세요?그리고 나서 제거된 겁니까?메인페이지의 역사를 어떻게 보는지 잊어버리지만, 기사의 편집 요약 이력은 그렇게 읽히지 않는다.그리고 설령 맞다고 해도, 당신은 면제를 주장하고 있다는 것을 편집요약에서 분명히 해야 하고, 5번째 번복이라고 생각할 때까지 DYK에 대해서는 언급하지 않았다.--Bbb23 (토크) 02:59, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 말하는 것이 아니다.DYKs는 지명 절차를 거친다.기사는 어떤 기사 문제에서도 그 과정을 통과할 수 없다.SL93 (대화) 03:01, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서 면제는 적용되지 않는다 - 당신이 하고 싶은 일을 위한 것이 아니라, 이미 메인 페이지에 나와 있는 것을 위한 것이다.--Bb23 (대화) 03:03, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그러니까 기본적으로 성경처럼 그 규칙을 따르는 것은 내가 질 좋은 기사를 만드는 데 도움을 주지 못하게 하는 것이다.왜 그 규칙을 지적하는 것 외에 제거에 반대하십니까?SL93 (대화) 03:06, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

WP 읽기:IAR 부탁해.SL93 (대화) 03:10, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 내가 3RR을 위반했다면, 여기서 분명히 했듯이, 나는 WP에 불평할 용기가 없을 것이다.ANI. 나는 밝은 줄의 규칙으로 선전되었음에도 불구하고, 관리자들은 가끔 비상한 상황에서의 위반에 대해 편집자들에게 여유를 준다는 것을 알고 있다.하지만, 나는 메인 페이지에 있는 기사가 DYK가 되기를 원하는 것은 내가 특별한 상황을 고려하는 것이 아니라고 말해야 한다.아마도 여기 있는 다른 사람들은 나보다 당신의 입장에 더 공감하고 있을 것이다.--Bbb23 (대화) 03:14, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아를 개선하고 있어서 WP:IAR 상황.그것은 DYK에 관한 것만이 아니라, 결과적으로 기사를 개선하고 위키피디아를 약간 개선시키는 것에 관한 것이다.SL93 (대화) 03:16, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:IAR은 WP:3RR을 깨야 할 이유가 아니다.그냥 막대기를 내려놓고 잘못을 인정하면 누구나 넘어갈 수 있다.아래 내 의견을 참조하십시오.더 이상 문제가 되지 않는다.--v/r - TP 03:24, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 의도하지 않은 논평으로 나는 이것에 대해 구글링을 많이 했고 이것이 내가 생각해 낸 것이고 내가 한 것이다.나는 부인에게 줄 다른 출처를 찾을 수가 없었다.넬슨은 어떤 정보라도 정정해 달라고 아무나 고소했다.우리가 가진 원천은 믿을 만한 원천이 아닌 것 같아.책과 관련된 두 가지 소송은 1) '엄마'라는 노래를 다루기 위해 책이 작성되기 훨씬 전인 1999년부터, 2) 넬슨 부인은 2009년 자신이 책 쓰기를 도와줬다고 주장하는 다른 사람으로부터 소송을 당했다.둘 다 그녀가 썼기 때문에 이상하게 여겨지는 책의 내용을 수정하는 것은 관여하지 않았다.그래서 나는 SL93이 형을 없앤 것을 되돌리고 나서 내 논리로 내 자신을 되돌렸다.그렇게 하면 전쟁이 해결될 것이다.내 이론에 결함이 있다면, 어떤 사람은 자유롭게 나를 되돌리고 더 정보에 입각한 결정을 내릴 수 있다.--v/r - TP 02:56, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 당신의 탐색적 노력을 반복하지 않을 것이지만, 주장에 사용된 출처는 믿을 수 없다는 것에 동의한다.또한 주장 자체가 이상했다 - 그녀는 누구를 고소했는가?무엇을 바로잡기 위해서?말이 안 돼.--Bb23 (대화) 03:18, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 대답해 주시죠.WP를 읽은 후:IAR, 정말 3RR 규정을 위반할 만한 타당한 이유가 없었다고 생각하십니까?SL93 (대화) 03:21, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아니, 내 생각에 넌 한계를 벗어난 것 같아.그리고, 방금 내 토크 페이지에서 말했듯이, 위키피디아에서 나와서 뭔가를 먹어야 해.자, 이제 그만해.--Bb23 (대화) 03:25, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그리고 당신은 여전히 정책인 IAR에 의해 어떻게 진행되지 않는지 언급하지 않고 단지 WP:3RRR을 가리켰다.SL93 (대화) 03:27, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

왜냐하면 WP:IAR은 어떤 행동도 "위키피아의 개선 또는 유지"라고 말한다.편집 전쟁으로 인해 불안정한 기사가 위키피디아를 개선하지 못하고 있다.--v/r - TP 03:36, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 편집자들이 위키피디아를 개선하지 못한 내용에 대한 나의 삭제를 되돌리지 않았다면 편집 전쟁은 일어나지 않았을 것이다.SL93 (대화) 03:38, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과의 개선은 모호하다.편집 전쟁의 양쪽 모두 위키피디아를 향상시키고 있다고 느낀다.따라서 WP는 다음과 같다.IAR은 양쪽 모두에 적용될 것이다.기본적으로 WP의 경우:IAR을 WP:3RR에 적용하면 WP:3RR의 전체 목적을 무효화할 수 있다.양쪽 모두 솔직히 자신들이 위키피디아를 발전시키고 있다고 느낀다.그것이 우리가 WP:3RR을 가지고 있는 이유와 WP:IAR은 적용되지 않는다.--v/r - TP 03:41, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

3RR의 목적은 DYK에 기사가 뜨는 것을 막기 위한 것인가?그것은 200자 이상의 캐릭터로 자격이 주어질 것이다.SL93 (대화) 03:43, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:3RR과 WP에 대한 해석을 계속 해보면 어떨까?IAR, 그리고 우리는 이 대화를 다시 요약할거야 당신이 편집 전쟁때문에 끈덕지게 막혔을때.그렇게 하면 DYK 프로세스가 개선될 것이라고 생각하십니까?이번엔 막히지 않은 게 다행이다.요점을 제대로 파악하지 못하셨군요.당신은 당신의 관점에 너무 집중해서, 위키피디아의 관점에서 이것을 보는 것을 거절했다.당신은 전쟁을 편집하여 기사를 불안정하게 만들었다.편집 전쟁은 편집자들이 자신의 버전으로 되돌아감으로써 기사를 개선시키고 있다고 느끼기 때문에 일어난다.편집전쟁이란 그런 것이다.WP:IAR은 핑계나 면제로 사용될 수 있다면 매번 WP:3RRR을 완전히 우회할 것이다.WP:3RR과 같은 것은 없을 것이다.기사에 적힌 태그 문제를 해결하려면 5일이 걸린다.그것은 전쟁을 편집해야 할 이유가 아니다.하루라도 DYK의 태그에 대한 규칙은 이유가 있다.문제를 해결하지 않고 단순히 태그를 제거하여 DYK로 보낼 수는 없다.만약 당신이 그것을 얻을 수 없다면, 당신은 심각한 능력 문제를 가지고 있다.스틱을 떨어뜨리고 다시 3RR에 IAR을 사용하지 마십시오.--v/r - TP 03:48, 2011년 12월 10일(UTC)[응답]

어떤 것이 문제인지 태그 문제는 해결될 수 없다.SL93 (대화) 03:51, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

토크페이지라고?--v/r - TP 03:53, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

Eekster랑 같이 해봤는데.작동이 안 돼서 여기로 가지고 왔어.SL93 (대화) 03:54, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 나중에 보여주듯이 고칠 수 없는 것을 제거하는 것을 무능이라고 부르는 동안 너는 그것을 무능이라고 부른다.SL93 (대화) 03:57, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)WP:3RR은 메인 페이지에 기사를 얻기 위해 위반될 수 없다.줄의 끝.이것은 BLP 문제나 반달리즘의 반전이 아니었던 것 같다.그러니 제발 스틱을 내려놓고 듣기 시작하라. - 부시 레인저_{One ping only} 03:59, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(충돌 편집) 아니, 사용자와 충돌한 경우:WWGB를 태그에서 제거한 다음 User_talk:네가 3RR을 위반했다고 말한 이크스터.당신의 실수를 인정하고 논쟁의 여지가 있는 자료들을 없애고 "책의 역사에 중요하지 않은, 아니, 그래"라는 WWGB의 우려를 다루려고 의도한 것이 아니라, 그렇다.Eekster에 대한 당신의 논평은 마치 WP처럼 나타났다.제출 당시 공개되었음에도 당시 콘텐츠를 소유한다.이크스타도 잘못이 있어, 전쟁을 계속하지 말고 그냥 보고했어야 했는데, 그렇다고 해서 당신 자신의 행동을 변명할 수는 없어.그래서 나는 당신의 되돌리기를 취소하고, 다른 두 사용자가 제기한 문제를 다루는 근거를 가지고 나를 되돌린 것이다.--v/r - TP 04:02, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

알았어, 알았어.내가 어리석었지만 에세이를 가리킨다고 해서 내가 무능하다고 해서 네가 덜 무례하게 굴지는 않아.난 수천개의 기여가 있어 기사를 삭제하지 않도록 도와주고 기사를 개선하는데 넌 날 무능하다고 해정말?그리고 수천 명의 편집자와 독자를 가진 위키피디아의 견해는 정확히 무엇인가?SL93 (대화) 04:05, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 더 친절할 때 네가 그 두꺼운 네 두개골을 헤쳐나가기 위해 내가 심술궂게 굴 필요는 없었을 거야.하지만 이제 해결되었으니, 여기 쿠키를 가져라.--v/r - TP 04:16, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 위의 아주 폄하하는 쿠키를 무시한 채, 내가 이걸 맞았는지 말해봐.기사에서 문장에 태그가 추가된 것이다.이 태그들은 DYK에 대한 기사를 무효로 만들었을 것이다.그러나 문장의 출처에는 태그가 원하는 구체적인 정보가 없었다.몇 번이고 오락가락한 끝에 기사 작성자는 태그 부착자의 욕구를 충족시키기 위한 적절한 소싱을 얻는 것이 불가능하므로 기사 작성자가 문장을 완전히 삭제하기로 결정했는데, 이는 기사 작성자에게 꼭 필요한 것이 아니었기 때문이다.그리고 나서, 다른 편집자가 들어와서 그 문장을 삭제한 것을 되돌려서, 태그 등에 다시 덧붙여서, 본질적으로 DYK에 맞는 방법이 없는 불가능한 상황을 만들어냈다.그것이 맞습니까?그럼 기사 작성자는 이걸로 3RR의 임무를 맡게 되는 겁니까?WP:IAR은 확실히 이 시나리오에 적용되며, Eekster의 행동은 여기서 끔찍했다.실버스렌^C 11:34, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 요점은 SL93이 Eekster의 개입에 앞서 싸우고 있었고 어떤 전쟁인지 인정하지 않았다는 것이다.하지만, 나는 "익스타도 잘못이 있다. 그들은 전쟁을 계속하지 말고 그냥 보고했어야 했다."라고 말했다. 이크스터와 WWGB는 분명히 그 문장이 기사를 개선시켰다고 느꼈지만 인용문이 필요하다고 느꼈다.SL93은 그의 반전에서 그들의 근거를 설명하지 않았다.그러나 WP를 인용한 다음 편집 전쟁을 반드시 지적하겠다.정당하다고 느끼기 때문에 IAR.--v/r - TP 16:47, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• WP:3RR에는 사용자가 위반을 피할 수 있도록 안전장치(면제)가 내장되어 있다는 점을 지적하고 싶다.그러한 안전장치는 (WP의 "개선"이라는 모호한 언어와는 대조적으로) 백과사전을 보호하는 방향으로 나아간다.IAR). 내가 이해한 바에 의하면, WP:AIR은 극단적인 상황을 제외하고는 정책 위반의 명분으로 받아들여지는 경우가 거의 없다.여기 없어.--Bbb23 (대화) 16:54, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 나는 관여하지 않았지만, 모든 사람들이 SL93에 대해 좀 심하게 구는 것 같아.이것은 당신이 DYK를 위해 3RR을 위반할 수 있는지에 대한 문제가 아니다.SL93의 WWGB와의 간략한 편집 전쟁 동안 WWGB는 이 문장을 삭제하거나, 또는, 이를 금지하고, 태그를 붙이는 것을 제안했다.SL93은 처음에는 이 두 제안에 모두 동의하지 않았고 여러 번 (3RR을 위반) 되돌렸다.그러나 SL93은 이후 형량을 없애야 한다는 데 합의하며 전쟁을 인정했다.이것으로 편집전쟁이 끝났어야 했는데, (기사를 이전에 편집하지 않았던) 이크스터는 다시 문장 & 태그가 있는 버전으로 되돌아갔다.Eekster는 물론 SL93과 WWGB에 의해 확립된 합의에 동의하지 않는 것은 환영할 만하지만, 내가 보기엔 여기서 일어난 일처럼 보이지 않는다.대신 이크스터가 편집 이력을 잘못 해석한 것으로 보이며, SL93이 편집 전쟁을 종식시키기보다는 계속하고 있다고 생각했다.Eekster는 계속해서 SL93이 현재 WWGB가 제안하는 버전과 WWGB가 이의를 제기하지 않는 버전에 동의하고 있다는 것을 눈치채지 못한 채 SL93이 3RR을 위반하고 있다고 말했다.그건 내가 이크스터의 토크 페이지에서 편집 내역과 코멘트를 읽은 거야.FCSundae ∨^☃ (대화) 19:27, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 맞아, 난 SL93의 이 두 편집본을 놓쳤어.그것은 여전히 이전의 전쟁에서의 SL93을 용서하지 않는다.그러나 Eekster가 득보다 더 많은 문제를 일으켰다는 것은 이 ANI 통보에 더 큰 비중을 두고 있다.--v/r - TP 19:38, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내가 보기에 SL93은 편집 전쟁을 자임하고 양보함으로써 부분적으로 "해결"된다.Eekster는 명백한 3RR 위반으로 되돌리기 전에 편집 이력을 더 주의해서 살펴보는 것에 주의를 기울여야 할 것이다. 그러나 그것은 복잡한 경우였고 SL93은 Eekster의 토크 페이지에서 그것을 잘 설명하지 않았다.어쨌든 (TParis가 끼어든 덕분에) 모두가 현재 버전에 만족하고 있는 것 같아 이 문제는 대부분 해결되었다.FCSundae ∨^☃ (대화) 19:49, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• SL93의 가장 혹독한 비평가 중 한 사람으로서, 나는 그가 기사 페이지에서 한 일에 대해 별로 반대하지 않는다.나는 또한 그가 WP에 보고된 적이 없다는 것에 주목한다.AN3. 나의 주된 문제는 그가 WP에 근거한 규칙을 어길 수 있다는 생각에 완강히 매달리는 동안 그의 행동이었다.IAR은 단지 그가 DYK에 기사를 지명하고 싶어하기 때문이다.어쨌든, 나는 여전히 누군가 곤경에 처한 것을 보는 것을 싫어하기 때문에 부분적인 "복제"는 그의 기분을 조금이나마 좋게 해줄 것이라고 생각하는데, 그것은 괜찮다.--Bbb23 (대화) 20:00, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, IAR은 3RR을 무시해도 돼.그러나 그것이 어떻게든 백과사전을 개선시킬 수 있을 경우에만 그렇게 할 수 있다.실제로 그런 일이 일어난 경우를 몇 번 본 적이 있어!

그러나, 이 경우, 나는 앞뒤로 되돌리는 것이 상황을 개선시키지 않는다는 인상을 받기 때문에 IAR은 적용되지 않는다.IAR 위반으로 (IAR에 따라) 쌍방을 차단하는 것은 흥미로울 것이다... 하지만 좀 더 구체적인 TLA의 이름을 댈 수 있을 것 같다;-)

하지만 지금은 상황이 냉각되고 있다는 것을 이해한다.다행이네. :-) --김브루닝 (대화) 01:52, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

솔직히 그렇게 뻔한 건 아닌 것 같아.그렇긴 하지만, 나는 그 일이 일어났을 때의 연결고리를 보고 싶다.내가 너를 믿지 않는 것은 아니지만(그렇다) 상황을 이해하고 싶다."백과사전을 개선하라"는 IAR 그 자체와 마찬가지로 너무나 모호하다.하지만 그 사건을 들추기가 너무 어렵다면 이해한다.기억은 나지만 증거를 찾는데 어려움을 겪거나, 아니면 시간이 너무 오래 걸릴 것이다.--Bb23 (대화) 02:04, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 이 모든 것은 VFD (삭제 목적) , VFD'ed 위키백과:2007년 이전에 삭제하기 위해 WETA를 복제한 모든 사람의 엉덩이를 걷어차라. (Wikipedia: 참조: 위키백과:제안된 정책이 많은 지지를 받았음에도 불구하고 삭제/2007년 이전에 삭제하기 위해 WETA를 리노미네이트한 모든 사람의 엉덩이를 걷어차는 조항.그래서 결국 나는 삭제된 정책을 시행하는 것을 발견한 유일한 관리자였다. %-) 그리고 그것은 시작에 불과했다.당신은 아마도 거기서 이벤트와 개별적인 편집을 따를 수 있을 것이다.

요컨대:일부 트롤들이 위키백과 절차를 조작하고 있는 것으로 밝혀졌기 때문에, 우리는 그들을 다시 다리 밑에 넣기 위해 많은 IAR을 해야 했다 ^;;;;

비슷한 맥락에서, 나는 또한 IAR;-) [43][44] --김브루닝 (대화) 06:09, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]을 위반하여 누군가를 차단한 유일한 관리자라고 주장한다.

WP:IAR은 어떤 편집 전쟁의 변명이 아니다.이렇게 간단하다.모든 선의의 편집 전쟁은 하나의 단순한 교장으로 귀결된다...양쪽 모두 그들이 백과사전을 발전시키고 있다고 느낀다.WP:IAR은 양쪽이 위키피디아에 해를 끼치는 기사를 불안정하게 만드는 편집 전쟁을 계속할 수 있도록 한다.그러므로 개선하지 않는다.어떤 나쁜 믿음의 편집 전쟁도 공공 기물 파손이 될 것이고 면책특례에 의해 다루어질 것이다.위키피디아에는 마감일이 없으며, 메인페이지의 내용을 제외하고, 항상 컨텐츠를 토의할 시간이 있다.--v/r - TP 13:37, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 첫 번째 근사치에서는 양쪽이 백과사전을 개선하려고 노력하고 있지만, 이어지는 편집 전쟁을 보면, 정말로 그렇지 않다는 것을 알 수 있다.그래서 IAR은 이 경우 허락하지 않는다. ;;-) --김브루닝 (대화) 19:10, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

대화 중단:사용자별 무함마드:구립

WP:TPO는 자신의 토크 페이지에서도 의미를 바꾸기 위해 다른 사람의 코멘트를 편집하거나 이동하지 말 것을 명시하고 있다.

원본 편집: [45]

사용자에 의한 편집의 차이:이전 IP:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]

유사, 오늘 초: [49]

누군가 전자를 설득할 수 있을까?그 토크 페이지에서 잠시 쉴 IP?이런 장난이 없으면 토론이 상당히 어렵다.건배, --JN466 03:49, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

오, 뒤뚱뒤뚱.이전IP는 당신과 루드비히스2가 불필요하게 이미지로 지적하는 주장을 했다고 잽을 들이고 있다...Ludwigs 특히 파일 삽입과 함께:캘빈클라인.jpghere의 남성 모델 존 퀸랜.이것은 AN/I에 대해 언급할 일이 아니다, esp는 당신이 사전에 그에게 문제를 제기하려고 시도하지 않았기 때문이다.Tarc (대화) 04:23, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

도움이 안 돼, 타크기사에 포함시키기 위한 진지한 제안이 아니었을지도 모른다는 점에서 루드비히스2의 이미지 삽입도 도움이 되지 않았다는 데 동의할 수 있을 것이다.그러나 그 토론 페이지의 많은 편집자들은 이미 냉정하고 냉정하게 문제를 토론하기에 충분한 어려움을 가지고 있다.편집자들이 그 위에 서로의 글을 조작하도록 하는 것은 문제 해결에 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.나는 내가 실제로 썼던 것, 즉 우리가 지금 그러한 이미지들을 추가하는 것을 고려하고 있기 때문에 다른 편집자들에게 적절한 정보인 것을 두 번 복원했고 그때마다 그는 다시 그 게시물을 파괴했다.그것은 지금도 파손되어 있다.테이크 아웃 메뉴?나는 반대되는 명확한 증거 후에 편집자의 신임을 받아야 한다고 생각하지 않는다.

내가 보기엔 서로의 토크 페이지 게시물을 위변조하지 않는 것은 밝은 선인데, 그는 한 시간여 만에 세 번이나 그 선을 넘었다.만약 그가 말다툼이 부족하거나, 시민적으로 토론할 수 없다면, 그는 페이지 파괴 행위를 이야기하기 보다는 휴식을 취해야 한다.건배, --JN466 05:25, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

가장 좋은 계획은 아마도 이미지 토크 페이지가 "기사 보호관찰"을 받지 않은 관리자의 감시 하에 두는 것일 것이다.위키백과의 일반적인 규범 밖에 있는 다중 사용자로부터 너무 많은 혼란이 있다.그것은 정기적인 편집자의 어떤 유용한 토론도 막거나, 익사하거나, 막는다.Mathsci (대화) 13:58, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

개인적으로 나는 전자가 아니라고 생각한다.IP의 변화는 도움이 되었고 이의 제기 후에도 계속하는 것은 좋지 않은 생각이었다.그러나 나는 이것을 누군가의 의견을 바꾸는 명백한 사례라고 여기지 않을 것이다.이미지 캡션이 서명되지 않았기 때문에 출처를 보지 않고 누가 그것을 거기에 넣었는지 알기는 어렵다.게다가 그 이미지들은 당신의 코멘트와 알란스코트워커의 코멘트 사이에 위치했다.그리고 너의 코멘트도 사실 이미지를 언급하지는 않았다.따라서 출처를 보더라도 이력을 확인하지 않고 누가 추가했는지는 정확히 알 수 없다.다시 말해서, 그렇게 나타나는 이미지들에 대해서는, 그것들이 당신의 코멘트의 일부분이라면, 당신은 정말로 명확하게 할 필요가 있다.닐 아인 (대화) 14:28, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

사진이 스팸인 것 같아.하지만 지금 그대로 두겠다. --이전IP (대화) 14:22, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

물론, 위키피디아에서 무함마드 이미지의 문제가 논의되고 있다.중재/요청/사례#무함마드_이미지즈. -- 지우개헤드1 <토크> 18:42, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

Wicka Wicka가 약속한 Sockpupetry와 편집 전쟁

사용자가 이 약속을 평가할 수 있는가?Wicka Wicka는 어떤 조치가 필요한지 판단하기 위해?나는 전쟁을 편집하겠다는 약속에 별로 개의치 않지만 "나는 여러 개의 계정을 가지고 있고 기사를 적절하고 논리적 위치[강조 추가]로 다시 바꿀 것"이라는 무뚝뚝한 인정은 불안하고 잠재적으로 행동할 수 있다.ElKevbo (대화) 14:28, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Wicka Wicka vs 사용성보다 타이포그래피를 우선시하는 이들의 논쟁에 확실히 동조한다.그렇기는 하지만, 나는 그 "세 개의 계정"들이 실제로 나타나서 무언가를 할 때까지 기다리는 것만이 유일한 방법이라고 생각한다.—Kww(대화) 14:50, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

CU를 통해 잠자는 사람을 본 적이 없지만, 여러 계정이 악용되었다고 생각되면 SPI를 신청하십시오.WilliamH (대화) 15:24, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

타이포그래피에 대해서, 그것은 리디렉션으로 해결할 수 없는 것인가? - 보잉! 제베디 (대화) 17:01, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

WW의 논평은 완전히 받아들일 수 없었다.도대체 어떻게 동료 사용자들을 '딥슈트'라고 부르지 않고 독성 있는 편집 환경을 만들지 않는 것일까?나는 적어도 단기간의 블록이 요구될 것이라고 생각한다.위키피디아에는 불온함을 위한 공간이 없다. - 잭 세바스찬 (대화) 18:01, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답하라]

위카위카는 2010년 5월 입사한 이후 이 계정에서 총 307건의 편집을 마쳤으며, 이 중 대부분은 아이유 기사다.그가 다른 계정을 사용하지 않고 307이 그의 편집의 진정한 인물이라고 가정할 때, 짧은(24시간?) 블록은 그의 대립적인 행동과 양말풀이 위협은 용납되지 않을 것이라는 것을 그에게 전달하기 위해 여기 있을 것이다.Jrcla2 (토크) 18:17, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

위카 위카는 경고를 받았다.—Kww(대화) 22:19, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 대화 빠른 삭제 요청:이 페이지는 Avertising에 사용되는 itsrsu

동일한 사용자로부터 다음과 같은 광고를 몇 가지 추가했다.Itsrsu, 기본적으로 이 모든 사용자의 기여:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reflexology&diff=prev&oldid=446463613
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godwin%27s_law&diff=prev&oldid=450247135
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP_America_Production_Co._v._Burton&diff=prev&oldid=460405377
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspen_Dental&diff=prev&oldid=462876530
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperbaric_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=465090200
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiation_protection&diff=prev&oldid=465308790

나는 그의 토크 페이지가 광고에도 사용된다는 것을 알게 되었고 (아카이브 버전) 나는 그것을 제거하기 위해 태그를 달았다(User talk:잇츠르).

콘래드메이휴(토크) 17:50, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

수정사항이 삭제되어 사용자에게 경고함. m.o.p 18:40, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

하버드/사이언스 포 광고

나는 어떤 문제를 ANI에 가져와서 "위키드라마"를 일으키는 것을 주저하지만, 나는 이 "사건"에 너무 당황해서 어디로 가야 할지 모르겠다.간단히 말해서, 나는 로그인했고 외부적으로 영향을 받는 연구 프로젝트에 대한 광고를 받았다.나는 외부 광고주로부터의 광고가 이제 위키피디아에서 받아들여졌다는 이전의 통지는 없었다 - 심지어 포스트닥 학생들을 의미하는 "게임 이론" 경제 시험에서도 말이다.관련 두 가지 특집 프로그램인 Science Po (프랑스 정부의 공적 자금 지원)와 하버드 대학 (예: [지역]과 같은 외부 영향이 많은 사립 대학)과 같은 기관들이 위키피디아 기고자들을 눈에 띄게 광고하고 잠재적으로 영향을 미칠 수 있도록 허용하는 것은 전적으로 용납할 수 없다. (우리가 파트너를 발표했다고 상상해 보십시오.)빌 게이츠 재단과 함께 선적하여 로그인한 사용자들을 위한 광고/설문을 표시한다. 내 눈에는 이것이 정확히 같다.)

나는 다른 기고자들에게 번거로운 일이 되고 싶지는 않지만, 나는 이러한 분야에 대한 우리의 정책이 매우 중요하다고 생각하고 이런 종류의 의심스러운 광고에 강력히 반대한다.나는 관리자나 누가 관련 권한을 가지고 있는지가 명확하고 충분히 광범위한 (즉, 잠재적으로 영향을 받는 모든 참가자에게 통지!) 그러한 광고에 대한 통지가 있을 때까지 그들을 재활성화시킬 수 있도록 합의되지 않는 한, 그리고 그 광고에 대해 즉시 불능화 할 것을 요청하고 싶다.(주: 나는 이 게시물에 광고의 스크린샷을 포함하려고 노력했지만, 분명히 2000개 이상의 건설적인 편집은 내가 스팸 발송자일 수 있는 위험에 비하면 아무것도 아니다. 그래서 나는 그러한 링크를 어떻게 포함하는지 알아낼 수 없다. 만약 당신이 이 광고를 보지 않았다면 나에게 연락해서 사본을 보내줄게!)Ajbp (대화) 01:11, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

참조: meta:연구:다이내믹스_of_온라인_Online_상호 작용_and_Behavior ; 메타에서 토론:리서치 토크:다이내믹스_of_온라인_Online_상호 작용_and_Behavior

잠재적인 포레스트파이어를 잠재우는 것을 돕기 위해 이 말을 퍼트려주십시오.제롬은 배너에 적절한 링크를 걸기 위해 노력하고 있다.사람들이 위의 토론 페이지에서 이 질문이 어디서 또 튀어나오고 있는지 보고 토론 중앙 집중화에 도움을 줄 수 있는가?고마워! --김브루닝 (대화) 01:43, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

개인적으로, 나는 이것이 잘못되었다고 보지 않는다; 그것은 합법적인 과학 연구를 위한 모집이고, 그것의 방법론은 조사되었고, 우리는 교육 자원이다.나는 "위키피디아 편집자에 기록"으로 편향된 모집단에서 스스로 선택한 표본의 타당성에 대해 한두 가지 질문이 있을 수 있지만, 나는 그들이 참가자들에게 이 특정 프로필을 원하거나 이것이 도입될 것 같은 편견을 허용한다고 가정하고 있다.

헥, 내가 참여했어.다소 재미있는 운동이었다(게임 이론에 익숙해서 다소 '치유'하는 느낌이 들긴 했지만).:-) — Coren 01:57, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 이런 종류의 게임/스터디들은 게임 이론에 대한 지식이 당신을 도울 수 없도록 설계되어 있다. (머크 - 나는 당신이 완전한 더미라면 그럴 수 있다고 생각하지만, 어쨌든 게임 이론을 공부하지는 않을 것이다.)아래 댓글에 따라 관련 기사와 연계되는 것은 피하겠다.하지만, 예를 들어, 만약 그들이 위키프로젝트를 얻으려 했다면 좋았을 텐데.경제학 또는 위키프로젝트:게이머티리가 이걸 가지고 탑승한 후에 모든 사람들이 알게 됐어. 자원봉사 마렉 03:30, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

간단히 말해서, [50]은 참가자가 아직 참가하지 않았을 수 있는 다른 사람들에게 영향을 주지 않기 위해 연구에 무엇이 포함되었는지에 대해 논의해서는 안 된다고 말한다.위의 링크에 따라 BTW는 여기 위키백과 A에서 논의되었다.관리자의 공지 게시판/아카이브222#토크 페이지 공지사항 게시 시점부터 더 많은 정보를 제공할지라도 연구 시작을 위해 관리자의 조언을 요청하는 조사자.닐 아인(토크) 02:03, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

'의사결정 실험'이 게임 이론 연구를 지칭하는 것은 매우 빈약한 비밀일 것이다, 정말로. :-) 그들이 선호하는 실제적인 실체적 연습은 사전에 공유되지 않을 것이다.— 코렌^(talk) 02:05, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

연구에 게임 이론적 측면이 있다는 "포기"가 그렇게 큰 거래는 아니라는 사실에 대해서는 옳다(지옥, 인간의 행동에 대한 어떤 연구도 게임 이론적 측면이 있다).그러나, 실제로 여러분이 처음에 알지 못하는 매우 중요한 정보가 있고, 여러분이 일을 마친 후에만 알게 되는 것이 있다(어디서 통보를 놓친 경우가 아니라면), 여러분의 선택에 잠재적으로 영향을 미칠 수 있고, 윤리적인 질문을 수반하는 것이 있다.연구를 설계한 사람들이 외부적으로 어떤 종류의 인간 대상 윤리 위원회에 의해 이것을 실행했을 거라고 추측하지만...그들이 위키피디아에서 모집하고 있기 때문에, 나는 누구에게도 확신할 수 없지만, 이것은 위키피디아가 이런 종류의 노력에 적합하지 않을 수도 있다는 것을 시사한다.

나는 사람들이 이 일이 다른 어떤 것보다도 갑자기 나왔다는 사실에 더 짜증이 난다고 생각한다. 자원봉사 마렉 03:30, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

확실히 하기 위해, 나는 너의 코멘트를 언급하는 것이 아니다.(실제로 당신의 댓글을 보기 전에 그 글을 올릴까 생각 중이었습니다.)그러나 이 실이 쉽게 사람들이 연구의 세부사항에 대해 토론하고 싶어하는 장소가 될 수 있을 것 같아, 나는 그것을 중단하기를 희망했다.닐 아인(토크) 02:07, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

하지만 그 블로그 포스트는 구속력이 있는 계약은 아니에요.연구자들이 배울 수 있는 유일한 방법은 그들의 실수로부터 배우는 것이다.

원칙적으로는 반대하지 않기 때문에 너무 투덜대는 소리 하고 싶지 않다.그런데 왜 자주 묻는 질문이 없는 걸까?이 연구의 목적은 무엇인가?어떻게 자금이 조달되는가?WMF는 급여를 받고 있는가?그렇지 않다면 왜 이런 일이 생기는가? --이전IP (토크) 02:10, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

물론 구속력 있는 협정은 아니지만 나는 여기 있는 사람들이 알고 싶어할지도 모른다고 생각했고, 실제로 그것이 꽤 명백하지만, 어떤 사람들은 토론이 없는 것을 선호할 것이라는 생각은 들지 않았다.나는 연구자들이 배우고 싶어하지 않는다고 생각하지는 않지만, 그들은 실제 연구에 대한 어떠한 논의도 그들에게 직접 이메일로 보내거나 그것이 끝난 후까지 기다릴 것이라고 가정한다.닐 아인(토크) 07:08, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

스팸은 스팸이다... 그래서 짐보는 그의 마지막 모금 광고에서 위키피디아는 광고를 받지 않는다고 했을 때 그냥 농담한 것처럼 보일 것이다. (그리고 연구원들은 자발적 대응 편견을 읽었어야 했다...) 제라드 (토크) 02:18, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그 배너는 스팸성이므로 가능한 한 빨리 제거해야 한다.짐보가 이 그룹과 친분이 있어 상황은 더욱 악화되고 있다.그들에게 이런 자리에 자부심을 주는 것은 우리의 청렴함을 손상시키고 용납되어서는 안 된다.이게 몰래 들어온 건 아무 의미도 없이.위키 컨센서스나 토론은 충격적이다.ThemFromSpace 02:52, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

너무 일찍 말했는데, 이제 보니 엔에 대한 논의가 있었던 것 같다.얼마 전, WMF가 아닌 참가자들 대다수가 이 생각에 반대하면서 위키[51]ThemFromSpace 02:56, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

공정하게 말하면, 일부 반대자들은 당시에 구체적으로 그들의 생각을 넘어 Nil Einne (토크) 07:08, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]을 스팸으로 보낼 생각이었다.

버크만은 멋진 연구를 하는 멋진 사람들이며, 위키피디아에 많은 도움을 주었다.WMF는 우리에게 먼저 친절하게 요청하지 않고 그들에게 허락했다.내가 가까운 미래에 횃불과 피치포크를 제안하는 동안..어떤 사람들은...아직 버크먼이 그들의 일을 하게 내버려두고, 여기서 희생자가 되지 않게 할 방법을 강구할 수 있기를 바란다. --김브루닝 (대화) 03:10, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

토론을 중앙 집중화할 수 있는 위치

안구는 현재 WP와 메타에서 적어도 3개의 다른 위치에 걸쳐 있다.포레스트파이어를 막으려면 한 곳으로 통폐합해야 한다.모든 사용자를 해당 한 위치에 자유롭게 연결하십시오. (ANI 및 VP 페이지는 순간적으로 삭제되며 최상의 위치는 결코 아님), 메타 페이지는 이 주제에 대한 전용 페이지라는 이점이 있다.더 좋은 위치가 있으면 공급해줘! :-) --김브루닝 (대화) 02:33, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

중앙집중식 토론은--> 메타:리서치 토크:다이내믹스_of_온라인_Online_상호 작용_and_Behavior --김브루닝 (대화) 02:35, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

메타에는 광고가 등장하지 않는다. --이전IP (토크) 02:27, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에 토론을 놓아라, 설명하기 어려운 관료들이 토론을 선호하는 곳보다는 실제 편집자들이 있는 곳에.비록 그것이 급진적인 제안이라는 것을 알지만.발리 얼티밋 (토크) 02:37, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 설명할 수 없는 관료도 아니고, 위키도 위키다.우리는 단지 한 장소만 있으면 모든 사람이 같은 페이지에 있을 수 있어, ;-)그러나 그렇겠지, 그렇다면 우리는 그저 <근처>의 모든 곳을 추적하고, 가능한 한 바로 이곳에서 토론을 집중화하도록 노력해야 할 것이다.논의된 장소의 전체 목록은 메타에서 유지되고 있다.Research_talk:다이내믹스_of_온라인_Online_상호 작용_and_Behavior#토론_about_the_banner.적어도 업데이트하십시오.^^; --김브루닝 (대화) 02:40, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이 링크를 클릭하는 것은 그들 중 어느 누구도 실질적인 논의를 하지 않는 것처럼 보인다.제가 뭔가를 빠뜨렸나요?가장 많은 응답은 세 명의 다른 사람들로부터 온 것 같아.이곳은 분명히 가장 좋은 곳(즉, 실제 따뜻한 몸이 있는 곳)이다.한숨 쉬어, 정말.발리 얼티밋 (토크) 02:44, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

슬프게도, 거의 사실이야즉, 이전 토론에서 가장 좋았던 것은 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study (이것은 메타 페이지에도 나와 있다) -- 킴 브루닝 (토크) 02:55, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)TeleFromSpace에서 게시한 링크와 같다.[답답하다]

왜 이 토론이 다시 열렸는가?어떤 관리 작업을 요청하고 있는가?지식탐구 (대화) 02:36, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

공지사항과 관련하여 정보를 제공해 달라는 요청인 것 같아. --이전IP (토크) 02:47, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

매혹적이다.Btw, 관련자 중 한 명을 편집하는 데 COI가 있는 것으로 보인다.위대한 짐보와 그의 친구들은 바로 그런 이유로 벨 포틴저 사람들을 블록으로 상대해 왔다.아마도 비슷한 타격이 곧 있을 것이다.(여기에 링크 [52])발리 최종 (토크) 03:12, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

어떤 거? --김브루닝 (대화) 03:13, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 여기서 중앙집권화하기로 했으니 중앙집권화 부제목을 닫을까?--김브루닝(토크) 03:13, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 이 토론을 연 이유는 커뮤니티에서 승인되거나 논의되지 않은 이들 광고(그들은 ARE 광고)를 행정관이 차단해 달라고 요청하기 위해서였다.그러나 김 위원장과 버크만 대표와의 대화를 통해 행정부는 그럴 힘이 없고 이 고시에 대한 잘못은 WMF에 있다는 것이 분명해 보인다. 그러나 나는 앞으로 그러한 실수가 발생하지 않도록 조치를 취할 수 있는 방법에 대해 더 많은 논의를 부탁한다.Ajbp (talk) —사전 작성 미날짜 코멘트 추가 03:24, 2011년 12월 9일(UTC)[답답하다]

음...아니야.이것은 중앙 집중식 토론의 장이 아니다.어떤 관리 작업을 요청하고 있는가?지식탐구 (대화) 03:17, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 중앙집중화된 토론이 이루어져야 한다거나 토론이 집중되어야 한다고 말하는 것은 아니지만, "관리자들이 관심 있는 편집자들에게 현재 연구 협력에 관한 정보를 제공할 수 있도록 주선해 줄 수 있겠느냐?"는 것은 부적절한 ANI 질문으로 보이지 않는다. --이전의 질문들은IP (대화) 03:20, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

뭘 요구하는 거지?"즉시 현수막을 철거하라."(그리고 물론, 피온 자원 봉사자들이 발언권을 가질 수 있는 기회도 있다).발리 최종 (토크) 03:22, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 OP가 아닐 수도 있지만, 나는 배너의 목적에 대한 정보가 있어야 한다고 제안하고 있다.ANI는 그것을 키우기에 다른 곳만큼 좋은 곳인 것 같다. --이전IP (대화) 03:27, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사람들은 보이는 중앙집권화를 거부하고 있다.위키백과에서 추가 논의를 참조하십시오.빌리지_펌프_(기술)#검색_배너_위키백과_리서치_위원회 ) --김브루닝 (대화) 03:29, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

위의 일부 사람들이 제기한 합법적인 광고 우려에 대한 메모

안녕, 모두들! 이 실이 시작되었으니, 나는 뛰어들고 싶었고, 이 연구를 진행하는 연구팀의 일원으로서, 우리가 여기서 성취하고자 하는 것에 대해 간단히 말해봐.이 연구는 온라인 사회 공간에서 상호작용과 행동의 역학을 이해하고자 한다.우리는 이미 2010년 3월에 위키피디아 사람들을 어떻게 이 연구 프로젝트에 참여시킬 것인가에 대한 대화를 시작했다(여기 참조).우리는 그 당시에 위키피디아 사람들에게 이 연구를 광고하기 위해 쉽게 실행할 수 있는 계획을 가지고 있었지만(즉, 사용자 토크 페이지에 개별 초대장을 게시하는 것) 커뮤니티는 이에 대해 상당히 불만족스러워했다.대신 편리한 대안으로 CentralNotice 배너를 사용하는 것이 제안되었다.그래서 우리 연구하는 절차와 방법으로 위키 미디어 연구 위원회, 버크만 센터 인터넷 및에서 저희 연구 팀에 의한 철저한 검토를 통해 갔다 사회와 SciencesPoWindows메타 파일 이번 공동 연구(내내 함께 닿는 해결책 구현을 위해 일했다, 우리가 진짜로 함께 현수막의 'caput'을 강화하기 위해 열심히 일했다먹유연한 사용자 지표에 따라 소수의 사용자에게만 CentralNotice 배너를 표시할 수 있는 코드를 개발하여 본 연구와 미래에 대한 일반적인 배너 과부하를 줄일 수 있도록 지원).현수막이 우리의 로고를 특징으로 하는 이유는 버크만 센터나 과학 포가 그들 자신을 광고하고 싶어했기 때문이 아니다(이들은 수익 연구 기관들을 위한 것이 아니다).우리의 첫 번째 배너 제안서는 우리의 로고를 특징으로 하지 않았다.그러나 우리는 단지 사람들이 누가 이 연구를 시작부터 눈에 띄는 방법으로 바로 실행하는지 알고 싶어한다는 것을 알게 되었다. 그래서 그들은 누가 이 프로젝트를 실제로 실행하고 있는지에 대한 잘못된 기대나 오해가 없도록 특히 배너가 사용자를 제3자 웹사이트로 리디렉션할 때 그렇다.몇몇 사람들에 의해 광고로 해석되어진 것에 대해 진심으로 유감스럽게 생각하지만, 우리는 여기서 선의로 행동하고 있었다...

BTY, 연구는 지금까지 잘 되어가고 있고, 나는 모든 지역 사회 구성원들에게 감사하고 싶어!아직 참여하지 않은 경우 배너를 볼 수 있는 기회를 얻으십시오.나는 우리의 결과가 끝나는 대로 다음 위키마니아를 포함한 모든 관련 문제에 대해 지역사회와 직접 토론하기를 매우 기대한다.「큰 그림」을 함께 진전시켜 주었으면 하는 큰 기대를 갖고 있다! :) 부차적인 측면에서는, 「berkman_ consider@sciences-po.fr」에서 직접 연락이 가능한 것을 생각해 보십시오.우리는 당신의 코멘트를 받고 당신이 정말로 가질 수 있는 어떤 질문에도 대답하기를 매우 고대한다.고마워!살림자 (대화) 04:03, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 여기서 전반적으로, 특히 위키백과 사용자에 대해 수집되고 있는 정보, 심지어 배너를 클릭하지만 참여하지 않는 정보들에 대해 더 나은 공개를 제공하기 위한 당신의 프로젝트의 필요성에 주목하고자 한다.그 배너를 클릭하는 간단한 행위는 숨겨진 양식 필드 제출 때문에 위키피디아 이외의 웹사이트에 위키피디아 아이디와 IP 주소를 모두 부여한다.그러한 정보는 항상 위키백과 자체에 '해설'되어 왔으며, 위키____의 누군가는 스팸메일 웹 사이트 전술을 연상시키는 것은 말할 것도 없고, 이러한 기술적 접근방식이 문제가 있다는 것을 보았어야 했다.나는 그것 자체가 사람들을 화나게 하지 않는다는 것이 놀랍다.나는 실제 웹 개발자들에게 말을 아꼈지만, 이것은 위키백과 사용자와 당신의 프로젝트 사이의 관계를 확립하기 위한 다소 기술적으로 부정한 방법으로 이해된다.(설문에 참여했고 편견은 없다.)릭스 모티스 (대화) 04:27, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에 답변: 위키백과:마을 펌프(기술)#사생활 속보 -김브루닝 (대화) 04:57, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

문제

많은 사람들이 이 배너에 문제가 있는 것은 그것이 다소 예상치 못하게 튀어나왔기 때문이다.이것은 광고처럼 보이는데, 특히 "위키피디아에는 광고가 없다"를 광고의 일부로 사용한 기금 모금 운동 직후에 나오는 불쾌한 일이다.그래서... 좋아, 만약 우리가 "비상업적" 광고가 나온다면, 내 생각엔 괜찮아.그런데 이 토론은 어디서 열렸을까?이것은 어디에서 결정되었는가?미디어위키에서?엔위키를 적극적으로 편집하는 대부분의 사람들이 관심을 기울이지 않는 것은?나는 그것에 꽤 놀랐고 전에는 이런 것을 본 적이 없다.사실 괜찮을지도 모르지만 내 말 한마디 없이 그냥 들어오는 건 절대 괜찮지 않아.그리고 만약 우리가 예상치 못한 독자들에게 "비 상업적 광고"가 떠오르게 된다면, 누가 이 특정한 광고를 결정했을까?위키피디아의 관심을 받을 만한 가치가 있는 비상업적 벤처기업들이 십여 개 있는데, 위키피디아 사람들이 서로 어떻게 상호작용을 하는지에 대한 연구도 있다.아마도 이 토론은 어디서 열렸는지 모르지만 대부분의 편집자들은 그것을 알지 못했고 이것은 확실히 '지역사회의 머리 위에' 있는 것이었다.

그리고 나는 바로 나와서 말할 것이다. 설문조사가 끝나면 당첨금을 적십자사에 기부할 기회가 있을 것이다.즉, 만약 당신이 정말로 "자비로운" 종류의 사람이라면, 당신은 가능한 한 이기적으로 설문조사를 플레이해야 한다는 것이다(설문을 하는 다른 사람들이 당신처럼 좋은지 모르기 때문에), 당신의 개인적인 당첨금을 극대화한 다음, 그 모든 것을 기부해야 한다(본질적으로, 그 과정에서 다른 사람들의 돈을 기부한다).솔직히 아까 적십자가 그런 말을 했더라면 (다른 사람들의) 돈을 조금 더 줄 수 있었을 텐데(아마도 통보가 있었을 텐데 더 이상 확인할 수 없다) 좀 화가 난다. 자원봉사 마렉 07:26, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

광고처럼 보이면 광고다.현수막에는 위키미디아가 아닌 2개 단체에 대해 로고 및 바이라인으로 "도와달라"고 적혀 있다.이 판례와 함께 WMF는 다음 번 무료 광고를 허용하도록 선택할 수 있다.구글이나 통신사와 같이 논의 중인 연구와 협업을 후원할 미래의 파트너들이 있을 예정인데, 문제는 우리의 사용자들이 로그인하여 페이지 상단에 커다란 구글 로고를 들고 있는 위키피디아를 보게 되어 기쁘냐는 것이다.이 배너 뒤의 호의와 자선의 동기와는 무관하게 위키미디어 프로젝트가 항상 광고로부터 자유로워진다는 원칙을 어떻게 구현해야 할지에 대한 판단력이 명백히 결여되어 있음을 보여준다.나는 어젯밤 RCOM과 나를 RCOM으로 돌려보낸 WMF를 지목한 DEV 대표들과 IRC에서 이 배너에 대해 토론했다; 나는 나의 불만이 부정적인 장기적 언론 영향의 가능성 때문에 위키피디아에서 명백한 광고를 삭제해 달라고 요청하는 것만큼 간단했을 때 당황스러운 반응을 보이는 것에 대해 감사하지 않는다.ay have. --Fæ (대화) 09:11, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

IERC, 누군가가 방금 로고를 붙였어. 사람들이 누가 실험을 하는지 알고 싶어할 것 같아서 말이야.AFAIK, 로고는 거의 선택 사항이고, 문제없이 제거될 수 있다.실험에 참여하라는 것이지 PO나 하버드->버크먼을 홍보하기 위한 것이 아니다.이것이 당신의 관심사 대부분을 커버할 수 있을까? --김브루닝 (대화) 10:22, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

네, 원래 배너에는 로고조차 없다고 위에서 설명했지만, 누가 조사를 하고 있는지 사람들이 알고 싶어할 것 같아 추가되었다.이것은 내가 그 현수막을 처음 보았을 때 매우 일찍부터 느꼈던 것과 같은 생각이다.그리고 진실은 그들이 옳다는 것이다.여기서 어떤 실수를 했든 간에 로고 등이 없었는지는 분명하다고 생각하는데, 사람들은 WMF 그 자체라고 생각하거나 (실제로 여전히 존재) 가짜라고 생각하거나 단순히 링크를 클릭하지 않고서는 누가 소란을 피울지 확신할 수 없다고 불평할 것이다.닐 아인 (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC) 10시 30분 / 응답

사실 언론은 별로 신경 안 쓸 것 같아.진실은 로그인한 사용자들에게 일어나는 일이 많은 사람들이 떠나겠다고 위협하는 상황에서 그것에 대한 반란이 일어나지 않는 한 그들에게 큰 걱정거리가 되지 않을 것이라는 것이다. 그리고 그것은 느린 뉴스데이(EU의 위기와 버지니아 공대 총격으로 인한 것이 아니다)가 아니라면 말이다.또한 배너가 언제 표시되는지 몇 가지 기준이 있다.글쎄, 토론에서 특정하지 않은 게 있다고만 했는데 내가 아는 사람이 계정으로 나타났는데 3개만 수정해도 못 받았어.이것은 놀라운 일이 아니다. 그렇지 않으면 어떤 조커는 단지 여러 번 참여하기 위해 1000개의 아카운트를 등록하려고 할 것이기 때문이다.(또한 무작위라고 믿는다.)다시 말해서, 단지 선호나 아주 가끔 편집하기 위해 계정을 등록한 사용자들 또한 그것을 보지 않을 것이다.I.E. 미디어가 관심을 가질 이유는 더더욱 아니다.이것은 괜찮다는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니라, 내 요점은 무뚝뚝하다.단순히 '부정적인 장기 언론 충격' 닐 아인(토크) 10:25, 2011년 12월 9일(UTC)[응답]이 있을 것 같지 않다는 것이다.

짐보가 우리는 결코 광고를 싣지 않겠다고 말할 때마다 언론에 의해 이것을 토해내려면 광고처럼 보이는 하나의 예만 있으면 된다.그것은 로그인한 편집자에게만 표시되거나 연구 후원자들을 위해서만 이 일을 한다는 것과 같은 논쟁은 얇은 정당화처럼 보일 것이다.김 위원장의 지적에 대해서는 "예, 현수막을 표준문자만 중앙통지로 대체했다면 노골적인 광고와는 훨씬 덜 닮았다"고 말했다. --F -- (토크) 10:36, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사실 나는 언론들이 IMO가 어떤 면에서는 내가 상관하는 것이 아니라 더 명확하게 광고하고 훨씬 더 광범위한 사람들에게 더 오래도록 보이는 연례 기부 배너를 훨씬 더 많이 집어던질 가능성이 있다고 생각한다.그러나 나는 언론이 신경 쓰지 않는다는 내 견해를 고수한다.위키피디아는 광고를 절대 하지 않을 것이라고 광고하는 사람들의 대부분은 무작위 블로그에서 온 것이고, 그런 사람들은 우리가 광고가 없다고 말하는 기부 배너는 광고가 아니라 그들에게 별로 중요하지 않기 때문에 논쟁을 벌이기 어렵다.사실, 기부 캠페인의 결점이 무엇이든 간에, 나는 그들이 어떻게 효과적인 캠페인을 운영할 것인지, 어떤 배너들이 효과가 있는지, 어떤 배너들이 효과가 있는지, 또 어떤 것이 안 되는지, 다시 말해 대부분의 사람들이 광고와 연관지을 수 있는 것처럼 그들 뒤에서 마케팅에 훨씬 더 많은 관심을 받는 것이 분명하다고 생각한다.이 현수막의 경우, 기부 현수막보다 그 배후에 대한 생각과 연구가 훨씬 덜하다는 것은 분명해 보인다. (그리고 제3자 얘기가 나와서 말인데, 기부 현수막이 어떻게 2008년 또는 그 배너와 일치하는 것을 언급했는지 기억하는가?)닐 아인(토크) 17:32, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

헉
광고 : (
그래서 우리는 11년이 걸렸다; 그러나 우리는 결국 그것들을 받아들인다.

Anthere (대화) 10:32, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

IERC, 누군가가 방금 로고를 붙였어. 사람들이 누가 실험을 하는지 알고 싶어할 것 같아서 말이야. AFAIK, 로고는 거의 선택 사항이고, 문제없이 제거될 수 있다. 실험에 참여하라는 것이지 PO나 하버드->버크먼을 홍보하기 위한 것이 아니다. 이것이 당신의 관심사 대부분을 커버할 수 있을까? - 아니, 그것은 심지어 그것들을 다루기 시작하지도 않는다.사실, 그것은 단지 대화를 관계없는 접선들로 바꾸려고 시도했을 뿐이다.로고가 어디서 왔는지 정말 누가 신경이나 쓰겠어?내 브라우저에 있는 팝업도 볼 수 있고, 그런 것도 몇 개 가질까?그리고 이것은 단지 "실험에 참여하는 것"일 뿐 "PO 또는 하버드->버크맨"을 홍보하는 것은 아니라는 주장이다.잘 모르겠지만, Procter-Gamble이 우리 독자들에게 "실험에 참여하라"고 요청했지만 그들의 제품을 홍보하지 않은 배너를 찰싹찰싹 때리는 것은 어떨까?요컨대, 나는 지난 6년 동안 "위키피디아에는 광고가 없다"는 이야기를 듣고 있다.지옥, 나는 불과 며칠 전 최근의 기부 운동(유사한 종류의 현수막에서 예쁜 얼굴을 가진 사람)에서 그것을 다시 보았다.그런데 갑자기, 여기 맨 위에 노골적인 광고가 떴어.

자, 이건 광고의 "좋은 종류"일 수도 있고, 이건 "스컬러 스터디"일 수도 있고, 원래 아무도 신경 쓰지 않는 로고가 있을 수도 있지만, 하지만...노골적인 광고가 나왔어다른 모든 것 - "그것은 우리의 교육적 사명을 어떻게 칭찬하는 것인가" 또는 "당신이 어떤 게임 이론(?)을 안다면 얼마나 즐거운가"에 관한 것 - 는 정말 구차한 변명일 뿐이다.

이것은 백과사전에 완전히 몰래 들어갔다.나는 이것에 대한 어떤 중요한 토론도 본 기억이 없다.누군가 파산해서 돈이 절실히 필요한가?사실, 나는 위키피디아 광고에 별 문제가 없을 사람들 중 한 명이지만, 이것이 행해지고 있는 방법은 "광고 금지" 만트라(again, again, last weekly as last weekly)를 믿으면서 지금까지 내내 공헌해 온 일반 편집자에 대한 큰 모욕일 뿐이다. 자원봉사 마렉 11:00 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 애초에 광고로 의도된 것이 아니라고 확신한다.나는 여기서 신의 가호를 받을 것이다.연구 위원회는 현수막을 내걸었던 사람들이었는데, 내 생각엔 그들은 그것을 위키피디아가 가끔 사용하는 내부 공지 배너 중 하나로 본 것 같다. 분명히 잘못된 것이다.올해 초 공정한 규모의 논의가 있었다(더 나았을 수도 있었지만).이 토론은 중앙 집중화 토론 통지가 제거되었기 때문에 여러 위치에서 실행되거나 현재 실행 중이다.이 문제에 대한 현재 및 이전 논의에 대한 자세한 내용은 다른 장소를 참조하십시오. --Kim Browning (대화) 11:05, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

미안해 김, RCOM이나 다른 비 WMF 그룹이 선호하는 기관에 대한 중앙 통지에 광고 스타일의 로고를 허용하는 명확한 지역 사회의 합의가 없었다는 것을 너에게 말해주었다.다른 조직에 대한 광고를 싣지 않는 것과 관련하여 우리의 가치를 위반하는 것으로 보이는 위키미디어 웹사이트 콘텐츠에 대한 어떠한 도전에도 대한 책임은 WMF에 있다. 다른 그룹, 포럼 또는 다른 주제에 대한 결론 없는 사전 논의를 지적하는 것은 여기서 제기된 문제를 해결하는 데 도움이 되지 않는다.WMF가 광고 스타일의 배너에 이러한 로고를 웹사이트에 싣는 것을 확고히 지지하지 않는 한, WMF는 선의를 전제로 한 원칙을 따라야 하며, 여기에서 적극적으로 도전하는 동안 이 명백한 광고를 제거해야 하며, 신뢰할 수 있는 합의가 이루어질 때까지 교체해서는 안 된다. --F -- (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답].

이것은 내가 어제 그들에게 대략 말한 것이다.그 동안, 나는 현수막(또는 다른 조치)을 수정하는 것이 물론 받아들일 수 있는 것으로 입증되기를 바라고 있다.일반적으로 나는 버크만과 사이언스 PO가 우리와 WMF 사이에 부수적인 피해가 되지 않기를 바란다 --김브루닝 (대화) 11:55, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내 생각엔 그들은 그것을 종종 위키피디아에서 사용하는 내부 공지 배너 중 하나로 본 것 같다.위키프로젝트가 독자들에게 이런 위키백과 전체의 배너를 던질 수 있는 기회를 준 적이 있는 곳을 가르쳐 주시겠습니까?만약 그렇다면, 내가 관련된 위키피디아 주제 몇 개가 있는데, 이런 종류의 노출을 좋아할 겁니다.어떻게 가입하지?솔직히, 무슨 소리야?

그리고 나는 이 "공정한 크기"의 토론에 대해 계속 듣고 있다.그 정도 크기였다면 이게 왜 이렇게 놀라울까.그 결정이 더 넓은 지역사회를 포함하지 않은 것은 꽤 명백하다(일부 사람들은 어딘가에서 서로의 등을 토닥거렸을지 모르지만 여기서 우리가 이야기하고 있는 것은 그것이 아니다. 자원봉사 마렉 11:37, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 어제 관련 rcom 사람들에게 한 말 그대로다.

그동안 우리가 배너만 잡아당기면 버크만과 사이언스 PO는 또 다른 WMF/커뮤니티 SNAFU로부터 부수적인 피해를 입게 된다.

그들은 정말 친절하고 우리를 돕는데 헌신적이다.내가 그들과 얘기했을 때, 그들은 나에게 18개월 정도의 일을 준비하는데 투입했다고 말한다.누군가가 공을 떨어뜨린 것은 정말 짜증난다.

만약 우리가 앞으로 24시간 안에 도로의 중간을 찾을 수 없다면, 음, 그렇게 될 것이고 그것은 그때가 될 것이다.그러나 무고한 구경꾼들이 짓눌리지 않도록 임시방편적인 해결책을 찾아 볼 수 있을까? :-) --김브루닝 (대화) 11:53, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 배너 광고가 여전히 존재하는 동안, 위키피디아에 계정을 가진 모든 사람들에 의해 대표되는 훨씬 더 많은 수의 순진한 구경꾼들을 고려해 볼 것을 제안한다.당신은 우리가 무료로 나눠주고 있는 배너 광고와 WMF가 권위를 갖지 않기로 선택한 인터넷 부동산에 대해 꽤 가치 있는 부분이라는 것을 인정해야 한다.여기서의 쟁점은 버크만이나 사이언스포(SciencePo)가 얼마나 좋은지 아닌, 우리가 공유된 가치에 대해 공통의 이해를 가지고 있고, 이를 고수할 준비가 되어 있는지가 되어야 한다. --Fæ (토크) 12:05, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이 값진 부동산이 큰 돈을 기꺼이 지불할 누군가에게 팔린다면 더 좋겠다는 말씀이세요?여기 히스테리가 정말 이해가 안 돼.마치 "이런, 투표 연령을 21세에서 18세로 바꿨어!다음은 태어날 때부터 의무투표가 될 것이다!"나는 이 논쟁의 진짜 기원이 WMF와 다양한 프로젝트 커뮤니티 사이의 관계 상태라고 생각한다.어떤 사람들은 WMF가 어떤 결정을 객관적으로 평가하더라도 프로젝트에 영향을 미치는 결정을 하는 것을 용납할 수 없다."권위"와의 충돌은 "그러나 그들은 나에게 먼저 물어보지 않았다!"라는 프레임의 이의 제기로 볼 수 있다.Nathan ^T 14:52, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

누군가가 어떤 종류의 권위를 가지고 있는 것처럼 행동한다고 해서, 반드시 그들이 실제로 권위를 가지고 있다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.지즈. 책에서 가장 오래된 속임수. :-P --김브루닝 (대화) 21:19, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 전에 언급했듯이, 그리고 심지어 아래 언급들을 염두에 둔 것 조차 배너가 더 자주 나타나는 것에 문제가 있다는 것을 암시하지만, 내가 개인적으로 알고 있는 것처럼 배너를 얻는 계정으로 모든 사람들이 로그인하지는 않은 것 같다.BTW 나는 현수막을 받지 않은 사람이 그것이 장애인이 되기 전에 시도하고 있었다는 것을 명확히 해야 한다.사실 나는 그들의 컴퓨터로 내 계정에 로그인했고 여전히 배너를 직접 받았다.닐 아인(토크) 17:51, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 로고 발행이 논 이슈라는 것에 동의하지 않는다.어떤 사람들은 로고가 그것을 더 나쁘게 만든다고 생각하고 있고 어떤 사람들에게는 로고가 없이 받아들여질 수도 있다고 생각한다.이것은 로고 이슈가 유일한 이슈라는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니라, 단순히 그것이 몇몇 사람들에게 토론할 가치가 있는 하나의 이슈라는 것을 의미한다.닐 아인(토크) 17:51, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

단지 다른 관점을 추가하기 위해 여기에 게시하는 것; 나는 그 현수막에 대해 화가 나지 않았고 그것에 문제가 없다고 보았다.나처럼 많은 편집자들이 속상해 하지 않고 자신의 견해를 표현할 수 있는 포럼을 찾지 않고 있으며, 여기에 글을 올리지 않고 있는 것은 당연하다.나는 여기서 표현된 견해로 추측할 수 있는 것보다 적은 수의 편집자들이 이 배너를 싫어할 가능성이 있다고 생각한다.마이크 크리스티 (대화 - 기여 - 라이브러리) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC) 14:51, 응답

누군가가 학문적 연구로서 위키백과에 관한 "poll"을 운영하기를 원했던 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.이는 "학교 및 대학 프로젝트"의 제목에 포함되므로 WP:SUP 적용.이 프로젝트는 위키피디아에 등재되어야 한다.학교와 대학 프로젝트, 그리고 그렇지 않다.문제의 본질에 대해서는 위키피디아에 광고를 하고 싶은 사람들은 글을 쓴다 우리는 이미 2010년 3월에 위키피디아인들을 이 연구 프로젝트에 참여하도록 초청하는 방법에 대해 여기서 대화를 시작했다(여기 참조). 우리는 그 당시에 위키피디아 사람들에게 이 연구를 광고하기 위해 쉽게 실행할 수 있는 계획을 가지고 있었지만(즉, 사용자 토크 페이지에 개별 초대장을 게시하는 것) 커뮤니티는 이에 대해 상당히 불만족스러워했다. 대신 편리한 대안으로 CentralNotice 배너를 사용하는 것이 제안되었다. 문제는 그들이 위키피디아를 "이 연구 프로젝트에 참여할 위키피디아인들을 초대"하기 위해 위키피디아를 사용할 권리가 있다고 가정했다는 것이다.광고에 대한 그들의 계정을 블록으로 제안하고 싶다. --존 나글 (토크) 19:18, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

급기야 연구위원회는 이런 접근법을 썼다.나는 현재 rcom이나 rcom 멤버들을 차단하는 것에 중립적이다.경고는 해도 괜찮아

그동안 우리는 실망한 양면(위키피디아와 과학자들)이 있다.우리 함께 노력해서 뭔가 알아낼 수 있을까? --김브루닝 (대화) 01:26, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 놀이의 상태에 대해서는 확실하지 않지만, 연구를 방해하는 것은 무엇이든 끔찍할 것이다.나는 정보가 충분하지 않아서 많은 사용자들이 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 모르고 흥분했다고 본다.왜냐하면, 그들에게 공평하게 말하자면, 그들은 위키피디아가 무엇을 의미하는지 예상치 못한 엄청난 위반인지에 대해 관심을 가지기 때문이다.배너를 다시 시작하는 것이 아니라 배너에 그것이 왜 있고 무엇에 관한 것인지에 대한 간단한 설명에 대한 링크를 포함시켜 유료 광고가 아님을 분명히 하는 것이 어떨까?그렇지 않다면, 어떤 경우에는 유료 광고임을 분명히 하는 것이다.그럼 아직도 불만이 있는지 확인해봐.내 생각에 동행한 정보가 잘 정리된다면 거의 없을 것 같아.우려는 제기됐지만 실제로는 반대 의견이 없는 것이 분명하기 때문에 과감하게 하는 것이 정당하다.IP (토크) 01:35, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

PS 만약 당신이 다른 선택지를 찾고 있다면, 그들은 오지 않을 것이다.내 생각에 그것은 결정적인 영향을 미치거나 연구를 포기하는 것 같아.더 나은 정보를 제공하는 것이 내 조언이다, 그게 전부다.-이전IP (토크) 02:10, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

비활성화?

좋아; 그래서 이것이 여기서 긴 논쟁으로 변하기 보다는 우리는 관리 조치가 필요한지 알 필요가 있다.CSS를 통한 배너 디스플레이를 비활성화하는 것은 (내가 VP(t) 스레드에서 지적한 바와 같이) 기술 능력 내에서이다.만약 지역사회의 합의가 추가적인 논의가 있을 때까지 배너를 사용하지 않도록 하는 것이라면, 어떤 관리자라도 그렇게 할 수 있다.어느 쪽이든 이것은 아마도 다른 장소에서 더 잘 논의될 것이다.smei-formal!투표.보류 중인 논의 배너를 일시적으로 비활성화할 것인가. --Errgent 12:36, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 내가 너무 느렸을지도 모른다(앞으로도 나 자신을 위해 현수막을 숨겼다) :P 로그에 따르면 ([53])베리아는 지난 몇 분 동안 전원을 껐다. --Errrant 12:38, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 배너가 꺼진 상태를 유지하도록 지지하십시오.ErrrantX, 나는 너의 프롤로그를 이해할 수 없다고 생각한다; 만약 여기서의 합의가 명확하다면, 이것은 합의된 것이다.당신은 우리가 다른 곳에서 다른 논의를 해야 한다고 말함으로써 의미 없는 투표를 하는 것 같은데, 그것은 오히려 이 현수막을 무력화시키겠다는 당신의 제안을 좌절시킨다.그 의도를 명확히 해주시겠습니까? --Fæ (대화) 12:42, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 아, 글쎄, 이런 배너를 허용할 것인지, 그리고 배너에 대한 지역 사회와의 논의를 요구하기 위해 통제를 시행해야 할지에 대한 긴 논의는 여기 AN/I에서 하는 것이 최선이라고 생각하지 않는다.우리에게 필요한 유일한 것은 지금 이 배너를 끌 것인지 아니면 먼저 긴 토론을 할 것인지...어차피 모두 선취되었다 :) --Errrant 12:50, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대한다. 여기서 문제는 투명성에 관한 것이다. 투명성을 제거하는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다.만약 그 결과가 그 연구를 타협하거나 가라데로 쐐기를 박는 것이라면, 그것은 선의로 행동한 연구자들에게 지극히 불공평한 일일 것이다. --이전IP (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 12시 45분 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 배너를 비활성화하는 것은 연구에 해를 끼칠 수 있고 관심 있는 사용자들은 연구에 전혀 참여하지 못하게 한다.우리가 가능한 한 빨리 필요로 하는 것은 연구에 관한 FAQ로 연결되는 감시목록 통지인데, 이것 또한 배너 자체에서 직접 연결된 것이라면 더욱 좋다.많은 이용자들이 갑자기 튀어나온 배너에 대해 불신감을 갖고 있다이 난장판에 대한 분노는 이해는 되지만 공부 자체를 방해하는 이유가 되어서는 안 된다.요에닛 (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC) 13:00[응답]

베리아 리마 볼드체로 메타의 배너를 껐다.브리온은 그 배너가 매우 드물었어야 했다고 말했지만, 100%로 간 것 같다.

내가 처음 봤을 때 생각한 거 알지?악성코드가 아닐까?내 브라우저가 도난당했다고.그것이 Linux에서 브라우징하고 있기 때문에 그럴 것 같지 않다.내 두 번째 생각은 그 사이트에 악성 자바스크립트가 삽입하고 있다는 것이었다. - 데이비드 제라드 (대화) 12:53, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

바로 그거야저도 마찬가지에요.츄우우우히:쎄브아즈86556 13:03, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

배너 비활성화 요청은 메타 관리자가 처리할 수 있다.앞으로 요청하기 위해 이 페이지를 만들었어, 메타:Meta:Central_notice_requests는 투표가 여기서 끝나면 언제든지 컨센서스 페이지에 링크를 추가하십시오.데이빗이 이미 알려준 대로 브리온과 베리아는 일단 현수막을 무력화시켰다.안부 전해요Teo10011 (대화) 13:13, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이 논의는 정당성이 없다.

왜 이 토론은 여전히 진행 중인가?관리자 조치가 요청되지 않았으며, 관리자가 배너에 대해 결정을 내릴 수 있는 특별한 권한이 없다.위의 투표는 절대 합법성이 없다.커뮤니티 토론은 관리자 게시판에서 관리자(전체 커뮤니티의 극히 일부분일 뿐)가 아닌 커뮤니티 포럼(예: 빌리지 펌프)에서 전체 커뮤니티가 결정할 필요가 있다.지식탐구 (대화) 13:20, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

어느 순간...나는 언제 그 합의가 바뀐 것 같은지 모르겠다.어제까지만 해도 I(비관리자)는 ANI 감시목록을 작성해야 할 정당한 이유가 없다고 봤다.그러나, 위의 "벨 포틴저" 토론에서 지적한 바와 같이, 킴 브루닝이 이 광고를 토론하기에 적합한 장소라고 여긴 사실(위키피디아:관리자 알림판/아카이브222#연구 시작에 대한 관리자의 조언을 요청하는 검색자) ANI가 관리자 개입+커뮤니티 게시판으로 바뀐 것으로 보인다.이에 따라 페이지 상단의 설명은 "이 페이지는 관리자와 경험이 풍부한 편집자의 개입이 필요한 영어 위키백과에서 사건을 보고하고 토론하기 위한 것"이라고 변경됐다.Gerardw (대화) 15:28, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이곳이 이 문제를 논의하기에 좋은 장소라고 생각하지 않았다.[54] [55].다른 사람들은 동의하지 않았다[56]. --김브루닝 (대화) 19:40, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

마을 펌프, 그러니까...이 포럼보다 훨씬 덜 시청된 포럼?나는 당신이 어떤 문제에 대해 광범위하고 즉각적인 커뮤니티 의견을 요청하고 싶다면 (이 경우 관리자가 필요한 사항) 여기가 바로 그 장소라고 제안한다. (그것은 단지 당신이 제안하는 대로 하기 전에 즉각적인 관리자 조치에 대한 빠른 합의를 확립하기 위한 의도였을 뿐이며, 이것을 더 넓은 지역사회 논의에 던져넣기 위한 것이었다.그러니 활짝 핀 머리를 :) --Errrant^(chat!) 14:03, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

편집자들이 공통의 토론을 지적하는 다른 전략적 위치에 공지글을 게시했다.네가 그러길 바란다.지식탐구 (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC) 14:46 [응답]

네가 거기서 무슨 말을 하는지 이해가 안 가. 구구하지 않아:) 나는 이 넓은 문제에 대해 토론을 열 계획이지만, 오늘은 아니야. --Errant^(chat!) 15:04, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

미안하지만, 나는 많은 청중들에게 다가가기 위해서는 편집자들이 공통적인 토론을 하도록 다른 전략적 위치에 공지해야 한다고 말하려고 했어.나는 네가 이것을 좀 더 넓은 공동체 토론에 참여하기를 바란다.지식탐구 (대화) 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC) 16:18, 응답

이렇게 말하는 거야?[57] [58] :-P :-P --김브루닝 (대화) 19:43, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

약속대로 프로젝트 공간에서 RFC 토론을 열어 이와 관련된 몇 가지 문제를 해결하는 데 도움을 주었다.위키백과:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notes. --Errrant 10:49, 2011년 12월 10일(UTC)[응답]

RCom 구성원의 의견

몇 분 전 파운데이션-l에서 이 실에 대해 지적받았는데, smth라고 해야 할 것 같다.당신은 내가 적극적인 en.wp 기고자인 반면, 지금 이 시점에서 나의 기여의 상당 부분이 기사 공간에 있기 때문에 나는 이 토론에 대해 정말 전에는 전혀 알지 못했다.나는 지금 RCom 멤버로서 글을 쓰고 있지만 RCom을 대표하지 않고 있으며, 사실 나는 다른 RCom 멤버들과 이 응답을 조율하지 않았다.그 말을 한 후, 나는 이 실의 창조에 이르는 일련의 사건들을 유감스럽게 생각한다.분명 한두 단계에서는 다소 오해가 있었던 것으로 보이는데, 정확히 무엇이 잘못됐는지, 앞으로 이런 오해가 생기지 않도록 어떻게 해야 할지 정리할 필요가 있을 것이다.지금 배너가 활성화되지 않은 것으로 알고 있는데, 이 문제가 활성화되기 전에 논의를 해봐야 할 것 같다.--Ymblanter (대화) 20:57, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

RCom은 6월에 그 제안을 검토했다.제안은 사용자, 특히 사용자:Lilaroja, RCom 멤버로 사용자:DarTar, RCom 멤버 및 WMF 스태프.나는 현 시점에서 (나를 포함한) 다른 RCom 멤버들 중 어느 누구도 설문조사의 세부사항이나 배너와의 논쟁에 대해 논평할 자격이 없다고 생각한다.다리오가 여기서 이용할 수 있는 파운데이션-l에 대해 댓글을 남겼다.같은 파운데이션-l 나사산에는 프로젝트를 운영하는 연구원 중 한 명이지만 RCom 멤버가 아닌 제롬의 코멘트가 있다(그는 이 실에도 코멘트를 달았다.이 실에서 거의 하루 동안 활동이 없었던 것으로 알고 있지만, 설문조사에 대한 질문에 답할 수 있는 사람들이 다시 이곳에 오도록 노력할 것이며, 이런 오해가 다시 반복되지 않도록 노력하겠다.이런 잘못된 의사소통으로 인한 불편과 혼란에 대해 사과한다.--Ymblanter (대화)20:57, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

훌륭해.우리가 해결할 수 있을 것 같아! --김브루닝 (대화) 23:13, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:케이 우웨 뵈엠, 후쿠시마 제 1 원자력 재해의 편집

이렇게 되지 않기를 바랐지만, 케이 우웨 b(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그)은 후쿠시마 제 1 원자력 재해의 주도자에 지난 며칠 동안 심하게 왜곡되고 도움이 되지 않는 자료를 추가해, 본질적으로 이러한 편집에 불가침으로 '서명'할 것을 주장하면서, 로(row)되어 왔다.토론 없이 대화 페이지에서 토론해 달라는 내용을 편집한 것을 포함하여, 삭제될 때마다 그의 자료를 다시 삽입한다.편집자는 이미 페블베드 원자로에서 유사한 행동을 한 블록 이력을 가지고 있으며, 협업이 잘 되지 않는다는 이유로 드위키에게 외설된 것으로 보인다.우리가 WP를 보고 있는지는 확실하지 않다.언어 장벽으로 인한 역량 문제, 트롤을 다루는 건지, 뭐 그런 건지는 모르겠지만, 이걸 어떻게 해야 할지 관리자 의견을 좀 더 얻을 수 있는지 알고 싶다.rdfox 76 (대화) 04:05, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, 비관리자로서, 나는 우리가 다른 문제들과 상관없이 기본적인 역량 문제를 가지고 있다는 것에 동의한다.슬프게도, 어떤 사람들은 위키피디아가 어떻게 작동하는지 이해하지 못하는 것 같고, 그들의 노력에 감사하고, 그들의 의견을 표현할 수 있는 다른 곳을 찾자고 제안하는 것 외에는 아무것도 할 수 없는 것 같다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 05:34, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

FYI. 95.88.170.214(토크 · 기여) 및 95.88.168.248(토크 · 기여)은 사용자인 것 같다.케이 우웨 ö.오다 마리 (토크) 06:17, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• 경고. --John (대화) 11:53, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자는 여전히 경고(diff, diff)에 주의를 기울이지 않고, 문제를 논의하려 하지 않는 것으로 보인다. 1 exec1 (대화) 18:18, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 일주일 동안 그를 차단했는데, 특히 여기 마크업에서 다른 편집자에 대한 모욕감을 댓글로 추가한 것에 대해서는. --GraemeL 18:22, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 나는 그것을 무기한으로 연장했다. --존 (대화) 18:44, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

법적 위협 및 잘못된 형식의 차단 해제 요청

여기. 그는 이미 외설적인 사람이지만, 관리자들은 그 협박에 대해 알아야 한다고 생각했다.노섬브리아 SPREC 21:32, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• '공헌을 발표하라'는 대목도 읽지 않은 것 같은데… - 부시 레인저 21:35, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 나는 그것을 보았다.모든 것이 매우 슬프다.나는 이것이 그가 다른 일을 할 수 있게 해주고, 우리 나머지 사람들에게 시간과 에너지를 좀 더 생산적인 일을 할 수 있게 해주기를 바란다.나는 그의 강연에서 내가 한 말에 진심이었다; 나는 그가 선의의 사람이고 그가 영어를 더 잘 이해하고 멘토(그렇지만 나는 아니다!)를 얻었다고 생각한다.미래에 여기 기여할 수 있을 겁니다현재로서는 이것이 우리가 바랄 수 있는 최선의 결과지만. --존 (대화) 22:44, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그의 무차단 요청을 수정하고 관련 정책에 대한 링크를 남겼다.노섬브리아 SPREC 23:38, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과:삭제/사용자:베란다코프터/밴 제안

관리자가 사용자를 삭제하시겠습니까?사용자의 요청에 따른 Verjorcorpter/Ban 제안서 및 삭제 근거에 MfD에 대한 링크를 포함하시겠습니까?고마워, 쿠나드 (대화) 22:34, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

블록 검토 요청됨

벨 포틴저

너도 알다시피, 홍보 회사인 벨 포틴저는 그들의 고객을 대신하여 기사를 편집하는 것이 적발되었다.지미 웨일스가 주도한 조사에 이어 윌리엄H(토크 · 기여), 키건(토크 · 기여), 체이스미 아가씨들, 나는 기병대(토크 · 기여), 파니드(토크 · 기여)의 도움을 받아 벨 포틴저(토크 · 기여)에 속하는 계정을 최소 10개 이상 확인했는데, 그중 특별히 활성화된 계정은 2개(100개 이상)에 불과하다.그들 중 어느 누구도 존경받는 공동체 구성원으로 간주되지 않았고, 투표권을 왜곡하거나 자기 확증을 넘어서는 어떠한 권리도 얻지 못했다.그들의 편집은 대부분 되돌렸다.이번 주 후반에는 상황이 좀 더 나아졌다는 보고서가 나올 것이다.

그동안 이 기사들은 벨 포틴저 계정에서 편집한 것으로, 사실의 정확성과 중립성을 확인할 필요가 있을 것이다.그것은 반드시 회사의 고객 명단이 아니며, 잘못된 긍정과 지나치게 부정적인 (긍정적인) 가중치를 가한 기사가 섞여 있을 수도 있다. 여러분이 아는 것을 골라 그것을 잘 문질러라.대부분의 기사들은 잘못된 상업적인 단락만 가지고 있을 뿐, 어떤 기사들은 더 많은 작업이 필요할 것이다.작업을 마쳤으면 이 목록에 완료로 기사를 표시하십시오.

[짐보의 주:이 과정의 일부로서, 우리는 우리의 청렴성에 대한 이러한 체계적인 공격에 어떻게 대처했는지를 스스로 평가해야 한다.결과는 "POV가 적절하게 추진되어 전체적인 영향은 없는 것으로 끝나는 것에 커뮤니티가 대응했다" 또는 "벨 포팅거가 나쁜 것을 가지고 도망쳤다" 또는 "벨 포팅거가 성공적으로 엔트리를 변경했지만 악의 없는 방법으로"와 같은 몇 가지 방법으로 분류할 수 있다.실패 여부와 시기를 탐색하는 데 가장 관심을 가져야 어떻게 개선할지 고민할 수 있다.그래서 기사의 역사를 훑어보고 그것을 표시하면{{done}}, 결과에 대한 노트 보고도 추가하십시오.]

지미, 키건, 윌리엄H, 체이스, 패니드를 대표하여 기병대(메시지미) 12:54, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

여긴 왜 온 거지?팩트체커와 편집은 관리자가 아닌 편집자 기능인 것 같다.워치리스트 위에 등장하는 배너 중 하나가 더 적합할 것 같다(예: ArbCom 선거와 같은).Gerardw (대화) 13:16, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 두 유럽 국가에서 헤드라인 뉴스로, 영국에서 큰 정치적 스캔들을 일으키고 있으며, 10개 이상의 계정에서 양말/고기 조각이 관련된다.독립 문서(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html)의 기사를 참조하십시오.논의할 곳이 필요한데, 이것은 관리자들이 관심을 가질 만한 사건이고, 관리자들이 도와줄 수 있는 사건이다.나는 솔직히 이곳이 예비 토론을 할 수 있는 가장 좋은 장소라고 생각하고, 우리가 할 수 있는 한 많은 '눈'을 붙일 수 있는 곳이라고 생각한다.기병대 (메시지 미) 13:21, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

관련된 계좌의 목록은 여기서 찾을 수 있다.WilliamH (대화) 13:26, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 편집자들이 관심을 가질 만한 사건이고, 어떤 편집자들이 도울 수 있는 사건이 아닌가?관리자보다 훨씬 더 많은 편집자가 있기 때문에, 많은 정보를 얻는 것은 모든 편집자를 대상으로 함을 의미한다.제라드 (대화) 13:28, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

네, WP:VPM에서 이런 일이 일어날 수 있다(이 곳을 일반 게시판으로 사용하는 것 같지만..) --Errrant^(chat!) 13:38, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 아는 바로는 이 게시판이 가장 많이 감시되는 게시판이기도 하다.여하튼 여러 편집자들이 이미 찾아낸 것 같다;-) The Guarmer (Message me) 13:47, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 널리 퍼진 문제라고 확신한다. 왜냐하면 우리가 전통적으로 PR 편집자들을 어떻게 대하는지 때문이다.; 이 경우 계정과 기사를 추적하는데 있어 모든 면에서 훌륭했다:) --Errrant 13:40, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

(갈등 편집) 감히 말하지만, 5000개 이상의 계정만 감시 목록에 이 페이지를 가지고 있으며, 이것은 관리자 개입을 필요로 하는 중대한 사건임을 명심하고, 이 페이지를 감시하기 위한 좋은 장소임이 분명하다.감사합니다.WilliamH (대화) 13:51, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 여기가 잘못된 장소라고 생각하는 사람들과 함께 있다.AN과 ANI의 차이를 알아내는 데 가장 오랜 시간이 걸렸지만, 결국 ANI는 '즉시 관리자 주의가 필요한 사건'을 위한 것임을 깨달았다.A은 공지사항 게시판에 더 가깝고, 매우 중요할 수 있지만 관리자의 즉각적인 조치가 반드시 필요한 것은 아니다.엄밀히 말하면, 우리는 "모든 편집자에게 매우 중요한 관심 발표"를 다룰 적절한 종류의 이사회를 가지고 있지 않다.이상적인 게시판이 없는 경우, AN은 높은 교통량 알림 게시판으로서 최선의 선택사항이지만 ANI는 아니다.그것은 나쁜 선례를 남긴다. 어떤 것이 매우 중요하다고 생각하는 사람은 누구나 그것을 많이 보아야 한다. --SPHILbrickT 14:14, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 오히려 우리가 당면한 이슈에 우선순위로 집중할 수 있기를 바라고 있었다 - 나는 이 모든 것을 WP로 옮기는 것을 검토할 것이다.대신 사람들이 그 장소를 선호한다면.여기서 중요한 문제는 이 게시판이 어떤 게시판에 게시되는지가 아니라, 고정이 필요한 기사 목록과 빠르게 진화하는 뉴스 스토리를 가지고 있다는 점이다.파킨슨 사소법칙에 얽매이지 말자!기병대 (메시지 미) 2011년 12월 8일 14:21, 8 (UTC)[응답]

조사가 관리자들의 행동으로 이어질 수 있고 따라서 이 게시판은 괜찮지만, 향후 정책 개선에 대한 안목을 가진 관리자들을 위해 일반적 영향과 일관된 일련의 조치를 고려할 수 있는 안정적인 공간으로서 이 스레드를 닫고 토론을 AN으로 옮기는 것을 지지한다.여기에 플래그를 붙인 것은 경험 많은 사람들의 관심을 빨리 끌기 위한 좋은 조치였지만, 이것은 24시간 안에 해결될 수 있는 사건 그 이상이다.Fæ (토크) 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC) 14:43[응답]

Re: "그들도 표를 왜곡하지 않았다."이 AFD를 보라.고보노보^TC 15:43, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

으으, 잘 눈에 띄워.지금 고쳤다.기병대(메시지 미) 15:51, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

우리의 관료주의적 악몽 속에서만 나는 우리가 이것이 고시에 대한 적절한 게시판인지 아닌지에 대해 토론하고 있고 고지의 내용에 대해서는 토론하지 않을 것이라고 꿈꿨다.키건 (토크) 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC) 16:00[응답]

편집자가 사용자 페이지 보호 및 되돌리기를 요청했다는 점에 유의하십시오.RFP의 Biggleswiki.RFP에서 어떤 배경지식도 없이 처리하기에는 너무 복잡하기 때문에 이 내용을 다시 참고할 생각이다.페이지 보호/복귀 시 적절한 판단을 내리십시오.말리나케르 (대화) 2011년 12월 8일 16:21, 8 (UTC)[응답]

나는 의심스러운 기사에 추가되어야 할 이 (임시) 템플릿을 만들었다.템플릿은 정리할 때 삭제해야 한다.파올로 나폴리타노 18:14, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

어, 그건 좋은 생각이 아니야. 너무 지나치게 죽였어.이것은 한 페이지에서 가장 잘 다루어진다. 즉, 템플릿에 대해 간단히 다룰 필요가 없다.사용자 페이지를 수정하거나 보호할 필요가 없음. --Errrant 21:54, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 뉴스에서 이것을 보고 즉시 ANI로 가서 관련 논의를 찾아냈는데, 그것은 당연한 일이다.그렇긴 하지만, 계좌가 막혀서 할 일이 남아 있을까?관련 기사들은 POV 검사를 받았는가?ThemFromSpace 18:12, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

POV 검사 업데이트에 대한 상태 목록을 참조하십시오.제라드 (대화) 2011년 12월 8일 18시 45분 (UTC)[응답]

보리스 베레조프스키

보리스 베레조프스키(Boris Berezovsky)는 벨 포틴저(Bell Pottinger)의 고객이며, 기사에 공인된 COI 편집자가 있다(사용자:Kolokol1) - Kolokol은 국제 시민 자유 재단의 URL이다(전쟁에 사용되는 화학 물질일 뿐만 아니라, 이 재단은 분명히 그들의 URL을 가져간다 - 반대자들에 대한 "전쟁"에 사용되고 있다).이 재단은 베레조프스키의 측근인 알렉스 골드파브가 운영하고 있는데, 그는 리트비넨코 사건 당시 베레조프스키 홍보 캠페인을 이끌면서 대중의 인정을 받았다.재단 자체도 베레조프스키가 출연한다.베레조프스키는 BP의 고객이며, 골드파브 역시 이것과 이것과 같이 PR 연습에 BP를 사용하였다.최근 영국에서 베레조프스키가 로마 아브라모비치를 수십억 달러에 고소하는 소송이 시작됐고, 사건 초기까지 이 기사는 콜로콜의 베레조프스키 인명 기사를 화이트워싱하는 것을 목격했다.

• 여기서 Kolokol1은 그들이 COI를 가지고 있는지 여부를 선언하도록 요청 받는다.
• Kolokol1은 그 질문에 직접 대답하기를 거부한다.
• 다시 질문을 받은 후, Kolokol1은 "Berezovsky씨가 공정하고 객관적으로 대우받는 것에 관심이 있다"고 말한다.
• 여기서 Kolokol1은 "기록적으로, 나는 그 주제를 포함한 몇몇 러시아 반체제 인사들과 연관되어 있다. 당신은 그것을 COI라고 부를 수 있다, 나는 상관없다"고 확인한다.
• 토크:보리스 베레조프스키(기업가)/아카이브 3번과 토크:보리스 베레조프스키(비즈니스맨)는 편집자가 인용 정책 등을 사용했던 사례들로 가득 차 있는데, 일단 이 내용을 읽고 나면 몇 가지 관점을 짚었다.Kolokol1이 WP를 이용하여 기사에서 부정적인 정보를 삭제하려는 의도였다고 기록한 사례는 많다.그렇게 하는 BLP 논리는, 매우 존경스럽고 신뢰할 수 있는 학문적 출처만을 사용했음에도 불구하고, 이것과 이것과 같이 독창적인 연구와 정보의 위조에 관여하고 있으며, 이것을 기사에 보관해야 한다고 주장했다.
• 편집자의 기사 편집은 주로 미묘한 변화가 주류를 이루었는데, 개별적으로 보면 그 주제에 대해 잘 알지 못하는 사람들에게 경종을 울리지 않는다.전체적으로 보면, 정보에 입각한 편집자의 편집은 베레조프스키의 소송에 앞서 PR 해프닝처럼 보이는데, 나는 불과 며칠 전만 해도 이 사실을 토크 페이지에 메모했다.
• 이 과목은 약간 특이한데, 영어와 러시아어 소스를 모두 사용하여 원하는 그림을 그릴 필요가 있기 때문에, 나는 BP IP가 직원들에 유창한 러시아어를 구사하지 않는 한, 아마도 BP IP가 활용될 것이라고 기대하지 않을 것이다. 하지만 이 주제에 정통한 편집자들에게 기사의 해프닝은 분명하다.그러나 베레조프스키와 관련된 매우 대중적인 법정 소송이 시작되기 전에, 인정된 COI 편집자가 그 기사에 대한 해프닝 작업을 수행하기 위해 지역 사회에 의해 자유 재위권을 부여받은 것은 분명 용납될 수 없다.Y no be Russavia 23:11, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

크라이키, 얼마 전까지만 해도 이 주제 때문에 우리에겐 변명의 여지가 없었지?(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

응, 그랬었죠.딥디시어7(토크 · 기고)은 일부 문제가 있었지만 고칠 수 없었던 기사를 확장한 후 끈덕지게 차단되었고, 콜로콜1에 의해 도매로 귀속되었다.DD7은 Kolokol1에 의해 되돌아가고 있는 정보를 계속 삽입하고 다른 편집자들(주제가 분명 생소한 사람들)이 편집 작업을 방해하는 것으로 결국 차단되었다.인정된 COI 편집자가 기사를 계속 편집할 수 있도록 허용한 것은 잘못되었으며, 특히 그들이 그것에 대해 해프닝 작업을 할 것이라고 선언했음에도 불구하고 더욱 그렇다.Yu no be Russavia 23:23, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

BWilkins, Russavia는 이미 논의된 베레조프스키 기사와 그것에 관련된 편집자들에 대한 그의 불만을 언급하기 위해 모든 기회를 갖는다.나는 정말로 이것이 이 주제와 무슨 관계가 있는지 모르겠다. (루사비아는 최근 ANI에서 상상했던 진흙 속을 행복하게 나를 끌고 가는 다른 주제에 대해 똑같은 일을 했다.)베레조프스키가 이 홍보회사의 고객이라고 가정하더라도(그것에 대한 출처는 보이지 않지만, 루사비아는 그의 말을 이따금만 뒷받침하는 익사유-인-링크 접근법을 믿고 있다), 그것이 무슨 상관이 있단 말인가?어쨌든, 신경 쓸 만큼 마조히즘적인 사람들을 위해, 여기 ANI에서 베레조프스키에 대한 이전의 몇 가지 토론이 있다: [61]과 [62].--Bbb23 (대화) 23:40, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이미 두 가지 출처가 있다.그러나 여기 분명히 다음과 같은 또 다른 것이 있다.

벨 포틴저와 관련된 계좌에 의해 변경된 다른 항목들로는 법무법인 카터 룩, 런던에 본사를 둔 러시아 과두정치인 보리스 베레조프스키, 스리랑카 중앙은행, 그리고 적어도 두 개의 대형 금융회사가 있다.

베레조프스키가 티모시_벨,_바론_벨과 절친한 친구라는 것은 어느 편집자에게나 잘 알려진 사실이며, 이러한 우정과 고객관계는 그 글에서 언급되고 소싱되기도 한다.Yu no be Russavia 23:54, 2011년 12월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

문제 기사 목록에 대한 링크는 이 주제의 오프닝에 있다.베레조프스키의 기사는 그 리스트에 있다.당신은 왜 베레조프스키 기사를 걸러내야 했고, 왜 그 기사에 대한 불평의 역사를 살펴야 했는가?베레조프스키 기사가 선정될 이유는 없다.당신이 만든 이 하위 섹션 전체가 여기 있을 일이 아니에요.너와 네 애견의 오줌뿐이야.--Bb23 (대화) 00:03, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이용자들이 여러 기사에 홍보 콘텐츠를 올리는 것에 대한 우려가 앞으로 나아가야 할 '홍보 편집 알림판'을 만들어야 한다고 생각한다.또한 홍보 편집을 위해 여러 번 플래그를 표시한 사용자는 게시판에 보고하여 적절한 조치가 취해질 수 있도록 해야 한다.파올로 나폴리타노 20:03, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

와우, 안내판 하나 더, 우리가 필요한 것 뿐이야.일종의 WP:다수의 범죄자를 위한 코인.아니길 바래.--Bbb23 (대화)20:23, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

상업적, 홍보적 편집은 일반 COI보다 훨씬 큰 이슈다.별도의 게시판을 갖음으로써 우리는 인지도를 높일 수 있고 훨씬 더 쉽게 "나쁜 놈들"을 게임에서 빼낼 수 있다.파올로 나폴리타노 20:42, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내 비아냥거림에 친절하게 대답하지 않으셨군요.당신의 제안이 득이 되는지는 역사적 지식을 더 가진 사람들이 결정하도록 하겠다.--Bb23 (대화) 20:49, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

위에서 제공된 링크와 같이, 특히 이 링크는 편집자가 주제와 너무 명확하게 연관되어 있음을 보여준다(편집자는 "나는 주제를 포함한 몇몇 러시아 반체제 인사들과 연관되어 있다, 당신은 그것을 COI라고 부를 수 있다"고 말한다).이 진술에 비추어 볼 때, 그리고 지금쯤 베레조프스키 기사가 벨 포틴저에 의한 승진에 관여했다고 알려져 있기 때문에, 나는 좀더 주의를 기울여야 하고, 어쩌면 별도의 조사가 필요하다고 생각한다.그레이후드 20:40, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 네가 고른 두 개의 연결고리가 어떻게 "별도의 수사"를 정당화하는지 모르겠다.첫째, 그들은 편집자가 국내에서 문제가 되고 있는 홍보 회사의 일부라는 것을 증명하지 않는다.둘째, 만약 당신이 그가 그랬다는 증거를 가지고 있다면, 그것을 편집자의 이름과 함께 이 주제 상단에 있는 기사 목록에 추가하는 것이 좋을 것이다(목록은 베레조프스키 기사의 편집자를 식별하지만 콜로콜1은 식별하지 않는다).--Bbb23 (토크) 21:19, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자는 공개적으로 그 주제와의 연관성을 선언하고 그것이 COI로 간주되어도 상관하지 않는다고 말한다.그 기사의 주제는 수십억 달러를 위태롭게 하는 현재의 재판 절차와 관련되어 있다.이 글은 벨 포틴저 출신의 다른 편집자들의 홍보 편집에 관여한 것으로 밝혀졌으며, 주제는 이 회사의 고객이다.그래서 한편으로는 기사의 주제에 대해 상업적 홍보 시도(COI의 직접적인 위반)가 진행되고 있다는 증거를 가지고 있으며, 다른 한편으로는 COI라는 주제와의 연결을 선언하는 편집자가 사용자 이름을 통해 자신이 주제와 연결된 조직과 연결될 수 있다는 힌트를 준다.그레이후드^Talk 21:41, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 그렇게 생각한다면, 위키피디아에서 다음과 같은 우려의 목소리를 낼 것이다.여기보다는 벨 포틴저 COI 조사.--Bbb23 (대화) 21:47, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내 말은 COI 치료에 어느 정도 일관성이 있어야 한다는 것이다.한 기사에서 100% 입증된 소규모 COI가 있지만 사용자가 개인적으로 선언한 동일한 기사에서 또 다른 거대한 COI에 주목하지 않는다면 이상하다.그레이후드^Talk 22:38, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그러나 선언된 COI는 루사비아보다 훨씬 중립적인 관리자와 편집자들에 의해 베레조프스키 기사의 다소 지저분한 편집 상황을 해결한 시점에 고려되었다.오래 전에 베레조프스키 기사와 관련된 불화의 정도 때문에 그 기사를 보는 것조차 그만뒀지만, 그 자체로 해결된 것 같다.이제 Russavia는, 그리고 어느 정도는, 이 주제에 비추어 그것을 다시 제기하고 싶어한다.이 항목과 관련된 항목이면 해당 목록에 속하십시오.그렇지 않다면, 하지만 당신과 루사비아는 그것이 기사를 다시 볼 가치가 있다고 믿고, 그 기사와 그 문제에 대한 새로운 주제를 시작하라.그래도 평가해야 하는 사람은 신이 도와주시길.--Bb23 (대화) 22:44, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

Bell Pottinger에 대한 커뮤니티 금지 제안

현재 상황은 Bell Pottinger 측에서 "손상 통제"를 해야 한다는 욕구를 일으키거나 위키백과 그룹의 조사에 대한 노력을 방해할 수 있기 때문에, 나는 다음과 같이 제안하고 싶다.

1. Bell Pottinger 회사에 속하는 알려진 모든 IP 주소는 광범위하게 해석되어 최소 3개월의 한정된 기간 동안 영어 위키백과에서 금지되며, 이 기간을 넘어서는 이들의 지속적인 금지가 적절한지 뒷말을 검토한다.

2. 모든 편집자는 유료 편집 또는 옹호 목적으로 벨 포틴저를 위해/대신 편집하는 것을 금지하고 벨 포틴저가 금지되는 남은 기간 동안 차단하는 것을 발견했다.페어슨 (대화) 02:30, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내 생각에 이것은 이미 끝난 일이다.Bell Pottinger와 Chime Communications에 대해 우리가 가지고 있는 기본 IP는 우리가 찾으면서 지속적으로 계정을 차단하고 있다.물건을 '사실적'과 '중립적 관점'으로 만드는 것이 명분이라고 해도 백과사전 기사를 편집하는 홍보회사에서 건설적인 것은 없다.키건 (토크) 03:49, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

백과사전의 기사를 편집하는 홍보 회사들로부터 건설적인 것은 아무것도 없다. 비록 명분이 물건을 "사실적"과 "중립적 관점"으로 만드는 것이라고 해도 말이다. - 누가 말하겠는가? 자원봉사 마렉 04:26, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 말해봐, 한 가지는.나는 우리가 SEO, PR 회사 및 유료 편집에 문제가 있을 때마다 일어난 일에 대한 나의 경험에서 말하고 있다. 한 사례가 밝혀질 때마다 신뢰성은 떨어지고, 일반적으로 POV가 "무해한" 편집인 것에 대한 검토는 낭비된다.장기적으로 사람들이 위키피디아를 편집하는 것, 심지어 건설적인 것으로 인식되는 것에 대해 금전적인 관심을 멀리 한다면, 이 프로젝트는 우리 모델에 기초하여 더 잘 되어 있다.이 중요한 것을 기억해라: 그들은 우리의 인기 때문에 편집하는 것이지, 우리의 임무 때문에 편집하는 것이 아니다.나는 얼마나 많은 기부를 했는지 알고 싶다.키건 (토크) 07:28, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 전에 그런 주장을 한 적이 있지만, 그런 점에서 도전받은 적이 있다.위키피디아에서 유료 편집은 우리의 규칙 내에 있는 한 여전히 허용된다.그러나 이 경우에는 네가 옳다.하지만 이 홍보 회사는 공식적으로 허가된 반 총장이 필요하다고 생각한다.피어슨 (대화) 04:01, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그럴지도 모르지. 하지만 어떤 종류의 금지도 정책 위반에 근거해야 해. "오, 이것은 우리를 나쁘게 보이게 할 수도 있어. 그래서 우리는 그냥 금지함으로써 우리 스스로 의심스러운 홍보 활동을 할 거야." 자원봉사 마렉 04:26, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

키건이 방금 말했듯이...그것은 이미 본질적으로 제자리에 있다.군집^X 05:06, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 키건은 그냥 그 문제에 대해 자기 의견을 피력했어.물론 자격이 있지만 문제는 "이 의견이 실제 정책에서 어떤 근거를 가지고 있는가"이다.이 "본질적으로 제자리"가 어디에 있는가(본질적으로" 족제비 말을 사용하는 것은 여기서 정말로 도움이 되지 않는다).여기선 아무런 차이도 증거도 보이지 않는다. 자원봉사 마렉 05:24, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

자원 봉사 마렉이 맞아, 나는 이것이 내 의견이라고 말했어.난 남자야, 프위.키건 (토크) 07:28, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

홍보 회사들은 그들의 일을 하지 않고 있으며 중립적인 관점을 가지고 있다면 보수를 받지 말아야 한다.샬리스 (대화) 21:21, 2011년 12월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• 든든한 지지.WP를 무시무시한 위반에도 불구하고 계속적인 교활한 편집 캠페인:COI 및 WP:NPOV는 금지의 타당한 이유다.그 위에 더 많이 쌓는 것도 WP 위반이다.SOAP — 만약 당신이 당신의 클라이언트를 멋있게 보이게 하기 위해 편집한다면, 당신은 분명히 승진 수단으로 위키피디아를 사용하고 있는 것이다.이 용어들은 정책이다: 그들은 여러 주요 정책을 위반했다.나이튼드 (대화) 05:15, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

WP를 무시무시한 위반에도 불구하고 계속적인 교활한 편집 캠페인:COI 및 WP:NPOV - 만약 이것이 사실이라면, 당신은 이 "끔찍한 위반"에 대한 실제 증거와 다른 점을 제공하는 데 문제가 없을 것이다.또한, 내가 이 사건에 대해 알고 있는 바로는, WP:SOAP는 여기서 전혀 관계가 없다 - 이 계정이 어딘가에서 대화 페이지에 올라와서 열변을 토했는가?만약 그렇다면, 어디에?당신은 단지 뭔가 "나쁜" 것처럼 보이게 하기 위해 관련없는 위키백과 부기맨 코드네임을 던지는 것이다.잘못된 또는 거짓된 분노의 증거를 나에게 보내주거나. 자원봉사 마렉 05:24, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

증거는 그들의 기여에 있다.게다가, 그들은 홍보 회사야. 그들은 그들의 고객들을 보기 좋게 만드는 것 외에는 비즈니스와 관련된 편집의 이유가 없어. 만약 당신이 대쉬 후에 내가 쓴 글을 읽었더라면, 당신은 그것을 이해했을 거야.내 "sneepy" 형용사에 주목하라. 어떤 특정한 기여에서도 이것을 찾을 수 없을 것이다.당신은 그들의 전체적인 기여와 편집에 대한 근거를 볼 필요가 있다.나이튼드 (대화) 15:33, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대, 지금 당장은 - 지미가 위키백과를 윤리적으로 편집하는 방법에 대해 그들에게 강연을 해야 하는데, 그들이 누구인지에 대해 열린 자세를 가져야 한다.나는 그의 연설이 전면 금지에 의해 좌절되는 것을 보고 싶지 않다.게다가, 몇몇 기사들은 실제로 유용한 내용을 추가했다. 예를 들어, 음밤베와 매버릭은 벨 포틴저에 의해 만들어진 꽤 괜찮은 스타트급 기사들이다.여기서 성급하게 굴지 말자.기병대 (메시지 미) 06:11, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

롤. 요즘 이런 문제에 대해 크렘린의 공식 정책을 따라가기가 어렵다.짐보 아저씨는 지금 무엇을 바라고 있는가?아마도 우리는 그의 의도를 잘못 읽었을 것이고 우리는 다시 되돌아가는 것이 더 나을 것이다.진지하게, 우리는 실제 정책을 시행하고 있고, 유일한 문제는 이 계정들이 실제 정책을 위반했는가 하는 것이다.다른 것은 허황된 자세와 거짓된 분노다.그리고 아, 나는 지금 우리가 이 계정들에 의해 실제로 건설적인 일이 이루어졌다는 것을 인정하는 것이 좋다. (이전의 "홍보 회사 백과사전 기사를 편집하는 것에서 건설적인 것은 없다"와는 대조적으로) 하지만 아마도 그것은 단지 지불 편집, COI 주도, 회사의 후원 계정이 실제로 M이라는 사실을 깨닫는 것일지도 모른다.위키백과 정책을 보다 유능하고 존중할 줄 아는 편집자, 특히 이 편집자와 같은 드라마 게시판을 채우는 데 시간을 보내는 편집자 등, 그녀가 쓴 것처럼, 여러분의 평균적인 무식한 편집자보다 훨씬 더 존경할 것이다.결국 그것은 여전히 "누구나 편집할 수 있는 백과사전"(일부 회사에 소속된 사람들을 포함)이며, 우리 콘텐츠 편집자들은 대개 편집자가 아닌 콘텐츠를 토론하는 제단에 무릎을 꿇는다.왜 저걸 창밖으로 던져야 하는가?피해 상황을 보여줘 그럼 얘기하자 자원봉사 마렉 08:47, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

자원 봉사 마렉은 존경할 만하지만, 그들이 기존의 정책을 아주 극적으로 어기지 않았다는 것을 암시하는 가장 피상적인 방법으로 증거를 살펴보지도 못했을 것이다.그 정책 위반은 수두룩하고 명백하다.그들은 WP를 위반했다.SOCK은 여러 가지 측면에서, 투표에서 여러 표를 행사하는 것을 포함한다.노골적으로 부정직한 편집 요약의 기록에는 많은 예가 있다.제안서당 ip 넘버를 끈질기게 금지할 수 있는 증거가 충분하다.동시에, 어젯밤 벨 경과의 이야기에서, 그들은 마침내 그들이 나쁜 행동을 했고 보상을 해야 한다는 것을 이해하고 있는 것 같다.그들이 받고 있는 언론의 정밀 조사를 고려할 때, 그리고 나는 개인적으로 그들에게 폭동 행위를 읽어줄 것이고, 그들이 앞으로 나아가 모범적인 시민이 될 가능성이 충분히 있다.하지만 더 나아가겠다: 위키피디아의 정책은 홍보 회사들이 결과에 직면하지 않고는 이런 식으로 행동할 수 없다는 것을 더욱 분명히 하기 위해 바뀔 것이다.--짐보 웨일즈 (대화) 09:32, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그들은 마침내 자신들이 나쁘게 행동했고, 보상할 필요가 있다는 것을 이해하는 것처럼 보인다; 내 홍보 친구가 한 번 말했듯이; "모든 것은 사랑과 전쟁, 그리고 홍보에서 공평하다."때때로 "올바른 일"을 하는 것을 포함해서 말이다.그에 따라 소금 복용량을 적용한다. --Errrant 09:39, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 기병대가 말한 이유로 유감스럽게도 반대한다.내 평생 무신론의 몇 가지 단점 중 하나는 사람들이 루시퍼 등으로부터 지속적으로 강간, 고문, 처벌을 받는 지옥에서 영생을 보내기를 논리적으로 바랄 수 없다는 것이다. 그것은 내가 차라리 부정한 홍보 컨설턴트, 지저분한 마케팅 얼간이들, 벨 포틴저 같은 기만적인 스핀 상인들이 당하는 것을 더 바라는 것이다.기병대가 지적하는 대로, 짐보가 벨 포틴저와 이야기하게 하라.만약 그것이 진행되지 않거나 그들이 적절한 운영을 수용하지 않는다면, 지역사회는 회사 전체를 금지한다.하지만 그들이 그들의 방식을 바꾸는 것에 수용적이면, 그들에게 기회를 주어라.나는 회의적이다: "윤리적인 PR"이라는 생각은 런던의 사각형 원이나 기능적인 열차 시스템만큼 나에게도 타당하다.그러나 짐보가 어떤 효과를 낼 수 있을지 두고 보자.—톰 모리스 (대화) 08:38, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

어리석은 일관성은 작은 마음의 호보블린이다. 에머슨.어서 소원을 빌어라.제라드 (대화)20:13, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 아, 음, 나는 윤리적인 PR의 개념을 이해하는 것이 어렵지 않다고 생각해!위키백과는 그 자체로 많은 자원봉사 언론 접촉을 가지고 있으며, 이들은 언론의 관심을 끌고, 언론의 질문에 대답할 준비가 되어 있다.다른 단체들은, 크고 지식이 풍부한 자원봉사자 커뮤니티가 없는 상태에서, 같은 종류의 일을 하기 위해 사람들을 고용한다.본질적으로 악의적인 것은 전혀 없다.--짐보 웨일즈 (대화) 15:31, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 사실 짐보는 자신에 대해 좋은 점을 제기한다.그가 조사에 참여한 것은 자원봉사자로써, 그는 자원봉사자로써의 이야기에 대해 언론과 접촉한 적이 있고, 벨 포틴저와 자원봉사자로서 이야기를 나누고 있을 것이다.그의 유일한 기득권은, 우리처럼, 이 웹사이트의 최선의 이용 이익이다.키건 (토크) 07:50, 2011년 12월 10일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.사실 그들은 이미 금지되어 있다. 어떤 관리자도 명백한 벨 포틴저 계정을 차단하지 않을 것이라는 점에서 말이다.유료 편집의 일반적인 문제와 관계없이 위키백과 편집에 대한 역량이 요구되고 이 회사는 그것을 가지고 있지 않다는 것을 증명했다.어떤 형태의 유료 편집은 허용될 수 있지만, 정기적으로 복어로 가득 찬 기사를 만들고, 비중성적으로 편집하며, 지아노 블렌하임 궁전 기사에 이 집에 관한 섹션과 같은 터무니없는 외투 걸이를 만들고, 때로는 AfDs에 있는 보틀랙까지 만드는 회사는 위키피디아에게는 분명히 순 긍정적이지 않다.
  물론 그들은 미래의 어느 시점에서 필요한 역량을 습득할 수도 있고, 그들의 사업의 위키피디아 측면을 더 유능한 사람에게 아웃소싱할 수도 있다.그럼에도 불구하고 그들은 무기한 금지되어야 한다.무한은 무한함을 의미하지 않는다.일단 그들의 가게를 정돈하고 위키백과 편집을 재개하고 싶다면, 그들은 짐보, 재단 또는 커뮤니티에 직접 지원 정보를 문의할 수 있고, 이를 바탕으로 커뮤니티는 그 금지령을 해제할 수 있다.그것이 홍보 각도에서 그들의 관심사인지 아닌지는 우리의 문제가 아니다.한사들러 2011년 12월 9일(UTC) 11:53[응답]

  짐보가 이미 그 일을 맡고 있기 때문에 행동해서는 안 된다는 주장에대한 대응:나는 Bell Pottinger와 그들의 고객들 사이에 야기된 어떤 증오심도 짐보를 목표로 하는 것보다 본질적으로 익명의 군중들에 대해 지시되는 것을 선호하기 때문에 내 표를 바꾸지 않을 것이다.나는 지역사회가 어떤 보복 시도에도 훨씬 더 면역이 될 것이라고 생각한다.한스 아들러 16:36, 2011년 12월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• Comment: WP:COIN states "This noticeboard may be used to... get help with proposed article changes if you are affected by a conflict of interest. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here...." Presumably Jimbo is offering the same or similar guidance according to the opposition above. It might be best to try to shunt paid editors into an established process than go directly to challenging a socking arms race. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Jimbo is in discussion with them. It's senseless to ban them while this is a developing issue. WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per WilliamH. Off Wiki actions by Jimbo are in progress. We shouldn't do anything in the interim. Propose it again if you still believe it justified after Jimbo has finished dealing with it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Jimbo can ban them if need be. If he doesn't see fit to do so, and instead pursues discussions with them, I don't see how a community ban would be productive in any sense whatsoever. Swarm ^X 04:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To those opposing on the basis of "Jimbo is talking to them". We need to remember that wikipedia is (mostly) controlled by volunteers, and by consensus has the power to apply punishment and restrictions where need be and whenever. I think that the proposed ban is reasonable given that they have violated WP policy (Jimbo has also supported this statement) and have harmed our position that we provide an unbiased and free encyclopedia to the world's public. We need to send a very clear signal to this company and others like it that what they have done will not be tolerated. Might I remind everyone the actions of Scientology and what arbcom did about it? Phearson (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least for now, in order to allow this experiment in "ethical PR" to continue under Jimbo's supervision. Will Beback talk 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – Yeah, what they did was unacceptable – we know about that, they know about that, and most importantly the media knows about that. I'm more content in letting the media backlash (as well as Jimbo, who has done a good job in handling this, BTW) do its work on them in contrast to our community having to do something about it. Now, as with Scientology, if it gets worse, then I'll support a more absolute and harsh ban, but until then, it's not really necessary at this point. –MuZemike 09:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I support the sentiment, Bell Pottinger are not allowed to edit per WP:ROLE only individuals are allowed to edit, therefore only individuals can be banned. Anyone editing with a significant COI should consider declaring that COI - this includes employees and "friends" of Bell Pottinger working on associated articles. In some cases they should limit their edits to the talk page. But these are individual matters. We are constantly getting more or less enlightened edits from people with COI, and we deal with them on an individual basis, by and large, successfully. (Moreover we are getting better at it.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC).
  [reply]
• Comment WP:COI and WP:SPAM effectively ban all organisations and individuals from writing about topics they have a commercial relationship with in a way that could promote that topic. As such, there's no particular need to single out Bell Pottinger by formally banning them. A larger solution of tracking professional spammers would be in order though. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only reason for Bell Pottinger to edit Wikipedia is to do it on behalf of a client who have paid Bell Pottinger for their services. Bell Pottinger has as such a COI and edits Wikipedia solely to promote their clients. WP:COI clearly states: "Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. PaoloNapolitano 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this specific measure is unnecessary/overkill; I believe all the concerns can be dealt with through existing policy-supported methods. Chzz ► 05:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email abuse from Mailinator address

I have twice previously reported abusive emails (apparently from Jarlaxle Artemis) sent to me via Wikipedia email, from accounts registered using Mailinator address. I have today received several dozen more such messages. All were sent from the same Mailinator address used by previously blocked users. How is it possible for a serial vandal to continue registering accounts and to send email from an address already known to be used for such abuse and threats? RolandR (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My memory of the previous discussions is there is currently no way to block domains from being used for the email function. Considering the very large number of alternative mailnator domains and the fact the's no published list I wonder whether approaching Mailinator about it may be a better bet. Since they don't actually send emails, they don't really have an address to contact them about abuse but it seems they do have scripts to try and stop abuse. And [63] says that if people ask nicely and there is a good reason for it they may stop accepting emails for the site. Perhaps if someone here were to ask nicely they may do that for us. Since we don't require emails to sign up I think it's questionable why people would need to use mailinator. And while we could implement methods to reduce abuse like captchas, it would take resources that may be better put to other users. Something along those lines may be enough to convince them to block people getting wikipedia stuff. Of course this won't help with the large number of other stuff disposabile no signup email address services but I guess it's a start Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the accounts? Sending an e-mail from one's Wikipedia account is a logged action, viewable by us CheckUsers (the contents and recepient is not). Even if the account edited and was created out of the scope of CU retrieval, it could still help in forming, for example, a range block. WilliamH (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rianhoxie (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Vlyvtrmln (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). RolandR (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both unsurprisingly confirmed, along with several other accounts. The IP was blocked a couple of days ago. The accounts in question were created as sleepers a while ago to avoid CheckUser detection. Sorry I can't suggest anything better, but the only option at the moment (if only applicable to you), would be to disable e-mail on your account. WilliamH (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have already disablred email because of abusive messages (including death threats) from this vandal. So we have a situation where one determined bully can successfully disrupt the running of Wikipedia, preventing numerous legitimate editors from fully accessing the features of the project. This is not good enough, and I do not get the impression that this problem is being addressed is taken seriousl. If Wikipedia cannot prevent a racist thug from misusing the email facility to abuse editors, then it would be better to disable the option entirely for all editors, rather than oblige those of us who face this to cut ourselves off. RolandR (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression is mislaid - it is taken seriously, it's being discussed in the appropriate places, and I would be surprised if a technical solution won't be established. WilliamH (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that assurance, but can you say where discussion is occurring?. I strongly agree with RolandR's point: it is unacceptable that MediaWiki has no ability to stop an idiot from abusing editors in such an obvious manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, all I can say is that "anybody can edit" is a double-edged sword – letting good faith people to edit implies letting people to abuse it at the same time. I doubt the WMF will allow that to happen anytime soon, I'm afraid. I don't personally see how anything can be done about it. –MuZemike 08:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but resources will never be used for issues like this unless the community demands action. How many emails can an abusive new user send? There should be an edit filter system based on things like account age and edit count, whereby an established editor can email anything, a moderately new user is subject to some filtering, and a new user is subject to strong filtering and rate limiting. I understand that blacklisting mail systems is a never-ending game, but allowing mailinator accounts is obviously stupid (any reply to such an email is posted to a public website). Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But then, you start shuttering out newcomers, which the WMF will not allow on their money or watch; they shot down the proposal for only (auto)confirmed users to create new articles for a reason – that is the direction in which they are going. –MuZemike 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates by consensus...except when WMF doesn't want it to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just received a further 70 such abusive messages from Esechicano12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). That makes 150 so far this month, and nearly 600 in the past six months. I can't believe that there is no way to prevent this abuse, and I am angry that the only solution offered is that I disable my own email, thus preventing legitimate editors from contacting me. It's all very well to worry about not alienating new users; but what about alienating well-established editors?

It seems to me this isn't really the same thing though. The email function isn't needed for creating articles. For those who do need to contact relevant places, email addresses are published so there's no real need to use the email function. Perhaps most importantly this isn't just about problems in our content creation but about editorss suffering unacceptable harrassment and abuse. It seems to me it's something the WMF should consider worth spending time on unless they want to alienate editors. I haven't received any of these emails but if the WMF really considers this something not worth worrying about this sends a message to me they don't care about editors. I presume WilliamH has an idea of what they're talking about so I'm guessing this isn't the case. The Captcha idea would hopefully at least make it more difficult for mass emails like the 70 at once. Or rate-limiting new users (even if the WMF really considered new users need to have access to the email function, I can't see why they need to be able to send 70 in I presume a day or 2).

Also I wonder whether the IPs involved are open proxies or belong to ISPs? Oviously for privacy reasons the details can't be revealed, but what I'm thinking is while I suspect the WMF probably doesn't consider it worth the time of checkusers to attempt to pursue normal abusers with their ISPs (WP:Abuse response shows that often doesn't work) it seems to me if the problem can't be resolved technically they should seriously consider contacting ISPs in cases like this if there's a chance that may work (i.e. it's not open proxies). ISPs are also much more likely to be cooperative when it's persistent harassment and abuse of individuals rather then simple but persistent vandalism. (The privacy policy seems to allow this.) ~

Nil Einne (talk)

And now I have received a further 70 vile racist emails from Kahanadada (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), with specific death threats and links to a website attacking me. Wikipedia must take steps to prevent such harassment of editors. RolandR (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another interim suggestion: if it's all from the same domain, why not simply block the domain in your e-mail account? The filters in Gmail can be highly customised. WilliamH (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so to be pro-active about this I sent an email to the ops mailing list to see if there is a quick way to resolve this (obviously it is an urgent matter!). If that falls through I guess the next step would be to make the Foundation aware - getting it on their radar as an issue will be a good thing. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the step to inform the developers (wikitech-l is the developer's list, generally you can only get ops attention directly on IRC). I'm not sure ops can handle this, as we shouldn't block an entire email service, since it could also block email for legitimate users. The developers may come up with some technical solution. I recommend continuing to block the sockpuppets are they pop up. --Ryan lane (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for anyone to be able to send 70 emails a day thru wikipedia, without an advanced permission. I'm surprised there aren't much worse spam problems with wikipedia email than there already are. The default limit should be 2 destination addresses per day and 2 emails per destination address (all email after the 2nd automatically discarded unless the recipient clicks a link opting into accepting more). The WMF shot down limiting new article creation? Blech, they are silly. Getting their first articles and images deleted frustrates newbies incredibly. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this account has been sending far more than 70 emails a day. That is just what I am receiving, and I'm sure I'm not the only target. As I noted above, I am aware of at least two editors who have disabled their email access as a result of this harassment. RolandR (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just received a further 80 90 abusive emails from Thossmeyer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). This thug is trying to bully me into disabling my email, which I will not do. But I expect Wikipedia to take some action to put an end to this harassment. RolandR (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to quickly mention in this thread that the very second you feel the foundation isn't doing enough to help, you should check to see if anyone has even told them about the problem yet. We don't see every thread, and it's easy for things like this to get missed. If we aren't taking any action, there's a good possibility we don't even know it's happening (because no one has informed us).--Ryan lane (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has been raised repeatedly over the past six months. This is the noticeboard for users to advise admins of problems; if you didn't know about the problem, then you should have done. And I never stated that "the foundation" is not taking this seriously; I said that Wikipedia (ie all of us collectively) was not. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very infrequently check my e-mail associated with this account, but just noticed I received some too, a few dozen messages titled "FREE ISRAEL AND END ISLAMIST APARTHEID!‏" from Cermugin on 12-4-11. The e-mail name was a slur and threat against RolandR, address was the same site mentioned above, mailinator.com. The WMF needs to step up and protect its editors from trolls using its e-mail capabilities to send anonymous harassment and death threats. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a low priority bugzilla ticket (bugzilla:7518) open about this for 5+ years. It might be worth pinging it. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird personal attack/revert war/sock puppetry(?) thing.

76.208.166.194 (talk · contribs)/76.208.179.253 (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks against User:Dahn, on User talk:Bogdangiusca. See [64], [65], and to an extent [66].

I, not realizing at the time that the two IPs in the history were the same person, reverted the last of those edits here, sparking a really weird revert war as the IP repeatedly readded the blank section header he had inserted so that he could gripe in the edit summary. These are the only edits by those IPs in living memory.

This is obviously part of some larger conflict and without that context I don't really know what should be happening. I'm opting to bring it here because I noticed that Dahn has been involved in another ANI notice quite recently, to which this is presumably related, so this seemed the easiest place to find someone who knew the correct course from here. Warning? Range-block? Semi-protection of the user talkpage? Whatever it is that's going on, it's clearly pretty WP:LAME. --erachima talk 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the latest IP for harassment. You may have noticed that there is a long string of IP edits from the same range making longish posts on Bogdangiusca's talkpage, all through 2010 and 2011. The earliest postings in that series indicate it might be Alex contributing (talk·contribs). Sad, because he can be a decent contributor at times, when he feels like it, but in between there have often been phases where it's been necessary to shut him out. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but, uhm, *cough*. --erachima talk 08:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwamikagami move warring again

User:Kwamikagami is move warring again. This time on the articles: P'urhépecha language and P'urhépecha people. I tried to make him discuss and selfrevert pending discussion per BRD here and at the talkpage. He just reverted the move again. Some admin please move the article back and give him a warning or a block for this continuedly disruptive move warring behavior. Evidence for previous discussions of the same behavior here: [67][68][69][70] ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "move war" at P'urhépecha people, and I did not "revert again" at P'urhépecha language. There had been no prior discussion on moving to P'urhépecha as you claimed on my talk page. The COMMONNAME convention you cite supports Tarascan, and even if we were to go with the autonym, it would be Purepecha, not P'urhépecha. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contested your move and moved it back - you reverted in violation of BRD. That is move warring and you do it all the time and now it has got to have a consequence. I am sorry to say that you obviously don't have the expertise to know what is the commonname here. Move the article back where it was, get consensus for the move then move,. Thats how we work here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME is decided by common usage. You're not even accepting linguistic sources if you don't feel they're specialized enough. P'urhépecha (or perhaps Purepecha, which appears to be the more common form) may get there eventually, but it's not there yet. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources. In any case what is the common name is decided by consensus not by you unilaterally. You are move warring. Move the article back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to the pre-move version. I don't think Kwamikagami should have moved to their preferred title again when it was dispute the first time, but while I'm not an admin, but I don't personally see the need for anything else here provided no further moves are undertaken. I agree per WP:BRD, keep the article at the original title until consensus is achieved for a new title, probably by starting a WP:RM when you're ready. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is reasonable to note that Kwami has a long history of making controversial unilateral moves, and that I approached him amicably asking him to move it back pending discussion and that he refused - claiming the right to decide unilaterally what is the common name. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I find Kwamikagami's behaviour disturbing; for such a long-standing sysop to be engaged in this kind of move warring is surely inappropriate. A quick look at his talk page shows that this isn't the first time even this month that he's been accused of this kind of disruption. There are also a few other issues, such as this talk page where he implicitly accuses another editor of racism and bigotry, and his apparent oblivion to the edit summary "rvv" being an acronym for "reverting vandalism". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was also blocked in October for edit warring. All from an admin of 7 years? Seriously? If he went to RfA now, I strongly suspect he would fail. Basalisk^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Basalisk. This is a personal attack, which is never justifiable (even if the other person in the dispute is making negative assumptions, which he was). Barring an occasional exhaustion of patience, admins should be above that. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of Admin's conduct/prventing challenge to block

I logged into my account to edit a few grammar problems I found and discovered that I was [[71]] for "trolling", which is odd because I haven't edited in a month. Believing this was done in error, I tried to challenge it and discovered that even editing my own talk page was disabled. I then logged out and tried to dispute it only to have my edit reverted and my IP blocked.

User:Antandrus then added this [[72]] rude comment to my IP's talk page.

I'd like a formal investigation into his conduct and to know why an admin is allowed to prevent me from even challenging a block that I obviously believe to be wrong. I'm very frustrated by all of this and just want to be able to edit articles. Thank you. 174.253.14.138 (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haarscharf (talk · contribs) is a fairly obvious sock of the blocked Nachteilig (talk · contribs). Note that a previous IP, 174.253.18.252 (talk · contribs) spent yesterday evening trolling my talkpage (which see) over a protection I'd put on Nachteilig's user page after they started fiddling with the sock tag. Behavior and writing style indicate that these IPs are related. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not obvious at all and simply isn't true. And preventing a user from challenging a block on their own user page doesn't seem at all sporting, and certainly goes against the spirit of things here. Furthermore, the IP comments on your talk page are respectful and inquisitive, so I'm not sure why you're labeling them "trolling" except that you disagree with the conclusions. 174.253.4.218 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks may always be appealed at WP:BASC, if a talk page access has been suspended. Send an email to the address there, but please stop avoiding the block simply because you don't like it. Of course you don't like it, you aren't supposed to. You're supposed to stop editing Wikipedia. How you feel about it is irrelevent, and disagreeing with it is not sufficient cause to dodge it. Nothing is. Stop editing, send an email to WP:BASC, and await their response. --Jayron32 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

174, Haarscharf (talk · contribs) (the user you seem to be representing yourself to be) has exactly four edits, one to his own user page and three to a malformed and rejected RfM. It stands to reason that anyone who creates an RfM has had some kind of experience on Wikipedia that he's unhappy about, so, may I ask, if you're not Nachteilig (talk · contribs), who are you? I ask only because editors commenting here have a right to know which user they're talking to and about and what the underlying issues are. By the way, if you are Nachteilig, the correct procedure is to go through the process to get unblocked, then address any other concerns you have, not to create a specious RfM with a sockpuppet and file a disingenuous AN/I thread as an IP. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rude etiquette, name calling, and swearing

Climate_change_alarmism

By AFD and DRV it was determined this page should be merged. A couple editors are attempting obstructionist tactics to keep the page up, despite losing the arguments art both processes.

In particular, this edit:

“

It isn't part of the topic of media coverage so it shouldn't be merged into that article. Looking at it I am coming more and more to the conclusion that we should just let this degenerate into a major content dispute since the admins didn't do their job properly. It is I believe the obvious path now and dictated by WP:IAR. The encyclopaedia is what is important and if there is trouble and admins running round the place then so be it. That is not important. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

”

is basically a declaration of plans to act in bad faith.

The AFD closed with a merge result, the DRV said there was no consensus to overturn that result. At the DRV, several users engaged in attacks against the closing admin, claiming that 12 days was too early to close, and thus attacking that admin. Examples:

This is AFTER the relevant part of the AfD closure instructions ha d been pointed out to him:

“

86** asserts "7 days had passed, that's when admins are meant to close it", citing WP:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. Ironically, the shortcut for this section is WP:NotEarly. And the actual text does not say that a discussion must be closed; it says only that after seven days an admin will "assess the discussion for consensus" – nothing more. And note that I do not object to assessing the discussion, I object to this notion that discussion is mandatorily closed after seven days; there simply is no such requirement. If that is unclear, check the lede at WP:AFD: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days [emphasis added], after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." If that is not clear enough look to WP:Deletion policy, as I have previously cited. As I have said before: The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus. And if no consensus, then no deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC) [Emphasis added.]

”

Oh, my. 86** is prone to misstating other's arguments, and does so here in saying that I was "claiming that 12 days was too early to close". He has kindly pulled out my exact words; let's read them together: "The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus." How could I be any clearer? As to "thus attacking that admin" – wow, what can I say? Is it an "attack" to point out a misstep?

86** would also fault me for commenting "AFTER the relevant part of the AfD closure instructions ha d been pointed out to him". Which is nonsense. If you think that is a valid complaint, open a subsection citing specifics, and let's examine it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More can be seen on the talk page of the article and at the DRV, but it's clear that a small cabal of editors are determined to use any tactics to prevent any action being taken.

Users will be notified when this is up. 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DmcQ, J.Johnson, and Talk:Climate change alarmism notified. 86.** IP (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011 December 2#Tally of_actual votes_at Afd), JJ's argument is bizarre. He suggests that an AfD should be kept open until there is a consensus. This would (a) mean that any 'no consensus' closures were invalid, and (b) that the admin would have to assess the AfD first, and then decide whether to close it. Not only is it not the way it is done (regardless of arguments over the wording of policy - though I think current practice is in accord with this), but it would make a nonsense of the whole procedure to have repeated assessments of 'consensus', by (presumably) multiple admins, with the first to call 'consensus' making the decision, regardless of how other admins saw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another misstatment. I never suggested "that an AfD should be kept open until there is consensus." My "suggestion" (based on the cited policy) is that if there is no consensus when the AfD is closed, there is no consensus. And that is was a misinterpretation to claim otherwise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An action to improve the encyclopaedia is not an act in bad faith. I am not a part of any cabal and I give no favours to anyone. And that includes admins here too if you don't do your job properly. So the admins decided to go with the people who wanted a merge even though they gave no arguments why they wanted it and didn't even look like they investigated the place they said the merge should be to. And now this person just sticks the stuff somewhere else unrelated because they've found it really shouldn't have gone where they said. Well it doesn't go in the other place either as would be obvious if they looked at it for a few minutes instead. If they didn't have ants in their pants to merge it some where anywhere else and remove the article perhaps they could do something useful with it instead. Dmcq (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're sseriously claiming that the section about "...alarmist language is frequently employed by newspapers, popular magazine and in campaign literature put out by government and environment groups..." isn't appropriate discussion for Media coverage of climate change? 86.** IP (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly am. The article media coverage of climate change is about how the media cover it. For instance how they try to be even handed by bringing in a representative of both sides so giving an impression of parity between arguments. It's about how the media in different countries differ in their coverage. It has section headings like nattive distorions and factual distortions. It is not about what government and campaign groups say. And it is most definitely not about what the Koch crowd do or meteorologists wrote never mind military contracytors or think thanks like you just stuck in the media article. May I also point out that you violated the 3rr rule and now have the result of your third violation protected by an administrator? I realize it is always the wrong version which is kept but could someone discuss 3rr with this editor please rather than go along with his accusation of bad faith against me and the silly merges to wrong articles? Dmcq (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision was to merge, the 'wrong version' is one that doesn't do this. Can I ask an admin to do the obvious here, and close this, now that the article has been redirected? A decision has been made, and the previous history of the article is easy enough to access for anyone actually prepared to conform with the decision, and merge whatever useful content there is in the article. If it has been decided that the article isn't valid, it isn't, and arguments that there is nowhere for content to go are irrelevant. Ignoring decisions because you don't like the consequences of complying with them is hardly justifiable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weel that would be nice if the original closing admin had checked the arguments properly. Or if the review was an actual review. However it checked if the original decision was 'egregiously wrong'. I didn't want it to be a decision about admins. I wanted it to be review of the points in the deletion debate by someone else. But it was decided they hadn't acted egregiously wrongly so it is a case of admins covering each others asses. And it is right to create a stink about people doing that rather than checking what is best for the articles in the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note, I haven't violated 3RR; though in the confusion of today's edits I did come close, for which I apologise.) 86.** IP (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count them

• (cur prev) 00:46, 11 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (Undid revision 465206328 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) Undo bad-ffaith action)
• (cur prev) 00:42, 11 December 2011‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk contribs)‎ (16,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 465205436 by KimDabelsteinPetersen: rv. Please engage in discussion before doing things. You *have* been bold - now discuss!. using TW)
• (cur prev) 00:38, 11 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (Undid revision 465205436 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) DRV. You lost it. YTour views did nbot hold sway. You are not arbiter)
• (cur prev) 00:34, 11 December 2011‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk contribs)‎ (16,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 465197073 by Dmcq: rv Please do not go unilateral here. Discussions are active on both talk pages.. using TW)
• (cur prev) 00:32, 11 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (Undid revision 465197073 by Dmcq (talk) Fix to correct link)
• (cur prev) 23:33, 10 December 2011‎ Dmcq (talk contribs)‎ (16,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 465149117 by William M. Connolley: Topic is not dealt with at the indicated place. (TW))

Certainly seems like three to me. Dmcq (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're allowed three. Read WP:3RR. You aren't allowed more than three. 86.** IP (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your other edit removing everything at

• (cur prev) 17:26, 10 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (←Redirected page to Media coverage of climate change)

just counts as a normal edit then. Well even if one is allowed to remove stuff four times with impunity it isn't something I'll be going in for. Dmcq (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More simultaneous postings here and on WP:FTN by 86.** IP. Plus this.[92] Hmm. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The post on FTN is on a different subject (asking for help with sourcing); it has nothing to do with this ANI report. I don't know what on earth you're getting at with the homeopathy thing. If you want to accuse me of something, do it, don't make these vague insinuations that innocent behaviour is somehow evil. 86.** IP (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, we all know who Mr. 86 is. But so far as I am aware none of his previous accounts are under sanction, nor has there been any double-voting or other misuse of the alternate accounts. I'm willing to be corrected if there's evidence to the contrary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I only edit under this account. 86.** IP (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement as parsed in a strict grammatical sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You were advised before not to post on multiple noticeboards, no matter whether the issues are slightly different. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're trying to claim I can't ask for sourcing help on FTN, when I ask about this here? That's not "slightly" different, Mathsci. 86.** IP (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advice concerns the frequency with which you post about climate change articles. No administrator could help you here. And also your editorializing of others' comments is quite unhelpful.[93] Could you please calm down? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...You know what. Every sentence of that is wrong, but it's not at all clear what any of your points are meant to be, if you have any, and it's not worth dealing with you. Please don't talk to me again. If the rest of us can get back on topic: Dmcq has announced his intent to not be bound by admin rulings on issues that he dislikes. What should be done? 86.** IP (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, 86.** IP, you can request me not to edit on your talk page, but not here. As I wrote, the frequency with which you open topics on climate change articles is unhelpful. It is perhaps not the right way of going about things. Mathsci (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd like to have had a proper review of the decision at the AfD rather than a check that the closer was not 'egregiously wrong' or that it was numerically close so there is no consensus to overturn the decision. There's so many things wrong with that. There were twelve editors who said keep in the AfD and 12 who said delete or merge. That should have been no consensus especially given the weakness of the delete/merge arguments which said things like it was a fork without pointing to content tat was forked and said to merge to a place which really wasn't suitable. It was turned into a decision about admins rather than about the article so here it is for admins to look at the results of their handiwork. If something is called a review it should do a review. It should not act like a court which needs overwhelming evidence before overturning a verdict of an admin. I think I read something about Wikipedia not being a moot court? Dmcq (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. 12-12 does not automatically equal "no consensus". - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 06:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about democracy. I said the closer didn't check what was said properly and should have for something close like that. And the review was a sham just to see if the reviewer had done something 'egregiously wrong' rather than to have a second opinion by someone else. Have a look at the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_change_alarmism_(2nd_nomination) and the review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_2#Climate_change_alarmism_.282nd_nomination.29. Though I guess that's too much to ask for here. Do any admins do anything useful about content policy or are they quite content to have any amount of silliness and policy violation provided it is done with civility? Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AfD was closed and the DRV did not overturn the close. At this point those who opposed the AfD close should simply stop fighting old battles and simmer down for a spell with a nice cup of tea. IT is continuing this sort of battle which causes the most grief on Wikipedia. And I think/fear ArbCom might step in and reinstate the sanctions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have nice cup of tea?? Perhaps you should convince 86** to "simply stop fighting and simmer down", to stop trying to prosecute us with his undocumented (and quite spurious) accusations of a "cabal" and bad faith, his continuing misstatements and ridiculous misinterpretations? (Just look at his opening statement in the next section.) I am amused by his apparent view that "AFTER" he made an assertion and waved his hands about a bit – without actually pointing to or quoting any specific text – my alleged failure to shutup and sit down was so egregious as to warrant a complaint to this noticeboard. I am not amused by his continuing uncivil behavior. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq

dmcq (talk · contribs) Dmcq has reaffirmed his plans to continue using edit warring to try and overturn the AfD by force. [94] - and that after he was told to stop refighting old battles here and on the talk page of where he's fighting. I suggest he be blocked, or at least wwarned that if he continues, he will be blocked. When an editor announces he is not going to be bound by Wikipedia's decisions and rules, as he did there and here, that user is not acting in good faith, and no amount of discussion will help. 86.** IP (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. I have a pretty good imagination, but I can hardly imagine what kind of offset or twisting is needed extract such interpretations from the statement cited. 86**'s decoding key must be seriously corrupted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

user:Ambelland has been making extreme personal attacks at Inter-Services Intelligence. He has accused me of vandalism[95], being biased, editing in bad faith[96], twice [97]. The information he is removing I added several weeks ago [98] after similar content had been reverted out as not reliably sourced [99] It is well sourced and written in a neutral manner so I cannot imagine why Ambelland thinks I am being a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the user a note about throwing vandalism accusations around; apart from that, perhaps you should take this to dispute resolution. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the reason I said it was vandalism is darkness removed 4 paragraphs , and has made a number of edits in bad faith . I requested Darkness to move with consensus in the page , but instead he has decided to make unilateral changes . The points you are bringing up are already discussed in the article, and are not as clear cut as you make them out to be . Whilst you have "sources " you haven not give the exact extract of what the sources say, and the points you are making are not main steam views I have not accused anyone personally , personal attacks would be me calling you a lying swine but I have not said such a thing --Ambelland (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He has continued his personal attacks on the article talk page [100] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly problematic accounts

Here’s some behaviour I’m not entirely comfortable with. I guess there is a lot of whitewashing of companies, people etc. going on largely unnoticed. To give just one example, Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa was almost reduced to an orphan, with only one other article linking to it (I've added two now). If you don’t mind, please look into these accounts:

• Flyer747 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  see example
• Theoneveritas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki) and 203.142.41.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  see example
• Monkeyassault (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  While a first glance hasn’t brought up anything I consider as serious as some of the behaviour from other accounts, this seems to be a single-issue account where so far I would not rule out undisclosed paid lobbyism.
• Mkativerata (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  Not a single-issue account, but possibly with a political agenda to hide dirt rather than try to find sources that would support a critical point of view.

Haven’t got time to notify them of this post now, I’ll do that later (or you do it). Thanks, Wikipeditor (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the users above. In the future, you *must* notify users if you bring them up here. --NellieBly (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...especially if you have time to provide a pretty damning drive-by report, you certainly have time to notify the editors. Of course, as you're supposed to discuss issues with the editors directly first before coming here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m back. Mkativerata, please accept my apologies. I was totally wrong. I can’t remember why I put you in this bunch, but I must have gotten something seriously wrong – perhaps the Najib Razak article’s edit history was too confusing for me. You are a super good editor and totally deserve being an admin. Apparently I’m the one who should be watched for bad editing. I’m really sorry about this mistake and I feel very stupid now. And yes, I shouldn’t have started this thread at all when I didn’t have the time to make sure I’m not making false accusations nor to notify those I accused.
Wikipeditor (talk) whacking self with a wet trout at 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block Review requested

I would like someone to review this block I've made. I've blocked Alarbus indefinitely because I believe very strongly that he is using sockpuppets to deceive and harass a group of editors that he has been in a dispute with. He has been proven to have used several undisclosed sockpuppets in the recent past - seemingly for non-problematic reasons. However:

Last week User:Alarbus and User:Truthkeeper88 were involved in a dispute revolving around the use of colors in templates on the Ernest Hemingway pages. The dispute was rather heated. In my administrative capacity I chastised Alarbus for his confrontational behavior. Otherwise I have not been involved with Alarbus before that dispute - so I do not see myself as involved, except that I have dealt with the user in an administrative capacity before.

December 11 Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs) and Modernist (talk · contribs) create [article] and in the process [this template] which 186.73.132.154 promptly reverts. The IP then follows modernist to various templates reverting his edits over a minor color issue. Modernist suspects that the user is Alarbus, who is known to have a grudge against Truthkeeper88 and has a record of editwarring over template colors - he posts to my talkpage. I block the IP at 02.33 and at 02:36 Alarbus makes his first edit in 6 hours to the IP's talkpage. This makes me suspicious and when I confirm the pattern in their edit histories I decided to block Alarbus per WP:DUCK. I request some other admins review this block, to see if they are perhaps less convinced by the weird string of coincidences than I am.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to bed now. I've filed a C/U request. There is also possibility that he is acting in concert with the IP for trolling purposes of course. I am happy to defer to the judgment of another admin - do what you think the evidence requires - I will not consider it wheelwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have spilled over from my talk page to SPI and now to here. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes here, or who's-trolling-who, but Alarbus (talk·contribs) appears to be Unrelated to the IP in question here and, in fact, doesn't appear to have any additional accounts beyond those we found last week. It's possible that someone is having some fun using the IP - either to troll Alarbus or Maunus and co. - I can't tell which - Alison^❤ 04:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the IP doing the alleged stalking, and User:Alarbus has been shown to be unrelated to the IP, then it seems to me that Alarbus should be unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I am still convinced of foul play - then either with a proxy or a meatproxy doing the trolling. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A terribly bad block of both Alarbus and the IP - who are unrelated. The IP is clearly in Panama, and you can ask a checkuser or Alarbus himself to see that he's not there.

Maunus is an involved admin. His friendship with Ceoil led him to comment twice on last week's ANI report of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#User:Ceoil and User:Truthkeeper88 which complained that Ceoil had reverted Alabus 4 times on Alarbus' own talk page in the clearest case of WP:HUSH that I've seen in some time. In the first comment, Maunus calls Alarbus' reasoned objection to removing harvard references "hassling her with irrelevant objections condescension" [101]. Ceoil's behaviour on 3 December between 05:32 and 17:39 included 4 consecutive reversions and aiming the following invective at Alarbus: 'stupid', 'tool', 'prick', 'worthless tools and pricks', 'simple', 'ass', 'condesending prick'[sic], 'you severe judgemental prick', 'fuckwit', 'motherfucker', 'dangerously stupid', 'liar' - capping it off with an edit summary at AN/I of 'fuck off prick'. Maunus' comment on that was "I heartily commend his intentions which may have prevented wikipedia form loosing a valuable editor, although I don't condone the way in which he acted on those intentions" [102]. So we know who are Maunus' friends. What is astonishing is that he then decided to close the ANI thread 2 hours from its start with a summary that begins "No action" [103]. He then amends that to include "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" [104], and in an amazing display of forgetfulness goes on to Alarbus' talk page to harangue him about his behaviour!

Maunus clearly does not understand that from an accessibility and usability view, colours need to be sufficiently different from their backgrounds, and preferably user-changeable (i.e. not coded inline with the HTML). This is a world-wide web standard, and not unique to Wikipedia. If more than one editor makes that point, it only means that they know something about web design, It does not mean they are sock-puppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus proves the point, despite Maunus' selective recollection of who was "editwarring".

At this point, I'd be content to see Maunus unblock and offer whatever grudging apologies he's prepared to make. I don't think that a sensible admin would dig the hole any deeper by pushing this. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a friend of Ceoil - that comment you refer to was my first ever interaction with him. It is possible that with the comment I made him a friend - but he wasn't before. So I am not involved. Alarbus has been proved to use sockpuppets - several of which have editwarred over template issues. The IP may not be him - but I remain unconvinced. Also Note that RexxS is himself "involved" in that he took exception to my commending Ceoil for standing up in front of Alarbus harrassment of Truthkeeper last week. Like Modernist and Truthkeeper88 below me he is just here supporting a friend. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved. Your denial does not make it so, nor square up with the facts. You commented in defence of your friends at ANI, closed the report yourself (a violation of INVOLVED in itself) and then harangued the person who made the complaint. You've since tried to deny that any harassment of Alarbus took place, despite all the evidence and diffs presented, and are making 'blanket' criticisms of him with no evidence whatsoever - where are the diffs of his "harrassment of Truthkeeper last week"? They don't exist. Yes, I'm "involved" as a friend of Alarbus because he can't speak for himself here, but I'm not the one who is closing AN/I discussions or blocking one side in an argument - so what has "involved" got to do with me, other than a vain attempt to 'smear' someone who disagrees with you? As for taking exception to your commending Ceoil's behaviour, I would expect that any right-minded Wikipedian who read Ceoil's contributions of 3 December would be severely critical of your judgement in commending that. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I am involved is decided by consensus - not by you saying I am and me saying I'm not. That's why I brought this for review. Ceoil is not my friend and I spoke against Alarbus at ANI because he was clearly and obviously hounding another editor. I did not at any point condone Ceoil's use of invective. You are lying and making personal attacks about me now. I would like you to stop that. Meanwhile, Alarbus' unblock request has been declined by Daniel Case (talk·contribs) - who apparently also wasn't convinced of the evidence.

No, your involvement is a matter of fact and is established by evidence. No amount of pseudo-consensus from your chums changes that evidence or the fact. "clearly and obviously hounding another editor"? Diffs please. This is AN/I and there is a policy against making unfounded accusations.

Maunus: "Ceoil stepped in to support Truthkeepers efforts against Alarbus' aggressive approach. He should be commended for this."

Diannaa: "Maunus, you can't seriously think Ceoil should be commended for this kind of behaviour."

Maunus: "I heartily commend his intentions which may have prevented wikipedia form loosing a valuable editor, although I don't condone the way in which he acted on those intentions."

Feel free to refactor the 'lying' comment above if you feel that you've stepped over a bright line. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I said and what I did not said. And your talk about "my chums" is nauseating, why are you here again?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I touch a raw nerve? You know that I'm here because you made an appallingly irresponsible block of my friend, so why do you ask? "Chums" may be a cultural mistranslation: I'm British and it just means "friends", "pals", etc. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the word means thank you, it is nauseating because of the hypocrisy implicit in accusing someone else of "looking out for chums" when that is the only reason you are here yourself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of WP:INVOLVED clearly requires interpretation in context; as such determination of involvement is a matter for consensus. I have not reviewed the context here in any depth so I make no comment on the appropriateness of the block. Gerardw (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth Maunus acted in good faith. Both the IP and Alarbus had never edited at the same time; as soon as the IP was blocked, Alarbus appeared. There was a clear circumstantial case for looking into whether or not the were socks - given Alarbus's history, and both seemed to be aggressive and hostile when it comes to editing templates; seem to consider themselves to WP:OWN templates and whether or not the colors can or cannot change - which they can. The comments above underscore the recent problem of Alarbus's stalking the work of various editors last week and the animosity that was stirred up. I think Maunus acted correctly and in good faith in this case...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS is also involved and I haven't posted because I'm involved. I'm off to work but will post diffs later in the day. As for Ceoil and Maunus being friends - they've never interacted as far as I know until last weekend when Maunus responded to the AN/I report posted above. I haven't interacted with Maunus for probably more than a year, although in 2009 I did do some copyediting for him. Alarbus has been edit warring on many nav templates. Anyone going through his history can find that. Diffs to follow later in the day. Maunus made a good block. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Modernist, you're believing the nonsense that is being spread. And you end up repeating untruths. The IP has a short contribution history so there's not a lot to have to check, but Maunus didn't do that. Because if he had, he'd have spotted that as recently as 02:57 on 10 December 2011, the IP was editing - and so was Alarbus at the same time. I think in all fairness, you ought to take back your assertion, and accept that Maunus was a long way short of due diligence when he based his block on the timings of edits. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize the Checkuser didn't prove my suspicion of foul play. But as I noted that was not the only evidence on which I based the block - rather it was behavioral evidence - which to me is highly suggestive that Alarbus may in fact be hounding a specific group of editors either through an internet proxy or by collaborating with a person in Panama. I do not buy for a second that a Panamanian editor just happened to take up an interest in Hemingway and Van Gogh templates just a week after Alarbus and Trutkeeper88's conflict and happen to disagree with the same minor issues on the same templates that Alarbus does. I brought the issue here to be reviewed because I am aware that this is a judgment call and that others may disagree. I am not swayed by disagreement from Alarbus' friends RexxS. And I cannot myself unblock Alarbus while I remain convinced that this will enable future harassment. If another admin reviews and decides to unblock I am fine with that, but my conscience does not allow me to unblock untill I am convinced that this will not cause damage to the project in the future. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sum of the contributions by the (now blocked) IP, I note that the majority of the edits by this unregistered user are in the area of template cleanup and template deletion commentary. The majority of edits by this IP do not relate in any way to either Hemingway or Van Gogh, and the edits made to the relevant templates do not have any effect on content but correct a series of minor style errors and make them consistent with similar templates. I think everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath: there was no disruption at all with the edits, they were entirely consistent with policy, they improved the template by making it consistent with other templates throughout the project, and unregistered users are not only permitted but encouraged to improve our project. Please reconsider this block. Risker (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block to be reviewed was not the IP's but Alarbus'. The problem was not with the IP's edits - but with the way he went straight into conflict with the same editors Alarbus have had conflicts over the same issues with. Alarbus unblock request has been declined by uninvolved admin Daniel Case. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Daniel Case aware of this thread? There is no link to Alarbus and the IP, either technically or by their editorial tendencies. And no - as far as I am concerned, we need to review *both* blocks, since you brought this here. Please unblock the IP. Risker (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he was - he could have been since I mentioned the ANI thread on the talkpage. He was aware of the Checkuser results. I have unblocked the IP per your request. Please note that RexxS and Diannaa are both involved at least to the same degree I am.

For the record, I was not aware of this thread. In retrospect it may have been mentioned there, but not linked. Had I known the block was under discussion here, I might well have deferred a decision. As it was I declined based on the fact that not only had the account had previous sockpuppetry issues confirmed by a checkuser (to which I do not have access), and that the contentious behavior of the editor, behavior similar to that which led to the sockpuppetry in the first place, did not, as I said, suggest that the problem which led to the block would not soon recur. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have given full explanation of my actions, and I have brought the issue here for community input. I do not believe that I have acted outside of what is expected by an admin and I believe I have acted in the community's best interest. I am not going to comment here again, and I am not going to take further administrative action in relation to Alarbus whether or not he is unblocked by someone else in the future. I leave it to the community to decide how to proceed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, please reconsider both of these blocks. They are based on someone correcting style errors in widely used templates: for example, deliberately changing a hyperlink to be in black rather than the standard blue that all users and readers immediately recognize, and removing "bolding" markup on group headers that do not require bolding. I'm not seeing a justification for blocking *either* the IP or Alarbus for this. Risker (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blocking either for their edits to templates, but for their unfortunate tendency to get into reverting and getting into disputes with the same editors about the same issues. You can unblock Alarbus if you wish - I will not complain or hold it against you. I will not unblock Alarbus unless some kind of new evidence convinces me that this will not lead to future disruption. I do not consider the fact that the IP and Alarbus have edited at the same time in the past to be evidence either. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be posting once more, but I seem to have to defend my friend from multiple attacks here. Maunus, I am not asking you to be swayed by my disagreement but by my evidence. The IP and Alarbus are unrelated beyond any shadow of a doubt. Different countries, simultaneous edits, and a lack of related edits. Please understand that both Alarbus and I have been deeply involved in improving the accessibility of both lists and templates from a technical viewpoint, and we are as zealous about promoting WP:ACCESS as you and your friends are about promoting content. I commend you for defending those who have such a strong focus on improving quality content, so please do not dismiss me for defending an editor who improves the 'nuts and bolts' behind that content. Policies on accessibility abound in web design, but they enjoy common themes, such as embedding colour into CSS, not into html. It is therefore unsurprising that you may encounter more than one person who holds that view - it is a widely accepted tenet of design. Nobody has produced diffs of Alarbus harassing anybody (although his responses to Ceoil's taunts and insults were predictable), so I cannot accept your judgement on this. Revising a clearly incorrect block rationale to a different one, based on a sort of "gut feeling" that unblocking "will enable future harassment" simply demonstrates further the weakness of your judgement. Now, please, the original block reasons have been shown to be utterly spurious; two productive editors are blocked for no good reason; and your credibility is leaking away post-by-post. I'm normally a mild sort of person, and I hope not unreasonable, so I'm sorry to be so blunt with you about this, but it really is time you swallowed your pride, worked out what is right, and got on with the unblock. --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they were embedding color at different templates, and were not being confrontational with a particular group of content editors this would not have evolved into an issue. People who improve nuts and bolts are valuable to the encyclopedia - people who use multiple accounts to incite conflicts are not - regardless of what areas they like to work in. I am not revising the block rationale - I am just saying that my conscience does not allow me to unblock. Someone else can do it of they wish. One admin reviewed the block and did not wish to. Oh and I do respect your standing up for your friend - but when you accuse me of having clouded judgment because of previous involvement the same question falls back on you - which is why I request a third party to intervene. Oh, and it is not about pride - I am proud to say that always I recognize my errors - when I am convinced that I've made one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see I'm not going to convince you. I should say that both the IP and Alarbus were actually about removing spurious colours from templates, but that's a crimson clupeid. The confrontation actually only exists in the minds of a few people. Review Talk:Ernest Hemingway with a fresh mind and you'll see what I mean. I accept that I view my friends' contributions with rose-tinted spectacles, but I'm not equipped to close AN/I threads or block editors that I'm in dispute with, so it's probably less important in my case, wouldn't you agree? Let me take back the 'pride' remark, that was uncivil of me, and I apologise. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not in a dispute with Alarbus when I closed the ANI thread - or when I blocked him. If I am now it is because of those administrative actions exactly - not because I have ever taken an interest in editing templates. I am not going to take any future administrative actions against Alarbus (or anyone else). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Risker and Boing and Rexx; Alarbus and the IP both need to be unblocked. They have overlapping edits at 02:57 to 03:02 on 10 December. They live in different countries. The Panama IP is not a proxy and cannot be in Alarbus' control. --Dianna (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and HelloAnnyong and Alison also said they were unrelated. --Dianna (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were commenting on the C/U evidence not the behavior. And you are of course at least as involved as I am.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am very involved. Alarbus and I have has much overlap on editing of templates, and I was there on Template talk:Ernest Hemingway when the edit war started. As were you. What drew you to the template talk page that day, Maunus? I can see no record of anyone informing you on your talk page that there was a problem, and asking you to comment. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had Truthkeeper88's talkpage on my watchlist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense then. So your block was based solely on behaviour, and the IP's knowledge of Wiki markup, css, and the like? I am not seeing how Alarbus's time-of-day contributions fits in with Panama, as most of his edits were between 0400 UTC and 1200 UTC, which would lead you to believe he lives where? Hawaii? Japan? I can't figure it out, myself. To be honest, I think the IP could be a troll, even Grawp. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I based it on his knowledge and interests, his known history of using multiple accounts to make similar but non-overlapping edits, and his tendency to be abrasively revert edits to his adopted templates made by content editors such as Modernist and Truthkeeper88 - that and the fact that Alarbus arrived on the scene 3 minutes after the IP was blocked - after not having edited in 6 hours. I don't pay much attention to negative CU evidence since using proxies to get around that is easy - had the CU been positive it would have been conclusive evidence of course. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but here are some diffs to show Alarbus' tendency to edit war on nav templates. I'll be adding to these as I have time:

• Hunter Thompson 4 reverts
• Ernest Hemingway 5 reverts
• Physical oceanography edit warring as One Ton Depot using WP:Deviations as a reason
• Western art movements IP edit wars using WP:Deviations as a reason
• Alabus shows bad faith when talk is initiated on Ernest Hemingay regarding citation styles for an FA with which he disagrees, [105], [106]
• Alarbus posts a very aggressive and bad faith remark to my page [107]
• Alarbus removes olive branch from his page made in good faith, [108]
• RexxS asks me to control Ceoil [109]
• Unwillingly I ask another editor to tone it down [110]. I also send email to ask him to tone it down, which he's done.
• I haven't edited any content since these events. Two nights I ago I started a page, to which Modernist added a template [111]. 12 hours later the template was changed by the IP [112] with the edit summary "css".
• By the way, since I'm being discussed, it would have nice for someone to notify me. What I'd like to see is Alarbus to stop the aggressive edit warring, and if all templates are to changed then the community needs to be told and preferably an RfC should be held. If one has been held, please link it. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Maunus should have notified you, as is required. He neglected to notify Alarbus as well. Jeez. Some days I despair, I really do. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not and no I should not. Geez some days I despair. Assholes abound.< notice the unveiled personal attack, at least I'm honest. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus didn't bring up my name - RexxS did from what I can tell and you continued. We can do without the sarcasm. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Maunus mentioned you in his opening post. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to notify everyone who is mentioned- especially not in a block review you moron.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus left a message for Alarbus: [113]. But that's entirely beside the point, the point is the behavior shown in the diffs above. I'll be leaving a message for Risker as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser is not magical. It cannot detect ephemeral open proxies, nor VPNs. Subject to that caveat, if Alarbus or the IP did something that warrants a block, so be it. Otherwise, I think that absent stronger evidence linking the accounts, we ought to only allow accounts to be blocked for their own behavior. It is easy for any troll to impersonate an editor in conflict and attempt to ruin their reputation by posing as a sockpuppet. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am hereby requesting to be blocked for at least a month as a preventive measure as I am becoming increasingly incivil.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Last time I checked, we didn't do self-requested blocks. If you want a break from wikistress, just edit your raw watchlist and delete everything. Then start editing something else. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well fuck you very much then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so upset? Jehochman^Talk 17:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it man. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's upset for exactly the reason I've been upset. No one has bothered to look at the aggressive (shall we say prickish) behavior that Alarbus has shown, and the coincidence of the IP is a very great coincidence indeed. Furthermore this event has gone very far to pushing a female content editor with subject expertise out of the project. People need to have cool heads and actually examine the behavior instead of this pile-on behavior. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, these types of comments from Alarbus are not acceptable. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a response to Maunus's comment "Hope you get gonorrhea", which was obnoxious - and well deserving of a block, I think. (And it's especially egregious coming from an admin, and demolishes any pretense of his being uninvolved) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't come from an admin as I point out. At this point I can be as involved as I fucking well please.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It came from you, and you are an admin - and as your block was still in force and you refused to lift it, you were very much still in an admin capacity at the time. Now, I seriously would recommend you leave this alone for a while and stop escalating your obnoxious comments, as of you carry on it won't come out good for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know better than you do whether I'm an admin or not. I was not when I said that or I never would have said it. Doesn't matter much now. I would leave you with some gratuitously abusive comments, simply because it feels so good, but I suddenly feel I am at peace with the world. Thanks to everyone involved - this was all for the best. I have an thesis to defend tomorrow. Goodnight all you beautiful people. Even you Alarbus. Now you can have the templates all for yourself - no one will interfere with your choice of color.138.16.112.187 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not spotting that you have handed in the admin tools - if you told us of that somewhere, I didn't see it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before this is closed and you all walk away smugly, patting yourselves on the back for job well done, consider the damage that's done by editors who edit war and refuse to engage in talk page discussion. Also please consider the timesink that is AN/I at a very busy time of year for many. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

• Given that there is no clear consensus here supporting the block, the blocking admin is responding increasingly emotionally rather than rationally (and being extremely uncivil in the process) - and has agreed that another admin can unblock, that there have been no diffs forthcoming to support all the allegations of misbehaviour, and that the socking accusation has not been upheld, I've employed WP:AGF and WP:BOLD and have unblocked Alarbus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Being rational is great isn't it? It just sucks that its so difficult to sleep at night afterwards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're burning out, dude, and you need to back off and go do something else for a while - your "Hope you get gonorrhea" comment was vile, and worthy of a block (if not a desysop) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I could block myself I would have. Now its up to you to put some action behind your words. I hope I don't have to call you names too, since you haven't done anything to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen dude, I really don't want this to turn out any worse for you than it already is, so please, can you listen to some sensible advice and just go away for a while? Switch off the computer, go read a book, have a beer, whatever - carrying on arguing with everyone here is harming only you! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - I am out of harms way at this point. Thanks for caring though!138.16.112.187 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just curious - have you had time to read the diffs and really think about them. I only just now posted them. And have you given other admins the opportunity to study the diffs? Please answer in all honesty. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I did look at them (in fact, I'd already examined some of Alarbus's past edits), and while edit-warring is not good, it seems like an attempt at post-hoc justification for the block after the original reason had been clearly refuted (and the blocking admin refused to unblock, insisting that his gut feel was more important than evidence). (As it happens, with what little I know about tables, templates, and colours, it looks to me as if Alarbus was actually improving things, but that's an aside) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your answer. I just wanted to remind you that we don't edit war and that we discuss to reach consensus. I've been seeing precious little of that. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention you, Truthkeeper, as I have genuinely felt an empathy with you and for your forlorn defence of your friend Ceoil. You've done nothing that I wanted to object to and never wanted to see you dragged here. Heaven knows, I never wanted to be here myself, but I felt somebody had to bat for Alarbus and the IP.

Would you do me the kindness of looking at Alarbus' 4 reverts to Hunter Thompson where he and Dianna are trying to implement WP:HLIST and shorten the over-long list items in a navigation template against an IP who is fighting tooth-and-nail to retain the outdated, inaccessible forms, please? How would you have handled it differently? Is "rv; unhelpful; those are not the articles titles, anyway, just the originally-published-as; such detail more appropriate to the article than a navbox. And you didn't use {allow wrap}. See page widening"[114] the edit summary of someone who is looking for a war, or that of a very competent technical editor trying to educate an intransigent opponent?

Do you now accept that having a "background:#C2B280; color:black;" or a "background:#E1A95F; color:black;" colour scheme badly fails WCAG standards for accessibility? and that WP:HLIST is an accessibility improvement over the old {{middot}} style? Because that's what Alarbus was fixing ("remove colour that fails colour contrast analysis") and what you[115] ("undo; baby blue doesn't seem appropriate for the macho guy") and Modernist[116]("Reverted edits by Alarbus (talk) to last version by Modernist") were shoving back. Aren't these the poorest examples possible to be asking for an indefinite block of Alarbus? --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, as you well know, I have bent over backward to try to bring rational discussion to this - to the point that it's interfered greatly in my personal life. At this point the issue of the navigation templates needs to go to an RfC in my view to prevent the loss of more editors and more content production. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have. I feel for you, I'm sorry you've been involved (although not by me). Honestly, TK, you need to step away from this. I didn't want to make a big deal about it, but I'm increasingly concerned about how this is affecting you: Look at the Physical oceanography evidence you offered, there's no sign of edit-warring there by Alarbus (=One Ton Depot), and the only revert is when Epipelagic corrects my error and credits Alarbus/OTD with understanding the problem (edit summary: "no, we've been over this before. This change breaks the display states set for all the articles on the template. One Ton Depot understands the problem. There are other issues as well"). Also Alarbus never edited Western art movements template. We have WP:ACCESS#Color, WP:HLIST, WP:DEVIATIONS already enjoying considerable consensus. Are you really asking for an RfC to revoke these? --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away - Both the IP and Alarbus have not removed spurious colors - they removed perfectly good colors from those templates. Their contention is that the only good good color is the default color. The contrast was okay in several that the IP reverted, without any remark at all concerning contrast and readability. Those concerns are legitimate concerns and they were not made, and they were not made clear. Alarbus seems to have a grudge against Featured articles and featured article editors and writers; the IP and Alarbus only coincident edit was the one at 2:57 - where Alarbus checked out and the IP checked in - so it is not impossible. I do not want any carry over edit wars from Alarbus or the IP. In my opinion maunus did a good job, I have had no contact with him that I am aware of before this issue and I think he did his best...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alarbus did remove spurious colours: "background:#C2B280; color:black;" & "background:#E1A95F; color:black;" fail the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that we have agreed to adhere to on Wikipedia as well as on the rest of the web. So please correct yourself. Your opinion of what "Alarbus seems to have a grudge against" is a classic assumption of bad faith. It's that sort of assertion that leads to conflict instead of resolution here. And finally, your theory is now that Alarbus made 27 edits from 01:51 to 02:57 on Campaignbox templates, (plus a note to User:Edokter about a rule for Campaignboxes), then somehow instantaneously appears in Panama as an IP and makes 6 out-of-process closures of totally unrelated templates at Templates for discussion (Nebraska Cornhuskers football award navbox??) then between 03:02 and 03:03 gets back home and carries on as Alarbus with Template:Campaignbox British airborne forces operations, and edits for another 30-odd minutes before logging off. Have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds compared with the alternative possibility that they are two different, unrelated editors? --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth - you misread what I said. I said that the IP and Alarbus only coincident edit was the one at 2:57 - at the time it was unclear who was where, the IP was in Panama and the sock probe was determining where Alarbus was. The IP deleted reasonably usable contrasting colors - and Alarbus did the same during the earlier Hemingway dispute. As you know I talked with you at the time about our willingness to use properly contrasting text and colors in the templates. I would appreciate you refraining from any further attacks against the editors involved in this dispute...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, I was under the impression you were the one doing the attacking, and I was the one doing the defending. Nevertheless, I'd be more than happy to refrain if you will also, or is that not part of the deal? --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, given the line above, you don't seem able to stop. I suggest that you try...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this thread belatedly. My experience with Alarbus, in his earlier incarnation as One Ton Depot (talk · contribs) was most unpleasant. It was a protracted experience of relentless attacks from One Ton Depot as he ran over dozens of templates I created and attempt to look after, refusing to give any solid rationale for what he was doing while shouting at me that I didn't "own" them. When, in exasperation, I attempted to remonstrate with him, I was warned by Diannaa, who appears to be the administrator presiding over the template blitz, that I was not to discuss his unacceptable behaviour. At the time, the guidelines did not support what One Ton Depot was doing. In a subsequent saga of frustration, Diannaa dismissed my every concern by stonewalling, just parroting her position over and over in a patronising way, refusing to give any rationales. I too, like Truthkeeper and others above, got to the point of thinking it wasn't worth trying to add value to Wikipedia. This heavy-handed blitz on templates has been going on for some time, and I see other editors appear to have resigned.

None of this drama was necessary. I suggest that much unnecessary strife would be preempted by providing a decent essay somewhere which sets the issues out clearly and rationally, and provides a sensible forum for dissenting views. My concerns were not acknowledged, and templates are now under the control of a handful of technos. I know Wikipedia is "not a democracy", but just how far are we going with the current process of whittling away meaningful participation by content editors? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that none of this drama was necessary. In my case it was because of a simple edit - I didn't understand why the color had changed. I also think edits such as these that show assumptions of bad faith [[117], [118] while at the same time complaining that bad faith has been shown [119] is problematic and doesn't add to a collaborative editing environment. I'd like to see links to where the nav box changes were decided and I think the entire community needs to know about these changes before more of this happens. If necessary we should run an RfC. At the least, the changes should be well publicized and explained. It's been explained to me that it's for WP:Access reasons, very ironic since I have quite poor eyesight, but nobody has explained any where that all the nav templates in the entire project are being changed to the same color. The tool to choose compliant colors is here, and many colors, other than the baby blue that formats on my screen, are available. If every single template is to be the same color, I think it's a change that needs to be well-discussed and explained. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

184.100.94.240 and Free Radio Santa Cruz

There seems to be an issue with Free Radio Santa Cruz and an editor (User talk:184.100.94.240) who believes in removing sources claiming they are "leftist". I see this as a POV issue, and am requesting some assistance with an administrator. I have informed the IP editor of the POV issue, and that Wikipedia has a neutral policy. The editor believes that he/she is justified in removal of the sources and other content because of the ideological beliefs of the sources on the article. If it sounds confusing, it is. I would like some help. Thanks --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone goes to the discussion, they will find that I legitimately edited the article with an explanation on the talk page. The sources were both from partisan leftist sites and no objectivity was presumed. I also added notability and citations missing tags. The article needs improvement. "Milonica" believes he is the final arbiter of all that is here. He reversed my edits without discussion. He parades his experience as being an editor and makes threats. This is some welcome. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I never said I was the final arbiter in anything. What I saw was deletion of sources and content based on what you perceive as sources that have no objectivity. I disagree, specifically since the sources are as follows... Santa Cruz Sentinel - a newspaper, Santa Cruz Independent Media - a news site, both of which I have a hard time finding anything partisan about, and Democracy Now. As for the last one, I'll give you that one as being slightly partisan, but regardless, does that mean the article on the site is partisan itself? Democracy Now! likely covered the story from the Santa Cruz Independent Media. Where is your proof of partisan-ism in the links? You think its okay to remove sources because they may lean left or right? It is information, not partisan politics as you believe. If you have a problem with this article, I would ask you to look at any number of other articles on Wikipedia, with similar sources. I bet you could find a lot. This isn't about making threats, its about sticking to policy here on Wikipedia. I would love to have another editor jump in on this issue, because as I've said all along, it is a POV issue. See: WP:NPOV. Also, you're close to violating the three revert rule, and you didn't give enough time for others to offer there opinion before deleting the content. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Sentinel and the extensive Democracy Now segment seem ok to me as sources for the article, though some minor quibbling with the article's wording compared with the sources might be apropos. I'd say 184.100.94.240 is both editing tendentiously and edit warring (s/he removed sourced stuff about the FCC raids against the station, replacing it with an aggressively worded unsourced claim that the station is ideologically leftist and operates illegally[120]--give me a break). After the initial removal, 184.100.94.240 reverted to his/her version twice[121][122] I'm going to restore the removed material and would suggest an immediate EW block if 184.100.984.240 removes it again. If there's a serious question about the sourcing, WP:RSN is the appropriate venue for discussion, but I think we're just dealing with a POV-pushing troll needing RBI. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of "Milonica", would you; are you one of his editing friends, or a member of his "alternative media" subculture; affiliated with Radio Free Santa Cruz since your IP is in the general area of the station? Are you being aggressive because someone is calling this article and "Milonica" out on a clear POV violation? I thought - in the parlance of WP - I was to "be bold" in editing. Welcome to WP, it appears. POV pushing troll? Talk a look in the mirror. This just another skirmish in the information war. Don't think it's anything else. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a unresolved tag to this section, as it appears to be continuing, now spanning across other articles. See Special:Contributions/184.100.94.240 for more. The editor continues to believe the press is some how not objective, but only if it is (according to them) leftist or anything remotely democratic in nature. Notable sources we're all familiar with are under attack...[[123]]. I would agree with the other editor above that this editor is attempting to push their POV onto articles, and disagrees with the sources as presented. I would argue that the editor believes that any source that doesn't fit his/her point of view is not objective. The editor also falsely accused me of using a sock puppet, or that the IP above and I are related. For reference, I am in Wyoming, not California. I have no idea who the IP editor is, and records will prove that we are not the same person. I do not appreciate the attitude, nor the false accusations. I am requesting some administrative assistance on this matter. Thanks, --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:CrustyPores refactoring other's talk page comments

User:CrustyPores needs a chat about not refactoring other's talk page comments over other user's signatures as part of petty vandalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I'd take this guy to WP:AIV. Vandalism, refactoring comments, perhaps the lamest attempt in history at impersonating a member of the House of Representatives, and that lovely user page image collectively point at an editor not interested in the betterment of the encyclopedia. ETA: It seems User:Baseball Bugs did just that. --NellieBly (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED, ALL PARTIES ARE NOW ON THE BEST OF TERMS, NO NEED TO FOLLOW THIS UP ANY FURTHER. NO WORRIES. TOLDUIWASHARDCORE 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add gross username to the list of complaints. And garish, totally inappropriate signature while we're at it. --erachima talk 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the username that God (and myself) gave me, sir. My pores are crusty, and this is the reality of the life I live everyday in these gritty streets. I have no idea why you would post to a page about a dead person, unless you are trying to imply that I'm a "recreational drug user", or threatening me in some roundabout way. Actually, I'm not convinced that you're not trolling. TOLDUIWASHARDCORE 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been indefinitely-blocked as a vandalism-only account. The block seems appropriate. I guess this thread is done. Chzz ► 13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For info, UserLCrustyPores is blocked user LustyRoars. That signature is unforgettable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hhahahahahah that talk page is hilarious. Vandalism is of course a crime somewhere between gbh and manslaughter in its severity but this chap clearly did it with style. Egg Centric 19:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Knew I recognised that tiled userpage style from somewhere, Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As vandals go, he was without malice. Trying to get Gonville Bromhead to rhyme with rude words [124][125] was just hilarious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. maybe. But TBF.. (Troll, block, forget.) (Or whatever the acronym is.) Or as unix users say /dev/null - that's why we got rid of BJADON (which was actually funny). Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
[reply]

Also Confirmed is SandyCrevice (talk·contribs). –MuZemike 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus and beyond uncivil

Just received this on my talk page after this edit summary was provided. I understand that administrators aren't perfect and can get overwhelmed with the crap left by editors that they are asked to clean up, but...... I'm thinking this is a response to something else that's happening (unrelated to me) but, regardless, I do feel this goes beyond uncivil. Coming to an editor's talk page specifically to make that kind of comment seems really over the top. One point of clarification: the edit summary I used when clearing my talk page was not in response to Maunus' talk page entry, it was in response to the edit summary from Maunus' talk page. If I had realized that comment from him was there, I wouldn't have left the edit summary I did so as not to incite anything further. I didn't discuss this with him on his talk page because it was obvious from his talk page edit summary stating, "Get lost" that he didn't want me on his talk page any more. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Time out, kids causa sui (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(S)he is obviously committing suicide by mod. A preventative 24 hour block so (s)he can sober up/take pills/get over hormones or whatever should cool things down. Egg Centric We don't do cooldown blocks; if he asks, then by all means block him. HurricaneFan25 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sexist much? Jesus fucking Christ. To think I actually thought this anti-woman thing was a myth. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've asked so now do your job you wankers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] That you are reading anything sexist into anything I said says a lot more about me than you. Egg Centric 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Assuming that someone who has a hysterical attack has pms is quite clearly sexist. (Personal attack removed).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Took the words right out of my mouth, Maunus. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say pms, I said hormones. Applies to both sexes (not equally though, hehe) Although your particular choice of wording amuses me Egg Centric 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Cute sophistry, son. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Kafka Liz, is it sexist to have spent a number of years with a partner who got extremely irritable every four weeks or so and excused this with hormones, but got temporarily rid of the problem when she was pregnant? This is of course a purely hypothetical question. HansAdler 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] That's irrelevant Hans. The important thing is this: Egg Centric 1 - 0 Kafka Liz. Another internet victory and notch on the bedpost. Having discovered that Maunus is actually a bloke, should I also oppress the uppity former-admin (who probably only got it through affermative action) by making remarks about his Latin tempermaent as well? Damn, it's hard being a young(ish) middle class white male. Egg Centric 18:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about we all just drop it? As a favor to me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I will, once Egg Centric has dropped her sexist insinuation about drinking. She must know that not all men are like that. Hans Adler 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's ok for Maunus to behave like that to his fellow editors because he's going on a break? How about whenever he decides to grace us with his presence again, then he can get a week block. fish&karate 18:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not punative. You can murder Jimbo Wales and so long as you are not going to cause any subsequent problems for Wikipedia you'll still be allowed to edit. Egg Centric 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Don't murder Jimbo. Go for grawp instead. Egg Centric 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EggCentric: I have no idea what this little kerfluffle is all about, but let's put the "blocks are not punitive" bullshit out to pasture once and for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manus has resigned his admin bit. Presumably this is considered "leaving under a cloud" or whatever? If he returns will he be denied his the attendant return of his rights? 125.254.72.233 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fruitful direction for discussion at this point. I'm neither an ally nor an enemy of maunus, but kicking somebody when they're down on the floor (regardless of whether they deserve to be down there) is unlikely to have a positive outcome. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised he has a thesis to defend - therefore delayed unblock and re-admin proposal

He said he was defending his thesis tomorrow. Now, I'm no academic (I have one of these but I assure you I did almost no work for it) but I understand that if one is into the academic life this is probably one of the most important days of his career. He's probably under ridiculous amounts of stress (and treble the severity of that for an academic cause they ain't used to stress). He also presumably can't be wasting time on wikipedia at the time being. And I understand how bad psychological addiction can be. So he maybe had no alternative. And he's clearly an emotional type.

I propose therefore, given that things will be sorted in 72 hours time, that he gets everything back, both an unblock and his bit, after that time period. Thoughts? Egg Centric 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!..Modernist (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he's neither blocked nor desysopped preventatively—both were done at his own request. He can be unblocked and have his bit back whenever he wants, be it 24 hours or 2 months. Swarm^X 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus (a wiki-friend of mine and a real life friend and colleague of Slrubenstein) self-blocked himself for 3 months in the summer, while on a field trip in Mexico and also because ... (just look at his block log yourself). Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is probably a big thing for an academic, yes he probably is a bit addicted, and yes, he needs a break. I'd personally unblock and give him back the bits on Boxing Day (so he can spend Xmas with his family, best girl, pooch or whatever). I have the utmost sympathy with people who deal with the ultimate stress by exploding in this way - when I was at Uni (back in 19 hundred and frozen to death) I had a nervous breakdown, and we know some folks do even more extreme things. In the ultimate run of the world, gobbing off on wikipedia is a minor thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I don't view this episode as having any significance whatsover either in real life or here. Of course if he wants his bits back, he should have them. (I should add that I have chatted to him by email in the last half hour.) Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just suggest that we all just stop talking about Maunus now. He's got something much more important to deal with, and we surely don't want him being distracted from it with thoughts of "What are they saying about me now?" So come one, how about we just let it drop now until his self-impose block expires, and let him get on with real life and wish him well with his thesis? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Old Trafford

... by two users who know better. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:Syjytg removed Mr Stephen's post to this page three times, without cause, edit summary, or explanation. I've blocked Syjytg for 2 weeks for that. I've (yet) not blocked user:Haldraper, although a summary of the Old Trafford page also shows Haldraper with many reverts today. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a stupid edit war that was. I've blocked Haldraper for 3 days, which I think is proportionate to the intensity of the edit war. I'd have blocked Syjytg for the same time had Syjytg not also removed the ANI posts, which I personally feel to be decidedly worse than the simple edit war. I invite others to review both blocks, and anyone is welcome to step into the vexatious battle of the comma. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the lamest way to get blocked I've ever seen. They should do a comedy act. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of Syjytg removing a post on WP:RPP here is being removed from his talk page Mo ainm~Talk 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we topic restrict an editor to not adding or removing commas? I know, lame. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanton cruelty to the common comma; that's a hangin' offence 'round these parts, pardner. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organgemarlin and Captain Occam

Really blatant NLT violation

Resolved: User blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant NLT violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed until they see fit to retract the threat. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User has retracted the threat. m.o.p 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped the user a note to clarify their intent on being a constructive editor; suggest unblocking after they've confirmed said intent. m.o.p 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the user in question decided to retract their legal threat and promises to stay out of disputes in the future, I've unblocked. m.o.p 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're really going to retract the legal treat, shouldn't they remove it from their Talk page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Orwiad10

Orwiad10 (talk · contribs · logs) has made exactly ten trivial changes to articles by adding invisible characters (such as %C2%AD) to them. I noticed only because by doing so he broke a link at East Germany. I'm reverting all these supposedly trivial changes. I'm not familiar enough with the list of banned users: does this look like anyone any of you recognize? I'll be notifying the editor as soon as I post here. --NellieBly (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should part of the above comment be removed as per WP:BEANS? No sense handing the car keys to someone looking for a joyride. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --NellieBly (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are suspicious. The character inserted was a soft hyphen (the character is hex 00AD which is represented as C2 AD in UTF-8). Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to become autoconfirmed possibly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what was redacted from the OP per WP:BEANS... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on him. --NellieBly (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-blocking

I am aware that voluntary blocking of an editor is generally not granted. However, I request that I be blocked from Wikipedia, preferable if indefinitely. Reasons include my rude behavior to other editors, persistence of insults, continuation of these things in spite of repeated warnings by numerous editors and repeated overheating of arguments. I have not contributed to Wikipedia articles in any significant way, so there is no real reason I should be here. I just want out. I'm done with my time here. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want a break. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior

This is the first time that I have ever reported anybody anywhere for anything in Wikipedia. Regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approximately 2 years, there is no more “assuming”, there is “knowing”. I am going to describe the general situation for context, and then describe a specific small situation where I have decided to finally take a small stand and request a small action.

User Noviseminary chronically exhibits obsessive battling behavior with other editors. Also, certainly in my case, this includes following to other articles where I've edited do this at those in response/retaliation for standing my ground at another article. This is mostly focused on the individuals rather than actual content disputes. The pattern is to go after the targeted individual and do very aggressive deletion, tagging, and very aggressive editing strongly and directly focused on the work of the individual. And, if someone stands their ground with them they follow them to other articles where the victim has edited and start similar activities.

Due to their extreme cleverness:

• wiki-saavy in general
• misusing (and, to newbies, misrepresenting) policies/guidelines (rather than violating them) to conduct warfare
• often a small overused/ misused shred of legitimacy in many of the battling edits
• continuously rapidly erasing (not archiving) their talk page so that it would take hours for someone to see their history there
• knowing how to sound wikipedian and pretending to be (sound) reasonable when doing this
• mixing in legitimate housekeeping type edits with the obsessive battling edits and pointing to those to refute complaints

it would take me 20 hours (including hundreds of diffs) to fully communicate what this individual has been doing, hence I'm only noting this for context in a "IMO" framework, and then asking for and supporting a remedy on a particular situation as taking a small stand on a big problem. Most of this is conducted against newbies, I was also a newbie when it started. This chased many of them out of Wikipeda but I survived.

In my case, it started about 2 years ago with a brief head butting at the Carrie Newcomer article, my first interaction with them, where I ended up leaving it as they preferred: [148] and branched out as they followed me to article after article from there. ALL of my subsequent conflicts with this individual have been at articles which they subsequently followed me to, and each “following” was generally preceded by (and in response/retaliation to) me standing my ground with them at another article

These sections of the talk page at the Machine vision article provide a tiny but very typical/representative glimpse:

• Talk:Machine vision#I reverted deletion of 3/4 of the article
• Talk:Machine vision#Processing methods section
• Talk:Machine vision#Please discuss on talk page before removing large amounts of material
• Talk:Machine vision#Proposed plan to expand / improve
• Talk:Machine vision#Phoenix
• Talk:Machine vision#Removal of direct interface section

Another very representative slice can be seen at the small talk page and edit summaries of the Feast of the Hunters' Moon article.

I leave my talk page as an “open book”, I don’t delete anything except broadcast type items, and I only archive two types of things, one of them a special archive for this individual due to the length and nastiness of those items. This can be viewed at User_talk:North8000/Archive_N

I have not followed them to any articles. The only time that I’ve ended up at one of their articles was about 2 times (only) when one of their many fights showed up on a notice board that I watch and then I made only low key moderator type comments.

In response to recent renewed clashes at the Machine vision and Feast of the Hunters' Moon articles they followed me to an article (Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) where I have been doing some rescue type work.

The rescue work article started out at an article called Signature image processing. (SIP) I originally brought up the idea of deleting this predecessor article. My concern was that that it was overly narrow and focused on one company's particular method of doing weld monitoring and testing, and that the generic-technical-sounding title was not such, it is a term only for that particular company’s product, and that it had a somewhat promotional tone. Other editors disagreed, making good points saying that it was a heavily sourced article on a legit topic. During ensuing conversations, it became clear that none of the editors had a coi. Over a three month period it was decided to redirect/expand this article into a broader, uncovered topic which is Weld monitoring, testing and analysis where the subject of the previous article became merely a section in the new article. I sort of "warned" ahead of time that the other sections would temporarily be stubs, hopefully temporarily as other editors built it over time. I researched other articles, especially the Welding article to make sure that this topic was uncovered. Also it was clear that real coverage of Signature image processing at Welding which is a top level article on a even much broader topic would be ungainly/undue. Recently I rechecked with the 3 other editors (also see their talk pages on this)....100% agreed and I made the move. As anticipated the new sections were stubs. I posted a note at the talk page of the Welding (which, structurally, this is basically a sub-article of) article about this article and solicited editors. I did some work and the intended to leave the article (for development by others) until Novaseminary assaulted it.

Then Novaseminary followed me to the article in immediate retaliation for me standing my ground with them at the Feast of the Hunters' Moon and Machine vision and did the following:

• First they proded the article (and tag bombed it, I’ve left all of the other tags in place) saying that it did not meet notability and that the SIP section was “seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here.” I removed the prod tag, saying that the subject has EXTENSIVE coverage in sources, plus referring them to the extensive talk page discussion which led to this.

• Second So then they put a notability tag on the article. To be doubly safe I put more material & sources in. I responded and removed the tag.

• Third So then they nominated the article for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) As of this writing it is still open, but I think that it became obvious to Novasemianry that the deletion is wp:snow prompting them to take the next actions.

• Fourth So then (with the AFD still open) they gutted the article and undid the whole consensused rework by moving the SIP material back out into a separate article, undoing the redirect. I reverted this

• Fifth So then(with the AFD still open) they edited the redirect back into a competing article which duplicated the SIP material. Mind you, this competing article is the same content and topic which they originally said "seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here” I reverted this

The articles for deletion page is very informative on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

Again, regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approx 2 years, there is no longer a matter of “assuming”, it is a matter of “knowing”

I have decided to, on behalf of Wikipedia and their other current and future victims to invest the time to take this small stand on a big problem. I am not asking for action on the larger problems because I have not spent the 20 hours it would take to fully communicate and support what I have said that this individual has been doing. I ask that the proportionally microscopic but important measure be taken of blocking Novaseminary from editing the Signature image processing and Weld monitoring, testing and analysis articles for one week or one month and warning them to, after that, obtain consensus before doing such aggressive, controversial major changes on these. It is important this bigger problem of abuse of editors with clever so-far impunity be confronted, even to this very small extent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to say that I have observed the same sort of things with Novaseminary. The response to newbies has been particularly disturbing. This edit is a good example of what I have seen. The Strict Baptists article had been subject to vandalism in the past, and Novaseminary might have thought the newbie editor was the vandal. But Novaseminary's actions were also based on a dubious interpretation of WP:IMAGE, and worst of all, there was very little explanation or encouragement on the article's talk page, the offending user's talk page, or even in the edit summaries. Perhaps a mentorship would be appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a colossal amount of history to read through here, but my initial impression is that Novaseminary is a valuable contributor with a deep understanding of wikipedia, but who can be prickly and difficult to deal with. He also seems to have problems working collaboratively, and struggles when not getting "his own way". More seriously, a quick look at the deletion discussion presented by North above reveals what looks like an attempt by Novaseminary to subvert the result when he realised the discussion wasn't going his way. That said, he does a lot of good work and is valuable to the project; perhaps mentorship would be of benefit? Basalisk^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty confident that I know this individual the best of anybody in wikipedia. This is a people-chemistry-with-editors driven situation; content battles are the trigger and the result of this, but these battles are not driven by the usual clash of ideologies or content agendas as most other Wikipedia battles are. And they do have a very nasty streak in one area that I have not discussed. I am also guessing that a small action might have a substantial impact with this individual, but some type of mentoring would be better. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North and I obviously have a history. I prefer to focus on content, however, so I will briefly address the recent content episode North mentioned.

• I think Weld monitoring, testing and analysis is not itself a notable topic (as such), though it may contain many notable topics. It seemed to me to be several concepts strung together. I sent it to AfD here. This article had been created when North moved it from Signature image processing, leaving behind a redirect. I do think Signature image processing does meet N on its own (if barely), so I spun it off in its recent edited form from Weld monitoring, testing and analysis at Signature image processing. I then edited Weld monitoring, testing and analysis using summary style, adding a link to the main article (Signature image processing) and adding a source I took from the amin article so the new summary was sourced. This also had the effect of bringing the Weld monitoring, testing and analysis into proportion among the topics. Anyway, if North thinks Signature image processing fails WP:N, the way to delete it or enforce an alternative to deletion is through AfD. He should not continue re-redirecting and removing talk where I explained myself. Regardless, none of my edits to either article have been disruptive, nor is the AfD (even when North went personal at the AfD immediately).
• Unfortunately, I am personally being called into question here. To that end I would note the following:

• StAnselm, himself sometimes prickly to work with, sometimes great to work with, was blocked a few weeks ago after I reported him at WP:AN3. There is also a minor disagreement between us that is the subject of an RfC (here) that is not going his way.
• And North and my real history turned sour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream where an article he created was deleted after I put it up for discussion. He went so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts, User talk:North8000/Archive N (where there is no nastiness on my part). I would summarize our main philosophical disagreement as being that I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced) and North is fine with more personal knowledge and synthesis in the hope (honestly held, I believe, but wrong, I believe) that this will elad to better articles. The is exemplified on one of the examples North gave above, here. But it needn't get personal.

So if I hurt North's or StAnselm's feelings, I wish I hadn't and I am sorry. But disagreements about content, however strongly held our positions may be, should not get personal. For any part I had in turning them that way, I am also sorry. I hope you all are, too. I have done my best to avoid them both as of late, but that is not always going to happen. I'd say we all get back to editing constructively.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream is another place which Novaseminary followed me to and exhibited this behavior. If I were spending the 20 hours preparing the overall presentation, that would certainly be in there. Not as tidy of an illustration due to its hugeness and the fact that the other 1/2 of the material is no longer available to view (extensive relevant talk page content lost with the userfication) but a read through the AFD shows the same obsessive battling behavior. Gutting the article and removing references and notability-related information simultaneously with nominating it for AFD based on notability, and they probably spent at least dozens of hours to attack it and every detail in it from every possible angle. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is further instructive of the cleverness of this individual to note what I already said that the special ARCHIVE was due to a combination of me never deleting and seldom archiving editor conversations from my talk page and wanting to get theirs off of my main talk page. After explaining this they described it as "so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts". And they implied cause-effect by "afterwards" whereas it actually happened 10 months later. North8000 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The described "philosophical disagreement" does not exist. I 100% agree with Novseminary's description ("I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced)") of "their side" of the non-existent philosophical disagreement. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor but very clarity-creating example that this is person-focused battling rather than about such differences is when, as the first edit to the article in three months, with this edit [[149]] I added an additional "medium quality" reference to the article. It was from a national website on events, not such a high quality wp:rs to be assault proof, but I added it only as a second source supporting a statement that was already in there. Within a day Novaseminary showed up and began battling to eliminate the new source, with no challenge of the statement which it supported. In short, they battled to reduce the sourcing on a statement because it was one of their targeted victims (me) who added the source. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comment, it is instructive and illustrative to note that in order to continue the "come after me" process at the weld monitoring article Novaseminary in essence did a complete reversal of their position on the SIP material. When the way to "come after me" was to attack the overall article, they in essence criticized the SIP material as unworthy of even being a section in the article. When that failed, in order to continue to aggressively go after my work they took the material that they essentially said wasn't even worthy of a section in the article and instead made an entire article out of it. This dramatically illustrates that it was about coming after me via aggressive and obsessive targeting of my work rather than anything else. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the depth of material here, would a RFC/U not be a better venue? --Blackmane (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{small Someone screwed up somewhere and my comment was moved somewhere else. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

What I strongly request

1. The creepiest, nastiest and most concerning me-focused stuff from this individual I can't and didn't talk about here and received partial help on from oversight on. As a remedy, a complete ban against this individual doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity.* As an aside, by my initiative and choice, I gave an oversighter my RW identity in relation to this.
2. A warning to generally dial back their targeting me and my work for aggressive activity at articles that they followed me to.* North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*These could have wording that does not presume a determination of past behavior. Like a preface "Whether or not such has occurred, do not......" North8000 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest

1. A 1 week block at those two articles, and a warning to go to talk and get a consensus before making any major controversial changes there after that.
2. Some type of mentoring or at least mentoring-lite regarding this type of behavior. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never violated any policy at those articles and only made a handful of edits at them anyway (and left North's version after he started to edit war, and haven't even edited there recently). There is no ”incident” to discuss here. And I would suggest that North be warned to not make personal attacks as he has from the first AfD at which we crossed paths (Traveller's Dream). At least that would be based on policy. But North, instead, why don't we just get back to editing constructively instead of wasting time here so you can win a point? Novaseminary (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the usual mis-characterizations, several in one paragraph, but a change there is not expected or essential at this point The items under "what I suggest" are more for the good of Wikipedia and I don't have any pressing personal concern to have them implemented. With resolution of the other items, I would let others judge (and would be comfortable with any decision) without pursuing or discussing them further here.

But the items under "what I strongly request" are of great importance to me. If you would truly agree to those things, then from my standpoint, I would be ready to move on. It would be OK to word them differently in a way that does not imply any conclusions about past behavior such as: #1 Completely avoid doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity. #2 Not exhibit any pattern of aggressive edits, tags and other activities that is focused on me or my work, particularly where you follow(ed) me to an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your requests, I have noted that you have claimed on more than one ocassion to work in an industry and have edited that article. You made one of the statements on the article's talk. Me asking you to confirm no COI, when you are editing an article to add unsourced mentions of particular products and services, is not a ”privacy violation.” Neither is me asking you to confirm (which you did) that you were not inappropriately citing yourself when you do add sources. This is not the place to ask for warnings about things you are unwilling to talk about. And as for targeting you, I always focus on content (except here and user talk pages). The number of articles we overlap on is tiny compared to the number we have each edited (ever or recently). You ad hominem attacks on me personally, here and elseshere, is the only targeting going on. But again, this is not an appropriate forum to beat each other up. Novaseminary (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those utilizing-COI fishing expeditions/attacks were not the worst of such problems, and I already gave my real world name to an oversighter and asked for a review of myself in those areas which you were using as an attack method. This was further double covered by when I said "And if you see any company-specific product or process promotion in either article specifically bring it up as such at the articles(s)." And it was triple covered on the Weld inspection article where I said many times that it is not my area of expertise or interest, that I was only doing short term rescue work there, planned to leave the article for good, and was forced to come back to it when you assaulted it. You still trying create an interrogation style conversation where it is beyond-baseless ludicrous for the welding article is beyond-disingenuous and illustrative of your clever-tactic obsessive battling which I say based on immense experience with you.

If you won't agree to the above things, even with the substitution of simply "not do" wording for "stop doing", wording, then we have more work to do here. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could go 10 levels up and say lets genuinely be friendly and friends, which presumably would resolve everything. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North, I have tried to be friendly from our first interactions. Take a look at what I said early in that Novaseminary talk archive you created. Go back and read what I (not other eds who agreed with me) actually wrote at the Travellers' Dream AfD, and despite being called some pretty nasty things by you, DougT, and various folks you invited to that AfD from the outset. You have consistently said terrible, personal things about me.

I have not done so to you (and I am sorry if there are examples to the contrary), and at most questioned whether your bank of knowledge and experience and employment in certain fields could lead to less objectivity; this is an encyclopedia, afterall, not a technical forum. And only because I was concerned it might affect content. (I practice what I preach, never editing anything even remotely related to my day job.)

I've tried to stick to the content. Unfortunately, we have not always seen eye-to-eye there. There is no reason for the vitriol. Everytime you have tagged me as ”obsessed”, you have been equally interested or more, otherwise our disagreements would have withered on the vine. My only interest, and the places where we have had disagreements, have been where I (rightly or wrongly) thought text you added or reinserted was promotional, otherwise POV, or OR. I feel strongly about that (otherwise the value of WP goes downhill fast).

Anyway, I say bygones.

Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to read between the lines in the best possible way, as possibly a partial response to my "10 levels up" idea rather than take and respond to all of that literally. But I really don't know what you are saying/think about my "10 levels up" idea. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North, feel free to keep making this sort of edit here to prevent this from being archived (though you might irritate folks), but unless somebody else weighs in in a way that necesitates a response, I'll let things lie here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That is silly on multiple levels. I accidentally used a different term in this most recent post, and then chose the better (newer) one when when reconciling them. Second, how would editing an old post in a section that has newer posts prevent archiving, and thirdly, archiving would be irrelevant here. It looks like there is no resolution of this in this exchange.North8000 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP by BT Business (and possibly home)

Problem solved. The local chapter for the United Kingdom, Wikimedia UK, have been in touch with BT regarding this, however by this morning, the issue had already been resolved. I can confirm (as a checkuser, and in compliance with checkuser policy) that as of approximately 0900 UTC, people were no longer being routed through 194.72.9.24. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Without being logged in, I am on this IP: User talk:194.72.9.24 - and looking at its contribs, and block log etc, it seems as though lots of other people are as well. I use BT Business for my ISP and it's possible it's a semi-transparent proxy or something - anyway could you have a look please? Egg Centric 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, BT seem to be proxying their business users transparently (bn-proxy1.ealing.ukcore.bt.net). I've lifted the block for the moment and will monitor the IP contributions for a while. It was only a soft block. --GraemeL(talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I wonder if this will be like the virgin killers thingy back in the day and there's some "child porn" on wikipedia that is being censored again. If so, expect more "fun" ahead... Egg Centric 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] It looks like BT is almost certainly doing its Cleanfeed proxying thing again. They used User talk:194.72.9.25 last time. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for background. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] That could make perfect sense after the recent court case forcing them to block access to some sites that deal in copyright infringing material. --GraemeL (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've blocked it again, I'm not willing to sit and revert every second edit through the IP. --GraemeL (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Seems reasonable - a shame, but I don't see what else you can do. I doubt it's the copyright thing though - I think it is wikipedia specifically. When I go to whatismyip.com, for example, I get a different ip, which is the same ip as my broadband modem thinks it has. Once my cleaner has buggered off I'll take a look at the virgin killers thing and see if I can see it! Egg Centric 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Most of the IPs used last time are still blocked. If I remember rightly we had to lock a few usertalk pages too. Maybe some of the same templates from last time could be updated and used, but I think at this point the current extent of the problem is not clear yet. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for adding that other template to the talk page. I've watchlisted it to try and gauge the level of pain. --GraemeL(talk) 16:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] just to say; I am on BT Business here at work as well and am seeing the same issue. Also; it only seems to be happening for some sites (such as Wikipedia). Nothing seems to be censored though. We've had a few DNS issues the last few days (to the extent we're now using OpenDNS so we can actually get on the net....) with BT and other outages - it may all be related. --Errant(chat!) 16:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] well, I could look at virgin killer fine (and fook me, the IWF have a point - that's pretty extreme stuff, although daft it being illegal in the context) so I'm out of ideas. Let's see if anything happens. Egg Centric 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Confirmation it's not just BT Business, but BT Home as well - people should be getting home over the next 90 minutes... fun . Also, if this becomes a story on the register by Andrew Orlowski (sp?) with him quoting from the noticeboard could I have a shout out to me homies please? It would also be nice if you don't take the above quote about the image out of context and make me look like a paedophile. Ta Egg Centric 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just another note to add that I can edit wikia under my real ip; other language *.wikipedias are using the proxified ip. However if I use the secure wikipedia then it goes back to my correct ip. So there's a workaround. Egg Centric 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Editing this through the secure site - I am also being filtered on BtOpenzone, which means about 7 million UK users are also being filtered through that IP. Oops. 109.150.175.212 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Egg Centric's updates (a wee section so folk can see what's going on - I figure since I'm affected I may as well help out) As of this moment, it's still using proxy. No problem cause can edit using secure server. Egg Centric 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm on BT too, and being forced through this proxy like about 3,000 other users. I'm on the phone to them now. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] OK: The man from Gurgaon was supremely unhelpful and refused to tell me anything particularly helpful. However, he did say it's "a problem with BT's servers", and that it should be fixed in 24 hours. I guess we just sit tight until then... The Cavalry (Message me) 21:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, no. That makes no sense whatsoever, does it? If it's a problem with BT's servers, why does my IP work normally on other sites and on the secure server? Hmm. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are you on business or residential broadband? I have business broadband at home so at least get UK support, I'll email you with my phone number and name if you want to pretend to be me (I can't be bothered to deal with them myself as they're hardly wonderful) if you want it? Egg Centric 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have residential broadband, and my landlord pays for it - but it's not necessary for you to give me your number etc just yet ;-). I'm going to ring up some UK numbers and make a nuisance of myself until someone fixes things or I get some answers. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The Gorgon was unhelpful? What kind of customer support operation are they running? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, a Gorgon would be an improvement on BT's customer "support", which with the best will in the world is run from India with staff who have a shaky grasp of English and an even more shaky grasp of anything technical that doesn't involve turning your router on and off again. 109.150.175.212 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have never had any sense from an ISP front-liner until I got an Indian on my last call. Not only did he understand that I might know what I was talking about, but as an introduction said "if you can't understand something I say, please ask me to repeat it" - needless to say his accent was very minor. Although the problem was never actually fixed (we both thought it was) the attitude of treating a customer with real instead of fake respect means that I am still happy with that call. Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC). [reply] Perhaps I've just had poor experiences with them. They are, indeed, unfailingly polite and wish to make sure that your problems are fixed; maybe the issue is that I've invariably had to phone them when there's something wrong that I can't fix myself, which means it's probably not something trivial. And having said that, apart from the matter of language, I will say that BT's support desk was pretty much equally useless when it was based in England. 109.150.175.212 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Has anyone tried saying "shibboleet"? Deor (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Recommending (nay insisting) I spend 3 hours on a pointless virus scan, when I could see the traceroute die in their network was one of the more annoying incidents. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC). [reply] Misleading message? This message appears when affected users try to edit: "Wikipedia has apparently been added to a UK website blacklist and your Internet service provider has decided to block part of your access." This makes it sounds as if the ISP is preventing affected users from editing Wikipedia. As I understand it, this is not the case. What is happening is that the ISP is routing everyone through the same IP address (for some unknown or unstated reason), and Wikipedia has "decided to block part of your access" because it can't selectively block vandals. Also, is this "blacklist" thing even true? 86.181.169.64 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Should now be updated to be a bit more accurate. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nice job, thanks. 86.181.169.64 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just curious - which error message (I presume Mediawiki: space) is this? - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Template:UKBlock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are any Wikipedia articles inaccessible? The last time this happened, the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked a specific article (i.e. Virgin Killers). Could someone check whether this has happened again, or whether they have blocked any other likely page? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] One of the crazy things about the BT implementation of an IWF-list-blocking proxy design is that they deliberately proxy (they claim) a large number of non-problem addresses in order to hide the IWF list. They may be using en:WP for this purpose - which would be foolish, for it is much traffic and only one address. They also claim the system has the granularity to filter a specific image or page. However if they know that an image or page on WP has a copyright problem they should tag it like everyone else does. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC). [reply] Interestingly, I can only access Facebook through the secure server, too... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblocked I've heard that at least some of the proxying has stopped, so I've unblocked the IP to see if that's the case. No objections to reblocking where appropriate, if I'm not around to keep an eye on it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] No edits through the IP in the 3+ hours since the block was lifted. Looks like BT are no longer pushing WP connections through the proxy. --GraemeL (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashu1997

I came across the edits of Ashu1997 (talk · contribs) tonight when I discovered that he added unsourced information to an article on my watchlist and then discovering a malformed article he had put in the main space. Examining his talk page, it is abound with various templated warnings concerning unsourced additions, bad articles, and articles that should be deleted. He has never once participated in any sort of discussion on a talk page and he has very rarely made constructive edits to pages that can be kept. I believe that we are dealing with competency issues when it regards Ashu1997 (username suggests that he is too young to understand) making new pages or contributing to existing ones.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give him one final warning regarding WP:CIR; after that, I think an indef until the user gets the message would be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me ...

gratitude comments

Thank you administrators for resolving my issues and i am sorry for the caps . Seeta mayya (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior

This is the first time that I have ever reported anybody anywhere for anything in Wikipedia. Regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approximately 2 years, there is no more “assuming”, there is “knowing”. I am going to describe the general situation for context, and then describe a specific small situation where I have decided to finally take a small stand and request a small action.

User Noviseminary chronically exhibits obsessive battling behavior with other editors. Also, certainly in my case, this includes following to other articles where I've edited do this at those in response/retaliation for standing my ground at another article. This is mostly focused on the individuals rather than actual content disputes. The pattern is to go after the targeted individual and do very aggressive deletion, tagging, and very aggressive editing strongly and directly focused on the work of the individual. And, if someone stands their ground with them they follow them to other articles where the victim has edited and start similar activities.

Due to their extreme cleverness:

• wiki-saavy in general
• misusing (and, to newbies, misrepresenting) policies/guidelines (rather than violating them) to conduct warfare
• often a small overused/ misused shred of legitimacy in many of the battling edits
• continuously rapidly erasing (not archiving) their talk page so that it would take hours for someone to see their history there
• knowing how to sound wikipedian and pretending to be (sound) reasonable when doing this
• mixing in legitimate housekeeping type edits with the obsessive battling edits and pointing to those to refute complaints

it would take me 20 hours (including hundreds of diffs) to fully communicate what this individual has been doing, hence I'm only noting this for context in a "IMO" framework, and then asking for and supporting a remedy on a particular situation as taking a small stand on a big problem. Most of this is conducted against newbies, I was also a newbie when it started. This chased many of them out of Wikipeda but I survived.

In my case, it started about 2 years ago with a brief head butting at the Carrie Newcomer article, my first interaction with them, where I ended up leaving it as they preferred: [150] and branched out as they followed me to article after article from there. ALL of my subsequent conflicts with this individual have been at articles which they subsequently followed me to, and each “following” was generally preceded by (and in response/retaliation to) me standing my ground with them at another article

These sections of the talk page at the Machine vision article provide a tiny but very typical/representative glimpse:

• Talk:Machine vision#I reverted deletion of 3/4 of the article
• Talk:Machine vision#Processing methods section
• Talk:Machine vision#Please discuss on talk page before removing large amounts of material
• Talk:Machine vision#Proposed plan to expand / improve
• Talk:Machine vision#Phoenix
• Talk:Machine vision#Removal of direct interface section

Another very representative slice can be seen at the small talk page and edit summaries of the Feast of the Hunters' Moon article.

I leave my talk page as an “open book”, I don’t delete anything except broadcast type items, and I only archive two types of things, one of them a special archive for this individual due to the length and nastiness of those items. This can be viewed at User_talk:North8000/Archive_N

I have not followed them to any articles. The only time that I’ve ended up at one of their articles was about 2 times (only) when one of their many fights showed up on a notice board that I watch and then I made only low key moderator type comments.

In response to recent renewed clashes at the Machine vision and Feast of the Hunters' Moon articles they followed me to an article (Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) where I have been doing some rescue type work.

The rescue work article started out at an article called Signature image processing. (SIP) I originally brought up the idea of deleting this predecessor article. My concern was that that it was overly narrow and focused on one company's particular method of doing weld monitoring and testing, and that the generic-technical-sounding title was not such, it is a term only for that particular company’s product, and that it had a somewhat promotional tone. Other editors disagreed, making good points saying that it was a heavily sourced article on a legit topic. During ensuing conversations, it became clear that none of the editors had a coi. Over a three month period it was decided to redirect/expand this article into a broader, uncovered topic which is Weld monitoring, testing and analysis where the subject of the previous article became merely a section in the new article. I sort of "warned" ahead of time that the other sections would temporarily be stubs, hopefully temporarily as other editors built it over time. I researched other articles, especially the Welding article to make sure that this topic was uncovered. Also it was clear that real coverage of Signature image processing at Welding which is a top level article on a even much broader topic would be ungainly/undue. Recently I rechecked with the 3 other editors (also see their talk pages on this)....100% agreed and I made the move. As anticipated the new sections were stubs. I posted a note at the talk page of the Welding (which, structurally, this is basically a sub-article of) article about this article and solicited editors. I did some work and the intended to leave the article (for development by others) until Novaseminary assaulted it.

Then Novaseminary followed me to the article in immediate retaliation for me standing my ground with them at the Feast of the Hunters' Moon and Machine vision and did the following:

• First they proded the article (and tag bombed it, I’ve left all of the other tags in place) saying that it did not meet notability and that the SIP section was “seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here.” I removed the prod tag, saying that the subject has EXTENSIVE coverage in sources, plus referring them to the extensive talk page discussion which led to this.

• Second So then they put a notability tag on the article. To be doubly safe I put more material & sources in. I responded and removed the tag.

• Third So then they nominated the article for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) As of this writing it is still open, but I think that it became obvious to Novasemianry that the deletion is wp:snow prompting them to take the next actions.

• Fourth So then (with the AFD still open) they gutted the article and undid the whole consensused rework by moving the SIP material back out into a separate article, undoing the redirect. I reverted this

• Fifth So then(with the AFD still open) they edited the redirect back into a competing article which duplicated the SIP material. Mind you, this competing article is the same content and topic which they originally said "seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here” I reverted this

The articles for deletion page is very informative on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

Again, regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approx 2 years, there is no longer a matter of “assuming”, it is a matter of “knowing”

I have decided to, on behalf of Wikipedia and their other current and future victims to invest the time to take this small stand on a big problem. I am not asking for action on the larger problems because I have not spent the 20 hours it would take to fully communicate and support what I have said that this individual has been doing. I ask that the proportionally microscopic but important measure be taken of blocking Novaseminary from editing the Signature image processing and Weld monitoring, testing and analysis articles for one week or one month and warning them to, after that, obtain consensus before doing such aggressive, controversial major changes on these. It is important this bigger problem of abuse of editors with clever so-far impunity be confronted, even to this very small extent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to say that I have observed the same sort of things with Novaseminary. The response to newbies has been particularly disturbing. This edit is a good example of what I have seen. The Strict Baptists article had been subject to vandalism in the past, and Novaseminary might have thought the newbie editor was the vandal. But Novaseminary's actions were also based on a dubious interpretation of WP:IMAGE, and worst of all, there was very little explanation or encouragement on the article's talk page, the offending user's talk page, or even in the edit summaries. Perhaps a mentorship would be appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a colossal amount of history to read through here, but my initial impression is that Novaseminary is a valuable contributor with a deep understanding of wikipedia, but who can be prickly and difficult to deal with. He also seems to have problems working collaboratively, and struggles when not getting "his own way". More seriously, a quick look at the deletion discussion presented by North above reveals what looks like an attempt by Novaseminary to subvert the result when he realised the discussion wasn't going his way. That said, he does a lot of good work and is valuable to the project; perhaps mentorship would be of benefit? Basalisk^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty confident that I know this individual the best of anybody in wikipedia. This is a people-chemistry-with-editors driven situation; content battles are the trigger and the result of this, but these battles are not driven by the usual clash of ideologies or content agendas as most other Wikipedia battles are. And they do have a very nasty streak in one area that I have not discussed. I am also guessing that a small action might have a substantial impact with this individual, but some type of mentoring would be better. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North and I obviously have a history. I prefer to focus on content, however, so I will briefly address the recent content episode North mentioned.

• I think Weld monitoring, testing and analysis is not itself a notable topic (as such), though it may contain many notable topics. It seemed to me to be several concepts strung together. I sent it to AfD here. This article had been created when North moved it from Signature image processing, leaving behind a redirect. I do think Signature image processing does meet N on its own (if barely), so I spun it off in its recent edited form from Weld monitoring, testing and analysis at Signature image processing. I then edited Weld monitoring, testing and analysis using summary style, adding a link to the main article (Signature image processing) and adding a source I took from the amin article so the new summary was sourced. This also had the effect of bringing the Weld monitoring, testing and analysis into proportion among the topics. Anyway, if North thinks Signature image processing fails WP:N, the way to delete it or enforce an alternative to deletion is through AfD. He should not continue re-redirecting and removing talk where I explained myself. Regardless, none of my edits to either article have been disruptive, nor is the AfD (even when North went personal at the AfD immediately).
• Unfortunately, I am personally being called into question here. To that end I would note the following:

• StAnselm, himself sometimes prickly to work with, sometimes great to work with, was blocked a few weeks ago after I reported him at WP:AN3. There is also a minor disagreement between us that is the subject of an RfC (here) that is not going his way.
• And North and my real history turned sour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream where an article he created was deleted after I put it up for discussion. He went so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts, User talk:North8000/Archive N (where there is no nastiness on my part). I would summarize our main philosophical disagreement as being that I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced) and North is fine with more personal knowledge and synthesis in the hope (honestly held, I believe, but wrong, I believe) that this will elad to better articles. The is exemplified on one of the examples North gave above, here. But it needn't get personal.

So if I hurt North's or StAnselm's feelings, I wish I hadn't and I am sorry. But disagreements about content, however strongly held our positions may be, should not get personal. For any part I had in turning them that way, I am also sorry. I hope you all are, too. I have done my best to avoid them both as of late, but that is not always going to happen. I'd say we all get back to editing constructively.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream is another place which Novaseminary followed me to and exhibited this behavior. If I were spending the 20 hours preparing the overall presentation, that would certainly be in there. Not as tidy of an illustration due to its hugeness and the fact that the other 1/2 of the material is no longer available to view (extensive relevant talk page content lost with the userfication) but a read through the AFD shows the same obsessive battling behavior. Gutting the article and removing references and notability-related information simultaneously with nominating it for AFD based on notability, and they probably spent at least dozens of hours to attack it and every detail in it from every possible angle. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is further instructive of the cleverness of this individual to note what I already said that the special ARCHIVE was due to a combination of me never deleting and seldom archiving editor conversations from my talk page and wanting to get theirs off of my main talk page. After explaining this they described it as "so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts". And they implied cause-effect by "afterwards" whereas it actually happened 10 months later. North8000 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The described "philosophical disagreement" does not exist. I 100% agree with Novseminary's description ("I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced)") of "their side" of the non-existent philosophical disagreement. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor but very clarity-creating example that this is person-focused battling rather than about such differences is when, as the first edit to the article in three months, with this edit [[151]] I added an additional "medium quality" reference to the article. It was from a national website on events, not such a high quality wp:rs to be assault proof, but I added it only as a second source supporting a statement that was already in there. Within a day Novaseminary showed up and began battling to eliminate the new source, with no challenge of the statement which it supported. In short, they battled to reduce the sourcing on a statement because it was one of their targeted victims (me) who added the source. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comment, it is instructive and illustrative to note that in order to continue the "come after me" process at the weld monitoring article Novaseminary in essence did a complete reversal of their position on the SIP material. When the way to "come after me" was to attack the overall article, they in essence criticized the SIP material as unworthy of even being a section in the article. When that failed, in order to continue to aggressively go after my work they took the material that they essentially said wasn't even worthy of a section in the article and instead made an entire article out of it. This dramatically illustrates that it was about coming after me via aggressive and obsessive targeting of my work rather than anything else. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the depth of material here, would a RFC/U not be a better venue? --Blackmane (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{small Someone screwed up somewhere and my comment was moved somewhere else. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

What I strongly request

1. The creepiest, nastiest and most concerning me-focused stuff from this individual I can't and didn't talk about here and received partial help on from oversight on. As a remedy, a complete ban against this individual doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity.* As an aside, by my initiative and choice, I gave an oversighter my RW identity in relation to this.
2. A warning to generally dial back their targeting me and my work for aggressive activity at articles that they followed me to.* North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*These could have wording that does not presume a determination of past behavior. Like a preface "Whether or not such has occurred, do not......" North8000 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest

1. A 1 week block at those two articles, and a warning to go to talk and get a consensus before making any major controversial changes there after that.
2. Some type of mentoring or at least mentoring-lite regarding this type of behavior. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never violated any policy at those articles and only made a handful of edits at them anyway (and left North's version after he started to edit war, and haven't even edited there recently). There is no ”incident” to discuss here. And I would suggest that North be warned to not make personal attacks as he has from the first AfD at which we crossed paths (Traveller's Dream). At least that would be based on policy. But North, instead, why don't we just get back to editing constructively instead of wasting time here so you can win a point? Novaseminary (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the usual mis-characterizations, several in one paragraph, but a change there is not expected or essential at this point The items under "what I suggest" are more for the good of Wikipedia and I don't have any pressing personal concern to have them implemented. With resolution of the other items, I would let others judge (and would be comfortable with any decision) without pursuing or discussing them further here.

But the items under "what I strongly request" are of great importance to me. If you would truly agree to those things, then from my standpoint, I would be ready to move on. It would be OK to word them differently in a way that does not imply any conclusions about past behavior such as: #1 Completely avoid doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity. #2 Not exhibit any pattern of aggressive edits, tags and other activities that is focused on me or my work, particularly where you follow(ed) me to an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your requests, I have noted that you have claimed on more than one ocassion to work in an industry and have edited that article. You made one of the statements on the article's talk. Me asking you to confirm no COI, when you are editing an article to add unsourced mentions of particular products and services, is not a ”privacy violation.” Neither is me asking you to confirm (which you did) that you were not inappropriately citing yourself when you do add sources. This is not the place to ask for warnings about things you are unwilling to talk about. And as for targeting you, I always focus on content (except here and user talk pages). The number of articles we overlap on is tiny compared to the number we have each edited (ever or recently). You ad hominem attacks on me personally, here and elseshere, is the only targeting going on. But again, this is not an appropriate forum to beat each other up. Novaseminary (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those utilizing-COI fishing expeditions/attacks were not the worst of such problems, and I already gave my real world name to an oversighter and asked for a review of myself in those areas which you were using as an attack method. This was further double covered by when I said "And if you see any company-specific product or process promotion in either article specifically bring it up as such at the articles(s)." And it was triple covered on the Weld inspection article where I said many times that it is not my area of expertise or interest, that I was only doing short term rescue work there, planned to leave the article for good, and was forced to come back to it when you assaulted it. You still trying create an interrogation style conversation where it is beyond-baseless ludicrous for the welding article is beyond-disingenuous and illustrative of your clever-tactic obsessive battling which I say based on immense experience with you.

If you won't agree to the above things, even with the substitution of simply "not do" wording for "stop doing", wording, then we have more work to do here. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could go 10 levels up and say lets genuinely be friendly and friends, which presumably would resolve everything. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North, I have tried to be friendly from our first interactions. Take a look at what I said early in that Novaseminary talk archive you created. Go back and read what I (not other eds who agreed with me) actually wrote at the Travellers' Dream AfD, and despite being called some pretty nasty things by you, DougT, and various folks you invited to that AfD from the outset. You have consistently said terrible, personal things about me.

I have not done so to you (and I am sorry if there are examples to the contrary), and at most questioned whether your bank of knowledge and experience and employment in certain fields could lead to less objectivity; this is an encyclopedia, afterall, not a technical forum. And only because I was concerned it might affect content. (I practice what I preach, never editing anything even remotely related to my day job.)

I've tried to stick to the content. Unfortunately, we have not always seen eye-to-eye there. There is no reason for the vitriol. Everytime you have tagged me as ”obsessed”, you have been equally interested or more, otherwise our disagreements would have withered on the vine. My only interest, and the places where we have had disagreements, have been where I (rightly or wrongly) thought text you added or reinserted was promotional, otherwise POV, or OR. I feel strongly about that (otherwise the value of WP goes downhill fast).

Anyway, I say bygones.

Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to read between the lines in the best possible way, as possibly a partial response to my "10 levels up" idea rather than take and respond to all of that literally. But I really don't know what you are saying/think about my "10 levels up" idea. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North, feel free to keep making this sort of edit here to prevent this from being archived (though you might irritate folks), but unless somebody else weighs in in a way that necesitates a response, I'll let things lie here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That is silly on multiple levels. I accidentally used a different term in this most recent post, and then chose the better (newer) one when when reconciling them. Second, how would editing an old post in a section that has newer posts prevent archiving, and thirdly, archiving would be irrelevant here. It looks like there is no resolution of this in this exchange.North8000 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP by BT Business (and possibly home)

Problem solved. The local chapter for the United Kingdom, Wikimedia UK, have been in touch with BT regarding this, however by this morning, the issue had already been resolved. I can confirm (as a checkuser, and in compliance with checkuser policy) that as of approximately 0900 UTC, people were no longer being routed through 194.72.9.24. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Without being logged in, I am on this IP: User talk:194.72.9.24 - and looking at its contribs, and block log etc, it seems as though lots of other people are as well. I use BT Business for my ISP and it's possible it's a semi-transparent proxy or something - anyway could you have a look please? Egg Centric 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, BT seem to be proxying their business users transparently (bn-proxy1.ealing.ukcore.bt.net). I've lifted the block for the moment and will monitor the IP contributions for a while. It was only a soft block. --GraemeL(talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I wonder if this will be like the virgin killers thingy back in the day and there's some "child porn" on wikipedia that is being censored again. If so, expect more "fun" ahead... Egg Centric 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] It looks like BT is almost certainly doing its Cleanfeed proxying thing again. They used User talk:194.72.9.25 last time. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for background. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] That could make perfect sense after the recent court case forcing them to block access to some sites that deal in copyright infringing material. --GraemeL (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've blocked it again, I'm not willing to sit and revert every second edit through the IP. --GraemeL (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Seems reasonable - a shame, but I don't see what else you can do. I doubt it's the copyright thing though - I think it is wikipedia specifically. When I go to whatismyip.com, for example, I get a different ip, which is the same ip as my broadband modem thinks it has. Once my cleaner has buggered off I'll take a look at the virgin killers thing and see if I can see it! Egg Centric 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Most of the IPs used last time are still blocked. If I remember rightly we had to lock a few usertalk pages too. Maybe some of the same templates from last time could be updated and used, but I think at this point the current extent of the problem is not clear yet. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for adding that other template to the talk page. I've watchlisted it to try and gauge the level of pain. --GraemeL(talk) 16:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] just to say; I am on BT Business here at work as well and am seeing the same issue. Also; it only seems to be happening for some sites (such as Wikipedia). Nothing seems to be censored though. We've had a few DNS issues the last few days (to the extent we're now using OpenDNS so we can actually get on the net....) with BT and other outages - it may all be related. --Errant(chat!) 16:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] well, I could look at virgin killer fine (and fook me, the IWF have a point - that's pretty extreme stuff, although daft it being illegal in the context) so I'm out of ideas. Let's see if anything happens. Egg Centric 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Confirmation it's not just BT Business, but BT Home as well - people should be getting home over the next 90 minutes... fun . Also, if this becomes a story on the register by Andrew Orlowski (sp?) with him quoting from the noticeboard could I have a shout out to me homies please? It would also be nice if you don't take the above quote about the image out of context and make me look like a paedophile. Ta Egg Centric 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just another note to add that I can edit wikia under my real ip; other language *.wikipedias are using the proxified ip. However if I use the secure wikipedia then it goes back to my correct ip. So there's a workaround. Egg Centric 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Editing this through the secure site - I am also being filtered on BtOpenzone, which means about 7 million UK users are also being filtered through that IP. Oops. 109.150.175.212 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Egg Centric's updates (a wee section so folk can see what's going on - I figure since I'm affected I may as well help out) As of this moment, it's still using proxy. No problem cause can edit using secure server. Egg Centric 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm on BT too, and being forced through this proxy like about 3,000 other users. I'm on the phone to them now. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] OK: The man from Gurgaon was supremely unhelpful and refused to tell me anything particularly helpful. However, he did say it's "a problem with BT's servers", and that it should be fixed in 24 hours. I guess we just sit tight until then... The Cavalry (Message me) 21:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, no. That makes no sense whatsoever, does it? If it's a problem with BT's servers, why does my IP work normally on other sites and on the secure server? Hmm. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are you on business or residential broadband? I have business broadband at home so at least get UK support, I'll email you with my phone number and name if you want to pretend to be me (I can't be bothered to deal with them myself as they're hardly wonderful) if you want it? Egg Centric 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have residential broadband, and my landlord pays for it - but it's not necessary for you to give me your number etc just yet ;-). I'm going to ring up some UK numbers and make a nuisance of myself until someone fixes things or I get some answers. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The Gorgon was unhelpful? What kind of customer support operation are they running? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, a Gorgon would be an improvement on BT's customer "support", which with the best will in the world is run from India with staff who have a shaky grasp of English and an even more shaky grasp of anything technical that doesn't involve turning your router on and off again. 109.150.175.212 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have never had any sense from an ISP front-liner until I got an Indian on my last call. Not only did he understand that I might know what I was talking about, but as an introduction said "if you can't understand something I say, please ask me to repeat it" - needless to say his accent was very minor. Although the problem was never actually fixed (we both thought it was) the attitude of treating a customer with real instead of fake respect means that I am still happy with that call. Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC). [reply] Perhaps I've just had poor experiences with them. They are, indeed, unfailingly polite and wish to make sure that your problems are fixed; maybe the issue is that I've invariably had to phone them when there's something wrong that I can't fix myself, which means it's probably not something trivial. And having said that, apart from the matter of language, I will say that BT's support desk was pretty much equally useless when it was based in England. 109.150.175.212 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Has anyone tried saying "shibboleet"? Deor (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Recommending (nay insisting) I spend 3 hours on a pointless virus scan, when I could see the traceroute die in their network was one of the more annoying incidents. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC). [reply] Misleading message? This message appears when affected users try to edit: "Wikipedia has apparently been added to a UK website blacklist and your Internet service provider has decided to block part of your access." This makes it sounds as if the ISP is preventing affected users from editing Wikipedia. As I understand it, this is not the case. What is happening is that the ISP is routing everyone through the same IP address (for some unknown or unstated reason), and Wikipedia has "decided to block part of your access" because it can't selectively block vandals. Also, is this "blacklist" thing even true? 86.181.169.64 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Should now be updated to be a bit more accurate. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nice job, thanks. 86.181.169.64 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just curious - which error message (I presume Mediawiki: space) is this? - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Template:UKBlock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are any Wikipedia articles inaccessible? The last time this happened, the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked a specific article (i.e. Virgin Killers). Could someone check whether this has happened again, or whether they have blocked any other likely page? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] One of the crazy things about the BT implementation of an IWF-list-blocking proxy design is that they deliberately proxy (they claim) a large number of non-problem addresses in order to hide the IWF list. They may be using en:WP for this purpose - which would be foolish, for it is much traffic and only one address. They also claim the system has the granularity to filter a specific image or page. However if they know that an image or page on WP has a copyright problem they should tag it like everyone else does. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC). [reply] Interestingly, I can only access Facebook through the secure server, too... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblocked I've heard that at least some of the proxying has stopped, so I've unblocked the IP to see if that's the case. No objections to reblocking where appropriate, if I'm not around to keep an eye on it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] No edits through the IP in the 3+ hours since the block was lifted. Looks like BT are no longer pushing WP connections through the proxy. --GraemeL (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashu1997

I came across the edits of Ashu1997 (talk · contribs) tonight when I discovered that he added unsourced information to an article on my watchlist and then discovering a malformed article he had put in the main space. Examining his talk page, it is abound with various templated warnings concerning unsourced additions, bad articles, and articles that should be deleted. He has never once participated in any sort of discussion on a talk page and he has very rarely made constructive edits to pages that can be kept. I believe that we are dealing with competency issues when it regards Ashu1997 (username suggests that he is too young to understand) making new pages or contributing to existing ones.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give him one final warning regarding WP:CIR; after that, I think an indef until the user gets the message would be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me ...

gratitude comments

Thank you administrators for resolving my issues and i am sorry for the caps . Seeta mayya (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled threats against Jimbo

User has already been blocked, but figure I'd report here to be on the safe side. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone took Egg Centric seriously yesterday! :P m.o.p 19:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

closing Anton_Singov DRV

Hey, somebody have a look at the Anton Singov DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 13. I think a speedy close is in order, but only admins are allowed to close DRVs apparently. Yoenit (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. The previous DRV was November 20, and there does not appear to be any new sourcing in the DRV post today. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - the nominator did not include any claims subject to review at DRV. I've asked them to find reliable sources about the subject. The nom seemed to be under the impression that the Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) applies to e-sports athletes, and this does not appear to be the case - though several editors have noted that fact to the nominator. I'll keep an eye on it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations by user Scheunemann.joshua

Scheunemann.joshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created his userpage to announce that he thinks Casey Anthony is guilty. Since then he has been edit-warring to keep it up despite warnings on his talkpage. He is also edit-warring to add malformed and undue weight info into the Caylee Anthony article. A block of this user is requested along with a deletion of his userpage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because I have my own opioon on. Y own user page rightJoshua Scheunemann PhD (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have G10-deleted the user page as an attack page. Joshua, there are blogspaces where you are free to speak your opinion about living people. Wikipedia, even your user page, is not one of those places. LadyofShalott 00:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LadyofShalott. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I have also now blocked Joshua for 31 hours for BLP violations and for edit warring. LadyofShalott 00:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by the user's highly original and articulate response to the short block.[152] ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's now requesting an unblock. LadyofShalott 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this person apparently has a Ph.D? I'd like to meet the faculty of the school who awarded said doctorate. –MuZemike 00:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the news item about Alfred E. Neuman University's doctoral program. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, Neuman. worry? Tonywalton ^Talk 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. He's obviously not a new user, and I'm inclined to indef - he can go back to using (or, likely, requesting an unblock for) his original account. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does he look like any blocked users anyone knows? It'd be nice to know what account to check for socks. LadyofShalott 00:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

←Why is this here? Obvious POV and BLP, probable Wikipedia:COMPETENCE issues (see for example the contribution above). Editor is rightly blocked, end of story. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was presumably here to get administrator attention, which it needed and did. BTW, Boing! said Zebedee has upped the block to indef because of the continued antics on the talk page. I agree with this action. I'm marking it resolved. LadyofShalott 02:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scheunemann.joshua appeared today at my talk page to attack me out of the blue based on what? Interestingly, the wording used by him was very similar to the wording Maunus placed on my talk page this morning before he was blocked. The only thing I see that gives me any clue to who he/she might be is based on his copying of the Maunus post and his edits at the Death of Caylee Anthony page. While I haven't edited the Caylee Anthony page for a couple of months, it is where I have interacted with User:Carolmooredc (someone who has heavily edited that article) and CarolMoore and I have a connection at the Natalie Wood article and talk page. Maunus and I also had a connection at the Natalie Wood article. Above, someone brought up the possibility of Scheunemann.joshua being a sock. I submit that this person is a sock of someone I have recently encountered at the Natalie Wood page and has been cozying up to Maunus in the last week. Adding to the intrigue is this edit summary and his use of the word "recentism". I have a pretty good idea who "Scheunemann.joshua" is and believe the poor use of English and spelling is a ruse to feign incompetence. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you should e-mail a checkuser such as Muzemike and pose your suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thanks for the assistance. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already did, and nothing popped up. I think this is just a tad upset with Casey Anthony's verdict. –MuZemike 05:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you inadvertently blocked a future admin and like User:theadmin said on his user page that ther is ally of unjust admins who do not use good faith in their decisions that the first admin who reviewed this incident. User:girlwithgreeneyes. Therefore I am attesting my long time friends block for his own sake and please don't block me for it and I really want this isssue on unjust banning that is happening on Wikipedia. I want teachers to take this website seriously and I do try my hardest everyday to do so. Ihope that you can take my notes on this page seriously and undo what User:Dr. K and User:BaseballBufpgs What's up, Doc? did to User:Scheunemann.joshua

Thank you and have a nice day, User:theadmin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.37.182.125 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entry from a UK IP - doesn't that indicate whomever is Scheunemann.joshua is using proxy servers to get around being detected? Lhb1239 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Proxy detected and blocked by Zzuuzz. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is not signing his post

On talk:atheism, user:Unomi is not signing his post he added three days ago [153] and has twice simply removed the unsigned template message[154][155], despite my engaging with him twice on his talk page[156] and [157]. I'm not sure what measures or intervention is needed, but I would like some help with this matter. Thanks. --Modocc (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rofl. Are you new? Do you really think that source listings would benefit from sigs? That you are using your time on ANI rather than commenting on the sources or adding sources of your own to add to the conversation speaks volumes. un☯mi 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)I think I agree with Unomi that signing these potential sources is unnecessary and would look a tad odd, although if it were me I wouldn't consider it worth arguing over. But if it's important to you that no one think you posted them, can't you add a simple

*Note that Unomi provided these sources, not me. ~~~~

underneath? And then continue with the discussion? Much easier than changing someone else's post. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, Unomi. The signature policydoes say "any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed"; Modocc is not incorrect in asking you to sign posts, even if they only include sources. Whether or not Modocc would like to discuss the sources is a different story, and one that shouldn't be discussed on ANI. Please sign your posts. m.o.p 22:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

m.o.p, have a look at Wikipedia:SIG#Purpose_of_signatures - a 'raw' source excerpt in the context of a list of sources for discussion isn't the intended recipient of a sig. I have never, ever, seen a list of sources for discussion that has sigs attached to them, have you? un☯mi 22:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the policy says is that anything on a talk page must be signed. There's nothing exempting a list of sources. m.o.p 22:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that needs to get fixed then, because you haven't ever seen items in a source list on a talk page signed, have you? un☯mi 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really in the end who cares? I know it's annoying and I know that posts are "suppose" to be signed, but in the overall Wikipedia scheme of things, not signing a post is kind of minor. At least not major enough for ANI. I mean if policy violations had real world fines, then if a visiting of NPOV was $100, not signing a post would be like 35 cents. JOJ ^Hutton 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea, and should be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I often post excerpts from sources like Unomi did. I don't consider it vital to sign such additions since they are not my own writing. I'd urge editors here to be more patient with each other. Will Beback talk 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he simply doesn't believe in sigs. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<3 I am sorry if I overreacted, but my interpretation was that this was the first tiptoeing of harassment that needed to be nipped in the bud, I felt I had explained myself on my talkpage and that little explanation was necessary in the first place. TBH, I consciously forwarded weak sources to start with as I had hoped that this would lower the barrier for counter-sources to be ventured. Alas, even weak sources seemed to engender less-than-constructive tactics. un☯mi 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Comments welcome on how the wording can be improved at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Source_listings_on_talk_pages. un☯mi 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not going to be resolved by sending this a way when it is a policy violation. I am not the one that should be upholding policy. I merely ask others to respect it and follow through with it. I not only find the sources he put there to be worthless, they are offensive too., thus please take a closer look here. Unomi asked me for a list of sources, and then placed such a list immediately after that. But lists are often prefaced placed with a signed preface or an end note stating what the purpose as to what some particular sources are being used for. Please reconsider the seriousness if this. If the policy is changed fine, but not following it is potentially more disruptive than this. Thanks. --Modocc (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this in no way requires administrator action at this point. Take some other form of dispute resolution as this is the wrong venue. --GraemeL^(talk) 23:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a referral. I've appended the list with a comment section and added a note there(it ought to be in the relevant section, but I'll let this be) and a disclaimer preceding the list too. Thanks all. --Modocc (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible outing?

I'm not sure how much of what he's written is true, or if that is even relevant, but maybe someone could take a look at User talk:NordicSword. Even if it doesn't constitute outing another Wikipedian, it could still be seen as a personal attack. Apologies if this is the wrong forum, or if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified User:Dougweller here. un☯mi 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{Thanks for getting to that - I was about to notify him, but I got distracted...Dawn Bard (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an outing so much as an attempt to smear a user with whom NordicSword (talk·contribs) disagrees. It's certainly not appropriate. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed for a severe violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. Courcelles 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there's a guy with a big grudge. And not much interest in the truth it seems looking at the deleted comments about me (clearly he's either been following me for a long time or has been doing some extensive research). Note that I'd raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist earlier. Thanks Dawn, I was in bed but couldn't sleep so decided to clear up my email and saw that my talk page had been changed. Dougweller (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I predict we may have to extend the block to cover, uh, the place where he can still edit. (Being deliberately vague on account of possible WP:BEANS issues. ;-)) Mind you, for such a putatively new user, Nordic Sword seems well versed in the ways of Wikipedia, with good wikiformatting and familiar use of the wikijargon term "personal attack". Does anyone know of another, more established, pyramidiot account, I mean, possible sockmaster? Bishonen talk 00:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

And I've pulled his talkpage acesss after he posted an unblock request repeating the harassing/outing. Homey don't play that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of Confirmed socks too, details on the SPI page. WilliamH (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how long and how many entries this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive has, and how many times AGF has been extended, is there any reason to let this editor back ever? Heiro 00:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: I'd say we're done here. WilliamH (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User after Jimbo

Could someone take a moment to remove these unacceptable posts to Jimbo's talk page? Thanks. Calabe1992 23:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly qualified for revision deletion. Revisions deleted. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghostofnemo

Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting/trolling both 2005 YU55 and Talk:2005 YU55 by trying to promote a conspiracy theory about the asteroid. The user has been asked to take their concerns to a noticeboard and to stop disrupting the talk page, but the user refuses and continues to make the ridiculous claim that NASA is a POV primary source. Can an administrator please put a stop to this nonsense? Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried discussing this on the article talk page, but now I've posted this dispute at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_reliable_media_reports_as_secondary_sources_to_support_primary_sources which I believe is the appropriate forum. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might have been good too, but since you've already got this and the one you mention above, maybe that should be enough for now. Heiro 00:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safa Khulusi - a review of my actions please

I came across what appeared to be an edit war at Safa Khulusi. It looked like one side (User:David Dawoud Cowan) thought that the large quote in the section Safa Khulusi#Shakespeare theory had undue weight and was removing it, and the other side (User:Paul Barlow) saw that as censorship and was reverting the removal. At that point, it looked like a content dispute to me, and not blatant vandalism, and I thought both viewpoints may have merit (A quote may well be justified, but it was also longer than the rest of the section). I gave both parties a warning - Paul Barlow did not appear pleased with it, but I felt I had to give exactly the same warning to both to be fair. (I accept I could have left a hand-crafted message with both).

Both ignored the warnings and continued to edit-war to include the whole quote/remove it entirely, without either side seeking consensus or compromise. I felt I had little alternative but to impose a block of 24 hours on both - I thought the essential first step was to halt the edit-war. User:Folantin expressed disapproval of my block. (And at that point, after I had suggested an SPI report, Paul Barlow explicitly stated that the issue was not one of sockpuppetry, and so subsequent claims by others that he was merely dealing with a sock would not appear to be valid).

Paul Barlow requested unblock, but it was declined by User:FisherQueen.

As soon as the blocks expired, both sides resumed the edit war, with both Paul Barlow and Folantin on one side, and this time User:Simon Salousy (who may be an SPA/sock - I don't know) on the other. Paul Barlow did explain his position on Talk page, but resumed his part in the edit-war just a few hours later - Simon Salousy had not engaged in Talk page discussion, but had used edit-summaries, so he wasn't being entirely uncommunicative, and consensus on the content had not been reached.

I felt I had little alternative but to impose blocks again, and blocked all three for 48 hours. (I did not issue Folantin with a warning first, as it was clear that they were fully aware of the edit war and the previous sanctions, and appeared to me to be deliberately continuing the edit-war. Folantin went on to claim a right to 3RR, and that I was involved and should not block - which I thought at the time was an attempt at gaming the system.

Folantin appealed the block, and User:Antandrus accepted the request and unblocked - and left me a message on my Talk page. (Which is fine - I openly say that anyone can revert my admin actions if they think I'm wrong, and I just request that I'm informed). Antandrus also implied that I should unblock Paul Barlow too.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, and if you think I was wrong or heavy-handed, I'll be happy to apologise and make whatever amends I can.

I will now go and inform the people mentioned here - I also think I need to unblock Paul Barlow (and Simon Salousy, so be even-handed) so he can freely talk here. But the edit-war still needs to be stopped, so I will temporarily protect the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial take on this is that a protection might have caused less drama than blocks. However I have no problem with blocking contributors who exceed 3RR when BLP is not an issue and they are aware of the rule. --John (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  With hindsight, yes, it would, but I really wasn't expecting such drama to unfold - and I've always thought that blocking was the preferred option when the protagonists are few and easy to identify -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I am not suggesting that you have done anything wrong as such. Your interpretation of policy has some merit. But by posting here and asking for review, you are implying that you are prepared to learn from what happened and perhaps do it differently the next time. Again, there is no problem with blocking for 3RR (and I weakly disagree with what Antandrus said at your talk on the subject) but it would perhaps have created a better outcome with less hassle if you had protected rather than blocked. Kudos for bringing your action here to seek feedback, I should have said that the first time. --John (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes indeed, I am grateful for your suggestions. It does sound like more care in deciding the best way to stop an edit war would be better, including a deeper look into the protagonists' longer term backgrounds -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't had time to review the back-and-forth in any depth, but it appears to me that User:Paul Barlow exercised due diligence by seeking engagement on the discussion page. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Automatic 3RR blocks are standard for non-BLP, non-obvious-vandalism cases. So there is no problem with that. But in the case of blocks for general edit warring I would like to see more admin discretion used. When both positions are reasonable, and one side is in the majority and trying to discuss on the talk page while the other isn't, then symmetric blocks aren't really appropriate. I think it would have been best to protect the article on the version that encourages communication (per IAR and what I am sure is common practice, even though nobody will admit it), or to just wait for the single editor to break 3RR and then warn the others. HansAdler 14:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  After taking a closer look, I think you should have spotted that SPA David Dawoud Cowan (talk·contribs) is an obvious sock of SPA Simon Salousy (talk·contribs), and simply blocked both accounts for the socking (one indefinitely). I have made a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Salousy. HansAdler 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, Paul Barlow explicitly stated that socking was *not* the issue. But I do appreciate your taking the time to offer your thoughts, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter what Paul Barlow stated. He has more than twice your experience, but purely as a content-oriented editor, and doesn't seem to have much experience with POV conflicts and edit wars. As an admin who is about to block people he doesn't know well, you should look at their contributions first. Then it could not have escaped your notice that these SPAs with 13 and 7 edits, respectively, are obviously operated by the same person. HansAdler 19:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I appreciate that, and I do not mean to argue it as a justification for not investigating further - I'm just explaining that it is the (possibly flawed) reason why I did not pursue that angle -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, sorry for not immediately getting that. I didn't mean to rub it in. Hans Adler 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You would probably have been better to protect the page if you weren't prepared to sanction the SPAs. The problem was that the new SPAs simply kept deleting the content using the same rationale, which was not based on any Wikipedia policy (in other words WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). There was also the obvious WP:DUCK issue that these were sock or meat puppets of one another and it was extremely likely they had a conflict of interest. I made only two edits to the page, both with edit summaries citing valid policies. That is nothing like edit warring in my book. I felt you dealt with Paul, an experienced writer with over 55,000 edits, in a heavyhanded manner which didn't assume good faith, and that also annoyed me. However, my edits to the page were motivated by protecting sourced content against unreasonable censorship. Paul attempted to engage the SPAs in dialogue. They were not prepared to listen. You would have done better to try to get them to enter into dialogue and one way would have been protection of the page. A bit more tact, clearer communication on your part and this might have been solved with less drama. I don't bear you any personal ill will as a result of this incident, it's only a website after all. I just wish you had played things a bit differently. Paul and I are long-standing editors who have dealt with some of the more difficult areas of Wikipedia (though not often in collaboration). I'm not asking for a completely free hand, but I think we deserved a bit more of the benefit of the doubt.--Folantin (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, and thanks for your thoughts - I agree now that page protection would have been preferable in this case, and I should have approached it more sensitively. On the subject of good faith, I never suspected anything else from Paul. It just seemed apparent to me that he was going about things the wrong way - even a well-meaning edit war is a bad one and has to be stopped. (And on the same subject, do you honestly believe that "I suppose this is just revenge for calling you a 'jobsworth'", "an admin with a personal vendetta", and "Off you go to IRC to get your buddies to endorse this for you" were shining examples of good faith on your part? I'm not bothered by them, but just sayin') -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe you weren't bothered by Folantin's comments, but I sure was. Acting like a jerk seems hardly the way to resolve an editorial dispute. Boing has been the utter model of politeness and civility in this matter - indeed, he appears to possess precisely the sort of level-headedness that the mop requires. Quite a few admins could learn a thing or two from his behavior. Not pointing fingers, of course.

    That said, Hans correctly pointed out that protecting the page and warning both (or all three, once Folantin caped on in to 'save the day') to head to the talk page and some sort of informal mediation of the matter would have caused a lot less drama. Blocks and block logs are forever in the user history, so they should be handed out with care. Boing has pointed out repeatedly that he suggested to both Folantin and Paul Barlow that they submit a SPI regarding their suspicions of the third user; both, however, chose to ignore them, preferring to edit war and snide insinuation to actual work. Kudos to Hans for actually doing what neither accusing editor took the trouble to do by actually filing the SPI.

    The thing that bothers me about all of this is that Folantin and Paul Barlow are going to see their unblock or the results of the SPI (if it is in fact the same user) as legitimization of their behavior. I think it vital they do not walk away feeling they were right to act the way they were. They were edit-warring and tossing accusations about a user without bothering to do the legwork to support them. We block people for that sort of crap, period. Hopefully, the next time they encounter this sort of situation they will act differently, though judging from the actions of the involved users (returning to warring immediately after coming off a block for same), I have little hope for that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Different people are bothered by different things. E.g. I am personally more concerned when I see a notorious fringer grave dancing on the talk page of what appears to be a serious content producer, and when the grave dancer subsequently comes to ANI to agitate. HansAdler 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, Hans. But I'm sure Jack's comments have nothing to do with his long-term grudge against Paul Barlow and this sudden interest in the pronunciation of J. Thomas Looney's name [sudden interest in [158] is purely coincidental and in no way any kind of stalking. --Folantin (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not been contributing for the past day, since I have been away. I've no idea what is meant by the assertion that I "resumed edit warring". I have repeatedly attempted to engage the editor Simon Salousy in dialogue. With regard to "Boing"'s statement that I said it was not an issue of socking - that was when I believed that the editor had abandoned one account and started another. There may be many reasons for that of course. As a new editor he may have forgotten how to log on to the old account, or mislaid his password. However, as soon as activity on the old account resumed, it, of course, became apparent that socking was indeed the issue. It was absolutely obvious that this editor had no intention of following any form of resolution procedures. There was no dialogue. I had put a very polite message on his page. Yes, I subsequently reverted his edits. That's normal procedure when an editor is behavaing like a vandal. I did not get anywhere near 3RR and I added repeated explanations on the article talk page. I am really at a loss to understand what I am supposed to have done wrong. As for the ever endearingly disingenuous Jack Sebastian, I can only endorse what Folantin said. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. You and the other editor had been repeatedly reverting each other over a period of at least several days, and even if you had not specifically violated 3RR (which is not an entitlement anyway) that did not mean it was not edit-warring. I also don't think the vandalism exception applies, as the other guy's edits were not blatant vandalism - he just had a different opinion on the content to you, and what looked like a complaint of overdue weight by use of a large quotation is not automatically without merit. He was not discussing it on the Talk page, that's true (though he was using edit summaries, so there was at least some input to go on), but that also does not mean that continuing the revert/revert/revert/revert was the right way to proceed - on either part.

I think what you needed was an actual consensus on the Talk page (ie more than just you explaining your preferred version). As it was, there actually wasn't a consensus, just your comments on the Talk page and his in the edit summaries. And I thought you both had to be stopped from warring until such a consensus had actually been found - help from a related project, for example, would have been a way forward, where someone else could have examined your Talk page comments and the other editor's edit summaries, and added to the consensus. Or help from this forum if you thought the other guy was violating policies.

Anyway, I felt I had to be even-handed, so I gave you both exactly the same warning (and with hindsight, I made a poor choice - I should have used a personal message rather than a template). But as you both ignored my warnings to stop edit-warring and immediately continued, I felt you had to be forcibly stopped (again with hindsight, protecting the article would probably have been better in this case). And after the initial blocks had expired, you both carried on as you had left off. The bottom line as far as policy goes is that being right does not allow you to edit war, and being the only party in the dispute to use the Talk page does not allow you to edit war - you should have reported the other editor for edit-warring, or sock-puppetry, or perhaps general disruption here at AN/I, and then with community support we could have blocked only him (had that been the outcome).

But as I say, an edit-war that's been simmering for days simply has to be stopped, and I believe I was right to stop it - but after the feedback I've had here (for which I thank everyone), I now believe I should have found a better way to stop it.

Going forward, what I think is the best way is to continue the Talk page discussion and get that consensus (and from what I've seen so far, it isn't 100% obvious that one side is 100% right here), and once that has been achieved, editors reverting against it can be blocked. (Oh, and I'd suggest you don't revert any new edits by the same editor until consensus has been achieved, just report him for edit-warring if he does it again, and leave it for the proper channels to conclude). Any bad edits can be cleaned up in due course - there's no urgency to fix things immediately. And, erm, sorry for rambling more than I intended -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there were only my comments on tne talk page, because he wasn't adding any, and it was increasingly obvious that he had no intention of doing so. I find your argument really rather absurdist. I am supposed to wait for a "consensus on the talk page" with an editor who has no intention of leaving any messages on the talk page or his own user page, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Meanwhile his edits should remain while I just twiddle my thumbs like Vladimir and Estragon, eternally expecting him to turn up. That's a recipe for rewarding uncooperative editors. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that you should have sought input from third parties to review the content dispute and help build consensus, and sought help from appropriate forums if you thought the other editor was acting improperly. Or do you really, honestly, believe that a non-stop revert war was the right way to solve the dispute? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I believed that it was the best way, I would not have spent so much time trying very hard indeed to discuss the matter, would I? But I do believe that censorship should not be rewarded, and that I was reverting what I believed to be vandalism. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to an admin who needs to stop edit warring—quick action is all that can be expected in most cases. While I agree that the edit warring was clear and some other remedy should have been employed (e.g. asking for opinions at a relevant WikiProject), it is also clear that our ultimate objective is to develop content, so special efforts are required when dealing with a very prolific and valuable content creator (e.g. enter into lengthy user talk page dialog to explain the situation and the alternatives, or if short of time, protect the article and post a quick article talk page explanation). Paul B has created hundreds of quality articles, and he created Karl Bleibtreu four hours before the block. Being a content creator does not provide an edit-warring exemption, but I suggest it does warrant extra effort from admins. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts appreciated, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content creation or not, edit-warring is edit-warring, and edit warriors should be dealt with the same way regardless of whether they're Jimbo or Randy from Boise. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 05:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you consider one revert after repeatedly ignored attempts to get the editor to discuss the matter on the talk page to be "edit warring"? Paul B (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count 5 reverts of the same material over the course of 4 days, 4 of which were within a 24 hour period - [159], [160], [161], [162], [163]. And yes, a single revert of the same material immediately after coming off a block for edit-warring is usually considered a continuation of the same edit war. I'm sorry Paul, but while I accept that I could have handled it better, the fact remains that you were edit-warring and you carried on even after having had a block for it - and that is clearly forbidden by Wiklipedia's policies -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I was referring to the last single reversion. The earlier ones were, as I have said, because I considered that the editor was by then behaving as a vandal, since he had not engaged with my repeated attempts to enter discussion. However, we are now going round in circles, so unless anyone has any exciting new insights, I will try to avoid repeating the same points, whether they are accepted or rejected. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just want to add that I do accept you were acting entirely in good faith, and that the edit war was inadvertent and most likely due to unfamiliarity with the proper avenues for dispute resolution -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Jimbo Wales is a content creator of the stature we are talking about here, or that Jimbo or such a content creator should be dealt with in exactly the same way as a Randy, then it appears that SandyGeorgia's concerns expressed in your RfA and shared by many others were, unfortunately, correct. HansAdler 11:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bigger picture should be taken into account (and should have been in this case) - there is a big difference between a tendentious edit-warrior who is not benefiting the project, and a long-standing content contributor who got inadvertently drawn in to an edit war out of frustration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. My comment was directed to The Bushranger, but that's no longer visually obvious now. HansAdler 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the merits on this case, just that Wikipeida's rules need to be applied evenly to everbody, no matter who they are, and was using a ridiculous hyperbole to point that out, is all. - The Bushranger_{One ping only}

I disagree. There is an element of discretion in every rule. When dealing with people who are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, most of us show less patience than when dealing with valuable editors. That's exactly as it should be, because Wikipedia isn't just a massively multi-moron role-playing game. In fact, it's primarily an effort to write an encyclopedia. Or at least it is meant to be. Hans Adler 08:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP adding phone numbers

Not experienced with handling this, but an IP has added phone numbers at Puliangudi, apparently including someone's cell phone. I've reverted it, but not sure if the revisions should be left. Calabe1992 05:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for spamming and revisions suppressed due to potentially privacy-violating edits. Risker (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, thanks. Calabe1992 05:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Occupy Marines

Can an Admin Look at JohnValeron recent contributions

User:Somedifferentstuff refusing to use useful edit summaries.

Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs · email) has repeatedly ([164] [165] [166] [167] [168] ) and by multiple different authors been asked to provide useful edit summaries, as he tends to use the edit summary "Edited", especially when he is reverting during a content conflict or when he removes warnings from his talk page. Just today he used the summary "Edited" when he reverted, not unsurprisingly, a request to use useful edit summaries [169]. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this for why removing warnings is okay. Regardless, edit summaries are pretty standard, especially during content disputes. I'll ask the editor to bother leaving more detailed ones. m.o.p 11:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that the problem was in the actual removing of warnings, just in his consistent efforts to try to hide his actions.

Perhaps being asked by an Admin might help, thanks for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just like linking to all relevant policies to be thorough. I'll keep an eye on the user's talk page. Keep up the good work, m.o.p 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Resolving Editing Dispute

Can someone please help ensure that the disputed editing going on here over Filpa Moniz, is resolved in a way that the new useful sources can be integrated into the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have full-protected the page. I have noticed that you have never address the other editor on their userpage to resolve the issues. Please read WP:DR for assistance on how to resolve conflict disputes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnValeron now edit warring

Disruptive users?

I'm not sure where to report this (or even if it is truly a problem) so I'm putting it here for admins to decide. Please see the contributions of the following users with similar names who all seem to be vandalizing each others user pages. Peacock (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gh18929 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Vh2030 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Bh2028h (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Hg383387 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Jh22880 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

{{in progress}} –MuZemike 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the block that is now on the accounts, it is a user who has been banned. So they're done. Calabe1992 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crouch, Swale for details. –MuZemike 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Guess we should probably watch for some new ones now... Calabe1992 16:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all edits that these socks made have been reverted per policy. Calabe1992 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I thought he was indef'd, not banned ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crouch, Swale I proposed a ban for him a while back and it was unanimous. Calabe1992 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad ... it is on the list of community-banned users, and his user page lists it, but I didn't see it on his usertalk. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that a POV tag is forumshopping

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) claims that putting a POV tag on an article, and, when asked for an explanation, explaining why, is Forumshopping, if the article is in AfD.

Yes, seriously.

He's engaging in harassing me over this.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_conspiracy_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=465853989&oldid=465718928 (With personal attack in summary)

• Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#POV_issues, in which, after asking for an explanation f the tag ([171]) he attacks me for providing one.

• Abusive talk page warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A86.**_IP&action=historysubmit&diff=465761290&oldid=465514669

• Second abusive talk page warning: [172]

This is trolling. His claims about policy are frankly bizarre, and his reactions are far disproportionate to any possible offense - indeed, given that page is ion a 1RR restriction, and he reverted the POV tag twice in 24 hours, he's not even in the moral high ground.

Can someone please tell him to stop? I haven't even touched the page since he began doing all of this abuse, but it's been continuing for nearly a day now. 86.** IP (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet another whinge by 86... William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the complaint. Could you please restate it with less complicated grammar? Jehochman^Talk 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like 86 is posting extra tags on articles that are already nominated for deletion, and then News is removing those tags.[173] Which user is in the right, if either? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86, that thing in your hand is a stick. Drop it. And then focus on the AfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't need to complain if I hadn't had 24 hours of this after putting up a single tag. Seriously, I', getting constant abuse, on multiple fronts, and I think it reasonable to ask you to deal with it.

Seriously, the editing environment here is nothing but personal attacks directed at me, constantly. 86.** IP (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess I am the "defendant" in this complaint. The factual background can easily be broken into two parts. The first set of facts has to do with 86's own practices which are disruptive per WP:OVERTAG and WP:FORUMSHOP. Since I have no desire to seek formal intervention thru WP:DISPUTE or ANI at this time, I have not bothered to gather up the diffs that serve as evidence. But if you are interested, you can sift thru recent posts at Global warming conspiracy theory, the related POV and AFD tags, and associated talk threads. The other set of facts under 86s complaint have to do with the way I called the WP:OVERTAG and WP:FORUMSHOP policies to 86s attention. I do not know why 86 is upset with the process I have followed (unless 86 just has a hard time admitting mistakes of course). Here is what I did.

First a POV tag appeared with no reason at Global warming conspiracy theory. I deleted it, and 86 reposted with reasons that were redundant with the pending reasons at his AFD. This redundancy produced this discussion.

Second, since 86 was steadfast in not acknowledging my complaint I perceived there was little liklihood that 86 would change 86s ways and stop forum shopping. So I left a warning at his talk page, which he deleted from his talk page with a mischaracterization of fact in the edit summary. So I left a warning-part-2 on his talk page which I quote in its entirety:

Let's get the record right before you delete this again.

You did an AFD (with argument) and a POV (just the tag) over the same argument at the same time regarding Global warming conspiracy theory. Pursuant to Template:POV, those who use POV are expected to set forth their reasons in the talk page. Since you did not provide a talk page section for the POV tag I asked you for one, and you supplied it after the fact. And whaddyaknow, it was redundant with your AFD argument.

So then I posted this warning about forum shopping on your talk page.

You deleted that warning and blew it off with a rationalization in your edit summary that I was "referring to a thread he asked me to make to explain a POV tag".

Deletion of warnings from your own talk page is evidence that you read them. WP:OWNTALK

The fact that I had to ask you for the missing POV reasons and you supplied them after the fact does not erase the fact you used two tags, each of which expects a talk page argument, to advance the same argument. This is disruptive. Please study what consensus process means a bit harder. See WP:FORUMSHOP and its parent article.

Personally I am not suggesting you were consciously forum shopping. Rather, I think you just throw every bullet you can think of at the stuff you don't like. But that is contrary to respectful consensus process. I am not trying to shut you down or shut you up. Instead I am asking you to marshal your arguments in one place, and select a SINGLE tag and process by which you think they can be pursued most effectively. Please cease using multiple tags to advance the same argument at the same time, because that is just another version of starting redundant threads in different places.

Thanks for your attention and no offense taken if you delete this again.

endquote

Instead of acknowledging the disruptive nature of overtagging and forum shopping 86 simply deleted that followup warning with the characterization in the edit summary that it was "bullshit".

Next, 86 brought the issue to my talk page, and I replied. Here is that thread.

Finally, 86 brought a complaint here.

I still do not know exactly what 86 is complaining about. If 86 could just acknowledge that wiki policies call overtagging and forum shopping "disruptive" I would feel heard and might believe that 86 would refrain from those practices in the future.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me simplify things, then. I added a tag to an article, explained why when asked to, then received a day's worth of abuse simply for having added the tag, wqith NewsAndEventsGuy spending pages and pages complaining about me, when I didn't so much as touch the page again after the abuse started. I don't see how this is permissible. WP:NPA. Simple, basic policy. WP:HARASS. Alæl of these are being done against me. 86.** IP (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Does this seem familar? 86**'s last complaint, that I and Dmcq were part of a cabal, has barely cleared the board, and how could anyone soon forget his earliar bit of whining on this board? And all following the same pattern of misinterpretation and misstatement of the situation.

Take a look at his citations. (Please.) The diff he provides in support of "he attacks me for providing [an explanation]" is simply the the removal of a pov tag, and the edit summary: "Delete POV tag due to missing thread pointer. A generic point to the talk page does not cut it". How does this constitute an attack?

What he describes as "Second abusive talk page warning" actually looks like a calm, reasoned, patient attempt to help someone. It is not abusive (quite the opposite), not even contentious.

And now that I have provided a third-party assessment of NAEG's comments (where he might have felt a conflict of interest assessing himself), I won't be surprised to see 86** claiming this as further evidence of (wait for it ....) a cabal! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link is for asking for an explanation for the tag, which, as you describe, it is. The first link in that line is the attack. 86.** IP (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, in my reply above, I only mentioned the most recent example of overtagging and forumshopping by 86. This has been a regular practice, but in honesty, I used to do it too before I was aware of the policies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnValeron now edit warring

Disruptive users?

I'm not sure where to report this (or even if it is truly a problem) so I'm putting it here for admins to decide. Please see the contributions of the following users with similar names who all seem to be vandalizing each others user pages. Peacock (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gh18929 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Vh2030 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Bh2028h (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Hg383387 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• Jh22880 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

{{in progress}} –MuZemike 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the block that is now on the accounts, it is a user who has been banned. So they're done. Calabe1992 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crouch, Swale for details. –MuZemike 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Guess we should probably watch for some new ones now... Calabe1992 16:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all edits that these socks made have been reverted per policy. Calabe1992 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I thought he was indef'd, not banned ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crouch, Swale I proposed a ban for him a while back and it was unanimous. Calabe1992 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad ... it is on the list of community-banned users, and his user page lists it, but I didn't see it on his usertalk. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that a POV tag is forumshopping

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) claims that putting a POV tag on an article, and, when asked for an explanation, explaining why, is Forumshopping, if the article is in AfD.

Yes, seriously.

He's engaging in harassing me over this.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_conspiracy_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=465853989&oldid=465718928 (With personal attack in summary)

• Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#POV_issues, in which, after asking for an explanation f the tag ([175]) he attacks me for providing one.

• Abusive talk page warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A86.**_IP&action=historysubmit&diff=465761290&oldid=465514669

• Second abusive talk page warning: [176]

This is trolling. His claims about policy are frankly bizarre, and his reactions are far disproportionate to any possible offense - indeed, given that page is ion a 1RR restriction, and he reverted the POV tag twice in 24 hours, he's not even in the moral high ground.

Can someone please tell him to stop? I haven't even touched the page since he began doing all of this abuse, but it's been continuing for nearly a day now. 86.** IP (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet another whinge by 86... William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the complaint. Could you please restate it with less complicated grammar? Jehochman^Talk 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like 86 is posting extra tags on articles that are already nominated for deletion, and then News is removing those tags.[177] Which user is in the right, if either? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86, that thing in your hand is a stick. Drop it. And then focus on the AfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't need to complain if I hadn't had 24 hours of this after putting up a single tag. Seriously, I', getting constant abuse, on multiple fronts, and I think it reasonable to ask you to deal with it.

Seriously, the editing environment here is nothing but personal attacks directed at me, constantly. 86.** IP (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess I am the "defendant" in this complaint. The factual background can easily be broken into two parts. The first set of facts has to do with 86's own practices which are disruptive per WP:OVERTAG and WP:FORUMSHOP. Since I have no desire to seek formal intervention thru WP:DISPUTE or ANI at this time, I have not bothered to gather up the diffs that serve as evidence. But if you are interested, you can sift thru recent posts at Global warming conspiracy theory, the related POV and AFD tags, and associated talk threads. The other set of facts under 86s complaint have to do with the way I called the WP:OVERTAG and WP:FORUMSHOP policies to 86s attention. I do not know why 86 is upset with the process I have followed (unless 86 just has a hard time admitting mistakes of course). Here is what I did.

First a POV tag appeared with no reason at Global warming conspiracy theory. I deleted it, and 86 reposted with reasons that were redundant with the pending reasons at his AFD. This redundancy produced this discussion.

Second, since 86 was steadfast in not acknowledging my complaint I perceived there was little liklihood that 86 would change 86s ways and stop forum shopping. So I left a warning at his talk page, which he deleted from his talk page with a mischaracterization of fact in the edit summary. So I left a warning-part-2 on his talk page which I quote in its entirety:

Let's get the record right before you delete this again.

You did an AFD (with argument) and a POV (just the tag) over the same argument at the same time regarding Global warming conspiracy theory. Pursuant to Template:POV, those who use POV are expected to set forth their reasons in the talk page. Since you did not provide a talk page section for the POV tag I asked you for one, and you supplied it after the fact. And whaddyaknow, it was redundant with your AFD argument.

So then I posted this warning about forum shopping on your talk page.

You deleted that warning and blew it off with a rationalization in your edit summary that I was "referring to a thread he asked me to make to explain a POV tag".

Deletion of warnings from your own talk page is evidence that you read them. WP:OWNTALK

The fact that I had to ask you for the missing POV reasons and you supplied them after the fact does not erase the fact you used two tags, each of which expects a talk page argument, to advance the same argument. This is disruptive. Please study what consensus process means a bit harder. See WP:FORUMSHOP and its parent article.

Personally I am not suggesting you were consciously forum shopping. Rather, I think you just throw every bullet you can think of at the stuff you don't like. But that is contrary to respectful consensus process. I am not trying to shut you down or shut you up. Instead I am asking you to marshal your arguments in one place, and select a SINGLE tag and process by which you think they can be pursued most effectively. Please cease using multiple tags to advance the same argument at the same time, because that is just another version of starting redundant threads in different places.

Thanks for your attention and no offense taken if you delete this again.

endquote

Instead of acknowledging the disruptive nature of overtagging and forum shopping 86 simply deleted that followup warning with the characterization in the edit summary that it was "bullshit".

Next, 86 brought the issue to my talk page, and I replied. Here is that thread.

Finally, 86 brought a complaint here.

I still do not know exactly what 86 is complaining about. If 86 could just acknowledge that wiki policies call overtagging and forum shopping "disruptive" I would feel heard and might believe that 86 would refrain from those practices in the future.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me simplify things, then. I added a tag to an article, explained why when asked to, then received a day's worth of abuse simply for having added the tag, wqith NewsAndEventsGuy spending pages and pages complaining about me, when I didn't so much as touch the page again after the abuse started. I don't see how this is permissible. WP:NPA. Simple, basic policy. WP:HARASS. Alæl of these are being done against me. 86.** IP (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Does this seem familar? 86**'s last complaint, that I and Dmcq were part of a cabal, has barely cleared the board, and how could anyone soon forget his earliar bit of whining on this board? And all following the same pattern of misinterpretation and misstatement of the situation.

Take a look at his citations. (Please.) The diff he provides in support of "he attacks me for providing [an explanation]" is simply the the removal of a pov tag, and the edit summary: "Delete POV tag due to missing thread pointer. A generic point to the talk page does not cut it". How does this constitute an attack?

What he describes as "Second abusive talk page warning" actually looks like a calm, reasoned, patient attempt to help someone. It is not abusive (quite the opposite), not even contentious.

And now that I have provided a third-party assessment of NAEG's comments (where he might have felt a conflict of interest assessing himself), I won't be surprised to see 86** claiming this as further evidence of (wait for it ....) a cabal! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link is for asking for an explanation for the tag, which, as you describe, it is. The first link in that line is the attack. 86.** IP (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, in my reply above, I only mentioned the most recent example of overtagging and forumshopping by 86. This has been a regular practice, but in honesty, I used to do it too before I was aware of the policies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India-related articles

Apologies if I'm posting this to the wrong place, but I have no familiarity with the admin-side of things on Wikipedia and it's not at all obvious to me where to put this!

There is a persistent problem at a number of articles related to India involving an anonymous IP "contributor". Unfortunately the IP is different each time, but the edit is almost always the same: the insertion of 2x chunks of text in Hindi (?) that are formatted as wikilinks (which are always redlinks). I'm hoping someone has a helpful suggestion for how to deal with this, as this pillock is wasting everybody's time (including his or her own).

Examples:

Date	IP	Diff.	Comments
13 Dec. 2011	117.199.76.9	[178]	The sole contribution by this IP has been the same edit to 6x articles.
12 Dec. 2011	117.199.68.78	[179]	The sole contribution by this IP has been the same edit to 2x articles.
9 Dec. 2011	117.199.69.64	[180]	The sole contribution by this IP has been the same edit to 2x articles.
8 Dec. 2011	117.199.75.85	[181]	This edit was also broke an existing wikilink. The sole other contribution by this IP has been the insertion of Hindi text to 1x other article.
27 Nov. 2011	117.199.69.41	[182]	The sole contribution by this IP has been the same edit to 5x articles (twice in one case).
26 Nov. 2011	117.199.64.224	[183]	This edit was accompanied by the insertion of "what mother's milk is to baby, mother tongue is to education.". The sole other contribution by this IP has been the insertion of Hindi text to 1x other article.

I'm fairly sure I've seen similar or identical edits to these made previously to other India-related articles by an anonymous IP contributor.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My feeling is that that is disruptive. If this were a registered account, I'd ask for a Hindi speaker to leave a note on the person's talk page, but since this person seems to leave an IP address right after making a set of edits, that most likely won't help. All of those IPs would be covered by a 117.199.64.0/20 range; I think a 1 week block would be a good test to see if the user either learns or tries to communicate somehow (in any language). Could a Checkuser take a look and make sure that there wouldn't be an unacceptable amount of collateral damage? {{Checkuser needed}} Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be Bengali, not Hindi. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long standing problem, the chap's on a very busy range and there's high collateral damage if we do a range block, I've reverted him in August/September and then I went walkabout so I lost track of him. I think he did some similar stuff on Commons. Since he pastes different Devanagari text every time, an edit filter will not help either (unless an edit filter can be created cross referencing IP range with script). Nothing much we can do except revert when we see it. —SpacemanSpiff 08:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Bengali isn't even writen in Devanagari, it's written in Bengali script. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I must have misidentified/misread on Google Translate when I called it Hindi--sorry about that. Well, if the range is heavily used, then I guess we're just stuck with it. Another thing we can do is to try to semi-protect the next time it happens. Finally, though, if the rate of disruption increases (like if it starts happening once a day on a variety of article) we may have to do a cost-benefit consideration. I'll add the articles mentioned so far to my watchlist; Andrew Gwilliam, if you notice more, feel free to let me know. If I happen to catch an IP in the act, I'll block it as it happens to see if maybe that catches xyr attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. I appreciate that this is a difficult one to tackle in a straightforward way! Qwyrxian: I'll try and keep you posted, when and if I encounter this again. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Q, you didn't misread, it is Devanagari script. The chap's quite prolific cross-wiki and has apparently now settled on a standard text as opposed to earlier when he was adding different stuff, so on hi.wiki they have an edit filter (#81) to handle this. He's also active on ne.wiki (which I guess is his home wiki), and per Google, Wikipedia's not the only place he's launched this crusade at. He's used multiple ranges in the past 115.24*.*.*, 59.*.*.*, 117.119.*.* that I've come across though the more recent ones appear to be from the 117.119 range only. As far as blocking goes, unless he's actually adding them at that point in time, it won't help as he uses a very dynamic IP. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if anyone wants to write an edit-filter I'll be happy to help provide different text strings for this. —SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was always irritated about this guy; 'm glad it was reported here. Lynch7 09:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some admin deleted my images and moved them to commons and now I can't find them

I really dislike this policy of moving images to commons and deleting the ones that are project-side. For one, I can't find images I uploaded a year and a half ago, because they all have been moved and I can't see them on my contributions or Files uploaded list anymore. File:Intercellular connections in a549 cells.jpg is one of them but can someone help me find the others? John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, most images are moved to Commons under the same name they had here, unless there was a good reason to change them. I would start by looking on Commons under those names. You can also put your name in the search box [184] and see what comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Mr. Soong could simply check the link below. ;) m.o.p 05:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go! Not that this is really an ANI issue, but whatever. All the red links are the ones moved to Commons. m.o.p 05:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, that upload log doesn't include many images of mine that were transferred to Commons. This one File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg was deleted as a duplicate of File:Intercellular connections in a549 cells.jpg -- but it is not a duplicate! (The latter file of mine was moved to commons, but it is not in the upload log. hey were taken seconds apart at different focal planes. Can someone please undelete it? This is all a very rude shock to me.

See also File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1623.jpg and File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1623.jpg, which have been moved to commons but are not in the upload log either! I know I am missing way more images, and I think this MoveToCommons process (I know it has been around for years) is very rude. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is problematic that users cannot easily locate their own uploads after they are transferred to Commons, short of doing a full-text search of the site for their username. Not everyone remembers the exact filenames of their prior uploads. I think the scripts should be modified to keep a list somewhere, organized by user, of files transferred to Commons, and perhaps leave notifications on talk pages. Another independent problem that I've been working on is ensuring that files transferred to Commons and subsequently deleted are sent back to En as fair use candidates (see User:Commons fair use upload bot). Dcoetzee 05:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I add {{Keep local}} to my images, which generally is effective in keeping a local copy. Risker (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dcoetzee, amen to every word you typed there. There are no rights here, but every image uploader should be afforded the privilege of knowing and being able to track when their own work has been moved interwiki. At minimum I would think user talk notice would be a standard courtesy, and central logging should be doable too. Especially in the case of images moved to Commons, where the image is at risk of judgement by the standards of a different project, image uploaders deserve a way keep track of what is happening to their work. It's one thing to apply incorrect tags to a local image upload (which can be fixed), it's quite another to have semi-automated processes act to move an image somewhere it can be deleted, without the person uploading it ever being aware. Franamax (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the ImageDeltionBot (or what ever it is called) be extended to notify the uploaded of a image when it is deleted and moved to Commons ? Mtking ^(edits) 06:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree very much with the sentiments expressed by Franamax and Dcoetzee above. A number of images that I had uploaded locally some time ago disappeared from several articles because they had been uploaded to, and deleted, at Commons. I suggested to the uploader that s/he should inform the image creator/uploader before uploading to Commons so that the images could be checked against the Commons criteria.Hohenloh ⁺ 06:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to keep your original uploads in a folder on your PC, so that you can find them and re-upload them if someone at commons does something stupid (as they often do). ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 08:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The smoother way to deal with this nonsense, though, is to establish a commons account and upload them there directly. Then you'll have control over them. Make sure you keep them on your watch list there, and check your watchlist for redlinks from time to time. Then you'll know what they messed with. If there's even the vaguest possibility that your picture could be considered "fair use" instead of "free", tag it as fair use and upload it here. Then it shouldn't get copied to commons. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 08:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally would suggest anyone loading images to wikipedia use {{keep local}}. I've stopped putting images on Commons for the simple reason they're too often deleted for really petty reasons. Judging from the comments I've seen in talk pages, I'm not the only one fed up with this. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitching about Commons is all well and good, but it's not the solution here. To be honest I think it's pretty amazing that nobody's previously suggested that editors should be dropped a line when their uploads are moved: that's basic common courtesy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, when something is done with an uploaded item here, there's an entry noticeable in the watch-list. That's easy to miss, though. As regards the "keep local", does that merely keep a local copy or does it actually prevent the automated processes from copying it over to commons? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 10:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question. According to Template:Keep local, the "keep local" will allow for copies in both places, whereas "do not move to commons" will keep it strictly here. It's unfortunate that editors have to (1) know about this and (2) remember to do it. Instead of commons just grabbing stuff from here, maybe the "do not move to commons" should be the default setting upon uploading here? I know from experience (though I can't name an example), that items will get copied from here, deleted from here, and then someone actually looks at it at commons and says, "Hey, this is fair use, not free", and then zaps it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping here by default breaks the expectation of editors using Commons. There should be a good reason for an editor who makes improvements to an image at Commons to expect those not to be automatically reflected here. Again I'm prone to considering this to be an overreaction: obviously the majority of Commons moves work out just fine, and the problems here are basically quibbles with the notification process (and how much notification should be expected, nay, mandated) rather than some serious problem with the whole setup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, {{do not move to Commons}} is essentially a non-free content template rather than a matter of discretion. It would probably be better moving it to a less seemingly discretionary title like {{non-free not PD in country of origin}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way a wikiproject is planning a drive in January to move images to the Commons, so any uploaders who want to retain a local copy had better get them tagged, chop chop. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 16:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That takes us back to the onus being on the uploader to keep track of his stuff and be sure it doesn't get deleted - OR, to tag the pictures in such a way that the commons death angel will pass over them. Commons cannot be trusted to do things in a reasonable way, so uploaders will have to do what they have to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always made sure to put do not move to Commons on my images (admittedly only a few), as I don't trust Commons with anything image related. There's been too many mistakes made. But, yeah, use KeepLocal, that's your best option. Silverseren^C 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Keep local}} isn't actually something with any weight behind it, FYI. It simply suggests that the author would rather have a local copy. If I find that a file has been improved at Commons but there's a {{keep local}} version here I'll have little hesitation in FfDing the local copy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]