위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive739
Wikipedia:레브델
| 이 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오. |
|---|
| 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오. |
| 나는 방금 토론에서 몇 가지 코멘트를 수정했다.관리자가 필요한 경우 숙지하고 수정하시겠습니까?[1] 미안, 그 정책을 읽지 못했어. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 12:44, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
|
다른 사람의 편집으로 되돌아가려는 로렌스와 글레나 샤피로의 죽음
| 이것은 행정 개입의 문제가 아니다.Rklawton (대화) 15:02, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
로렌스와 글레나 샤피로의 죽음에서 나는 [2]에 동의하지 않는 편집이 여기서 이루어졌다.
편집 내용을 되돌리려고 해
다음은 토크 페이지 토론이다.
"=== 체포된 사람의 이름과 자세한 내용=="
기소된 사람들의 범죄 이력에 대한 명확한 세부 사항이 많이 있다.나는 WP를 염두에 두고 있다."상대적으로 알려지지 않은 사람들의 경우, 편집자들은 그 사람이 아직 유죄판결을 받지 않았을 때 범죄를 저질렀거나 범한 혐의를 받는다는 것을 암시하는 어떤 기사에도 그 사람이 포함시키지 않는 것을 심각하게 고려해야만 한다"고 진술하고 있다.위키피디아는 형사소송의 이 단계에서 어떤 방식으로 그렇게 노골적인 세부사항으로 강화되었는가?나는 다른 편집자들의 의견에 관심이 있다.WWGB (대화) 06:11, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 네 말에 동의할 수 있지만 내게는 그 문제가 너무 세부적인 내용이 포함되어 있어 왜냐하면 그것은 각각의 피고의 범죄의 성격과 피해자들과의 근접성을 보여주는 것이기 때문이다--68.231.15.56 (대화) 09:07, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 게다가, 대부분의 범죄와는 달리 - 이 범죄는 많은 가해자들을 고발하고 있고, 관련자들이 포함되지 않았다면 위키에 관한 이야기는 정확하지 않을 것이다 - 찰스 맨슨 살인 사건을 생각해보고 남자들 자신만으로 이야기를 하려고 한다 - 그것은 정확한 것이 아닐 것이다--- 68.231.15.56 (토크) 09:11, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 고지서는 "상대적으로 알려지지 않은 것"이지만 모두 전과가 있고 따라서 이번 주 이전에는 아무도 확인되지 않았다(즉, 자신의 행동에 의한 공개기록의 일부였고 유죄입학에 서명했다).--68.231.15.56 (대화) 09:24, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 게다가, 대부분의 범죄와는 달리 - 이 범죄는 많은 가해자들을 고발하고 있고, 관련자들이 포함되지 않았다면 위키에 관한 이야기는 정확하지 않을 것이다 - 찰스 맨슨 살인 사건을 생각해보고 남자들 자신만으로 이야기를 하려고 한다 - 그것은 정확한 것이 아닐 것이다--- 68.231.15.56 (토크) 09:11, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
나는 "상대적으로 알 수 없는 사람들에게"는 if-then 조항의 조건부 부분이며, 피고인의 crimianl history는 공적 기록의 문제로서 if-then 조항의 문장의 첫 부분이 실패하기 때문에--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:38, 2012년 2월 8 (UTC)[]의 변칙은 제외된다고 믿는다
- 자, 여러분, 이건 기사 토크 페이지에 있는 것이지 여기 있는 게 아니에요.의견을 더 듣고 싶으면 의견 제출을 하면 된다.이 페이지는 관리자만 수행할 수 있는 작업(예: 기사 보호 또는 계정 차단)용입니다.Rklawton (대화) 15:01, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
가능한 WP:AE 발행
| 경고 발생 및 기록 |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
203.213.94.73 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
위의 IP는 WP이다.SPA 계정은 작년에 위키피디아를 총 11번 편집했으며, 그 중 1번은 기사공간에, 나머지는 대화 페이지에 관한 것이었다.편집된 모든 기사는 WP의 적용범위에 포함된다.ARBMAC 및 WP:ARBMAC2 및 모든 편집은 WP:위에 언급한 ARBCOM 사례를 위반하는 SOAP-y; 이 사용자로부터 건설적인 편집이 단 한 건도 없었다.나는 WP에 아무것도 제출하지 않았다.AE 편집기는 편집 내용이 위반된다는 경고를 실제로 수신할 정도로 활성화한 적이 없기 때문이다.
이 IP에 대해 공식적인 ARBCOM 경고를 발행할 관리자가 있는가?만약 그들이 파괴적인 행동을 멈추는다면, 좋아.만약 그들이 이런 종류의 편집을 계속한다면, 우리는 그들을 AE에 보고할 수 있지만, 적어도 그들은 경고를 받았을 것이다.빅버드 (대화 • 기여) 17:33, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
사용자별 괴롭힘:리하스
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
사용자:리하스는 내 토크 페이지에서 나를 괴롭히고, 나를 곤경에 빠뜨리려고 시비를 걸었던 다른 유저에게 나에 대한 정보를 퍼뜨리고 있다.나는 이 유저에게 내 토크 페이지에 게시하는 것을 중단하라고 말했다. 나는 근본적으로 그의 사용자 페이지에 스스로 설명되는 파시스트, 그리고 자칭 국가사회주의(National Socialist, 이른바 나치)인 누군가와 대화하고 싶지 않기 때문에 이 유저와의 토론을 원하지 않는다. 나는 홀로코스트 생존자들을 알고 있고 신나치와의 대화에 직면하고 싶지 않다.코소보에서 알바니아-세르브 민족 분쟁에 대한 토론과 관련된 이슈에 대해 사용자들에게 자신이 이 문제에 대한 극단적인 관점을 대표하기 때문에 POV를 홍보하고 있다고 알려준 것에 대해, 나는 사용자들에게 내 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 말라고 말했고, 그는 나를 곤경에 빠뜨리기 위해 협박을 계속해왔다 - 그는 세르비아의 극렬함을 강력히 지지하고 있다.사용자 페이지의 사용자 박스에 언급된 코소보 상공은 물론 여러 민족주의 갈등에 대해 논란이 되고 있는 다른 국가주의자들의 입장을 대변하고, 코소보는 나찌라고 자칭했다.한 달 전에 그 토론을 그만뒀어, 그 문제는 끝났어.나는 내가 만났고 존경했던 홀로코스트 생존자들에 대한 존경심에서 리하스가 내 페이지에 언급하는 것을 원하지 않는다 - 나는 내가 알고 있는 나이든 폴란드 유대인 남성으로부터 그곳에서 노예 노동자로 일했던 12-13세의 소년으로 그곳에서 같은 또래의 그의 친구가 나치 경비대에 의해 피투성이가 된 얼굴과 시체가 박살나는 것을 보았다.왜냐하면 그는 캠프에서의 일과에 몇 분 늦었기 때문이다.나는 내가 소중하게 여기는 모든 도덕적 가치에 근본적으로 반하는 사람과 나치의 끔찍한 잔인함에서 살아남은 사람들을 만났던 유대인 대학살 생존자들과 그들의 친척들에 대한 존경을 벗어나서, 문제의 사용자들에게 그만 괴롭힘을 당하지 않을 권리를 요구한다.--R-41 (대화) 19:46, 2012년 2월 6일 ()
- 리하스의 인포박스는 잘못 생각했지만 분명히 무의미하다.그는 인도와 파키스탄 출신이며, 팔레스타인 독립과 단일 국가 해결책을 지지하고, 스코틀랜드 독립과 연방 영국을 위해, 모두를 위한 자기 결정과 대영제국의 부활을 지지하는 등 모순된 많은 인포박스를 가지고 있다.그럼에도 불구하고 당신은 이 토론에서 그를 나치라고 누차 비난해 왔다.그는 또한 "리하스는 세계 평화를 전적으로 지지하고 모든 사람을 사랑한다!"라고 주장하는 사람이 있다.왜 그가 당신의 토크 페이지에서 금지되어야 하는지는 모르겠지만, 나는 그가 이전에 다른 편집자들이 비슷한 공격을 하도록 만든 적이 있기 때문에 그의 인포박스를 분류할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.No57 20:03, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 57, 리하스의 사용자 상자는 여기서 문제가 되지 않는다(전자가 소비하는 223,181바이트의 난장판이라는 것은 인정하지만).제발 물을 더럽히지 마십시오.사용자는 다른 사용자에게 떨어져 있으라고 요청할 권리가 있으며, 이는 존중되어야 한다.Drmies (토크)20:07, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- [ec] [또한, 나치의 모든 전화는 나를 혼란스럽게 했다. 나는 내 코멘트를 다시 썼다.]그 문제에 집중합시다."나는 나치다" 사용자 상자가 없는 한, 사용자 상자에서 나치스를 끌어내지 말아야 한다.그러나 그것조차도 요점을 벗어났다.문제는 이것이다: 리하스에게 다시는 당신의 토크 페이지에 올리지 말라고 말한 정확한 차이점을 가리켜라(아마 당신은 당신의 토크 페이지에 그들에게 말했을 것이다.또한, 나는 아직 너에게 보내는 그들의 게시물에서 괴롭힘을 보지 않는다.나는 이것이 "둘 다 서로에게서 멀리 떨어지십시오" 또는 좀 더 공식적인 상호 작용 금지로 끝날 것 같은 느낌이 든다.그 요청의 위반 가능성을 확인할 수 있도록, 빨리, 우리에게 그 차이점을 보여줘.Drmies (토크)20:06, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[하라
- 그는 자칭 파시스트고 자칭 "국가사회주의자"라고 자칭하는 사람이다. 사용자 박스를 보아라 - 그래, 많긴 하지만 그들은 거기에 있다.나는 사용자로부터 괴롭힘을 당하지 않을 권리를 요구하는 것이다. 나는 사용자에게 내 토크 페이지에 게시하는 것을 중단하라고 말했고 그는 이것을 받아들이지 않았다.나는 홀로코스트 생존자에게 나치에 의한 고통에 대해 도덕적 동정심을 가지고 있으며, 스스로 설명한 파시스트와 국가사회주의자에 의한 괴롭힘을 받아들이도록 강요받고 싶지 않다.나는 그가 이것을 중단하라는 요청에 의해 위반했기 때문에 내 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 않기를 바란다.--R-41 (대화) 20:26, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 미안하지만, 그는 너를 괴롭히고 있지 않아.반면 최근 드라마를 많이 만들어내고 있는 것 같다.No57 20:35, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 맞아, 57세.이미 충분해, R-41홀로코스트 생존자들을 여기에 데려오는 것은 전혀 불쾌한 일이다.당신은 그들에게 당신의 토크 페이지에 다시는 올리지 말라고 분명히 요구하는 디플레를 제공할 수 없었다. 그리고 그들의 사용자 박스에 대한 이런 말은 여기에도 없고, 저기에도 없고, 짜증나게 하는 것이다.내가 제안하는 것은 다음과 같다.당신은 당신의 토크 페이지와 그들의 대화 페이지에 다시는 당신의 토크 페이지에 올리지 말 것을 요청하는 메모를 붙인다.친절하게 부탁할 필요도 없다.그때부터 리하스는 다시 당신의 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 않을 것이다.심플리하스, 이 글을 읽고 있다면 다시는 R-41의 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 마십시오.이 실을 닫읍시다.아, R-41, 한 가지 더, 사람들을 나치라고 부르지 말거나, 인신공격으로 저지당하거나, 그들이 하나라는 것을 증명할 수 없다면, 그들을 나치라고 부르지 말거나.Drmies (토크)20:43, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 이런 다야크나우, 여기 통지가 있다.내가 제대로 이해한다면, 너는 그 전에 게시물에서 다시는 그들의 토크 페이지에 올리고 싶지 않다고 말했고, 그리고 나서 너는 그들의 토크 페이지에 그들이 다시는 당신의 토크 페이지에 올리거나 더 이상 그들과 어떤 다른 대화도 하는 것을 원하지 않는다고 게시했어.그리고 나서 당신은 그들을 신나치주의자, 파시스트(그리고 다른 몇 가지도 있겠지만 도대체 누가 계산하고 있는 것인가)라고 불렀다.R-41 당신은 그들과의 상호작용을 완전히 금지시켰다(자발적으로!). 이것은 당신이 리하스와 상호작용을 하는 것을 보는 모든 관리자에 의해 시행될 수 있다.멋지다: 이 실은 닫을 수 있다.확실히 하기 위해서, 나는 리하스의 토크 페이지, 아헴, R-41 외 세테라에 게시할 것이다.Drmies (토크)20:48, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 미안하지만, 그는 너를 괴롭히고 있지 않아.반면 최근 드라마를 많이 만들어내고 있는 것 같다.No57 20:35, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 그는 자칭 파시스트고 자칭 "국가사회주의자"라고 자칭하는 사람이다. 사용자 박스를 보아라 - 그래, 많긴 하지만 그들은 거기에 있다.나는 사용자로부터 괴롭힘을 당하지 않을 권리를 요구하는 것이다. 나는 사용자에게 내 토크 페이지에 게시하는 것을 중단하라고 말했고 그는 이것을 받아들이지 않았다.나는 홀로코스트 생존자에게 나치에 의한 고통에 대해 도덕적 동정심을 가지고 있으며, 스스로 설명한 파시스트와 국가사회주의자에 의한 괴롭힘을 받아들이도록 강요받고 싶지 않다.나는 그가 이것을 중단하라는 요청에 의해 위반했기 때문에 내 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 않기를 바란다.--R-41 (대화) 20:26, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
글쎄, 어디 보자: 리하스는 분명히 자기 모순적/사르캐스트적/재미있는 인포박스의 컬렉션을 가지고 있다. 그러나 고립된 상태에서는 잘못된 방식으로 읽힐 수 있다.여기선 놀랄만한게 없어WP:SARcasm과 다른 미묘한 암시는 내막에 역효과를 일으킬 수 있다.R-41은 드라마를 메인 드라마 보드에 가져온다.다시 말하지만, 그리 놀랍지는 않다.그대로!ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 20:52, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 그래서 당신은 나를 "드라마 퀸"이라고 부르고 이것이 "끔찍히 놀랍지 않다"고 말하고 있다.그 이용자는 나를 괴롭히는 자칭 국가사회주의자들이다.내가 유대인이라면 너는 내 토크 페이지에 국가사회주의자가 반복적으로 올린 글을 비웃을 것이다.비록 많은 사람들이 그들의 민족적 배경 때문에 수백만 명의 사람들을 죽였다고 해도, 만약 그것이 내 이웃이었던 이 유대인 남자에 대한 고통에 대한 농담이라고 생각한다면, 여기서 웃고, 웃고, 가서, 국가 사회주의가 중요하지 않다고 비웃으려고 노력하라.반대 - 그렇다면 나는 네가 어떤 것을 심각하게 생각하는지 궁금하다.요컨대, 나는 학교에서 유태인 대학살을 배우기 전에 트레블링카에서 살아남은 그 나이든 유대인 남자에 의해 유태인 대학살에 대한 교육을 배웠고, 그들의 사용자 상자에 그들이 파시스트이며 국가사회주의자라고 말하는 사람과 대화하고 싶지 않다.--R-41 (대화) 21:06, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 괴롭힘?그는 그의 추정된 변덕과 모욕에 대해 나를 모욕했다.나는 단지 그가 ta;lk 페이지의 한 섹션을 단순히 보고 싶어서 다시 쓰는 사용자들을 격찬했다는 점에서 그의 행동에는 위선이 있다는 것을 그의 주의를 환기시키고 있었다.그게 그의 권리였다는 건 아니야
- 괴롭힘에서 나치 고발로 이어져서 IM이 그를 괴롭힌다고?진심이야?!그가 한 짓에 대해 내가 당연히 주의를 기울였는데, 그는 또한 내 페이지에 글을 올리고 나서 그를 괴롭힌다고 말했어?
- 그리고 나서 그는 자신이 나치라는 클레임(미제적)에 의해 기분이 상하고 자신이 유대인이라는 것을 불쾌하게 여겨야 한다는 개인적인 복수를 실행하기 위해 새로운 전화를 하게 된다.그렇다면 왜 호주인, 아메리카인, 혹은 훨씬 더 큰 대량학살로 수백만 명을 죽인 기록이 있는 제국주의 국가에서 온다고 선언하는 것이 공격용 사용자 박스가 제거되는 것에 불쾌해 할까?!리하스 (대화) 00:00, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
상호 작용 금지 위반에 따른 은퇴
사용자:R-41은 리하스에 대한 또 다른 호통을 내 토크 페이지에 올린 후 은퇴를 발표했다.*시* 키퍼(Sigh* Kiefer.울포위츠 19:07, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
그러나 "이 사용자는 국가사회주의자" 사용자 상자는 그 자체로 파괴적일 수 있다.
| 사용자가 오해나 도발을 피하기 위해 사용자 박스를 수정했다.사용자는 우려사항에 대응하여 사용자 페이지 수정에 대해 논의하였다. |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
유저박스 자체가 위키피디아인들 사이에 갈등을 일으키고 있는 것이 분명하다.위키백과별:UP#관련되지 않은 과다한 콘텐츠는 아마도 리하스에게 제거하도록 요청해야 할 것이다.키퍼로서.울포위츠는 지적한다. 그것은 전에 나온 적이 있다.사용자 기억:Hay the Dark Lord Satan은 최근 분열적인 인물을 선택함으로써 혼란을 야기시킨 것에 대해 방어적으로 차단되었다.이 문제는 그것과 그리 멀지 않다.국가사회주의의 의미에 대한 논쟁(키퍼가 위에서 언급한)은, 잘못 해석하기 쉽고 일부 선의의 편집자에게 불필요한 악화를 야기하거나 화염병 역할을 할 수 있는 사용자 박스를 통해서가 아니라, 리디렉션의 토크 페이지에서 해결되어야 한다.ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 21:35, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 분열을 일으키는 사용자 이름을 갖는 것과 논란이 있든 없든 자신의 사용자 페이지에 자신의 정치적 성향을 선언하는 사용자 박스를 넣는 것은 차이가 있다. - 부시 레인저One ping only 22:50, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
전체 사용자 페이지가 중단됨
주로 변환된 사용자 박스(*spit*)로 구성된 220kb 사용자 페이지는 그 자체로 파괴적이며, 나는 그것을 블랭킹했다.히포크라테스 (토크) 22:31, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[하라
- 사용자 상자는 문제가 되지 않았다 - 반면에 텍스트의 거대한 벽은... - TheOne ping only Bushranger 22:51, 2012년 2월 6일 (UTC)[
- 위와 같은 리하스에 대한 언급이 걱정된다. 예를 들어 WP에 따르면, "왜 그는 편집을 허락받았는가?"NPA와 WP:시빌리티.
- 리하스는 대부분의 시간을 전통적 인도주의자로써 항상 가장 약하거나 최악의 대우를 받는 것에 대해 큰 관심을 가지고 현대 정치 사건에 대해 쓰는데 보낸다.그의 갈등은 비유럽인과 비성경적 피해자들에게 주어지는 주의력 부족으로 격분했기 때문에 자주 일어났다.언행으로 볼 때 그는 약자의 굴욕과 타락의 파시스트적 축하와 허무주의적 권력 숭배에는 분명히 반대한다.
- 과거 리하스는 민족주의와 사회주의가 (독일) 나치당, 특히 유럽 외에서 전후로 얽혀 있음을 상기시켜 주었다.사용자 상자는 효과적이지도 않고 생산적이지도 않은 그 합법적인 연습의 일부였다고 나는 믿는다.
- 이런 관점에서, 히스테리(남성들만을 위한 것으로 보이는 것)가 여기서 필요한 것인지 아니면 건설적인 것인지에 대해 생각해 보길 바란다.리하스는 수년 동안 위키백과에서 가장 논쟁이 되는 기사들 중 일부를 편집해 왔으며, 이 프로젝트에 정말로 큰 기여를 했다.(물론 아무도 자신이나 다른 사람이 흠잡을 데가 없다고 주장하지 않았다.) 키퍼.울포위츠 22:35, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 코다
- 나는 리하스가 그의 사용자 박스를 다시 쓰라고 제안했고, 그는 이제 그가 "나치가 아닌 민주주의 국가 사회주의"라는 것을 명확히 했다.
- 우리들 중 대부분은 동료나 친구에 의해 대화하는 방식으로 접근했을 때 더 많은 반응을 보이며, 우리들 중 소리지르거나 비난을 받는 것에 대해 잘 반응하는 사람은 거의 없다.
- 충동적으로 혹은 잘못 쓴 사람들이 리하스에게 사과하는 것을 고려하거나, 아니면 그의 기사 중 하나를 사적인 속죄로 편집하는 것을 돕기를 바란다. 키퍼.울포위츠 22:35, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
내가 리하스에 대해 말한 것이 그의 사용자 페이지에서 본 것으로부터 정직하다는 증거와 내가 직접 그를 공격했다는 주장은 거짓이다.
| 제발, 막대기를 내려놔. 살비오 18Let's talk about it!:48, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오. | ||||
| 내가 리하스를 파시스트이자 나치라고 '슬러시'함으로써 개인적으로 그를 공격했다는 주장을 분명히 철회한 것이다.나는 내가 넣은 보고서를 관리자들이 잘못 처리했기 때문에 위키피디아에서 은퇴하기로 결정했는데, 그 과정에서 나는 거짓된 비난에 대해 대부분의 비난을 받았다.드라미스, 당신은 내가 리하스에게 위키피디아에서 말하는 파시즘과 국가사회주의와의 연관성 때문에 그와 공통점이 없다고 말한 후 인신공격이라고 비난했소.이제 여러분과 다른 사람들은 그가 아마도 자신을 잘못 표현하고 있을지도 모른다고 주장한다. - 그는 "민주적 민족주의 사회주의"라고 말하려고 의도한 것이었고 - 무엇보다도 그는 사용자 페이지에 자신이 파시스트라고 말하고 있다. 그리고 위키피디아와 많은 학술적 저작에서 국가 사회주의가 파시즘의 한 형태로 인식되고 있다는 것을 명심하라.만약 내가 그를 파시스트와 나치라고 거짓 주장했는지에 대해 의문이 있다면, 그의 페이지에 있는 이 사용자 박스를 보라.사용자:진실성/사용자박스/파시스트 인포박스는 여러 인포박스에 "국가사회주의"를 "NS"로 반복해서 기술하고 있다.그는 또한 극우 초국가주의 정당을 지지하는 다른 인포박스를 가지고 있는데, 이는 그가 파시즘과 국가사회주의(나치주의에서와 같이)에 동조하고 있음을 훨씬 더 나타낸다.
- 잡빅은 마그야르 가르다(헝가리 근위대)라고 불리는 준군사운동을 하는 극우 헝가리 초나라주의 운동으로, 반유대주의 운동으로 이스라엘이 헝가리를 "사들이고 있다"고 비난하고, 그 준군사집단이 로마니(사이) 사람들을 공격한다.헝가리의 전 총리는 욥비크의 마그야르 가르다(Magyar Garda)를 "네오 파시스트(neo-fascist)"와 "네오-나치(neo-nazi)"라고 표현했다.
- 아타카(Ataka) - 그리스 단식 국민연합 공격 - 극우 불가리아 민족주의 운동 - 모든 의회 정당들이 외국인 혐오 운동과 불가리아 소수민족에 대한 국가적 위협으로 인정하고, 혐오 표현으로 알려진 아타카(Ataka) 지도자의 아들이 유럽의회 의원들에게 반로마니 이메일을 보내며 이를 숨겼다.헝가리는 로마니로 가득 차 있다.L.A.O.S.는 그리스 극우 민족주의 운동인 민중 정교회 집회의 짧은 형식이며 유럽연합 외부에서 들어오는 이민에 반대한다. 사실, 그는 상반된 사용자 박스를 가지고 있다 - 그것은 그가 정치적으로 혼란스럽거나 의견이 엇갈린다는 것을 의미할 수 있다.요컨대, 그의 사용자 박스의 진술로 볼 때, 그는 단지 민족주의적인 사회주의자가 아니라, 그의 사용자 박스는 그가 파시스트 국가사회주의자이며, 소수 민족에 대한 외국인 혐오증을 조장해 온 다수의 극우 극단주의 정당을 지지한다는 것을 분명히 하고 있다.Rds 로마니리하스가 나와 대결하기 시작했을 때, 나는 리하스의 사용자 페이지에 나는 그의 견해에 근본적으로 반대하며 그와 사귀거나 그와 대화하고 싶지 않다고 말했다. 그것은 나의 선택이고 나의 토크 페이지에 원치 않는 게시물을 받아들이도록 강요받지 않는 나의 권리다.나는 그가 그들을 지키고 싶든 원하지 않든 상관하지 않는다. 나는 그가 자신의 정치적 견해를 게시할 개인적 자유를 가지고 있다고 생각한다. 하지만 그는 모든 사람들이 그의 명시적인 파시즘, 국가사회주의, 극우 극단주의 운동을 존중하기를 기대해서는 안 된다. 내가 말했듯이, 나는 그러한 견해를 고수하는 사람과 이야기하고 싶지 않다. 위키백과에서 마지막 은퇴를 준비하고 있으니 여기에 응답해 주시길 바라지만, 행정관들이 잘못 대처한 것에 대해 사과하고 싶다, 나는 그가 파시스트이며 나치주의자라고 말할 때 그가 자신의 사용자 페이지에 올린 글을 솔직하게 진술하고, 그의 사용자 페이지는 그가 "파시스트"이며 "국가사회주의자"라고 말하고, 잡빅을 지지하고 있다.d 다른 극우 초국가주의 정당들 - 그냥 그것들을 마음속에 모아 놓고 국가사회주의라는 용어가 위키백과: 나치즘으로 옮겨가는 곳에 주목하라. 그리고 나는 나치즘의 일반적인 형태의 이념과 일반적인 형태의 지속을 신나치주의라고 불렀다.리하스는 자신이 독일 나치즘을 지지하지 않는다고 주장할 수도 있지만, 내가 그의 토크 페이지에서 이러한 경향을 처음 발견했을 때- 나는 무엇보다도 반로마니, 반유대적 잡빅 운동을 알아차린 다음, 내가 언급한 다른 두 개의 인포박스를 살펴보고 보았다.그는 자칭 파시스트로서, 내가 보기에 도덕적으로 비난받아 마땅하다고 생각하는 바로 그 나치즘의 요소를 옹호하는 정확한 종류의 정치 운동을 지지하고 있다 - 나는 외국인 혐오증을 조장하는 욥비크나 아타카 같은 극우 극단주의 운동을 지지하는 누군가와 대화하고 싶지 않다 - 그것은 그 사람과 이야기하지 않는 나의 선택이다.그리고 내가 그들에게 말하지 말라고 한 후에도 그 사람이 나에게 말하지 못하게 할 권리가 있다.--R-41 (대화) 18:30, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[ |
명백한 양말 76.10.10.10.10.12
| 한 명의 사용자가 가져온 블록, 1초 차이로 시작, 3분의 1로 닫힌 케이스 - 김 덴트브라운 22:06, 2012년 2월 8일(UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
해결됨76.118.180.210(대화 · 기여)은 ANI에 게시하기 위해 로그아웃한 사람으로 보인다.위의 토론에 참여하지 않은 사람이 한 번 봐 주시겠습니까?Toddst1 (대화) 06:16, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 내가 트롤링 양말인 것 같아. 76.118.180.210 (대화) 06:21, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 그것은 또한 내가 이 실의 완전한 필요를 통지받을 가치가 없는 것처럼 보인다.내 토크 페이지는 여전히 레드링크야.토드, 뭘 줘? 76.118.180.210 (대화) 06:23, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[하라
- DRAMAZ PLS를 중지하십시오.버프(토크) 06:53, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 아마도 드레이아스는 위에서 좋은 생각을 가지고 있었을 것이다.ANI를 완벽하게 보호하시겠습니까?Sometguy1221 (대화) 07:15, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- DRAMAZ PLS를 중지하십시오.버프(토크) 06:53, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 시작할 때 블록으로 어떤 것을 닫을 수 없으며, 따라서 관련된다.더욱이 이는 SOCK 보드가 ANI가 아닌 조사를 위한 것이다.
- 그리고 위에 게시된 링크를 통해 더욱 그러하다.리하스 (대화) 04:51, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 그것은 또한 내가 이 실의 완전한 필요를 통지받을 가치가 없는 것처럼 보인다.내 토크 페이지는 여전히 레드링크야.토드, 뭘 줘? 76.118.180.210 (대화) 06:23, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[하라
IP 사용자의 개인 공격
| 블록 제정, 사례 종결김 덴트브라운 22:09, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
사용자:Sascha30은 현재 IP 주소에서 독점적으로 편집하고 있으며, Talk에 개인 공격을 게시하고 있다.남수단의 대외 관계.
사용자:79.233.36.155에 의한 이 게시물[3]이 있었는데, 내가 "인터넷 폭력자"와 "위키피아의 푸틴"으로 고발되었다.Sasscha는 사용자로부터 인신공격에 대한 경고를 받았다.칩문크다비스: [4.그때 나는 같은 IP 주소로 b******d: [5]라고 불렸다.나중에 사용자:79.233.36.19(거의 동일인)는 사용자:쿠즈1을 "m*********************e"라고 불렀다. [6].
Sasscha는 이전에 Talk에서 편집한 적이 있다.남수단의 대외 관계, 대화:남수단에 대한 국제적 인식과 대화:Foreign relations of Montenegro (mostly with erratic and uncivil posts) under the following IP addresses: 79.233.4.25, 79.233.36.185, 79.233.2.90, 79.233.36.12, 79.233.21.71, 79.233.2.77, 79.233.37.101, 79.233.38.100, 79.233.34.238, 79.233.5.109, 79.233.35.25, 79.233.13.117, 79.233.23.167, 79.233.16.120, 79.233.38.2, 79.233.21.151, 79.233.5.130, 79.233.25.104, 79.233.22.42, 79.233.10.51, 79.233.33.133, 79.233.20.211, 79.233.37.176, 79.233.37.94, 79.233.16.157, 79.233.32.198, 79.233.9.73, 79.233.36.56, 79.233.36.214 (where he referred to someone as an "arrogant jerk": [7]), 79.233.16.226, and 79.233.6.9.
나는 관리자가 인신공격으로 인해 위의 IP 주소의 일부 또는 전부를 차단할 것을 요청한다.안녕, 바존카 (대화) 21:26, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 보통 그의
요구는 "사샤, 독일"과 함께항의게시물에 서명한다.그가 쿠즈1에게 한 마지막 말은 특히 역겨웠다.Nightw 21:43, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 확실히 어떤 영리한 사람이 여기에 레인지 블록을 적용할 수 있다.의심의 여지 없이, 내가 살펴본 6개의 편집은 파괴적이다.카발(그리고 땅콩 갤러리)은 이러한 대화 페이지를 반보호하는 것에 대해 어떻게 생각하는가?나는 외롭게 그런 일을 하는 것을 싫어한다. 왜냐하면 (어쩐지 이상한 이유로, 어쩌면) 나는 그것이 기사를 보호하는 것보다 더 과감하다고 생각하기 때문이다. (I've see IPs가 기사 토크 페이지에 많은 좋은 제안들을 게재하는 것을 보았기 때문이다.) 하지만, 어쩌면 우리는 여기서 선택의 여지가 없을지도 모른다.Drmies (대화) 22:47, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 현명한 행정가의 말을 인용하자면: 유혹에 굴복하라. 내 축복이 있군 살비오 23Let's talk about it!:14, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 레인지 블록을 성공적으로 적용하면 잠금이 필요하지 않다.CityOfSilver 23:34, 2012년 2월 7일 (UTC)[
- 나도 동의해.(관료적인 의미에서의) 행정상의 큰 문제로서 나는 사샤30 계정을 끈덕지게 차단하고 양말장사라고 꼬리표를 붙였다.위키피디아에는 이미 이전 SPI가 보관되어 있는 것으로 보인다.Sockpuppet_Investigations/Sascha30.IP는 지금 태그 지정만 하면 되고, 다시 링크한 카테고리는 스스로 채워야 한다.리스트의 시작부터 시작하겠다 :-) 아이세렌talk 18:03, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 완료. 아이세렌talk 18:26, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
사용자: FRANKBISTORY
| 이 단계에서는 공식적인 개입이 필요하지 않다.관련 편집자에 대한 메모가 남음.김 덴트브라운 10:16, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
빨리 돌아오길 꺼렸지만 뭔가 이유가 있을 것 같아보호 템플릿과 태그를 제거하고 MOS 날짜를 되돌린 이 편집에서 그를 우연히 만났다.그런 다음 그는 다른 두 편집자가 설명 없이 추가한 제목을 되돌렸다(그의 편집에 대한 표준과 같다).다른 편집자들의 변화는 되돌아가고 있었다. (그의 권리로서, 나는 동의하지만 그는 설명하기를 좋아한다) (이것도 그렇다)그런 다음 그는 이유 없이 같은 내용을 반복(충분히 충분히)하는 세 가지 동시 편집을 하게 된다:[8][9][10]Lihaas (대화) 04:02, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 너는 아마 선의일 것으로 추측되는 비언어적이고 다소 아마추어적인 편집자를 상대하고 있지만, 나는 이것을 긍정적으로 보려고 노력하고 있다.현재 이 시점에서 관리자가 할 일은 없다. 문제 편집은 개별적인 기준으로 먼저 처리되어야 하며, 둘째, 문제가 지속되는 경우 파괴적인 것으로 간주되어야 한다.AIV는 적절한 장소다; IMO, 지속적이고 설명되지 않는, 반-MOS, 그리고 반-협의 편집은 반달리즘이다.하지만 그들은 또한 3R 라인에 반칙을 할 수도 있다.지금 당장은 모든 것이 세상과 잘 맞는 것 같다; 나는 다른 누군가가 이 보고서를 보고 나를 수정하거나 WP에 의해 그것을 종결시킬 것을 제안한다.플루퍼너츠터.Drmies (talk) 05:03, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
토크:Rind 등 논란과 사용자: Radvo가 지속적으로 토크 페이지 지침을 준수하지 않음
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.후속 코멘트는 새로운 섹션으로 작성되어야 한다. 도달한 결론의 요약은 다음과 같다.
Radvo(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 상당히 새로운 편집자로, Rind 등의 논란을 편집하고 토크에 자주 게재해 왔다.린드 외. 논란.나와 다른 편집자들은 그의 게시물의 길이와 관련 없는 자료의 지속적인 삽입에 대해 그와 이야기를 나누었다. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.그는 계속해서 지나치게 장문의 글을 올리고 있는데, 너무 안 좋아서 문제의 기사 토크 페이지는 이제 많은 글의 벽 때문에 읽기가 매우 어렵다.
그는 최근 이 기사에 대한 편집자들의 환영 공지의 초안이라고 생각하는 것을 토크 페이지에 올렸다.오래 읽었다는 것은 알지만, 나는 그것이 매우 문제가 많고 전쟁터가 있다고 보았고, 내 눈에는 기사를 편집하는 어떤 새로운 편집자들이 기사 토크 페이지에 남아 있지 말았어야 한다고 생각했기 때문에(처음에는 기사를 편집하는 어떤 새로운 편집자들이 소아성애자로 고발될 것이라는 것을 암시한다) 그래서 나는 이해하지만 후회하지 않는 결정이라는 메시지와 함께 그것을 그의 토크 페이지로 옮겼다.Radvo는 나를 매우 불쾌하게 한다.그는 이곳의 기사토크 페이지에 내가 자신의 직위를 없앤 것은 예절과 저작권법 위반이라고 글을 올렸다.나는 처음에 거기서 반응했고, 그 다음 그것이 단순히 주제에서 벗어난 혼란으로 기사토크를 더욱 막아버리고 있다는 것을 깨닫고 라드보의 강연에 대한 나의 반응을 움직였다.
나는 그 상황에 대한 나의 대처가 완벽하지 않고 지저분했다고 생각한다. 나는 이 분야에서 전혀 경험이 없다.Radvo의 토크 페이지 게시물과 내가 이사한 게시물을 노련한 편집자들이 훑어봐 준다면 정말 정말 정말 고맙겠다.나는 그가 기사를 개선하기를 원한다고 믿지만 나는 그의 태도가 매우 곤란하고 문제가 있다고 생각한다.많은 편집자들이 토크 페이지 가이드라인을 참조하고 연계했지만 그는 해당 가이드라인을 읽거나 준수하는 기미를 보이지 않는다.Ooh토끼들아!메시지 남기기:) 04:13, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- Radvo는 이것을 내 토크 페이지에 남겼다.그는 분명히 내가 기사에서 그의 직위를 옮긴 것이 잘못되었다고 꽤 확신하고 있다.나는 오히려 그가 내가 그에게 하는 말을 듣지 않는다는 느낌을 받는다.Ooh토끼들아!메시지 남기기 :) 05:51, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 나는 절차를 설명하려는 나의 노력이 실패했음을 보여주는 최근의 동향에 관여하고 있으며, 걱정된다.문제의 기사는 소아성애 옹호자들과 그들의 반대자들에 의해 오용된 과학 논문에 관한 것이다.나는 비록 무엇을 할지는 모르지만 어떤 시행 절차가 제정될 수 있기를 희망한다.주제 금지는 속임수를 쓰겠지만, 그것은 무딘 수단이고, 라드보가 그 기사가 필요로 하는 것을 정확하게 설명하는 것을 방해할 것이다(이 논평에서, 라드보는 "나는 지난 한 달 동안 이 기사에 대해 브루스 린드와 접촉했다"고 말했고, 라드보는 그 주제에 대한 상세한 지식을 가지고 있다).문제의 정도는 User talk에서 Radvo의 최근 메시지에서 확인할 수 있다.조누니크#놀리지 마. 당신의 의제는 무엇인가?(나의 "agenda"는 기사의 토크에서 질문을 받았으며, 나는 그러한 질문이 나의 토크 페이지에 있어야 한다고 응답했었다.그 게시물에는 몇 가지 심각한 오해들이 있다: 의제들의 대화; "사용자를 얻는 것:너를 위해 더러운 일을 하는 오부니들"; 다른 것들에 대한 오해."그리고 너를 세게 때리고 아프게 해, 그러니 나를 두 번째에 데려가기 전에 생각해봐"와 같은 텍스트는 나에게서 더 이상의 반응이 도움이 되지 않을 것임을 나타낸다.
- 오우버니에 대한 언급과 더러운 일에 대한 설명을 하자면: 라드보는 위의 보고서에 언급된 "환영 통지서 초안"을 올렸고, 나는 그 메시지를 사용자 공간으로 옮겨야 할 것이지만, 거기에서도 적절하지 않을 수 있다고 응답했다.90분 후, OohBunnies는 Radvo의 게시물을 사용자들의 토크로 옮겼다(OhBunnies는 내가 관여하기 전인 작년 12월에 Radvo의 토크에 게시했다).타이밍을 보면 마치 내가 우우버니들과 어느 정도 타협을 한 것처럼 보이지만, 물론 나는 그 단계에서 그녀를 전혀 모르고 있었다.나는 많은 시간을 Talk에서 절차를 설명하려고 노력했다.Rind et al. 논란 및 사용자 대화:Radvo, 그러나 불행히도 나의 첫 번째 기여는 Radvo와의 대립을 포함했다: 나의 첫 번째 게시물은 아동 성폭력을 옹호하는 웹사이트와의 링크를 삭제한 WLU를 지원하는 것이었다. (아마도 그 사이트들이 관련 자료를 호스팅하기 때문에 링크를 제공한 것 같다) (diff)나의 두 번째 게시물은 토크 페이지 가이드라인(디프)에 대한 또 다른 주제외 위반 TLDR을 붕괴시키는 것이었다.라드보의 대응은 또 다른 횡설수설하고 주제에서 벗어난 글의 벽을 게시하는 것으로, (부분적으로) "마스토돈스는 약 1만년 전에 위키피디아를 짓밟는 것을 멈췄다"와 "오토만 항복, 1차 세계대전의 종말을 가져왔다"(디프)라고 쓰여진 두 개의 캡션이 있는 이미지로 완성되었다.내가 마지막으로 언급했던 게시물을 제거했고, 라드보는 그것을 복구했다.
- 특히 위에서 언급된 "당신을 세게 때리는" 것과 같은 것들을 볼 때, 관리 모니터링은 매우 감사할 것이다.조누니크 (대화) 07:27, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
라드보, 여기 거래가 있다: 당신은 우리의 규칙을 따르고 위키피디아를 전쟁 지역이 아닌 백과사전으로 취급하거나, 아니면 가서 다른 샌드박스를 찾아 놀 수 있다.어떤 상황에서도 당신이 자신보다 덜하다고 인식하는 모든 사람들을 맹렬히 공격하고, 지금까지 그래왔던 것처럼 계속하는 것은 허용되지 않을 것이다.지금부터 연대하여 편집하려는 너의 의도를 여기서 인정해, 그렇지 않으면 네가 그렇게 잘 알고 있는 부분을 만들 수 있을 때까지 내가 너를 차단할 거야.플루퍼넛은 샌드위치! (토크) 16:13, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[하라
가능한 리턴 양말
| 철회된 상태로 폐쇄됨.김 덴트브라운 22:12, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
셀리나 카일 부인은 현재 이곳에 게시하는 것을 자제하고 있지만, 자신의 토크 페이지에 다음과 같이 제안했다.MichelleBlondau는 사용자의 반환 양말일 수 있다.카타코니아, 이 논의에 의하면나는 이미 이 사용자에 대해 SPI를 신청했는데, 그는 사용자:리하스; 내가 착각한 것 같다.위의 당사자들에게 이 실을 통보하는 대로 SPI를 업데이트하겠지만, 다시 여기서 제기할 가치가 있을 것 같았다.윤수이 15:05, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)
폭력의 위협
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
사용자 대화:84.50.17.185를 참조하십시오.에스토니아 반달은 경고에 대응하고 있다.조잘로초 18:38, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
관리자 조치 요청 - TFD에서 폐쇄
내가 위키피디아에서 지명한 사용자 박스에 대한 삭제표를 마감하는 친절한 여성 또는 젠트의 변경:Template_for_토론/Log/2012_2월_4일 유지, WP와 같은 근거:스노우 - 지명자는 다른 사람들의 주장에 근거하여 계속하기로 결정했고, 다른 사람들은 모두 동의한다.아니면 보트르 차이스의 다른 모트들도
(거기에서 근거를 밝히지 않은 것은 알지만, ANI Egg Centric은 TFD Egg Centric과 동일 인물) Egg Centric 23:58, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 나는 즐겁게 그 행복하고 작은 '계속하는' 것들을 클릭하지만, 근거를 추가하는 방법을 제대로 보지 못한다.하, 내가 망치면 누가 고쳐줄 거야, 안 그래?그게 위키백과의 정신 아닌가?Drmies (talk) 00:48, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 내가 제대로 했는지 아닌지 알 길이 없다.누가 좀 고쳐줘.위키리스크를 가져갈 테니까 결백을 주장할 수 있어.아! 초인종이 울리고 있어!Drmies (talk) 00:50, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
사용자:코트크루
| 사용자가 조언을 준 재게시 OR김 덴트브라운 13:35, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
미안하지만, 나는 지금 거의 7시에 잠자리에 들어야 한다. 하지만 나는 누군가가 같은 WP를 추가하는 것에 대해 설명해야 한다고 생각한다.여러 기사에 대한 OR은 유용하지 않음 - 특수:기부금/코트크루..돌이켜 보면 별 의미가 없다.나보다 더 재치가 있는 사람(즉, 거의 모든 사람)이 위키백과는 이것이 목적이 아니라고 설명하고, 코트크루에게 위키다양성의 일반적인 방향을 가리킨 다음, 편집 내용을 되돌릴 수 있을까?Andy TheGrump (talk) 06:57, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 이크. 나는 방금 그들의 다른 편집본을 삭제하는 것을 끝냈고(이 보고서를 보기 전에), 내 인내심 수준이 현재 약간 낮기 때문에 다른 사람이 사용자와 관련되기를 바랐다.조누니크 (대화) 07:26, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
IP 78.154.126.122
| 잘못된 장소, 올바른 장소로 향함.Doc talk 10:42, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
WP:3RR 여기서 깨짐 - 해당 토크 페이지에 대한 논의나 IP 자체의 불합리한 행동에 대한 회신 없음.차단을 제안하다.SergeWoodzing (대화) 07:02, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
NoScript에서 의도적으로 잘못된 요약을 사용하여 편집하시겠습니까?
| 리턴된 문서 편집 및 세미프로터링된 문서 편집.아이세렌talk 10:37, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
편집 요약을 의도적으로 속이는 것 같다(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoScript&diff=475831790&oldid=475806721, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoScript&diff=475846198&oldid=475834476)).두 IP 모두 이탈리아에 있기 때문에 COI도 있을 수 있다.리치즈 (대화) 09:03, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
삭제된 문서 보관
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.후속 코멘트는 새로운 섹션으로 작성되어야 한다.
내 기사는 최근에 Vivid Racing 때문에 삭제되었다.삭제된 글은 어딘가에 보관되어 있는데, 다시 돌려받거나 이메일로 보내서 수정할 수 있을까?베티 머름 (토크) 04:31, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 그들은 아마도 림보라고 가장 잘 언급되는 매우 신비로운 장소에 있다.사용자:누가 당신의 기사를 삭제했는지 빠르게.Fastily에게 그들의 토크 페이지에 메모를 남겨두고(당신은 전에 그곳에 가본 적이 있다) 그들에게 당신을 위해 그것을 "사용자화"해 달라고 부탁하라.Drmies (토크) 04:43, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 나는 사용자에게 다음과 같은 제안을 했다.베티 멀엠이 여기에 글을 올렸지만, 그건 내가 패스트밀리의 반응을 읽기 전이었다.그 점에 기초하여 내가 원래의 포스터에 제안할 수 있는 것은 처음부터 다시 시작하라는 것뿐입니다.– ukexpat (대화) 15:47, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- Fastily의 간결한 반응 중 하나.더 많은 말들이 환영받았을 것이다, 그렇다. 하지만 만약 베티 멀이 다시 물어본다면, 나는 패스트리가 그녀에게 하루의 시간과 기사 사본을 줄 것이라고 확신한다.Drmies (토크) 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) 17:14 [
- Betty가 호프 속을 뛰어 넘을 필요는 없다; 나는 그녀의 사용자 공간으로 기사를 복원하고, 그녀의 토크 페이지에 몇 가지 제안을 남길 것이다.많은 작업이 필요할 것이다. --Floquenbeam (대화) 17:23, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- Fastily의 간결한 반응 중 하나.더 많은 말들이 환영받았을 것이다, 그렇다. 하지만 만약 베티 멀이 다시 물어본다면, 나는 패스트리가 그녀에게 하루의 시간과 기사 사본을 줄 것이라고 확신한다.Drmies (토크) 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) 17:14 [
- 나는 사용자에게 다음과 같은 제안을 했다.베티 멀엠이 여기에 글을 올렸지만, 그건 내가 패스트밀리의 반응을 읽기 전이었다.그 점에 기초하여 내가 원래의 포스터에 제안할 수 있는 것은 처음부터 다시 시작하라는 것뿐입니다.– ukexpat (대화) 15:47, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
편집자가 이 게시판에 다른 사람의 의견을 재조정함
| 어떤 관리자도 조치를 취하지 않을 것이다. 이것은 세 번째 스레드가 닫히는 것이다.되돌리지 마십시오. --Rschen7754 18:24, 2012년 2월 9일(UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
- Tarc는 내가 말하던 헛소리라고 게시했다.케일리의 논평에 대한 답변으로
- 나는 그것을 제거된 똥 묻은 개 코멘트로 대체했다.
- 편집 요약 Grow up과 함께 파블로 X에 의해 복원되었다.
- 그래서 나는 편집 요약인 모욕적이고 선동적인 코멘트를 제거하여 다시 삭제했다.
- 그러나 그것은 아틀란에 의해 복원되었고 편집 요약본은 과도하게 언어 경찰들을 필요로 하지 않았다.
- 편집자의 의견을 헛소리라고 표현하는 것은 모욕적이고 선동적이며 이사회에 적합하지 않다는 요약본으로 다시 삭제했다.
당신의 생각은 감사할 겁니다. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 16:18, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- (분쟁 편집 × 2) 나는 시민권 집행 2 중재 사건에 대한 청구를 하기 위해 단지 몇 개의 시냅스 밖에 남지 않았다...ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 16:25, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 도움이 되는 코멘트가 아니다(해머 시도라고 가정하는 겁니까?)2012년 2월 9일(UTC) 16시 28분 아무도 참여하지 않는다[하라
- 날 믿어, 난 ArbCom이 ANI(참가)를 위해 WP:Discastary 제재를 통과하게 할 나쁜 계획이 있어.ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 17:56, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 도움이 되는 코멘트가 아니다(해머 시도라고 가정하는 겁니까?)2012년 2월 9일(UTC) 16시 28분 아무도 참여하지 않는다[하라
- 나는 모든 것을 정상 궤도에 올려놓기 위해 주제 코멘트를 다시 쓰는 것에 동의한다.Tarc의 논평은 주제에 관한 것이며 제자리에 남겨두는 것이 최선이다.2012년 2월 9일(UTC) 16시 28분 아무도 참여하지 않는다[하라
- 내가 사는 나라에서는 신문이 좆까, 좆까, 좆까, 이런 말들로 가득 차 있다.여기선 이게 정상이야아마도 내가 앤서니가 미국에 산다고 생각하는게 맞을까?그렇다면 중요한 것은 미국의 대중 담론 기준을 강요하는 것은 부적절하다는 것이다.명목(대화) 16:31, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
살비오는 토론을 끝냈지만 나는 끝내지 못했다.Tarc의 행동에 대해 말하거나 어떤 조치를 취할 사람? --Anthonyhcole (대화) 16:41, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 난 아니야. "멍청이"는 거의 아무것도 아니야. 그리고 왜 그걸 제거했어야 하는지도 모르겠어.나는 우리가 ANI를 다시 분해하는 것이 아니라 분해하려는 것이라고 생각했다.이 수정, 헌신, 재조정이 무엇을 이루었는지 보라.파블로가 한 말.드레이미스 (토크) 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) 16:46[
- 여기서 어떤 관리자 작업을 찾으십니까?pablo 2012년 2월 9일(UTC) 16:46[
- 앤서니, 살비오의 근접이 적절하다고 생각했어.이렇게 열리면 빛보다 열이 더 많이 날 겁니다.FWIW, 나는 우리가 여기서 언어를 문명화해야 한다는 원칙에 동의한다; 그러나 우리는 아직 (a)이 어떻게 일어나야 하는지 또는 (b) 어떻게 해야 하는지에 대한 합의를 가지고 있지 않다.너는 네가 했던 방식으로 리액션을 하기 시작했을 때 조숙했다.인내심을 가져라, 우리는 거기에 도달할 것이다. 하지만 속도를 억지로 내려고 하는 것은 아니다.이제 두 명의 관리인(살비오와 나)이 행동을 거부하고 이 일을 끝내려 했다.물론 다시 열 수도 있지만, 그럴 때마다 사람들의 인내심을 단축시킬 뿐만 아니라 같은 대답을 얻을 수 있을 것이라고 나는 의심한다.김 덴트브라운 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) 17:02 [
킴은 이 대화를 끝냈지만 파블로는 나에게 질문을 했었다.파블로, 난 타크가 이 프로젝트에 대한 그의 언급이 미개하고 부적절했다는 걸 알아줬으면 좋겠어, 적어도 ANI에서 말이야. 현재 그는 그걸 인식하지 못하고 있어.Wikipedia_talk를 참조하십시오.관리자_noticeboard#Orderly_ANI. 따라서, 그가 미개한 행동을 인식하고 그것을 피할 수 있다는 것을 증명하기 전까지는 어떤 종류의 제재가 시행되는 것이 적절할 것이다.아마도 이 페이지에서 주제 금지로 시작할 수 있을 것이다. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 17:13, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 그래, 행운을 빈다.Ho lodd.실이 죽었어, 자기야.pablo 2012년 2월 9일 17:22(UTC)[하라
- 앤서니, 네 해결책은 문제보다 더 심각해.특히 네가 계속 그를 괴롭힌다면 타크는 그런 종류의 어떤 것도 알아채지 못할 것이다.그가 한 말은 한 블록에 대해 충분히 터무니없는 것도 아니다.내가 예상하는 주제 금지는 또한 날지 않을 것이다.내 생각에 너희 둘은 지금 여기서 이 문제를 끌고 나가는데, 특히 너희들은 희망했던 답을 얻지 못할 때 계속 돌아오기 때문에 더더욱 그렇다.나는 이 실에 대해 더 이상 말하지 않을 것이며, 다시는 닫지 않을 것이다.그러나 나는 나와 동의하는 편집자/관리자를 초대해서 살비오와 나의 편집자/관리자를 추가할 것이다.이에 동의하지 않고 여기서 계속 논의해야 한다고 생각하는 사람은 당연히 그렇게 말하는 것을 환영한다.김 덴트브라운(Talk) 17:23, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 난 타크를 괴롭히는 게 아니야위키백과 정책을 시행해 달라는 겁니다. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 17:39, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 앤서니, 네 해결책은 문제보다 더 심각해.특히 네가 계속 그를 괴롭힌다면 타크는 그런 종류의 어떤 것도 알아채지 못할 것이다.그가 한 말은 한 블록에 대해 충분히 터무니없는 것도 아니다.내가 예상하는 주제 금지는 또한 날지 않을 것이다.내 생각에 너희 둘은 지금 여기서 이 문제를 끌고 나가는데, 특히 너희들은 희망했던 답을 얻지 못할 때 계속 돌아오기 때문에 더더욱 그렇다.나는 이 실에 대해 더 이상 말하지 않을 것이며, 다시는 닫지 않을 것이다.그러나 나는 나와 동의하는 편집자/관리자를 초대해서 살비오와 나의 편집자/관리자를 추가할 것이다.이에 동의하지 않고 여기서 계속 논의해야 한다고 생각하는 사람은 당연히 그렇게 말하는 것을 환영한다.김 덴트브라운(Talk) 17:23, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
자물쇠가 채워지기 전에, "멍청이"와 같은 단 하나의 미개한 단어들을 제거하는 문제는 현재 지역사회의 합의가 이루어지지 않고 있다.위키백과 대화 참조:TALK#RFC 제거.ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 17:28, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 나는 한마디도 수정하지 않았다.나는 문장을 다시 썼다.미개한 문장. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 17:39, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 그 문장에서 "멍청한"말 말고 다른 단어에 반대하십니까?예를 들어, "그것이 내가 말했던 것"에 대한 미개한 것은 무엇인가?ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 17:55, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
아직 온라인 상태가 아닌 다른 사람들에게 의견을 말할 기회를 줄 수 있도록 이 실마리를 잠시 열어두면 고맙겠다.위키도 깨지 않고, 반응만 덧붙이진 않을 겁니다. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 17:39, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- FWIW, 나는 헛소리의 사용이 도움이 되지 않았다고 생각한다.그러나 나는 또한 그것을 둘러싼 전쟁을 편집하는 것은 고사하고 그러한 행동을 정당화할 만큼 심각하지 않기 때문에 나쁜 생각이라는 것에 동의한다.그리고 나는 그것에 대해 타크를 계속 괴롭히는 것은 별로 의미가 없다는 것에 동의한다.그래서 아마 이 실을 그냥 닫는 것이 가장 좋을 것이다.닐 아인(토크) 18:06, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
RFC의 불필요한 섹션
| 이전에 김 덴트브라운에 의해 닫혔고, 닫힌 후 사용자가 계속 사용하면서 내가 다시 열었다.해당 사용자가 차단되고 WP에 대한 동시 검토가 진행됨에 따라 나는 은둔하고 있다.A.---발룬맨 19:17, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
그 이름에 걸맞은 공격은 없었다.구간이 무너졌다.김 덴트브라운 22:15, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)}}}[하라
- 위 내용은 당초 폐막 성명이었지만, 클라가 두 차례나 발언을 재입력함에 따라 나는 그 부분을 폈다.----발룬맨 05:10, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
나는 우리가 RfC의 한 섹션을 들어와서 닫거나 삭제하기 위해 책임감 없는 관리자가 필요하다고 생각한다.사용자 중 한 명이 이 rfc 기간 동안 인신공격을 한 모든 사용자의 명단을 작성하기로 했다.그런 다음 그들은 편집자(또는 비슷한 견해를 가진 다른 편집자)에 일반적으로 동의하지 않은 약 10명의 편집자를 나열하고 자신들에 동의하지 않는 모든 논평에 인신공격이라고 라벨을 붙였다.리스트의 맨 아래에서 시작해서 얼마나 많은 댓글이 NPA 위반인지 알려주시겠습니까?나는 전체 섹션이 무료 대화를 하지 못하도록 위협하거나 비열하게 하려는 것으로 본다. 해당 사용자/관점에 대해 부정적인 코멘트는 인신공격성 리스트에 오를 수 있다.---Balloonman 18:31, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 나는 그것을 훑어보고 있다.나는 RfC에 참여하지 않았고(그것에 관심이 없다) 수년에 걸쳐 그 논의에 관여하는 여러 사람들과 접촉해 왔지만 나는 그 누구도 내가 누구에게도 편향되거나 반대한다고 생각하지 않을 것이라고 생각한다.경고할 만한 것이 보이지 않으면 섹션이 무너진다. -- 아타마18:58, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 내 추측으로는 NPA를 위반하는 몇몇 토론이 있을 수도 있고, 많은 토론이 위반이 있을 수도 있지만, 전체 섹션/토론을 정당화하기에는 충분하지 않다.하지만 훑어봐줘서 고마워.--발룬맨Poppa Balloon 19:00, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 미안 아타마, 내가 여기 위에 있다는 글을 올리지 않고 읽기 시작했어.나는 여기서 Balloonman의 의견에 동의한다. 제공된 디프는 전혀 인신공격적이거나 너무 현미경적으로 인신공격과 비슷해서 리스트는 실제의 예의범절 문제를 다루기 보다는 오싹한 효과를 위해 의도된 것이다.--v/r - TP 19:08, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 뜨거운 난장판이 또 다른 난장판으로 연결되겠지?나는 사람들이 다른 사람들을 모아서 불만 사항의 목록으로 모으면 얼마나 많은 해로움이 발생하는지 궁금하다.Drmies (대화) 19:09, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 그냥 말레우스에게 물어봐...--발룬맨Poppa Balloon 19:12, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 고마워 얘들아, 하고 싶었지만 그건 분명 COI였을 거야.---발룬맨Poppa Balloon 19:12, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 한숨… 이것들을 거치면서, 적어도 이런 '공격'은 내가 한 말에 대한 반응으로, 내 토크페이지에서 행해진 것으로 짐작되기에, 결국 내가 '무인종'으로 여겨질지 모르겠다.필자는 비록 인신공격은 아니라고 생각하지만, 대부분의 공격은 매우 공개적인 토론에서 이루어졌고, 여러 사람(여러 명의 행정관 포함, 그들은 결국 A에 있었다)에 의해 목격되었으며, 만약 그들이 실제 공격이었다면 그들은 이미 대응했을 것이라고 생각한다.TP 이미 검토 중이라면 계속 진행하십시오. 물론 그렇게 하는 데 있어서 제 발끝을 밟는 것은 아닙니다만, 2012년 2월 8일(UTC) 아타마무스 19:14, (UTC)[
- 뜨거운 난장판이 또 다른 난장판으로 연결되겠지?나는 사람들이 다른 사람들을 모아서 불만 사항의 목록으로 모으면 얼마나 많은 해로움이 발생하는지 궁금하다.Drmies (대화) 19:09, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 미안 아타마, 내가 여기 위에 있다는 글을 올리지 않고 읽기 시작했어.나는 여기서 Balloonman의 의견에 동의한다. 제공된 디프는 전혀 인신공격적이거나 너무 현미경적으로 인신공격과 비슷해서 리스트는 실제의 예의범절 문제를 다루기 보다는 오싹한 효과를 위해 의도된 것이다.--v/r - TP 19:08, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
- 내 추측으로는 NPA를 위반하는 몇몇 토론이 있을 수도 있고, 많은 토론이 위반이 있을 수도 있지만, 전체 섹션/토론을 정당화하기에는 충분하지 않다.하지만 훑어봐줘서 고마워.--발룬맨Poppa Balloon 19:00, 2012년 2월 8일 (UTC)[
편집기 계속
ANI 보고서를 클라에게 통보했다---Balloonman 05:20, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) 오케이, 처음 스레드를 시작한 사람이 해트 편집 내용을 요약하기로 결정했네, 다시 말하지만, 무자율적인 관리자가 응답하는 것이 좋을 것 같아.요약본의 재게시는 본질적으로 TParis가 제공하는 경고의 위반이다.---Balloonman 00:47, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
좋아, 점점 우스꽝스러워지고 있어.클라는 위에서 "인신공격"의 요약본을 삽입했다.TPARIS는 최종 경고를 발령했다.트립토피쉬는 클라가 "이걸 버려야 한다"고 말했다.그냥 폭발할 뿐, 아무 소용도 없을 거야."클라는 "내 광기에 방법이 있다"고 대답한다.그는 그 후 인신공격이라고 주장하는 편집본을 다시 삽입했다.[11]. 나는고 그들은 개인적인 공격이날지 그들이 개인적인 공격 주장에 그의 insistance?---Balloonman Poppa 풍선 05:10, 2월 9일 2012년(CoordinatedUniversalTime)주의:제 관심은 본질적으로 인신 공격으로 그의 리스트에 대해보다는 많지 않고 있는 지를 고려하는 Cla다고 주장하고 있는"개인적인"공격을 검토할 것을 권장합니다.효과 그의 나는ist는 공개 토론에 대해 가지고 있다.그의 "공격" 목록은 더 많은 의견 불일치이며, 다른 의견을 "공격"이라고 부름으로써 그는 반대에 서고자 하는 사람들의 욕구를 억누른다.---발룬맨 05:31, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 나는 이것에 대해 조금 더 미묘한 반응을 보고 싶다.Cla가 그것을 엉뚱한 방향으로 가고 있는 동안, A) 이미 불행하게도 RfC에 관여하고 2) 전반적인 논의의 질이 전반적으로 좋지 않은 가운데, 이러한 여러 가지 차이점들은 내가 다른 상황에서 "인신공격하지 말라"고 경고하는 발언의 유형이다. - 아론 브레네만 (talk) 07:49, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)
- (관리자가 아닌 의견)이거 먹어봐.ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 07:58, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 사실, 언제나처럼 빈틈없는 ASCIIn2Bme.문제는 클라에게 이것을 올리는 것이 도움이 되지 않는다는 말을 듣지 않았고, 그는 이것이 공격이 아니라는 말을 들었다.그건 주관적인 문제야.(글쎄, "이걸 올리는 것은 도움이 되지 않는다"는 훨씬 더 주관적인 문제)
- 내가 읽은 바로는 분명하고 설득력 있는 이유 없이 누군가를 모욕죄로 고발하는 것은 인신공격에 가깝다.
- 그것은 아주 분명한 이유로 누군가를 동성애 혐오증(또는 어떤 종류의 외국인 혐오증)으로 고발하는 것은 완전히 공격이다.
- 나는 이 타락한 모습을 보지 않은 것이 기쁘지만, Cla가 그의 난나를 하기 전에 누군가 *관리자 모임에서 뼈 있는 사람*이 멋진 경찰 역할을 했어야 했다.이 RFC에는 말을 소화하기에 충분한 담즙이 있다.
- 애런 브레너먼 (대화) 07:49, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[하라
- 나는 클라 리스트의 편집자 중 한 명이다.당연히 나는 내 편집에 대해 토론하는 데 문제가 없고, 나는 그것이 정당한 편집이라고 믿는다.하지만 현재 그것은 세 군데에서 언급되고 있는데, 그 중 어느 곳도 내가 편집하기에 적절한 장소가 아니다.그것은 특정 편집자를 금지하기로 합의하지 않은 채 종결된 토론의 AN/I 기록 보관소에 존재한다.그것은 TParis가 공격한 토론에서 연결되었고, 나는 Cla68의 리스트에 올라 있다.CLA68이 의심스러운 편집을 한 사람으로 나를 나열해도 괜찮다면, 나는 대답할 기회를 갖고 싶다.그러나 그 목록을 해트 노트 안에 넣는 것이 더 현명할 것이다. - 그 공동체는 어떤 사건이 특정 편집자에 대한 금지를 받을 자격이 있는지에 대해 의견 차이를 보였다.결과에 만족한다고 말할 수는 없지만, 그 결과가 금지에 합의하지 못했고 그 결과 사건이 종결되었다는 것은 받아들일 수 있다.내가 덜 낙관적인 것은 대응할 기회도 없이 누군가를 공격하는 것으로 기록되는 것이다.ϣereSpielCequers 14:26, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 사실, 언제나처럼 빈틈없는 ASCIIn2Bme.문제는 클라에게 이것을 올리는 것이 도움이 되지 않는다는 말을 듣지 않았고, 그는 이것이 공격이 아니라는 말을 들었다.그건 주관적인 문제야.(글쎄, "이걸 올리는 것은 도움이 되지 않는다"는 훨씬 더 주관적인 문제)
- (관리자가 아닌 의견)이거 먹어봐.ASCIIn2Bme (대화) 07:58, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
파이어스톤드
| 대화력이 없는 SPA가 일시적으로 차단됨김 덴트브라운 22:12, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
[WT에서 이동:BIO Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); 앤디와 대화; 앤디의 편집 20:55, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) ]
IDK에서 가져갈 곳이니, 여기 관리자에게 요청해 볼게.사용자:AndrewFirestone777은 현재까지 Firestone dab 페이지에 Diego Firestone을 반복적으로 추가했다.그는 2011년 6월 이후로 아무것도 하지 않고 있다그는 반복적으로 중지하거나 실제 페이지를 작성하라는 요청을 무시했다.만약 이것이 공공 기물 파손으로 이어진다면 IDK는 그러나 권고나 경고는 헛된 것으로 보인다.누군가 뭔가를 할 수 있을까?Tx. TREK필러 19:44, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)(FYI: 이 페이지를 보지 않고, 조치가 취해진다면 여기서 답을 찾지 않음)
- 나는 그들에게 2주간의 주의를 집중시키는 샷을 활에 걸쳐 주었다. (그들의 산발적인 편집 패턴으로 볼 때 그들이 알아차릴 수 있을 만큼 충분히 길기를 희망한다.)아이세렌talk 21:28, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
사용자:70.119.58.72
| 차단됨, 불만 사항부터 조치, 종결까지 5분 소요됨...김 덴트브라운 22:14, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
70.119.58.72 (토크 · 기여)는 두어 페이지에 위협을 게시하고 있는데, 그 위협들이 정말 심각해 보이는 것이 아니라 그냥 언급해야겠다고 생각했다...Calabe1992 22:09, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 하루 동안 차단. --Floquenbeam (대화) 22:11, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
템플릿:캐나다의 음악
| 분명히 오해하고 있는 것 같아. 28바이트 (대화) 05:49, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
편집자 Roux는 다음 언어로 !투표 섹션을 작성했다.
나는 그의 언어가 중립적이지 않다는 것을 관찰했고 그것을 다음과 같이 바꾸었다.미시아니칼은 GSTQ가 어떤 식으로든 공식적이라고 주장하는 정부 소식통 한 명도 제공할 수 없고, 캐나다에서 해피데이(GSTQ보다 훨씬 넓은 일상용도의 노래, 지구상에서 유일하게 언급할 수 있는 유일한 조직의 실제 소식통이 지지하는 주장)보다 더 많은 법적 지위는 없다는 데 합의하고 있다.확실히 법적 및/또는 공식적 상태에서는 GSTQ가 이 템플릿에 포함되지 않아야 한다.
Navbox Template에서 "God Save the Queen" 노래가 캐나다의 국가로서 제외되는 경우:캐나다의 음악?
루크는 내 중립적인 언어를 되돌렸다.나는 중립적인 언어를 복원하기 위해 관리자 개입을 요청한다. 그리고 만약 그의 중단이 지속된다면 루크 한 블록을 요청한다.– 리오넬 04:34, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 돌아가서 역사를 살펴보는 게 어때?만약 그렇게 한다면--알고 있어, 알아, 알아. 위키피디아 사람들에게 그들이 들어와서 징징거리기 전에 알려달라고 부탁하는 것이 많아-- 당신은 내가 RfC 태그를 추가하는 것과 전혀 상관없는 일이라는 것을 알 수 있을 거야. 그리고 내가 만든 섹션은 그 태그가 페이지에 붙기 전에 꽤 오래 만들어졌지.하지만, 이런, 그건 당신이 실제로 a) 타임스탬프, b) 이력, c) 나의 편집 요약에 주의를 기울여야 했다는 것을 의미할 것이다.→ ROX₪ 04:42, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 나는 그 페이지를 읽었다.당신은 전체 커뮤니티가 도착해서 논평하기 시작하기 전에 당신의 투표 언어를 중립으로 만들 시간이 아직 있다.– 리오넬 04:45, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 분명히 나는 불분명했다.다시 해보자:
- RFC 태그를 부착하는 것과 아무 관련이 없어RFC 태그는 내가 새로운 섹션을 만든 후 얼마간 MIESianiacal에 의해 배치되었다. 나는 RFC를 만들 의도가 없었다.
가) 내용문제는 여기서 해결이 안 될 것 같고, 그것이 토크페이지의 목적이다.2) 루크는 나에게 예의를 갖추라는 경고를 받으려고 하는데, 아마도 몇 개 더 배포될 것이다. - 애런 브레네먼(토크) 04:46, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 단순한 오해인 것 같다 + ANI에 이 문제를 보고해도 아무 소용이 없을 것이다.클로징.—Dark 04:50, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
죽음의 위협
| 양말 & 오픈 프록시가 차단됨아이세렌talk 09:09, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
[12]를 참조하십시오.최근 차단된 '죽음'이 좌익과 아랍인들에게 한 것과 유사한 편집(대화 · 기여)이다.야수의 표식 (토크) 07:48, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 아마도 96.49.76.98 (대화/출연)과 관련이 있을 것이다.야수의 표식 (토크) 07:50, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
Grawp/J로 확인됨DH 친구.방금 공개 프록시를 차단했다 - 앨리슨❤ 08:18, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[하라
Grawp/J로 확인됨DH 친구.방금 공개 프록시를 차단했다 - ARS AFD 조사
| 비록 여기에 강한 의견 차이가 있지만 나는 모든 면이 진실하고 진정으로 그들이 위키백과를 위해 최선을 다하고 있다고 믿는다.이것은 어떤 공감대가 형성될 가능성이 있는 주제가 아니며, 여기에는 어떠한 것도 달성되지 않았다.나는 행동에 대한 합의가 이루어지지 않았기 때문에 이것을 마무리 지을 것이다.AN/I에서 제기하는 것이 적절한 주제인데, 일반적으로 토론의 톤은 민간적이었습니다. 불필요한 드라마 없이 의견 불일치를 여기로 가져와서 방송할 수 있다는 것은 좋은 일이다.나는 우려되는 부분에 계속 시선이 집중될 것이라는 것을 의심하지 않지만, 중요한 새로운 발전이 없는 한, 비슷한 불평이 제기되기 전에 어느 정도 시간이 흐를 것을 제안하고 싶다.김 덴트브라운 11시 55분, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
행정관의 제안에 따라 나는 이전의 보고를 촉발한 특정 AfD에 기사 구조 대대와 이 문제를 집중시키고 있다.삭제 논의 내용 입니다.사용자:북미1000 투표는 AfD가 상장된 지 몇 시간 이내에 유지되지만, 이번 투표는 삭제 투표가 두 번 뒤따랐다.북측은 AFD에서 아무런 활동도 하지 않은 채 사흘을 보낸 뒤 이를 기사구조대대에 등재했다.토론을 보면 이 일의 결과가 무엇이었는지가 분명하다.ARS 목록에 댓글을 단 지 몇 분 이내에 사용자:마일리지 및 사용자:이전의 ANI 스레드를 닫은 관리자인 드레이즈는 각각 AfD에 대해 언급한다.드레이즈는 확실한 유지 투표를 하고 마일로는 분명히 유지 투표를 추진하고 있는 코멘트를 남긴다.동시에 이 편집자들이 주석을 달았다. 사용자:ARS의 드림 포커스도 확실한 잔류 투표를 한다.그 시기는 매우 간단하다. 거의 3일 동안 삭제표 2장을 받은 북한이 구조목록을 작성하기로 결정한 것은 그가 삭제될 가능성이 있는 것을 막기 위한 것으로 보인다.목록 작성 후 일어나는 일은 ARS 회원들이 위키피디아 대상 기사의 목록 작성을 눈치채면서 논의가 '지키기' 쪽으로 확실히 옮겨가는 것이 분명하다.나는 이것이 어떻게 WP를 위반하는 것으로 해석되지 않았는지 잘 모르겠다.북에 의한 CONVER 그리고 그것은 이 리스트가 그러한 탐색을 위한 불가피한 도구가 되는 것에 대한 나의 우려를 강화시킨다.기사 자체를 보면 실제 개선된 기사에 대한 표시가 없다.불행히도 이것은 우리가 구조 태그와 함께 보았던 것과 같은 종류의 활동인데, 북한은 또한 포함주의자들을 정기적으로 유세하는 데 이용했다는 비난을 받았다.--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 18:11, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
너는 다른 사람이 너와 의견이 다를 때마다 며칠에 한 번씩 이런 일을 계속하지 않을 거니?지난번 ANI에서 이 문제를 다루었지?[13] 나타나는 숫자가 아니라 사람에 의해 만들어진 주장은 기사가 그대로 남아 있는지 아니면 없어지는지를 결정하는 데 이용되는 것이다.드레이즈 행정관이 자네를 상대로 음모를 꾸미고 있다고 믿나?만약 그가 진정으로 뭔가를 꾸미고 있다면, AFD에 참여하지 않고, 대신 AFD를 닫고, 그것을 계속하는 것처럼 닫을 때까지 기다릴 것인가?지금까지 AFD에 보낸 기사는 몇 건이고, ARS가 곁에 없는데도 그 중 몇 건이 제대로 마무리됐는가. Dream Focus 18:19, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 또는, 누군가가 단순히 ADS(Architecture Dremission Foundry)와 그에 따라 타당하다고 간주하는 AfD 후보작을 만들 수 있다.사실, 그들은 태그 지정에 대한 검토 시간을 절약하기 위해 ARS 페이지를 사용할 수 있다.이것은 실제로 더 많은 규칙을 만들지 않고도 경기장의 수준을 유지할 수 있을 것이다.Rklawton (대화) 18:25, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[하라
- 자세히 살펴본 결과, WP는 다음과 같다.ADS는 이미 복용하고 있다.그래서 나는 이 새로운 단체를 대신 "구조대 말살자"라고 부를 것을 제안한다.Rklawton (대화) 18:28, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- [미안 AQ, 하지만 나는 잠시 숨을 돌리고 있어.]여기서 화를 낼지도 몰라.악마의 옹호자는 나를 모를지 모르지만, 나는 드림 포커스(BTW, DF, well put, up! thanks!)의 치명적인 적으로, 밀로웬트와 오랜 협력자다.I am friends(사용자:내가 RfA를 지지했던 MichaelQSchmidt, 그리고 그와 함께 너무 빨리 지명된 많은 기사를 DYK로 바꾸었다.나는 또한, 내 생각에, 위키피디아 리뷰가 나를 어딘가에 늙은 ARS로 나열하고 있지만, 어떤 종류의 삭제론자일 것이다.나는 가끔 그들의 페이지에 참여하는데, 주로 여기서 가장 최근에 악마의 옹호자 역할을 한다.벨트를 거의 10만 개 수정했어.악마의 옹호자는 내가 북미1000에 찔릴 때(서로에 대한 우리의 반감이 잘 자리 잡고 있다고 생각한다) 또는 목록에 어떤 기사가 나올 때 계속 웅얼거리는 어떤 풋내기라고 생각하는 것 같다.말도 안 돼. (안토니, 난 미리 행동했어. 더 심한 말을 하고 싶었어.)
이 리스트가 "캔버싱"이 될 거라는 건 완전히 헛소리야.나는 ARS가 왜 그들이 저축할 가치가 있다고 생각하는 몇몇 (전부가 아니다!) 기사들을 나열할 권리를 갖지 말아야 하는지 모르겠다.현재 진행 중인 모든 위키프로젝트는 그렇게 하고, 북미는 이 목록을 만들고 유지할 권리가 있다. 나는 그들이 저축할 만한 것을 고르는 일을 제대로 하기를 바랄 뿐이다. 여러분 중 몇몇은 내가 그들을 과제에 참여시켰던 Rescue 태그로 다른 모든 기사를 태그한 것에 대해 비난을 받았던 것을 상기할 것이다.악마의 옹호자, 나는 당신의 관심에 대해 좋은 g---n을 주지 않는다. 그리고 만약 당신이 양심적이었더라면 당신은 위키피디아에서 "Merge"와 "삭제"와 같은 리스트에서 내가 수행한 다른 "보트"를 보기 위해 주위를 둘러봤을 것이다.삭제/표범(신문)에 대한 기사.아니면 내가 AfDs에서 어떻게 투표하는지 보기 위해 소티의 도구를 사용할 수도 있고, 내가 어떻게 그들을 닫는지를 알려주는 다른 멋진 도구를 사용할 수도 있다.나는 이 비난이 나를 혐오스럽게 하고, 이 리스트의 전체 이슈를 그들 자신의 페이지 중 한 장에 모아 둔 것이며, 앙심을 품고 근거 없는 것이라고 생각한다.으르렁! 내가 화를 냈다면 미안해.드레이미스 (토크) 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC) 18:40[
의견 일치를 보지 못하고 있어.Wikipedia_talk를 참조하십시오.Administrators'_noticeboard#archivetop_and_collapse_tagges Nobody Ent 18:57, 2012년 2월 9일(UTC)[
- 최근 AN/I에서 'ARS 선거운동 중'이라는 주장이 반복적으로 제기됐다.이제 막대기 놓을 시간이다. - 부시 레인저One ping only 19:32, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 반복적으로 보고되는 문제가 계속되지 않는다면 계속 보고할 필요가 없을지도 모른다.야수의 표식 (토크)20:39, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 이것은 사용자 행동 분쟁이다.그것은 아마도 어떤 형태의 중재를 필요로 할 것이다.하지만, ANI는 그것을 위한 장소가 아니다.당장 행정 조치가 필요한 것은 아니다.악마의 옹호자는 항의를 제기하기 위해 ANI로 달려가기 전에 다른 관련 당사자들과 실제로 그 문제들을 논의하려고 노력할 필요가 있다.그는 계속해서 보고서를 제출하고, ANI가 그 문제를 논의할 장소가 아니라는 말을 듣는다.그는 여전히 ANI 이외의 다른 관련 편집자들과 이 문제에 대해 논의하지 않았고 여전히 보고서를 제출하고 있다.알파_Quadrant(talk) 20:47, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 선거운동은 파괴적이기 때문에 ANI의 문제로서, 행정 조치가 적절할 수 있다.어떤 사람은 반복적인 서류처리를 중복된 것으로 볼 수도 있지만, 또 다른 사람은 문제의 범위와 심각성에 관한 증거를 제공하는 것으로 볼 수도 있다.Rklawton (대화) 21:13, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 응, 탐문수사는 처리할 수 있어.그런 만큼 이 편집자는 지난 3주 동안 3건의 보고서를 냈다.이전 토론이 끝난 직후에 새로운 보고서가 열린다.그는 유세 의혹은 없으며, 특정 ARS 구성원과 문제가 있으면 이 문제를 그들의 관심사로 끌고 와야 한다는 말을 들었다.그는 이 일을 하지 않고 계속 보고만 한다.바로 ANI로 달려가는 이러한 대화 페이지 대화에서 편집자들을 끌어들이려 하지 않는 것은 파괴적이고 다른 편집자의 시간을 낭비하는 것이다.이 게시판 위에는 다음과 같이 적혀 있다: "여기서 사용자에 대한 불만을 게시하기 전에, 사용자 대화 페이지에 사용자와 이 문제에 대해 토론하십시오."그는 아직 그 요구사항을 따르지 않았다.여기에 즉각적인 행정 조치가 필요한 즉각적인 우려는 없다.합리적인 논의를 통해 분쟁을 해결할 수 없다면 분쟁 해결 절차를 밟아야 한다.알파_Quadrant 21:30, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 이것은 사용자 행동 분쟁이다.그것은 아마도 어떤 형태의 중재를 필요로 할 것이다.하지만, ANI는 그것을 위한 장소가 아니다.당장 행정 조치가 필요한 것은 아니다.악마의 옹호자는 항의를 제기하기 위해 ANI로 달려가기 전에 다른 관련 당사자들과 실제로 그 문제들을 논의하려고 노력할 필요가 있다.그는 계속해서 보고서를 제출하고, ANI가 그 문제를 논의할 장소가 아니라는 말을 듣는다.그는 여전히 ANI 이외의 다른 관련 편집자들과 이 문제에 대해 논의하지 않았고 여전히 보고서를 제출하고 있다.알파_Quadrant(talk) 20:47, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 반복적으로 보고되는 문제가 계속되지 않는다면 계속 보고할 필요가 없을지도 모른다.야수의 표식 (토크)20:39, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- Rk가 언급하는 바와 같이, WP:COVER는 특히 편집자의 재범에 관해서는 관리자 개입을 위한 사용자 행동 사안이다.토론에 대한 너의 의견은 정확하지 않다.내가 ANI에 대한 ARS를 처음 제기했을 때 나는 사전 논의를 시도했지만 소용이 없었고 분명히 몇 주 전 ANI와 TfD에서의 논의는 북측에 전달되지 않았다.Salvio 관리인은 위의 AfD에 관한 특정 사건에 초점을 맞춘 마지막 사건이 종결된 후 여기에 새로운 보고서를 제출할 것을 제안했고, 그래서 나는 그렇게 했다.여기서 언급되고 있는 그룹의 멤버는 토론이 열린 지 10분 후에 토론회를 끝내기 위해 뛰어들지 말고 편집자가 다시 토론한 후 4분 뒤에 은둔해서는 안 된다는 것을 말해야겠다.--악마의 옹호자 (대화) 21:26, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 언젠가는 NA1K가 자신을 차단할 것이다.그날이 언제인지는 모르겠지만, 내가 WT에서 본 것처럼 그의 행동은 그의 지지자들에게도 똑같이 적용된다.ARS. 그냥 참고 있어.언젠가 ARS 자체가 그에 관한 이 실들 중 하나를 열게 될 것이다.--v/r - TP 21:29, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 그럴 수도 있지만, (그 블록은) 내가 틀릴 수도 있지만, 이것이 그 리스트의 존재 자체에 대한 불만이라고 나는 생각했다.만약 악마의 옹호자가 Na1000의 탐문 수사를 비난하고 싶다면, 그들은 그 리스트의 존재를 지적하는 것보다 더 나은 일을 해야 할 것이다.그대로 그들은 Na1000이 리스트에 뭔가를 올렸고 밀로웬트와 내가 뭔가를 투표했기 때문에 그것이 유세라고 주장하는 것 같다.하지만 나와 나의 행동에 관한 한, 그들은 내가 투표할 것 같다는 것을 증명해야 할 것이다. 그리고 내가 투표 유지라는 평판을 가지고 있다는 것을.뇌/기억 반을 가진 사람이라면 누구든 AfDs에 대한 내 표의 대부분이 An1000에 직접적으로 반대한다는 것을 알고 있다.사실, Na1000이 직접적이든 간접적이든 어떤 AfD에 대해 나에게 연락을 한다면, 그들은 탐문 수사를 덜 할 것이다.내 토크 페이지에 Na1000의 메시지가 눈에 띄게 없다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.그 구조 태그에 대해 내 마음을 조금이라도 전하기 위해 그들을 찾아다녔어.이제 그것은 현재의 불평이, 모든 애매한 점에서도, 그저 아무런 물도 가지고 있지 않다는 것을 증명하지 않는가?Drmies (토크) 21:57, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 언젠가는 NA1K가 자신을 차단할 것이다.그날이 언제인지는 모르겠지만, 내가 WT에서 본 것처럼 그의 행동은 그의 지지자들에게도 똑같이 적용된다.ARS. 그냥 참고 있어.언젠가 ARS 자체가 그에 관한 이 실들 중 하나를 열게 될 것이다.--v/r - TP 21:29, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- Rk가 언급하는 바와 같이, WP:COVER는 특히 편집자의 재범에 관해서는 관리자 개입을 위한 사용자 행동 사안이다.토론에 대한 너의 의견은 정확하지 않다.내가 ANI에 대한 ARS를 처음 제기했을 때 나는 사전 논의를 시도했지만 소용이 없었고 분명히 몇 주 전 ANI와 TfD에서의 논의는 북측에 전달되지 않았다.Salvio 관리인은 위의 AfD에 관한 특정 사건에 초점을 맞춘 마지막 사건이 종결된 후 여기에 새로운 보고서를 제출할 것을 제안했고, 그래서 나는 그렇게 했다.여기서 언급되고 있는 그룹의 멤버는 토론이 열린 지 10분 후에 토론회를 끝내기 위해 뛰어들지 말고 편집자가 다시 토론한 후 4분 뒤에 은둔해서는 안 된다는 것을 말해야겠다.--악마의 옹호자 (대화) 21:26, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
1월 11일에 당신이 첫 번째 문제를 해결하기 위해 두 가지 의견을 냈다고 보는데, 그것은 결국 실패했다.이 문제는 즉각적인 관리자 조치가 필요하지 않았으며, WP에 제기되었어야 했다.WQA. 만약 그것이 실패했다면, ANI나 RFC/U로 가져갔어야 했다. 대신 당신은 특정 편집자가 아닌 기사 구조 대대에 다른 ANI 보고서를 제출했다.
사용자가 ARS의 멤버인 동안, 문제는 특정 편집자에 있으며, 보고서는 특정 편집자에 있어야 한다.마지막 ANI 실에서 논의된 바와 같이, 기사 구조 대대는 communittee up!votes를 조사하는 것이 아니라, 이 프로젝트의 목적은 잠재적으로 주목할 만한 주제에 대한 기사를 정리하는 것이다.AfD에서 프로젝트 관련 기사를 전체 프로젝트에 알리는 기사 알림 기능을 이용하는 위키프로젝트가 꽤 있다.그것은 주제에 관심이 있는 편집자들이 삭제하기 위해 잠재적으로 주목할 만한 기사들을 작업할 수 있도록 한다.때로는 기사가 보관되는 결과를 초래하기도 하고, 때로는 기사가 삭제되는 결과를 초래하기도 한다.
애초 11일 꺼낸 우려는 ARS 여론조사와는 무관했다.당신이 꺼낸 쟁점은 그가 기사의 토크 페이지에 기고하는 모든 편집자들에게 통지했다는 사실에 관한 것이었습니다.그렇다고 해서 문제는 ARS가 아니라 특정 편집자였다.당신이 보고한 나머지 두 사건은 먼저 분쟁을 해결하려 하지도 않았다.당신이 탐문 조사 위원회로 관심 있는 리스트는 MfD로 가져갔다.이사회를 유지하자는 의견과 그것이 선거운동을 구성하는 것이 아니라는 의견이 팽팽히 맞섰다.알파_Quadrant 22:12, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 다시 한 번 봐, 나는 구조 태그가 토론의 방향을 틀었다고 분명히 말했고 그가 토론의 균형을 맞추기 위해 다른 외부 편집자들에게 알려달라고 요청했다.그 편집자의 답변은 태그를 사용해도 아무런 문제가 없다는 것이었다.솔직히 북한이 구조 태그가 삭제된 지 하루 만에 리스트를 만들었고 이미 이렇게 사용하고 있다는 것은 리스트가 남아야 하는지를 따질 만한 충분한 이유가 된다.리스트를 찾기 위해 MfD를 훑어본 후 나는 솔직히 왜 다시 열면 안 되는지 모르겠다.12명의 유지 투표 중 5명은 자신과 같은 ARS 회원들로부터 나왔고, 1표는 "농담해야 한다"는 코멘트로 유지 투표에 지나지 않았다. 비 ARS 회원들의 2표는 삭제에 대한 정책적 근거는 없다고 주장했다(구조 태그 TfD에서 최종 관리자가 선거 운동이 그런 이유라고 분명히 말했다).다른 두 명의 투표 편집자는 공정하지 않은 것 같다.이 표들이 2시간 안에 MfD를 끝내기 위해 사용되었다는 것은 내 생각에 과실이다.물론, AfD가 편집자 폭주로부터 어떻게 빨리 해산될 수 있는지, 그리고 왜 "즉시" 조치가 취해져야 하는지를 정확히 보여주는 데 도움이 된다.--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 22:32, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 솔직히 북한이 구조 태그가 삭제된 지 하루 만에 리스트를 만들었고 이미 이렇게 사용하고 있다는 것은 리스트가 남아야 하는지를 따질 만한 충분한 이유가 된다.분명 그것 또한 나쁜 믿음을 갖는 이유일 것이다. - 부시 레인저One ping only 22:36, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[하라
- @drmies North가 그것을 명부에 추가한 것은 삭제 투표에서 벗어나 적어도 합의점을 찾지 못하는 쪽으로 표를 왜곡한 결과를 분명히 가지고 있었다.행정부에 달렸다고 할 수 있고 합의는 표를 세는 것이 아니라 한쪽으로 충분한 표가 다른 방향으로 소수의 좋은 주장보다 더 설득력 있는 경향이 있는 것이 현실이다.선거운동의 결과가 바라는 대로인지, 아니면 마무리 행정관이 그 유세를 통해 보는지를 기다리기보다는, 그것이 명백하게 언급되지 않는 것은 어떤 편집자에게도 기대할 수 있는 것이 아니다.--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 22:55, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 음, 당신은 이 완벽하게 합법적인 리스트(MfD가 어리석다는 당신의 주장)가?ARS 사람들이 AFD에 무슨 일이 있는지 모를 수 있도록 로그는 비밀로 해둘까?보이지 않는 AfD 템플릿?아니면 북미에 대한 주제 금지인가?그리고 나는?
왜 태그에 대해 말하는지 모르겠네, 위에서.태그가 없어졌다.나는 AFD에 참여하지 않았다; 나는 그것이 그렇게 탐욕스럽다고 생각하지 않는다. 그러나 나는 Na1000이 그것을 무모하고 부적절하며 무익하게 사용했다고 생각한다.그런데 태그가 없어졌다.그럼 이제 불쌍한 ARS 사람들은 목록밖에 없는데, 그걸 뺏어갔으면 좋겠어?악마의 옹호자 스틱은 집어치워라. 이것은 점점 지루해지고 있다.드레이미스 (토크) 02:21, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 음, 당신은 이 완벽하게 합법적인 리스트(MfD가 어리석다는 당신의 주장)가?ARS 사람들이 AFD에 무슨 일이 있는지 모를 수 있도록 로그는 비밀로 해둘까?보이지 않는 AfD 템플릿?아니면 북미에 대한 주제 금지인가?그리고 나는?
- ANI를 잘못 가져왔군DA의 소고기는 ARS가 AFD 토론의 질을 향상시킨 추가 검토를 위해 기사를 기고하는 것과 관련이 있다. ARS는 어떤 3-5명의 편집자가 코멘트를 하는지에 따라 많은 경계선 기사를 기다리는 무작위적인 운명에 맡기는 대신 AFD 토론의 질을 향상시켰다.이 글은 사실상 삭제될 가능성이 높고 적어도 공정한 심리를 거쳐 삭제될 것으로 보인다.DA의 주장: "밀로는 분명히 (AFD에) 킵을 추진하고 있는 코멘트를 남긴다." 정말?만약 내가 그 기사를 보관하고 싶었다면 나는 계속 보관하고 있었을 것이다.내 코멘트는 사실 삭제표 중 일부가 근거에 약하고 언론에서 식당의 지역/지역 보도량에 대해 부정확하다는 점을 지적했다.그리고 ARS에서의 나의 투명한 논평은 기사를 구제할 수 있는 능력이 의심스럽다고 지적했다.나는 "Mzoli's만큼 주목할 만한가?내가 기억하기로는 AFD에서는 단일 위치 레스토랑에 대한 일관성이 별로 없다. 그것은 종종 WP일 뿐이다.미슐랭이나 이와 유사한 등급이 없는 경우 GNG 토론(Wikipedia에서 my!bote:미슐랭 공증을 위한 삭제/라우버지(레스토랑) 조항.그 위에 실린 지역 이야기들[14]을 보면 지역적인 인기를 실감할 수 있다."만약 이것이 비난받아야 할 공포의 사건이라면, 나의 족쇄를 채워주십시오, 친애하는 편집자 동지.나는 DA에게 좀 더 선의로 행동할 것을 요청한다. 그는 자신이 "망신당했다"고 생각하는 어떤 투표에 대해 어떤 AFD에서도 자유롭게 논평할 수 있다. 하지만 나는 그의 진짜 두려움이 그의 지명이 때때로 성급하다고 증명될 수도 있다는 것이라고 생각한다. 그렇지 않으면 시험에서 무엇을 두려워해야 하는가?--- 밀러운트 • 02:36, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 참고: 여기에 위치한 위키프로젝트 기사 구조대 구조대 명단과 관련해서도 또 다른 논의가 진행되고 있다:마을 펌프(정책) – 스핀아웃/메르지를 분쟁하기 위한 기사 구조대 명부 사용.북미1000(talk) 03:01, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 이제 ARS는 다른 기사와 같은 규약을 따르기 때문에(즉, 기사 페이지, 매뉴얼 목록, Afd 목록) 나의 모든 관심사는 대부분 사라졌다.나는 이 리스트가 AfD를 닫을 때 가지는 효과를 고려하며, 이것이 단순히 코를 세는 것이 아닌 더 가까운 곳에서 일반적인 관행이 될 것이라고 생각한다.이 스레드를 닫을 것을 제안한다. - 애런 브레네만(토크) 03:07, 2012년 2월 10일(UTC)[
나는 솔직히 그들의 불쾌한 꼬리표가 사라졌기 때문에 ARS에 문제가 없다고 본다.여기서 해결책은 ARS를 싫어하는 모든 사람들이 스스로 목록을 보는 것이다.만약 그들이 많은 형편없는 기사들을 구하기 위해 분투하고 있다고 생각한다면, 그냥 같은 AFD(물론 이유 내에서)에 당신 자신의 의견을 붙여라.Sometguy1221 (대화) 04:03, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 코멘트 - 빌어먹을, 이것은 최근의 기억에서 가장 멍청한 ANI의 징징거림이다.AFD는 투표가 아니다.500개의 보관용 증기 "보터"는 최종 관리자가 자신의 업무를 수행하는 경우 삭제하라는 지능적인 논쟁에 의해 패배해야 한다.그리고, 같은 이유로, "삭제"를 주장하는 15명의 사람들은 잘 짜여진 변론으로 토론에서 패해야 한다.AfD는 투표가 아니라 시험이다.5명의 변호사는 자신의 소송이 약하고 판사가 법을 따르고 있다면 1명을 추월하지 않는다.만약 누군가가 "캔버스"를 사용한다면 왜 그것이 문제가 되는가?그러면 안 된다.어떤 상황의 사실들은 사실이다.출처는 출처다.합리성은 어떤 것들은 필요하고 다른 것들은 부적절하다고 생각할 것이다.시스템을 조금 믿어주십시오.ARS는 최근 Rescue 템플릿을 없애기로 한 매우 나쁜 결정에 무릎을 꿇었다.그들이 새로운 기반 위에서 다시 자리를 잡으려면 시간이 좀 걸릴 것이다.그들에게 휴식을 줘라.카라이트 (대화) 04:16, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 문 닫을 시간이다.여기에 행정적인 조치가 필요한 것은 아무것도 없다.나는 ARS를 다른 프로젝트와 마찬가지로 델소트 페이지로 설정할 것을 제안한다.슈미트, 04:32, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
무거운 한숨과 함께, 나는 이것을 "폐쇄"하고 있다.(내 토크 페이지 참조)나는 또한 토론회에 작은 상자를 넣는 것은 다른 거의 모든 사람들과 마찬가지로 소유권이 없는 편집이라는 것을 강조하고 싶다.그러니 누군가 잘못 문을 닫았다고 생각되면 과감하고 폐쇄적이지 말고, 그 이유를 적은 메모를 남겨주십시오. - 애런 브레네먼 (대화) 05:30, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- AFD가 보호막으로 폐쇄된다고 가정해도 동의하지 않는 사람은 여전히 두 가지 좋은 진행방식이 있을 텐데, 그 중 가장 쉬운 방법은 6개월 정도 후에 다시 지명하는 것이고, 더 복잡한 대안은 삭제 검토를 이용하는 것이다.AFD는 포스팅 당시에도 여전히 진행 중이기 때문에, 더 좋은 방법은 계속 그곳에서 토론하는 것이다. 그리고 실제로, DA, 당신은 여기 오기 전에 당신의 지명뿐만 아니라 토론에서 더 많은 의견을 내는 것이다.당신의 댓글에 6개의 삭제 의견이 뒤따른 지금, 당신이 여기 오기 전에 2개, 그리고 그 후에 4개라는 것을 고려하면, 왜 당신이 불평을 하고 있는지 알 수 없다.AFD 토론이 내가 생각하는 대로 진행될 때, 나는 보통 그것에 대해 불평하지 않는다.거기서 누가 한 말이 마음에 들지 않더라도 내가 하고 싶은 일을 하면 대개는 만족한다. DGG (토크 ) 06:06, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 나는 어떤 타당한 우려가 있는지 완전히 혼란스럽다.WP:CANVASS는 "제한된 게시물 및 중립 및 비당원 및 공개"인 경우 통지가 적절하다고 말한다.한 페이지에 게시하는 것은 상당히 제한적이다.[15]는 이 통지가 출처의 신뢰성을 논의하고 더 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 요청하는 중립적인 용어로 표현되었음을 보여준다.ARS 가입이 모든 기사가 유지되어야 한다고 주장하는 것과 같다고 생각한다면 당파적이라고 생각할 수도 있겠지만, 그것은 위키피디아 대상 글럽의 가입이 글럽 품종에 관한 모든 기사가 유지되어야 한다고 주장하는 것과 같다고 믿는 것과 같다.ARS 가입은 일부 기사가 모든 사람이 보관하기를 원할 수 있도록 개선되어야 한다고 믿는 것만을 의미한다(Hence는 보다 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 요청한다).그리고 마지막으로, 분명히 공공연히 게시되었다(유세에 대한 거짓된 불평을 반복적으로 제기하는 것은 ARS를 지하로 운전하기 위한 훌륭한 계획처럼 보인다).스스로 ARS 회원이라는 것(연구와 수정에 대한 충동을 느낄 때, 누군가가 삭제할 가치가 있다고 생각하는 기사 목록보다 누군가가 이미 저금할 가치가 있다고 생각하는 기사 목록을 더 빨리 검색하는 것이 더 빠를 것이다) 나는 편견이 있다는 것은 의심의 여지가 없지만, 정말로, 연구와 수리를 좋아하는 많은 사람들에게 "여기 문제가 있다.믿을 만한 출처를 추가하면 고칠 수 있는 이 기사, 누군가 그럴 수 있을까?"--제보라(토크) 06:18, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 단지 기사를 고치거나 그들의 공신력을 확립하는 것만이 유일한 것이었을까.내가 말할 수 있는 것은 이것이 현재 진행중인 삭제 토론에서 특정한 결과에 도달하는 데 전념하는 유일한 위키피디아 제목이다.그룹의 전체 테마는 다른 사람들보다 포섭에 더 호의적일 것 같은 청중임을 시사한다.솔직히, 누가 그런 걸 "구원"하고 싶어하지 않겠어?당신이 "지식"을 구하고 있다는 것은 그것을 훨씬 더 설득력 있게 만든다.어떤 그룹이 기사 삭제를 막는 그것의 정해진 목적을 가지고 있을 때, 그것은 왜 사람들이 영화를 염려하는 AfDs로 사람들을 인도하는 영화 애피시오나도 그룹과 같다고 생각하는지 알 수 없다.정말로 그것은 위키피디아에 관한 주제에 정통한 사람들에게 어떤 것이 관련 공신력 기준에 맞는지 판단하도록 지시하는 것이다.여기서 구체적인 문제는 위에서 언급했듯이, 북한이 이것을 삭제하기 위해 토론이 진행되던 몇 일 후 투표용지 보관에 대한 논의와 그 결과 여러 편집자들이 투표용지에 참여한 것으로 보인다는 것이다.동시에 북한은 이 기사에 주목할 만한 기여를 하지 않았고, 다른 어떤 편집자들도 AFD에 불쑥 끼어들지 않았다.그러니까 전혀 '연구와 해결'의 경우가 아니었다.--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 07:13, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- AR 목록의 처음 3개 항목 중 2개 항목이 북미1000의 응답을 포함하여 "그들은 눈에 띄지 않는다"에 해당하는 ARS 응답을 이끌어냈다는 사실에 대해 언급할 수 있는가?나는 살스 피자에 대한 나만의 Delete 투표(그리고 리스트에서 삭제 편향된 논평)를 세지 않을 것이다.아래에서도 말했듯이, 만약 이것이 유품 전용 유세 기계라면, 그것은 분명히 작동하지 않는 것이다.2012년 2월 10일 (UTC 07:18,
- 단지 기사를 고치거나 그들의 공신력을 확립하는 것만이 유일한 것이었을까.내가 말할 수 있는 것은 이것이 현재 진행중인 삭제 토론에서 특정한 결과에 도달하는 데 전념하는 유일한 위키피디아 제목이다.그룹의 전체 테마는 다른 사람들보다 포섭에 더 호의적일 것 같은 청중임을 시사한다.솔직히, 누가 그런 걸 "구원"하고 싶어하지 않겠어?당신이 "지식"을 구하고 있다는 것은 그것을 훨씬 더 설득력 있게 만든다.어떤 그룹이 기사 삭제를 막는 그것의 정해진 목적을 가지고 있을 때, 그것은 왜 사람들이 영화를 염려하는 AfDs로 사람들을 인도하는 영화 애피시오나도 그룹과 같다고 생각하는지 알 수 없다.정말로 그것은 위키피디아에 관한 주제에 정통한 사람들에게 어떤 것이 관련 공신력 기준에 맞는지 판단하도록 지시하는 것이다.여기서 구체적인 문제는 위에서 언급했듯이, 북한이 이것을 삭제하기 위해 토론이 진행되던 몇 일 후 투표용지 보관에 대한 논의와 그 결과 여러 편집자들이 투표용지에 참여한 것으로 보인다는 것이다.동시에 북한은 이 기사에 주목할 만한 기여를 하지 않았고, 다른 어떤 편집자들도 AFD에 불쑥 끼어들지 않았다.그러니까 전혀 '연구와 해결'의 경우가 아니었다.--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 07:13, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 내 말이 이해가 안 가.본 ANI는 NA1K의 행위나 ARS 관행에 대한 일반적인 검토와 특히 목록에 관한 것인가?만약 전자가, 나는 아무런 언급도 하지 않는다 - 나는 NA1K측에서 논란이 되는 행동에 익숙하지 않다.만약 후자의 경우, 이와 같은 리스트는 선례와 정책에 확고히 기반을 두고 있으며, ARS 회원들이 기본적으로 그 주제에 대해 언급할 수 없는 것처럼 보이고, 할 수 있는 것이 아무것도 없다고 말하려고 끼어들었던 많은 기사들을 볼 때, POV를 재고해 보라고 제안할 필요가 있다.만약 그것이 계속적인 투표 운동 도구라면, 그것은 확실히 매우 이상하고 효과적이지 못한 것이다.NA1K와 관련된 특정 사안이 있는지 전혀 모르지만, ARS와 구조목록과 관련된 선거운동 논쟁은 너무 약해져서 빌어먹을 깨지기 쉬운 영역으로 접근하고 있다.2012년 2월 10일(UTC) 07:10(
- 두 사람을 정직하게 구별하기는 어렵다. 특히 이런 문제가 제기될 때마다 그룹의 구성원들이 마차에 동그라미를 치려는 경향이 있을 때는 더욱 그렇다.두 사람을 더 구분하기 어렵게 만드는 것은 애초에 북한이 리스트를 만들었다는 사실이다.여기서 나는 네가 구체적인 사례를 살펴봐야 한다고 생각해.상장 당시 논의가 삭제 쪽으로 기울고 있었는지는 분명해 보이지 않는가?기사 보존을 추진하는 편집자들의 증가세가 두드러진 것이 상장 효과가 분명해 보이지 않는가?리스트가 특정 그룹에서 삭제 논의를 계속 진행시키는 것에 대한 것으로 보아, 이러한 효과가 편집자의 왜곡된 샘플에 호소한 결과라는 것이 분명해 보이지 않는가?--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 07:23, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 나는 이것을 이해한다. 그리고 그것은 합리적인 대답이다.당신의 계속되는 십자군 원정이 원 안의 마차 양에 어떤 영향을 미칠지 생각해 보라고 제안하지만, 나는 분명히 과거에 같은 선회적인 행동을 알아차렸다.그럼에도 불구하고, 샐의 겉보기에는 환상적인 피자( 댈러스에서 좋은 피자; 피쉬)와 관련하여, 나는 ARS 상장이 기본적으로 그가 지키고 싶지 않은 주제들을 아직 충족시키지 못한 드림 포커스(쇼커!)로부터 계속 투표하는 것을 본다.나는 또한 드라이즈로부터 자격을 갖춘 Keep 투표도 본다.나는 또한 ARS 멤버 인삼폭탄의 Delete 투표도 보는데, 드레이즈가 기본적으로 이후에 자신을 뒤집고 이어서 삭제 투표가 줄을 잇고 있는 것을 본다.기름칠이 잘된 이 보관소 탐조기는 1 Keep 관리, 반반복형 Weight Keep 관리, 1 Delete 관리.그래서, 아니, 이번 사건에서, 나는 어떤 흉측하고 불길한 일이 일어나는 것을 보지 못한다.이 단체는 "삭제 논의를 계속하는 쪽으로 옮기는 것"에 대해서는 구체적으로 언급하지 않고 있다.삭제에 대한 논의가 정당한 이유가 있을 때 이를 유지하는 쪽으로 옮겨가는 것이다.그것은 상당한 차이점이다.그리고 다시 말하지만, 만약 당신이 이것을 살스 피자에 초점을 맞추려고 한다면, 살스 피자에 초점을 맞추어라. 왜냐하면 당신이 목록과 ARS 전체로 가져간 당신의 주장은 매우 약해 보이기 때문이다. 왜냐하면 당신이 Keep votes는 실제로 기사를 보관해야 한다고 생각하는 ARS 구성원이 없는 한, Keep vots가 쇄도하지 않는다.2012년 2월 10일 (UTC 07:35,
- 두 사람을 정직하게 구별하기는 어렵다. 특히 이런 문제가 제기될 때마다 그룹의 구성원들이 마차에 동그라미를 치려는 경향이 있을 때는 더욱 그렇다.두 사람을 더 구분하기 어렵게 만드는 것은 애초에 북한이 리스트를 만들었다는 사실이다.여기서 나는 네가 구체적인 사례를 살펴봐야 한다고 생각해.상장 당시 논의가 삭제 쪽으로 기울고 있었는지는 분명해 보이지 않는가?기사 보존을 추진하는 편집자들의 증가세가 두드러진 것이 상장 효과가 분명해 보이지 않는가?리스트가 특정 그룹에서 삭제 논의를 계속 진행시키는 것에 대한 것으로 보아, 이러한 효과가 편집자의 왜곡된 샘플에 호소한 결과라는 것이 분명해 보이지 않는가?--악마의 옹호자 (토크) 07:23, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 참고 - ARS Rescue 목록은 2012년 2월 7일에 삭제 대상으로 지정되었으며, 논의 결과는 WP:SOW에 따라 유지됨을 유념하십시오. 또한, 지명자는 나중에 여기에 있는 Rescue 목록 토크 페이지에 자신의 지명과 관련하여 언급하였다.북미1000(talk) 08:08, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- [16] 위의 내용을 모두 읽어 보았다.내가 보는 건 스틱을 계속 흔드는 것뿐이야. - 부시 레인저 09:31, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[하라
- ARS 통지목록과 프로젝트 통지목록의 주요 차이점은 ARS가 AfDs에 관하여 특정한 의제를 가지고 있다는 것이다.우리는 프로젝트 자체가 그러한 주제에 관심을 갖고, 필요하다면 주제에 대해 더 많은 전문가의 의견을 주거나 출처를 찾을 수 있을 것으로 예상하지만, 그들이 반드시 모든 기사를 계속 쓰도록 주장할 것이라고 예상하지는 않는다.반면에, 우리는 ARS에 기대하며, 마치 위키피디아 주체가 있는 것처럼:삭제주의 단체, 그들이 비슷한 종류의 알림 시스템을 만드는 것은 부적절할 것이다.캔버스 뒤의 아이디어 중 하나는 어떻게 투표할지 알기 때문에 특별히 사람들에게 알리는 것을 피하는 것이다.그들은 당파적인 집단이다.이것은 WP의 표에 따른 바베스타킹이다.캔버스--크로스미르 (토크) 10:41, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- (비관리자 의견) 및 의견:
- {{Rescue} 템플릿이 삭제된 것은 토론 내용을 읽어본 결과 무분별하게 사용됐다는 공감대가 형성되었기 때문이다. {{Rescue} 템플릿은 곳곳에서 사용되며 적용의 장점과 무관하게 사용되었기 때문에 파괴적인 것으로 간주되었다.
- 위키백과:기사 구조대/구조대 명단은 스노우가 보관하고 있었다.한 곳에서, 그리고 주의깊게 관찰한 목록이다.{{Rescue}}이(가) 주장된 것은 프로젝트 중단의 규모와는 전혀 다른 것이었다.그리고 현재 상태로는 기사 구조대대와 더 삭제주의적인 경향의 사람들 모두에게 유용한 참고자료다.
- 법률 용어로는, "법적 응용의 문제에서 악마의 옹호자 v 조항 구조 비행단과 아노르스[WP:AN/I 794] 나는 이것이 다른 재판소에서 이미 결정된 문제를 재조정하는 역할만 할 뿐이며, 반드시 기각되어야 한다는 동생 부시 레인저 J의 의견에 동의한다."
- 쉽게 말하면:TFD는 끝났다.MfD는 끝났어여기서 더 이상 할 것도 볼 것도 없고. --셔츠58 (토크) 10:46, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
사용자:Twomorerun
| 사용자는 최종 시간 동안 논쟁적인 편집을 논의하기 위해 토크 페이지를 사용해야 한다고 경고하였다.사용자가 다시 거절하면 쇼트 블록이 뒤따를 것이다.김 덴트브라운 13:22, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
투모레룬 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 사용자 이름은 2012년 2월 8일 3시 13분에 생성됨
- 제우스의 머리에서 나오는 아테나처럼, 사용자는 완전한 위키 지식을 가지고 완전히 성장한 상태로 도착한다.
- 첫 번째 편집: 2012년 2월 8일 03:14, 편집 요약 포함: "희소성/재분산/pov 수정"
- 사용자가 빠르게 편집하기 시작(예: 처음 1시간 6분 동안 51개 편집)
- 사용자가 편집한 대부분의 내용은 기사의 리드 문장에서 서술형 형용사를 삭제하는 것이다 [17]
- 다른 편집자들은 Twomorerun의 편집 내용을 되돌리고, [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] 사용자 토크 페이지에 경고를 표시한다.
- 템플릿은 "일반주의"로 제거됨 [24], [25]
- Twomorerun "퇴직", 사용자
페이지[26]에"퇴직" 템플릿을 넣고, 대화 페이지를 사용자 페이지로 리디렉션 [27] - "퇴직"은 6시간 9분 동안 편집 요약을 제외하고 토론 없이 다른 편집자들이 편집 내용을 되돌리는 것을 취소하고, 그의 이전 패턴에 따라 새로운 편집을 계속한다.
- 그의 토크 페이지[28],[29],[30]에 더 많은 경고와 함께 요약 편집뿐만 아니라 토크 페이지에서의 자신의 편집에 대해 이야기할 필요가 있다는 제안[31]
- 편집자는 [32][33]의 토크 페이지를 삭제하려고 하지만 속도가 느려진다[34].
- 편집자는 여전히 그의 토크 페이지에 대한 어떤 논평에도 응답하지 않았다.
이 편집기는 IP와 정확하게 동일한 패턴으로 편집한 오랜 역사를 가지고 있으며, 2008년 8월에 (적어도) 시작한다.
- 67.36.58.41 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 69.218.254.170 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 75.41.6.98 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 68.79.133.27 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 76.212.57.95 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 편집에 대해 논의하지 않았다는 이유로 Barneca에 의해 차단됨
- 69.208.77.168 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
- 24.11.246.211 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
그것은 2011년 10월까지 걸린다.
내가 아는 한, 이 편집자는 그들의 토크 페이지에 있는 수많은 토론 요청에 응답한 적이 없다.편집자들 사이의 토론은 대학 위키백과 과정의 필수적인 부분이다.일단 시작된 토론은 비생산적이 될 수 있고 때로는 계속하는 것보다 문을 닫는 것이 더 낫다는 것을 나는 확실히 이해할 수 있지만, 당신의 편집과 관련된 문제나 우려가 있는 편집자와 절대 대화하지 않는 것은 우리가 계속하도록 허용해야 할 일이 아니다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 04:22, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 편집자에게 통지했다.또한, 대화 페이지의 IP와 상호 작용을 시도하는 사람은 원래 내 아이디 아래에 있는 나라는 점에 유의하십시오(자세한 내용은 이 항목을 참조하십시오).비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 04:26, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- BMK는 설득력 있는 주장을 한다.IP 편집 몇 가지를 확인해 봤는데 내용과 스타일이 일치해.내 생각에는 우리가 강박적인 편집자를 상대하고 있다는 것에는 의심의 여지가 없다.이들의 말을 듣고 싶지만 (IP가 없어도) 애초에 커뮤니티가 편집 행동을 차단할 수 있을지 여부도 관심이다.드레이미스 (대화) 04:33, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 내가 타임라인을 제대로 알고 있다면, 투모어런이 내가 이 토론에서 그들을 인증하지 않은 것에 대한 응답은 그들의 사용자 페이지를 삭제하도록 요청하고, 또한 내가 이 정보를 수집한 페이지도 삭제하도록 요청하는 것이었다.(내 요청으로 이미 삭제되었어. 일단 보고서를 제출하면 더 이상 필요 없었어.)
확실히 하자면, 나는 투모어런의 편집이 모두 문제가 있다는 주장을 하는 것이 아니다. 어떤 것은 문제가 있고, 어떤 것은 그렇지 않으며, 어떤 것은 논쟁의 여지가 있다.그러나 분쟁이나 우려가 발생했을 때 편집 내용을 논의하는 것은 편집자의 의무로서, 단순히 일이 가열될 때 다른 IP(또는 다른 ID)로 넘어가는 것이 아니다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 04:57, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 행동의 근거가 되는 것은 아니지만, 나는 그들의 토크 페이지에서 그들의 빠른 삭제 요청이 "개인 정보 보호/안전상의 이유와 괴롭힘을 피하기 위한" 편집 요약으로 이루어진 것이 이상하다고 생각한다.그들은 유효한 인라인 인용구를 삭제했다: [35]와 [36].그리고 같은 기사에 대한 동일한 참조를 몇 번이고 삭제한 필립 존슨: [37] [38] [39] [40] 건축가가 자신의 분야에서 영향력 있는 것으로 지지했던 것.필립 존슨 기사에 대해서도 WP:3RR을 위반했지만, 그들 자신의 3번째 되돌리기를 취소했다.Altaiisfar (talk) 05:16, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[하라
- 내가 타임라인을 제대로 알고 있다면, 투모어런이 내가 이 토론에서 그들을 인증하지 않은 것에 대한 응답은 그들의 사용자 페이지를 삭제하도록 요청하고, 또한 내가 이 정보를 수집한 페이지도 삭제하도록 요청하는 것이었다.(내 요청으로 이미 삭제되었어. 일단 보고서를 제출하면 더 이상 필요 없었어.)
유세
| IP 사용자는 선거운동에 대한 경고를 받았고 Nortali는 기사 토크 페이지에서 타이틀 전쟁에 대한 몇 가지 조언을 추가했다.기사 자체는 WP의 후보가 될 수 있다.AFD는 그러나 우리는 그 결정을 개별 편집자에게 맡기거나 말거나 할 수 있다.추가 관리 작업이 필요하지 않음김 덴트브라운 13:06, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
- 사용자: 88.224.158.240
- 사건: 탐문 조사, 중단
두 그룹의 사용자들이 에르메니켄드 페이지 이름을 놓고 끊임없이 논쟁을 벌인다. 나는 양쪽의 이름을 합쳐서 양쪽의 의견이 일치하도록 노력했지만, 사용자들은 그들이 선호하는 한 개의 이름을 계속 사용했고, 나는 그들과 전쟁하는 것에 관심이 없어서 그들 양쪽의 어느 쪽도 받아들이지 않았다.그러나 나는 이 기고자인 88.224.158.240 대량 메시징 사용자들의 대화 페이지가 그의 파괴적인 행동으로 더 큰 문제를 일으킬 것이라는 것을 알아차렸다. 나는 그가 이 규칙을 위반하고 있을지도 모른다는 것을 알아차렸다.위키백과:유세하다.야행성781 (대화) 08:21, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
- 그들은 정보원이 전혀 없는 "비공식 지구"에서 번역 분쟁(이름 논쟁도 아닌 것)에 해당하는 것에 대해 한 달 동안 말다툼을 해 왔으며, 그 명성에 대한 어떠한 증거도 개의치 않는다.기사라 가치가 없고, 아무도 그것을 실제로 받아들일 수 있는 스터브로 개선하려고 선의의 시도를 하지 않는다면, AfD. 87.113.204.4 (대화) 10:05, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[]으로 가야 한다
- 나는 그가 정당한 논점을 가지고 있다는 것에 동의한다.토크 페이지에서는 사용자들이 그 명칭의 사용에 대해 논의하지만 그들은 합의에 이르지 못한다.나는 그저 그들을 돕기 위해 토크 페이지를 이용했을 뿐이다.고마워!야행성781 (대화) 11:49, 2012년 2월 10일 (UTC)[
사용자:TheREALCableGuy
| OPKim Dent-Brown 15:01, 2012년 2월 10일(UTC) 만족으로 결의[ |
- 다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
나는 지난주 일주일 동안 차단되어 하나의 수정된 위협(마지막 ANI 사건)을 수반하는 그의 사용자 페이지에서 공정한 사용 이미지를 제거하지 않는 한, 어떤 문제에 관해서도 자신의 토크 페이지를 사용하는 그 누구와도 관계를 맺기를 거부하는 TheREALCableGuy(토크 · 기여)와 문제가 있어 왔다.나는 지난 3개월 동안 밀워키 공영 텔레비전에서 나의 템플릿을 계속 되돌리는 이유와 타협점을 찾으려고 애원해왔는데, 나는 그들의 방송국의 하위 채널에서 정확히 방영되는 것에 대한 설명에 필요하다고 생각하지만, 그는 계속 나를 무시하고 맹목적으로 나를 되돌리고 있다, 심지어 내가 그에게 그가 느끼는 것을 올리라고 해도 말이다. 케이블 채널 슬롯을 제거하여 타협하려고 하는 것은 잘못이며, 내가 요청한 대로 되돌아가기만 하고 내 토크 페이지에서는 응답을 거부한다(3RR 때문에 더 수정하기가 두렵다).그는 자신의 토크 페이지에 있는 어떤 것도 누구와도 토론하는 것을 거부하는데, 나는 위키피디아를 구축하기 위해 반드시 필요하다고 생각한다.또한 IP 152.43.1.234 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)에 의한 대학 컴퓨터를 사용하여 자신의 블록을 돌면서 마지막 블록을 위반했다고 느낀다.나는 RCG와 협력하고 싶지만, 어떤 식으로든 그의 토크 페이지를 통해 그와 어떤 것도 토론할 수 없다면 이 사용자와 타협할 수 있는 방법이 없다.네이트 • (대화) 02:44, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- 나는 그들의 토크 페이지에 메모를 남겼다.아직 이들의 행태를 살피고 있지만, 차단된 상태에서 투척했다는 의혹은 덕 단위로 쉽게 확인된다는 점은 주목할 만하다.그것에 대한 결과가 어떻게 될지는 잘 모르겠지만, 아직 완전히 기웃거리는 것은 아니다.Drmies (대화) 04:50, 2012년 2월 9일 (UTC)[
- Well, it's the typical uncommunicative editor who knows everything better, so they don't have to explain anything. They reverted themself on that Milwaukee article (probably after you either asked or started this thread, I don't care enough to check) and they possibly think that's all there is to it. There's a few things here. First of all, if they continue to revert you on that article, report them as an edit warrior--were they warned at 3R? Second, another admin may come by and comment on the block evasion: perhaps the original block should be reinstated. Third, well, I don't have a third just now. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- One more thing. You are both guilty of edit warring on that article, 3R or not. I am going to give you both a warning. You reverted them a couple of times before you explained in this edit; to your credit you have continued to try and explain yourself, while they haven't. Still, you both deserve a warning, and that suggests that next time such a revert happens that editor can be reported for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Understanding on the warning (it is deserved), all I'm asking for from RCG is an explanation of why they want it that way, that's all I ask. I try not to edit war, but it's frustrating to edit and try to figure out what's wrong with my template's style when the other editor will not even communicate why. I also was discouraged to report to the 3RR board due to the lack of communication. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Finally have a response. "I reverted it. Now please let me be. Thank you." When I asked for further elaboration..."You liked it the old way, so I changed it back so I could stay out of trouble, okay?" I don't really know what to make of that. Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (original timestamp of 5:55 UTC removed to reflect latter edit.)
- OK, here's the deal. I've reverted the blanking of their talk page to respond to that teenage comment. I am blocking them for a week--the period they were blocked for in the first place, during which they used an IP to continue the edit war on Milwaukee Public Television and to reinstate non-fair use images on their user page, the very thing that got them blocked in the first place; note that the war on Milwaukee Public Television was waged by the account, then by the IP, and then by the account again: persistent disruption. If any admin disagrees with this block (now their fourth), I invite scrutiny. Thank you Nate, and let's close this thread. I hope the editor will come back in a week with a more communicative attitude, though I doubt it. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it closed too, and I finally got the answer that he felt it was "cluttered" after the block, which he could've definitely said beforehand and it didn't have to get to this point at all (usually I've engaged in discussion and it's all worked out before I ever need to get to ANI). I don't know whether making changes to the template further to de-clutter in a compromise is OK or not though, so I don't hit 3RR. If it isn't I will cool down at your suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy changing votes to Keep in an AfD
| No admin action needed. User has been approached on his talk page and has not repeated the edit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In [48] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) turns a comment into a keep vote. Specifically, this AfD had been prematurely closed, then got reopened. One user didn't seem to realise it had only run a few hours, and posted.
- Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy changes this to:
(Keep) Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) To facilitate the discussion I added the keep to this comment.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe "Keep" is what the user would have voted; but the user is clearly unaware of the reason why the AfD was relisted, so it would be for him to say, not someone who's known to promote the article up for deletion. He modifies a couple other comments as well. 86.** IP (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have to agree adding keep to someone else's comment is a very bad thing to do. Let the closing admin decide how to consider their comment or ask the person who commented for clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to note, he was notified but has now removed the notice. He has instead User_talk:Greglocock#Your_abuse_of_process_.21vote canvassed the user, trying to get him to vote Keep 86.** IP (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Abuse of process is indeed the right description for the AFD, and 86's actions William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, WMC, still think that WP:NPA doesn't apply to you, I see. 86.** IP (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Admin needed to act on article probation violation re: Men's rights
| One month topic ban for Cybermud from Men's rights article and closely related articles on the same topic. No support for Cybermud's point of view, some support (but no clear consensus) for an indefinite ban. Breach of this ban before this date in March will most likely result in a block and a longer topic ban. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Cybermud has repeatedly engaged in incivility, violating the terms of article probation described at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. He was warned about the incivility by User:Kaldari and User:Kgorman-ucb on his talk page, and he responded with "...do whatever floats your boat princess...", calling Kevin Gorman, a campus ambassador for UC Berkeley, a "princess". Kevin and Kaldari were pointing out to Cybermud the following infractions of the probation: [49], [50], [51], and [52]. In response, Cybermud told them to "STFU on my talk page".
I see the foul response by Cybermud as a signal that he is unwilling to follow article probation terms. Cybermud should not be allowed to continue in this vein. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have placed Cybermud under a one-month topic ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to your comments on my talk page you have banned me for this edit. Just how does this diff merit a one month topic ban? Or is asking you to justify something, that's as as clear as mud to me, in violation of some other unknown policy that I also can't be informed of?--Cybermud (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Should WP not refer to Nazi's as Nazi's because people have taken a dim view of the things they've done historically? Because you seem to be implying it might be okay to whitewash the fact that some sources have discredited themselves by not clearly acknowledging them." - commenting on editors, not edits. "Michael Flood/Messner/Kimmel have well established reputations of being pro-feminist misandrists." - violating BLP with regards to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. A couple of days ago, you stated "I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases." More recently today, you made a factually untrue statement in an attempt to discredit another editor. Here you threatened to out another editor. As the probation page says, "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with all of your characterizations of those diffs, but more importantly, why not just admit you made a knee-jerk reaction based on the misrepresentations of my edits made by other editors? For starters, it's never good to start shifting the goal posts for why did you something, much less after the fact. According to you, YOU BANNED ME for this edit not any of the other ones you are now backtracking and trolling for in an attempt to justify an action you've already made. Some of these new edits you're scrambling for are not even in the Men's Rights article. Secondly, contrary to your BLATANTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE allegation that I threatened to out anyone, I suggested to an editor, who used his own name and is a faculty associate of the person whose article he's editing that there are COI policies on WP he may be violating. Read the edits. They are clear on this point. I do not take your banning me personal, I know admins deal with a lot of crap here, but I do ask that you give me valid reasons, not make them up as you go, and put forth the effort to understand the situation you jumped all over once you start getting feedback, like mine, which claims your actions were unjustified.--Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- "To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with all of your characterizations of those diffs, but more importantly, why not just admit you made a knee-jerk reaction based on the misrepresentations of my edits made by other editors? For starters, it's never good to start shifting the goal posts for why did you something, much less after the fact. According to you, YOU BANNED ME for this edit not any of the other ones you are now backtracking and trolling for in an attempt to justify an action you've already made. Some of these new edits you're scrambling for are not even in the Men's Rights article. Secondly, contrary to your BLATANTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE allegation that I threatened to out anyone, I suggested to an editor, who used his own name and is a faculty associate of the person whose article he's editing that there are COI policies on WP he may be violating. Read the edits. They are clear on this point. I do not take your banning me personal, I know admins deal with a lot of crap here, but I do ask that you give me valid reasons, not make them up as you go, and put forth the effort to understand the situation you jumped all over once you start getting feedback, like mine, which claims your actions were unjustified.--Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Should WP not refer to Nazi's as Nazi's because people have taken a dim view of the things they've done historically? Because you seem to be implying it might be okay to whitewash the fact that some sources have discredited themselves by not clearly acknowledging them." - commenting on editors, not edits. "Michael Flood/Messner/Kimmel have well established reputations of being pro-feminist misandrists." - violating BLP with regards to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. A couple of days ago, you stated "I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases." More recently today, you made a factually untrue statement in an attempt to discredit another editor. Here you threatened to out another editor. As the probation page says, "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to your comments on my talk page you have banned me for this edit. Just how does this diff merit a one month topic ban? Or is asking you to justify something, that's as as clear as mud to me, in violation of some other unknown policy that I also can't be informed of?--Cybermud (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deja Vu Binksternet?[[53]] In any case, it's all about context.--Cybermud (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the diffs speak fairly well to why sarek was justified in topic banning cybermud, especially this one and this one, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves.
Cybermud has continued to edit the article on Michael Kimmel, in violation of his topic ban, even after being warned that continuing to do so was a violation of his topic ban. (Michael Kimmel is a sociologist whose work frequently deals with men's rights issues, and the use of his writings on the men's rights page was one of the major issues that cyermud disagreed about.) Although disagreeing with an administrator and questioning their actions is fine, choosing to ignore a topic ban - especially one stemming from community sanctions on an article - is not fine.
I think that Cybermud's responses to this post have demonstrated that he cannot be a productive editor on men's rights or related issues at this point. I would request that Sarek's one month topic ban be extended to indefinite with the option of appealing at some point in the future if he can convince the community that he now sees what was wrong with his behavior, and convinces the community that he will not repeat his former behavior. I would also request that he be blocked if he continues to fail to respect the terms of his topic ban. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would also support an indefinite topic ban, as Cybermud's edits are a clear example of POV-pushing and his incivility related to those articles has been disruptive. Kaldari (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would not support an indefinite topic ban. While I agree that he was uncivilized in some regards, he brings up some valuable points. I admit I haven't contributed to this article in awhile, I think the 1-month ban is enough, and if he re-offends after the ban to re-evaluate. TickTock2 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite topic ban. Cybermud is clearly a POV warrior that is not going to contribute anything uncontroversial on this topic, ever, judging from the talk page. It's time for such folks to pick another topic and to get busy improving the encyclopedia or get the hell out of the way. All this perpetual drama/verbose talk page war garbage needs to be snuffed, not coddled and enabled. Ya want adrenaline, buy a video game or grab a soap box and head for the nearest streetcorner. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support indefinite topic ban. After being banned for one week in October 2011 [54], Cybermud is back to the same problematic behavior. Not only does he continue to accuse various authors of misandry [55][56], but he also refers to them as "gender ideologues who support the feminist view that all men are rapists" [57]. His fellow editors are also misandrists [58], according to Cybermud. I find his agitated rhetoric very unhelpful. That he calls a male editor "princess", goes beyond the pale. Back in 2010, he wrote that Kimmel and Flood are considered "manginas" [59], so this theme is not new. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- So far three people have suppoted an indefinite topic ban and one has opposed it. With only four people responding and no further contribution for more than 12 hours I'm reluctant to see this as a consenus for an indefinite ban. On the other hand, I don't see anybody here speaking up in Cybermud's defence; nobody is suggesting that his edits were OK and that no ban at all should be enacted.
- This report has been open a long time and while I don't want to close prematurely, I'm not sure how much more is going to be said. I will close this report in a few hours (not less than five) if there are no further responses. When I close, I will leave a firm note for Cybermud about the ban, indicating that a breach will lead to an immediate block and the possibility of an extension of the ban. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Reblock of User:Mistress Selina Kyle
| User has been unblocked - with mumblings of 4 to 1 is a consensus? - Youreallycan 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A day or so following her unblock following a five-year absence, this User:Mistress Selina Kyle was reblocked by User:Courcelles for allegedly breaching the conditions of the unblock. I found the reasoning highly suspect and unilaterally unblocked her. It turns out, however, that over two years since I last used my blocking tools, I've become unfamiliar with the processes (and will be taking myself back to WP:NAS as a result), and so have been encouraged to replace the block and attempt to gain consensus for the unblock here. I still stand by my original reasoning, however, which you can find at User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Blocked, however the brief version is that the rationale given was that she broke item 4 of her unblock conditions, which stated "Persuant to the conditions above, if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock shall be swift and unforgiving." Now, the incident in question, as I have noted in more detail at User talk:SalopianJames#Unblock of MSK, revolved around a report of a WP:LEGAL breach at WP:ANI and the subsequent fallout from that, where she was the recipient of a number of WP:PERSONAL attacks and attempted to deal with this. Now, the initial reporting was entirely within policy and, whilst her reponse to the attacks was misguided, it was not meant with any malice, instead representing an unfamiliarity with policy after five years of absence, for which I feel she should be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, I do not find the block reasoning convincing, and am not the only one who takes this view, as can be seen from the comments in the two user talk page threads I linked above. Furthermore, in the intervening time between my unblock/reblock, she took several editor's advice to avoid political pages to prevent herself getting into trouble, for instance reporting a POV-pushing editor on her talk page rather than at ANI, who was later blocked. She also spent a lot of effort spreading some WP:WikiLove, always a good gesture, and various other constructive edits. As a result, I believe the block should be lifted forthwith. SalopianJames (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Amazingly something good did come out of all this. The BB-MSK event did shake the collective hubris. Threads here on ANI are now closed promptly with a resolution instead of being let to degenerate. Given that BB has been unblocked (although he was also blocked by an Arbitrator), I don't see a compelling need to keep MSK blocked given the subsequent developments outlined above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Unblock (edit conflict × 2) The circumstances surrounding Selina's reblock were controversial. As SalopianJames notes, Selina was subjected to attacks crafted to skirt the boundaries of what we consider 'personal' but were clearly and deliberately intended to bait her into a response. This was an agent provocateur action by editors, one of which was later blocked and nearly given an indefinite community topic ban from admin noticeboards. It's my view that Selina's response was inappropriate and she did deserve a short term block (which she got) but I don't believe it's fair to indef her again over a situation that was clearly engineered to elicit this kind of response and result. She is freshly back, has barely had time to brush up on the changes to the rules in her five year absence and was immediately forced into a situation where she had to make a snap response. I don't see anything malicious or even intentional in her technical breach of the rules here. Further, as SalopianJames points out, in the period after she was unblocked by him she showed an immediate change in behaviour and demonstrated clearly that she had listened to criticism and had taken the advice of people trying to mentor her, myself included. She reported a problem with another editor on her talk page even though it would have been well within her rights to make a report at ANI, because she responded to advice that she should ask others for help and stay away from the boards. I believe Selina is showing a genuine desire to contribute constructively to the project and I strongly believe she doesn't deserve to lose her chance because of this. This was an accident, she has acknowledged that she made a mistake and she has shown positive signs of not making the same mistake again. We don't punish people for accidents. She's gotten enough of a scare from this whole mess that I don't believe she'll misstep again. And she's aware that I'll be here supporting her block if she does. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I continue to support the unblock: after Mistress Selina Kyle was unblocked by SalopianJames, she clearly showed improvement and did begin to demonstrate that she was following the advice that myself and several others have given her. As has been said above, when she had a sock to report yesterday she reported it on her talk page and the sock did get blocked (this actually would have been a good report to AN/I just as her previous report was), but she stuck to the advice she was given and reported it on her talk page). Evidently, she has made some mistakes, but I don't believe that she has done anything with bad intentions in mind, and there is nothing that she has done so far that I consider to be too serious or that warrants re-implementing the original ban; besides, there are a few users, myself included, who are willing to work with her/help her out along the way, as we have been doing. I think she should just be unblocked and we go back to letting her edit, and when she makes any good-faith errors we help her rather than hold blocks over her head. The other night's drama has cooled off...let's keep it that way. Acalamari 10:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, it would not have been a good AN/I report -- sock reports go here: WP:SPI. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Unblock - "He hit me first" is not a defense for bad behaviour. However MSK was IMO deliberately baited, and her inexperience led to her getting trapped in this manner. Also mitigating is the fact that the admin corp did NOT handle the matter well, any of us could/should have stepped in much sooner and prevented the debacle (myself included). As with Techno above, my advice to MSK is to stay off AN entirely, even if more deliberate baiting occurs. There are other editors who can handle the matter on her behalf, if needed. Also as Techno said, if there is a genuine transgression, I will be in full support of a permanent reblock. Manning (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Unblock per Manning, and, well, peace really. Begoon talk 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock per TechnoSymbiosis; I am a little worried that an arbitrator's actions (when acting as an administrator) are seeming to be given more weight here than any other admin's actions. pablo 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Unblock - the current situation seems a bit unbalanced. A topic ban in regard to anything wikipedia review connected might be a good resolution in regard to helping the user stay out of conflict. Youreallycan 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock. MSK was targeted for harassment by one of the gadflies that constantly buzz around this page. That user was lucky to get off with a voluntary recusal and it has all led to Manning Bartlett and Kim Dent-Brown taking a stab at reining in the chaos. SalopianJames has outlined most of how this went and Mistress Selina Kyle didn't really do anything wrong here. This is a simple procedural step; MSK should be given a fair chance without harassment. Alarbus (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock and topic ban on discussions related to Wikipedia Review. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- first - I'm not anybody here. My observations do leave me with a concern though. I'll note that Jclemens also issued a block a while ago, one that I personally thought was excessive - I brought his attention to the unblock request - told the blocked person I'd look into it, and watched. Lets face it - a week away from this place isn't going to hurt anyone. My concern is that 2 out of 3 (arb) blocks were pretty much "I know better" overturned. Sure, all well meaning I'm sure - but it's a concerning trend. It shows a lack of unity in the admin. community. It shows a lack of respect for people who obviously have earned the respect of the community. Good intentions are fine, but maturity and common sense are needed if we're going to head in the right directions. Sorry to have troubled you folks - but my understanding is that this is an open discussion. — Ched : ? 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ched, arbs, individually, are at least in theory no different from the next guy. They are not elected because they are infallible at adminship and are entitled to no particular deference. Indeed, the fact that they are arbs is all the more reason why they need to be really, really careful when acting individually.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. I'm just saying we need to communicate more, and not be so all fired up to rush to judgment. If we take the time to talk to one another - we may still disagree, but in the end, the calm measured response is going to be a better educated one. I'm not suggesting there's a hierarchy to be feared, simply I think that judicious and prudent ways forward are always going to be the best. — Ched : ? 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ched, arbs, individually, are at least in theory no different from the next guy. They are not elected because they are infallible at adminship and are entitled to no particular deference. Indeed, the fact that they are arbs is all the more reason why they need to be really, really careful when acting individually.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock Unable to comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock I cannot see anything in MSK's editing before or especially since their unblock that leads me to believe there's anything fully productive or collegial goign on here. I'm always willign to be convinced, but I'm still not convinced the FIRST unblock was wise in any way, shape, or form (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock at this time, without prejudice. I was the admin who declined the block review. Part of it was procedural (wheel warring concerns, and barring that, it's just common courtesy to discuss with the blocking admin first; furthermore, a block this high-profile would mandate community discussion from the getgo; thus any admin should have declined/held pending further discussion). Part of it was that any restrictions or agreements need to be worked out before any unblock. And part of it was seeing the wide-scale disruption at ANI; 4-5 quite virulent threads from the same user. I understand that she was provoked, but it takes two to tango in this situation. In addition to this, it seems that she feels that she has the obligation to report every instance of bad behavior she sees on the site; not a good thing, borderline Wikilawyering. Sometimes you've just gotta let things go. This disruption also carried over to the already badly damaged FAC and FAC RFC, where MSK repeatedly and forcefully made suggestions regarding overhauling the process entirely, where it was clear she didn't know the issues at hand. There have been suggestions that a lot of users have been visiting the RFC because they have "an axe to grind" with Raul654. I'm not entirely convinced that this will be the final discussion regarding MSK, either. I probably could add more to this, but it's 4:30 am my time and I'm going to bed. --Rschen7754 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock - Unconditionally, unrestricted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Just a note. I don't doubt the sincerity here for a second. I remember when Bugs was willing to extend an olive branch to CoM years ago. He is always willing to put the past in the past, and does not carry grudges. Noting just so my "holy cow" funny eyes aren't taken the wrong way. — Ched : ? 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Support unblock Let's not reward baiting. Consider also a topic ban from anything related to wikipedia review, so she has a clearer guidance that we are here to write articles, not to pick political fights. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock Courcelles' explanation for the block was cogent, clear and backed by the facts. No matter who one holds as "responsible" for the dust-up between MSK & BB, there was no symmetry between their situation. MSK was on a conditional unblock from a community ban, Bugs was not, so there is no reason they need to be treated the same in the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reluctantly support unblock This is from a pure procedural standpoint. MSK was unblocked and given a loosely defined parole. After a few drama inducing threads the conditions of the parole were listed more explicitly. One admin blocked based on perceived violations of the parole. A Block appeal was denied. Another admin initiates a unblock based on no block appeal, but rather re-trying the previous appeal without consulting the blocking admin. Unblocking admin is questioned at length by blocking admin about the Wheel Waring aspect of the unblock. After several editors weigh in on the unblocking admin the admin reluctantly reblocks and posts this block review to establish consensus. Having looked at the thread so far I'm inclined to endorse the unblock with the cast in stone warning to MSK regarding the terms of their parole (Don't involve yourself with drama, neutrally report instances of harassment/baiting, let others stand up for Wikipedia Review, don't take everything as an attack on you) and they won't be in danger. This constitutes a absolute last chance. Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Like Well said. One thing I would add is: report does not mean report in five different places and post at least ten times in each thread. (see WP:NCR) The community doesn't have the patience to build Betacommand-style restrictions for Ms. Kyle because insofar the positive contributions made by Ms. Kyle are quite modest. So, Ms. Kyle should absolutely not test the boundaries again if she gives a damn about her editing privileges here. Whether she likes it or not, Ms. Kyle has put herself in a position where from now on she's going to have to turn the other cheek to anything but the most severe transgressions of policy. And I hope her experience from yesterday clarifies where the community currently sets the bar on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Like Well said. One thing I would add is: report does not mean report in five different places and post at least ten times in each thread. (see - Unblock - There is some supreme and petty bullshit going on around these parts. This user was baited and harassed by one of the more egregious ANI gadflies. Courcelles' judgement was exceedingly poor. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unblock MSK, but other questions need answering SJ's original unblock was a text-book example of how not to use the unblock button. I disagree with Tarc - there's nothing petty going on here. MSK was unbanned after 5 years and was unblocked unstrict conditions. She has since been misbehaving. If after 5 years and a second chance MSK hasn't got it then MSK shouldn't be here. That said I agree with ASCIIn2Bme and Hasteur - in light of Baseball Bugs's unblock that MSK should be unblocked too (but by someone uninvolved in any of this thus far), but under a very very clear & final warning.
Frankly I think that's what would have happened here anyway if SJ hadn't intervened. The unilateral reversal of Courcelles' decision, by SJ, an admin who admits to not using the tools in over 24 months & is obviously not up-to-date with dealing with DR or sanction/ban enforcement, is far more of an issue than anything MSK did--Caililtalk 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)- "She has since been misbehaving", that is the bullshit I was talking about. We have a user here who was held to a completely unreasonable, break-one-sliver-of-an-eggshell standards of the earlier unblock. If you're going to hold someone to a "one-strike" rule, then that's the prerogative of the community to decide. But to reblock, that admin best be damn sure that it is a "strike" that occurred. Courcelles was unreasonable to call that malarkey a strike. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note to Tarc - Fluffernutter's explanation below makes it clear why your argument is incorrect.
- Note to would-be censors - It's best to leave vulgar comments in place, as they help to reveal the character of their writer.
- ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to put up with his rudeness and belligerence. [60] He brings the tone down. Gets people's backs up. Sets off little wars everywhere in situations that might easily be resolved with reasonable discussion. In short, he's the last person this board needs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right. But I still don't think a user's comments should be censored unless they're a blatant and gross rule violaton (such as outing, socking, or whatever). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × tons) What happened to your self-imposed one month vacation from ANI, BB? You've made your opinion of MSK abundantly clear in multiple threads on ANI and AN. I don't think many here now want to hear your opinion of Tarc in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cole, mind your own business. Bugs, why are you here? Didn't you agree to an ANI vacation as a condition of your own unblock? I do not agree with fluffernutter's assessment of the situation; you and others baited her and began this whole mess. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have the right to respond to discussions that involve me in some way. I am staying away from discussions that don't. I say again that the editor Kyle should be unblocked, without conditions and without restrictions. Ya got a problem with that? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very close to having a problem with that Bugs, as we're discussing Selina's position and not yours. However now you've made your position clear, provided that is your last contribution to this thread I'm content. But the number of edit conflicts immediately after you dipped your toe back in this pond suggests your reappearance made a number of people very twitchy. You won't find the fourth power of the Sphinx mentioned on Wikipedia but it might be a good one to cultivate. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have the right to respond to discussions that involve me in some way. I am staying away from discussions that don't. I say again that the editor Kyle should be unblocked, without conditions and without restrictions. Ya got a problem with that? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right. But I still don't think a user's comments should be censored unless they're a blatant and gross rule violaton (such as outing, socking, or whatever). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to put up with his rudeness and belligerence. [60] He brings the tone down. Gets people's backs up. Sets off little wars everywhere in situations that might easily be resolved with reasonable discussion. In short, he's the last person this board needs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- "She has since been misbehaving", that is the bullshit I was talking about. We have a user here who was held to a completely unreasonable, break-one-sliver-of-an-eggshell standards of the earlier unblock. If you're going to hold someone to a "one-strike" rule, then that's the prerogative of the community to decide. But to reblock, that admin best be damn sure that it is a "strike" that occurred. Courcelles was unreasonable to call that malarkey a strike. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock—unless or until the community agrees on terms to unblock her going forward. Mistress Selina Kyle violated the conditions of her last return from a community-imposed block. I don't condone the baiting tactics, but BaseballBugs opened a door that she willingly walked through. She must take responsibility for those actions. Until she does, and the community allows her return, she's not welcome back yet, and Courcelles' original block should stand. SalopianJames was not in the right to unilaterally substitute his judgement for that of the community; the proper course of action would have been to initiate a community discussion with the goal to set limits (including the option of no limits) on extending a new option for Mistress Selina Kyle to return. Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The oddity with that user Kyle is that they were indef'd in June of 2006, yet somehow were able to edit on January 28th. Since then the block log looks like a ping-pong match. As regards "opening a door", I called the editor for making a false accusation against me. Perhaps I should have taken it to WQA instead of here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - she's not here to improve the Encyclopedia. She's here to create and enhance drama. Her contribs before and after the previous community ban should make this obvious. Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock - purely on the basis that the block may have been questionable from a procedural perspective. I have seen no evidence to disprove what Raul654 above has to say regarding MSKs propensity to create drama, and see little reason to assume that a further block will become necessary. I would of course like to be proven wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, reinstate community ban. Working backwards from the present here, we have:
- An admin who is patently unfamiliar with blocking policy unilaterally reversing the reinstatement of a community ban, which he failed to research the existence of, then repeatedly refusing to acknowledge or undo his wheel-warring and moving the goalposts until someone (not the blocking admin, for what that's worth) pointed out that admins have lost their bits for such actions.
- A previously community-banned user, unblocked with strict instructions to adhere to our behavioral guidelines, who within day or two commences violating those same behavioral guidelines in a series of ANI threads: Wikilawyering (attempting to characterise people's commentary about a website as personal attacks against her), accusing people of harassing her by commenting about Wikipedia Review, accusing admins of giving the "all clear" for a user to "insult" her, continuing to accuse users of trolling and harassment, more trolling. Again, this entire thing was set off by her wikilawyering in an attempt to shut down criticism of Wikipedia Review by claiming any commentary about the site was personal commentary about her, which is a bit amusing in light of this claim that she is "not WR" and "WR shouldn't even come into it". Each of these behaviors - wikilawerying, accusations of bad faith, accusations of harassment and trolling, accusations of conspiracy among admins - is a violation of our behavioral guidelines. Mistress Selina Kyle was offered an unban with the strict provision that she not violate our behavioral guidelines, and then went almost directly to the most visible drama board on the entire wiki and began agitating and violating those guidelines. She is patently in violation of her unban conditions, has used up the one strike the community offered her, and as such should be rebanned. I quite frankly can't see how any other conclusion could be reached. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- and this is why any unblock needs an accompanying topic ban from any topics related to Wikipedia Review, broadly constructed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- fluffernutter, this is how: Don't Underestimate the Power of The Assume Good Faith Nobody Ent 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- AGF, as we all know, is not a suicide pact, Nobody Ent, and when a user has exhausted every drop of the community's AGF, and then five years later is lucky enough that the community is able to scrape up a smidge more AGF, and then proceeds to trample on that...AGF can be depleted, and we are not required to AGF to the detriment of Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The editor was repeatedly told that criticisms of WR do not qualify as a personal attack, yet the editor continued to repeat that claim. Does that fact nullify the good faith assumption? Or is it possible the editor truly did not understand the distinction? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The true power of AGF is that it doesn't matter; we can take the same action in either eventually and don't have to stress about it. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- @fluffernutter The number of support unblocks on this thread is irrefutable evidence MSK has in fact not exhausted every drop. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, as I posted above, having reread the policies (which I fully admit I should have done prior to this all kicking off rather than after), I realise the way I went about things was not correct, hence why we're now going through this. Again, as I said before, I'll be back off to the WP:NAS with an apple for the teacher. However, in response to the 'moving the goalposts' comment, the items I listed were what occurred, and the reasoning given for the block was violation of the unblock conditions. I failed, and still fail, so see how those two match up in any way. On another note, I know I personally would construe an attack on a website I ran as a personal attack, with a further point being that views on WR were irrelevant to that discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock: while Selina does have a rather quirky style (both in terms of prose and in terms of approach), I'm rather certain that she genuinely wants to help improve Wikipedia (IOW, she's not a member of the "hasten the day(tm)" faction on WR). To borrow a famous quote from a fictional book cover, she's "mostly harmless". --SB_Johnny talk 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock. At the very least, indef is completely out of proportions. In fact, I think we should focus more on the inappropriate action by the blocking admin here, it is much more worrisome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk to me 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock The editor has been blocked for several years. She appears to be genuinely trying to follow policy. The community and policies can change over time, she just needs time to get up to date on policies and guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock. I wasn't around when the original block came in so I don't have the history. But based on the last few days even the most cynical interpretation of MSK's behaviour is that she came back after her community ban, tried to see how much room for manoeuvre she had and got the message really soon that she has none. Since then she has been the model of restraint; the cynic will argue she is just biding her time but if she is, we can of course (and will, I suspect) reinstate the ban instantly and permanently. But if the cynic is wrong and she can contribute productively then for as long as she does that I have no problem. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock. I find the block well-intentioned but a misguided and overly strict interpretation of MSK's unblock/unban terms. It's quite possible she'll do something that warrants an indef but filing a couple of reports at AN/I isn't it. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock. Discrepancy between crime and
punishment"preventative measure". The Mistress will be on a tight leash anyway (hey, that's kind of saucy--I like it) given the attention this has received. It's a good time to start creating article content, Mistress. Annemarie van Haeringen, for instance, is still a redlink. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) - Support unblock. I understand that the block was given in part because drama was really escalating, but Bugs' block was shortened and I think letting MSK back is a good idea too. While she perhaps should have acted differently, she didn't do anything that makes me think she was acting out of bad faith/trolling us. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support unblock, obviously. Have already explained why in other places but basically there was no basis for the original block and in fact it was a good bit in the "blame the victim" (of personal attacks) spirit.VolunteerMarek 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- note - at this point the consensus for an unblocking is twenty four in support and six opposes. Youreallycan 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- mumbles something unclear about 4 to one not being consensus, involved admins, and various randomly-directed obscenities--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given how contentious this series of unblock/block/unblock/block has been, I would really recommend that we stay away from calling an early consensus about anything and let the thread run for a minimum of 24 hours, especially since the blocking admin doesn't seem to have had a chance to weigh in yet. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I unblocked her. Let's get on with our lives. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can hear some more mumbling... Youreallycan 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Request for block explanation
Moved from discussion above Nobody Ent 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to see a fuller explanation of the block by Courcelles, here, at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if he is online, but [61][62] should be relevant. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did read all of that, I would just like a summary after consideration. My initial reaction is that Courcelles, as an arb, should have considered that if MSK's conduct was that blatant, another admin would have taken care of the matter. In addition, Courcelles is a drafting arb in the Civility Enforcement case, in which there was an admin who unblocked without consultation a user who has been repeatedly unblocked by admins who did not consult with the blocking admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- And Risker, who blocked BB, is another drafting Arb in that case. Go figure! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. It's not the same thing. Courcelles has said he's considering filing a wheel warring complaint on SJ. He is a drafting arb in a case which will be precedent for that case if he files the complaint. I see a conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't checked, but I would assume Courcelle's comment about a Wheel-war case was posted prior to SJ's corrective action above. SJ has corrected his actions, so there is nothing to answer for. Manning (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My "go figure!" puzzlement was over this part of Courcelles statement: "she [MSK] committed nearly all the personal attacks that were done, (being critical, even dismissive, ofsomeone's website is a far cry from attacking the person)", which implicitly disses Risker's block as hardly justified. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- With such a difference of opinion between arbitrators, we should probably consider ourselves lucky that arbitration is done by panel, rather than Judge Dredd-style =) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not that shocked seeing arbitrators bitterly divided in an actual remedy vote, but I am a bit more surprised seeing two of the Civ Enforcement drafting Arbs applying principles the committee hasn't even published yet. And the two blocks were a bit Arb Dredd-style, given that an WP:IBAN between the drama protagonists was being proposed (by me) on ANI at that time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- With such a difference of opinion between arbitrators, we should probably consider ourselves lucky that arbitration is done by panel, rather than Judge Dredd-style =) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. It's not the same thing. Courcelles has said he's considering filing a wheel warring complaint on SJ. He is a drafting arb in a case which will be precedent for that case if he files the complaint. I see a conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- And Risker, who blocked BB, is another drafting Arb in that case. Go figure! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did read all of that, I would just like a summary after consideration. My initial reaction is that Courcelles, as an arb, should have considered that if MSK's conduct was that blatant, another admin would have taken care of the matter. In addition, Courcelles is a drafting arb in the Civility Enforcement case, in which there was an admin who unblocked without consultation a user who has been repeatedly unblocked by admins who did not consult with the blocking admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if he is online, but [61][62] should be relevant. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note to all - As Ascii said above, let's embrace this new world of AN/I. The topic here is the unblock review. Discussions of arb motivations, arbcom cases, etc belong elsewhere. (I'll trout myself for my earlier comment about the wheel war, not helpful). Manning (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Manning, whether the blocking admin has or has created a conflict of interest is plainly relevant. However, this could be a separate subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- <cough>, ummm .. excuse me (and perhaps I missed something) - but ummm ... did we forget something here?— Ched : ? 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would very much like to see justification for an indef block. What has MK done (diffs, please) that according couldn't have been handled by a warning, or even a short block, and instead needed, in his opinion, and indefinite block? Votes above clearly show that such an approach is not supported by the majority of the community. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk to me 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The nature of the lifting of the community ban was that infraction of the rules would lead to a reban. That's it. There is no mechanism to give a user a whole new set of chances in that case, and whether you or I agree or disagree with it doesn't matter; MSK accepted those conditions and then violated them. Everyone is taking some sort of moral indignation at the whole thing as the basis for unblock. Now, if MSK didn't like the conditions, she did not have to accept them. She did. For us to complain about that after the fact is pointless - if the deal was unfair, there was always a right of refusal. MSJapan (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is my understanding too - that, per the provisions of her unban, any violation of behavioral guidelines, etc, would result in the ban being reapplied, according to the will of the community as expressed in her unban discussion. Courcelles would have been on much shakier ground attempting to apply a time-limited ban of some sort, because that would have been voiding the community's will to impose his own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Summary?
Sorry. Cleanup. The summary of the decision box at the top is unsigned and in otherways oddly phrased, but I don't know who to ask about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- That would be Youreallycan, here. Probably just forgot to sign. I think 4-1 is a pretty solid endorsement, though. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. The question mark is odd then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The question mark was an allude to the fact that WP:Consensus is not a vote - so technically, 6 to 1 still needs interpretation. I will sign it now. Youreallycan 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. The question mark is odd then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Reversed file deletion - more opinions, please
I just restored File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg, which was promoted to Featured Picture on Feb 6, while Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 2#File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg was running. Fastily closed that as delete, because a redirect had been created on Commons to make it english-searchable, which was the main objection raised at the FfD. However, since it was a featured picture, I have restored it. Should the FPC take precedence here and require another discussion before deletion, or should we just go with delete-as-dup-of-Commons anyway? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does a featured picture have to be posted on enwp, or can it be at commons? If the latter then I see no problem with it being deleted. I'm pretty sure I've gotten images featured that were only on commons... all we had here was the page indicating it was featured. Now, if you're talking about the article for the picture, rather than the picture itself? I say keep it, otherwise we have no indicator it's featured. But the picture itself could probably go away. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- This English-language-titled image was created to satisfy WP:IFN (an enwp-specific guideline) in that a title name be "descriptive or at least readable". FPC determined that a Korean title does not satisfy this guideline, and since Commons would not rename the file and instead suggested the use of {{Do not move to Commons}} on the enwp file with a rationale for the redundancy, this file was created and eventually promoted to FP status. Given the IFN guideline, I think this file should stay. —Eustresstalk 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I noted above, there's now a redirect on Commons that gives the picture an English-language title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- This English-language-titled image was created to satisfy WP:IFN (an enwp-specific guideline) in that a title name be "descriptive or at least readable". FPC determined that a Korean title does not satisfy this guideline, and since Commons would not rename the file and instead suggested the use of {{Do not move to Commons}} on the enwp file with a rationale for the redundancy, this file was created and eventually promoted to FP status. Given the IFN guideline, I think this file should stay. —Eustresstalk 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the picture is now searchable using the Commons redirect, I'd delete the local copy. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I outlined at the deletion discussion, FPs also have pages created for them on en-wiki for different related templates and categories. With the redirect, theoretically this could be on the Korean-named page as well. However, the title of the page will not display for readers without support for Korean characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:RFPP
| Issue is taken care of, thanks also to a run-through by Fastily (thanks!). Thanks also to Zagalejo. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would be very helpful to get some more eyes at WP:Requests for page protection. Unless I'm misinterpreting the timestamps, some of those requests have been sitting there for over a day. Zagalejo^^^ 22:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Salvio is on the case, it seems. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can that page be reset so that granted (and denied) requests don't stay on there for days on end? I hate looking at it, it takes time to load, and it's often hard to look through to find requests that haven't been dealt with yet. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal
Discussion movedWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Persistent_off-wiki_and_cross-wiki_harassment_.2F_Community_ban_proposal. Nobody Ent 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Orangewhitegreen
Orangewhitegreen (talk · contribs), despite being warned, engages in WP:IDHT-style disruption via unsourced, self-referential, and/or anti-consensus edits ([63], [64], [65], etc); at least one bears a sarcastically arrogant edit summary ([66]) which indicates that this user knows that what he/she is doing, and that it is wrong. The key issue here is the willfully recrudescent and sloppy insertion and reinsertion of "sources" consisting of naked URLs to Wikipedia pages despite multiple specifically worded warnings issued over an extended period of time by several editors. He/she also continues to specifically target and repeatedly overturn painstakingly discussed and long-standing talk-page consensuses ([67], [68], [69], etc). A block would would send a non-ignorable message that further passive-aggressive time-wasting is unacceptable. Saravask 03:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I endorse the summary above. Orangewhitegreen has been at it for quite sometime now. They refuse to discuss but stop right before the situation escalates into requiring administrator intervention. They have received multiple reminders and warnings from other editors in the past. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Dispute on German cruiser Emden
See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Dispute_on_German_cruiser_Emden. Nobody Ent 13:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Drive-by tagging and removal of opposing comments
| OP has claimed that s/he is conducting a "research experiment" on WP. I take that assertion at face value and have blocked them for a week.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JasperDang is putting SEVEN tags on the article MongoDB without any rason multiple times WP:OVERTAGGING
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MongoDB&diff=475893466&oldid=475892060
And when I'm trying to ask him the reason, he is removing my comments from talkk page and warning me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780
This is ridiculous. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG. The reasons are plainly obvious. This board is not for bringing in a content dispute.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is NOT a content dispute. I am not opposed to tagging of the articles with RELEVEANT tags. I am questioning your bad-faith tagging without given ANY reason whatsoever - your behavior in putting 7 tags and when others post a detailed point-wise talk page comment asking for reaosns - you remove their commets - not once but twice. Then you attack me mock me for using capital letter for emphasis and paradoxically warn me for personal attacks. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes it is. WP:AGF. Tagging is a content dispute. Speedy close now please.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see the 203.99.208.3 is up to a level 3 warning for issuing personal attacks. Are there any diffs giving evidence of violations of WP:NPA#WHATIS? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- This was for #1, and this for #2.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:POINT, anyone? I generally frown when researchers do not disclose things to me.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given my recent block, I'll refrain from commenting here, beyond suggesting that so-called 'research' based on such behaviour is not only unethical, but worthless. Actually, I'll ignore the block, and suggest that it blindingly obvious to anyone that either (a) this isn't 'research', but trolling, or (b) the 'research' is a waste of time, money, and entropy, in that it tells us nothing that anyone but a total halfwit couldn't have figured out without engaging in such idiocy. If you are engaging in this 'research' as part of a course of study, I'd ask for your money back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What research, affiliated to what academic institution? Where is your plan? Where is the approval from your institutional review board? Where has the Wikimedia Foundation and the community agreed to your research project? Where will you publish your results? You should cease your "research" immediately and answer those questions instead. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest it's either sarcasm or a rather naive self-construction to get out of tense situation. I can't imagine any legitimate research would take that form (and I've seen some fairly odd stuff at university) and the edits don't look like those of a troll or one seeking to provoke an outcome - they look like the edits of a very inexperienced newcomer entering into conflict for the first time (and we've all been there!). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- ...and like clockwork, another "social experimenter" appears on Wikipedia. I strongly reccomend an immediate block here per WP:NOTHERE. As has been said before by those wiser than me: we're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, please also see WP:HOSTAGE, and feel free to expand. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
| Hats off to Jasper Deng - admitting you may have been wrong is a rare tactic here, but one guaranteed to warm the cockles. I think we are done. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that we've thoroughly shot and hung the messenger out to dry, the tags on MongoDB were in fact excessive, and Jasper Deng was being unnecessarily combative and uncooperative in his placement of them. Jasper did nothing to really explain his placement of the pile of tags in the first place, and when he was reverted, he responded with a further unhelpful and combative edit summary. He further claimed that all 7 tags needed no further explanation on the talk page, which is just absurd. 7 article level tags on an article of that size certainly do need further explanation. Always a proud moment when I see one of these.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps this would be better discussed on the relevant article talk page - I for one don't think that a section like this should appear in a Wikipedia article:
- Capped collections
- MongoDB supports fixed-size collections called capped collections.[8] A capped collection is created with a set size and, optionally, number of elements. Capped collections are the only type of collection that maintains insertion order: once the specified size has been reached, a capped collection behaves like a circular queue.
- A special type of cursor, called a tailable cursor,[9] can be used with capped collections. This cursor was named after the `tail -f` command, and does not close when it finishes returning results but continues to wait for more to be returned, returning new results as they are inserted into the capped collection.
- AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- That would be best I think. I'm not necessarily convinced by the experiment explanation although of course we have to treat it as though it's true—we have nothing else to go on. There are some obvious problems with the article, but I too feel that Jasper Deng could have made a more convincing effort to explain the tags promptly and courteously, and treated the IP user with a little more good faith. EyeSerenetalk 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- That section about capped collections looks fine to me (informatively describes something unusual enough to be worth mentioning). It is pretty typical of how articles about software and programming languages are written. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the tags themselves can be discussed on the article talk page. I'm discussing Jasper's behaviour in getting them on that page. There seems to be a whole slew of poor edits made around this situation over at MongoDB. In addition to forcing the tags onto the article without explanation, and assuming bad faith, he also made edits like this which are clearly against our policies [70]. Altering others comments is a no-no. The IP tried to engage him on the talk page, Jasper reverted it. I'm beginning to think if we really need to block the IP out of this situation, it shouldn't be the only one.--Crossmr (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't know this discussion hasn't ended yet, was trying to discuss. Yep, I admit my faults here, and I won't try to fault the IP. I just don't like it when my name is mentioned in a section header on an article talk page.Jasper Deng(talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate, but if you're going to edit an article in that manner, it's almost inevitable that you're going to end up being discussed on the talk page. You don't have any rights over your name on wikipedia, other than to ensure someone doesn't impersonate you, and others are free to refer to you as necessary, which may include using your name in the header of a section, especially when it directly concerns the edits you've been making. You had zero business removing another person's comment from the page as it contained no excessive personal attacks, and even then you're limited to removing the personal attack itself.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't know this discussion hasn't ended yet, was trying to discuss. Yep, I admit my faults here, and I won't try to fault the IP. I just don't like it when my name is mentioned in a section header on an article talk page.Jasper Deng(talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I have some concerns (first raised by the other IP) that Jasper Deng may have been editing tendentiously. I'll try to look into it further tomorrow. I also think some of AndyTheGrump's complaints about the article were unhelpful, though well-intended, and resulted in good content being removed. I left some comments about the latter on the article talk page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Added: Viriditas's WP:HOSTAGE essay discusses tag-bombing of controversial articles, but that's a somewhat separate problem than what happened here. IMHO the contents of the MongoDB article (including the earlier version that Jasper added the tags to) are mostly uncontroversial. At worst there are a couple places where the wording edges away from neutral, or a little too much space is given to unimportant info. All of this can be touched up pretty easily and I might try. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I now believe 7 tags was not appropriate especially since some could've been consolidated into one (OR can morph into the V part, for instance). I've talked with my mentor about this, and I think I deserve to be trouted on this. If it were a valid personal attack, I've been told that just removing part of the comment is worse than removing the whole thing; it's moot here - I need thicker skin.Jasper Deng(talk) 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. If you're concerned about your name appearing on externally searchable pages, that's understandable too. You might consider WP:CHU to deal with that. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Jasper Deng's Conduct (continuing previous discussion)
Beyond this need to archive so quickly getting out of hand, I don't think this situation is entirely done yet. I didn't really do any background on Jasper, and simply looked at this incident as it was. While I was away, Jasper mentioned being under mentoring so I did my due diligence. After doing so, I have some increasing concerns over his behaviour. There seemed to be incredible concern over his editing last april [71], on multiple levels regarding multiple things including competence. Including this bizarre exchange [72]. Again in September we have more concern over his behaviour [73], including biting newbies as he just did here to this IP editor. Eagle points out in that discussion that this was not an isolated incident and that he'd been repeatedly warned about this behaviour. As this is a furtherance of the behaviour for which he was repeatedly warned, this gives me some grave concerns here, as this has been going on for quite awhile despite apparently being mentored by 3 people.--Crossmr (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- What did Jasper say when you brought your concerns to his talk page? 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- April was a long time ago; I've changed since then. 28bytes is my most active mentor (the other two are not as active).Jasper Deng(talk) 01:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion (despite trying to jam it closed) was already here. There is no reason to take a discussion from AN/I to a talk page, especially when the behaviour has already generated consensus twice on an admin board.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- From what I saw initially, this user was apparently not a new editor, judging from the other contribs; all that matters is that I stop my own behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Crossmr - As you know, we are trying to clamp down on the improper use of AN/I. I'll note that you have opened a discussion concerning a user that you have not contacted directly in the past several weeks, nor did you post a notice on their talk page concerning this AN/I case. Also, as you seem to be concerned about an issue that happened in September, so this isn't exactly an "incident". Please take this matter up directly with the editor, and then take it to the appropriate noticeboard only you cannot find resolution. Manning (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with Manning. If you have not discussed this issue with Jasper directly, it shouldn't be placed on ANI. —Dark 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- On this matter, I've started a discussion on Crossmr's talk page about my behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Ecx50)The issue was being discussed with Jasper directly above. I did not bring this issue here. I continued the discussion as new evidence was found regarding his behaviour that indicated this was not a one-off incident. This is not a new discussion, it's a subheading to an existing discussion of which he was already aware.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Crossmr. Jasper has a history of biting the newbies and overdoing things. This is yet another example of a long term behavioral issue--Guerillero My Talk 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Just in passing there seems to be confusion about what triggered Crossmr's complaint about Jasper, it was something in the immediate preceding closed discussion. (biting an IP) I don't think that's clear to some here and I don't know if that would effect your propriety analysis of the report but I do think it is important that you understand each other first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Crossmr - My sincere apologies. The problem with this archiving trend is it isn't immediately obvious the new item is connected (of course I should have looked a bit more closely). I suspect I'm not alone in this. You are perfectly justified in continuing the discussion from above. Manning (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this is exactly it. The IP came here to complain about Jasper Deng's behaviour. Now, the IP had some kind of agenda himself, and was rightly blocked, but it's Jasper's behaviour that is outside of the IPs odd behaviour that is the problem. Restoring all those tags claiming there was no explanation needed, removing the entire comment on the talk page, even if the IP wasn't doing an "experiment" I can't imagine them reacting well to that kind of behaviour. The reason I added this, was as stated, I discovered this was not a one-off, this was something that seemed to be an on-going, long term behavioural issue on the part of Jasper, and before the community considered this matter closed, they should be aware of that as it could influence how the community wanted to proceed with closing this matter.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Stanistani disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT
| "Rancid antics" and "Robespierre" don't add up to something actionable, though they may warrant an NPA warning--but that's not a matter necessarily for an admin. Kim's point about Stanistani's lack of collegiality is well taken, though. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user, who has claimed himself to be "semi-active" since 08/03/2011. Over the last few months, all his edits have been making a WP:POINT, criticising Wikipedia and our editors and disrupting discussions. Edits like these aren't helpful at all: [74], [75](personal attack), [76], [77], [78] (another personal attack). PaoloNapolitano 12:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not everyone who disagrees with you is "disruptive". --JN466 14:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The only really inappropriate diff is this one, in my opinion. The others are just fine – to tell the truth, I consider Robespierre to be perhaps the mildest personal attack I've ever seen. I think this issue should be moved to WP:WQA. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- That one does look rather poor, and much as I dislike "but someone else did it" as an excuse the standard of discussion in that entire thread wasn't exactly high. I think WP:WQA is reasonable, or just leaving it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anything for admin action here, tbh. (Mind you, I'm not saying Stanistani's editing style is mellifluous and collegial...) I think taking it to WQA would suggest we think there's something to be done here. Instead I'd tend to close it. Next editor to express a view (close or take to WQA) why don't you act on your instincts on this? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- That one does look rather poor, and much as I dislike "but someone else did it" as an excuse the standard of discussion in that entire thread wasn't exactly high. I think WP:WQA is reasonable, or just leaving it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The only really inappropriate diff is this one, in my opinion. The others are just fine – to tell the truth, I consider Robespierre to be perhaps the mildest personal attack I've ever seen. I think this issue should be moved to WP:WQA. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Whitney Houston death report
| Article has been semi-protected Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A heads-up: TMZ reporting that Whitney Houston is dead: WHITNEY HOUSTON Dead at 48--A bit iffy (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- CBS News has confirmed the report of her death: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57376028/singer-whitney-houston-dies-at-48/ Semi-protection is appropriate here for the time being. --MuZemike 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
User:1ravensnflfan's unblock request
I blocked 1ravensnflfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours in August, one week in September, two months in October, and six months in December for ignoring warnings regarding additions of original research and POV, and general MOS problems. He did not post anything on his talk page after the first three blocks, but after the three month block in December, finally spoke up. He posted two unblock requests that were declined, and the third one was met with a request to prove he has changed his editing ways. He posted a few paragraphs of prose he would add to Chykie Brown if unblocked, but no action has been taken since his recent unblock request, which was on January 22 (nearly three weeks ago). He has grown frustrated with the delay, which can be shown by his comment today, "What are you waiting for? Just ban me permanatly and end this!!!" I am requesting that a bold admin attempt to review the situation and either accept or decline his unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Procedural comment: Such a request is better made on AN/I, which is a more heavily-watched page.) AGK [•] 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whomever looks into this might also want to take his edits at Simple Wikipedia into consideration too: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1ravensnflfanonly (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- We issue blocks for MOS violations??? What happened to be bold and anyone can edit? Someone please give it a shot and unblock this guy. Nobody Ent 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- We issue blocks for disruptive editing. Repeated MOS violations, especially after requests to familiarize oneself with the MOS, can easily constitute disruption. Even disruption in good faith is disruption. --Chris (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking over his Simple contributions, it doesn't appear he has truly changed his ways, as he is still adding original research to articles there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, in fact it looks like he's actively creating multiple unsourced BLPs over at Simple. Swarm X 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've just requested the Simple-version of speedy deletion for 11 articles he created as copy/pastes of their enwiki counterpart articles. Every other article contains original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- He blanked his talk page (including the declined and active unblock requests), so we're done here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd generally have no problem giving another chance, but considering the continued problematic editing, even while blocked here, is a WP:COMPETENCE indef needed? (The block's still set to expire in a month.) Swarm X 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- He just "retired" and subsequently edit warred with me to remove the declined unblock requests. I had to revoke his talk page access. Eagles24/7(C) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've upped the block to indef per WP:COMPETENCE. If he wants back in he can use the WP:STANDARDOFFER, but the little rant he posted as his retirement notice [79] clinched it for me. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse block per WP:COMPETENCE. --Rschen7754 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
TV stations and syndication
| This is a content dispute. Please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
We have a major major problem here! Someone keeps adding syndicated shows to TV stations websites. This information is irrevelant! We do not need a list of syndicated shows on wikipedia TV station articles!? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania)
| Article semi'd; sock drawer closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedThe page Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania) needs admin attention. I have removed an inappropriately written, partisan section on a recent incident from the article, but users keep re-adding it. (See my explanation on the talk page.) I don't want to be revert-warring, so I am reporting it here. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- 87truthseeker78 (talk·contribs) has taken the rejection of his preferred version of the article quite personally. I don't want to be involved any more, in order to avoid escalating the issue. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Makotojs (talk·contribs) and 87truthseeker78 (talk·contribs) have both been indefinitly blocked for disruptive editing (and I smell meatpuppetry, if not outright socking, between those two). Pizzaluver (talk·contribs) has been blocked because
Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me as a sock of 87truthseeker78. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) - SPI turned up Fishbait71 (talk · contribs) as another sock. All bagged and tagged, should be done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Makotojs (talk·contribs) and 87truthseeker78 (talk·contribs) have both been indefinitly blocked for disruptive editing (and I smell meatpuppetry, if not outright socking, between those two). Pizzaluver (talk·contribs) has been blocked because
Fact tagging to remove usage of British Isles
I just come across User:Bjmullan yesterday who is fact tagging instances of British Isles with view to returning later to remove the usage. Is this not tantamount to pushing an anti British Isles POV? He has a long history in this respect. Correct me if I'm wrong and if what he's doing is valid, but to me it seems as though fact tagging individual words that are disliked is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. CommonPAS (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- This incident has been posted by a British Isles SPA. Have a look at their edit history. WP is based on RS and V sources not hearsay. I'm just trying to improve this project. CommonPAS is doing what exactly? Bjmullan (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've left a 3rr note on each of the above user's talk pages as they have been edit warring on turquoise. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log may be relevant. Thincat (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thincat you are absolutely right that it is relevant ... Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing. CommonPAS is just another British Isles SPA (and probably a sock of one of the many blocked SPA in this area). Just have a look at their edit history. I have an interest in BI among many many other topics and believe that I contribute positively to this project. Bjmullan (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand, has the term British Isles retroactively ceased to exist, in history? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think Thincat is trying to point out with the use of Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log is the number of times that Bjmullan has been "topic banned and sanctioned" regarding to this very issue. Looking at the log, the user received 2 topic bans within a week back in September 2010. The first was for 12 hours, the second was for a period of a month. Wesley☀Mouse 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)- (Non-administrator comment) Forgive me, I mis-read a name on that log. Multitasking reading this and watching CSI isn't a good idea. Wesley☀Mouse 21:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand, has the term British Isles retroactively ceased to exist, in history? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thincat you are absolutely right that it is relevant ... Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing. CommonPAS is just another British Isles SPA (and probably a sock of one of the many blocked SPA in this area). Just have a look at their edit history. I have an interest in BI among many many other topics and believe that I contribute positively to this project. Bjmullan (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone at admin level please do that on my behalf - I'm not overly familiar how to implement strike-through, as I personally prefer to write statements of retraction rather than make a page look untidy with lines running across it. Thank You in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
BLP issue which may require RevDel
| RevDel'd and Oversighted. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I asked on IRC #wikipedia-en-revdel, but the Admins there were unsure whether these edits required RevDel and suggested I post here.
What do you think? Thank you. ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 05:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Screw RevDel; take it to Oversight. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- RevDel'd. Drmies (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Movie piracy website
I posted a movie piracy website's videos that I found on 10 articles at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The website is Stagevu and I'm not sure that was the best place for a website that has illegal uploads. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Rangeblock of 109.155.160.0/19
| CU-imposed block is appropriate; no admin action required here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could somebody take a look at this rangeblock and see if it is appropriate? This range is part of a much larger range of BT addresses, so the block (3 months!) won't be particularly effective - I've been hit by it twice now, and both times rebooting my router gave me a new address outside the block (this time it is 86.151.*). I suspect by now the original user has a new address and this block is doing nothing but hitting bystanders. Interplanet Janet (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've checkusered it, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Note that it only affects anonymous users - log in and it won't affect you. WilliamH (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know how to get round the block, but that's not the point. The block may have been applied for a good reason, but I don't see how it is possibly serving any purpose. The original blocked user almost certainly has a new dynamic IP address by now, outside of the blocked range. All the block is doing is annoying innocent bystanders who don't know how to get round it. Interplanet Janet (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody will care, it only affects IP users. Hopefully they will just block anon editing fully and be done with their hatred of it before the end of the year. --81.98.51.7 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know how to get round the block, but that's not the point. The block may have been applied for a good reason, but I don't see how it is possibly serving any purpose. The original blocked user almost certainly has a new dynamic IP address by now, outside of the blocked range. All the block is doing is annoying innocent bystanders who don't know how to get round it. Interplanet Janet (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If we are unable to use rangeblocks to prevent banned users from editing, then we have no choice but to unban and unblock said banned user, because he will not stop. --MuZemike 03:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Finnish heritage disease
| Article semiprotected. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin please look at semi-protecting Finnish heritage disease which has been very stable up until today when it has attracted more than 50 , mostly vandal IP edits. Many thanks Velella Velella Talk 23:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have protected for three days. If the problem persists once protection ends, please list the article at WP:RFPP for another round of protection. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Danjel
*The WQA thread has only been open for 2 days.
|
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Continual attacking of me, User:Purplebackpack89. This all grew out of a series of school deletion discussions over the past month or two started mostly by Epeefleche, supported from time to time by me, and opposed by Danjel (for diffs, see the WQA thread). In the vast majority of the discussions, mine and Epee's viewpoint won out over Danjel's. On some of them, Danjel called my rationale for deletion or merger "flat-out wrong" and a sign of "imcompetence", and claimed another editor who supported Epee's viewpoint, Fmph, was trolling (again, diffs at the WQA thread). He then brought up my viewpoint as an aside in threads I hadn't even commented in, always in a negative light. I asked him to stop doing this. He responded by rolling back my edits, claiming they were vandalism (which is probably misuse of either rollback or Twinkle). He also started a ridiculous thread on my talk page where he again accused me of being wrong/incompetent, and asked me to abide by BEFORE (an always-optional thing) on articles I hadn't nominated. As a result of his continual attack, on the grounds that regardless of whether someone's right or wrong (and I'm probably right), it's still not right to attack someone as fervently and often as he had, brought him to WQA. Instead of commenting on the issue of whether or not it's right to attack someone so much, he continued to call me "flat-out wrong", while failing to address the issue of his civility. That's getting nowhere (and no uninvolved party has commented), so I brought it here. I ask that this be stopped, perhaps by blocking Danjel, forcing him into mentorship, or topic-banning him from school-related articles and AfD discussions. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm seeing what's entirely wrong here. First of all, why does this need to come to ANI? There seems to be an on-going thread at Wikiquette assistance. Most people there seem to disagree with your calls for action against Danjel. Also, I don't follow the logic that saying that your ideas are wrong, in his opinion, constitute a personal attack. only (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Most"? The three other people who commented are either Danjel himself or two people who are heavily involved in the same WikiProject as him. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- (e/c)Purplebackpack89, you're on a mission to silence someone from the opposition, by having Danjel blocked or topic banned would mean your AfD's would be more successful then they currently are. I'm sorry but I can understand why Danjel may/may not have called you a few names and your harrasment towards him (on his talk page and other "forums", such as WQA and ANI) isn't helping. Stating someone is "flat-out wrong" and "imcompetence" isn't a personal attack. Bidgee (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Since I closed some of those discussions/!voted I am semi involved. I do not think that Danjel is in the right here. Anyone can nominate any article for AFD. There is no cap on the number of articles that can be nominated, in theory. --Guerillero My Talk 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack, we ran into each other a few times before, including at some of those school AfDs. For the record, I voted right along with deletionist Epeefleche there and thus with you as well; since, then, we are on the same side of the bottomless divide, I think I can tell you what's up without being accused of having my "politics" influence my objectivity. [Yes, the hoops we have to jump through here.]
Purplebackpack, knock it off. Nothing good can come of this. That use of rollback you referred to above, that's in the editor's own user space, where it's generally allowed. As for this civility dispute--if I read it correctly (and that WQA thread), you're upset that someone says you're wrong. Now, and I hope you'll pardon my French, but I don't give a flying fuck in how many forums and in how many ways they say you're wrong, and I don't understand why you should care. Esp. given that all those AfDs that I participated in ended as "delete" or "merge", what's your problem?
On the other hand, the spurious opening of threads at ANI, just when we're trying to clean this place up a little bit, that's disruptive. Or, you didn't get your way at WQA so you're trying it here? That's forum shopping.
In short, there's nothing actionable here, and this thread is spurious. If your feelings are hurt because someone says you're wrong, well, then, really, I have no advice to give you. Seacrest out. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Twinkle is still being abused to claim that something is vandalism when it ain't. And I really haven't been following the ANI deletion drama, so you can't blame me for using ANI the way loads of other users have in the past. I see no reason why someone gets to call me wrong fervently and in the wrong and gets away with it. If I were to do that, people would call for me to be indef blocked Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- [ec] That's a different matter. I will be glad to look into that. Give me some diffs to look at--but it better be worth it. As for the rest of your complaint: NO ONE will be blocked or banned or topic-banned or reprimanded for saying someone else is wrong. Clear? Drmies (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Who cares, you were harrassing him on his talk page and he told you not to comment there, but you have continued to hound him. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bidgee, if you have nothing productive to offer, go edit some article. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- WOW, is that a threat? I suggest you see the comment left on your talk page as to why I stated "Who cares", if you have a problem with that then it is your problem not mine. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Twinkle is still being abused to claim that something is vandalism when it ain't. And I really haven't been following the ANI deletion drama, so you can't blame me for using ANI the way loads of other users have in the past. I see no reason why someone gets to call me wrong fervently and in the wrong and gets away with it. If I were to do that, people would call for me to be indef blocked Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Cenima
Small stuff: user has deleted an apparently valid article and co-opted it to create another, unsourced piece. I don't know how to undo without bollixing things up, and would appreciate other eyes on this. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Meiporul Nayanar and Nathaman Udayar split. I'm about to leave a note on this editor's talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note left. And thank you for informing us of this issue. If you need anything further, do feel free to drop a message on my talk page. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by Special:Contributions/67.164.66.33
| Closed. See below. No admin intervention necessary. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I have reverted a few but it may need some more action as the IP appears to have done disruptive edits that went undetected some time. Richiez (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- They don't appear to have edited in 3 weeks ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing here for an administrator to do: edits are old, and undoing them, if they are not productive, does not require any special tools (besides a keyboard, probably). Well, one thing: Richiez, please don't go around telling people that edits such as this are going to get them blocked: it's not vandalism, for instance, unless they are doing precisely this kind of thing all over the place. They're not, from the diffs I looked at. I'm not saying that the editor was improving the project, but come on now--and an ANI thread is not necessary in the first place; AIV will do if there is vandalism. I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Another external link to Beatles music
| Ban enacted at WP:AN. Lengthy discussion, and rightly so. Good example of a thread that needed to run its course - however I think we can put it to bed now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There have been previous discussions here regarding external links to copyrighted Beatles music. In this edit 78.106.83.130 added a link to [http://www.archive.org/details/NoReply], which appears to have copyrighted Beatles music. I reverted the edit, but it was restored by 176.15.136.73, stating "Vandalism: Internet Archive can not contain illegal material - this is impossible". What is the appropriate next step? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Revert again and issue a warning to the IP, then take the link to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^vBori! 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jeremy! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please be gentle. The IP most likely doesn't understand what you're saying and from their perspective is genuinely trying to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're right - I should assume good faith instead of assuming these IP addresses are related to those who added inappropriate external links in the past. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- This IP editor has had our copyright policy explained to him/her over and over and over and over again and still refuses to accept it. The IP may come from a country where flouting copyright law is a way to stick it to The Man, but that's irrelevant: s/he is not ignorant of policy but deliberately acting in contravention of policy. We don't assume good faith indefinitely, not when faced with evidence that an editor knows s/he's contravening policy and does not care. --NellieBly (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please be gentle. The IP most likely doesn't understand what you're saying and from their perspective is genuinely trying to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jeremy! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- As noted earlier, the IP in question is one of a series used over time by some guy in Russia who won't listen to repeated assertions that these are copyright violations. I thought they were going to set up some kind of edit filter, but maybe the Russian guy figured out a way around it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Echoing Baseball Bugs' concern; this is not a complete newcomer, and he has been told repeatedly to stop this for quite some time, now. See his various discussions on Jimbo's talk page over the past month:
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 95#Request to make Warning
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#CULTURE OF THE BEATLES UNDER THREAT
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#APPEAL TO THE PROFESSIONAL (COPY)
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 93#About man, who makes lobby for EMI or Apple Corps.
His response to my last (umpteenth) attempt to tell him to stop, which has failed miserably. Now, I understand there is some sort of a language barrier, as English is not his first language, but that still does not excuse one from blatantly and freely ignoring everybody else's concerns. --MuZemike 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- This has been going on since at least November 21, when 128.68.192.115 (talk·contribs) started posting this stuff. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I would say, make a list and post it to the meta spam blacklist (this needs to go there if this is a copyright violation - other mediawikis should also not be able to link to this stuff then). That should deter this quite a bit. I wonder why the original website does not exist anymore, and why this is only available from the archive - that already should give a hint that this is a copyright violation.
Even besides the copyright problem, I wonder whether these are external links in the spirit of WP:EL (they are certainly not 'must have' type of links, and except for the copyright violation they are also not really 'must never have' type of links), and when questioned, this should go onto the talkpage for further discussion. Alternatively, we could use User:XLinkBot to bash some sense in this - hard override and overruling of standard warning practice for this specific set of links. But I would say: 
Defer to Global blacklist (you'll have to collect all the links, if you give me a handful of the IPs who spammed this to mainspace for this, COIBot may be able to help in collecting the links from the last couple of weeks). --Dirk BeetstraT C 05:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980/Archive. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- And Special:AbuseFilter/443 - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I became aware of this situation in late November, due to having some Beatles songs on my watchlist. It's pretty clear that rangeblock is not a practical solution, and it doesn't seem like the filter is working either. Semi-protecting all the Beatles articles also seems impractical and overkill. Blacklisting the URL seems like the best solution. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, there are a couple of different sections in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, from this past November. In the first, it is alleged that these IP's are socks of Ron Halls (talk · contribs), who in turn is a sock of John Torn (talk · contribs). In the second, various possible solutions are discussed. I originated a section in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728 on this same subject. A lengthy discussion ensues, and reasons are given as to why a URL block won't work. Since I have no access to edit filters, I can't say what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you're going to blacklist the URL, make it the exact URL - archive.org itself is used quite a bit (or it used to be). It would probably be best to tell archive.org that someone is uploading copyrighted material to their archive - they'll delete obvious infringements fairly quickly. Black Kite (t) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can block it on meta, but I indeed would need specific urls - \barchive\.org\/details\/NoReply\b seems to be one of them, I guess the others have other terms in stead of NoReply, so \barchive\.org\/details\/(?:NoReply <Term2> <Term3> <etc.>)\b will do the trick on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- As one who has explained the situation to the editor multiple times on OTRSN and on my talk page, I assert a positive DUCK test. Best we can hope for is RBI and DENY the editor any attention. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and blacklisted the one added by the editor in this thread, please ping me if there are more. Hasteur, RBI may here just give more frustration, some people don't do things for the kick, they simply persist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The link has returned to No Reply (song) via this edit by [Special:Contributions/2.94.173.212 2.94.173.212], who accused me of a "long pattern vandalism and war of edits" [sic]. GoingBatty (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree it's probably a good idea to tell archive.org. It's unlikely they want this content even with its 'impressive' list of UN treaties and conventions. IIRC someone had planned to contact them. Does anyone know if anything happened with that. Edit: I see it was User:NellieBly who said they intended to contact archive.org. P.S. [82] shows there's a lot of this on archive.org. If they expand to other articles, it looks like there's a lot of possible targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did contact archive.org's admins, but they didn't seem as responsive as I'd hoped. I'll try again. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- They do get those reports all the time and they act on them. They don't have 1000's of admins online 24/7 like Wikipedia does, so it may take them a little longer than we're used to here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did contact archive.org's admins, but they didn't seem as responsive as I'd hoped. I'll try again. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- FYI: With that article being monitored, other articles are now also having the link added. I was glancing through this link, and spotted this edit. adding archive.org/details/PleaseMisterPostman to the article Please Mr. Postman (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). --- Barek(talk • contribs) - 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bl'd this link as well. Any others? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly this is what I expected to happen as mentioned above. Given the number of songs available on archive.org I'm guessing just about every Beatles song is a potential target. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- So? Every link that gets blacklisted is one that they can not use anymore. Every IP you block will result in a new IP being used. That, or even rangeblocking will have significant collateral damage. Blacklisting the specific archive links is taking them out one-by-one, and it will get more and more annoying for them to find yet another link to add (one that is not blacklisted). And this can be done pre-emptively, has no collateral damage, and I hear that archive.org is already starting to remove the links. The other option is to write a proper edit-filter, but I am afraid that for that to function properly one would also need to know all the links, otherwise an innocent IP out of the range using a valid archive.org link would also be blocked. XLinkBot would have a similar problem, I could Whack-A-Mole using that bot as well, but then still, I would also whack the innocent editor adding an innocent url. IMHO, the only real solution is RmBI - Revert-metaBlacklist-Ignore. --Dirk BeetstraT C 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm simply pointing out that this was as I feared above. And given that there appears to be 328 different songs [83] as I showed above (well I didn't note the number but it was 7 pages), that's a lot of possible targets. (In case it wasn't clear from the indenting, note that my response was to Barek not to you.) If this is done preemptively, that would be great but I presume this hadn't been done at the time of my comment since one still got thru as demonstrated by Barek. Archive.org does seem to have removed the stuff from November, as I noted below but I don't know how long it took and the 328 songs still seem to be there. (If this person keeps abusing archive.org I presume they'll start to look in to other ways of stopping it but in the mean time it's fairly annoying.)
- Note that even when the stuff is removed, the links remain junking up our articles. And while these probably could be detected and even automatically by a dead link bot, this isn't done yet. (And would need to be done carefully particularly since archive.org is fairly flakeky and often has strange problems.) I didn't mention numbers below but I found 3 from November (which as I said the songs themselves were no longer available) in my searches, which I think was all although it took me about 1-2 hours to be fairly sure. (Although to be fair, I actually found all the extant links in about 20-30 minutes, it was only checking there wasn't anything else that took the rest of the time.)
- P.S. I do agree there's no easy solution. For example as I found in my search, there are plenty of legit archive.org external links for music stuff, as they host recordings from performances where they have the performer/s permission.
- Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- So? Every link that gets blacklisted is one that they can not use anymore. Every IP you block will result in a new IP being used. That, or even rangeblocking will have significant collateral damage. Blacklisting the specific archive links is taking them out one-by-one, and it will get more and more annoying for them to find yet another link to add (one that is not blacklisted). And this can be done pre-emptively, has no collateral damage, and I hear that archive.org is already starting to remove the links. The other option is to write a proper edit-filter, but I am afraid that for that to function properly one would also need to know all the links, otherwise an innocent IP out of the range using a valid archive.org link would also be blocked. XLinkBot would have a similar problem, I could Whack-A-Mole using that bot as well, but then still, I would also whack the innocent editor adding an innocent url. IMHO, the only real solution is RmBI - Revert-metaBlacklist-Ignore. --Dirk BeetstraT C 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to simply block each IP sock after a single instance of re-adding any of the offending links rather than go through a more lengthy process of warnings? Sure it's whack-a-mole, but I've had some success with persistent vandals using this approach. In the long run, the effort to breakt he rules is much greater than the effort to undo the damage and block an IP. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's already the process being used by myself and others. I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980 be added to whenever another IP is added to act as a repository of sorts. In addition... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed a bunch of stuff mostly from November that was already deleted on archive.org (so they are taking action). The only recent on I came across was [84]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
ban discussion on AN
A related ban discussion is here. Nobody Ent 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ban has been instated. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Via this link, I spotted the user on a new target at Across the Universe (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Per the community ban, I've blocked both IPs involved; and due to their habit of returning to the same target article, I've also applied a short term protection in order to discourage their disruption of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Problems with Militant atheism and WikiProject Conservatism
(non-admin closure) No further AN/I content for discussion in this section
|
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Militant atheism, orginally an article and now a redirect currently up for discussion at AfD, has had a muddled history. The original article, a fairly extreme example of POV-pushing, was transferred by Anupam to conservapedia, when it became a disambiguation page en.wikipedia. The page on conservapedia [85][86] makes it clear what the aims of Anupam and his friends were. A prominent picture of Joseph Stalin starts an article where various eminent academics in the group New Atheism are discussed in derogatory terms. Before being changed to a redirect, a final vestige of the borderline BLP violation was visible on the disambiguation page for Militant Atheism where New Atheism was listed. Jweiss11, a long term user with over 100,000 edits and a block-free record, noticed these final vestiges of the conservapedia article on the disambiguation page and removed the entry repeatedly as a BLP violation. Other users have subsequently commented that he had not misread the history of that page. The problem has now apparently been resolved by placing the disambiguation at a higher level (Atheism (disambiguation) and/or changing the target of the redirect. Lionelt was militating for a block[87] and eventually Fastily summarily blocked Jweiss11. That block has subsequently been upheld by several administrators. However, there has been no explanation on WP:AN3 or any statement by Fastily about why it was not a borderline BLP violation. Stephan Schulz had already commented there, and, as has happened in the past, Fastily gave no account of why he had decided there was no BLP violation in making the block. Can he please try to improve his communication skills if he intends to continue being an administrator? In this case the block occurred after a general agreement that the disambiguation page was indeed non-neutral and a borderline BLP violation. Bearing in mind the article that Anupam and his cohorts wished to have on wikipedia was an article emblazened with the image of Joseph Stalin in the lede, this muddled set of events neverthless points to the problematic nature of WikiProject Conservatism. In this case it seems to function as "dial a WP:TAGTEAM". Bearing in mind that, after other users agreed that there was some form of borderline BLP violation, the article has disappeared into thin air as a redirect listed for deletion, the circumstances of the block remain cloudy. However the role of WikiProject Conservatism, which has been criticized on previous occasions, does seem problematic. Any kind of organized agenda-driven activism is problematic on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sole purpose of WikiProject Conservatism is to provide an area where editors can improve Conservatism-related articles. In fact many of the members are self-described liberals. Just look at the talk page. Every initiative of this project is thoroughly discussed and analyzed. Every member of this project is subject to intense scrutiny. With so many eyes on this group of editors it is ludicrous to suggest that there is an intentional agenda to subvert Wikipedia policies. There has been no tag-teaming, no vote-stacking, no canvassing. Correction: there was a single incident of canvassing identified. The post was immediately deleted. This project has been in existence for 1 year. It's record is exemplary. – Lionel(talk) 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lionelt, what does Militant atheism have to do with WikiProject Conservatism? Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I recall, in early Summer of last year Anupam placed several banners on MA, including WPConservatism. 5 months ago it was decided at ANI to remove the banner. At the time, I was the only member of WPConservatism involved at Militant Atheism. One member from a WikiProject hardly justifies the accusation of "organized agenda-driven activism." – Lionel(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was labelled as part of WikiProject Conservatism in this edit[88] by Anupam, presumably as some kind of call to arms. Once it is listed on that WikiProject page, it will attract the usual cohort of "agenda-driven" editors. Lionelt appeared on the page shortly afterwards, so the method appears to work quite effectively. NYyankees51 also appeared there. Perhaps Lionelt will explain why that tagging was appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be a developing overlap between WIkiProject Conservatism and Wikiproject Christianity - I hope this isn't the reason for people showing up for the first time at a religious article to change dating eras from BCE to BC, whatever their reason. Lionel, are you aware that WP:ERA no longer gives priority to the original dating style? But hopefully that's just a coincidence as the other editor that was also showing up at articles for the first time recently & also presumably unaware of the WP:ERA change isn't a member of either project and we won't see project members doing this sort of thing. I did look through the membership and it seems as most of those describing themselves as 'liberals' are classical liberals rather than 'liberals' as in 'liberals vs conservatives'. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I recall, in early Summer of last year Anupam placed several banners on MA, including WPConservatism. 5 months ago it was decided at ANI to remove the banner. At the time, I was the only member of WPConservatism involved at Militant Atheism. One member from a WikiProject hardly justifies the accusation of "organized agenda-driven activism." – Lionel(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lionelt, what does Militant atheism have to do with WikiProject Conservatism? Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Um -- I find all of the "bitchiness" about "conservapedia" to be absolutely irrelevant to any rationale for what should be done on Wikipedia. Further, I find referring to any Wikipedia project as "Dial a Tagteam" to be abhorrent on any noticeboard whatsoever on Wikipedia. Lastly the contention that any overlap between projects on Wikipedia is somehow "evil" is absurd. Wikipedia is supposed to function as more than a puerile name-calling social network, folks! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No one used the word 'evil', and I agree it would be inappropriate if they did. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let's cut to the chase. What, specifically, is wanted from administrators?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some kind of response or explanation from Fastily possibly? Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you click the wrong link and think you were at User talk:Fastily...? Guess not since you did notify him/her of this post at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some kind of response or explanation from Fastily possibly? Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Um, I see you haven't notified him either, and as I don't know if Matahsci's been watching since he posted, I have. And I didn't notice the first edit conflict, and have had another, but I wrote this shortly after the post above. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also you may want to read WP:3RR or WP:BLP. 3RR states "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The 3RR exemption is an important part of policy I've supported and possibly even used myself, but it also needs to be used with care. In other words, it's probably not a good idea to violate 3RR if it's only a borderline violation since the admin who reviews your case may not agree on which side of the border it falls. I know you're the one calling it that, not the person who violated 3RR. But since you're the one here and you say it's only a borderline violation I think it suggests you already have your explaination. (Of course you don't need ANI to tell you this, I'm not even an admin.) Edit: I see you've already been told more or less the same thing at WP:AN3 by others. In fact, StS who you quoted above also said it was a borderline violation. So your request is even more confusing. Again, if you want a response from Fastily, the best method would have been to ask them directly although I'm not clear why you need it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion was in fact taken to WP:BLPN [89] but I agree that it should have been done immediately, as soon as the problem was identified. The reporting at BLPN is in fact partially why the AfD was started and the problem moved towards a satisfactory resolution (or so it seems). Lionelt gave a view of consensus on TaLk:Militant atheism which in retrospect does not seem at all accurate.[90] I also find the edit summary here not helpful.[91] Apart from the block, Jweiss11 accurately pinpointed a problem which seems to have been resolved once he brought the problem to the attention of a wider group of editors on BLPN. Lionelt's edit above and other actions appeared to be an attempt to silence Jweiss11. Although Lionelt acted within the letter of the law on wikipedia, his edits and those of Anupam have not been helpful. In my experience (image discussions for example) Fastily has never been particularly responsive. (I don't by the way edit articles like this. The only editing I do that touches that of Lionelt has been in jointly watching articles on Seventh-day adventist higher educational institutes that have been edited disruptively by an editor who is now community banned.) Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also you may want to read WP:3RR or WP:BLP. 3RR states "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The 3RR exemption is an important part of policy I've supported and possibly even used myself, but it also needs to be used with care. In other words, it's probably not a good idea to violate 3RR if it's only a borderline violation since the admin who reviews your case may not agree on which side of the border it falls. I know you're the one calling it that, not the person who violated 3RR. But since you're the one here and you say it's only a borderline violation I think it suggests you already have your explaination. (Of course you don't need ANI to tell you this, I'm not even an admin.) Edit: I see you've already been told more or less the same thing at WP:AN3 by others. In fact, StS who you quoted above also said it was a borderline violation. So your request is even more confusing. Again, if you want a response from Fastily, the best method would have been to ask them directly although I'm not clear why you need it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, trying to link "Militant atheism" (a severely critical or derogatory term) with "New Atheism" (which refers to a small group of writers) is flat out inappropriate. If it's not a BLP violation, it's still blatant POV pushing and Jweiss was certainly in the right to try to clarify that it's a derogatory term.
- Despite my best efforts to AGF, I simply can't fathom how Anupam is a neutral party here, especially given his attempts to link this article with religious, conservative, and theological Wikiprojects. While he claims that the article isn't intended to advance a viewpoint (something I find questionable in itself, considering that's exactly what Conservapedia does), it apparently doesn't do too good of a job at neutrality. An anti-atheist Conservapedia administrator made it article of the month for December, where it was featured on the main page, and commended him for "doing [his] part to continue the trend of the decline of global atheism in terms of its adherents".[92] How he's gotten away with this for so long without a block or topic ban is beyond me.
- Although Jweiss's block was not bad, the edit warring on that page was widespread and chronic and a single block, rather than page protection, was probably not the best option. Admins far too often ignore non-3RR edit warring while only taking action for 3RR, which isn't helpful in the least.
- Fastily (who I'm generally quick to defend) should indeed at least explain why he chose to act on the 3RR vio and nothing else. Swarm X 19:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing to say about the block of Jweiss11, but the linked diffs of Anupam on Conservapedia make me cringe. His adding 130kb of POV/SYNTH crap to Conservapedia, the same text that we removed from Wikipedia after a very difficult discussion, is just awful. This destroys any good faith that Anupam may have built up at Wikipedia. On a positive note, it does help to make Conservapedia more laughable than it was before. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think there are four actions that need to be taken here:
- A topic ban of some sort, at least, for Anupam.
- An investigation into whether Fastily has conducted himself in a manner that is unbecoming of an administrator.
- An investigation into WikiProject Conservatism's purpose, usefulness, and appropiateness. It's existence as a WikiProject, while "Liberalism" and other political ideologies exist merely as task forces within WikiProject Politics is a problem, one that virtually guarantees an ongoing emergence of NPOV issues.
- Drafting of a better clarification on the BLP exemption to the 3RR.
- Jweiss11 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the comments to be found on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/About us could certainly look like declarations of battleground mentality and biased editing (for example the following: "The Wikipedia is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back. Remember - WP:NOTTRUTH.", "Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes.", "I am interested in working on the right wing politics article, as I believe it is biased from a left wing perspective.", ""To boldly uncover leftist bias that no man has done before"). --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Conduct and communication by administrator Fastily in explaining a particular block
The original request contained the plaint, "Fastily gave no account of why he had decided there was no BLP violation in making the block. Can he please try to improve his communication skills if he intends to continue being an administrator?" This is a request for action, apposite to this page as it directly arises from the incident. Could editors restrict themselves here to a discussion of this incident involving an administrator. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I simply observed a 3RR violation and acted upon it, nothing more. If that block was so egregious, it would have been overturned by at least one of 6 reviewing administrators long ago. -FASTILY(TALK) 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was not a simple 3RR violation, since technically no 4 reverts fell within 24 hours (to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used). Several issues raised at AN3, on the article talk page and on BLPN were not taken into account: administrators have subsequently drawn attention to them here. In addition during the block the article transformed radically into a redirect listed at AfD for discussion. In those circumstances and given the carefully nuanced comments of 3 administrators (Stephan Schulz, Dougweller and Swarm), it seems odd to have treated this as some kind of matter-of-fact black-and-white open-and-shut case which only needs to be explained through mechanized templates. As Swarm mentioned, one of the editors involved on the article—not the one you blocked—could well be topic-banned at some future date. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used - errr, that's 24 hours apart. And WP:3RR says that any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was not a simple 3RR violation, since technically no 4 reverts fell within 24 hours (to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used). Several issues raised at AN3, on the article talk page and on BLPN were not taken into account: administrators have subsequently drawn attention to them here. In addition during the block the article transformed radically into a redirect listed at AfD for discussion. In those circumstances and given the carefully nuanced comments of 3 administrators (Stephan Schulz, Dougweller and Swarm), it seems odd to have treated this as some kind of matter-of-fact black-and-white open-and-shut case which only needs to be explained through mechanized templates. As Swarm mentioned, one of the editors involved on the article—not the one you blocked—could well be topic-banned at some future date. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that acting upon perceived violations requires a minimum amount of due diligence and good judgment so as to avoid the shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is destroying this community. Anupam (talk·contribs) had been previously warned about edit warring on militant atheism in September 2011.[93] Why did you not block him as well? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fastily, your block on me was completely unwarranted. That five reviewing admins didn't overturn it probably speaks more the reticence of any admin to cross another, rather than any commitment to justice. Frankly, this was a pathetic display by all of you. What happened is that you were all gamed by a Christian conservative effort to subvert Wikipedia. Either you were not perceptive enough to see it, or were in on it. Either way, you are most likely unfit for adminship. The same may be true about some or all of other admins who reviewed this case. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- When six people decide to block you/let an existing block in place, it is more then likely that the block was warrented. Shouting, roaring and threatening is not very helpful to convince other people you are a good and innocent boy. If if you really want to file a formal complaint, be aware of the boomerang. Night of the Big Windtalk 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not in this case. And your flimsy analysis of likelihoods isn't helpful as is just perpetuates the unjust positive feedback system that got us here. The point is not whether I am "innocent and good". My long record of constructive editing and project leadership speaks for itself. These issue here is the failure of those in power to discern true threats and act accordingly. Formal complaints will indeed be filed. What you, Night of the Big Wind, need to do is quit with the condescension, mischaracterization of my tone, and thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, and figure out what you are going to do to help rectify this situation and protect Wikipedia from those who have harmed it thus far and bode to do more harm if left unchecked. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to your position, having been there myself, so I know what you're going through. But it is best to respect DefendEachOther, and let other editors speak up for you. Getting down into the dirty mud puddle isn't helping. I'm neither a Christian nor a conservative, but I think it is both wrong and unfair to attack them as a group. It's no different than what they are doing. Plus, you're giving these editors the false impression that they actually represent Christians and conservatives. Don't do that! We're human and we're individuals first, and we all share those two things in common. Treat users as thinking and feeling individuals, not as spokespeople for groups or memes. Take a step back from this and let others defend you. Edit warring is bad no matter who does it, and you can't escape from this conclusion. In the future, rely more on teamwork and communication. Don't edit while angry, and when you're calm, address arguments not editors. Strategize about your next move and reflect on your mistakes. Make an effort to talk and negotiate with those across the aisle and see if you can find common ground. This isn't a battlefield, it's a meeting place of minds. Let's use them. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not in this case. And your flimsy analysis of likelihoods isn't helpful as is just perpetuates the unjust positive feedback system that got us here. The point is not whether I am "innocent and good". My long record of constructive editing and project leadership speaks for itself. These issue here is the failure of those in power to discern true threats and act accordingly. Formal complaints will indeed be filed. What you, Night of the Big Wind, need to do is quit with the condescension, mischaracterization of my tone, and thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, and figure out what you are going to do to help rectify this situation and protect Wikipedia from those who have harmed it thus far and bode to do more harm if left unchecked. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- When six people decide to block you/let an existing block in place, it is more then likely that the block was warrented. Shouting, roaring and threatening is not very helpful to convince other people you are a good and innocent boy. If if you really want to file a formal complaint, be aware of the boomerang. Night of the Big Windtalk 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fastily, your block on me was completely unwarranted. That five reviewing admins didn't overturn it probably speaks more the reticence of any admin to cross another, rather than any commitment to justice. Frankly, this was a pathetic display by all of you. What happened is that you were all gamed by a Christian conservative effort to subvert Wikipedia. Either you were not perceptive enough to see it, or were in on it. Either way, you are most likely unfit for adminship. The same may be true about some or all of other admins who reviewed this case. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that acting upon perceived violations requires a minimum amount of due diligence and good judgment so as to avoid the shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is destroying this community. Anupam (talk·contribs) had been previously warned about edit warring on militant atheism in September 2011.[93] Why did you not block him as well? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtless if Jweiss11 had adopted a different more contrite tone in his unblock requests, he would have been unblocked early, possibly even after the first request. A minimal kind of explanation posted in a timely way, beyond templated messages, would have been helpful in complex situations like this one. Lionelt had misrepresented consensus on the talk page and the editing of Jweiss11 at AN3, as the edit summaries indicate as well as the subsequent history of the article. The real underlying problem that has emerged here is the editing of Anupam. That has been acknowledged here and elsewhere by several administrators. Jweiss11 was not in fact editing against consensus: apart from Lionelt and Anupam, the other editor [94] who suddenly appeared out of the blue was editing the article for the first time and not in a neutral way. He has not participated in the AfD or commented since.
The summing up by Fifelfoo, which I assume is part of an attempt to create a "new look, new feel" ANI, was probably a little premature and seemed to be forcing various issues. One of the possible uses of ANI is to bring problematic incidents, which can be complex, to the attention of a wider set of users. In truth I don't think that the conduct of either Jweiss11 or Fastily is really an issue here. Instead the issues are those mentioned in the title of the thread which gradually unravelled thanks to the comments of administrators and other editors here and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can't help but wonder about IPs turning up out of the blue. It's so unlikely as to be virtually impossible that a new anonymous editor suddenly turns up by coincidence and does that. And I agree that Jweiss11 didn't handle his unblock request well. I endorse the comments just above mine by Veriditas and Mathsci. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not an IP actually. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's hardly news that a new editor appears when there is resistance to edits that anupam wants to push through on this topic. It's simply part of how these articles work. How about an SPI? bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The "new arrival"" here was Trödel, an administrator ... and he edit-warred. Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how I thought I read something about an IP. I've notified Trödel by the way, only fair. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The "new arrival"" here was Trödel, an administrator ... and he edit-warred. Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's hardly news that a new editor appears when there is resistance to edits that anupam wants to push through on this topic. It's simply part of how these articles work. How about an SPI? bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not an IP actually. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Disruption by User:JamieRothery
| no admin action necessary Nobody Ent 10:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:jamieRothery has continued to show the competence required to edit Wikipedia. After tagging several of his/her pages for deletion, I got this message. Although per WP:OWNTALK it is allowed, they keep removing talk page content from their talk page and don't actually acknowledge the messages. Xe then proceeds to make a troll AIV report reporting me for "removing pages" when I was actually tagging the pages for speedy deletion which were then were proceeded to be deleted by admins.
I wonder if this is showing a lack of competence required to edit Wikipedia? You know, User:Spidey665 was blocked indefinitely for no less than this. --Bmusician 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- And then removed my ANI notice. I don't think this user cares if action is take on their account. --Bmusician 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The user is lying about tagging serval of my pages since i never created as many as 7. I reported the user because the user was abousing the the system of tagging pages for deletion. Now he is reporting me out of spite. I removed the talk message as they were abousive and I did aknowlage them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs)
[[JamieRothery (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)]]
- No, the notifications were not abusive. They were tagged under speedy deletion and where did I say you created as many as seven? Tell me, WHY did I abuse the system of tagging pages for deletion? And how is that vandalism? Your very comment is clearly a lack of competence. --Bmusician 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You first flagged for delteion with out any reasons so when i tried to recreate the page with more information to please you really didn't know exactly what it needed, you then flagged it again before i had chance to comeplete it. Since then I havent tried to create a page from scrach because wiki isn't friendly to new users and i plan to learn more first before. but you wont leave me alone since, even after i asked you to stop contacting me the issue is beyond closed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please refrain from accusing me of doing things I have not done. "With out any reasons"? I had a reason, you just removed my message without reading it and then claim that I had tagged "without a reason". If you have no time to finish it you're best off creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. I try to be always friendly to new users, but not when messages like this show up on my talk page. --Bmusician 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You first flagged for delteion with out any reasons so when i tried to recreate the page with more information to please you really didn't know exactly what it needed, you then flagged it again before i had chance to comeplete it. Since then I havent tried to create a page from scrach because wiki isn't friendly to new users and i plan to learn more first before. but you wont leave me alone since, even after i asked you to stop contacting me the issue is beyond closed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, the notifications were not abusive. They were tagged under speedy deletion and where did I say you created as many as seven? Tell me, WHY did I abuse the system of tagging pages for deletion? And how is that vandalism? Your very comment is clearly a lack of competence. --Bmusician 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I see 4 deleted pages that were created by JR: Spirit of Discovery, CTA Developments, and Red Rat Software was created twice and deleted twice. Bmusician should already know that removal of a talkpage post is tacit acknowledgement that it has been read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know that a removal of a talk page post is tacit acknoweledgement that is has been read, as this shows, but this user doesn't seem to have acknowledged it - accused me of tagging pages for "no reason" when I actually tagged it under A1 and A7. Despite my attempts to tell them my intention, xe constantly ignore me and continues to accuse me of doing things that I have not done. --Bmusician 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what you're saying, is that we have a fairly new user, who really does not understand the deletion process, and quite possibly does not understand the basic requirements for articles. They get a little pissed off at "their" articles being tagged for deletion, and get a little snuffy with you. Now you think that calling them "incompetent" is going to help to remove the challenges between the two of you? At a maximum, we have a WP:WQA situation, perhaps needs for some degree of mentoring for a fairly new editor. Calling for a block is pretty premature (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with with Bwilkins. Part of supervising new pages is assisting and developing new editors. Bmusician may need to further develop their skills in the area of interaction with newer editors. They may wish to rethink their attitude towards spam-in-a-can messages and talk page interaction ("And could you please sign your posts with ~~~~??? I don't tolerate comments which are not signed!") Fifelfoo (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Typical. The person who's actually trying to keep Wikipedia up to a useful level is the one being attacked. Way to keep veteran editors around, guys. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I called them "incompetent" because of this and this. "With out a reason" is false, xe removes their talk page messages without reason and then accuses me of doing things I have not them. I'm not calling for a block, but I am asking if this behavior is unacceptable. I was born with a temper, and I am extremely impatient, especially with new editors who are not willing to learn. --Bmusician 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you got an answer here. There is nothing blockable as of yet. A temper is not a good thing to have in a collaborative environment. As for Jamie Rothery, well, continued disruption will end up badly anyway, with or without an ANI thread. Mark of the Beast, dragging a new editor off to ANI isn't a great thing to do--you have to acknowledge that much. Sure, going to AIV wasn't a great idea, but I don't think they'll be doing that again. Can we move on? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I called them "incompetent" because of this and this. "With out a reason" is false, xe removes their talk page messages without reason and then accuses me of doing things I have not them. I'm not calling for a block, but I am asking if this behavior is unacceptable. I was born with a temper, and I am extremely impatient, especially with new editors who are not willing to learn. --Bmusician 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Typical. The person who's actually trying to keep Wikipedia up to a useful level is the one being attacked. Way to keep veteran editors around, guys. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know that a removal of a talk page post is tacit acknoweledgement that is has been read, as this shows, but this user doesn't seem to have acknowledged it - accused me of tagging pages for "no reason" when I actually tagged it under A1 and A7. Despite my attempts to tell them my intention, xe constantly ignore me and continues to accuse me of doing things that I have not done. --Bmusician 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Stavgard
| This editor is now engaging on their talk page. They clearly have some in-depth knowledge but need a LOT of coaching on both the technicalities but also the policies of Wikipedia (especially WP:RS and WP:OR but I'm happy to say they are communicating with us now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stavgard (talk · contribs) is going crazy creating huge, unsourced, unformatted, block-of-text articles. I've asked them to please stop and source and format, but they are continuing. I'm worried that these huge blocks of text are copyright violations, but I can't find them in English language texts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted a couple as duplicates of existing topics; the rest will have to be sent to AFD. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I took one look at his most recent "effort" (regarding Gotland) and my eyes started to bleed. I'm in favor of applying G1... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's Gutagård as well.This edit also contains a URL to a website which has his username in it, likely original research I would say. The website appears to be Russian in origin so I have left Россия является вашим родным языком? on the user's webpage, which is (I think) the right way to ask if Russian is his first language. S.G.(GH)ping! 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bushranger, you're such a tender soul. You must have led a sheltered life here. Be glad that our Scandinavian archaeoastronomist hasn't discovered the Old Testament link yet (which begs to be added to Tachash). I see that all of them have pretty much been dealt with: good work, all. If author starts recreating and/or undoing the redirects, I guess we need to revisit this? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have been rather sheltered, yes. ;) And now he's made Astronomical calendars in Gotland. And isn't answering on his talk page. At all. Methinks a block per WP:IDHT might be in order soon... - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still isn't responding on talk page, but on the other hand hasn't made any new edits for over 24 hours. We may need to just watch and wait...Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Started again this morning with this among other edits. I have blocked for 12 hours and left a message on his talk page to try and get a response. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now responding on talk page - discussing what constitutes a reliable source etc. Will leave this open for a few hours until we see where this goes. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Started again this morning with this among other edits. I have blocked for 12 hours and left a message on his talk page to try and get a response. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still isn't responding on talk page, but on the other hand hasn't made any new edits for over 24 hours. We may need to just watch and wait...Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have been rather sheltered, yes. ;) And now he's made Astronomical calendars in Gotland. And isn't answering on his talk page. At all. Methinks a block per WP:IDHT might be in order soon... - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bushranger, you're such a tender soul. You must have led a sheltered life here. Be glad that our Scandinavian archaeoastronomist hasn't discovered the Old Testament link yet (which begs to be added to Tachash). I see that all of them have pretty much been dealt with: good work, all. If author starts recreating and/or undoing the redirects, I guess we need to revisit this? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's Gutagård as well.This edit also contains a URL to a website which has his username in it, likely original research I would say. The website appears to be Russian in origin so I have left Россия является вашим родным языком? on the user's webpage, which is (I think) the right way to ask if Russian is his first language. S.G.(GH)ping! 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks, canvassing, editwar by IP sock
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No admin action forthcoming and the edit war is now stale. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from WP:AN3:
Chagai-I (edit talk history links watch logs)
Pokhran-II (edit talk history links watch logs)
PNS Ghazi (edit talk history links watch logs)
User being reported: 122.161.31.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Other IP: 122.161.78.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [95]
- 2nd revert: [96]
- 3rd revert: [97]
- 4th revert: [98]
- 5th revert: [99]
- 6th revert: [100]
- 7th revert: [101]
- 8th revert: [102]
Warned [103]
Attempt to discuss content returned with more and blatant personal attacks [104] + warned before on user talk.
Comments: User hoping IP to add content over multiple articles, has already been specified as a sock by another experienced user on the first IP.[105]. The IP has further made canvassing attempts [106] [107] containing personal attacks [108] [109] vandalism accusations in edit summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see nothing that meets the definition of WP:CANVASS, nor do I see anything that meets WP:NPA. The WP:TE across a couple of articles, yes ... but ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a 'troll'... certainly personal attacks. "plz visit that page" is direct canvassing with the section header as article title. This is unambiguous. Although I have some suspicion that this might be a sock of a user whose words the IP is using, but for now I'll keep it to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- How does asking a single editor to visit a page meet the definition of canvassing? Canvassing is the wide-range posting to editors who may be sympathetic to a specific point of view. Asking one editor is not canvassing. The other comments may be worthy of WP:WQA, but do not appear as NPA worth any blocks. Look, when I declined your 3RR notification, I suggested you re-think and take this to appropriate noticeboards, expecting you to provide focus and proper "evidence". You decided not to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure you don't mean asking editors on their talk pages to get involved in content dispute is right. I've provided diffs above for evidence. This incident is not in a vacuum, there's been a lot of hounding recently. DS here was recently blocked for following my edits, I'm surprised that he followed them here again. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Asking one editor who already has a history related topics to provide input is not considered canvassing. Stop suggesting that it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll remember that one then... but this was certainly not asking for input. These were rude remarks, and certainly deliberate. I'm sorry, but if such issues go unactioned, this kind of activity will surely be encouraged. This has been happening over and over. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If that user is me then, sorry, but I have no history at all in the subject area; nor can I recall any past involvement with the protagonists - very weird, but not canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Atleast we have some contradictions to Bwilkins's statements then who seems to be prejudiced. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you dare refer to me as "prejudiced", using any attempting possible meaning of the word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Atleast we have some contradictions to Bwilkins's statements then who seems to be prejudiced. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If that user is me then, sorry, but I have no history at all in the subject area; nor can I recall any past involvement with the protagonists - very weird, but not canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll remember that one then... but this was certainly not asking for input. These were rude remarks, and certainly deliberate. I'm sorry, but if such issues go unactioned, this kind of activity will surely be encouraged. This has been happening over and over. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Asking one editor who already has a history related topics to provide input is not considered canvassing. Stop suggesting that it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure you don't mean asking editors on their talk pages to get involved in content dispute is right. I've provided diffs above for evidence. This incident is not in a vacuum, there's been a lot of hounding recently. DS here was recently blocked for following my edits, I'm surprised that he followed them here again. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- How does asking a single editor to visit a page meet the definition of canvassing? Canvassing is the wide-range posting to editors who may be sympathetic to a specific point of view. Asking one editor is not canvassing. The other comments may be worthy of WP:WQA, but do not appear as NPA worth any blocks. Look, when I declined your 3RR notification, I suggested you re-think and take this to appropriate noticeboards, expecting you to provide focus and proper "evidence". You decided not to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a 'troll'... certainly personal attacks. "plz visit that page" is direct canvassing with the section header as article title. This is unambiguous. Although I have some suspicion that this might be a sock of a user whose words the IP is using, but for now I'll keep it to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The diff bomb above are all on different articles, this was rightly rejected at the edit warring board and should be rejected here. Especially as the IP is correct. Which I have pointed out to TG here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a content dispute discussion. It is obvious that these are multiple articles (which I already mentioned in my report). You don't need to get involved in this report as you got involved from my contribution history (for which you were blocked two-three days ago). Let the administrators handle this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- ANI and AN3 are on my watchlists, I have often commented on AN£ reports. I have not looked in your contributions history and I would thank you not to make assumptions and present them as facts again. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a content dispute discussion. It is obvious that these are multiple articles (which I already mentioned in my report). You don't need to get involved in this report as you got involved from my contribution history (for which you were blocked two-three days ago). Let the administrators handle this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Reboot
Ok TopGun, now that you know this is not edit-warring, not canvassing, and we have some minor non-blockable incivility, plus due to the nature of dynamic IP's, this does not even appear to meet a violation of WP:SOCK, what exactly are you trying to achieve here, and can you please providing supporting documentation related to it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If that kind of incivility is considered minor, in short suggesting that it is unblockable and the IP can continue to do that. This is what I was talking about. A previous report of exact same nature with the user using the same words. anyway... if you do not consider such remarks as personal attacks, I guess if I use such terms in return you'll be fine with such? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, what you should do is rise above it. We are not a school playground. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- TopGun, I think you provided a link to a situation that proves my point, and Sitush's above. You have provided two acts of purported violations of NPA, and state that they occur in edit-summaries. For example:
- "you are no saint in this world, your blocks your vanalism , your edit wars made you one of the most infamous user on wiki" (from here
- Where's the blockable WP:NPA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've provided diffs and quotes (and this is not the sole quote.. it is the least incivil of those). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so this one:
- * "What that source dont has knowledge about Yield, look into the books and the works. You have been blocked over a dozen times for this same vandalism and pro-pakistani propaganda and you will be banned again if you try to enter another edit war. Give a suitable reason , i am not interested in entering into an edit war. If you have any suitable reason to remove the content then mention it otherwise leave your edit-war-mongering nature" (here).
- ... and the NPA is where? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I quoted before and I'll quote again, "Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a "troll""... these are personal attacks. Many of these are just mentioned in the above quote you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- They are uncivil but not on the scale of the attacks that I frequently get, for example (various sexual acts involving my mother and dogs, etc). The latter are over the line; your examples are not, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but ""the most infamous user on wiki"is a clear WP:NPA violation. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why's that? Infamy is both positive and negative in its connotations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, "most infamous user" is obviously not meant as a compliment, but as a personal attack it falls well short of blockable. Personally, I'd take it as a kind of inverted compliment, and stick the diff on my user page if anybody said it about me. I've looked at all the diffs provided and there's nothing here that's actionable by an admin. You need to grow a thicker skin, I'm afraid, if "attacks" like these are distressing you. The IP editor is obviously inexperienced, with English as very much a second language; nobody is going to regard these remarks as remotely damaging to your reputation; you'd be best off rising above them and ignoring them as Sitush has already suggested. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pssst ... we said the same thing to TopGun last time he brought something like this here ... he chooses not to listen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It can be both positive and negative, true - it depends on the context. I agree it's not blockworthy but it would, IMHO, bring forth a "mind WP:CIVIL" note to the writer of the comment, at the very least, if I stumbled across it in my browsing. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)>
- "Famous" occasionally does double duty as either negative or positive (although it's far more commonly positive), but even after consulting OED, I can't remember ever seeing "infamous" used in a positive sense. No comment on the claims of personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It can be both positive and negative, true - it depends on the context. I agree it's not blockworthy but it would, IMHO, bring forth a "mind WP:CIVIL" note to the writer of the comment, at the very least, if I stumbled across it in my browsing. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)>
- Pssst ... we said the same thing to TopGun last time he brought something like this here ... he chooses not to listen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, "most infamous user" is obviously not meant as a compliment, but as a personal attack it falls well short of blockable. Personally, I'd take it as a kind of inverted compliment, and stick the diff on my user page if anybody said it about me. I've looked at all the diffs provided and there's nothing here that's actionable by an admin. You need to grow a thicker skin, I'm afraid, if "attacks" like these are distressing you. The IP editor is obviously inexperienced, with English as very much a second language; nobody is going to regard these remarks as remotely damaging to your reputation; you'd be best off rising above them and ignoring them as Sitush has already suggested. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why's that? Infamy is both positive and negative in its connotations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but ""the most infamous user on wiki"is a clear WP:NPA violation. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- They are uncivil but not on the scale of the attacks that I frequently get, for example (various sexual acts involving my mother and dogs, etc). The latter are over the line; your examples are not, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I quoted before and I'll quote again, "Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a "troll""... these are personal attacks. Many of these are just mentioned in the above quote you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've provided diffs and quotes (and this is not the sole quote.. it is the least incivil of those). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If that kind of incivility is considered minor, in short suggesting that it is unblockable and the IP can continue to do that. This is what I was talking about. A previous report of exact same nature with the user using the same words. anyway... if you do not consider such remarks as personal attacks, I guess if I use such terms in return you'll be fine with such? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Why don't the admins do a 24 hour page protection on the pages in question?--MONGO 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
vandalism by wiki13
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
a usernames wiki13 keeps deleting my question on the reference science desk with no explanation or justification will administrator please tell him to stop and take action against him --208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Odd that half of this IP's postings are to ANI. That it is from a hosting provider explains it as a proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like the OP is also 208.86.2.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has more edits in mainspace. In any event, it appears that Wiki13 (talk · contribs) has been reverting the OP's question on the basis of vandalism, but it looks like a legitimate reference desk question. Singularity42 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiki13 has also just deleted the message I left him on his talk page and attempt to cover up what he's done--208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to be resolved. Wiki13 reverted his initial reverts at the Reference Desk, and acknowledged his error in an edit summary on his talk page. This is not a "cover up". I do not believe further admin action is required. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiki13 deleted my question about a half dozen times in a row that is not a mistake that's a deliberate action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wiki13 is using Igloo, so this might constitute a misuse of that tool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (After some edit conflicts): I'm not misusing Igloo. It's just sometimes difficult to something is vandalism or not, since English is not my motherlanguage (see also my user page). Also, i don't understand all the policies here on the English Wikipedia. I admit that i made a mistake but that's human being. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be a one-off error, partly caused by not taking into account the IP's edit was to a Reference Desk. A random selection of Wiki13's use of Igloo demonstrates that it is not being misused. If Wiki13 is more careful in the future, especially with regards to Reference Desk questions, I don't see the need for admin action. Singularity42 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you struggle to understand English, and if you do not understand the policies of the English Wikipedia, it would be wise in cases of doubt not to accuse other users of vandalism. It might also be wise to steer clear of tools such as Igloo until you are more familiar with the language and with the policies. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk-pages. It is an acknowledgment of having read it and little else, regardless of whether they or others think it is actually hiding anything. See WP:BLANKING. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiki13 broke the rules and there has to be a punishment for that. I think a 24 hour block would be appropriate and would help him to follow the rules next time. I'm also concerned that someone who says that they don't understand the rules on Wikipedia is allowed to use the igloo tool and is reverting other people's edits.--208.86.2.203 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Blocks are used to prevent, not punish. GiantSnowman 17:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Igloo is a public tool anyone can use. He has already apologized for the mistake, let it drop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocks are also used to punish if someone vandalizes an article there has to be a punishment for that. And like I said you reverted my edits a half a dozen times that is not a mistake he did it on purpose and if he has so little understanding of the policies on wikipedia he shouldn't be editing at all. He also broke the 3rr rule. There is no way my edit could have been misconstrued as anything other than a legitimate edit.--208.86.2.203 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.2.203 (talk)
- "Blocks are used to prevent disruption, not to punish" is the policy. Don't make this into a WP:BOOMERANG complaint about someone not knowing policy. We only block article-vandals if they are involved in ongoing vandalism--to prevent continuation--not if they noticeably stopped by the time anyone noticed. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that if he did this he will not do similar actions in the future--208.86.2.206 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) will
- That's a shame. Per the comments he made here and advice he received from others, it remains to be seen whether he has learned. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
User Beetstra removing referenced content
Moved to New editor being bitten?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedEditor's accounts:
- Haroldpolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Untioencolonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cloudreviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blocking admins:
- Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jpgordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm trying to reconcile the behavior of these accounts with the blocks that were handed out. I agree with jpgordon's initial block, even though the user was only ever given one single warning: a level 2 spam template, which Haroldpolo did blank. This was followed up with an indef block. Nothing too out of the ordinary here, though perhaps a few more warnings would have been appropriate.
Then the editor started to evade the block, which resulted in a sockpuppetry block. I'm rather baffled by the rationale for these blocks, since the user did not engage in sockpuppetry from what I can see, only block evasion. Sockpuppetry is evidence of bad faith; block evasion can be, but can also be the result of someone who just doesn't understand what happened and wants to try again.
While the editor does not seem very familiar with our policies, this reaction has seemed all around incredibly harsh and bitey. One warning, and then three blocks. I'd feel pretty confused and frustrated with the whole experience too.
I'm asking for comment from other administrators and editors on this matter because I don't feel comfortable unilaterally unblocking any accounts in this case. However, I do think that this editor needs a gentler introduction to editing. --Chris (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have to agree with these blocks. I see nothing but spam from all three accounts. If they want to make any edits other than inserting that single website into a bunch of articles, an unblock request could be considered, but right now I see no evidence they're interested in doing anything other than spam. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Look a bit deeper at the timing. User:Haroldpolo -- owner of hostingtecnews.com -- first started inserting links to his website on January 20. He was warned on February 10 that the edits were unacceptable; he blanked the warning and inserted another similar link. He was never blocked specifically for spamming, though. In the meantime, he'd created User:Untioencolonia, which spammed three articles and that was all. Then on Feb 13, he created User:Cloudreviewer, which started the same spamming when noticed by User:Ohnoitsjamie, who surmised that this was all one person. There was never any block evasion, as there was never any block until all three were blocked. I verified that the three accounts were identical with checkuser and changed the existing block on Cloudreviewer to reflect my findings. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good block in all cases. All accounts blocked here were created solely for the purpose of spamming an external link; the latest contributions attempted a fig leaf content addition but it was still the same external link being inserted spammily. (And, to address a question of the OP - block evasion is simply a form of sockpuppetry when boiled down to its essence, it is multiple accounts being used by a single user to circumvent Wikipedia policy.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Frustrated
ResolvedAfter a lot of work I put in maintaining Belgrade (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), which is still a WP:FA, I must say I'm really frustrated by apparently underage kids, like Filipdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who never read the talk page, never leave an edit summary, and remove the material from the talk page that does not support their view [110]. Finally, he provides a reference on his own talk page [111] only after a dozen appeals...[112][] Naturally, he goes on to push his favorite changes by means of revert-warring [113]. Then, after I put his own reference to the article, just to settle the matter [114], he [115] reverts it, because my edit also removed his favorite picture (600px-high collage disputed on the talk page long time ago). That revert, of course, also reverts some minor vandalism inserted in the meantime.
I'm sure he means well, but he's a prototypical example of Randy in Boise. Since I really don't have the nerve to guide him by the hand and explain the importance of citing, consensus, edit warring, manual of style, I'll bow to anyone's else handling of the situation. That of course includes my own behavior. While I may seem to wp:own the article, I'd just like to have it conform to high FA standards, but I don't feel like babysitting. This is, unfortunately, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. No such user (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question: What Immediate Administrative Action are you requesting? If you are seeking to have the page protected against random edits WP:RFPP is the venue. If it's to raise concern about an editor WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U are the venue. All editors are encouraged to help explain policies to editors and to guide editors into productive editing. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The chap's talkpage history is full of deleted warnings for edit warring. I've left a final warning, if he reverts again, he faces being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've tried to impress the need for consensus on them. No such user, I'm sure you'll keep an eye on it and will let someone (Elen, myself, or the rest of the world) know anything exciting is happening. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Name Change
| No need for admin intervention, though this name change is admin approved. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I am changing my name from User:Dragon Rapide to just User: Rapide. Just a notification, it's not sockpuppetry. Dragon Rapide (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you'd like you can move your old talk/user pages to the new versions and have the old pages redirect to your new account. Let us know if anyone can assist you in that. NoformationTalk 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:RENAME -- bureaucrats will do it for you. In any event, just leave notes on your userpages. Nobody Ent 00:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) formerly Gerardw
Reversion of RM closure
ResolvedMike Cline (talk · contribs) closed a move request but was reverted by an involved editor Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the close was only 5 days after a relisting (explanation and further discussion). Eraserhead1 has refused requests to undo his revert, and Mike Cline has now given up. Please confirm this is not the way things should be done around here. (I am also involved, having commented on the RM.) Kanguole 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would be nice to know which rules and/or social norms I have broken by wanting the reopened move discussion to run for seven days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to want whatever you, um, want. What I object to is your attempt to force an admin to redo their work to conform to your personal preferences. WP:RM is fraught enough without this innovation. Kanguole 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I'm involved to the extent of participating early, but haven't contributed or watched it since. A premature close seems like a rare type of situation where immediate action is required. Was there something wrong or inappropriate with the revert itself (for example, if the admin closed it appropriately per SNOW, the revert would obviously be disruption)? If not, what's the issue? Isn't this a no harm, no foul situation? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Kanguole, the policy on whether moves can be closed early after re-listing appears to be ambiguous and thus on a policy basis my action seems a reasonable interpretation. The only possible behavioural issue raised is that I may have unintentionally caused the closing admin to lose face, which I have already apologised for.
- If you can't explain to me what I've actually done wrong I have no idea why we are having this discussion, and really you shouldn't be raising this without some element of obvious wrongdoing.
- You could also say that I've managed to upset Mike and I am sorry about that. However unless I have done something wrong, either by breaking a rule, or behaving in a way that's socially unacceptable I don't see why that is worth discussing here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I'm involved to the extent of participating early, but haven't contributed or watched it since. A premature close seems like a rare type of situation where immediate action is required. Was there something wrong or inappropriate with the revert itself (for example, if the admin closed it appropriately per SNOW, the revert would obviously be disruption)? If not, what's the issue? Isn't this a no harm, no foul situation? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to want whatever you, um, want. What I object to is your attempt to force an admin to redo their work to conform to your personal preferences. WP:RM is fraught enough without this innovation. Kanguole 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Mike Cline
This incident started when I closed an RM on Feb 11 that had been open since Jan 17, ~27 days. Within 90 minutes of the close, Eraserhead reverted my close without discussion with me. I engaged him on his talk page without success. Late on Feb 12, I sought advice from a fellow admin which is restated below: Advice sought on RM situation- I thought I’d ask your advice on this situation. On January 17, this RM was initiated. I watched the discussion everyday. On Feb 6, I relisted the discussion with this comment essentially saying it’s been a stalemate so far and unlikely to result in anything but a no consensus decision unless one side or the other made significant movement. On Feb 7, an involved editor opened this tread Closing the move discussion that began discussing how the RM should be closed. On Feb 8, another thread entitled 218.250.159.25 was opened that began impuning the motivations of various IP editors who contributed to the RM discussion. I considered all of these threads as connected—RM, closing the move and the IP discussion. The direction of the discussion was clear, there was no consensus developing and bad behavior on the part of some was making the discussion personal. On Feb 11, I closed the discussion as no consensus. [116]. Within 90 minutes, an involved editor (not an admin), reverted my close claiming that I had not let it run for 7 days after relisting. This was done without discussion or even asking me about it. I engaged the involved editor here on their talk page [117], but as of now there has been no movement on his part and I doubt there will be. I don’t think reverting my close without asking me about it is in any way acceptable behavior. However, I am not going to enter into a revert war about this as there is zero upside to that. Additionally, I am not going to close this RM again (I actually think the involved editor thinks I am). My question to you is this. Apart from my close only 5 days after relisting, which may or may not have been a tactical error (there was significant indication that other editors wanted this RM closed), does this behavior on the part of an involved editor in an RM discussion warrant discussion at ANI? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Based on the sage advice I recieved, I chose not to pursue this and to recuse myself from closing this RM. On Feb 14, once the RM hit the backlog, I relisted it again because there had been some additional discussion ongoing and maybe a consensus was possible. In my relisting comment, I indicated that I would not further involve myself in the close of this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It is good practice to at least notify when reverting things like that. Generally it should not be a big deal, generally things can wait for the person who acted to self-revert, and generally no one should be annoyed, upset or think they have "lost face", although we all understand that having a carefully thought out action reverted can be annoying. All that said I see no need for admin action here, so I am marking this as resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC).
- For the record I did make a notification. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please block the IP 91.140.87.114 permanently
| The wonderful SPI of Oz. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedThe IP 91.140.87.114, is yet another IP sock of banned user Picker78. Please refer to his contributions in comparison to those of Picker78. Also note that Picker78 has a long list of attempts of avoiding his ban. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Picker78 which doesn't include some of his recent IPs. He's also been vandalizing my user page lately. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a note, you may want to report this at WP:SPI instead, which is a more focused noticeboard designed to deal with issues like this. --Jayron32 22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I semi-protected your user page. If you don't want that, any admin will be glad to undo. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the semi, Drmies. I'll go to SPI directly. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Improper use of Wikipedia
| indef blocked Nobody Ent 03:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kimberly camba (talk · contribs) seems to be more interested in plugging themselves and their YouTube channel/shows than in contributing to the encyclopedia. I just deleted the user page (as promotional) and Chrysoprase (TV Series) (A7, but promotional as well. Their talk page is full of warnings and notifications of all kinds--a true cornucopia of what not to do on Wikipedia. Any solutions? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indef block would be a solution. Nobody Ent 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indef applied per WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COMPETENCE. That long list of warnings and not one talk page edit in their entire contribution history...oi. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Need a Rangeblock on a Proxy
Dealing with an entire range of IPs that has been continously vandalizing for some time now (about a year). Everything in the same range as 69.178.192.194 needs to be blocked (I am not great with ID'ing ranges, forgive me). The IP is licensed to Daktel.com and geolocates to Carrington, North Dakota. We have blocked this range before and tagged several of the talk pages as proxies. See 1, 2 and this history for more beginning with 69.178. There has been far too much time devoted to stopping the all-vandalism edits by this range (more than likely just one person). Requesting a rangeblock on the entire range for the standard 5 years since this is a proxy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, there would be a lot of collateral if blocking 69.178.0.0/16. WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
UnlikelyIP is an open proxy Also for what it's worth it doesn't look like an open proxy to me. This looks like a normal, dynamic IP-hopping vandal. Normally this sort of thing isn't rangeblocked unless it's causing severe disruption, whereas your links look more like run-of-the-mill (albeit subtle) vandalism. It probably makes more sense to request to have Template:Glendive TV semi-protected for a few months at WP:RFPP, but even that is probably excessive given that the vandalism is less than once-a-month.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC) - It's not just the Glendive TV Template that is being hit by this editor. This is on-going across many pages. Several admins have put small rangeblocks in place that have worked, but not completely. This user keeps coming back, I think we have to deal with a little collateral damage to stop this editor. It isn't like those editors can't get a sign-in account. I think a year's worth of whack-a-mole is enough. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
UnlikelyIP is an open proxy Also for what it's worth it doesn't look like an open proxy to me. This looks like a normal, dynamic IP-hopping vandal. Normally this sort of thing isn't rangeblocked unless it's causing severe disruption, whereas your links look more like run-of-the-mill (albeit subtle) vandalism. It probably makes more sense to request to have I'm sorry to say, but I agree with NeutralHomer. This editor goes back to the sockfarm Hypocritepedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) back a year and a half ago continuing to persist on articles and continuing attacks against "liberals" (and attacks against liberal political figure pages) for reverting their vandalism, mainly on Upper Midwest media and city articles. I know of no good contribs from the DakTel IP's at all in the last year as I've followed this one constantly under their Zimmbotkiller (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) guise and other false accounts (see the sock page). A rangeblock is the only way to go to get this "Zimmer" character to finally be exhausted out of their efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- 69.178.192.194, which is the same IP I am currently having problems with and on the same range, just requested me a new password. This IP and range is nothing but trouble and there needs to be a block put in place ASAP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- What a coincidence (he says not shocked at all as he rolls his eyes), I just got the same lovely 'password reset' message from the Wiki password server from the same IP. This by the way, is what this vandal calls "hacking". Seriously though, nothing good comes out of this range pool. Nate • (chatter) 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've blocked that IP - if they're pulling stunts like that something absolutely needs to be done. - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I don't think a block of the IP will stop them sending password requests. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've blocked that IP - if they're pulling stunts like that something absolutely needs to be done. - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The range is too busy and too big to be blockable. With a /16, we're talking tens of thousands of IP addresses that would be blocked/ But have a look through this—there are quite a few constructive edits coming from this range in addition to your guy and what looks like a distinct petty vandal. Blocking the range would be a bit like using a bazooka to kill a fly. HJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first couple edits on that Toolserver link (the ones to Common cold), they were vandalism. The television station ones are universally vandalism. I would love to actually see one non-vandalism edit from that range, but I doubt I will. Since DakTel.com only has the potential to serve about 25,000 (who may or may not have computers), we aren't talking about alot of collateral damage (like say blocking Verizon or something). While there would be some, it wouldn't be a large number. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123] all appear constructive, and the oldest of them is a week old. That's already too much collateral damage—I wouldn't block that range for more than a day, and even then it would have to be for serious abuse, not just regular vandalism. Semi-protection is probably a better option. HJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- This has been ongoing for almost two years. It would be alot of pages to semi-protect...and it would have to be indef protection, cause this guy isn't going to stop. He has two blocked and locked accounts to his name, plus all the IP socks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The clear solution is Sign In To Edit...but WMF has made it abundantly clear where they stand on that, consensus be hanged. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- This has been ongoing for almost two years. It would be alot of pages to semi-protect...and it would have to be indef protection, cause this guy isn't going to stop. He has two blocked and locked accounts to his name, plus all the IP socks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123] all appear constructive, and the oldest of them is a week old. That's already too much collateral damage—I wouldn't block that range for more than a day, and even then it would have to be for serious abuse, not just regular vandalism. Semi-protection is probably a better option. HJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The range seems to be only 69.178.192.0/22 - all IP edits from that range since the start of 2010 look like the same user, other than three that are probably test edits. Peter E. James (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first couple edits on that Toolserver link (the ones to Common cold), they were vandalism. The television station ones are universally vandalism. I would love to actually see one non-vandalism edit from that range, but I doubt I will. Since DakTel.com only has the potential to serve about 25,000 (who may or may not have computers), we aren't talking about alot of collateral damage (like say blocking Verizon or something). While there would be some, it wouldn't be a large number. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Not quite vandalism, perhaps a plea for help
ResolvedI came across this edit following an AIV report. It doesn't look like your typical vandalism, more like a frustrated plea for help. I'm sure someone reading ANI will know what to do with it. Toddst1 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It may be worthwhile to notify someone at the Home Office directly. Maybe User:Philippe (WMF). --Jayron32 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That diff is several months old and was reverted immediately (I suspect that you didn't notice that? :P). They claimed to have been a candidate in that election who declined, and repeatedly added themselves to the section.[124][125][126] Apparently Angela Beesely Starling responded to their email, but no action was ever taken regarding the article. I suppose someone can do some digging to evaluate the validity of the claim if they want, but bottom line, it's an old incident and the article looks fine. SwarmX 04:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I was able to confirm that he did run, and for a time was the only Democrat candidate. There are a few sources confirming this, with a couple of articles on him personally, although he never had official Democrat Party backing. btw, there was a bit of vandalism which was attacking him added to the page about a month ago which was missed - I've removed that as well. [127] - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good job. Better late than never, I guess. Can only wonder what the deal was with Angela, but at least the original issue has been resolved. SwarmX 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly our quality queue (for BLP concerns) on OTRS is still jammed with many requests not yet answered, some going back at least that far. We just don't have enough volunteers (and for this queue, experienced volunteers). It's not easy work and a ticket can take a long time to handle, not just because they are often tricky but also that you often get responses from your original reply that have to be answered. There are about 100 tickets still in the queue. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dougweller, I proposed a possible solution to the quality queue quandary, but have had little feedback. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly our quality queue (for BLP concerns) on OTRS is still jammed with many requests not yet answered, some going back at least that far. We just don't have enough volunteers (and for this queue, experienced volunteers). It's not easy work and a ticket can take a long time to handle, not just because they are often tricky but also that you often get responses from your original reply that have to be answered. There are about 100 tickets still in the queue. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good job. Better late than never, I guess. Can only wonder what the deal was with Angela, but at least the original issue has been resolved. SwarmX 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I was able to confirm that he did run, and for a time was the only Democrat candidate. There are a few sources confirming this, with a couple of articles on him personally, although he never had official Democrat Party backing. btw, there was a bit of vandalism which was attacking him added to the page about a month ago which was missed - I've removed that as well. [127] - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Strange page move and edits
| Page moved back and indefinitely move-protected by Reaper Eternal. EyeSerenetalk 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please check out the recent edit history at what is now: Paging Grace
I am not sure if this is a case of vandalism or just an admin error. The edits took what had been a guideline page (Wikipedia:Page name), changed its title and turned the guideline into a regular article about a rock band. There was apparently a page move request regarding the title of the guideline... so it may be simply a case of unintentional crossed wires somewhere. In any case, it struck me as odd that a guideline would suddenly become an article in mainspace.
- Never mind... it seems to have been corrected. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Page name doesn't look corrected to me. ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 14:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers
User:Justlettersandnumbers, nicknamed "JLAN" has been engaged for months in an ongoing harassment of several editors across WikiProject Equine and repeated tendentious editing on articles related to horses, donkeys, Tyrol, Italy, Spanish and Italian animal breeds, and non-SI measurement. Full disclosure: This editor also harasses and annoys me, but I just hit back, this is NOT about me. This ANI is filed specifically because of JLAN's consistent harassment of User:Dana boomer because every time she attempts to bring an article to GA or FA, most recently Large Black (pig). Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC) See the diffs below:
- Talk:Large_Black_(pig)#Facts.3F Dana nominates the article on Feb. 7, JLAN immediately jumps in with criticism. see [128]
- [[129]] Azteca horse is nominated by Dana for GA and granted GA status January 3, JLAN immediately jumps in adding OR, UNDUE and other harassing and tendentious edits. I requested article lockdown, consensus was to remove all but a few of JLAN's edits. see also [130]
- [131] Attacks Andalusian horse when it is to be TFA
- [132] Demands Percheron GA reassessment, after Dana brings Percheron to GA, rejected
- [133] Attacks Lusitano GA article, also Dana lead editor on GA push
- [134] and [135] Initial appearance is to attack Thoroughbred on its Main page appearence day, team getting it there includes Dana.
There's a lot more than this, but I'll keep the focus on wikistalking Dana boomer. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- A quick examination at the problem reveals it is likely far too complex for ANI. For example, I discovered that Montanabw is the top editor to JLAN's talk page, with double the edits of the user himself. Lengthy posts. I also discovered User:Klvankampen, who is an expert on horses, who left the project in September after three edits to Andalusian horse and several lengthy exchanges on his own talk page. That's unfortunate; he might be just the kind of editor who could really help the project. There's a long-term dispute here involving a group of articles and editors, and the recent edit war on Large Black (pig) is only the tip of the iceberg. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Diannaa. Although I thank Montanabw for filing this, since I was offline yesterday and didn't see the latest set of edits at Large Black pig, I also think it may be too complex for AN/I. I have been considering filing an RfC/U on JLAN, but haven't had the time/energy it takes to actually do so. I do feel harassed by this user, who seems to show up at livestock breed articles that I write just before/just after major events (GA nom, TFA, etc). Although he does sometimes have good comments, he also has major tendencies towards tendentious editing, OR, POV, undue weight and other problem editing. With specific regards to the Klvankampen/Andalusian incident, although I agree that they would possible have made a good editor, it would have taken a lot of work. The situation was complicated, but essentially they were on one side of an international legal battle over a breed, and were having a hard time accepting our principles of reliable sources and due weight. Unfortunately, they grew frustrated and left while we were trying to explain these issues. JLAN didn't help in this instance by initially showing up to make snarky comments about editors and articles with FA status, then completely dropping out of the discussing when it turned to actually trying to improve the article. So, basically: There are a lot more pieces to the puzzle than what Montanabw listed above, but as Diannaa said, it's probably too complicated for this venue. However, I do feel harassed and wiki-stalked by this editor. I have tried to avoid working on articles where he is the main editor - I wish he would do the same for me. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Dana. The reason I point out the number of posts by Montanabw to JLAN's talk is because there have been many, many posts by her on his talk. Many of them are of the"tips for editing here" variety, which is great when someone is actually a new editor, but must be getting wearisome after he has been active here for over a year. It looks to me that the editor is being told by your wikiproject, especially Montanabw to judge by his talk page, what articles he is allowed to edit, what sources he is allowed to use, and what he is allowed to say. I know I would become extremely frustrated and snarky if I was treated this way, especially if I was only really interested in editing one group of articles. It's likely that JLAN is showing up on articles in a pointy way in order to show you that he can, indeed, edit wherever and whenever he wants to. However, there's no reason why normal editing cannot continue during a GA review. That's not the problem. The problem is that Montanabw came in at 21.11 on the 11th and reverted all JLAN's edits, and all of the reviewer's, too. This is a very agressive thing for her to have done, and again is done in a pointy way, intended not for article imporvement, but to send a message to JLAN about what he is allowed and not allowed to do. To say that JLAN is following you around is a simplistic way to put things; I think the main problem here is that you share an interest in a topic area and disagree on what content should be in the articles and so on. It's a content dispute that has snowballed. It's difficult to edit cooperatively with someone you are constantly disagreeing with, but asking him to avoid the topic areas that he is interested in is unlikely to be acceptable if that's primarily where he wants to edit.
The Klvankampen account is a separate but related issue. The account pointed out that some of the information in the Anadalusian article was out of date by eight years. This is a featured article, and needs to be protected from bad editing, but if the material is actually out of date like he says, then the article is no longer the best Wikipedia has to offer. I realise it's a lot of trouble to nuture along a potential new editor (especially one who may have a conflict of interest) but it might be worth it if he has access to sources that you don't have in your possession. Reading through the posts to both editors - Klvankampen and JLAN - I get the impression that your wikiproject has some rules for the articles (what is a pony, how do we describe the height of a horse, etc) that were made some time ago, and that you are not very flexible about editors who are editing differently. I can understand your frustration but at this time in our history when long-term editors are leaving at a shocking rate we really have to figure out how to get along with people. I have to go do the payroll now and will be gone for some time. --Dianna (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Dana. The reason I point out the number of posts by Montanabw to JLAN's talk is because there have been many, many posts by her on his talk. Many of them are of the"tips for editing here" variety, which is great when someone is actually a new editor, but must be getting wearisome after he has been active here for over a year. It looks to me that the editor is being told by your wikiproject, especially Montanabw to judge by his talk page, what articles he is allowed to edit, what sources he is allowed to use, and what he is allowed to say. I know I would become extremely frustrated and snarky if I was treated this way, especially if I was only really interested in editing one group of articles. It's likely that JLAN is showing up on articles in a pointy way in order to show you that he can, indeed, edit wherever and whenever he wants to. However, there's no reason why normal editing cannot continue during a GA review. That's not the problem. The problem is that Montanabw came in at 21.11 on the 11th and reverted all JLAN's edits, and all of the reviewer's, too. This is a very agressive thing for her to have done, and again is done in a pointy way, intended not for article imporvement, but to send a message to JLAN about what he is allowed and not allowed to do. To say that JLAN is following you around is a simplistic way to put things; I think the main problem here is that you share an interest in a topic area and disagree on what content should be in the articles and so on. It's a content dispute that has snowballed. It's difficult to edit cooperatively with someone you are constantly disagreeing with, but asking him to avoid the topic areas that he is interested in is unlikely to be acceptable if that's primarily where he wants to edit.
- Thanks Diannaa. Although I thank Montanabw for filing this, since I was offline yesterday and didn't see the latest set of edits at Large Black pig, I also think it may be too complex for AN/I. I have been considering filing an RfC/U on JLAN, but haven't had the time/energy it takes to actually do so. I do feel harassed by this user, who seems to show up at livestock breed articles that I write just before/just after major events (GA nom, TFA, etc). Although he does sometimes have good comments, he also has major tendencies towards tendentious editing, OR, POV, undue weight and other problem editing. With specific regards to the Klvankampen/Andalusian incident, although I agree that they would possible have made a good editor, it would have taken a lot of work. The situation was complicated, but essentially they were on one side of an international legal battle over a breed, and were having a hard time accepting our principles of reliable sources and due weight. Unfortunately, they grew frustrated and left while we were trying to explain these issues. JLAN didn't help in this instance by initially showing up to make snarky comments about editors and articles with FA status, then completely dropping out of the discussing when it turned to actually trying to improve the article. So, basically: There are a lot more pieces to the puzzle than what Montanabw listed above, but as Diannaa said, it's probably too complicated for this venue. However, I do feel harassed and wiki-stalked by this editor. I have tried to avoid working on articles where he is the main editor - I wish he would do the same for me. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(initial response to montanabw; reply to Dianna to follow)
I too thank montanabw for putting this here. This is just the latest in an endless succession of accusations from an editor who has harassed, maligned and insulted me more or less continuously since I began editing regularly here early last year. I welcome the opportunity to request some scrutiny of her behaviour, and of my response to it.
I don't know where it's best to start, but will begin with the list of my "attacks" above.
- Large Black (pig): as I recall, I came to this article for the first time on 6 February after looking at the watchlist of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, edited the status, changed the engvar etc.; that added it to my watchlist. I believe dana asked for the review the following day, and made some edits to the article. I did also, and made some comments on the talk page. Until reading her comments above I had thought we were working together, though not particularly amicably, to improve the article. User:MathewTownsend also made several edits. Nine of his and six of mine were reverted en masse by montanabw, who also made a request on the GA Review page, edit comment "Please review the un-trashed version". I'm told I was wrong to enquire if her mass reversion was vandalism, so I apologise for that.
- Azteca horse: yes, I believe I was drawn to this article by the GA review. Finding a substantial US bias in the article, I tried to add some material about the breed in Mexico, and made a number of suggestions for improvement on the talkpage. Montanabw requested article protection, and when it came off reverted the article to more or less its previous state. There was no consensus. On the advice of another editor, I walked away.
- Saw that Andalusian horse was to be on the front page, looked at it. Usual story, strong US-POV bias. Tried to make some changes, some directly, some by suggestion on the talkpage; montanabw comes blundering in with a mass revert, immediately undone by dana. I walked away. Result: the article went on the front page with the height measurements all screwed up and the marginal "registries" of Australia and the USA given priority over the national stud book of Spain; story on the talkpage for anyone who can be bothered to read it.
- Percheron. A while ago some of our colleagues from fr.wikpedia suggested working together on an article, and this one was suggested. As I happen to be fluent in French, I thought I might be able to make some contribution. Made some edits, reverted by montanabw, edit-warring ensued which I at the time thought was a criterion for de-listing as GA. I was wrong.
- Lusitano. Er, no, no attack. I opposed the merger there of the Alter Real, on the basis that myriad sources treat it as a separate breed. Withdrew opposition in the light of manfred bodner's expert opinion (another expert editor driven away by discourteous treatment, but more of that anon).
- I corrected an error in the main page article, and apparently earned the undying enmity of at least one editor. The error was finally corrected with the help of User:Ealdgyth here. At that time I knew no Wikipedia editor by name.
To sum up, I believe there is substance in two of the seven allegations: I was drawn to Azteca horse by the GA review, and to Andalusian by its appearance on the front page. I was not drawn to either of them, or to any other article, by the fact that dana boomer had previously contributed to it; indeed, I tend to avoid those articles (Haflinger, for example). I believe her to be essentially a good-faith editor, hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style. I regard it as unfortunate that we share a common interest in rare breeds. Even if our relationship has been less than cordial, I believe (or believed until reading her comments above) that we could work together if it were not for the persistent interference of montanabw. I apologise unconditionally to dana for any impression I may at any time have given of stalking her; I've not done so, and am surprised she feels that I have. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Parts 2 and 3 to follow when I've had some food. Meanwhile, quick practical question (I've not been here before): am I supposed to notify anyone I've mentioned by name, such as User:Manfred Bodner, or does that apply only to those who are the subject of some complaint? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Diannaa, I have chosen to make this a narrow ANI to simply request that JLAN quit stalking Dana's work. Yes, I have my own issues with JLAN, as do several other editors, I initially attempted to mentor him when he first came on board here, and explain that people need to be less tendentious, but to no avail. He has been absolutely mean as a snake to me, sarcastic, bullying, tendentious and has made a number of petty templating threats at me. But this is not about me, it is about JLAN's treatment of Dana, who does not deserve this. I was willing to view some of the tension as spillover from his issues with me until he attacked Large Black (pig) which I had never edited, it was Dana's effort, not mine at all. Thus, Please consider the following: Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Look at what JLAN just said about Dana!! That she is "...hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style." This is a self-confession of JLAN's problem and why I filed this ANI: to say Dana has no courtesy? What could be further from the truth!!! This is an extraordinarily courteous editor and one of WIkipedia's admins, who had [one of the most successful RFA's I've ever seen --120 support, ZERO oppose, 4 neutral. Poor prose? Dana is the lead editor for multiple FA articles, reviewed by separate people, if she had "poor prose" it would have been picked up a dozen times by now. And as far as her view of "all things American," I need only point you to the extraordinarily balanced (and in UK English, to boot) Horses in World War I, which she carefully shepherded over a period of months to FA and TFA, working with dozens of involved editors, many with strong POV. JLAN should be blocked on the spot for what he just said!!
- The issue at WPEQ over measuring horses in hands was thrashed to death. JLAN continued to argue against consensus for weeks and even months after the issue was settled (and the consensus was to always provide a three-way template showing hands, US inches and metric measurements so all could understand). here he has a basic discussion of the topic, which led to work on improving the template for converting hands into other measurements. Not content, JLAN brings an RFC which he also loses.
- JLAN is lying through his teeth that he avoids the Haflinger articles. See his attempt to split that article, one of his first runs at pure tendentiousness, also a GA: Haflinger fight and New round of attacks on Haflinger article plus an unrelated-to-Dana obsession with renaming things related to Tyrol: Talk:Municipalities_of_South_Tyrol, notably [136], [137] and several more, some moved some not, but if you review his contribs history circa nov 20 2011, there is a pattern
- [138] JLAN making sarcastic remarks to Klvankampen about other editors, who though well-intentioned, had a strong POV on one side of a legal issue. There is controversy, and breeders have a POV as much as anyone. WP must be neutral. There was some material that did have to be updated, and it was. The article went TFA and has been stable for quite some time now.
- The Luistano issue was another example of JLAN beating a dead horse (pardon the pun) when consensus and the weight of research went against him. He likes to make stubs and content forks, claiming many animals of varying bloodlines are a "breed" whether it's a "breed" or not. See North American donkey -- which he created and was written as a breed article where there is no such "breed." (I haven't had the time to even deal with that little disaster)
- JLAN's work on Azteca horse had little to do with strengthening Mexican information on the article, he made one set of useful comments, which were adopted. the lockdown and debate was over his insistence on also adding a detailed chart that was of undue weight. Consensus went against him. See discussion here and see what he wanted to add versus how the article looks today: diffs
I'll spare more diffs and examples for now. I admit, I've had it with JLAN, who has also attacked me on a regular basis. However, I am perfectly willing to fight my own battles with him, between us, but it's when he attacks another editor who has good faith and no dog in the fight that I must object. Note until I reverted the edits JLAN made without consensus, I have no stake in Large Black (pig), I had never edited the article. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- JLAN does not require consensus to edit the black pig article or any article on this wiki; it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Consensus is only required once the material has been challenged. Characterising his—and the reviewer's—edits as "confusing the reviewer" and saying "Please review the un-trashed version"? What up? But please don't try to convince me what you did was ok; the person you need to be addressing here is JLAN. You two need to sort out how you are going to work together moving forward. Please drop the battleground attitude; you and your articles are not under attack. Gotta go walk the dog; will check in briefly before I have to go out for a family thing. --Dianna (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- (part 2, written in text editor and posted here without reference to new blether from montanabw above; part 3 follows tomorrow)
- Montanabw is the WP:OWNER of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine. She sits on it like a dragon on a mountain of gold - except that unfortunately much of it is dross. Many of the articles contain unreferenced material, much of it tagged, some of it untouched for years. The project appears to be totally stagnant. Any edit, almost without exception, is reverted, usually by one of two editors. It doesn't matter how trivial the edit, nor how incorrect or unsustainable the view of the dragon; see the recent history and talk at Donkey or Mule for examples.
- Obviously, when it's random vandalism, reverting without thought is nothing but a good thing. But when there's a new editor trying to find his way round this minefield, it may be harmful. How likely is a newbie who reads an edit summary such as this to stick around for more of the same? It's much more serious when the editor is evidently an expert, as in the matter of klvankampen already mentioned above. It's understandable that dana should feel threatened by the arrival of someone with some real knowledge of the Andalusian, but to my mind nothing excuses the reception he received here; his talkpage shows how easily an informed and expert editor can be driven away by rudeness and ineptitude. I first mentioned this topic here. The responses make interesting reading. User:Manfred bodner was a breeder of Lusitanos in Andalusia; the reception he received can be seen on the talkpage of that article; there's no welcome template on his talkpage. I see almost no prospect under the current regime for recruitment to this wikiproject of the new editors it so desperately needs, and I believe community intervention is called for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis, Justlettersandnumbers. That was exactly the impression I got when reviewing the material. I would like to strongly suggest that the current active participants in this wikiproject take this criticism as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia and not an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far. What's next? Is there some form of dispute resolution that should be tried here? --Dianna (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Diannaa, I'm sorry, but I can't believe you're saying that I'm the one acting in bad faith here. Asking editors (such as Manfred and Klvanklampen) to provide sources, and explaining our policies of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. is not a bad thing. Manfred at no time expressed a problem with the way that Montana and I interacted with him, and in fact we took his word as an expert on the merge issue at Lusitano. I'm not sure how JLAN gets away with claiming the project to be totally stagnant when we continue to make progress on improving articles - yes, there are lots of articles still with problems - why isn't JLAN working on any of those, instead of following me to various articles that I'm currently working on? If he was also working on sourcing and improving half a dozen other breed articles and popped by one that I was working on with some comments, I wouldn't have as big a deal. When he only seems to pop up on horse breed articles that this "stagnant" project has already taken to GA and FA with a laundry list of complaints that often include OR, content forks, tendentious editing and other issues? Yes, it gets frustrating. The Equine WP is not "stagnant". The RfC that JLAN started on horse height attracted a large number of comments...unfortunately for JLAN, consensus on many of the issues was firmly against him. The fact that consensus is often against him (see, for instance, the GAR of Percheron, the end of the Azteca talk page, etc) is not the fault of a "stagnant" project. I'm so glad you're taking JLAN's word for it that I'm an uncourteous editor with poor prose skills - it's so nice to be appreciated. You say that we shouldn't take this as "an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far." when basically everything that JLAN does is an attack on what we've achieved so far - he almost never fixes up stub/start/C class articles, instead choosing to attack articles that others have taken to higher classes. When I started editing the Equine WP had something like half a dozen GAs and no FAs. Now, we have 20 featured articles and almost 50 GAs - not bad for a small project. If that's being stagnant - producing work that has been reviewed and promoted by numerous other editors...well, apparently all of my hard work over the past four years has been in vain. I have never asked for JLAN to be topic banned - I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. My request was simply for him to stay away from me, as I attempt to do from him. Dana boomer (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dana, you have misinterpreted so many of my comments that I hardly know where to start. Nowhere did I say that you (or anyone else) is acting in bad faith. Nowhere did I say that anyone should be topic banned. Nowhere did I remark upon your writing skills or lack thereof. What I did say, and something you need to think about very seriously, as I am a totally neutral observer who to my knowledge has never edited in conjunction with any of you, is that the material I read gave me the impression that the equine wikiproject is a closed shop that is unwelcoming to newcomers and has gotten set in its ways. I would like to point out to all three of you that you will not begin to resolve this dispute until you stop looking at the other guy's behaviour and start looking at your own. Because that's the only behaviour that you can control. --Dianna (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dianna, I came as a newbie to WP:EQUINE in January of 2011, only two months before JLAN did, and I found them incredibly welcoming and very, very easy to get along with. Very far from being a "closed shop", they welcomed me with open arms and nursed my early footsteps along, were very patient with me, encouraged everything I was doing, and were as nice as pie. So it's not right to blame this on "the project". Pesky (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a member of WP:EQUINE, but I have had occasion to do a handful of edits and discuss things horse-related (the Morgan breed history interacts in some interesting ways with the U.S. Army in terms of remounts). I've always found the majority of folks I've encountered in that project to be both helpful and civil in their discourse. This is dealing with a breed that has some strong POV attached, yet I've never felt dismissed or marginalized because I come at the question from a different angle. Simply because one newcomer got off on the wrong foot does not automatically make a project a closed shop.Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dianna, I came as a newbie to WP:EQUINE in January of 2011, only two months before JLAN did, and I found them incredibly welcoming and very, very easy to get along with. Very far from being a "closed shop", they welcomed me with open arms and nursed my early footsteps along, were very patient with me, encouraged everything I was doing, and were as nice as pie. So it's not right to blame this on "the project". Pesky (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dana, you have misinterpreted so many of my comments that I hardly know where to start. Nowhere did I say that you (or anyone else) is acting in bad faith. Nowhere did I say that anyone should be topic banned. Nowhere did I remark upon your writing skills or lack thereof. What I did say, and something you need to think about very seriously, as I am a totally neutral observer who to my knowledge has never edited in conjunction with any of you, is that the material I read gave me the impression that the equine wikiproject is a closed shop that is unwelcoming to newcomers and has gotten set in its ways. I would like to point out to all three of you that you will not begin to resolve this dispute until you stop looking at the other guy's behaviour and start looking at your own. Because that's the only behaviour that you can control. --Dianna (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Diannaa, I'm sorry, but I can't believe you're saying that I'm the one acting in bad faith here. Asking editors (such as Manfred and Klvanklampen) to provide sources, and explaining our policies of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. is not a bad thing. Manfred at no time expressed a problem with the way that Montana and I interacted with him, and in fact we took his word as an expert on the merge issue at Lusitano. I'm not sure how JLAN gets away with claiming the project to be totally stagnant when we continue to make progress on improving articles - yes, there are lots of articles still with problems - why isn't JLAN working on any of those, instead of following me to various articles that I'm currently working on? If he was also working on sourcing and improving half a dozen other breed articles and popped by one that I was working on with some comments, I wouldn't have as big a deal. When he only seems to pop up on horse breed articles that this "stagnant" project has already taken to GA and FA with a laundry list of complaints that often include OR, content forks, tendentious editing and other issues? Yes, it gets frustrating. The Equine WP is not "stagnant". The RfC that JLAN started on horse height attracted a large number of comments...unfortunately for JLAN, consensus on many of the issues was firmly against him. The fact that consensus is often against him (see, for instance, the GAR of Percheron, the end of the Azteca talk page, etc) is not the fault of a "stagnant" project. I'm so glad you're taking JLAN's word for it that I'm an uncourteous editor with poor prose skills - it's so nice to be appreciated. You say that we shouldn't take this as "an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far." when basically everything that JLAN does is an attack on what we've achieved so far - he almost never fixes up stub/start/C class articles, instead choosing to attack articles that others have taken to higher classes. When I started editing the Equine WP had something like half a dozen GAs and no FAs. Now, we have 20 featured articles and almost 50 GAs - not bad for a small project. If that's being stagnant - producing work that has been reviewed and promoted by numerous other editors...well, apparently all of my hard work over the past four years has been in vain. I have never asked for JLAN to be topic banned - I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. My request was simply for him to stay away from me, as I attempt to do from him. Dana boomer (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the GA reviewer of Large Black (pig) nominated by Dana boomer. I'd put a fair amount of work into it, when Montanabw who has never edited the article before suddenly reverted my copy editing changes and those of Justlettersandnumbers with no warning or discussion, and only the edit summary: "Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer". See article history:[139] I'm the reviewer and I'm the one that made most of the edits reverted. Montanabw needs to understand that the nominating editor to GAN does not own the article and Montanabw can't revert the article on Dana Boomer's behalf. Other editors are allowed to edit GANs. Looking at article contribution by toolserver:[140] as of now, Steven Walling (35) Dana boomer (27) and Justlettersandnumbers (21) have fairly close to the same number of edits. I am next.(9) At first I was very confused by what was happening, but now I wonder if this is an edit war and the GAN should be failed on that basis. I had thought Dana boomer and Justlettersandnumbers would continue to interact on the article talk page to review the problems, but reading the above I am not optimistic. If I'm wrong in this assessment, please let me know. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Having looked through this, I'm coming to much the same conclusions as Dianna, it looks like a complex issue, better suited to something like an RfC. I do however believe that Montanabw has stopped assuming good faith with regards to JLAN, there's been at least a couple of times that she has made mass reverts, without distinguishing good edits from bad - when combined with the language used, it's clear that Montanabw cannot see clearly there anymore. I think it would be a good idea for Montanabw to step back in dealings with JLAN, and do her best to avoid him. With regards to JLAN himself, it is clear that Dana boomer does feel harassed, and JLAN himself admits that they are not "getting along" on the talk page, though they are making progress. Combined with the comments that JLAN has made regarding Dana boomer, again, it would help if JLAN could do his best to focus elsewhere, even if only for a short period, say a month? I've already seen that JLAN has reasonably backed away from the article while the review is on, I'm sure this can work out well enough. WormTT · (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::Apologies.
- 1. On the advice of an editor whose opinion I respect, I have struck through my comments on dana's editing abilities. She had given me the benefit of her opinion of my skills, and it seemed to me only courteous to return the favour. I now realise that my remarks could be construed as uncivil. I unconditionally retract them, and apologise to dana. She will, I am confident, wish similarly to retract the various discourteous comments she has directed at me above.
- 2. I'd like to apologise to Mathew for any part I may have had in disturbing his review of the Large Pig article. That was never my intention, but to the extent that it was the consequence of my actions, I'd like to apologise anyway.
- 3. I invite montanabw to apologise, immediately and fully, to him for her part in that disturbance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm coming late to this, and have gone out of my way to avoid any kind of confrontation or article-interaction with JLAN. However, I have seen an ongoing situation here lasting for many, many months, causing distress and disruption to other editors, and a lot of IDHT. One of the reasons that other people's contributions to JLAN's talk page may outnumber his own is that he simply doesn't respond. I tried to communicate where some of the problems were, on 13th January; it's now exactly a month later, and no response whatsoever. It's incredibly hard to try to communicate constructively with someone who just doesn't communicate back or (apparently) address the issues. This situation simply can't be seen in its entirety without someone going right back through the whole lot (which, incidentally, I have done). I've been watching for a very long time, and what I;ve seen is a number of people trying really hard to get JLAN to work collegiately and "play nice", for a very long time, and gradually all losing their patience. It's a very sad situation, all told, but it's important here not to blame the editors who have tried their damnedest to work together. There's been an awful lot of JLAN taking the exact same argument from one page to another to another, failing to get consensus anywhere, and simply not giving up and starting the same thing again on another page. Nobody can be expected not to lose patience after months and months of this, no matter how much a saint they are. And few of us are saints. Pesky (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've not supplied (but could on request) what would be a much longer list of occasions when montanabw has maligned my motives and impugned my integrity. Nor have I supplied evidence of hounding or harassment, as I think those are already sufficiently evident. What I'd very much like to know is whether this sort of behaviour is regarded as normal and acceptable in this wiki. And if, as I suspect, it is not, why User:Dana boomer, who was aware of much of it and whom I believe to be an admin, took no steps whatsoever to limit or stop it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Pesky: I did not reply to your post on my talkpage because my reply would have been in the form of an argument, and I had and have no wish to argue with you. A while ago you were here under accusation of discourtesy because you had asked another editor to behave civilly; you may recall that, in private, I offered you some support. It was, and still is, therefore quite incomprehensible to me that you would not offer your support when I made similar requests for courtesy. Why in your view is rudeness from BadgerDrink unacceptable, but rudeness from montanabw acceptable? Why did you not intervene?
- I've not supplied (but could on request) what would be a much longer list of occasions when montanabw has maligned my motives and impugned my integrity. Nor have I supplied evidence of hounding or harassment, as I think those are already sufficiently evident. What I'd very much like to know is whether this sort of behaviour is regarded as normal and acceptable in this wiki. And if, as I suspect, it is not, why User:Dana boomer, who was aware of much of it and whom I believe to be an admin, took no steps whatsoever to limit or stop it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did, however, respond to your post by taking your advice. I continue to respect and value your opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The future of WikiProject Equine. In response to Dianna's question "What's next?", I'd like to lay out one possible scenario aimed at regeneration of the project in general, and at attracting new and expert editors in particular.
- Editor montanabw agrees to step aside from the project for a short period, say a year, and to abstain from editing any article or talkpage within the project during that time
- I of course agree to abstain from editing any article or talkpage within the project for the same period, or whatever other period other editors determine to be appropriate
- Expert editors who have recently drifted away from the project - Ealdgyth, Pesky, Richard, pitke, probably many others - should be invited to return to active editing
- A small group (five?) of expert long-term editors, not necessarily with any knowledge or experience of horses, should be asked to join the project as "trustees", to offer advice and guidance where needed
- Expert editors who have left the wiki should be contacted and asked if they would consider returning; I'm thinking not just of the two mentioned above, but of expert or professional editors from the past such as Countercanter; sadly I have little hope of User:KimvdLinde being persuaded to return
- The project should agree, quite independently of any decision reached wiki-wide, to an internal policy of zero-tolerance towards discourtesy
OK, I'm new here and I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I have, however, been astounded at the hostility of the reception I received here (first mentioned here), and believe that the horse project has some serious and deep-seated problems. Perhaps a plan along these lines might lead to some improvement? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I quited WP because of the intractable governance system in which experts are not liked and style warriors can impose their will at the wiki at large. Combined with the total lack of quality control (you never know what is right or wrong at an individual page), and the elevation of that to the gospel makes it a less than interesting past-time for me. The troubles at WP:EQUINE have not been part of my decision. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC) PS. I have no pronblems with MontanaBW in case anybody is wondering.
- I stopped editing horse-related articles quite a while ago, not because of Montanabw, but rather because the project seems to attract contentious editors (the ones I had problems with have evidently left Wikipedia). A call for civility is always in order, although I see much of Montanabw's incivility being in reaction to the incivility of other editors. Nevertheless, the solution called for by JLAN seems strongly one-sided to me: Montanabw has been a productive editor for much longer than JLAN, and having them both refrain from editing project related articles for a year seems to be to be effectively a way to censor Montanabw.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This plan looks more like some sort of coup to me than an actual plan. If an area of editing interest is specialized or requires some level of specialized competence, what good would "trustees" do if they are not required to be knowledgeable about the area of work? Whether we like it or not, there are standards outside Wiki that are considered very relevant to some areas (using hand as a measurement for horse height, for example). I've had interactions with Montanabw in some areas, and have found her to have some strong opinions (not always a bad thing), but also willing to discuss those opinions with civility and even tact. I'm also "new to Wikipedia," but have never felt attacked by her. I have, however, been somewhat disgusted by the lack of respect I've seen here for established outside conventions as they apply to some subject areas. In relation to this, every time I've seen a discussion with JLAN, his ideas have been presented as fixed, unchangeable solutions with a tone very similar to the plan above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is not a plan, this is a "Silence the opposition" move. Although it's not right to respond to baiting with incivility, sometimes the baiting and tendentiousness goes on for so long that even the most patient editor(s) can snap. And there has been a long, long history here, and it's very important to look well beyond the surface. JLAN, sorry, but I have been trying to stay uninvolved for as long as humanly possible, but your "plan" here looks altogether too much as though you are trying to "win" a war of attrition by nuking someone who's been having trouble dealing with the way you interact for a very long time. That's just not right. I suggested on your talk page, a month ago, that you try to tone down the way you deal with certain situations, and I left it at that, just pointing out that for you to do this voluntarily would be far better than for you to end up with (for example) a topic ban, or similar. I know you almost certainly don;t see it this way, but looking right through the entire history of your various interactions, the escalation always seems to start from your side, and frequently with baiting. You simply cannot try and place all the blame on Montanabw or others with carefully selected diffs; that's unjust in the extreme. It's just wrong to do that. My suggestion is that you voluntarily leave alone both the WP:Equine project, and any pages in other areas which are largely contributed-to by members of that project, and particluarly leave well alone any pages that equine-project members are bringing to GA, FA, PR, or anywhere else where your sudden intervention disrupts things. Try and focus on other areas, and be particularly aware if you are getting into similar style disagreements with editors in those other areas, and if you find that happening, just back quietly away. It really would be for the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs)
- This plan looks more like some sort of coup to me than an actual plan. If an area of editing interest is specialized or requires some level of specialized competence, what good would "trustees" do if they are not required to be knowledgeable about the area of work? Whether we like it or not, there are standards outside Wiki that are considered very relevant to some areas (using hand as a measurement for horse height, for example). I've had interactions with Montanabw in some areas, and have found her to have some strong opinions (not always a bad thing), but also willing to discuss those opinions with civility and even tact. I'm also "new to Wikipedia," but have never felt attacked by her. I have, however, been somewhat disgusted by the lack of respect I've seen here for established outside conventions as they apply to some subject areas. In relation to this, every time I've seen a discussion with JLAN, his ideas have been presented as fixed, unchangeable solutions with a tone very similar to the plan above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I draw people's attention to the project talk page as it appeared in April 2011? Here's how it looked then. You want to look at the page, not just the diff. JLAN's [ earliest contributions] are here. If anyone really cares to go right through it, they'll be able to see "who started it", as it were - and not that that particularly matters - but they'll certainly be able to see for just how long this kind of thing has been going on, starting with a very new editor (at that time) confronting very well-established editors with masses of content-contribution history behind them, and getting very cross when consensus was against them. You can't judge just by what you read here on AN/I. If you're thorough, and competent, and if you really want to know, then you need to do the research homework. Adding: JLAN's talk page as at here (21 st March 2011, just under a fortnight from JLAN's first named-editor edit - see earlier) shows part of the beginning, and is worth a read. MTBW had clearly been trying to explain to a fortnight-old newbie how things worked, and got "On whose say-so?" as a response. I think that's probably just about the beginning, but you guys can see the way this started, by having a browse through the page as it was then, and then surfing the diffs around the early contributions. Pesky (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that many of JLAN's actions may have challenged the status quo and rocked some boats, but that is not necessarily always a bad thing, in my opinion. Thanks for doing this research, Pesky, but it is probably time to stop discussing behaviour and pulling diffs, and time to start working toward solutions. How can JLAN and the others begin working together? Or is it time for them to part ways for a while, and if so, how long? These might be better subjects at this point in the discussion than pulling up year-old examples of newbie behaviour. Just my opinion, for what it's worth. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, my intention was simply to illustrate where things began to go wrong, and therefore how long this dissension has been around, so explaining why patience had run out. It's around eleven months now. I apologise if people didn't get what I was trying to express properly, I don't always manage to be understood the way I intended! My suggestions are as above, really; I can't see anything else working well at all. I'm not sure if you saw my response higher up the thread, but I was a newbie to WP:EQUINE only a few weeks before JLAN was, and they welcomed me with open arms and we all got along fine; it wasn't by any means a "closed shop" situation. And it's not really feasible to tell all the other editors in WP:EQUINE to leave the project. Pesky (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your point is also taken that JLAN is not without his faults and has been difficult to work with. What I think everyone needs to do now is think about their own behaviour and what they can do to improve relations in the future. One big problem here on Wikipedia is that we have a lot of strong-willed opinionated people. It is a strength and a weakness! --Dianna (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- JLAN has done some really good stuff, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that rather a lot of people find him hard to work with (even the ones that managed to put up with me in my early days, despite the odd kicks in my gallop, lol!) I think it really would be best if he avoided the editors he's had problems relating with, and the articles they're working on, particularly when those articles are at "sensitive times" like GA, etc. He has a lot of talent and is very intelligent, and could probably contribute very well in other project areas, just keeping an eye out for similar types of disagreements arising and maybe backing down a little earlier when consensus is not with him. That would seem to be a quiet, calm way around the situation, without anything as formal as an official topic ban or an official interaction ban with the various editors he's found hard to work with. Pesky (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your point is also taken that JLAN is not without his faults and has been difficult to work with. What I think everyone needs to do now is think about their own behaviour and what they can do to improve relations in the future. One big problem here on Wikipedia is that we have a lot of strong-willed opinionated people. It is a strength and a weakness! --Dianna (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, my intention was simply to illustrate where things began to go wrong, and therefore how long this dissension has been around, so explaining why patience had run out. It's around eleven months now. I apologise if people didn't get what I was trying to express properly, I don't always manage to be understood the way I intended! My suggestions are as above, really; I can't see anything else working well at all. I'm not sure if you saw my response higher up the thread, but I was a newbie to WP:EQUINE only a few weeks before JLAN was, and they welcomed me with open arms and we all got along fine; it wasn't by any means a "closed shop" situation. And it's not really feasible to tell all the other editors in WP:EQUINE to leave the project. Pesky (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I made this very clear that this ANI is NOT about the conflict between myself and JLAN, we are both big kids who can fight things out between ourselves; we have for quite some time. This ANI is about JLAN's treatment of Dana and other editors who have crossed his path. My recommendation is neither a topic ban, an interaction ban, nor any sort of formal restrictions, but rather that JLAN finally learn the following much-needed lessons and agree to the following:
- JLAN may not realize that when he gets "attacked" it is because he has almost inevitably attacked first, or edited against consensus, or something similar. JLAN needs to quit calling or implying that other people (particularly Americans) are stupid, biased, discourteous and so on; Ealdgyth's comment to him is on point. JLAN has few friends on wiki, Pesky may be the most willing to see him in a good light of anyone, and she has commented here. I probably am the person who disagrees with him the most, but that is simply because our paths keep crossing on the same topics. If JLAN could make his points about possible errors (as sometimes he IS correct) without insults and attacks, he would not be getting back what he dishes out.
- JLAN needs to let things go when consensus goes against him instead of tendentiously beating a topic to death and then doing an WP:IDHT or a WP:FORUMSHOP to keep it alive even longer. Here is an example from a topic neither horse-related, nor involving me: JLAN is told:"You have been very pedantic and proved wrong when you sought to actually delete the section that you now seek to edit. I think now is the time to stop vandalising this article." or where he attacks an entire WikiProject area and is shot down and continues in the face of strong opposition to tendentiously argue to rename article with American focus Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
As for other comments above:
- Matthew, I am sorry your edits got caught in my revert of JLAN, that was not my intent and for messing up your work, I do apologize. More on this at your talk page.
- JLAN thinks I'm mean to him. Let's look at some more diffs: JLAN calls my comments " the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is."; or templating me in an inappropriate manner, where he was disciplined by Ealdgyth and I just noted above he calls my comments here "without reference to new blether from montanabw above" -- a new insult.
- WPEQ has many participants, and I most certainly have not driven them off. Curtis, Ealdgyth, Pesky, Richard, Pitke are all still active editors, I am proud to call them my friends. I am sure Kim will return soon, she usually does. I have "met" some of these people off-wiki via email and have met one in real life. Countercanter is still my email friend off-wiki, we have emailed about coat color genetics for a couple of years now; since she got done with grad school and has a full time job, she has had less time to contribute but has continued to be helpful to me behind the scenes when I've had a genetics question.
- As for JLAN's consistent implication that I am an idiot, which, yes, "blithering twaddle" is right up there with "stupid idiot", so I am rather hurt. While he provides no evidence of what horse expertise he actually has and maybe he's an expert (I will grant he speaks several languages, which I do not) I have in fact been a horse trainer, riding instructor (as has Pesky, by the way) and I have published actual real magazine articles on equine-related topics, so yes, indeed, I happen to have expertise in this subject area. None of us are right 100% of the time, but a collaborative approach of "say, did you see this? Should we revise the article to reflect this or not?" is better than JLAN's snide comments. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that JLAN's examples of how mean and awful I was are out of context, let's see the results:
- this article results in a collaborative renaming, expansion and good improvement
- [147] JLAN is shot down by other users on his point.
- full context of Pony discussion was a consensus against JLAN's position for the most part
- JLAN's "third warning" (what happened to "don't template the regulars?") was a response to me attempting to engage him informally, here again asking him to avoid attacking Dana, and for interfering with Andalusian horse when it was about to be TFA.
- I do admit to losing it once for real: JLAN's "last warning" was because I did call him a jerk in an edit summary the midst of the Azteca dispute. I admit was a too-angry response on my part. I also called him a jackass that same day, a comment which, you will note, I went back and subsequently refractored because I realized was over the top. That whole day was a rotten day, I was also being attacked at the same time by a sockpuppet who has since been blocked. As Pesky noted, sometimes people who are attacked enough do snap back. I snapped. I should not have. I apologize to the WP community for that. But this ANI is not about me, it is about JLAN and his treatment of people other than me. People who do not deserve to be bullied and who need some advocacy so that they are not run off by people like JLAN. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment. I haven't been driven away, I've been busy with Finnhorse in other projects, namely assisting a full translation to French and pushing a FAC in fi.wikipedia. I do find this whole mess distasteful, but truth to be said, I've attempted to steer clear of it. I'm busy (and perhaps stressed) enough admining elsewhere. --Pitke (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I try to steer clear of conflict, or when I can't steer clear, try to deal with it calmly. Sadly, "steering clear of conflict" over the past several months has come to mean almost exactly the same thing as "steering clear of JLAN". Terribly sorry, JLAN, but I have been quite deliberately trying not to interact with you, for fear of being drawn into conflicts. Pesky (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- JLAN, you're more than welcome to come over to my talk page and just join in with the general natter which goes on there (but some of the natives are a bit timid, so we tread gently where we can). A question for you: who do you really enjoy working with? Could you work with them more; that would make WikiLife happier for you. Also, if you ever need a bit of help anywhere with working stuff out, I will try to do the best I can for you, but you have to be gentle with me 'coz Real Life is full of shite at the moment! (Neuropathic problems awaiting surgery; full-time carer for 83-y-o dementia sufferer, etc.) I'm not "out to get you", I'd really like to help resolve problems if I possibly can. Pesky (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, Montanabw does not understand that to revert a GAN that a reviewer has reviewed, as she did with Large Black (pig) with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 475953360 by Dana boomer: Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer .." fundamentally disrupted the GAN review process. I'm alarmed that she thinks edits to an article that is being reviewed must be made by consensus. In any case, her edit (the revert) certainly was not done by consensus, to use her logic. Her apology to me was a lengthy post on my talk page about how bad Justlettersandnumbers is (versions of which is above and posted elsewhere on talk pages, including on my mentor's page where she intruded into a question I had asked him.) She's apologized to me on my talk page for the 9 edits I lost, as if that was the main issue. It's not. Before she reverted the article to her preferred version, she did not contact me on my talk page, nor post on the article talk page or on Talk:Large Black (pig)/GA1, all of which she could have done if she had concerns about the article or the review. Thank you, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Editors following this case might be interested in reading User talk:MathewTownsend#Passing mention at AN/I and User talk:Worm That Turned#your adoptee wants advice and User talk:Worm That Turned#JLAN. -- Dianna (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- More questions. (I'm sorry, this is probably very boring for others, but it is important to me).
- (1) Civility: Pesky writes above "Although it's not right to respond to baiting with incivility, sometimes the baiting and tendentiousness goes on for so long that even the most patient editor(s) can snap." That's certainly a change of tune for her, who previously (I had understood) regarded civility as being unconditional. It certainly isn't how things work in the real world: "Yes m'lud, it's perfectly true that my client chopped his wife into little bits with an axe and buried them in the garden, but she'd asked him to do the washing-up again and he just snapped. "Ah, yes, quite right, quite right, case dismissed". Here in Wikipedia, is that really what WP:Civil says? More specifically, I personally have been relentlessly baited by montanabw for many months; is it therefore in order for me to "snap", and start insulting her? I don't think so. What do others say?
- (2) New editors: is this really the best way to welcome a new editor? Ignorance in itself is no crime; but wouldn't it have been preferable to conduct this simple search first? The top hit is the registry of the breed, founded in 2000. There's no welcome template on the IP's talkpage. Has dana paid any attention at all to Dianna's comments above?
- (3) Moving forward: I'm more interested in moving forward from here than in going over past history. Pesky's suggestion appears to be that I should acknowledge the ownership rights of montanabw over the whole horse project and of dana over the articles she has got a star for, and piss off elsewhere. Is there community consensus for that suggestion? Is that advice that I should take? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- JLAN - for what it's worth I didn't perceive Pesky's post to be saying "put up with the status quo or piss off". On the contrary, it seemed like an olive branch to me and was couched in friendly terms. Could you see it as a compromise offer and move towards it in some way, instead of reacting against it and away from it? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (1)Actually your analogy isn't really reasonable, more accurate would be using battered woman defense as a reason for diminished responsibility. I'm not defending Montanabw's actions, but you're not blameless here. (2) I do not see anything wrong with that. Dana reverted with a reasonable edit summary. She was under no oblicaton to welcome the editor. (3)Moving forward sounds like a good idea. Let's look at the next section. WormTT · (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- More questions. (I'm sorry, this is probably very boring for others, but it is important to me).
Some suggestions
Ok, I've spent much of the day looking into this. I'm not keen on AN/I, but since I'm addressing everyone, I might as well post this here. There's clearly a clash and it's escalated to the point that it's causing significant issues. As Dianna explained above, this isn't a problem that is going to be "fixed" in one go at a board like AN/I. I hoped to have a chat with the editors in question and see if sending them back to their corners would help, but it looks like we've gone beyond that point. I do think that an RfC/U might be the best way forward, though I hate the process - it should get some more eyes on the issues. I understand that editors are unwilling to start an RfC/U as it can be a time sink, however I get the impression that there's a time sink currently.
In lieu of the RfC/U though I thought share some thoughts.
- Every editor involved freely admits that every other editor makes positive contributions.
- JLAN is an enthusiastic editor, who's opinions are often at odds with other members of WikiProject Equine. Whilst this can be a good thing, there does appear to a certain amount of not accepting consensus and arguing for too long afterwards. What's more, his comments have started to tend towards ad hominem arguments, for example suggesting that editors with a number of featured articles (and therefore reviewed by many editors) cannot write without bias. Taking an interest in a non equine article seems to be what ignited this mess. Much of JLAN's problematic work appears to be focussed on criticising/improving current articles, especially those at or around milestones.
- Montanabw's patience with JLAN appears to have run out a while ago. She's taken some inappropriate actions based upon her opinion of JLAN, such as mass reverting of his (and other editors) good edits, apparently without evaluating the quality of those edits. JLAN also has suggested that Montanabw is acting in an WP:OWN-like manner with regards to equine articles, and I can certainly see that point of view.
- As far as I've seen, User:Dana boomer has acted in an exemplary manner - with an exceptional amount of patience. Once I've finished here, I intend to give her a barnstar.
That's the major points as I see them. Please do feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong, I'm sure I can dig up diffs for all of what I've said. So, from that, I have some recommendations:
- For JLAN
- Do not use ad hominem arguments - implying that groups are unable to write neutrally, or that users are unintelligent etc.
- Focus on working together with editors, rather than criticising and changing their work. Remember, they're trying to improve the encyclopedia too. If you keep causing issues, you're likely to rub the wrong person up the wrong way, and end up blocked indefinitely. I've seen it before.
- If you have a larger scoped issue than in one article, then use WP:RfC.
- Be careful with how you are making other editors feel. I'm not saying you are harassing Dana boomer, but she has made it clear that she feels bothered by you. Take that on board and try working in areas away from her for a while. In fact, if you have non-equine interests, perhaps now would be a good time to work on them. Taking a short term break from equine is only going to improve relations longer term. Try building more articles that other people are not actively working on perhaps?
- For Montanabw
- As with JLAN, do not use ad hominem arguments. Attributing motives to JLAN such as him being mean, attacking editors or that he is a jackass or pain in the ass simply doesn't help anything or anyone.
- Back off, away from JLAN. I know you are trying to help, but mass reverts, constant suggestions about how he can and can't edit etc. are only serving to build up resentment. If you have an issue with JLAN, come to me, or any other neutral editor.
- Be careful with WP:OWN. Remember, no one owns anything on WP, and anyone can edit. I'm not saying you actually believe you or WikiProject Equine own articles, but the perception matters, and some of your behaviour does look like ownership or creating a walled garden.
I'm pretty sure that if you both keep to those suggestions, we won't need any formal sanctions and things should get better. If you're not happy, you know where to find WP:RfC/U - because I doubt you'll find a better solution at AN/I. WormTT · (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose a formal WP:IBAN is out of the question because their interests overlap too much. Sadly, this is one of those cases that is likely to end up at Arbitration unless both sides learn how to deescalate... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. Unless something changes, this isn't going to end well. WormTT· (talk)
- Per the proposed decision in the recent ArbCom case on Civility Enforcement, admins aren't likely to issue an indef to either side, so besides the good advice from WormTT, I'm not sure what else admins can do here. Noting that this now the 1st ANI thread, I suggest closure to help the parties disengage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. Unless something changes, this isn't going to end well. WormTT· (talk)
- I suppose a formal WP:IBAN is out of the question because their interests overlap too much. Sadly, this is one of those cases that is likely to end up at Arbitration unless both sides learn how to deescalate... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Worm's three suggestions to me work for me, whether JLAN agrees or not. I would like to add to his list that JLAN not edit any article if Dana boomer is the person who has nominated it for GA or FA, but bring any concerns to talk only. As for me,wWith the caveat that I fear that even editing and discussing content is sometimes perceived as an attack by me upon JLAN, I can take a shot at doing these things. 1) I will avoid attributing motive to JLAN, I will not give him advice, and I will not post on his talk page unless he invites me to do so or I must post a mandatory notice. 2) I will "back off" from JLAN if he also agrees to back off from me, within reason, given that our interests inevitably overlap. I will volunteer to let him have the donkey/equus asinus articles all to his little self, save where they encompass both horses and donkeys. It's where he is at now anyway, and my frustration did lead me to make a too-obvious insult related to the topic which I should not have made. I don't have the time to do counter-research anyway. I will also avoid pigs and chickens, where he has also worked. Let the community address him there, I'm out. I cannot agree to avoid him in horse articles, it's where 90% of my work is; however, should he appear, I will evaluate his edits for what they are worth, without attributing motive. If I believe there is a need to revert any edits by JLAN where third parties have also been involved, I will be careful to not undo their work and shall comment on each change on a case by case basis. 3) As for WP:OWN, I am fully aware that I do not "own" any article; I get accused of this a lot, though, so it's probably my tone, even if not my motive. I believe this occurs because people fail to understand that their edits are subject to the same scrutiny as mine and don't realize that exercising quality control is not "ownership." But, I'll watch the snark and try to be less impatient (I cannot guarantee perfection, after doing 40 kiddie vandal reverts equivalent to "Joey has a penis like a horse" I do get a bit hasty and impatient...). Let me publicly state that I enjoy a good, respectful discussion and I believe difference of opinion can ALWAYS be discussed; I could provide dozens of diffs where after a good discussion, my own views have changed, often markedly. (I hesitate to do so, though, for fear I will be giving JLAN a new round of articles to attack -- however, my understanding of how the dominant white gene works is one example that I think JLAN has already looked at, and Countercanter did most of the research on that article anyway, so probably no risk to mention that one here.) So if that works for Worm, I invite JLAN to also agree to Worm's suggestions. Montanabw(talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Issues at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI)
The Cold Fusion article is under sanctions. There appear to be a lot of aggressive single purpose accounts at Cold Fusion that are becoming increasingly outright hostile (including a claim that I am libeling a journal):
Other bad faith actions from POVBrigand: [151] The talk pages of this article and Energy Catalyzer also contain many other examples. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the second diff is a legal threat aimed at IRWolfie and me. There always has been a major sock problem on Cold Fusion related articles, no doubt fueled by a thirst for money and fame. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note that discretionary sanctions are in force on this article, so it might be better to make a request at WP:AE if there is a problem with an individual editor. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to be a collection of individuals or possibly some form of sock puppetry amongst the single purpose accounts but it is getting outright hostile and deliberately uncooperative (such as arguing that a journal that has 1 day of review before acceptance for some papers can be reliable). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. There has been a lot of buzz on the internet about these two topics in the last few months, and it has attracted a few new editors. Unfortunately, many suffer of WP:RECENTISM, they see some new low-quality source, and they immediately claim that the field has suddenly been vindicated, the whole article has to be rewritten, and all old high-quality sources dumped as historic footnotes.
- SPA might be more aggressive in the last days because a group of sources were rejected in the last weeks. If this continues, there should be an AE report and a few topic bans. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- POVbrigands arguments on WP:RSN appear to be based on attacking other editors: The sentiment portrayed by some editors here in this talk against "Current Science", based on overestimation of one's own capabilities on judging a poorly understood artifact and possibly a general ignorance of a science community outside of Europe/USA, is pathetic.. [152]. What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ? [153]. I will make a section on AE and link it to this page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I have filled a notice with AE: [154]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest that several editors, including POVbrigand, Gregory Goble, and Selery should be notified that the Cold fusion article is under general sanctions, and the notifications logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (I think that is the right place to log them). Would some uninvolved administrator do the honors? Cardamon (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that Gregory Goble was notified, but I don't see that this was logged anywhere. I see that Selery is currently indef'd due to an unrelated issue, but I suppose it is possible that he'll be allowed back some time. Was POVbrigand ever notified? So I am asking that users Selery and POVbrigand be notified, and that all three notifications be logged. Cardamon (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- see POVbrigands talk page were he was notified. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that Gregory Goble was notified, but I don't see that this was logged anywhere. I see that Selery is currently indef'd due to an unrelated issue, but I suppose it is possible that he'll be allowed back some time. Was POVbrigand ever notified? So I am asking that users Selery and POVbrigand be notified, and that all three notifications be logged. Cardamon (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Continued image copyright violations
| Warnings given and engagement attempted on editor's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedTraditionalydivine (talk · contribs) continues to reupload the same two images of Gopal Krishan, which were first deleted in June 2011, now for the fourth time. The last time they were deleted after a discussion on January 31. I'd appreciate help in getting the user to understand that image licensing is a serious matter and that we can't continue to monitor Gopal Krishan for copyvio reuploads. Thank you and best regards Hekerui (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have left a welcome and a message stressing the importance of copyright. The article itself is a mess, and possibly non-notable. If the user continues to upload the files we will have to block, otherwise no further admin action required.
Blind bot tagging
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This boiled over in another thread further down the page and Kumioko is now blocked for (at least) 31 hours. Further discussion should take place down there to avoid confusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.user:Kumioko has a bot, User talk:Kumi-Taskbot, which is blindly tagging anything and everything with the word America (and derivations) for the Wikiproject United States, including unquestionably out of scope, such as Americano FC (a Brazilian football team). This is disruptive and must stop. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The relevant talk discussion between Kumioko and Marks88. Also note that Marks88 makes the claim in the same talk page that WikiProject Connecticut can remove any WikiProject Banners from talk pages as they seem fit. Kumioko opened a discussion on this at the Village pump. Bgwhite (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval, since this was an approved task, for some odd reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Marked as NOTHERE. This belongs at WT:BRfA (for discussion about the specific approval) or the village pump (for discussion about the scope of WikiProjects in general). I've asked Kumioko to stop the bot until this is resolved, so it's not an urgent issue. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Madman has shut down the BRFA discussion, claiming it isn't about the approval of the bot to tag everything starting with "America" or "United States" as being part of WPUS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not, seeing as that's not what the parameters were either in the request or in the approval. Thanks, — madman 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, check out item 1 under discussion here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The parameters were "tag everything in these three lists". Really not my fault that you didn't think to ask him how those lists were generated -- especially since he explicitly stated during the discussion that one of the lists was "articles Starting with United States", right after Josh caught him tagging Talk:United States of China.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not, seeing as that's not what the parameters were either in the request or in the approval. Thanks, — madman 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Bgwhite, please note that is not what I said: I said that there is no rule against removing Wikiproject tags from a page. Which there is not. I also pointed out that I was being surgical and only removing the more ridiculous tags. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well the issue is closed and the bot is stopped. No more bot, no more issue and I have no more time to spend talking about these stupid petty complaints. --Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not listening to legitimate complaints because some are petty isn't a very good thing to do. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have already admitted that some were valid and was working on identifying them to be fixed. The vast majority of the complaints were just nonsense though. I have about 150, Mark and Sarek would want me to revert them all which is just plain stupid. Since the bots dead though, there's no point in worrying about it. They'll wash out eventually. Maybe I'll fix some manually. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your above comment comes across as "I've been forced to halt the task, so screw it, someone else will clean up the mess eventually. Maybe I'll help if I feel like it." Is that what you meant? —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- No not exactly but I can't stop typing replies in discussions long enough to do any research to fix the problem. Everyone just wants to assume bad faith rather than just identify the problem and let me fix it. I already admitted the bot tagged some articles incorrectly and was more than happy and willing to admit that and fix them but some editors like Mark and Sarek just kept sharpening the stick and poking me with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Who's assuming bad faith? Has someone accused you of deliberately mistagging articles? —David Levy 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- No not exactly but I can't stop typing replies in discussions long enough to do any research to fix the problem. Everyone just wants to assume bad faith rather than just identify the problem and let me fix it. I already admitted the bot tagged some articles incorrectly and was more than happy and willing to admit that and fix them but some editors like Mark and Sarek just kept sharpening the stick and poking me with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your above comment comes across as "I've been forced to halt the task, so screw it, someone else will clean up the mess eventually. Maybe I'll help if I feel like it." Is that what you meant? —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have already admitted that some were valid and was working on identifying them to be fixed. The vast majority of the complaints were just nonsense though. I have about 150, Mark and Sarek would want me to revert them all which is just plain stupid. Since the bots dead though, there's no point in worrying about it. They'll wash out eventually. Maybe I'll fix some manually. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not listening to legitimate complaints because some are petty isn't a very good thing to do. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why this appeared on my watchlist. (American Dog was the original working title of a film released as Bolt.) American Tail was tagged too. Does the WikiProject's scope include all motion pictures produced/set in the United States?
Wait, I see that American Werewolf in London was tagged, and that was filmed (and the story takes place) in the United Kingdom. Does the WikiProject's scope include all motion pictures produced by American studios? All motion pictures with American characters?
I didn't look beyond the bot's most recent edits, incidentally. —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- They would have fallen under
UScinema=had I been allowed to finish. --Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)- Was it infeasible to simply tag them that way in the first place? (Forgive my ignorance of the bot's capabilities.) —David Levy 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible legal threat
| Blocked per NLT, made more LTs, discussing with admins on his talk page. AN/I's role in this is done, at least for now and hopefully for good. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedThis started with an editor, Trojancowboy (talk · contribs) insisting that Jamie Kelso couldn't be a white supremacist because there is no such thing, and using the word libellous. I provided a reliable source for that description (I was going to go to BLPN to discuss how it should be used, but this has priority). I asked him to make it clear that he intended no legal action. His reply was that he has 'no immediate plans for a lawsuit (this is at Talk:Jamie Kelso, not his talk page. I repeated my request saying 'no immediate plans' isn't good enough, and adding that he needs to say he doesn't intend to encourage others to sue. His response is "I will notify Jamie Kelso by some means and you can discuss it with him. This is not my biography. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. I recommend the restoral of the dubious tag. It is not to be frivolously removed over a serious matter like this." Since I'm involved in this article and in another (2011 Spokane bombing attempt) where there's another attempt to remove the phrase 'white supremacist' (even to the extent of changing it to white nationalist in sourced text despite the source saying whtie supremacist' I'm obviously not going to use my tools. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no legal threat here because Trojancowboy is not Jamie Kelso and therefore would have no standing to file a lawsuit on Kelso's behalf. It is an interesting question whether it is against policy to state on-wiki that if content isn't changed, an editor will encourage someone else to sue, but I don't think that falls with WP:NLT as usually understood. In addition, merely observing that article content about someone might be libelous is not always a legal threat, although as stated in the policy, it will often be better to use other words to express this concept.
- I have no view on whether the term "white separatist" or "white supremecist" should be used, or whether one is better in some contexts and another in others (that could very possibly be the case). However, comments by Trojancowboy such as "no organization that I know of wants to rule over other races. They merely want to be rid of them" are deeply troublesome. I recommend that someone take a closer look at the overall acceptability of Trojancowboy's edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The user stated during their 3rd unblock request that they usually edit science articles[156], but a further look at their contribs shows that when they are not editing articles about science or Iceland, they are editing articles on Nazis, Neonazis, holocaust deniers and white supremacists, with the occassional Jewish or African American thrown in (generally unflattering info or naming them as Jewish, but usually cited). As with this case the user has at other times objected to white supremacist being labeled as such, as well as whitewashing other aspects of their reputations: 2011 Spokane bombing attempt[157], [158] and [159], David Dukediff,[160], and [161], and Edgar Steele[162]. A few of the contribs with the article titles are problematic as a general trend:Richard Girnt Butler, Archibald Roberts, Mike Nifong[163], Approach-avoidance conflict[164], Hajo Herrmann[165], The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Ernst Zündel[166], Talk:Herbert Hoover[167], Nick Griffin, Harold Cruse[168], Louis Farrakhan[169], Naomi Wolf [170], and Sylvia Stolz[171]. Heiro 07:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- NLT does state as a rationale that legal threats create "bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." One might consider a threat to encourage others to take legal action as evidence of hostility toward the project and disruption in general, so blocks may result in that hypothetical case. --Chris (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether he has legal standing or not is irrelevant. NLT is to prevent the chilling effect of threatening legal action against another editor. In this case, it's vague enough I'm not sure NLT applies, but the editor making such comments could use a stern talking to about WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The intention is perfectly clear. We have an editor who has been campaigning to keep certain content out of an article. That editor mentions a possible legal threat from a specified person, and states that he has the intention of bringing the issue to the intention of that person. No person of normal intelligence who has read the editor's comments impartially can fail to see that the intention is to imply that he intends to take steps to bring about legal action, with the intention of intimidating other Wikipedia editors into not opposing the attempts of that editor to exclude the relevant content from the article. (A "chilling" effect.) The fact that the editor has taken steps to avoid actually threatening to take direct legal action himself is irrelevant: he has clearly sought to imply the intention of bringing about legal action by proxy. The editor's actions are unambiguously covered by the spirit of Wikipedia:No legal threats. That policy also refers to "comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats", under which category this certainly falls. The editor was informed of this discussion and was invited "to make it clear there that you are not intending to take any legal action or encourage others to do so". The editor has edited since then, so it is reasonable to assume he has seen that advice, but after substantially more than an hour has not responded. If this were a misunderstanding about the intentions of someone who did not intend to "take any legal action or encourage others to do so" then he would have had ample opportunity to clarify the situation, quite apart from the fact that the editors comments make it difficult to contemplate such an interpretation anyway. A "no legal threats" block is fully justified, and I shall impose one. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just borrow a theme from meta-wiki and block for "intimidating behavior". The closest policy that I can think of here covering that is WP:DE. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good block. WP:NLT doesn't say No Valid Legal Threats, it says No Legal Threats, and encouraging somebody else to sue over the content of an article (or, IMHO, even "saying they will point somebody to an article in the anticipation they will want to sue over it") is an unambigious legal threat. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just borrow a theme from meta-wiki and block for "intimidating behavior". The closest policy that I can think of here covering that is WP:DE. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Implied legal threat in a NLTs unblock request[172]? Heiro 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yo dawg, I put a legal threat in your legal threat? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like an explicit legal threat to me. This is the first time I've seen a legal threat within an unblock request... Probably the easiest way I know of to remain blocked.--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Implied legal threat in a NLTs unblock request[172]? Heiro 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Why would this discussion be "closed?" As though followup discussion is prohibited...) Sbharris, what happened to you is indeed unfortunate. NLT states: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." My suggestion regarding an appropriate edit summary would be something like "removing possible defamation (this is not a legal threat)." The word "possible" along with an explicit declaration to make yourself clear should prevent any misunderstanding. It sounds a bit silly, but it removes all ambiguity.
- Now, having said that, NLT also states: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." In cases of ambiguity, admins should not be issuing indef blocks. If your experience involved ambiguous comments and you were blocked with no discussion, I would place the error squarely on the shoulders of the blocking admin. --Chris(talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The blocked user here did not remove any material, they just placed a "dubious-discuss" tag on information they personally disagreed with, without providing citations on the discussion page. Another user and myself both added citations to the disputed information and removed the tag. The user then replaced the tag and began making accusation of libel and promises to tell the subject of the article so they could pursue legal action, still without providing citations or any other material at the talk page. They were asked to retract or clarify their statements concerning their accusation of libel, both on the article talk and at their user talk. They did not, so the other user, an involved admin, brought the mater here for neutral input on the matter. They were subsequently blocked per NLT by an uninvolved admin. In three separate unblock requests now, they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, but they have kind of backed away from the NLT with their last one [173]. Heiro 01:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Chris, discussions like this usually get closed when there's nothing else for admins to do. If you dispute the decision, that's fine, but we don't generally keep talking just to talk. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- NOTFORUM does not apply to discussions about Wikipedia policies and their potential impact, it is about discussing the subjects of articles with no effort to improve the encyclopedia. --Chris (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to alter policy, feel free to take it up on the policy page. ANI is for stuff needing immediate attention of an admin, or looking into an admin's actions. And if you're wanting to talk with just one person, taking it up at their talk is preferable. Is there anything else admins need to do here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
High database server lag
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Is there any cause for concern regarding the message "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 804 seconds may not appear in this list"?
I know this is a semi normal occurrence but the number keeps increasing which indicates to me that something might be going on, perhaps a concentrated attack, is that possible? Noformation Talk 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
User repeatedly adds copyrighted content
I'd like some assistance with RobertHWilson (talk · contribs) / 108.204.19.76 (talk · contribs); both I and User:LaMenta3 have tried to explain Wikipedia's image policy, but he persists in adding images from the internet to articles (generally related to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football). Hopefully we can explain that it's not just lame and annoying, and that we're not trolling, it's the law. :) Disavian (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also wish there was a clearer template progression when users add copyrighted content. I'm more used to traditional vandalism where there's the distinct levels and then you report it to AIV. Disavian (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- For images with false or missing licensing/source information, there is in fact the "uw-ics"1/2/3 series. Just gave him one of those. Thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made this edit so it will jump out better. Doc talk 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out... not sure how I overlooked that one. Disavian (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nice block. Thanks for the prompt action when he added another. Disavian (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- After looking through things, I'd strongly suggest upping the block to indef until the user gives indication he clearly understands Wikipedia's copyright policy. He has exhibited WP:OWN type behavior and (as mentioned) has described the expression of copyright concerns as trolling. I don't think a 48-hour sit-down is going to get the point across. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- For images with false or missing licensing/source information, there is in fact the "uw-ics"1/2/3 series. Just gave him one of those. Thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Is Jaobar still Jonathan Obar?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This is, I suspect, not the right place to post this message. But I can't find a better one, and posting here will, I think, get the job done.
User:Jaobar, you may recall, is Jonathan A. Obar, the academic who hopes to have admins interviewed by his students. OK so far. But in view of his explicitly divulged background (complete with funding from impressive places) and his earlier eagerness to impress people with his motives and seriousness, his recent editing pattern has been odd indeed. Consider this set of edits to his sandbox ("My favorite band is Phish", etc etc). And more so, this edit, in which he compliments an unspecified Jonathan (but in the context, presumably Obar) on his "awesome" talk.
Looks to me as if his account has been "compromised" (euphemism). I hesitate to block him, as he hasn't done anything harmful that I've yet noticed; but if somebody else would like to do so, I wouldn't object. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- You could contact him directly at his university address to make sure. Elockid (Talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking in on me. I was teaching a grad class this evening that included a section on editing Wikipedia. I made the edits when teaching students how to make edits in their sandboxes, as well as how to properly edit talk pages (complete with signatures!) It's me, not to worry. Oh and Phish is my favorite band. :-) Best, --Jaobar (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
He's emailed me. False alarm; all clear. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Bot vs. Bot
| Where's Grey Bot when you need her? The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedWe have a couple of bots that appear to have a difference of opinion. Not sure what to do about it.
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- CocuBot has an old version of python I am thinking. There was an old bug in it that caused certain special characters to be misread so they linked to the wrong pages in pywikipedia's mind. ie one that doesn't exist. It should probably be blocked until he upgrades his python. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. Actually, both bots are correct. CocuBot deleted the link to this, whereas EmausBot linked back to this. (I don't have a clue whether the pages are related, or even what language that is, however!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh yes you are right. It looked very similar to a bug that was affecting pywikipedia with the same language types. The pages would look almost identical but the bot would see it differently. Was something wrong with the unicode. Either way he is a version behind. But I forget which version had the correction. If it was 2.7.2 or 2.7.1. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Amusing it happens on that page. (Rep rap is about potentially self replicating physical bots) Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
- Interwiki links are broken in a surprising number of cases. Bot wars are just a consequence of that. There's a page on meta documenting just how broken" m:IS#Automated analysis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Amusing it happens on that page. (Rep rap is about potentially self replicating physical bots) Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
- Ahh yes you are right. It looked very similar to a bug that was affecting pywikipedia with the same language types. The pages would look almost identical but the bot would see it differently. Was something wrong with the unicode. Either way he is a version behind. But I forget which version had the correction. If it was 2.7.2 or 2.7.1. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. Actually, both bots are correct. CocuBot deleted the link to this, whereas EmausBot linked back to this. (I don't have a clue whether the pages are related, or even what language that is, however!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Conflict of interest/SPA/OWN
| Article redirected per AfD and user corpname blocked and asked to change promotional username. EyeSerenetalk 09:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Opwdecks (talk · contribs) apparently has something, as they created the article Deck stains, have edited nothing but that article, and make constant reversions to it. I'm not sure if this is COI, SPA or just plain weird — anyone got any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The username suggests to me some level of intended promotion and references a company (see opwdecks.com) so a corpname block may be appropriate. I'm not sure if the account holder has ties to the external sites linked to... there are no links to opwdecks.com (though there was one at one time). At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what the editor does after the AfD discussion ends. --Chris (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious Interwiki activity
| Socks found and tossed back in the dryer with a side helping of NLT per the thread further down the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the post above (Bot Vs. Bot), I was what sort of hilarious mistake the bots made on each other when I noticed that Luckas-bot also added RepRap to Simple Wikipedia. This led to an investigation being done on simple Wiki. I found out that the blocked User: Shakinglord has exiled himself to Simple English Wikipedia, seen here. Shakinglord has created a slew of pages from English Wikipedia and has even started an article creating even there. I'm not sure what can be done, but I find that it is disturbing that a banned editor has escaped. Rapide (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing for us to worry about. If he's behaving on simple, great, if not, the admins there will act. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- A further look shows that he's copying pages from here to there without attribution in violation of our licenses. I'll post a note over there about that. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've posted a note about the copying at simple:WP:AN. I'll let them take it from there. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- A further look shows that he's copying pages from here to there without attribution in violation of our licenses. I'll post a note over there about that. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Escaped is IMO the wrong word. By and large each WMF wiki is allowed to manage themselves as they see fit and most don't automatically block or ban people just because they've been blocked or banned elsewhere (although such a block/ban may be considered in a decision to block/ban based on behaviour on their wiki). While global locking is possible (as an alternative to global blocking which isn't currently possible for accounts), it generally only happen when the user has already proven they are disruptive at more than one wiki (or when a SUL account is compromised). If Shakinglord is disruptive at simple (this would likely include copying wholesale any pages from here without modification to make them simple) I'm guessing he/she's likely to be blocked there soon. But there have definitely been cases where en blocked (not sure about banned) users have been considered fairly constructive members of another wiki. For the benefit of simple, let's hope it's the later. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Shakinglord likely block evasion
Someone mentioned that Shakinglord recently was active over at Simple, but I'm not seeing the thread at the moment. I'm nearly certain we have activity from him here as well. ChocolateWolf (talk · contribs) was previously blocked as a sock of him. SL stated it was his friend, and asked for CW to be unblocked. An admin assumed good faith, and unblocked the account. Since then, the sockpuppet farm expanded, and I proposed and successfully banned SL. Now, CW has been active again and I believe at this point it is beyond the point of assuming good faith with the original "friend" claim. At minimum I believe the account should be blocked, but we may need a sock investigation again. Requesting further comment. Calabe1992 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying the farm expanded because of all those welcome messages? I clicked on a couple, all with no edits, but one of them was apparently a student in some educational wiki project. Last of CW's activity was two weeks ago, and I see no evidence of vandal edits. I personally don't buy the "friend" story, but Bushranger is a nicer person than I am. Now, if CU confirms that some of those new accounts are sleepers, so to speak, then I think you have proof: but I don't know if that will be considered a fishing expedition. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, no, lol. The sock farm expanded after CW had been unblocked - it blew up when User:BusyBlacksmith came to ANI to complain about you, actually. I suspected he was a Spotfixer sock and subsequently opened an SPI, which led us to Shakinglord. Calabe1992 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Users have been blocked via SPI. Calabe1992 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- As a note, I was suspicious of the "friend" story as well, but decided to err on the side of good faith; unfortuntatly, things didn't work out. Ah well. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Question about editing during AFDs
| While there is an somewhat interesting question raised, there's no administrator action to be performed here, and, thus, this isn't a topic for AN/I. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- - When should those who voiced a "delete" opinion in an {{afd}} then perform referencectomies and informationectomies on that article while the {{afd}} is still running?
When should those who voiced a "delete" opinion in an {{afd}} then perform referencectomies and informationectomies on that article while the {{afd}} is still running?
It has always seemed to me, that those who voiced a delete opinion should not edit the article -- at least while the {{afd}} is still running.
Some people have told me that nominators, and those voicing delete opinions, should be entitled to remove violations of {{blp}}. I don't agree. I think in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest they should ask a previously uninvolved third party to look at it.
Recently I participated in an {{afd}} where I voiced a keep opinion, and did some work on the article. I thought it was a pretty clearcut keep, and hadn't looked at it for several days. I was quite surprised to see that not only /had several contributors voiced delete opinions, but that the nominator, and two of those who voiced "delete" opinions made extensive excisions to the article.
The nominator offered an explanation for one of their edits, on the talk page. But the other contributors favoring deletion only explained their edits in their edit summary. In my opinion controversial edits really ought to be explained on the talk page. I see justifying a controversial edit in a short edit summary is an unnecessary trigger to edit-warring, as it represents a temptation to respond with a reversion, so those who disagree can reply with their in the same place, with their own edit summary.
In general I think it would be best for the project for those who think their concerns with an article make it irredeemable state their position in the {{afd}} itself. Specifically, in this article, I thought the justifications for the excisions were flimsy.
Because I am not forum shopping, I am explicitly not naming the specific {{afd}}. I have seen a couple of people who routinely edit war after nominating an article for deletion, or voicing a delete opinion. Since this seems to me to be a problem that routinely repeated by a small number of contributors I thought I could request general opinions here.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am intentionally limiting the scope of my comment to the removal of BLP violations, but I see no reason to think that those who have voted "delete" should forfeit the right to remove them. BLP issues are taken seriously enough by Wikipedia, and rightfully so, that their removal is considered an exception to, say, the 3RR rule. The very real principle of avoiding possible harm to living people far outweighs the more abstract principle of wanting an AFD to look as tidy as possible. Kansan (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I normally avoid making major changes to an article that is at AfD that I have !voted to delete, with the exception of removing BLP violations or copyright infringements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with making BLP policy related edits to an article I have !voted delete on however - BLP is nonnegotiable, there is no situation where it is not appropriate to take out BLP violations. What is/isn't a BLP violation can be controversial and tricky, and if someone else goes "I don't think that's a BLP violation" than the person involved should certainly discuss the issue, but there's nothing wrong with removing something you think is a BLP violation unless it's clear that consensus is against you. There's also nothing wrong with removing a BLP violation from an article you have a conflict of interest on. (Also, I'd hope that closing admins would take a quick gander at the history of the article, and pick up on things like unwarranted removals of content.)
Also, if you aren't requesting specific administrator action be taken here, it belongs on another board. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Only one of the edits had an edit summary explanation that mentioned BLP. It was a very minor edit (changing "is" to "was") -- not one of the extensive, questionable excisions. Geo Swan (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- They should be able to edit the article in any way that would normally be permitted. In fact, sometimes its practically necessary: if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process. It helps all users see immediately whether or not the baseline criteria are met, and helps explain to the article creator or others defending the article that no, in fact, the notability isn't verified. Of course, someone removing valid content in an attempt to hurt the article should be sanctioned, but I assume that's not what you're talking about. P.S.: could you change the section title? There's not a lot of room for edit summaries like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why can't the concerned contributor explain their concern in the {{afd}}?
- I had an extremely dedicated wikistalker, who used to regularly make extensive and disruptive edits to articles they had nominated for deletion. They defended these edits as "improvements". But no one should nominate an article for deletion, or voice a delete opinion, if they think the article can be improved to the point it should be kept.
- You seem to be saying that it is acceptable for contributors who can't explain their concerns to demonstrate their concerns by editing the article. It is extremely rare to see nominators or those who favor delete to edit the articles. I strongly suggest that no one should demonstrate why they think an article should be deleted through excising those portions they object to. I strongly suggest only individuals willing and able to participate in a collegial exchange of ideas should participate in deletion discussions. I am sympathetic to those with dsylexia, or other learning disabilities, or who are still learning English. But those individuals simply aren't qualified to participate in a deletion discussion. Is that what you were suggesting?
Frankly, I have never seen anyone do so when those edits weren't extremely disruptive. Those who favor keep should have the opportunity to actually improve the article, without having to contend with edit-warring from those who have gone on record favoring deletion.
- You wrote: "if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process." I accept, at face value, that any occasion when you practiced this technique you did so in good faith. I accept, at face value, it simply hasn't occurred to you how disruptive this practice is, and how it gives the very strong appearance of bad faith, and serves to poison the general expectation of good faith we should all try to maintain.
Nothing prevents you from saying, "IMO only one of the article's N references is to a an WP:RS." But, when you actually excise references from the actual article, other good faith participants, who look at the article, will find only the one reference you left. They don't get to form their own opinion as to whether the references you removed. The contributors who follow you are unlikely ot realize you performed a referencectomy on the article, if you don't say so in the {{afd}}. There is a pretty good chance that they won't notice, or won't understand, that you performed a massive referencectomy, even if you do say so in the {{afd}}, as a lot of {{afd}} participants don't read the whole {{afd}} discussion, or don't read it very closely. So, what you described as "actually helpful to rhe process" looks like an attempt to deceive other participants in the discussion.
You seem to be asserting that that excising "blogs" with little or no explanation is okay. But there is a lot of confusion, even among experienced contributors, as to what is an unreliable blog. Most blogs are unreliable, because they are the work of a single individual, who is not an expert, who is not supported by an editorial team, following an editorial policy. But a small minority of online publications that are called "blogs" are reliable. They are the online only side of a reputable magazine, withe the same or similar ediorial standards of their print version. There are other online only publications, like Scotusblog, which have a greater reputation than print publications. Generally print publications cite Scotusblog, not vice versa. Finally, there are individuals who are already highly respected expertes in their field. When they publish something online, without benefit of a team of editors, their writings are nevertheless reliable, even if someone calls their writing a "blog". Don't be offended, but given the confusion and disagreement over what constitues a blog, even among the most experienced participants on the wikipedia, I am not going to accept your opinion, or anyone's opinion, that a reference is an unreliable blog that should be removed, wihtout an explanation. I strongly feel that, when an article is before {{afd}} it is far better if those who favor deletion confine themselfves to comments in the {{afd}} and refrain from editing the article. Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- They should be able to edit the article in any way that would normally be permitted. In fact, sometimes its practically necessary: if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process. It helps all users see immediately whether or not the baseline criteria are met, and helps explain to the article creator or others defending the article that no, in fact, the notability isn't verified. Of course, someone removing valid content in an attempt to hurt the article should be sanctioned, but I assume that's not what you're talking about. P.S.: could you change the section title? There's not a lot of room for edit summaries like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a problem, see WP:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn. However, !voting delete does not mean that edits to an article are debilitating, ref. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: when the references are bogus, misleading or otherwise unsuitable, when the information is unverifiable or an infringement of policy. Longer answer - unless and until the consensus is to lock articles at afd so that the deletion discussion is on a snapshot of the article, there is no need to stop editors editing articles at afd. Not even editors whose opinion on the article differs from yours. pablo 10:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment). Whenever I nominate an article for deletion, as a purely personal policy I then attempt to wikify it, add cats, ELs and talkpage banners. (Caveat: I am a hugeificially baleetopedian, and/or All-Round Nice Guy.) Shouldn't we be discussing this at WP:VPP?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to treat WP:AFD as Articles for discussion. Issues with an articles are raised: if you're able to fix something, then do it. That may include weeding out improper ref's, but if you're good enough to replace them with better ones, then you have probably improved the 'pedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete !voters should of course be welcome to improve the article. However, if they are editing the article to (for example) remove sources they don't like (and thus reduce claims to notability) they'd better be clearly bogus sources. I've seen cases where someone says something like "all sources are only passing mentions" in the AfD and then remove wide swaths of text (and those sources) even though they were clearly reliable sources that supported the text in question. That, IMO, is unacceptable. Especially if the keep !voters had comments like "sources in article clearly meet WP:N" or the like. Baring BLP issues or clearly bogus use of sources, folks pushing for deletion shouldn't be removing sources--and if they do feel they need to they should make it clear they _did_ so in the AfD. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the statement of the subject is correct, the article really needs to be deleted under DONOHARM. Saying someone with relatively minor past involvement is a leader of this organization is very much the sort of thing DoNoHarm was meant for.(While being aware that it can be in the interest of someone who is truly the leader of such an organization and notable as such to try to hide the fact despite reliable evidence otherwise). But the first step is to validate that the person saying he's the subject actually is. And the person offers circumstantial evidence he cannot be the subject based on his travel and other considerations, not all of which appear likely--was he actually only a recent learner of Arabic and yet teaching a madrassa?, which would need also to be verified. And that can only be done on OTRS, where we can deal with such evidence.
- As for the general issue of removing content during AfD , it depends on the circumstances. Sometime removing content makes a stronger article, for example by removing promotionalism. sometimes there are genuine BLP concerns. But sometimes it's an attempt to destroy the article unfairly by making it as weak as possible. Since if the BLP claims are correct the article probably does need to be deleted, the better course would be to leave them in during the discussion, so people can judge that; if so, they'll be removed soon enough. If the article is kept, then they can be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Point of order This page is for discussing particular incidents not generalities. The discussion here should therefore be closed or relocated. Warden (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Wholetruth123
There are two warning signals in a user name: something about "truth" and a set of sequential numbers. I can use your help with this one. I blocked this editor earlier today for edit warring on Islamism, where they are trying to insert an OR/synthi/soapboxy definition of islamism. Besides those problems, I noticed something else: please note the possibly revolting antisemitic language in this edit. I blocked them for 48 hours, but I wonder if that should be lengthened to, say, indefinite. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've notified the editor. I hope that someone will be helpful in copying their comments, should they have any, from their talk page to this thread. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I shall watch their page, and do so if they have any. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- 48 hours? Really? You're very generous. I don't see "warning signs"--I see a hatemonger who needs to find an opinion blog to post his/her opinions on, and leave the encyclopedia alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I tell you what, Qwyrxian--feel free to overrule me! What I saw was a bunch of stuff I couldn't really make heads or tails of, and that ridiculous edit above, I only saw that after the block. Which is why I brought it here... Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who couldn't understand them! I was tempted to block after I saw what they were posting but thought it better to err on the side of caution and make sure they were properly warned first. I can't see them lasting too much longer as they seem to be here to push their view and little else. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- CBW, the plot thickens. In response to their talk page message about admins with agendas voting to redirect the article and abuse the truth (whatever that may be), I wrote the following, which I'll quote in full:
"There was no vote. The history of Islamist is here. The argument is simple: an islamist adheres to islamism. Your comparison to African American is specious. BTW, you're not the first to propose what you did--this edit, by User:Coninera, and an IP in the 142 range, did the same in 2005. Odd--some other IPs in that same range had redirected the term in 2003 already. Are you quite sure that this was your first edit on Wikipedia?"
- CBW, the plot thickens. In response to their talk page message about admins with agendas voting to redirect the article and abuse the truth (whatever that may be), I wrote the following, which I'll quote in full:
- I thought I was the only one who couldn't understand them! I was tempted to block after I saw what they were posting but thought it better to err on the side of caution and make sure they were properly warned first. I can't see them lasting too much longer as they seem to be here to push their view and little else. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I tell you what, Qwyrxian--feel free to overrule me! What I saw was a bunch of stuff I couldn't really make heads or tails of, and that ridiculous edit above, I only saw that after the block. Which is why I brought it here... Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- 48 hours? Really? You're very generous. I don't see "warning signs"--I see a hatemonger who needs to find an opinion blog to post his/her opinions on, and leave the encyclopedia alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I shall watch their page, and do so if they have any. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
American Piano Academy
This isn't probably the best place to dump this, but could somebody please take a look at the edit just before mine and figure out what, if anything, needs to be done here? Sorry to be vague but the edit summary should explain why I thought this needs another look. 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- From looking at this version, the last one edited by the editor with the supposed COI, I can't tell that it would be POV or otherwise contaminated. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- About a dozen questions popped into my mind, including: does the rather accusatory edit summary present BLP concerns? Is the article subject even notable? (I see it's not referenced.) Is it a copyvio of anything? These are normally things I would dig into but am just too exhausted to do tonight, which is why some more eyes would be welcome. 28bytes (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Um, the current version with the bolded sentence under "philanthropy" is a bit unusual as well. You rightfully reverted the edit in question, but I think there is definitely some sort of agenda being pushed here.I think maybe, being it is unsourced with some borderline BLP concerns, would make it a candidate for an AFD process at the very least. Any takers? Quinn░ RAIN 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've PROD'd it, as the reasons given for this commercial music school's "notability" are totally unnotable - every music school in the United States has seen some of its graduates go on to study music. And some of its students happened to be in Japan during the earthquake -- well, that's certainly significant!
It's just a run-of-the-mill music school with nothing particular to differentiate it from hundreds of others just like it. Next we'll have articles on every bakery in every town in America. ("Noted for its excellent pumpkin pie and its strawberry tart is to die for.") Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've PROD'd it, as the reasons given for this commercial music school's "notability" are totally unnotable - every music school in the United States has seen some of its graduates go on to study music. And some of its students happened to be in Japan during the earthquake -- well, that's certainly significant!
- Um, the current version with the bolded sentence under "philanthropy" is a bit unusual as well. You rightfully reverted the edit in question, but I think there is definitely some sort of agenda being pushed here.I think maybe, being it is unsourced with some borderline BLP concerns, would make it a candidate for an AFD process at the very least. Any takers? Quinn░ RAIN 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- About a dozen questions popped into my mind, including: does the rather accusatory edit summary present BLP concerns? Is the article subject even notable? (I see it's not referenced.) Is it a copyvio of anything? These are normally things I would dig into but am just too exhausted to do tonight, which is why some more eyes would be welcome. 28bytes (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That edit summary doesn't bother me too much, given the relatively limited search exposure of edit summaries. (Added: the edit you removed is indeed pretty bad.) Looking at the academy website[174] shows the name mentioned, indicating COI, though the promotion level is fairly tame compared to what we often get. I'm too burnt out for it right now, but maybe someone could have a polite chat with the initial contributor explaining the COI and notability issues. I'm going to endorse the prod based on difficulty of assuring a neutral article with such sparse sourcing when there is an apparent controversy. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (updated).
- In a strange bit of Irony and coincidence, if I would have been allowed to tag this article with the WPUS banner I probably would have noticed that myself. --Kumioko (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Outrageous personal attack
| Judge Dred Scott blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Doc talk 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After I flagged Freedom, Inc. for speedy deletion as an unremarkable organization (the article had only one link from a library about someone making a documentary), Judge Dred Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a similar article at Freedom, Inc where he called me "an evident white-supremacist" and alleged that I "initiated a political controversy". This is completely out of bounds, and I request that action be taken against this editor. I will also be filing a sockpuppet investigation on this editor, as I noticed that they seem to be editing as in a very similar pattern to new user Riderz Tide. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I continue to allege that User:Mike Wazowski is (Personal attack removed) and anyone can see he initiated a political controversy. What's out of bounds about expressing one's opinion? (Personal attack removed) This is all I plan to contribute to this discussion at this time, I have bigger fish to fry. Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- FYI, this is the comment to which Wakowski refers, in its totality: (Personal attack removed) Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I continue to allege that User:Mike Wazowski is (Personal attack removed) and anyone can see he initiated a political controversy. What's out of bounds about expressing one's opinion? (Personal attack removed) This is all I plan to contribute to this discussion at this time, I have bigger fish to fry. Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think a block of JDS is warranted. If he's not a troll (and I think he probably is) then he holds strong enough views to make cooperation with other users impossible, and Wikipedia being based off of cooperation, that would represent a rather significant problem. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggest a two week block of JDS.--WaltCip (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Although it is not a legal threat, there does seem to be a threat implied here ("This incident is being reported to U.S. Congressman Cleaver") that seems to have the intention of creating a chilling effect. - SudoGhost 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)I have deleted Freedom, Inc, and am leaving Freedom, Inc. for a moment, giving it a bit of time for expansion (maybe it should go up for an AfD, not sure if this is not notable).
- Judge Dred Scott, I ask you to withdraw your personal attacks immediately. The tagging by MikeWazowski is at worst a bit quick, but chilling possible discussion with the personal attacks is not how we operate here on Wikipedia. Do come up with proper, independent references from reliable sources, and you may find that the article sticks. If however you choose not to withdraw the allegations, you may find yourself blocked, and the faith of the article may be different. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- In ec, I see that the former is also deleted .. a quick search does suggest some notability, though I did not do a full search. I am afraid the tagging was a tad fast. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see that Riderz Tide (talk · contribs) has a similar focus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Accusing someone of being as "white supremacist" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 06:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked Scott for 48 hours for his blatant personal attack. I should note that he shows no interest in redacting the attack. Tiptoety talk 06:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Since JDS appears to have no interest in removing his personal attacks above, can I get them redacted and removed from the edit history? I personally find his spurious allegations obscene and utterly uncalled for. Thanks. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- It could fit #2 here, possibly. Eh. If it were me, I'd just let it roll off my back and know that this account will not be accusing you of this sort of thing again without a much lengthier block being assigned. Doc talk 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor Korean biographical stubs which seem to come from a model or template
While stub-sorting I've been finding a series of badly-written Korean historical biographical stubs which look as if they are all from the same template or model, although from different, usually newby, editors. They all have years in dates linked; the lead sentence mangles singular and plural (eg "Yi Jae-hyun(korean:이제현, hanja:李齊賢, 1287–1367) was a politicians and early Korean Neo-Confucianism scholar and philosopher, Writer, Poets."); they tend not to use capital letters for sentence starts; they usually have both {{stub}} and {{Korea-bio-stub}}; they use non-standard section headings. I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Mass-produced_biographical_stubs.3F, but they continue. They started Nov 11 or earlier. I've mentioned problems to individual editors, but they continue. I don't know whether a student group has been given poor instruction and urged to edit, or what, but it's sad to see such a string of poor quality additions. Any ideas what can be done? PamD 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like at least one of the accounts has now been blocked. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else we can do if most articles are created by new accounts and we have no idea where they're coming from. Sadly we have seen poor content work from educational institutions but it could equally be one individual running multiple accounts. Are the article subjects themselves notable? EyeSerenetalk 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- As mentioned, this is not the only such case. I;'ve seen similar from other geographic regions, or on other topics. We need some better way of handling them. The ideal solution is some way to convince the originators that they need to do things properly with good referencing, and give them the needed help for that. But usually the people doing this do not respond to messages, and I can't imagine blocking just to get someones attention when they 've done nothing actually block-worthy. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If necessary we do issue blocks to get attention - remember a block is not a punishment but a technical means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, which persistent creation of large numbers of poorly formatted stubs most certainly is. However blocking may be ineffective if the stubs are mostly being created by new accounts each time. We'd be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
- As I see it the range of possible responses are to:
- block the accounts anyway, and keep at it until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us; or
- delete the articles, and keep at it with new ones until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us (may be problematic if the subjects are notable though); or
- try to make the best of a bad situation by tagging and/or cleaning up the articles; or
- see if we can write an edit filter to catch the creations (not my area of expertise); or
- some combination of the above.
- I'm open to suggestions :) EyeSerenetalk 12:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Tnxman307 has blocked 21 editors as "Abusing multiple accounts". The problem is that almost all of these stubs are created by new (?) editors who arrive, create one or two very markup-heavy article in this format on one day, and don't edit again. Will be interesting to see if it continues now. Of course I don't see them all, only the ones I happen to stub-sort (and if the editor(s) listened when I point out that they don't need {{stub}} as well as {{Korea-bio-stub}}, then I wouldn't see any of them.) They are getting past New Page Patrol without so much as a {{cleanup}} tag, despite linked dates and mangled English.
- Have just spotted that a couple, at least, of these editors have a log record saying "Account created automatically" - see Special:Log/Lagnaqar, Special:Log/Jddbc. What does that signify? Is it a clue as to where they are coming from? PamD 14:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Poking around I see that Lagnaqar has uploaded a number of images to Commons where they also have an account. Although I'm just guessing, I strongly suspect the "Account created automatically" tag is because the original account was not created on en-WP and WP:SUL was then used to create unified accounts across all WMF projects. Unfortunately I don't think that gets us any nearer to solving the stub issue though. Perhaps the best thing, now there's been a cull, is as you suggest to wait and see if there's further disruption. EyeSerenetalk 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- As mentioned, this is not the only such case. I;'ve seen similar from other geographic regions, or on other topics. We need some better way of handling them. The ideal solution is some way to convince the originators that they need to do things properly with good referencing, and give them the needed help for that. But usually the people doing this do not respond to messages, and I can't imagine blocking just to get someones attention when they 've done nothing actually block-worthy. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
3RR Violation and edit warring by Markvs88
I would like to ask for administrator action regarding an ongoing disagreement between myself and Markvs88. When I attempt to make changes to an article on this users watchlist they revert it without hesitation regardless of the edits being made. Secondly, Markvs88 has violated the 3RR rule by reverting the changes too many times and rather than continue into an edit war myself I am bringing the issue here for resolution. The following 3 articles are presented:\
- Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament - 1, 2, 3
- Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - 1, 2
- Talk:American Cruise Lines - 1, 2, 3.
The source of this trouble is Markvs88 displaying innappropriate ownership over articles in the scope of WikiProject Connecticut and not allowing another related project, WikiProject United States, to add a banner. In some 2 cases above he also removed tags of other related States projects such as Rhode Island, New York and New York City. I have left the user multiple warnings but the users continues to revert any changes being made. --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like this might be a matter for WP:AN3 rather than here. Doniago (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Or, indeed, of me being stalked by Kumioko. Or bad faith that he refuses to even discuss the issue at hand. But hey, I'm happy to discuss it anywhere. Also, I could not have reverted 3RR before Kumioko did, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this goes! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, the source of this trouble is Kumioko's bot tagging every article on Wikipedia that starts with "America" or "United States" as being in the scope of WikiProject United States. Including, of course, Americano (cocktail), Americano do Brasil, and Americans of European descent, that last being a redirect to Caucasian race.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the bot's malfunctioning, I'd block it. But is this a case of bad input, or of the bot going off the reservation? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind, bot stopped editing about a day ago. But still problematic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bad input. Kumioko claimed that he had removed problematic items from his lists, but it's clear he didn't review them closely enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The bot was doing exactly what it was supposed to do but it has been stopped, unfortunately a lot of other tasks arent getting done either but thats another matter. Sarek's comments are off topic and he is just trying to cloud the issue with bad input. I am not talking about those articles, the bot, the tagging run or anything else.I brought this here rather than get into an edit war over the actions of Markvs88. I am talking about Markvs88 violatingn 3RR and edit warring. Since Sarek mentioned the list. I tagged about 11, 000 articles of which about 150 were incorrect such as the ones he mentioned above. A very low error rate of about .825% --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)For example, he tagged American Tourister as being in-scope. When I reverted that, he reverted me as vandalism, only later realizing that it actually was in the scope of WikiProject Rhode Island, which he took over with no actual community input in September 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Stop making up numbers, please -- you have absolutely no idea how many are incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) That's absolutely not vandalism, nor are the other removals linked above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- So any user is free to remove the work of other users? Thats completely absurd. Sarek you are just confusing the issue with. I have already admitted there were some errors. I am not talking about those I am talking about the 3 specific ones above and Markvs88 conduct. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- You may wish to review the header on this page - all edits by all involved parties are reviewed, including those of the reporting editor. And, on the merits, I'm really trying hard to find a reason not to block you outright for disruptive editing (Edit Warring and Highlighting non-vandalism edits as Vandalism). You're responding to questions about the tagging operation, and about these edits in particular, with rage and anger, and that's not helping your cause. Please settle down, have a cup of tea, and discuss the matter. If I know it's not going to continue to be a problem, perhaps we can find a solution. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't helpful, either. See Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to block me for trying to follow the rules then I guess thats your right. Personally, this all came about because I am getting frustrated by other users beging allowed to repeatedly violate policy and no one seems willing to do anything about it. If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- And that right there is precisely the problem. There's a big ol' long discussion at the Village Pump on this very topic - whether the tags are duplicative, what has been (or should be) done if they are, and how WP:US can work with other wikiprojects to ensure that in-scope articles are noted as such without stepping on each other's toes. You know that this discussion is ongoing, because you are a participant in it. It's unclear what the consensus is regarding the rules, so what I see is that you interpreted them one way and reverted as vandalism an editor who disagreed. The step after that first revert would've been to post "I think this should be tagged as WP:US because X". Then you discuss it. You don't repeatedly revert, and you don't declare the project dead because a discussion may not have gone your way. You might consider discussing the issue with other projects and editors, maybe finding a path forward. Drama helps your cause and your project not at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth. I was really hoping that we could resolve this issue either here or in the village pump but it seems not. It seems the community would rather have editors showing ownership over articles, violations of policy, constant harrassment of other editors who are just trying to tag articles for their project (who should be able to tag articlesin their scope) rather than have actual constructive edits and cooperation. Its really a shame what is happening these days. Since the discussions are going on Mark should leave the articles tagged in their current state until the discussion is over. I have attempted to discuss is with Mark who refuses to listen insisting that any article tagged as Connecticut is out of WPUS's scope. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- As that was a declaration of intent to continue edit warring, I've asked the people at WP:EWN to take a look at this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
- Actually, Sarek, it goes much farther: WPUS has "borged" other Wikiprojects as defunct ((ie:WikiProject Massachusetts, with no disucssion (that I could find) at all other than a notice on that talk page. This means that those projects cannot be restored without a LOT of work to seperate them from WPUS. This started after he proposed all state projects be under a common WPUS banner, and there have been other debates on the subject with other editors such as user:racepackcet and myself, which are in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. As a note to Kumioko, I *always* leave valid Wikiproject tags on articles, and he full well knows that. That he thinks that things like List of colonial governors of Florida is a WPUS issue is the problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sarek, Ultra, this is ridiculous. Is a block imminent here? I am going to revert the edits referred to in the first complaint as disruptive and overly extending the scope of these projects. Kumioko, your restraint will be appreciated; lack thereof will be blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Too late. See below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- As that was a declaration of intent to continue edit warring, I've asked the people at WP:EWN to take a look at this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
- Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth. I was really hoping that we could resolve this issue either here or in the village pump but it seems not. It seems the community would rather have editors showing ownership over articles, violations of policy, constant harrassment of other editors who are just trying to tag articles for their project (who should be able to tag articlesin their scope) rather than have actual constructive edits and cooperation. Its really a shame what is happening these days. Since the discussions are going on Mark should leave the articles tagged in their current state until the discussion is over. I have attempted to discuss is with Mark who refuses to listen insisting that any article tagged as Connecticut is out of WPUS's scope. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- And that right there is precisely the problem. There's a big ol' long discussion at the Village Pump on this very topic - whether the tags are duplicative, what has been (or should be) done if they are, and how WP:US can work with other wikiprojects to ensure that in-scope articles are noted as such without stepping on each other's toes. You know that this discussion is ongoing, because you are a participant in it. It's unclear what the consensus is regarding the rules, so what I see is that you interpreted them one way and reverted as vandalism an editor who disagreed. The step after that first revert would've been to post "I think this should be tagged as WP:US because X". Then you discuss it. You don't repeatedly revert, and you don't declare the project dead because a discussion may not have gone your way. You might consider discussing the issue with other projects and editors, maybe finding a path forward. Drama helps your cause and your project not at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to block me for trying to follow the rules then I guess thats your right. Personally, this all came about because I am getting frustrated by other users beging allowed to repeatedly violate policy and no one seems willing to do anything about it. If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- So any user is free to remove the work of other users? Thats completely absurd. Sarek you are just confusing the issue with. I have already admitted there were some errors. I am not talking about those I am talking about the 3 specific ones above and Markvs88 conduct. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)For example, he tagged American Tourister as being in-scope. When I reverted that, he reverted me as vandalism, only later realizing that it actually was in the scope of WikiProject Rhode Island, which he took over with no actual community input in September 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there appears to be a similar ANI thread above (#Blind_bot_tagging) regarding the same two users and same "incident" in question; but with different admins/users participating in that discussion, as oppose to the admins/users commenting on this current thread. Thought I'd best point it out in case it had been missed or overlooked. Wesley☀Mouse 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have blocked Kumioko 31 Hours for Edit-Warring. Despite being told that their edits were disruptive and constituted Edit Warring, they went ahead and reverted 3 different articles again. They also posted here their intent to continue such reverts. I'm open to a review of the block, and I know some would've blocked longer - on that point, I defer to consensus. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also blocked User:Kumi-Taskbot as a result of this edit, and have so notified Kumioko. Not sure how deeply we plan to delve into the bot issue here, despite the thread noted by Wesley Mouse. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support block (although longer) "you're being disruptive, and you're edit-warring" does not mean "ok, I'll go off and do it some more" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support block (and consider extending). Kumioko obviously had no intention of ceasing the edit war. The remark "If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is." is quite telling, as it indicates unwillingness to even consider the possibility that an opposing viewpoint (Markvs88's belief that the tags don't improve the articles) is defensible. Oddly, Kumioko complained that "everyone just wants to assume bad faith", which is precisely what he's doing by deeming edits with which he disagrees "vandalism". —David Levy 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support block blind reversion of users edits, regardless of quality, is something that's so bad I've heard people complaining about it off-wiki. Edits that just don't improve the article (in your view) aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support block - almost did it myself when I saw this a little earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support and since he has now used his bot to get around his block I would either extend his block or make it indef as abusing multiple accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems a bit over the top... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why I suggested the less over the top method of lengthening the block. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- True :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- NOT a good general rule --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why I suggested the less over the top method of lengthening the block. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support block and regretfully propose extension - the continued assumptions of bad faith, combined with edit-warring, declarations to continue edit-warring, block evasion using a bot account, and the overall "I know what is right and you are all wrong" attitude lead me to no other conclusion. I've been somewhat involved at WT:BIRDS trying to discuss things with Kumioko; I thought I might have been getting somewhere but apparently he decided he wasn't going to listen after all. (For those not following the discussion there, his response to his bot willy-nilly tagging bird articles starting with "American foo" with WPUS banners, and then the project pointing out a large number of said taggings weren't appropriate, was to willy-nilly AWB away all the tags on "American foo" bird articles - including completely approprately tagged organization articles and categories - and start tossing around accusations of WP:OWN.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Indef blockClearly this user is no good for the community and never did a useful thing in 7 years and 300+ thousands edits (according to their userpage). WPUS is a huge project with lots of articles and few active members. This one user tried and failed to do it all themselves. Just ban them, (which seems to be what the user is suggesting on their talk page) and disband the project. Thats what everyone wants, quite pussyfooting around the issue and just man up and do what needs to be done. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)- Based on the contribs of this IP I am pretty sure it is Kumioko evading his block again. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Concur - I've struck through the comment above. I'd also note that apparently Kumioko - ironically considering his comments regarding other WPs - believes he WP:OWNs WPUS and it won't survive without him. One of these days I'll get around to writing WP:THEWIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. Blocked by MuZemike. —David Levy 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the contribs of this IP I am pretty sure it is Kumioko evading his block again. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support block: but no extension for an editor with an unblemished record and incredible service to WPUS. Something like this has been building for a long time: Kumioko has been under intense pressure to keep the momentum going at WPUS while simultaneously dealing woth those who oppose his leadership and vision. He has resurrected a dead project and created a mega-project, almost single-handedly that is the envy of every wikiproject coordinator at wikipedia. – Lionel(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly his leadership and vision appear to have been somewhat...strained by the pressure, apparently, judging by the accusations and overreactions. However, it's entirely possible a WikiBreak (enforced or otherwise) might help. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this unblemished record either. I remember much bogus ANI drama and dead-horse flagellation surrounding Kumioko's misuse of AWB a while back[175] so this seems like more of the same. I don't understand the purpose of those banners anyway. It used to be that if an article talkpage tab was a bluelink, that meant there was actually some discussion there, so if you clicked it you'd find out something relating to the article's past or ongoing development. If it was a redlink you knew there was no point to clicking it. Now the tabs are mostly bluelinks but when you click them you too often just see those damn banners that tell you nothing. Maybe there's been some past discussion about that, so I don't claim to know what is or isn't established practice, but I find the banners pretty annoying and IMHO it would be better if project tagging were done with hidden categories. Certainly I would urge withdrawal of the bot approval for this particular tagging operation. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's very long-established practice, and in most cases the banners themselves add the hidden categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment See past ANI here (June 2011), another conflict over same issue between Kumioko and Markvs88 under subheading "Requesting help with a disagreement". Deja vu all over again. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The original issue
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem to have been addressed whether or not Markvs88 should be blocked for 3RR. I'm not stating my position regarding this, just pointing out that it may not have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- On what page? None of the three examples cited in the original complaint are 3RR violations. 46.208.215.98 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I defer to consensus, but I chose not to block Markvs88 because he stopped reverting once the ANI discussion got under way. Had he reverted again despite being warned against it (from someone not a party to the dispute), I would have blocked him as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reverting another person's edits (except special circumstances like BLP) counts under 3RR. A bot is not a person, so in general, reverting a bot should not count. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Ip Editors above: If I implied that I thought he violated 3RR, that was not my intention. I was just pointing out that it did not appear to have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw the start of this thread yesterday and was writing up something recommending a thorough WP:TROUTing for both parties before I got called away. Obviously events then overtook my intended response. However, both parties have misapplied the term "vandalism", both parties have edit warred, and both parties are experienced enough editors to have known better. Although Kumioko has now been rightly blocked for continuing to edit war, I hope that Markvs88 doesn't take that outcome as a vindication of their handling of the dispute. I see no need for a block but up until Kumioko resumed reverting, conduct was equally poor on both sides. EyeSerenetalk 10:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Vindication? No, of course not. I did what I did becuase the other party refused to talk, and has refused to do so on other occcasions. This is why I've not been replying to any of Kumioko's posts/goads (nor those of his various alts, nor allies), and why have I not done any more untagging work (as the bot has been stopped) because I don't want to escalate the issue and cause more drama.
- All that I want (and I think there are not a few other editors in this camp too), is a proper discussion regarding the scope of the WPUS and it's practice of "assimilating" other wikiprojects. Every time I've tried to discuss this, the problem dies down for awhile and then resurfaces after awhile... sometimes with other editors, sometimes with me. I'm not against valid tags on articles. I do not revert blindly, and only do so when I feel it's clearly out of scope. If an admin (or someone) is interested in creating such a discussion (so it would be "neutral ground") I would be happy to discuss it there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Such a discussion seems to be brewing a bit at WP:US's talk page, but obviously that's not exactly neutral ground. A Request for Comment might be the best bet, particularly if you're drawing comments and suggestions from many projects at once (US, the State Projects, some of the larger locality projects, US History, maybe the US-centric task force of MILHIST, etc). Consider also inviting comment from projects that have dealt with this issue in the past (I want to say WP:Computing?). Obviously, it could end up being a big discussion, but could provide a path forward. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's hopeful at least, though I agree that an RfC might be better. Markvs88, I do appreciate your obvious frustration; my main concern was that by engaging in tit-for-tat reverting (to the extent of using the same edit summaries) you were escalating rather than defusing the situation. I can't think of many talk-page templates that are so disruptive that they need to be urgently removed and then edit-warred over. A better solution might have been to revert once in each case, then try to discuss the issue with Kumioko when they reverted back, then come here if that failed. It wouldn't have mattered much if an inappropriate template stayed on the article talk page for a few hours during that process and would have saved unnecessarily muddying the waters. Basically we expect editors to both be interested enough in a subject to want to edit about it, and disinterested enough not to get hot under the collar when their edits are challenged. Unsurprisingly this is a very difficult balance to maintain :) EyeSerenetalk 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Such a discussion seems to be brewing a bit at WP:US's talk page, but obviously that's not exactly neutral ground. A Request for Comment might be the best bet, particularly if you're drawing comments and suggestions from many projects at once (US, the State Projects, some of the larger locality projects, US History, maybe the US-centric task force of MILHIST, etc). Consider also inviting comment from projects that have dealt with this issue in the past (I want to say WP:Computing?). Obviously, it could end up being a big discussion, but could provide a path forward. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw the start of this thread yesterday and was writing up something recommending a thorough WP:TROUTing for both parties before I got called away. Obviously events then overtook my intended response. However, both parties have misapplied the term "vandalism", both parties have edit warred, and both parties are experienced enough editors to have known better. Although Kumioko has now been rightly blocked for continuing to edit war, I hope that Markvs88 doesn't take that outcome as a vindication of their handling of the dispute. I see no need for a block but up until Kumioko resumed reverting, conduct was equally poor on both sides. EyeSerenetalk 10:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Ip Editors above: If I implied that I thought he violated 3RR, that was not my intention. I was just pointing out that it did not appear to have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A bit of edit-warring is problematic, but I don't think it's a crisis and it's not what concerns me here; what I find more worrying is the blanket criticism of people who point out problems with many of kumioko's edits, often in the same edit as nonchalance or dismissiveness about actually fixing the problems. In a community-built encyclopædia, that's really corrosive, and will erode a lot of goodwill. Pointing out bad edits is part of the solution, not part of the problem; I hope kumioko will take a bit more responsibility in future. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
My responses to the comments and accusations on this page
Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussion I have responded to all comments on my talk page. I doubt anyone wants to continue this discussion or solve the actual underlying problem of inappropriate article ownership that caused me to come here in the first place but if you do please do so there. --Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
POINTy disruptive editing
- Kumioko wants to break up WPBIO
- Kumioko doesn't think a bot should help convert a WikiProject to a task force of another WikiProject
- Kumioko thinks there are too many admins
- Kumioko doesn't think anyone wants to solve article ownership problems
And that's all just in the past 5 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let me respond to each in order. Next time use numbers please its easier to respond too when you have multiple items.
- First, its not what I want. Its what the "community consensus" is according to editors here and in other discussions. WPUS is too big and unmanagable at 179, 000 articles. I now accept that. As such WikiProject Biography, with more than 800, 000 articles also fits in the category of a too big to manage project. If you don't like that Sarek that is your opinion. Your opinion does not seem to meet community consensus however.
- Second, I still don't. That discussion is still ongoing. The bottom line is there are quite a few bots that can do this task and others like it but moreoften than not they declinen or ignore the requests because WikiProject tagging is inherently dramatic. I was warned as such when I started and it turned out to be correct.
- I do think there are too many admins and I think that Wikipedia is better served giving people the tools they need rather than a toolbox full of stuff they never saw before. Additionally, most admins specialize in one or 2 areas, few use the entire package and therefore my conclusion is they don't need them.
- I don't and again that discussion is still ongoing. Maybe someone will prove me wrong, I hope so.
- I added these comments recently because I have decided to spend my time in other areas besides editing articles and working in WPUS. There are lots of other areas in WP to invest my time in such as these discussions. I have lots of free time now. :-) In the end Sarek I am afraid is just crying Worf (a little Star trek pun there sorry I couldn't resist) and only proves I added a comment of how I feel. Nothing more. Live long and IAR (sorry another borderline innappropriate joke). Additionally I would suggest that this discussion be broken off into a seperate one. The original 3RR issue I submitted due to Markvs88 breaking policy was determined to my shagrin to be acceptable conduct in this new Wikipedia environment and my personal feelings on the matter aside is behind us and this is a seperate matter. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you read any of the comments here or on your talk page? Any at all? Because your comment here sounds an awful lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Theres a policy for everything and an interpretation in everything. I heard every word although it seems like a lot of folks have selective hearing about my comments. I am just trying to follow the policies that you and others have been explaining to me. Or should I instead opt to IAR. I have tried for years to be a productive editor. The community doesn't want me to use my time and abilities to participate in WPUS and do actual article developement so I am trying to find another niche to see if I even want to continue to use my time here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Stop pouting. Sometimes we get what we want on Wikipedia, sometimes we don't. There is plenty of work you can do that will receive absolutely no objections from anyone, so there is no point in endlessly mourning the loss of the work that some people do object to.
- Knock off the obvious WP:POINT violations (e.g. trying to disband WPBIO despite "not wanting to") or someone will block you for disruption. 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Theres a policy for everything and an interpretation in everything. I heard every word although it seems like a lot of folks have selective hearing about my comments. I am just trying to follow the policies that you and others have been explaining to me. Or should I instead opt to IAR. I have tried for years to be a productive editor. The community doesn't want me to use my time and abilities to participate in WPUS and do actual article developement so I am trying to find another niche to see if I even want to continue to use my time here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you read any of the comments here or on your talk page? Any at all? Because your comment here sounds an awful lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Its fine, you can block me if you want to. Thats what admins around here do when they don't want to discuss the issues and have a conversation. I'm just going on the direction of what everyone is saying here at at the Village pump about WPUS having too broad a scope. All bios is a pretty darn big scope too and it isn't even broken into 70 pieces like WPUS is. It doesn't really matter this place isn't about building a pedia anymore anyway, just drama, discussions and policy blocking every comment or suggestion with whatever policy suits our needs at the tim. This place is a waste of time. I shoulda played World of Warcraft or something. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no interest in blocking you. I just want you to stop pouting and being pointy. Why won't you consider doing that? 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am compiling an essay response to you Kumioko outside of Wikipedia to avoid edit conflicts.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,341,926) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just wrapping things up anyway. This place will be better off without me and my bot and our 20-30 thousand edits a month. --Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- We don't want you to leave, we just want you to be OK with the fact that in a wiki, you don't get your way 100% of the time. That's really not so unreasonable, is it? 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well ya'all have a funny way of showing it. Actions speak louder than words and right now your screaming at me to just go away. --Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your content work is appreciated and you do contribute but these are issues that may cause problems and not help them and why are you bringing your bots into this. They were malfunctioning and had to be disabled. It's not like you can't use them anymore. Fix the code and resubmit a WP:BRFA. Still compiling that essay.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,377,192) 00:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sick of saying this. The bot was doing what it was supposed to do the list I gave it had a few bad article titles in it. I was identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it but Sarek and Mark wanted to open up discussions all of the Wiki about it and start edit warring over it. Then I got blocked and said screw it let em fix it themselves. The bot tagged about 11, 000 articles and I had a list of about 150 that were mistagged to start. There were probably more but now I guess well have to let them work themselves out. The bot is fine, the code is fine, the list was 99% fine. Had anyone actually taken the time to ask I could have explained it but everyone started jumping to conclusions and making bad faith assumptions. The whole show is pure BS and a perfect example of why Wikipedia is dying. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with the above statement is that when you were "identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it" you were AWB-ing the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, removing the tags from Talk:American Eagle Foundation[176], Category talk:American ornithologists[177], Talk:American Racing Pigeon Union[178], etc. - the contribution history clearly shows that you simply went in, selected the bird-themed articles that had "American" in the title, and blanket untagged them, using an automating tool, without checking whether the untaggings were appropriate - which is not acceptable editing behavior. And then you essentially accused the project of acting in bad faith/WP:OWN behavior [179] for simply having questioned the appropriateness of some of the taggings. (And "Wikipedia is dying" has been declared for years now; reports of its demise are, obviously, greatly exaggerated.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly part of the problem is that the scenario is difficult and confusing but here goes...yet again. At the time of the incident I was converting the tags of Texas to WPUS at the same time the bot was tagging articles. I had 4 different tasks running concurrently as can partially be seen from the edit summery. The articles you refer to that I removed the tags from were because Jimbleak (I think thats his username) of the birds project said thats what needed to be done. So I took it at that and didn't argue it (because article ownership these days is allowed and I didn't feel like fighting...yet). Then the discussion turned because you said otherwise (there were 43 articles total affected). So the 43 articles I "untagged" were in fact because Jim from WikiProject Birds told me too and eventhough I felt it was an article ownership issue, didn't fight it because no one cares. At the same time Jim was griping about my tagging and you were griping my untagging, Sarek and Mark were griping about a similar related issue in three other places. About then the bot finished the run. But someone started jumping up and down and made me stop the bot. Eventhough the task effected was completed and it only affected other, unrelated tasks. Mark started reverting every edit I made to any article that pertained to Connecticut and Sarek began deleting talk pages with the WPUS banner on them because he didn't think they were in the projects scope. Eventhough, with the exception of 2, they clearly were. So I reverted a couple of Marks 2nd and 3rd generation revertions and got blocked. Now there are still about 161 (maybe a few more) articles out of 11, 000...Eleven thousand (that is about 1.463% error by my calculations) I consider to be mistagged as WPUS. But since all anyone wanted to do was run at me and the bot with pitchforks and torches and assumptions of bad faith and article ownership rather than let me explain and fix the problem everyone, expecially me, got all pissed off and frustrated. --Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with the above statement is that when you were "identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it" you were AWB-ing the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, removing the tags from Talk:American Eagle Foundation[176], Category talk:American ornithologists[177], Talk:American Racing Pigeon Union[178], etc. - the contribution history clearly shows that you simply went in, selected the bird-themed articles that had "American" in the title, and blanket untagged them, using an automating tool, without checking whether the untaggings were appropriate - which is not acceptable editing behavior. And then you essentially accused the project of acting in bad faith/WP:OWN behavior [179] for simply having questioned the appropriateness of some of the taggings. (And "Wikipedia is dying" has been declared for years now; reports of its demise are, obviously, greatly exaggerated.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sick of saying this. The bot was doing what it was supposed to do the list I gave it had a few bad article titles in it. I was identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it but Sarek and Mark wanted to open up discussions all of the Wiki about it and start edit warring over it. Then I got blocked and said screw it let em fix it themselves. The bot tagged about 11, 000 articles and I had a list of about 150 that were mistagged to start. There were probably more but now I guess well have to let them work themselves out. The bot is fine, the code is fine, the list was 99% fine. Had anyone actually taken the time to ask I could have explained it but everyone started jumping to conclusions and making bad faith assumptions. The whole show is pure BS and a perfect example of why Wikipedia is dying. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your content work is appreciated and you do contribute but these are issues that may cause problems and not help them and why are you bringing your bots into this. They were malfunctioning and had to be disabled. It's not like you can't use them anymore. Fix the code and resubmit a WP:BRFA. Still compiling that essay.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,377,192) 00:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well ya'all have a funny way of showing it. Actions speak louder than words and right now your screaming at me to just go away. --Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- We don't want you to leave, we just want you to be OK with the fact that in a wiki, you don't get your way 100% of the time. That's really not so unreasonable, is it? 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just wrapping things up anyway. This place will be better off without me and my bot and our 20-30 thousand edits a month. --Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am compiling an essay response to you Kumioko outside of Wikipedia to avoid edit conflicts.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,341,926) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism from unregistered user
78.86.217.250 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
IP 78.86.217.250 has been vandalizing V (science fiction) over and over again since late November. 18 edits in total and every one of them vandalizing the same page. Could someone please block this character? DigiFluid (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- You should have notified the user. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't really look liked WP:VANDALISM to me, just a newbie who doesn't edit properly. Maybe you should try talking to him a bit. There's been no real discussion on his Talk page (one warning from another editor), and no discussion on the article Talk page (the only article he's edited). Certainly doesn't look like coming here was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, genuine vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, not here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't really look liked WP:VANDALISM to me, just a newbie who doesn't edit properly. Maybe you should try talking to him a bit. There's been no real discussion on his Talk page (one warning from another editor), and no discussion on the article Talk page (the only article he's edited). Certainly doesn't look like coming here was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Re-read the edits. Every one of them is to interject that the article's content is false and incorrect without changing anything else. But I'll take Bushranger's advice. DigiFluid (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did look at many of the edits (and you've provided zero diffs here), and some are clearly inappropriate (mostly annoying commentary), but some are not. In addition, the IP has received only one warning, and it's hard to get an editor blocked without proper warnings. Plus, at the point you posted here, there was one bad edit (commentary), but there had been no edits for a week before that. Good luck at AIV, but I think you're going to need more before an admin will impose a vandalism block. I do see you've engaged the IP in a discussion - that's a good thing, although I'd stay clear of the discussion of whether the edits constitute vandalism and just focus on the content and how editing should be done. For example, your comment about WP:COMMENTARY is constructive, whereas your comemnts about vandalism (e.g., "obvious nonsense") are not as helpful. I'm not sure you will convince the IP of the errors of their ways, but you have more chance to do so if you leave out the inflammatory accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Re-read the edits. Every one of them is to interject that the article's content is false and incorrect without changing anything else. But I'll take Bushranger's advice. DigiFluid (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-admin closure of ARS list DRV
| No admin action necessary Nobody Ent 13:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This deletion review was closed by User:S Marshall, who is not an admin, four-and-a-half days after it opened. He appears to argue that it was a snow closure, but of the 28 comments, not including my own, five people voted for relisting or around 18%. Of those votes one came from someone who had voted keep in the deletion discussion and another two comments were from admins. Indeed, one of the admins, made a point of noting that the first twelve votes endorsing the close of the discussion did not address the deletion discussion at all. Yet when I raised all this to the user who performed the non-admin closure he responded:
| “ | I'm afraid you never stood the least chance of success with that nomination. I waited until there were enough !votes to prove that to you before snow closing. | ” |
That seemed to be an admission that the editor was monitoring the discussion with the full intent of closing it as an endorsement from the beginning. Notably among the last six comments on the discussion, three were supporting a relist. Given that this was a non-admin closure (violating the criteria at WP:NACD and WP:NAC) by someone who appears to have been biased towards a certain outcome from the start in deciding to close I would like an admin to re-open that so it can continue for the remainder of the seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could it have been closed any other way? Probably not. So how cares how it was closed? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The DRV certainly could have been closed another way and the MfD as well. Discussion appeared to be turning towards a relist given the last six comments. Instead of allowing things to play out for the whole seven days, it was closed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, almost any decision is possible with pages involving the ARS--the divisions within the community about it are pretty clear, & it may take some different approach to settle them, if they can ever be settled. But the best way of avoiding further conflict in any contested deletion process is to let the process run for the normal time. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 The results of the MfD which was snow-closed by other users, twice in quick succession, and the DRV which I snow closed, look crystal clear to me. I've never been a member of the ARS and I doubt if they'd think of me as sympathetic to their aims, but on reading the DRV I felt that this user might be being a bit overzealous in his dealings with them, so I decided to examine the background more carefully. After reading around I was confident that this user was conducting a campaign or vendetta of some kind and I felt strongly that it should be brought to an end. I was probably a little sharp with Devil's Advocate on my talk page, and for that I apologise, but I really don't think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to reopen the DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to state in the strongest possible terms that S Marshall is among the most competent editors we have and that he is far, far more qualified to close a DRV than most admins, myself included, and that any complaint about him closing a DRV based on his lack of an admin bit is completely and wholly without merit. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even if he were an admin his comment that I quoted would suggest that his close was anything but appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Again, I say, "is there a chance it would have been closed as overturned"? No. There were many, many more Endorses than Overturns, and less than 24 hours remaining. I echo Drmies' roundabout way of saying this conversation is a waste Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are "less than 24 hours remaining" because Marshall closed the discussion over twelve hours ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Again, I say, "is there a chance it would have been closed as overturned"? No. There were many, many more Endorses than Overturns, and less than 24 hours remaining. I echo Drmies' roundabout way of saying this conversation is a waste Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ho hum, another "ARS is teh evulz" thread on AN/I...must be a Thursday. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, these assumptions of bad faith have got to stop. I am not pursuing a "vendetta" against ARS. What I have been witnessing are non-stop shenanigans, often by people who should know better, that have allowed very little time for these issues to be discussed and so I have been looking for the appropriate venue to have all these issues aired fully within a reasonable time frame given that the last discussion we had over the rescue tag went on for days and involved nearly a hundred people jumping into the fray. The longest discussion we had about the rescue list involved that DRV and it was closed just as more editors were coming to support having the discussion relisted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you stop opening these pointless "ARS is evil" threads all over the place. Quite frankly, this behavior of repeatedly restarting an old discussion is disruptive. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass already. It hasn't been four days since we last got done discussing these issues. Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alpha, point to a single time where I said "ARS is evil" in any way. This isn't even directed at ARS, but the closure of the DRV. I am not even trying to say anything about the editor. I just want the DRV to last the whole seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion contesting this close because it was closed by an non-admin is an absolute non-starter. The reason that admin closures are often a good thing is there has been some assessment of their ability to correctly asses consensus. S Marshall's ability to do so has been more than adequately proved by other means such as the respect he's held in at DRV. It's is my opinion (and I believe that of many others) that the only reason he's not an admin is because he does not want to be. I'd be very surprised if an RfA was anything but very successful. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and insisting on an admin close when an equally well qualified editor has closed is nothing other than bureaucracy. Dpmuk (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please, read my entire comment. It is about more than just him not being an admin. That just adds insult to injury.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, thank you Dpmuk and 28bytes for your votes of confidence, which have me tickled pink, but I must say that I don't think this should be a referendum on S Marshall's qualifications to close DRVs. I've made a lot of contributions there in the past but I'm just as capable of making a mistake as anyone else. I think this should be about whether this particular snow close was appropriate, not about the identity of the closer.—S MarshallT/C 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I assure you, I get no joy out of talking about this at all either. There are many things I would prefer to do, but I can't just ignore a group that appears to be, intentionally or unintentionally, little more than a tool for canvassing deletion discussions, or any discussion for that matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't like it. Should we delete the Deletion Sorting pages too while we're at it? - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, my reason is very simple. I have very little tolerance for people trying to game the system in any way whatsoever. Other delsorts notify interested parties who can provide knowledge that is particular to that subject area without regard to their perspective on whether things should or should not be included. The ARS delsorts do nothing like that. If you can point to one of those other delsorts being used in the same manner then I will be just as quick to persistently criticize that. However, at this point I am only familiar with the ARS and not out of any agenda. Two articles I have nominated for deletion got tagged by the ARS and the result each time was that the discussion got flooded by members voting keep while making no significant change to improve the article or establish its notability. In other words, my bringing them up at ANI is only because they have been repeatedly drawing people to deletion discussions using questionable mean and I just happen to keep noticing it. For heaven's sake this list was created the day after the rescue tag got deleted by the very same editor whose use of the tag created so much controversy. Suffice to say I find that rather unsettling and even more unsettling that numerous people who make their bias clear seem intent on shutting down any discussion about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't like it. Should we delete the Deletion Sorting pages too while we're at it? - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I assure you, I get no joy out of talking about this at all either. There are many things I would prefer to do, but I can't just ignore a group that appears to be, intentionally or unintentionally, little more than a tool for canvassing deletion discussions, or any discussion for that matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just want to add my opinion that S Marshall is certainly capable of closing DRV's as well as anyone. And that in this case his close was entirely reasonable. Nothing would be gained by reopening this debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTBURO. There's no way this close was going to go any other way, even if it had run its full course. There's no point in prolonging a bureaucratic process past the point where the answer is completely obvious. It wastes the time of everyone involved. The amount of time and effort spent on ARS related threads recently is ludicrous, and I hope that this is the last ARS related thread from TDA in the near future. If not I feel like it's getting to the point where a topic ban would be warranted to stop wasting everyone's time. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I had say, more evidence of much more blatant impropriety involving this list, would you really suggest that? That evidence was something I planned to bring up at the MfD, in lieu of yet another ANI thread. Also, I will say that until the DRV we got barely 20 hours of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you had this evidence, why have you not mentioned it before? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- You've had eons to produce said evidence. If you have it, produce it. Otherwise, stop murdering the dead horse. If you suddenly solid produce evidence that something horribly horribly wrong is going on, then of course my earlier statement doesn't apply. But if you produce another noticeboard thread about the same set of issues without producing additional, solid, convincing evidence of wrongdoing then it will be wasting the time of everyone here. It's clear that the community is okay with the idea of the existence of ARS, and is okay with the idea of a delsort like this as long as it's not in the main space. I do not personally like ARS. But it's disruptive to refuse to respect community consensus. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- This evidence only came about because I kept looking over that list during the Deletion Review, something that might have surely been noticed sooner had there not been attempts to conceal the discussion altogether. It concerns a different AfD than the one that most recently brought me here. Do you want me to start a separate ANI thread for it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unless it's, like, indisputable evidence of an ARS member secretly orchestrating a malevolent, malicious, cross-wiki campaign to bring about the new world order, I would suggest that you avoid creating a new AN/I thread. Unless you have strong evidence of some form of actual wrongdoing, I would suggest just stepping away from the dead horse for a while. I would suggest sending any strong evidence of wrongdoing you have by email to a sympathetic administrator who can evaluate it and then act on it themselves or bring it up on a relevant board. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- This evidence only came about because I kept looking over that list during the Deletion Review, something that might have surely been noticed sooner had there not been attempts to conceal the discussion altogether. It concerns a different AfD than the one that most recently brought me here. Do you want me to start a separate ANI thread for it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything said about S Marshall above, but do still think it was wrong-footed to close this early. Better to have let it run its course. Not as a paper-shuffling excercise, but to get along nicely with each other. Give that little bit extra to someone, "let the baby have his bottle," if I may paraphrase without prejudice. To do otherwise causes discussions like this one to occur. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Aaron Brenneman, I normally agree that it's best to let discussions run their course. In this case I do not: TDA has had many opportunities to have his say, and he's just repeating himself. There's nothing new being added to the discussion here, it's just dividing editors along tribal lines. The only objections to my close have been process-based, and that's not a strong objection to an IAR close bearing in mind that nobody's actually supported TDA's position. The DRV was also creating needless drama and interfering with the process that ought to be going on right now: reasoned and collegial debate about the reform of the ARS proceeding in an orderly manner. I'm quite keen that we do begin to make progress on that.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really? It is just a "process-based objection" that you appeared to state that you were intending to close it as endorse all along but just waiting for "enough votes" to prove what you believed was the "correct" decision that just happened to be right as the discussion was turning towards relisting? I honestly do not see the DRV as having created any drama that was not created already by editors who were creating drama from the outset. Honestly, allowing it to follow its natural course was doing the exact opposite, as letting things take their natural course tends to achieve. Rather than being subject to frequent disruptive closures by involved editors we had four-and-a-half days where people actually had the time to discuss things and raise concerns (not to mention allowing people time to realize there actually had been a deletion discussion as CrossMR's comment at DRV clearly indicated), as well as allowing everyone to focus on other things since it was not a constant battle just to be heard. I can say right now, the DRV left me feeling more calm and allowed me to focus on other things under the belief that a fair decision would be reached.
- You say that it is "interfering with the process that ought to be going on" as though somehow there was no effort to have such a process. In fact, that is exactly what I tried to get involved in at the Village Pump right after the rescue tag got deleted. There was hardly any participation and the discussion about reform quickly died off as everyone lost interest. My problem is that North didn't even wait for discussion about reform before creating this list and it is being used just like the rescue tag was used. The fact is, I wasn't even looking for this. I nominated an article for deletion, ARS showed up just like the previous case, and I was all "Again? Are you kidding me with this?" Seeing that North had completely disregarded numerous concerns raised at that first ANI discussion and the TfD, I went straight to ANI since it was obviously the only thing that could have any effect on that editor's tendentious activity. Also, are you kidding me with that "no one's supported TDA's position" comment? I can direct you right now to several people who commented in clear support of my position in every single discussion. Honestly, I shouldn't have to since an editor who closed the DRV should have paid enough attention to the comments there to realize that claim is just plain false without even considering the two ANI discussions about the list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really? "The discussion was turning towards relisting"? Really? Are you and your "several people" reading the same discussions that I am?—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- You say that it is "interfering with the process that ought to be going on" as though somehow there was no effort to have such a process. In fact, that is exactly what I tried to get involved in at the Village Pump right after the rescue tag got deleted. There was hardly any participation and the discussion about reform quickly died off as everyone lost interest. My problem is that North didn't even wait for discussion about reform before creating this list and it is being used just like the rescue tag was used. The fact is, I wasn't even looking for this. I nominated an article for deletion, ARS showed up just like the previous case, and I was all "Again? Are you kidding me with this?" Seeing that North had completely disregarded numerous concerns raised at that first ANI discussion and the TfD, I went straight to ANI since it was obviously the only thing that could have any effect on that editor's tendentious activity. Also, are you kidding me with that "no one's supported TDA's position" comment? I can direct you right now to several people who commented in clear support of my position in every single discussion. Honestly, I shouldn't have to since an editor who closed the DRV should have paid enough attention to the comments there to realize that claim is just plain false without even considering the two ANI discussions about the list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban discussion
Nobody Ent 13:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Additional evidence of ARS canvassing
| Discussion ended over 24 hours ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since Drmies has decided to make this discussion about allowing a DRV another 36 hours to finish into one about banning me from bringing up any misdeeds on part of the Article Rescue Squadron, it seems it is appropriate that I leave this here now.
The article concerned is Keerthi sagathia. It was listed at the ARS page before the article on Sal's Pizza that I nominated and was clearly nothing more than an emotional appeal bemoaning that a "new Wikipedian" was being "bombarded" by deletion nominations and described this as serving to "chase away a newbie" from "a part of the world" we needed to attract and so on. One thing that sticks out is the user that created the article who only made one contribution, creating the article, also happens to have the same last name. A ten-second Google search turns up that it matches the name of the artist's manager. User:Ginsengbomb clearly noticed there was a WP:COI issue within two-and-a-half hours of the listing and expressed difficulty finding sources. At the deletion discussion only five votes were made, the four keeps all being from people who clearly arrived from the rescue list (the only one who doesn't appear to be an ARS member is the person who listed it there), who would have all reasonably seen Ginseng's comment. Despite this, not a single one of them thinks it worthy of mentioning that there was a conflict of interest issue in a promotional article for which they had trouble finding sources. The one delete vote happens to be from someone who is from India, part of Wikiproject India, and interested in Indian music.
Despite pretty much all of them indicating they did not really know much about the subject, they still voted keep basically arguing "well this person must be notable we are just having a hard time proving it" and all the while failing to disclose a very serious issue with the article they had every reason to know about. Undoubtedly thanks to their involvement, the decision was keep. Why would they not disclose a WP:COI issue they clearly knew about? Of course, mentioning that would likely strengthen the case for deletion and it is clear the listing at the page was worded to evoke sympathy for the user creating the article who clearly joined just to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting the artist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your "clearly noticed" link points...here. On that AfD, there is nothing mentioned by Ginsengbomb about COI, but on the list, he hinted at it - while agreeing with the "bombardment" comment and voting !Keep at the AfD with an assertion that notability was established. From the above it seems you're misreprensenting Ginseng's position on the matter, and as there was no CoI assertion, by him or anyone else, on the AfD until you brought it up at the very end, the assertion that they "clearly knew about" potential CoI is disinguious at best.
- I hate to say this, but the appearance that you are conducting a campaign against the ARS is extremely strong. Whether or not you actually have a beef/vendetta/etc. about them, it has reached the point from your actions that other editors are no longer able to reasonably assume good faith that you do not. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bleh, fixed the diff. As to your "hinting" comment, there is no hinting about a conflict of interest involved in saying the article appears to have been created by a family member. That comment was made five hours before anyone said anything at the AfD. I brought it up because I saw it had been brought up on the list almost immediately upon it being listed yet not a single editor from ARS commenting there apparently thought it worthy of mentioning at the AfD after over a week of it being up there (all of them had commented at that section of the list days before I said anything).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The power of numbers can make anything look different. Undoubtedly Wikipedia has a bias towards the group and against the individual more often than not so a large group are more likely to be heeded than a single outspoken voice. However, sometimes that voice just happens to be the first one to notice or speak out about a problem before others take action. Every time I initiated a discussion involving ARS it was mentioned at the project's talk page. In some cases, like the deletion discussion and deletion review, I am specifically required to put a big old notice at the top of the page to notify people frequenting that page about the discussion. Effectively, I am expected to ask that something be deleted while at the same time required to notify a large group of people likely to vote keep and being unable to offset that as to do so would be seen as canvassing. That is one of the reasons why consensus is not supposed to be a vote, and in this case a clear demonstration how it often is just that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nota bene: The author's COI in itself neither strengthens nor undermines the argument for deletion. If the article is written neutrally or is non-neutral but not to the point that a full rewrite would be required, COI is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Goodvac (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not seeing the problem. The article was nominated for deletion, with a rationale that it fails GNG and is written like a puff piece. Four editors - maybe from ARS, but I don't see why that matters - came forth with additional sources or evidence of additional coverage, while !voting to keep. One editor !voted delete with a simple statement that it fails GNG, without addressing the source that had already been brought up in the discussion or the sources that others were able to find. Another editor !voted keep for non-policy related reasons, which one of the other keep !voters pointed out. So basically two editors favored deletion on the basis of GNG, but that claim was disparaged by the unchallenged evidence of coverage from 4 of the editors favoring keep. The tone of the aricle was problematic, but that was not a valid reason to delete in light of the evidence of notability that was presented, that is a reason to edit the article further, as pointed out by the closing admin, which is probably also the reason any !voters who were aware of the comment to that effect on the ARS list didn't bother mentioning it - because it was irrelevant to the discussion. So basically, the article was appropriately kept, and if that was the result of this ARS list, then it is a demonstration that it is being used appropriately, hardly evidence that it is a problem in any way. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, there is no evidence of canvasing keep votes because some of those that regularly appear say delete, and sometimes no one goes over to say "keep" at all, even among items listed at the same time. Hopeless articles like this one [180] I pointed out I did a thorough search, and listed reasons why it shouldn't be an article, and suggested redirecting it. Articles like this [181] are obviously notable, and its a good thing people showed up to take at least a second to click on the links at the top of the AFD for Google News archive search, book search, and scholar search, all showing ample coverage of this. Its good to catch bad nominations from people that don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are wikilawyering about WP:CANVASS if you think success rate means anything. Above all else, intent is what matters. Can anyone honestly say that the discussion I listed above did not involve a partisan message targeted at multiple editors who were perceived to be inclined towards a certain view and that it also resulted in multiple votes consistent with canvassing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty clear that everybody knows about the existiance of this page. Anybody can watch it - pro- or anti-deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are wikilawyering about WP:CANVASS if you think success rate means anything. Above all else, intent is what matters. Can anyone honestly say that the discussion I listed above did not involve a partisan message targeted at multiple editors who were perceived to be inclined towards a certain view and that it also resulted in multiple votes consistent with canvassing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I only have two things to say, and they're simple. 1) COI is, as Goodvac rightly points out, not really relevant in deletion discussions, so I have no idea why that was brought up. I'm certainly not about to raise a major reason to delete an article and then turn around and vote keep because of the seductive and insidious canvassing power of the Rescue List (avert your eyes! run away!). 2) At what point does this endless crusade of TDA's become an actionable disruption? Talk about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am utterly confident he's acting in good faith, but this is getting well beyond absurd.
Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute to this. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The ARS canvassing? I'm shocked, shocked. ThemFromSpace 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Curious editing activity by User:Bisexual Orchid, User:69.171.160.39 / User:69.171.160.12
I'm not sure what's going on here: under normal circumstances, I'd report this to the edit-warring page, but the circumstances, with the accusations and counter-accusations and mentions of ipsocking and User:Justamanhere, are sufficiently curious to make think this might be part of some larger pattern of behavior. Could both ends of this actually be the same entity, self-editwarring for the purposes of creating confusion and drama? -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Folks, I'm not sure I can really puzzle out what's going on here. Yesterday I saw Bisexual Orchid (talk · contribs) reverting some constructive edits by an IP from earlier in February. That user appears to be a single-purpose account. But if those IP addresses are the socks of the blocked user, then they should be dealt with. It seems to be a dynamic IP in the 69.171.160.xx range, e.g. 69.171.160.39 (talk · contribs) is the most recent one I've seen. See Masdevallia for an example of the disruptive edit warring. Don't really have the time right now - anyone else want to unravel it? Rkitko (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just noticed the section above, so I merged my note here! I wondered the same thing about the self-editwarring. Curious. I'm glad someone else has noticed. Rkitko (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bicurious editing, perhaps? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've declined the UAA report on this user in the mean time to await the outcome of this one here. It does seem strange, the IP is reverting this user back with similar accusations of sockpuppetry or trolling in the edit summary. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've done some research on this account and cross referenced through some of the wikipedia tools. User:Bisexual Orchid is a sockpuppet of User:Pfagerburg, an account previously banned for wikistalking and repeated harassment of wikipedia users. His pattern is to raise sockpuppetry and banned allegations claims along with a group of trolls from a message board called SCOX, then troll wikipedia. One admin in previous wikipedia posts referred to these users from SCOX as 'playing wikipeida like a cheap flute'. Seriously, I am just here to write good articles about plants when I have some spare time. I don't have the time for someone who trolls around looking for people to harrass. Life is too short to waste time on trolls. There is another account, User:CanadianLinuxUser who is a sockpuppet of another user banned named User:Kebron who appears to act in tandem with this user to harrass wikipedia users and disrupt editing on the site. It's clear this user was here solely to harrass and disrupt. Better to just ignore trolls. Paying attention to them and reacting it what they want. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- This account is a sleeper account for these trolls that has managed to get itself granted rights to read and distribute IP information for this group on SCOX. This account should be investigated -> User:CanadianLinuxUser. Access patterns of this account indicate it is used mostly to track wikipedia users by IP and maintain an offsite respository of IP information in violation of wikipedias policies. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Their pattern and motive appears to be to use wikipedia to create scrapable content with high page ranking by piggybacking wikipeida which is then used to manipulate search engine results using SEO link farms. Review of Google webmaster tools shows 41 links from blogs.wikipedia.org to this page already placed to create a spamdexing entry. See [182]69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- And you, 69.171.160.168, wouldn't happen to be Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, would you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Their pattern and motive appears to be to use wikipedia to create scrapable content with high page ranking by piggybacking wikipeida which is then used to manipulate search engine results using SEO link farms. Review of Google webmaster tools shows 41 links from blogs.wikipedia.org to this page already placed to create a spamdexing entry. See [182]69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Who is that? 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. I reviewed links on google and found that numerous wikipedia postings do point to 'Jeff Merkey' on google. The purpose of the trolling is to promote links to this name in order to promote wikipedia entries to high page entries. Most of them appear above the facebook entry for 'Jeff Merkey', which indicates deliberate spamdexing, with wikipedia being used as a link farm. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. This entry alone has 181 links, some of them on blogs.wikipedia.org, all of them hidden links with artificial keywords littered throughout wikipedias domains. [183] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I added the following as a suggestion on the talk page at Wikipedia Criteria for speedy deletion which will prevent this type of misuse of the site in the future and protect site users -> You should add that user pages which are excessively linked to by blogs and appear to exist solely to be used for search engine spamming in user talk space such as this page should be treated as WP:BLP issues and deleted on that basis [184]. Many SEO groups who promote deragatory content can and do use wikipedia user pages which are not normally visible to search engines and can link to them through SEO. Any user talk page which appears in googles listing should be treated as BLP and deleted to protect the user and wikipedia, and to prevent misuse of the site for spamdexing. This page has 181 links from external sources whose sole purpose is to promote derogatory content and is exposing an innocent user of wikipedia by promoting this page above even facebook entries. 69.171.160.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
- Obvious sock is obvious. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think all user talk pages are now noindexed and nofollowed. User pages are still indexed and I'd support noindexing all of them. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) Apart from the socking above, Bisexual Orchid made a legal threat here [185]. Can someone block? A checkuser would probably also be helpful in wrapping up these shenannigans. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- It just says "I'll take action" (albeit in ALL CAPS), so it's a bit too ambiguous for an NLT block, but a CU wouldn't hurt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys, I am not this troll user Bisexual Orchid or this other nutjob he is apparently after. Don't you people realize that by joining with these trolls you are just posting more garbage for them to use to link to and spam google? Life is too short. Find someone else who has grown orchids for 30 years with a PhD in Botany to clean up your orchid articles. Life is too short for this type of stress and to subject valuable contributors to this type of treatment and trolling. You need to get rid of most of these trolls on your site,and I hate to say it, but user like this one The Blade of the Northern Lights and some of your so called 'admins' are as bad as the trolls based on the things they post. Have a great day. I am writing a letter to our Dean recommending that we ban this site from the University of New Mexico as a research resources. Our students will only be subjected to ceaseless trolling. 69.171.160.194 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you care to explain what I did that's so horribly wrong? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't realize UNM had an extension campus in San Diego. Or are you a "pretend" student? Personally, I think you and the Orchid account are both banned user User:Pickbothmanlol. Night Ranger (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's Jeff Merkey. All of the 69.171.160.xxx addresses are from New Mexico and are banned user Jeff Merkey.JeffMerkey'sGhost (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Repeated copyright violations
Sudar123 (talk · contribs) keeps adding some copyrighted material to the article Lies Agreed Upon [186] [187], despite being clearly warned. The section he continues to add is a verbatim copy of the following articles: [188] [189] [190]. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I know that is a copyright violation, but the article Lies Agreed Upon is created based on, as a major source the "Lies Agreed Upon" a documentary by the Ministry of Defense of Sri Lanka and was critisised by International Crisis Group as a propaganda piece. The Ministry of Defense is the line Ministry and waged a War with War Crime Charges. Considering above factors only I have added the Critsism of the International Crisis Group on Lies Agreed Upon and requested other editors in dispute to copy edit it.Sudar123 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please note I have informed the user now that any user not supposed leave copyright works on the page even for a minute.Further I have removed the copyright violation from the article and put the NPOV tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Continued legal threats by blocked user
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Looks resolved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Trojancowboy was recently blocked for legal threats. He is continuing to make them on his (unblocked) talk page.[[191]] Can somebody revoke talk page access? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked at the edit to which you point. What legal threat? I don't see one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- He states that he is trying to contact the subject of the article he was blocked on with the purpose of initiating litigation for libel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see that he is trying to contact the article's subject, but at no point does he state he is doing this to initiate litigation. He says he wants "his thoughts" on the matter. That said, the continued refusal to retract the legal threat should be enough reason to close down the talk page at some point.--Atlan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- He states that he is trying to contact the subject of the article he was blocked on with the purpose of initiating litigation for libel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've revoked talk page access. This continued "discussion" (it isn't) is going nowhere, and what we should see on the talk page if we wish to reconsider anything is a retraction--and that's still not there. If I'm wrong I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This is a user who "doesn't get it". I would propose restoring talk page access, and making it clear that they need to edit co-operatively. Also that they need to get a handle on their behaviour, blustering about "rights" on WP usually ends in tears. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
- Rich, if you feel inclined to do your proposed come to Jesus speech, feel free to reinstate TPA and tell them where it's at: I don't mind. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to TPA being restored, I have asked that other editors stay off his talk page now unless they want to discuss his past edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but to quote a former Navy Senior Chief who posts on a discussion board I'm on, "that might just be me - I'm funny that way". - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I already did the speech, I'll restore TPA shortly. There's been some cooldown time, we all know that often these sort of things are prolonging the agony, but sometimes they work. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC).
- I wouldn't object to TPA being restored, I have asked that other editors stay off his talk page now unless they want to discuss his past edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rich, if you feel inclined to do your proposed come to Jesus speech, feel free to reinstate TPA and tell them where it's at: I don't mind. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This is a user who "doesn't get it". I would propose restoring talk page access, and making it clear that they need to edit co-operatively. Also that they need to get a handle on their behaviour, blustering about "rights" on WP usually ends in tears. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
Disruptive IP needs admin look-in
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Looks sorted to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, went to revert this IP's peurile edits to video game controversies [192] but Achowat beat me to it, same for the warning on the talk page.
Please see this user's talk page as there are serial warnings from Cluebot and editors about their behaviour and I was surprised to see that they had not been severely warned or blocked yet.
96.5.162.75 (talk · contribs)
CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not enough recent vandalism to justify a block - they come on once a week, make some random edit (this diff shows they are experimenting) and leave again. If they persist, please use WP:AIV. You also need to notify editors about ANI, which I have done for you. GiantSnowman 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, oops, been off-wiki for a while, will remember AIV for this sort of behaviour, thanks for your time. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
A serious issue needing to be dealt with.
| Interaction ban imposed. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Abhijay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since 14th February, there has been a hot showdown of dispute on my talk page. It all started with a simple mistake, only to be told in an extremely belligerent way, then proceeded to a blame game of who did what and all that. This as many would know is not Civil on wikipedia, and neither is it appropriate or accepted in this community. I have continued in my actions not to forgive the editor for his vulgarity because never In my life on Wikipedia I have been greatly insulted by such abusive remarks. Therefore, I would endorse the idea of an interaction ban with this user and possibly a block/warning for this user's actions because this issue between the both of us will never seem to stop and neither party appears much more innocent than the other. As much as the editor I've had a disagreement with looks like a good guy with a sensible humor and all, this user has the tendency to deliver personal attacks and hurl vulgarity. If you are asking for diffs, please refer to these: ([193]), ([194]), ([195]), ([196]), and then with this ([197]). Please deal with this as soon as possible because this is starting to get on my nerves. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm plowing through your contributions, hoping to find the 14 February diff that started this all--and what I'm seeing is an editor who probably needs to stop making those automated "test/vandalism" edits. On 16 February, at 10:16, you made nine of them. This is the problem with reporting: it opens one up to investigation, and you might lose your rollback as a result. Also, your talk page gives me a bit of a headache, with all this stuff on the top (you've covered over the User talk:Abhijay?) and two things floating around on the side. Please stick to convention. And now I'll continue to search for the spark that started this fire. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I gather it started with this? (Dave1185's talk page is also enough to send me for aspirin). I think I can make this easy for you. Your interaction ban is granted. Both of you may not interact with each other for a whole month, starting now. Maybe then you will have cooled down. Dave, I hope you're listening. Also, Dave, tone it down. Your language and approach leave something to be desired--seriously, what was going on in your mind when you added this? Also, Abhijay, just drop it already. Someone insults you--well, consider them an idiot (softly, to yourself) and move on. Let it go. One more thing: if anyone wants to have a second look at the enormous amount of semi-automated edits ("test/vandalism") made by Abhijay on the 16th, please do. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Their interaction certainly got off track. I agree an interaction ban is the simplest thing here, since I don't think there's much of an overlapping interest in articles that should be easy. But I would add that both editors should also stop talking about each other to third parties, otherwise it isn't going to work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This thread is particularly troubling to me. --Chris (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- [ec--to Floquenbeam] Are they? And can that sort of thing be muzzled under an interaction ban? That's a difficult thing to police, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are they talking about each other, you mean? Yes. Chris' link is what I was thinking of, but Abhijay has been asking for help from several admins too. I think if the ban is to work, they both need to go beyond not talking to each other, and not talk about each other either. And sure, I think we can prevent that as part of an interaction ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I have no objection to that additional boundary. Abhijay, Dave, are you listening? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently Dave had not been notified. I do agree that an interaction ban is the best solution. —Dark 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- He was notified, and removed it as read: [198]. An interaction ban with Floquenbeam's "extension" does seem best, imo too. Begoon talk 01:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Drmies, Floquenbeam and Chris, I have carefully listened to your thoughts about this and are both reasonable. I have to admit that at this point, a block on Dave1185 sounds a bit too harsh of a punishment in regard to what he has done. I agree with your point Floquenbeam. We need to stop talking about each other. If that's done, what about the other editors on User talk:Baseball Bugs? To admins: If it's still an persisting issue, should we impose a block on Dave 1185? Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- You can leave Bugs out of it. If Dave hadn't been complaining there, nothing would have happened. Alright, I think we have a deal. Abhijay, Dave (in absentia), you are to refrain from contacting each other on talk and article talk pages, and you may not discuss each other anywhere else either. Violators will be blocked temporarily. I guess violations may be reported here, with reference to this section. Dave, I sure hope you're reading this. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Drmies, Floquenbeam and Chris, I have carefully listened to your thoughts about this and are both reasonable. I have to admit that at this point, a block on Dave1185 sounds a bit too harsh of a punishment in regard to what he has done. I agree with your point Floquenbeam. We need to stop talking about each other. If that's done, what about the other editors on User talk:Baseball Bugs? To admins: If it's still an persisting issue, should we impose a block on Dave 1185? Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- He was notified, and removed it as read: [198]. An interaction ban with Floquenbeam's "extension" does seem best, imo too. Begoon talk 01:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently Dave had not been notified. I do agree that an interaction ban is the best solution. —Dark 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I have no objection to that additional boundary. Abhijay, Dave, are you listening? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are they talking about each other, you mean? Yes. Chris' link is what I was thinking of, but Abhijay has been asking for help from several admins too. I think if the ban is to work, they both need to go beyond not talking to each other, and not talk about each other either. And sure, I think we can prevent that as part of an interaction ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Fleming Facebook post
There's been a discussion going at WP:BLPN#John Fleming (U.S. politician), and the article talkpage, about a post on his Facebook page linking to an article in The Onion as if it were factual. I feel that without evidence that Fleming personally approved the post, it is a WP:BLP violation to mention it. Given that evidence, it would probably still be WP:UNDUE, but that's a discussion that could go either way. For the moment, I believe it needs to stay completely out. I'm bringing it here because once people start using edit summaries like re-writing section to appease SarekOfVulcan's misguided and unreasonable objection, further discussion on the talkpage isn't likely to help.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- What type of admin intervention are you requesting? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No admins can't really assist here. This is basically just a cry for help. Sadly - there is nothing here to help you Sarek. More and more I see partisan users, in groups - over-riding simple npov, policy driven editorial control. En wikipedia policy is not fit for purpose and a group of half a dozen POV driven users are almost insurmountable. Youreallycan 03:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, we need a policy allowing for an easier way to sanction political POV-pushers. (I'd add ethno-political POV-pushers to that list, but ArbCom's got those under control.) Our job is to be a neutral encyclopedia, not the rope in a political tug-of-war. Nobody bring up the SOPA blackout, please; it's been debated to death and any more will be counterproductive. —Jeremy v^_^vBori! 04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- What can we do about users like User:Wnt that repeatedly reject WP:BLP policy as the day the project died and yet continue to vote in opposition to any BLP discussions about disputed content - can we topic ban him/them from opining in such discussions? What can we do about users that continually contribute in a partisan way - a user that likes porn and votes keep keep keep all porn and rabid
illusionistsinclusionists that vote keep keep keep for anything - users like this make good faith NPOV contributors feel commenting or editing articles is just a waste of time. - NPOV experienced editors need to step up to the mark and opine more in RFC and content discussions or en wikipedia will be a cess pit of POV content. Youreallycan 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)- RfC/U? Oh, wait... Those work so well in cases like this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Those dastardly illusionists -- always fooling people with their tricky magic tricks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- When people cite "BLP" as a reason to remove very well known, very significant facts about politicians simply because they look bad, that is an abuse. It is enough of an abuse that I think we seriously need to go back and ask ourselves whether a special policy for this one class of articles was ever a good idea at all. If we were to allow those who believe BLP should be expanded to opin in such discussions, showing apparent obliviousness to things like the WP:WELLKNOWN part, because they happen to have the "right" WikiPolitics, while excluding those of us who think it needs to be rolled back, then it is pretty clear that the outcome of such discussions will not be consistent with the policy as currently written. So far as I know, Wikipedia has not yet descended to the level of snactioning editors for their views on the direction in which policy should be headed. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The thrust of my argument there is that it is not "a significant fact", not that it's a (mildly) negative one. I'd say the same thing about a positive "fact" if it were as trivial as this one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Very significant facts" ? That is not the case at hand, thus is a rather weak argument, if it is an argument at all. Collect (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to Wnt's comment about "Very significant facts", Collect. Anyhow, in my view what's pertinent to the case at hand is WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But I suggest the discussion continue where it started at Talk: John Fleming (U.S. politician). Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, Youreallycan is referring to my Support vote at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Santorum, and it was about that which I responded here. Prior to being mentioned here I was unaware of John Fleming. But at a glance that situation appears very similar. I should point out that, at least in recent months, I have not been taking the initiative on articles about politicians - rather, those looking to strike out inconvenient information create disputes which become widely publicized here, and when I notice them or am notified about them I respond as seems appropriate. These conflicts originate from the deletions. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comments are not related to any specific vote of yours, but to all of them, considering you very vocally and at every opportunity completely reject wikipedia WP:BLP policy - as such - imo, if you reject current policy you should you should stop voting on anything. Youreallycan 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just because I want to get rid of it doesn't mean I can't read what it says, interpret it, and alas, even follow it. And what's really odd is that every once in a blue moon there's a time when I'm thinking BLP applies while its usual heralds deny it, because the issue involves keeping in information which is sympathetic to a living person, rather than taking it out. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is the primary issue with your interpretation of BLP - such as you express there is not a consideration - it's not about if the content reflects on the subject well, or not so well. Undue weight is a BLP violation, if an article is not neutral its a violation of BLP, if you over emphasize a minor event in the life story of a living person its a BLP violation, its not about content removal. Anyway, your stated position is total inclusionist without any editorial control, hence you don't support en wikipedia policies and guidelines and as such please stop opining in content discussions, especially related to living people, until you do. Youreallycan 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just because I want to get rid of it doesn't mean I can't read what it says, interpret it, and alas, even follow it. And what's really odd is that every once in a blue moon there's a time when I'm thinking BLP applies while its usual heralds deny it, because the issue involves keeping in information which is sympathetic to a living person, rather than taking it out. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comments are not related to any specific vote of yours, but to all of them, considering you very vocally and at every opportunity completely reject wikipedia WP:BLP policy - as such - imo, if you reject current policy you should you should stop voting on anything. Youreallycan 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, Youreallycan is referring to my Support vote at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Santorum, and it was about that which I responded here. Prior to being mentioned here I was unaware of John Fleming. But at a glance that situation appears very similar. I should point out that, at least in recent months, I have not been taking the initiative on articles about politicians - rather, those looking to strike out inconvenient information create disputes which become widely publicized here, and when I notice them or am notified about them I respond as seems appropriate. These conflicts originate from the deletions. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to Wnt's comment about "Very significant facts", Collect. Anyhow, in my view what's pertinent to the case at hand is WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But I suggest the discussion continue where it started at Talk: John Fleming (U.S. politician). Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- When people cite "BLP" as a reason to remove very well known, very significant facts about politicians simply because they look bad, that is an abuse. It is enough of an abuse that I think we seriously need to go back and ask ourselves whether a special policy for this one class of articles was ever a good idea at all. If we were to allow those who believe BLP should be expanded to opin in such discussions, showing apparent obliviousness to things like the WP:WELLKNOWN part, because they happen to have the "right" WikiPolitics, while excluding those of us who think it needs to be rolled back, then it is pretty clear that the outcome of such discussions will not be consistent with the policy as currently written. So far as I know, Wikipedia has not yet descended to the level of snactioning editors for their views on the direction in which policy should be headed. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- What can we do about users like User:Wnt that repeatedly reject WP:BLP policy as the day the project died and yet continue to vote in opposition to any BLP discussions about disputed content - can we topic ban him/them from opining in such discussions? What can we do about users that continually contribute in a partisan way - a user that likes porn and votes keep keep keep all porn and rabid
As User:Wnt states - Users that don't support current en wikipedia policy are influencing content discussions. Also, as you all know, we have a massive problem with users simply voting on the side of their personal bias. A solution for this is that experienced NPOV users and users that are willing to opine in regards to current policy vote comment more in discussions, thus providing a balance to the biased and policy ignoring comments. Experienced editors have a duty of care to the project and to the living subjects of our articles, to contribute to these content and policy interpretation discussions, so, please , please please, no matter how lengthy and laborious the discussions seem, have a read and post your policy interpretation. To quote Casliber, the "more independent eyes the better, even if (actually particularly if) you don't have a strong opinion one way or the other."Youreallycan 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I said on the talkpage, I think this error was freaking hilarious, and most of my family would refer to me as a flaming liberal -- and I still don't think it's appropriate for the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
On the incident named at the top of this section: If nothing else, the incident is way too minor to warrant its own section heading. If Fleming's spokesman is being accurate when he says the post was "taken down within minutes," then necessary coverage consists of no more than a single sentence, perhaps nothing at all (since this really isn't, and won't be, notable - unless he starts to become known as "that congressman who thinks the Onion is real"). On the newly important issue being discussed: Much more troubling in this incident, though, is the strain of BLPartisan thought that says that people who think BLP policy is over- or mis-applied should be muffled. Trying to topic ban those who don't hold the most restrictive possible interpretation of BLP policy from even being allowed to comment on BLP threads? You're shitting me, right? Editors are proposing we should have Soviet-style ideological purity tests of people's opinions on BLP? This idea doesn't even deserve a reasoned rebuttal - the only possible response is a profane and ludicrously impolite counterattack. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 02:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Continuos and purposeful false editing.
| Matters well in hand through conventional means, no need to go nuclear. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With regards to Newcastle United and their ground the Sports Direct Arena. I have amended the page several times only for admins to incorrectly change it back as part of a fans campaign. Several discussions and links have been deleted and topics and subjects locked when they should not. Some contributors to Wikipedia are knowingly giving out false information. The stadium is the Sports Direct Arena which was formerly St James' Park, they might not like the name change and it is not simply a sponsors name it is the actual name of the ground. As of 16th feb 2012 all signage referring to its former name have been removed and its postal address updated. As someone involved in promoting North East football can the person who is knowingly vandalising the pages be removed and prevented from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.130.113 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- A complaint without merit, on a matter already answered at Talk:St_James'_Park#Edit_request_on_4_January_2012. I semi'ed the article last year--see Talk:St_James'_Park#semi-protected_again, and it is move-protected as well. IP, I think you should stop this campaign: it's obvious that you've tried this before (with different IP addresses), and this disruption is getting irritating. We have rules on names; live by them, please. Also, please don't accuse admins of knowingly giving out false information, and please don't accuse other editors of vandalism. Your last sentence contains a terribly dangling modifier, but if you are actually acknowledging that you're a promoter of some kind, you should probably stay away from the article in the first place. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The matter is already well under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Newcastle United - stadium name in infobox; I suggest we keep the discussion there, in one place, and would advise another admin (I'm involved) to close this thread. GiantSnowman 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Drmies. You may not be aware that matters have moved on. Yesterday the ground signage for SJP was removed (a major article on BBC News - Look North). Also, the club's official website now refers to it as "formerly SJP" and the Barclays Premier League official website club page for NUFC also calls it Sports Direct Arena. This is not as black & white as it appears and the IP may have a point as I have encountered intransigence myself which GS has, unfortunately, contributed to. Leaky Caldron 16:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The matter is already well under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Newcastle United - stadium name in infobox; I suggest we keep the discussion there, in one place, and would advise another admin (I'm involved) to close this thread. GiantSnowman 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
NPA
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I prodded Wizard (동음이의), which seemed fairly uncontroversial. User:Ruud Koot remove the prod without comment. I asked him, "Please do not remove prod tags unless you explain why." which got a very rude response of "As you clearly are incapable of determining whether a nomination is uncontroversial or not, please do not use the PROD template in the future." I could do without the attack. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ruud Koot has a wonderful set of hair on that fairly recent photograph. Still, nice hair doesn't mean one should phrase it like that. Hammer, I've often agreed with you in deletion discussions, but I have also found you a bit quick on the draw. Then again--is this really a matter for ANI? Drmies (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Further attacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band), saying I have a "bad track record" when it comes to finding sources. Cherry picking fallacy much? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Manson48
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Manson48 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
Manson is a disruptive user whose contributions, such as they are, are far outweighed by his incompetence. He has previously expressed anti-semitism on his user page. He uses his user and talk pages to promote his book. His edit history shows that, of his 145 edits, less than 3% of them have been to articles, the rest mainly to talk pages of one kind or another. Finally, one of his most recent statements was to threaten sock puppetry: "More threats, you guys are really good at that. Block me, I have a whole list of alternative proxies. I've been on this site for several years, if that's the way you treat those you disagree with, so be it." ([199]).
He should be indeffed as a liabilty to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- That was after I'd warned him for deleting someone else's edit on a talk page (for the 2nd time) and adding a forum style post which was irrelevant to the article (on a different subject). Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. As the diff above shows, he removed your warning and replaced it with the sock threat, kind of a double whammy. You've been dealing with him a for a bit now, and, frankly, I think you've shown remarkable patience. I'm not as patient with editors who appear to have no redeeming qualities.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm blocking indefinitely now. If they do somehow snap out of it, I'd consider an unblock, but I won't hold my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. As the diff above shows, he removed your warning and replaced it with the sock threat, kind of a double whammy. You've been dealing with him a for a bit now, and, frankly, I think you've shown remarkable patience. I'm not as patient with editors who appear to have no redeeming qualities.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Legal threat
| Clear and unambiguous legal threat in unblock request after positive SPI with usual Shakinglord denials. BASC-d accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedIf someone could review this post by Rapide and take any action they feel appropriate. This appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord. As I'm possibly involved, I don't want to hand out any blocks, etc. TNXMan 18:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll deal with it. I think I know what I'm going to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Three occurances of vandalism from the same user
| Vandalising IP sent packing for 31 hours, WP:AIV directions given. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedAll three of these instances of vandalism involve the same IP address: [200] [201] [202] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.27.112 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- IP blocked. Please report to WP:AIV in the future, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
User:hudicourt personal attacks on User:Nick-D and recreating lists
hudicourt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm bringing this to ANI as User:Nick-D is away on holiday. There is a fairly unpleasant smear and innuendo been posted tonight accusing Nick of agenda based editing [203]. User:Hudicourt has also recreated all of the lists that were previously removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good to see Godwin's law in effect at least. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
In a nutshell, User:Formats changed the name of the article from Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), then goes on to claim that the article he just renamed "is unfairly biased against the US and ISAF for it does not list the victims of the Taliban". On that same day, User:Nick-D, using the article's new name as an argument, states that "The news reports are also heavily weighted to incidents caused by the Coalition forces, when it is the Taliban who have actually caused most civilian casualties" and proceeds to delete most of the article. I explained the whole thing in detail and the articles' talk page and its all there for verification. Now, it is me that is accused of personal attacks although I explaned the whole scheme, and I am also accused of re-creating the deleted lists, which I approve of, by the way, but which I did not do, as can be easily verified. Hudicourt (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- [204] Another of hudicourt's diatribes. One of the main reasons I went to ANI, is that unfortunately I've had dealings with Hudicourt before. If an uninvolved editor wishes to stroll by the page in question, you can see for yourselves the problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The recent chronology here is:
- The material listing incidents where civilian casualties occurred was removed from the Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article as a result of the discussion at Talk:Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#This article isn't neutral at present.
- A 'new' editor (AFPK (talk · contribs) then popped up and recreated this material as a series of articles (all purporting to be lists of civilian casualties by year, when they only contained those caused by NATO/ISAF forces, which represent a minority of the casualties in recent years). I redirected these articles to the Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article, and they reverted me to recreate them. To date these are AFPK's only edits, and it's pretty obvious that they're a sockpuppet account.
- Hudicourt appears to be continuing the same trend of creating articles on civilian casualties of the war that only actually list casualties caused by the NATO/ISAF forces judging from the most recent article's content. The personal abuse and declarations of bad faith are really unhelpful.
- Given that these articles are basically POV-pushing (in that they were recreated in bad faith as they attribute all civilian casualties to the NATO/ISAF forces and no efforts have been made to balance the articles by the editor who created them) and also violate WP:NOT#NEWS and I'd suggest that the articles be either nominated for deletion or be redirect to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
![[16]](http://communities.ptc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-1286-6326/DeadHorse.gif){kind=link}
