→Apparently random threat: andf you are |
|||
Line 693: | Line 693: | ||
:: {{ec}} @Truthkeeper88 - Nobody is saying it's your fault at all; but if you accuse fellow editors of harrassing you off-wiki, but refuse to back up such allegations with evidence, then there's nothing that can be done. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
:: {{ec}} @Truthkeeper88 - Nobody is saying it's your fault at all; but if you accuse fellow editors of harrassing you off-wiki, but refuse to back up such allegations with evidence, then there's nothing that can be done. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I think they assumed it was me because I write about New York's Hudson Valley, and that Barrington Nixon person/bot who has been tweeting says they're from [[Kingston, New York]]? --[[User:Gyrobo|Gyrobo]] ([[User talk:Gyrobo|talk]]) 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::I think they assumed it was me because I write about New York's Hudson Valley, and that Barrington Nixon person/bot who has been tweeting says they're from [[Kingston, New York]]? --[[User:Gyrobo|Gyrobo]] ([[User talk:Gyrobo|talk]]) 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Its a bit more than that Gyrobo and you know it. Snowman can you not see the irony in your requst to know more. [[User talk:Ceoil|<font color="#006633">Ceoil</font>]] 01:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::Its a bit more than that Gyrobo and you know it. The very fact that you opened this goes to show you a, well, prick. Snowman can you not see the irony in your requst to know more. [[User talk:Ceoil|<font color="#006633">Ceoil</font>]] 01:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:31, 25 April 2011
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Editor Bakhshi82 changing and removing editors' comments, and making threats
This user continues to change and remove editors' comments, especially mine, at Talk:Titanic (1997 film), as seen in this link, where I reverted him. His reasoning for continuing to do so is also in that link. I feel that his reasoning is unsound, as this is not some serious case of a personal attack. It is me stating my suspicion that he edited the article as IPs against consensus, and that he did it again once he could no longer edit the article as IPs (once it was semi-locked). He has been repeatedly reverted on this -- changing and removing my statements -- and yet continues to do so. He has also made WP:THREATS against me, as seen here. Administrative action is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) It looks to me like Bakhshi82 correctly applied WP:AVOIDYOU. Commentary like that doesn't belong in an article Talk page, IMO. If you have suspicions of an editor trying to circumvent restrictions or bypass WP:CONSENSUS by seeking the relative anonymity of editing as an IP, it should be taken up on WP:ANI (like it is now) or off-wiki. That said, editing others' Talk-page comments is normally a fairly clear-cut no-no, as is editing against consensus. There's no doubt a content dispute exists, but gaining consensus SHOULD have resolved it. Those are my observations, anyway...I'll now step back and let the admins look things over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- How could he have correctly applied WP:AVOIDYOU, if he is using that to edit/remove my comments? As you stated, it is "a fairly clear-cut no-no" to edit/remove editors comments in the way he has been doing. I also see nothing wrong in voicing on the talk page my suspicions about socking. I voiced my suspicions to bring it to the attention of others, and stated that I would take action if it continued. And whether or not I should have discussed his actions in a different forum setting or not, this is about the fact that he has continued to edit/remove my comments and has even resorted to legal threats. My suspicions of his conduct being expressed on the talk page does not excuse his horrid behavior, and administrative action should be taken to make sure he understands that he cannot continue to do this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think comparing an editor's editing pattern to another IP strictly falls under WP:AVOIDYOU since the guideline states "...when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack", especially when its destabilising the article, and Flyer's comments certainly don't fall under WP:NPA#WHATIS. I have to admit I shared Flyer's suspicions at the time that Bakhshi was socking, since that certainly appeared to be the case. I don't think it's out of order to politely warn an editor about socking if there is a pattern, but agree it's probably better done on the editor's talk page rather than in the discussion itself. Bakshi's alterations extend far beyond just refactoring the sockpuppet accusations though, which I don't think can be justified under WP:AVOIDYOU. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have only one request. I want User Flyer22 to delete my username as a suspect in all her comments in the Titanic (1997 film) discussion page at this sections: Consensus and Rudeness and consensus. instead reporting IPs that acted against consensus she has done unlike WP:NPA and WP:AVOIDYOU and slandered me. She often used my username in her several comments as wrongdoer IP, and then she and her friends rejected my friendly editing that was according the rules of Wikipedia. Everything is visible at the talk page. My deepest thanks for your consideration.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have already denied your request. My denying your request does not give you the right to then edit/remove my comments and anyone else's who focuses on your behavior at the article. If you truly want me to put you through user check, then I will. "Me and my friends" did not reject your "friendly editing that was according [to] the rules of Wikipedia." We editors rejected your edits that went against objections/consensus/Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Yes, everything is indeed visible at the talk page...as well as in the article's edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- about the my old comments i have to say maybe i wrote some fault texts but i changed that as you can also and at this time history of article isn't our main argument.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is not the point. I did not want to change my comments, and you took it upon yourself to change/remove them...repeatedly. You even removed Betty's entire recent comment that mentioned you not engaging in conversation. I've only had to revert you once on removing my comments, as others kept reverting you for me. Those reverts should have told you that you were in the wrong. I was pretty much done with you...and would have left things where they were...if you had not continued to take it upon yourself to alter/remove my comments. I wish to hear no more from you on this matter, and would rather hear from administrators about this. This discussion becoming too long will only discourage some of them from weighing in, as most prefer short discussions or at least discussions they can get a good summary of without reading much...so that they can then weigh in easily enough. This back and forth between us is not helping matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry but unfortunately all of your wording is an uproar from your delusion, Betty Logan removed his or her entire last comment by its own hands not me, ask him or her, and again sorry but, about the prolixity, this is you that like to reciprocate by too much writing but unfortunately unfair.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no delusion going on here. You removed Betty's comment, as the link at the top of this very section (my revert of your clear vandalism) shows. And yet you wonder why I don't trust a lot of what you state?
- I'm so sorry but unfortunately all of your wording is an uproar from your delusion, Betty Logan removed his or her entire last comment by its own hands not me, ask him or her, and again sorry but, about the prolixity, this is you that like to reciprocate by too much writing but unfortunately unfair.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is not the point. I did not want to change my comments, and you took it upon yourself to change/remove them...repeatedly. You even removed Betty's entire recent comment that mentioned you not engaging in conversation. I've only had to revert you once on removing my comments, as others kept reverting you for me. Those reverts should have told you that you were in the wrong. I was pretty much done with you...and would have left things where they were...if you had not continued to take it upon yourself to alter/remove my comments. I wish to hear no more from you on this matter, and would rather hear from administrators about this. This discussion becoming too long will only discourage some of them from weighing in, as most prefer short discussions or at least discussions they can get a good summary of without reading much...so that they can then weigh in easily enough. This back and forth between us is not helping matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- about the my old comments i have to say maybe i wrote some fault texts but i changed that as you can also and at this time history of article isn't our main argument.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, is there no administrator willing to act on this? Is this user just allowed to continuously alter/remove comments because he objects to what may be stated about his conduct? Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I check that again, you are right, but i have no objection with his or her comment, When i reverted Frank i removed Betty's comment unintentionally, because we was editing in a same time, i will apologize Betty Logan on the talk page.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, is there no administrator willing to act on this? Is this user just allowed to continuously alter/remove comments because he objects to what may be stated about his conduct? Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Enough, both of you.
- Flyer22, please stop accusing them there of misbehavior. If you believe there is a case for sockpuppetry , take it to WP:SPI and file a case there. You've crossed the line into harrassing them on the article talk page. Please just stop.
- Bakhshi82, removing comments in the middle like that is not entirely appropriate, and you should have come get administrator help rather than responding in that manner. Please do not do that again.
- Both of you should probably try and avoid each other for a while, as you're evidently not getting along.
- Please consider this a formal administrator first level warning. If you keep it up towards each other, I'll leave further warnings on your talk pages, etc. If you need more admin intervention you can continue to request it here on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- In what way have I harassed Bakhshi82 on the article talk page? My sockpuppet suspicions were voiced before Bakhshi82 showed up claiming he wasn't the IPs. When he showed up, he started harassing me, insisting that I alter/remove my comments. When I stated that I was willing to let the matter go but not remove my comments, he kept after me to remove my comments and started removing them himself. He is the one who kept altering/removing comments and making threats, and yet I am the one who was doing the harassing and am equally at fault? I most definitely disagree, and so do most editors at that talk page. "[N]ot entirely appropriate"? His altering/removing comments wasn't appropriate at all! I have no problem with this user, other than his going against consensus and removing/altering comments. But if this is how administrative action can work -- blame the actual one who kept getting harassed (I had no interest in removing my comments; and since Bakhshi82 kept coming after me to do so, it was harassment) -- then oh well. I suppose I just have to accept it. Bakhshi82 will continue to think he can do whatever he wants at Wikipedia without any sort of consequences for disruptive actions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- This right here is exactly what I mean about harassment, and about only one of us not being able to let things go. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- In what way have I harassed Bakhshi82 on the article talk page? My sockpuppet suspicions were voiced before Bakhshi82 showed up claiming he wasn't the IPs. When he showed up, he started harassing me, insisting that I alter/remove my comments. When I stated that I was willing to let the matter go but not remove my comments, he kept after me to remove my comments and started removing them himself. He is the one who kept altering/removing comments and making threats, and yet I am the one who was doing the harassing and am equally at fault? I most definitely disagree, and so do most editors at that talk page. "[N]ot entirely appropriate"? His altering/removing comments wasn't appropriate at all! I have no problem with this user, other than his going against consensus and removing/altering comments. But if this is how administrative action can work -- blame the actual one who kept getting harassed (I had no interest in removing my comments; and since Bakhshi82 kept coming after me to do so, it was harassment) -- then oh well. I suppose I just have to accept it. Bakhshi82 will continue to think he can do whatever he wants at Wikipedia without any sort of consequences for disruptive actions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I would have to say that this is completely outside of anything that any reasonable person would say is compatible with acceptable behavior here. Exactly how much threatening behavior is this person going to be allowed to get away with? Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know this discussion was taking place and perhaps it's too late already, but I think there is not an appreciation here of the situation with Bakhshi. The advice that he and Flyer avoid each other has some merit, but it's not an equal problem. I have edited at the Titanic (movie) page quite a bit, and he is difficult, to say the least. Has he changed other editors' posts? Yes. Has he made threats? Yes. He changed the article after a long and contentious process had resolved itself, but then his English is pretty spotty so he's not really in a position to offer stylistic improvements anyway. He was invited to offer his views and he declined. Now, perhaps Flyer was not correct in accusing him of sockpuppetry, but I find it very curious that the IP contributor never returned to claim that he was not Bakhshi. Instead, the socking just stopped, and Bakhshi returned. (Coincidence!) I note that he's returned today to Flyer's talk page with bad behavior. I think the editors here did not comprehend the situation very well and should look again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think we all agree that the sockpuppet accusation perhaps would have been better kept out of the discussion, but it's simply not true Flyer harrassed Bakshi. For a start Bakshi wouldn't come to the talk page so he wasn't even there to harrass! The only other direct communication Flyer had with Bakshi where she initiated contact was on his talk page to direct him to the discussion, and to inform him of an AN3 report which had been filed after his reverting (which she didn't file incidentally). I think we lost patience with Bakshi towards the end which perhaps reflects badly on us, but he did push it by putting the same peacock (and grammatically incorrect) terms into the article over and over, and we didn't get any assistance when we asked for it, so I don't think the deterioration of the situation can be entirely laid at Flyer's feet. I mean, it was just hard to deal with, it was a difficult discussion even without the added complications. I am sure Flyer would agree to handle SP accusations more appropriately in the future, but things wouldn't have gone this way if Bakshi had stopped reverting and joined the discussion, so maybe rather than allocating blame perhaps both Flyer and Bakshi would be best served by this discussion if Bakshi agreed to edit in a more collaborative manner. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
OK seriously, do something about this guy. There is something really wrong with this situation. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the editors of this page are silent in the face of Bakhshi's documented over the top misbehavior. This is appalling, if true. No one in a leadership position will say a word? What is the problem? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- And the creepy continues. Meanwhile Flyer has left Bakshi alone and progress has been made on the portion of the article that started the whole mess to begin with. I'm a little disheartened by how this is shaking out. Millahnna (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ring Cinema, there really isn't any sort of formal leadership here. Us admins are just volunteers, and we're not obligated by anything but our own morals. I'm not surprised people left this alone; it looks mostly like a content dispute at first and now creepy, two things admins like to steer clear of. Anyway, I left Bakhshi a warning that his behavior is inappropriate. If anyone else feels like an immediate block is necessary, feel free. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I was under the impression that some editors have credentials to do things that other editors do not, which is a sort of leadership, whether de facto, ad hoc, or non-hierarchical. I don't think it's correct to call Flyer's complaint a content dispute, though. She didn't ask to have any content changed. She complained about two specific things (threats and illicit edits) that have nothing to do with content. Yes, it sprang from a content dispute, but almost everything does. Again, thanks for jumping in, even if it's not your usual portfolio. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ring Cinema, there really isn't any sort of formal leadership here. Us admins are just volunteers, and we're not obligated by anything but our own morals. I'm not surprised people left this alone; it looks mostly like a content dispute at first and now creepy, two things admins like to steer clear of. Anyway, I left Bakhshi a warning that his behavior is inappropriate. If anyone else feels like an immediate block is necessary, feel free. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
May I point something out? Here we have a dispute between two editors:
- Flyer22 has been a Wikipedian for four years. She has 46,000 edits (65% to article space). She has nine barnstars, five DYK's, four GA's, and many other accomplishments, all of which can be seen with a quick scan of her user page. In addition, she is an outstanding, fair-minded, erudite, and talented editor who works hard in a number of difficult areas, and has for years.
- Bakhshi82 has been a Wikipedian for less than a year. He has 165 edits (30% to article space). This is not counting whatever editing he has done under various IPs or previously-banned usernames. He is... not a good editor, let us say; I'll leave the particulars as an exercise for the reader, along with the assessment of this editor's mental state.
So when Flyer22 comes here with a legitimate complaint, what happens? She gets jumped and then hung out to dry. What a ludicrous spectacle. And you people wonder why established editors are getting pissed off and leaving. "Come to ANI"? Why yes sir I'll bring my next problem right to ANI, just as soon as I finish pounding in some tent pegs with my forehead, which will be a more productive and certainly more pleasant use of my time. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, and simply searching User talk:Flyer22 for "Bakhshi82" shows sufficient reason to believe that the latter is not suitable for Wikipedia. No doubt someone could provide a link to a rule saying that nonsense must be tolerated because we are all equal, however simply removing the source of the nonsense would seem to be a more helpful procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Issues with User:Kwamikagami
We are having an issue with an editor adding hyphens to medical articles against consensus. Discussion took place here with 6 against the hyphens and 2 for them. Kwam was asked not to continue making these changes and to allow those who primarily write the article allow them to reflect usage in current medical literature. He continues here [1]and here [2] One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I am with consensus, though a couple editors now don't want to accept that for reasons I fail to understand. At first, I was hyphenating all articles per the MOS, as long as that was supported by the medical literature. I agreed with the majority of editors at the time that we won't use normal English punctuation for cancer articles since the majority of journals don't bother with it, but there was one exception: we agreed that we should not call tumors "large" or "small" unless they are actually large or small. Mispunctuating "small cell carcinoma" (for one that may be quite large) is so misleading for those not familiar with the terminology (technically "small-cell carcinoma") that we agreed to continue hyphenating in such situations. That is what I've been doing. If Doc or anyone else wants to change the consensus, then we should get together and discuss it, and see if we agree it's medically responsible to tell patients or their loved ones that they have large tumors when they're small, or small tumors when they're large. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to break in here Doc James ... Kwami, with all due respect, that's just FLAT WRONG. There was NEVER any consensus - your "imaginary" consensus (or as you call it on your Talk Page, "silent consensus" - LOL!!!) was something you PREMATURELY and UNILATERALLY declared after (IMO) "bad faith vote counting"!
- Importantly here ... it's highly prototypical, and part-and-parcel, of your little personal idiosyncratic modus operandi, as I will explain in GREAT detail (below, in a minute). Tell us, as Doc James asks, out of your "imaginary/silent/rigged consensus", JUST EXACTLY HOW you came to hyphenating "squamous-cell", "clear-cell", and "basal cell" ... JUST TO NAME A FEW? I won't even TALK about "salivary gland--like", and probably OTHERS which I intend to run down here soon. Huh? Huh?
- And if ya knew SQUAT about what you were talking about, you would know that >90% of small cell lung cancer patients have WIDELY disseminated disease at the time of discovery, and are GONERS anyway, and that tumor size has VERY little correlation with survival ... not to mention that YOU KNOW the "confuse them" argument is merely flotsam you're trying to grab onto because you're drowning. NOBODY with >12 functioning neural connections is going to be confused by the lack of hyphen, because ITS DRAMATICALLY OBVIOUS from the CONTEXT what the "small" means, PLUS no one will JUST look at Wikipedia if they are researching a small cell cancer diagnosed in them or their loved ones. Your rationale just doesn't pass the "Sniff Test", and YOU KNOW IT! You have caused MASSIVE problems in a NUMBER of areas - look at your own Talk Page! UNREAL!!!
- In one of the edits above you returned "Squamous-cell". I seem to read the opinions of other differently than you and have asked the users to clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I may have restored that in a revert of a pointy edit, rather than picking through the changes, but I don't recall purposefully hyphenating such forms after agreeing not to. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- But there's the problem in a nutshell. Although Kwamikagami is perfectly aware of the strength of opposition to the changes he makes, he continues to do so (as in the "Squamous-cell" case), then uses weasel terms to explain away such cavalier editing behaviour: I may have restored ... – there's no "may have" about it; I don't recall purposefully hyphenating ... – nobody's complaining about his memory, just his editing against consensus. If he can't manage to edit without causing problems on medical articles, and can't recognise when he causes a problem, then it may be time to consider whether he ought to be editing medical articles at all. --RexxS (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's ridiculous. I reverted a pointy edit. I didn't waste my time sifting through and manually reverting only the pointy bits, I simply reverted. If you want to go in and individually restore the other bits, be my guest. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I intend to post on this at great length this weekend, after I complete a full investigation of the problems this gentleman has caused A LOT of people, and am thus prepared to be more accurate and detailed, but I would quickly add and emphasize that THESE sorts of comments are part of Kwami's particular modus operandi. He MASSIVELY screws stuff up with THOUSANDS of edits and page moves without the SLIGHTEST concern for what others might think or attempts to contact them for discussion, in areas he knows DIDDLY SQUAT about, and then when confronted, agrees to stop or alter his behavior, while just continuing on doing the same things again, and when caught again, says "didn't do it on purpose", throws out arguments that are intellectually dishonest (my opinion, given the irony of his obviously high intelligence contrasted with his inane excuses and reasoning that a third-grader wouldn't swallow), and then puts forth sources to back his argument that prove FALSE when checked, and covers THAT by saying "well, for some reason I can't access that page right now". Look, I hate being mad, confrontational, and uncivil, but Kwami has ENRAGED me with this stuff! Its obvious its a "power trip" ... BET: Anyone shows me a link where Kwami has ADMITTED he was wrong, apologized, stopped what he was doing, and fixed the damage WITHOUT 500 MAN HOURS AND 3 TERABYTES OF B.S. ARGUING, I will mail you $50 cash U.S. Grrrrr.... Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's ridiculous. I reverted a pointy edit. I didn't waste my time sifting through and manually reverting only the pointy bits, I simply reverted. If you want to go in and individually restore the other bits, be my guest. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- But there's the problem in a nutshell. Although Kwamikagami is perfectly aware of the strength of opposition to the changes he makes, he continues to do so (as in the "Squamous-cell" case), then uses weasel terms to explain away such cavalier editing behaviour: I may have restored ... – there's no "may have" about it; I don't recall purposefully hyphenating ... – nobody's complaining about his memory, just his editing against consensus. If he can't manage to edit without causing problems on medical articles, and can't recognise when he causes a problem, then it may be time to consider whether he ought to be editing medical articles at all. --RexxS (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I may have restored that in a revert of a pointy edit, rather than picking through the changes, but I don't recall purposefully hyphenating such forms after agreeing not to. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- In one of the edits above you returned "Squamous-cell". I seem to read the opinions of other differently than you and have asked the users to clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a wider problem than medical articles. In March I made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:). The problem there was that Kwamikagami was moving ship articles to a hyphenated form of the name, even though the matter was still under discussion, and no consensus had been reached; he had been asked to stop, and agreed to stop, but carried on anyway until the ANI was brought. The discussion of the ANI turned into a discussion of whether the names should have hyphens, for which there was no consensus. On that one too, Kwamikagami had a weasel explanation of why he had carried on making the moves even after agreeing to stop; and he was criticised for it. But nothing was done about his behaving in this way.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I love this. I was following the MOS for ship names. I was using the forms already in the articles themselves! — kwami (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I think what would be fair is for Kwami to remove all the hyphens from medical articles that he added from everything but "small-cell" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- This thread may also be of relevance here. This is the third time that Kwamikagami has had their actions in respect to moves brought here in as many months. I've no idea how many of these moves have required the admin bit but I suspect some of them have. Kwamikagami seems regularly to find what they think is a clear consensus when othersthink the consensus is unclear at best. They then seem to often act on this "consensus" despite being involved. Once could just be a mistake, but three times seems to suggest a possibly worrying pattern. Dpmuk (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- With all this wiki-lawyering over petty stuff like hyphens, how did Kwami ever get to be an admin, and why is he still an admin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kwami does a lot of great work. Just needs to be more receptive to feedback that is all and careful with his interpretation of others comments. When one makes as many edits as he a few issues are sure to occur. Thus hopefully he will act upon the suggestion above...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- With all this wiki-lawyering over petty stuff like hyphens, how did Kwami ever get to be an admin, and why is he still an admin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, "small-cell" has been objected to by a regular editor of the relevant page. (Reliable sources are divided, about 3 to 2, in favor of non-hyphenation/not following standard grammar.) The hyphen in "non-small cell" is the only hyphen that has gone uncontested so far (Kwami advocates for double hyphenation there; standard grammar is either two hypens or one en dash and one hyphen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- How does this hyphen stuff benefit the readers? It shows the same way, either way, in the search box. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, "small-cell" has been objected to by a regular editor of the relevant page. (Reliable sources are divided, about 3 to 2, in favor of non-hyphenation/not following standard grammar.) The hyphen in "non-small cell" is the only hyphen that has gone uncontested so far (Kwami advocates for double hyphenation there; standard grammar is either two hypens or one en dash and one hyphen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- For the fraction of readers who understand the grammar rules, the hyphenation makes it immediately obvious that a small-cell tumor is a tumor composed of small cells, rather than a small tumor composed of cells. The majority of readers do not know the grammar rules and thus receive no benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kwamikagami persists in promoting his own agenda and ignoring the consensus that we achieved at WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
"One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him."
— Doc James
- I disagree. Several of our expert editors are having problems with him. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Noetica's analysis (please comment after my post, not within it)
There is be a genuine inconsistency between WP:MOSMED and WP:MOS on such hyphenation. But there is also at least one problem within WP:MOSMED itself (and with its linked resources). Some excerpts:
- For punctuation, e.g., possessive apostrophes and hyphens, follow the use by high-quality sources.
- Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research.
- [A note to 2:] Examples of original research include counting Google or PubMed results, comparing the size or relevance of the varieties of English, and quoting from personal or professional experience.
- [At WP:MEDRS, linked from 2:] PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical sources [and so on, with nothing contradicting].
Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research?
And at the top of WP:MOSMED:
- This page proposes style guidelines for editing medical articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles.
As for WP:MOS, it is the central resource for guidelines on punctuation. It gives great detail at WP:HYPHEN (see also WP:ENDASH and WP:SLASH) for the matter in question here. It does not delegate any matter of punctuation to subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style. Arguably therefore, especially if such a subsidiary page is not well coordinated with WP:MOS, and if it contains contradictions and uncertainties, WP:MOS is the one to follow.
WP:MOS includes this guidance at WP:HYPHEN:
- A hyphen can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases where non-experts are part of the readership, such as in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics.
It goes on to show specifically how this is managed; and the guidance is pretty standard for high-quality publishing. In light of the facts laid out above, I conclude that:
- Kwami is justified in applying guidelines from WP:MOS, as he has done.
- WP:MOSMED and its linked resources need to be made non-contradictory.
- There needs to be a discussion at WT:MOS to resolve the current inconsistency between WP:MOS and WP:MOSMED.
NoeticaTea? 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
" Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research? "
— Noetica
- From WP:NOR (first sentence): "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." This describes article content, not article titles.
- The next sentence: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." The point of using PubMed is that is indeed providing reliable sources.
- Next: "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Using PubMed to advance the position is using the sources; the name of the article is itself used by the sources—that's the whole point.
- To summarize, WP:NOR is not applicable to the naming of article titles. Even if it was, the use of PubMed would not contravene that policy.
- To answer the first question: Yes, PubMed is a good way to settle disputes in content/title names. WikiProject Medicine already has consensus on this matter.
- The relevant policy is WP:TITLE. The policy describes five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.
- Let's compare "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" with "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma":-
- Recognizability: "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" is more frequently used and more recognizable.
- Naturalness: Are readers really more likely to type in "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma" rather than "Non-small cell lung carcinoma"? I don't think so. Readers are more likely to use the more commonly encountered variant.
- Precision: In this context, "precision" refers to unambiguous naming of the topic. This isn't a problem for either title—thus a draw.
- Conciseness: Both are equally long—another draw.
- Consistency: Until Kwamikagami came along, consistency favoured "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". His interference has muddied the waters. Let's call it a draw.
- Overall, that's 5–3 in favour of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hyphens are irrelevant in the search box. Whether you type with or without, you'll still get the same results. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, you're referring to #2: Naturalness. The second part of the criterion is "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English". "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" still wins here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- When oncologists say "non~small~cell carcinoma", the grammatical parsing is conveyed with intonation, not with hyphens: there would be a different intonation to "(non-small) cell carcinoma" than there would be to "non-(small cell) carcinoma". Similarly, "small (cell carcinoma)" would be accented differently than "(small cell) carcinoma". Neither hyphens nor the lack of hyphens is really part of the name, but intonation is—and we can't write intonation. Although not perfect, hyphens are an attempt to capture this distinctive intonation in writing. Therefore (2) 'naturalness' supports hyphenation, because that's how the name is actually pronounced. Anyway, most readers for which this matters will be new to the topic, and for them it wodn't matter which is used, at least not in your sense. For those familiar with the topic, the meaning is also clear either way so it still won't matter. I also take issue with (1) recognizability. The hyphenated form is obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English), and this isn't Simple English WP where we need to assume that our readers may not be literate. If we accept your conclusion that 3–5 are a draw, then as I count it we have 2–0 in favor of hyphenation. And the potential for real confusion among naive readers if we don't hyphenate. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I object IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to Kwami counting up "the score" (i.e. "2-0 in favor") on ANYTHING having to do with this issue. In previous "votes", so to speak, in discussions on this issue, it was OBVIOUS that Kwami does NOT make a good faith effort to "count the votes" correctly, and neither will he accept consensus when its staring him directly in his face. Just the fact that he is STILL persisting with this stuff is CONCLUSIVE evidence of that, because at a previous EXTENSIVE discussion on this - kindly linked by Doc James above - it WAS QUITE OBVIOUS that the physicians and medical experts posting, as I recall from memory User:Uploadvirus, User:Jmh649, User:WhatamIdoing, User:My_core_competency_is_competency, User:Axl, and User:Colin were AGAINST his position, and only his "compadre" and fellow linguistics expert User:Tony1 - neither of whom know DIDDLY SQUAT about lung cancer and its literature best I can tell - User:Tony1 was in favor of his position. I submit that there is NO QUESTION that he is resisting this consensus beyond ANY level of reasonableness, and probably will not stop without being served a court order from the ICC.
- I am also going to state that, in my opinion, he has been misleading (at best) in providing evidence to justify some of his actions. Yesterday, I went to expand a stub I had begun on Salivary gland-like carcinoma of the lung - of course, it had been altered to "salivary gland--like" (i.e. a freaking "double dash" thing)!!! Mouth agape, I think to myself "Sweet Jesus, if THAT version appears anywhere in the lit, I will eat my living room table sans ketchup!". So I ask him about it, and he replies with some book cite. So I check it, and he was WRONG! The book was even goofier, having some idiocy like "salivary-gland--like", or maybe even including $, &, and # in there somewhere, I don't remember. I do remember checking all 4 instances of this tumor name occurring in the book, and NONE of them matched what he said it was. When I called him on it, citing a specific page, he replied with something like "I couldnt get that page on my computer, the page I looked at said what I said". I haven't had time to double verify his denial, but as I recall nopw, the page he quoted was misleading (I think, will recheck this).
- Another issue worth considering here, IMO, is his attitude about fixing problems he has caused. At least twice he has been asked to go fix a bunch of these lung (and other site-specific) cancer articles, and at least once he AGREED to, then DIDN'T - rudely demanding he be provided a list of what to fix (note: obvious answer is "damn near every one you ever done"). Also, at least once, he told the requesting person [paraphrasing] "go fix it yourself" in a tone that ticked me off severely.
- I will post much more cogently and extensively on this later, am in a hurry this morning, so I apologize for the crude way this is argued. And I ALSO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE, including Kwami, for the way this has gotten out of hand. I HATE FIGHTING WITH ANYONE. TTYL!
- With best regards to all: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The 'freaking "double dash" thing' is actually an en-dash; and this example is very much like "New York–London flight" from The Chicago Manual of Style. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- When oncologists say "non~small~cell carcinoma", the grammatical parsing is conveyed with intonation, not with hyphens: there would be a different intonation to "(non-small) cell carcinoma" than there would be to "non-(small cell) carcinoma". Similarly, "small (cell carcinoma)" would be accented differently than "(small cell) carcinoma". Neither hyphens nor the lack of hyphens is really part of the name, but intonation is—and we can't write intonation. Although not perfect, hyphens are an attempt to capture this distinctive intonation in writing. Therefore (2) 'naturalness' supports hyphenation, because that's how the name is actually pronounced. Anyway, most readers for which this matters will be new to the topic, and for them it wodn't matter which is used, at least not in your sense. For those familiar with the topic, the meaning is also clear either way so it still won't matter. I also take issue with (1) recognizability. The hyphenated form is obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English), and this isn't Simple English WP where we need to assume that our readers may not be literate. If we accept your conclusion that 3–5 are a draw, then as I count it we have 2–0 in favor of hyphenation. And the potential for real confusion among naive readers if we don't hyphenate. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, you're referring to #2: Naturalness. The second part of the criterion is "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English". "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" still wins here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hyphens are irrelevant in the search box. Whether you type with or without, you'll still get the same results. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The general point here seem to be that Wikipedia should reflect the real world. If physicians are mostly illiterate with respect to English writing subtleties, let them have their cake and eat it. Wikipeidia is usually not the appropriate place to right great wrongs. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Salivary gland-like" should be a hyphen, not an n-dash. The n-dash is used as shorthand for actual words, such as "New York to London" in your example, or "1876--1901" being short for "from 1876 through 1901". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is "salivary" modifying "gland-like"? Or is it (salivary gland)-like carcinoma, i.e. "salivary gland" is an open compound [3] here just like "New York"? Perhaps you should read the article before commenting... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, (salivary gland)-like. And, yes, silly me for believing what I was taught in grade school. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is "salivary" modifying "gland-like"? Or is it (salivary gland)-like carcinoma, i.e. "salivary gland" is an open compound [3] here just like "New York"? Perhaps you should read the article before commenting... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Salivary gland-like" should be a hyphen, not an n-dash. The n-dash is used as shorthand for actual words, such as "New York to London" in your example, or "1876--1901" being short for "from 1876 through 1901". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Or perhaps someone should read The Subversive Copy Editor; review. Perhaps we need to make a Homo editorialis barnstar. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kwami says above that the grammatically correct forms are "obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English)".
- Problem: Data disagrees.
- I know zero people who never attended university that actually understand or follow the most basic hyphenation rules. In my experience, a clear majority of university graduates don't know the hyphenation rules. And as a relevant piece of proof, I remind you that basically 100% of the high-quality reliable sources for these subjects—the very sources that are getting it "wrong"—are written and edited by people with not only university degrees, but with advanced degrees. So unless you are prepared to define MDs and PhDs and DOs as being outside the set of "anyone who has a high-school level of written English", this simply isn't true.
- More importantly, when words quit being descriptions and start being separate entities, then their names sometimes stop following the grammar rules for descriptive phrases. It's File Transfer Protocol, a specific thing, not "file-transfer protocol", any old protocol for transferring files. Similarly, it's Small cell carcinoma, a specific thing, not just any old carcinoma involving small cells (and, by the way, there are lots of carcinomas that have small cells and are not SCC). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're correct in what you say, but IMO not in applying it to this case. First of all, quality sources do hyphenate here. This has been noted on the medical MOS page. In general, few sources hyphenate the names of carcinomas (though medical references for students often do, I imagine due to the same comprehension concerns I have), but these are an exception: a large number of even medical journals hyphenate them as well. In the MOS discussion, some of the medical-article editors suggested that was precisely because these names are so counter-intuitive when unpunctuated. So we have a case where a common but not majority format is used precisely when addressing a non-professional audience—precisely our situation on WP.
- Secondly, I suspect that, while in some cases the lack of punctuation may be due to the authors being semi-literate (I'm in a technical field, and professionals in the hard sciences especially often are semi-literate, which is why they often need editors so desperately), more generally it's probably a case of familiarity. Just as someone writing about high-school students all the time will start writing high school students, since to their audience it's obvious that they're not talking about school students who are high, so people writing about basal-cell ganglioma all the time will start writing it basal cell ganglioma. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of familiarity, and unlike the editors of medical journals, we can't assume our readers are familiar with what a basal-cell ganglioma is. You will find that phrase hyphenated in professional sources, BTW, just not frequently. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Kwami, that's a load of bunk. "Quality sources hyphenate" ... "quality sources" in whose opinion? Yours? LOL! I've been reading the cancer literature like a madman for 35 years, and have seen VERY few hyphens, so now you're telling me that ALL the major peer reviewed journals, the WHO Cancer Classification works, CDC and NCI stuff, etc. are not "quality sources"??? And professionals in the hard sciences are semi-literate, as opposed to folks in technical fields like you? LOL! You mean the "ignerint" folks with majors in physics, chemistry, etc.? Those folks? How about you take a look at standardized average GRE Verbal scores for physics and chemistry majors vs. technical folks like yourself, and see what THOSE say about "relative literacy". I scored 700 on the GRE Verbal, which was 98%ile when I took it. How'd YOU score? And just exactly WHICH sources you got for teaching medical students that use hyphens? Hey - don't hand pick them, either - restriction of range in statistics is cheating! Do a selection ACROSS the spectrum! And just not frequently is an understatement, with a probability of like 0.01 of getting a hyphen. LOL!
- And your little comment about "not arguing with me, and leaving me to my foibles", when translated, means I "got you by the short hairs" with my analysis in regards to your behavior, and you have no rebuttal you CAN make. Everyone here knows that, at least, whether they agree with the hyphen thing or not! LOL! Nice try - no fly, dude. No disrespect intended, I'm just speaking "semi-literately" :-)
- "Semi - literate." Are you sure that shouldn't be semi — literate or semi – — literate or maybe semi — – — – — – — literate??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's not make this into a content dispute
It's not. The problem is not the content dispute, it's the continued disputed edits and page moves by an editor (who is coincidentally an admin, but that's only relevant insomuch as he should know better) who has already been brought up for this before. ANI discussion should only concern how to make that problem go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no getting around the fact that, at some point, there has to be a decision about "what's correct" in terms of these hyphens and n-dashes and such. From the contradictory comments in the previous sub-section, it's not at all clear that there really is a "right" answer. Yet everyone involved "thinks" they have the one right answer. How do you fix that problem??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not repeatedly drive a semi through the discussion with mass renames, for one.
- Kwami may be correct per MOS, but project naming guidelines and consensuses do matter too. It's not collegial or collaborative to enforce central style guidelines without respect to project consensuses (that have not yet migrated into exceptions or sub-policies off MOS).
- I don't know that we need to take administrative or community action - but there is no lack of areas which don't have disputes on hyphenation or other topics which Kwami can work in instead of these. It would de-escalate the situation if he were to avoid ones without consensus, or engage only in policy discussions until a consensus among the project members develops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck with THAT approach, Mr. Herbert. I already TRIED that - I literally BEGGED him, and he told me to "shove off", more or less. Thanks for your concern, but nobody is going to get ANYWHERE with this dude. People have tried for YEARS - and that is one reason I'm so incensed. He's done this over and over and over.
- I give up. You win AGAIN, Kwami, and I hope you are proud of yourself. My rant was removed, and I've been threatened with block. So you just go on ahead doing what you're doing, it doesn't look to me like anyone is going to do anything about it, no matter how many articles you "alter" *cough*, and no matter how many people call you on it. Thanks VERY much to Doc James, RexxS, WhatamIdoing, Axl, and all the other folks who wasted their time attempting to do something about it. i will always be grateful to you folks. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to go edit an article that will end up being called something like "large-cell$carcinoma@with#rhabdoid+phenotype" before its all over. Best regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The rant was removed because it didn't meet our standards for reasonable discourse here, as I indicated on your talk page (someone else removed it, but I agree with it). We are listening. Action may come if necessary.
- I know that, sir. I knew that. It was intended to draw some attention from bigwigs such as yourself, since the traditional "polite" way hasn't seemed to help over a few years time. And I appreciate your attention to this matter, but with all due respect, "action may come if necessary? I submit that, given the obviousness of his record, your comment is a perfect example of why I'm so LIVID over all this - at law, this would be a "slam-dunk summary judgment"!
- The rant was removed because it didn't meet our standards for reasonable discourse here, as I indicated on your talk page (someone else removed it, but I agree with it). We are listening. Action may come if necessary.
- The worst part of your having made it is that you caused a bunch of people to look at you and spend time trying to determine if you're the kook / abuser here, and it at least somewhat and temporarily discredited your complaint. Shooting yourself in the foot, as it were... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- There's ANOTHER big difference between myself and Kwami - I will ADMIT when I'm wrong, and when I'm a kook, but he won't, EVER. And again, I invoke the cart-horse analogy, sir. I was never a kook until he came along, throwing his weight around' messing up a bunch of stuff, and shoving it in peoples faces, being obstinate in the extreme. Take a look at his Talk Page archives, and do a search for links associated with him, and really check him out like I have. You will see what I mean quickly. And lastly, the medical folks around here KNOW where I'm coming from, and sympathize I think, they just have more class than me, and I respect them for that. My apologies for my behavior, but I'm not used to being pushed around by someone and having to just stand there and take it. No disrespect whatsoever intended to you, sir!
- The worst part of your having made it is that you caused a bunch of people to look at you and spend time trying to determine if you're the kook / abuser here, and it at least somewhat and temporarily discredited your complaint. Shooting yourself in the foot, as it were... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have left Kwami an advisory notice that I and others see this as unconstructive behavior and ask that he leave changes/renames in the disputed topic areas alone, until a consensus develops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, many sincere thanks for your efforts. I'm quite sure that your notice, which is approximately the 5,435th one he's gotten, will no doubt turn the tide. Again, no disrespect intended to you, its just that myself and many others have tried that already. Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I left off arguing with him several days ago. He's adding content, so IMO we can leave him his foibles. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting gratuitous removal of notable people from category, edit warring etc.
He's systematically going through categories and removing people from categories of things they worked on. He seems to be doing this fairly arbitrarily, even when the people are verifiably referenced to be highly on topic, and he's doing it when they're not referenced from any other subcategories.
It seems to be either essentially deliberate category vandalism or somebody has seized his account or he's got some kind of problem, (or he's just being a total idiot.)
He's even trying to edit war the changes through, and he's unable to point to any policies or guidelines consistent with what he's doing.
Other users have complained about similar issues on his talk page.
I wouldn't mind too much, but he seems to be mass-removing stuff from categories. And he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, but everything I know about the category system says he's lost his mind.
Help?
e.g. he's removed Gerard O'Neill from Category:Space colonization, but looking at the bio and the main article at Space colonization he's in both. Alan Liefting has also removed Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who more or less invented this theoretical field. [4], and there's loads of others.
I'm going to go with an RFC anyway but is there anything an admin can do to slow this stuff down, otherwise there's potentially going to be a heck of a lot of reverts until an RFC can get to grips with the rights and wrongs of this, he seems to be wrong, and prolifically so. Potentially we're looking at having to go back through this guys edits over months or years and reverting thousands of edits.
Many thanks!Rememberway (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
See also: User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removal_of_categorization, Talk:Gerard_K._O'Neill#Categories.Rememberway (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- There should be a new category created to hold the people who advocate or theorize about space colonization. I think Alan Liefting is correct in removing people from the category space colonization, because individual biographies are not article topics of colonization. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree you could do that, but there's no policy or guideline that you should do that, and he's not anyway, he's just deleting them all out of hand. What he's doing is essentially indistinguishable from category vandalism, and he's doing it fairly fast, using semi-automatic tools.Rememberway (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- And I don't think you're correct that biographies are not categorically on-topic, are you saying that (for example) the Wright brother's biography shouldn't be part of the aviation categories?Rememberway (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you're planning on making a category called People involved with space colonization, where exactly do you think these biographies should be categorized? It is common practice to add biographies to the categories of what they're involved with. SilverserenC 03:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the Wright brothers should be in the category "Wright-Patterson Air Force Base" or "Gliding in the United States".
- The new category could be "Space colonization advocates" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't they? Their experiments with gliders led to their development of the airplane; and a portion of the current Wright-Patterson was a testing ground for them in addition to having been named for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You could do that, but instead this
bozois just deleting stuff completely.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)- I've struck out your personal attack, please do not make such comments. SilverserenC 03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You could do that, but instead this
- Perhaps it would be a lower-stress approach for people who advocate such changes to make the split category and recategorize biographical articles, rather than just remove categories from biographies...
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I second Binksternets opinion. It is rare to see biographies in the categories in which they are involved. There tends to be a subcat for biographies eg. Category:Botanists, Category:Astronauts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Space advocates is appropriate for any space colonization advocates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- So why are you deleting categories then? You've invented your own personal policy that doesn't actually exist in reality and then gone on a deletion spree.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anybody could do that with anything. I could arbitrarily decide to remove every 50 th sentence from long articles. There's no policy that says I could do that, but there's no policy that says I can't, and the articles are long enough already right? The articles should have been shorter already. Right? Let's do it then!
- That of course is ridiculous. How is this category deletions not the same type of thing? This is an arbitrary deletion spree. The things you are deleting are nearly always related to the category you removed them from. You also did the same with Category:Futurology. This isn't somebody acting normally, this is somebody doing bad faith deletions, the Wikipedia is being repeatedly damaged by your actions. And you are completely unrepentent, and apparently intend to carry on deleting.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rememberway has been quite belligerent from the start. I have been called a vandal, accused of edit warring, called an idiot and now a bozo. This person is not assuming good faith. It is also a bit rich to accuse me of edit warring when Rememberway is doing exactly the same thing. I have explained my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page. Also, I am attempting to explain the rationale for my edits, although I must admit I am probably not making it clear or covering all the points that I should. Rememberway seems to want clear policy of guideline for categorisation yet there is no prescriptive guideline. In the absence of this I consider what is best for the reader, on unwritten convention or on consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Question: When you removed the category on Gerard's article, did you add the Space advocates category to it? SilverserenC 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I was not aware of that category initially. It is a more approp category than Category:Space colonization and the article has been in that category since before this issue was raised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC
- There is also Category:Space advocacy. Maybe these categories could be reorganized some way. Category:Space colonization is a fairly large category containing a lot of vague subjects, fiction, etc. which are all fine, but O'Neill was most associated with what I'd call a narrower subtopic that seems worthy of a (sub)category of its own. Basically "space colony engineering" or something like that. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Space advocacy contains lots of biographical articles that should be in Category:Space advocates (as per the categorisation guideline). I think the category structure is about right given the low number of articles but Category:Space colonization needs cleaning out (which is the issue here) and a Category:Space colonization organisations is possibly needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, Alan, it's really quite disruptive to do a lot of repetitive operations without prior discussion. There's a WP:BOLD principle but it's intended for actions like single edits, that can easily be undone and discussed. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The vast majority of my "repetitive operations" are uncontroversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously this one is not. Could you try to be a bit less abrasive about it? You've removed a bunch of categorization info without moving it anywhere else, which could be viewed a WP:PRESERVE problem. Binksternet's suggestion of making new categories is reasonable. But I think it's best to open a discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT or some other appropriate place, about how to deal with these categories.
I don't think "space advocates" is necessarily the right place for these biographies. The category I'm imagining should contain, say, both Gerard O'Neill and Henry Kolm (Kolm was a magnet expert associated with O'Neill's mass driver lab), whether or not Kolm was personally a space advocate (I don't know if he was). You could also do some constructive populating of the categories rather than depopulating. For example, obvious missing persons include K. Eric Drexler, T. A. Heppenheimer, etc. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously this one is not. Could you try to be a bit less abrasive about it? You've removed a bunch of categorization info without moving it anywhere else, which could be viewed a WP:PRESERVE problem. Binksternet's suggestion of making new categories is reasonable. But I think it's best to open a discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT or some other appropriate place, about how to deal with these categories.
- The vast majority of my "repetitive operations" are uncontroversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully my addition below is not too long for this venue:
First, I do not agree with User:Remeberway's name calling. I do not consider that to be productive. However, I understand this editor's frustration. I have also recently had encounters with Alan Liefting. I have to agree with 69.111....'s characterization that Alan Liefting may come across as abrasive. It is difficult to nail down what rationale Liefting adheres to when removing categories from articles on a large scale. [5] He adheres to guidelines and policies, and then he doesn't adhere to guidelines at the same time. He refuses to provide supporting documents or figures for the rationale he employs - which becomes frustrating. Although it is probably true that he uses the AWB bot only on occasion this is not stated in the edit summaries, and it is supposed to be noted in the edit summaries. Second once his edits had become controversial, he continued to edit as if there were no objections (see previous diff). Especially with the AWB bot it is explicitly stated what to do pertaining to controversial edits, guidelines and policies, and mass editing [6].
The main theme, when communicating with Liefting, is that he is not communicating. Instead he rigidly asserts that he is right and the other editor is wrong - period (see previous diff and [7]. I noticed he mentioned that User:Rememberway is edit warring. As I see it, the edit war actually begins with Liefting edits. He shows no inclination to acknowledge or respect established editors who work on, edit, watch, and protect (large) groups of articles where categories are suddenly being removed without explanation [8]. When his edits were reverted by an established editor (me) he reverted those. These edits included articles, images, and the category:Metamaterials category page. Sorry to say but sudden removal of categories from pages and images on my watch list disrupts my editing. In any case, I reccomend that once Liefting sees that an edit has been reverted that he leave it alone and move on. By his own admission (here or somewhere) he has done thousands of edits, most of which have been uncontroversial. So I am sure there are many more uncontroversial edits ahead. Why stop and fight with other editors who put sweat and tears into articles.
Also, in the first diff is a bit of controversy over edits with User:Andy Dingley. Dingley and I discussed possible solutions on Dingley's talk page [9], [10] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:AN3
Could I please have the community take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: )? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have closed the report (permalink) with a 24 hours edit-warring block for Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Because the blocked user is an administrator, and blocks of administrators are at times controversial, I ask the community to review the block. In addition, Ohnoitsjamie has blocked the IP editor they were edit-warring with for 31 hours, which to me looks like an abuse of administrator tools in order to win the content dispute and the edit war. I invite comment about whether this matter requires escalation. Sandstein 13:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sound block on the 3RR - failure to engage in dispute resolution and use of edit warring by Ohnoitsjamie to "win" content dispute, dealt with as with any other class of editor. As for the use of admin flags to block the other party, there is no suggestion or evidence presented that this is a pattern of abuse by this admin and unless such practices come to light I suggest that this is regarded as a one off and the matter concluded with no further action. If evidence for such a pattern emerges, it can be revisited at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Reasonable block, but in my opinion, no escalation required -- the IP's first edit summary could be taken by an uninvolved admin as an indication of bad-faith editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The block was correct imho, per arguments mentioned by LessHeard vanU. Escalation is probably unnecessary at this point but a huge {{trout}} is justified for Ohnoitsjamie's block of the IP. The IP might have edited in bad faith but an admin shouldn't block any IP they previously reverted over content disputes - even if the block was necessary. That just helps those who believe all admins are corrupt power-abusers. Regards SoWhy 13:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- When you begin your editing by deleting a whole section with the rationale of "This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture" and keep deleting it while making the same accusations, you're a vandal. Blatant vandalism is an exception to 3RR and to the involved-admin policy. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- True, but that only applies to the first edit by the IP. The subsequent four ([11], [12], [13] and [14]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement, and it is for edit-warring about them that I blocked Ohnoitsjamie. Sandstein 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like it was a bit stale, and although I understand it at least appears to be a content dispute I can kinda understand Ohnoitsjamie's reaction after that first edit. I wouldn't have blocked myself, but I'm not the admin; I'd say reducing to time served would be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll repeat the comment I made at the 3RR page: "I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR?" DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care if he's an admin, or whatever- we all have knee-jerk reactions sometimes, and shit happens. That's all; I wouldn't feel the need to block someone over an isolated instance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll repeat the comment I made at the 3RR page: "I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR?" DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jamie's treatment of 69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was definitely WP:BITE. I think that's a more serious issue than an isolated instance of edit warring (assuming it's isolated). I left a note on 69.116's user talk trying to explain the situation. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- There's a broader issue here about Jamie's behaviour connected to WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (See also WQA threads here and here.) The admin corps need to nip it in the bud before it gets to be really problematic. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- User Berean Hunter "hatted" this thread shortly after two users had indicated they wanted to see it more broadly discussed. "Hatting" or "closing" a thread to prohibit further discussion is a form of talk page refactoring, and our policy about that says, Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. I've manually reverted Berean's hat; I object to it having been done. Please don't reinstate it. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Using admin tools or status to prevail in a content dispute, or even threatening to do so, is a much more serious matter than edit warring. When an administrator does that, he demonstrates that he has misunderstood his role in relation to the rest of the community. We allow certain editors that "extra bit" so they can serve the community's interests, not so they can have extra clout in personal or content disputes.
- Sandstein asks whether this needs to be escalated, and multiple admins have said "no". Perhaps not, but it's my opinion that a cute suggestion of a "trout" is not a sufficient warning. So I'll say this, on behalf of non-admin users who object to administrators using their status as such for their own interests, or who take advantage of their comparative immunity relative to ordinary users: If he ever does anything like this again, I'll be one of the first in line to support a request for sanctions up to and including a de-sysop via a Request for comment: Use of administrator privileges.
- I sincerely hope this really was just a one-off lapse in judgment. But Jamie needs to understand that his behavior in this matter represents a very serious violation of the trust the community has given him. It cannot be repeated. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should inform ONJ of this ANI thread now that it is taking a separate life from the AN3 thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Surely you (as the originator of the thread) should have done that anyway? I agree with the comments made by OhioStandard. With the exceptions of Magog and Sandstein, I'm not sure the admin. group come out of this particularly well. The admin community should be making it clear that ONJ's conduct in this - not just, as OhioStandard says, simply edit-warring but effectively an abuse of the admin role - is seriously unacceptable. I had a minor wikiquette run-in with Jamie a few weeks ago and I've been following his Talk page since. What I see is that he spends a large amount of time vandal-fighting (and of course all credit to him for that) but it seems to have resulted (having looked at his interactions over the last few weeks) in a mind-set of ABF and "end justifies the means". The admin community need to have a word before something even more serious happens. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've left the notification on his talk page. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Actions by Melesse
I have noticed that Melesse (talk · contribs) has tagged MANY images with FURs when none are needed and nominated images that are ineligible for copyright (Examples from the past 50 edits: [15] [16][17] (more available in user's edit history)). I understand the motivation to fix and applaud this user for the initiative to fix images, however, I believe this user's actions are becoming disruptive through spurious deletion nominations and labeling images copyrighted when, in fact, they are not. I've attempted to discuss this issue with said user politely on their talk page recently...twice ([18][19]) and requested cessation. To date, all I've gotten in return is silence, though this user has opted to say things to other users.
At this point, I'm at my wit's end. Images that are perfectly fine, but are missing a simple label, are being sent to deletion and others are inappropriately being labeled with FURs and being removed from articles where they are NOT in violation of policy. Since this user will not talk to me, I think this is the best avenue to seek assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the first three diffs, it appears that two things have happened. One, Melesse does not know about {{PD-text}}, and two, the images were not tagged as PD-text, they were tagged as copywritten. In light of that, I would think the best course of action would be to explain PD-Text to Melesse, as technically Melesse's actions would be correct if not for that somewhat hidden factor. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Copywritten"? Do you mean "copyrighted"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- These are the tags that should be on the items: {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. I discovered this problem while working on images... on the Commons they are correctly tagged and over here they are incorrectly tagged. Now we know why: this user has been tagging images for years and has apparently tagged many of them incorrectly. I will have a go at explaining to Melesse. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Copywritten"? Do you mean "copyrighted"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Baseball Bugs: Yeah, sure, whatever. <rolls eyes>
- @Diannaa: Thank you.
- Looks like this problem is solved. I recommend a back massage for BQZip01 while this gets sorted out. I don't see bad faith here, just someone who was doing what seemed like good work to them but with only 80% of the picture filled in. Hopefully this will all settle down and go away. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Diannaa, for your full and clear explanation. The previous one, to me, translated to "Some images are marked as fair use but they're really not, for unexplained obscure reasons that you're expected to know." Melesse (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- @ Sven: user BQZip01 has now been notified of the outcome. Unfortunately we now have an unknown number of files with incorrect templates --Diannaa (Talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Diannaa, for your full and clear explanation. The previous one, to me, translated to "Some images are marked as fair use but they're really not, for unexplained obscure reasons that you're expected to know." Melesse (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, Melesse, your answer "Sorry, I didn't know and all that gobbledeegook that BQZip01 wrote on my page was just too confusing/vague" doesn't hold water for me. I've addressed this issue before on your page. I even offered to help you sort through images and REDUCE your workload Your response was, effectively, "go pound sand and leave me alone. I don't care." I've pointed this issue out for over a year and you didn't listen until the issue was brought up at ANI, so I think your "who? me?" response is misleading.
However, if you are true to your word, then I see no reason to continue this discussion further. I will consider the matter resolved. I stand by my offer of assistance to help you look through images. All you need to do is provide me a link on my talk page and I'll help with the assessment (format can be as simple as you want; I'll know what it's for). — BQZip01 — talk 03:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Continued edit-warring by User:BogdaNz
Hi all. User:BogdaNz has continued to edit-war on German battleship Tirpitz and has all but refused to discuss the issue rationally, despite efforts by several editors to reach a compromise. He has been blocked twice for edit-warring on the article, and has resumed the activity. Can someone please handle this? Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
pls go watch discussion,you changed at least 3 times the number in characterisitic without starting a discussion,you changed everything without starting a discussion and nobody sayd nothing I taked citations from biggest historical research book about Tirpitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- My edits are supported by reliable sources. That is not the point, however. The point is you refuse to discuss the issue rationally, you refuse any attempt to reach a compromise, and you continue to edit-war. This is unacceptable. You have been warned by me and several other editors to stop, and yet you continue. If you persist in your tactless handling of this situation, you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, looking at the history of German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it seems that there is a persistent edit war mostly about the ship's specifications (length, speed etc.: [20]). The edit war is between BogdaNz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the one part and mostly Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, on the other part. The numbers being warred over are not accompanied by inline citations, but the confused talk page discussion leads me to believe that the contributors use differing numbers from different sources.
BogdaNz has been blocked twice already, on 16 and 18 April 2011, for edit-warring on the same article, and has continued edit-warring where he left off as soon as the blocks expired. This means that a time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued edit-warring. In addition, BogdaNz's talk page contributions are nearly unintelligible (e.g. [21] [22]), which raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. I have therefore blocked BogdaNz indefinitely. Any administrator may unblock him if they are satisfied that BogdaNz will stop edit-warring, cite sources correctly and make intelligible talk page contributions.
But I believe we should discuss whether Parsecboy should not likewise be blocked for edit-warring. He has made many reverts that simply exchange one uncited set of numbers for another, rather than adding inline citations to the contested numbers so as to allow their verification. What do others think? Sandstein 16:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, looking at the history of German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it seems that there is a persistent edit war mostly about the ship's specifications (length, speed etc.: [20]). The edit war is between BogdaNz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the one part and mostly Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, on the other part. The numbers being warred over are not accompanied by inline citations, but the confused talk page discussion leads me to believe that the contributors use differing numbers from different sources.
- My figures are supported by citations in the prose (which is the norm). I have repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue, all to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the norm is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's from the lead paragraph of the policy WP:V. And being right is not among the exceptions to the prohibition against edit-warring listed at WP:EW#3RR exemptions. It follows that you can be blocked for edit-warring even if you reverted unsourced or incorrect edits. Sandstein 16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the introduction and infoboxes are typically not cited, provided the information contained therein is cited elsewhere. I've written 23 FAs, you don't need to quote WP:V at me. But, while we're quoting policy, just above that section is the line "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- An infobox is like the introductory paragraph: as long as its information is cited elsewhere, we don't need additional citations there. Moreover, WP:V and other sourcing policies are definitely important: there's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to {{uw-vand4}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, as a matter of style infoboxes don't normally need citations, but as soon as a fact is contested, it is nonetheless a good idea to add an inline citation, even if the same fact is already referenced somewhere else (which I'm not sure is the case here). Sandstein 18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- An infobox is like the introductory paragraph: as long as its information is cited elsewhere, we don't need additional citations there. Moreover, WP:V and other sourcing policies are definitely important: there's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to {{uw-vand4}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the introduction and infoboxes are typically not cited, provided the information contained therein is cited elsewhere. I've written 23 FAs, you don't need to quote WP:V at me. But, while we're quoting policy, just above that section is the line "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the norm is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's from the lead paragraph of the policy WP:V. And being right is not among the exceptions to the prohibition against edit-warring listed at WP:EW#3RR exemptions. It follows that you can be blocked for edit-warring even if you reverted unsourced or incorrect edits. Sandstein 16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- My figures are supported by citations in the prose (which is the norm). I have repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue, all to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unintelligible talk page comments + well-written additions to articles = copyright violations. I will start going through their contributions. No comment on the edit war issue at this time. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive editing at Science in medieval Islam
Hello. There's a lot of history here; I don't care to go into it unless I have to.
Bottom line, Science in medieval Islam was stubbed several months ago. I have just begun to rebuild the article, and User:William M. Connolley is reverting all my changes, complaining about the sidebar I added and the meaning of a word I used in the lead sentence. The problem is, the other editor is not just deleting the sidebar and/or changing the word in dispute, he is reverting all my changes - which are beginning to include cited material as well as formatting and other small changes in wording.
This article has lain untouched for some time. I discussed I was going to work on it and laid out a plan, at which time the OP went to the article and began making changes. Later that day, I began my work, which didn't involve his changes, and he has been reverting my changes daily the past three or four days since (once also by another editor). I am just beginning work on it. Every day I have to restore my changes and get through these tangential issues before I can get down to work. Then I have to be careful how I edit lest I get caught between revisions by an undo or something else. Now I have to come here to ask ANI for help.
In other words, I have been followed and singled out for attention by this other editor, and his actions are disrupting my editing. There is one other person involved, but my main concern at this time is the actions of User:William M. Connolley. My work would be easier, and the end result would probably be better, if I was not under siege for the duration of my effort. I would welcome serious criticism, but the amount of work to be done here is substantial and these revert attacks are pointless and destructive.
Thanks for your time.
Aquib (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- There's a bit of history on the talk page, for other editors who are not familiar with this case. While WMC's points do have merit and should be discussed, I find the wholesale reversion troubling, as well as the very prickly comments that he made on the talk page. On the other hand, Aquib, have you considered just making the non-controversial changes first without introducing the sidebar or the word "formally", which WMC opposes? Add the things you can both agree on, and discuss the other things on the talk page while you do that :-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC).
- Thank you for your constructive suggestion, Lankiveil. I will defer these 2 changes for now in the interest of the article. However, I hope you agree the final result should not be influenced by the fact there is someone prepared to totally revert out all my work in order to gain leverage in content discussions. The article will suffer if such tactics are employed. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
As might be expected, there is a much bigger story behind this issue. Some background is at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where evidence is available to show that there have been thousands of edits involving the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements, with severe misuse of sources (misrepresentation; reporting only one side; quoting out of context; inventing claims). Attempts to cleanup the mess are hampered by editors who do not acknowledge the situation: Wikipedia is hosting plausible yet false material that is being mirrored to hundreds of sites, and the hard-to-access sources which seem to justify the material are often found to fail verification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked very closely at the situation, but it does look as if Aquib's edits are reverted wholesale with edit summaries that only refer to tiny details that could easily have been changed directly. Full reverts with justifications that could only justify partial reverts is what I usually see when editors with no particular knowledge of a field try to prevent more knowledgeable editors with a fringe POV from distorting articles.
- Islamic science is actually a mainstream topic. It's well established that at some time Islamic countries had a florishing scientific culture that had an impact on contemporary Christian countries. On the other hand it's also a topic that is attractive to fringe nationalists (similar to Indian mathematics).
- I don't have the time to look at the content (and this is not a good place to discuss it), but one thing seems clear: If WMC and others at that article feel uneasy about Aquib's work because they can't check it, then that's a valid concern that must be made explicit to be resolved one way or the other. Full reverts that mention minor aspects as a pretext are not constructive at all. Hans Adler 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
@L: Aquib has a long history of disruption at this article, going all the way up to his failed arbcomm case. Meanwhile, I don't know what you mean by "prickly": do please clarify yourself. But I notice you have no problem at all with the bad faith of William, you seem to have a personal interest in disrupting my edits - can you explain your asymmetrical response, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note also this kind of thing Does the Islam sidebar make you uncomfortable? implying a sort of facile, covert anti-islam sensibility on the part of WMC.Fainites barleyscribs 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The declined arb request is here. Aquib's part in it doesn't look good at first glance, but I haven't checked into it closely. Tijfo098 discusses Aquib a little bit there.[23] 69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are "first glances" into involvement at Arbcom a justification for violating our principles? Then I would direct you to the other editors involvement there in connection with the topic of Climate change.
- As for the remark regarding the Islam sidebar. The Islam project has a significant historic and scientific interest in this article. This exchange struck me as odd. There is no question this is a sensitive topic. I will agree we all need to keep AGF and stay focused on the content. But this all has nothing to do with whether wholesale reverts are an acceptable tactic in article development.
- No more sensitive than many other topics and I don't see what that has to do with the covert suggestion that WMC is being anti-islam because he objects to a sidebar. (I would find it odd if an article on medieval science in Europe had a Chrisianity sidebar).Fainites barleyscribs 15:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Fainites, the remark I responded to was actually made by another editor, but your points are taken. Still, the question and answer seem outside the scope of this discussion. Briefly,
- To the "covert suggestion". Not sure how covert that was, how much was question, how much suggestion. Such are the vagaries of language. My question did not come out of the blue, it was a response to a statement made by another person. And asking someone if they are uncomfortable with a concept is not the same as suggesting they are against it. Rightly or wrongly, I interpreted the strong responses to the Islam sidebar as reactions to a perceived threat. Would I have received such responses if I had inserted either the Science or History sidebar? I am not the boogey-man. Being perceived or treated as such is not going to help me contribute to the encyclopedia.
- To the sidebar. This single word Islam describes a religion, a geographic area and a civilization. The appropriate comparison in this instance is not between Christianity and Islam, it is between East and West. In matters of Islamic science and history, the Islam sidebar is appropriate due to the cultural, rather than religious, significance. For non-Islamic topics, no Western sidebar is needed. Western is engraved between the lines of every article in the English Wikipedia, and enforced through the WP Manual of style.
- I appreciate your input, and the opportunity to attempt to clarify my positions. If we got more of this on the article talk pages, it would be helpful. We can take this to a discussion page if you are interested in discussing these matters further, or continue it here if everyone else considers it appropriate.
- Aquib (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Fainites, the remark I responded to was actually made by another editor, but your points are taken. Still, the question and answer seem outside the scope of this discussion. Briefly,
User Truthcon misbehaving on article Bo Lozoff
Hi, there is a difficulty with User:Truthcon, who may be the same person as User:Exconfan, on Bo Lozoff. The editor keeps removing the same bit of text that includes sensitive material which has previously been established through consensus. I do recognize after studying WP:VAN that Truthcon's edits do not count as vandalism as I stated in my edit summaries and that I should have exercised more patience with this editor than I initially did.
Truthcon is totally non-communicative. He or she has been asked multiple times to bring his or her changes up on the discussion page before changing the article again but simply keeps making them without even so much as an edit summary. I placed a welcome message and a warning on User talk:Truthcon Thursday which Truthcon did not respond to at all but deleted the same text once again this evening.
Thanks in advance for addressing the situation. Floorsheim (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Should we report it to WP:SPI to see if they are sockpuppets or possibly block Truthcon for disruption and going against project consensus if necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You could do both, although if it's that obvious, they might turn it down unless it's suspected there is a sockfarm. In any case, an editor with "truth" in its name typically has a short life at wikipedia, as it tends to be focused on righting some great wrong, and nothing else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The first thing you should have done is notify Truthcon of this discussion as required. I have done so and asked them to explain why they're removing the content. Further deletions without communication can probably be treated as disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks and my apologies. -Floorsheim (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
After I asked Truthcon to stop deleting without discussing they've done so twice [24] [25], the last after a final warning. The editor may have a reason to delete but it's impossible to tell with absolutely no communication. Can an admin please step in? --NeilN talk to me 23:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
And again --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Persistent anon ignoring attempts at communication
189.5.159.86 (talk · contribs) has been primarily active in mixed martial artists' record tables. Most of their edits either add unsourced content (example) or contradict given sources (example). I've been trying to communicate with them for over half an hour (see this revision of their talk page), but they've been ignoring me so far. Should admin action be taken? —LOL T/C 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Block'em, that'll get his/her attention. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The user has hopped to 189.5.181.53 (talk · contribs) and continues to make unsourced additions and changes without any attempts at communication. —LOL T/C 23:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Admin accusing me of vandalism
User:MrDarcy, who claims to be an admin, is accusing me of vandalism because I redirected this practically unsourced and almost totally OR article to the article on the book. Nothing on his User or Talk pages identifies him as an admin, and when I gave him an nor1 warning for reverting me, since the version he reveted to was totally OR, he called my warning "cute". He also claims that "Deleting an entire article without discussion, as you have done, is tantamount to vandalism." ([26]). Since there is nothing on his pages to indicate that he is an admin, and since his revert of my redirect (without so much as an explanation to me) reverted to the OR version, I felt my comments to him were justified. And apparently AGF no longer applies if an admin feels you're a vandal without any justification. Corvus cornixtalk 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Admin Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is as may be, but nothing on his pages lets anyone know he is, nor does it have anything to do with his ABF accusations against me. Corvus cornixtalk 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- So, the category listing at the bottom of his user page didn't do it for you? StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- He posted the admin template over 2 years ago. He's got the little admin world globe in the upper right corner of the user page - in addition to the category. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Both of which are completely meaningless. In the world that is Wikipedia, the only sure fire way of telling whether someone is a bone fide admin, is that obscure link above, which I would guess it takes the average user a year or two to learn about. And in this particular case, if you aren't aware of it, an admin whose user page soley consist of the admin cat, is likely to look a little sus. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is as may be, but nothing on his pages lets anyone know he is, nor does it have anything to do with his ABF accusations against me. Corvus cornixtalk 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would definitely call redirection of an article with valid references without any discussion to be vandalism. Close to it, at least. SilverserenC 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently there is no such thing as assumption of good faith? Corvus cornixtalk 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with assuming faith at all. It has to do with your action itself. Now, maybe vandalism is the wrong word, but your action wasn't valid and was disruptive and was, thus, reverted. SilverserenC 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I am exonerated of the charges of vandalism, this will be my last day of editing on Wikipedia. Corvus cornixtalk 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Look, you were bold, he reverted, and next you should have discussed (see WP:BRD), but not with a stock warning template. No big deal - just move on. — Satori Son 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I am exonerated of the charges of vandalism, this will be my last day of editing on Wikipedia. Corvus cornixtalk 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with assuming faith at all. It has to do with your action itself. Now, maybe vandalism is the wrong word, but your action wasn't valid and was disruptive and was, thus, reverted. SilverserenC 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently there is no such thing as assumption of good faith? Corvus cornixtalk 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, forget the vandalism. It wasn't vandalism, that's the wrong term. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that your action of redirecting the article is valid? Do you think the subject of the short story is non-notable? When in a simple search, I found critical commentary here (pg. 74) as the third result, the first two results being the book itself? SilverserenC 05:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You weren't charged with anything. You were accused of vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Goodbye. Corvus cornixtalk 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously? One person accuses you of vandalism, and when they don't apologize, you take your ball and go home? Maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you... --Jayron32 06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think the lack of response by Corvus to my comment above kinda says a lot anyways. SilverserenC 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I feel obligated to bring up WP:BOOMERANG. That is all. elektrikSHOOS 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much. SilverserenC 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that Corvus Cornix got very frustrated. It happens. I notice that this editor has 33,000+ edits over more than four years. I left a friendly message on this user's talk page. Perhaps others might consider doing the same. Kind words are never wasted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is stupid. I'm really sick of the word vandalism being thrown around. You can package it any way you want, six ways from here to Sunday, but you've just improperly compared an editor to someone who replaces a page with "JOHN IS GAY AND HAS NO PENIS." See WP:HITLER - it's childish, people; find new terminology. Unless you really do lack the self-control to go name calling because of your biological WP:MASTADON reaction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's better to say that Corvus' actions were definitely not vandalism, but that they were disruptive. SilverserenC 06:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is stupid. I'm really sick of the word vandalism being thrown around. You can package it any way you want, six ways from here to Sunday, but you've just improperly compared an editor to someone who replaces a page with "JOHN IS GAY AND HAS NO PENIS." See WP:HITLER - it's childish, people; find new terminology. Unless you really do lack the self-control to go name calling because of your biological WP:MASTADON reaction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that Corvus Cornix got very frustrated. It happens. I notice that this editor has 33,000+ edits over more than four years. I left a friendly message on this user's talk page. Perhaps others might consider doing the same. Kind words are never wasted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much. SilverserenC 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I feel obligated to bring up WP:BOOMERANG. That is all. elektrikSHOOS 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think the lack of response by Corvus to my comment above kinda says a lot anyways. SilverserenC 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
MrDarcy is an admin[27] but it's inppropriate to use terms like "vandalism" if some sane justification is given for the edit. I don't think the redirect was really warranted for that particular article, despite the admittedly skimpy sourcing. For other sorts of articles it would be appropriate. It's a matter of editorial judgment that (for me anyway) is based mostly on how contentious and/or potentially promotional the article content is. The NOR template was also inappropriate (WP:DTTR). Corvus Cornix, if you're stressed out about Wikipedia, taking a break for a while is good way to restore perpective. Come back when you feel ready. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The admin said it was tantamount to vandalism,[28] and when someone chops an article unilaterally and without discussion, that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Corvus copped an attitude, posted a gratuitious warning template, and falsely claimed that the admin wasn't identified as such on his user page. Hard to figure what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, "tantamount" means, in essence, "equivalent to," so let's not split hairs and pretend that he wasn't being accused of vandalism just because he was accused of something merely "equivalent to vandalism." It doesn't mean "almost" or "kinda, but not really." And while he chopped the article without discussion, he did offer a perfectly rational explanation in his edit summary that made it extremely clear that not only was this not vandalism but that this was the action of an experienced editor. That said, it's clear that Corvus acted improperly in this little episode, primarily in his followup actions after the redirect (the unfortunate warning template bit, etc.). Most of us have gotten carried away at one point or another and I certainly hope that this doesn't end with an editor with over 33,000 edits and no existing block log quitting Wikipedia! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I can't figure. It's really a minor incident. Why did the guy go ballistic? I'm guessing he needs a few days away from wikipedia. That can be good therapy when some situation gets too annoying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, "tantamount" means, in essence, "equivalent to," so let's not split hairs and pretend that he wasn't being accused of vandalism just because he was accused of something merely "equivalent to vandalism." It doesn't mean "almost" or "kinda, but not really." And while he chopped the article without discussion, he did offer a perfectly rational explanation in his edit summary that made it extremely clear that not only was this not vandalism but that this was the action of an experienced editor. That said, it's clear that Corvus acted improperly in this little episode, primarily in his followup actions after the redirect (the unfortunate warning template bit, etc.). Most of us have gotten carried away at one point or another and I certainly hope that this doesn't end with an editor with over 33,000 edits and no existing block log quitting Wikipedia! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let me just make an overall comment that it is my hope that experienced users make an investigation of a subject before redirection or deletion nomination. In this case, as I showed in a link to a reference above, I find it doubtful that any research was done whatsoever. If it is believed that the article in question is non-notable, then the obvious course of action after that would be to also redirect the rest of the author's works as well, because the article is question is described as being the most famous, most well known, and most commented on of all of her works. It is for this reason, along with the references that were already given in the article before redirection, that it is shown that the action of redirection was clearly disruptive. SilverserenC 07:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actions taken in good faith are rarely "clearly disruptive". If you're not able to refrain from casting such aspersions on editors then you're best spending your time on a project other that Wikipedia. Corvus's resignation is an overreaction, but your participation in this thread has not been helpful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes; yes, there should have been more careful consideration before redirecting, there should have been a quick review of the redirectors contribution history before even thinking about using the term "vandalism", and there should have been a realisation that templating the other party was a bad idea, and certainly the response to the warning was non optimal. This is an example of how a cycle of bad choices has resulted in the potential loss to the project of a good contributor. BTW - are we sure MrDarcy is an admin? I do not recall any AN/I discussions demanding his flags... perhaps we should start one here, now, to ensure that they are properly noted as a sysop? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- LHVU, yes, MrDarcy is an admin since 2006, see my link above, also here. Is that what you are asking? 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrDarcy -> [29] -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the way I read LHvU's comment, he was referring to the fact that most admins would've been brought here by some disgruntled user calling for them to be desysopped, and as McDarcy apparently hasn't, added a sarcastic/joking remark that maybe such a discussion should start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the edit was performed by an IP, a brand-new user, or Corvus Cornix, it was not vandalism - it was an editorial decision, perhaps wrong, with which the admin disagreed. "Vandal" and "vandalism" should not be thrown around loosely: the practice debases the word while poisoning the overall atmosphere; it forces an editor to defend himself rather than address the dispute; it is a quick, lazy way to avoid real discussion and explanation; it bypasses BRD, arriving at anger rather than consensus. Users should be discouraged from making ill-founded accusations of vandalism. Admins should be admonished. Jd2718 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the way I read LHvU's comment, he was referring to the fact that most admins would've been brought here by some disgruntled user calling for them to be desysopped, and as McDarcy apparently hasn't, added a sarcastic/joking remark that maybe such a discussion should start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
'very cute, but incredibly misplaced', 'completely out of line', 'tantamount to vandalism', 'This MUST be discussed here' ??? This is the supposed high standard of conduct we expect of admins? It's no surprise Corvus cornix believe this guy was an imposter (although his decision to redirect an article in this state stating "nothing indicates what makes the story notable", when it has four references supporting a very long Interpretation section, seems to me to be equally poor). In conclusion, Corvus, stop being such a drama queen, and MrDarcy, perhaps think about an Wikipedia:Administrator review. And no bed time stories for either of you tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why an Administrator review? He has not abused his tools, he was simply a little foolish in his choice of words. No biggie - the trouts below are sufficient. GiantSnowman 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Maybe I'm missing something or our WP:V policy no longer exists, but removing unsourced material is nothing less then ideal. If anything amounts to vandalism, it's the continued reinsertion of unsourced content. Back in 2008, I also had a similar incident with Mr. Darcy and was upset over his choice of words. Looking at his edit history, it is apparent that he edits very little, but his editor interactions take up a disproportionate amount of drama. Perhaps as his user page notes, he should just stay retired. This project may be better off. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of trouts to go around here
CC starts by making the article into a redirect and clearly stating his reasoning. Valid editorial action subject to BRD.
MD reverts per WP:BRD. Again a valid editorial action.
A trout for CC for reverting the revert using the rollback tool instead of going to the talk page.
A trout for CC for slapping a "welcome to wikipedia" tag on the talk page of an experienced editor instead of just saying his peace.
A trout for MD for using the "V word" to describe CC's actions on the article's talk page.
A trout for SS for throwing around the very same "V word" in this thread.
A trout for me. The time I used writting is going to make me late for work :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) CC, MD, SS and RR duly WP:TROUTed, following WP:RITZMAN --Shirt58 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- All involved are sentenced to one week of civility and kindness. I apologize for the harshness of the punishment, but the law is the law. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: How to tell if someone is an admin
There are alternatives to hunting for that obscure link mentioned above as a method to determine someone's permissions.
- Go to the user's contribs page, and click on "user rights management." There you will see a list of their current permissions.
- Go to your Preferences, Gadgets; and enable Navigation Popups. Then, when you hover over a user's signature, a list of their permissions is instantly visible. Popups is a cool tool that has many other wicked uses as well. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Non-admins don't have a "user rights management" link. ;) I wouldn't consider the "obscure link" to be too obscure; it's just at the bottom of the contributions page (MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer). Goodvac (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- To easily tell if a user is an admin, add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); to your monobook.js. Viewing the person's user page or talk page will then give you the information. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'); also works; it highlights links to the userpages of current admins in teal, so with the sigs of most admins it becomes obvious who is and isn't one. It does require overriding the local cache from time to time (just like when you first install a new .js), but that's not really a big deal. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Many admins include a userbox with a verify link - that's a big help, particularly for editors who are unfamiliar with checking users and logs (took me some time to figure it out when I first started). See, for example, User:Tide rolls.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- To easily tell if a user is an admin, add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); to your monobook.js. Viewing the person's user page or talk page will then give you the information. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The admin has also had the little admin globe in the upper right corner, and been listed in the admin category, since December of 2008. If Corvus looked at the user page, he didn't look very closely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess my advice was pretty lame :) "Just become an admin, kid, and we'll teach you the secret handshake." Sorry --Diannaa (Talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Secret handshake"??? Corvus comix has been here over 3 years and didn't know that (1) the little globe means "admin"; and (2) category admin means "admin"? 21:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can't anyone go into "special" to see? For example: [30], [31], [32]? (Fearful of asking the naive question.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, the easy way: Special:ListUsers/sysop. Just type in the username, and Bob's your uncle. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is "easy" when you know how to do it. And I'm not speaking for Corvus, but speaking as medium-level-experienced editor, I remember finding the Special Users page wasn't easy to do in the beginning. In fact, I bookmarked the page to "remember" it. And as long as I'm at it, the little globe on the upper right-hand corner - I didn't even know that existed until I started reading this section - talk about subtle - kind of classy looking, but still not very noticeable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also the category. And while many admins will have a userbox stating that they're admins. AGF, I suppose that's what Corvus was looking for; but there's no requirement to do that. But someone who's been here 3 1/2 years ought to know at least one method of determining if someone's an admin or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Another indication is to look at their logs list,[33] and observe stuff that only admins can do. There are many ways to confirm that someone is an admin. I have to think that CC was sufficiently annoyed that his logic cells were in shutdown mode. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Someone earlier said the category wasn't conclusive, which I assume means anyone can falsely state they're an admin by putting the category at the bottom of their user page. As for the globe, the same person said that was not conclusive, either, which I assume means anyone can add the icon. I haven't verified any of this personally. I do agree that someone who has been contributing regularly to Wikipedia for 3.5 years (it's not just time but also activity) ought to be able to figure out whether someone is an admin. And if they can't, they can ask at the Help desk. It's the kind of question that should get a very quick answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that the symbol and the category aren't conclusive and that anyone can post them (as the admin did here,[34] and as I just did on my own page - Yee-Hah!) but the OP griped that "Nothing on his User or Talk pages identifies him as an admin", which is a false statement. And even if he didn't think to look for those things, as you note there are any number of ways of verifying or refuting whether someone is an admin. If all else fails, go to a trusted admin and ask, "Is that guy an admin?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also the category. And while many admins will have a userbox stating that they're admins. AGF, I suppose that's what Corvus was looking for; but there's no requirement to do that. But someone who's been here 3 1/2 years ought to know at least one method of determining if someone's an admin or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is "easy" when you know how to do it. And I'm not speaking for Corvus, but speaking as medium-level-experienced editor, I remember finding the Special Users page wasn't easy to do in the beginning. In fact, I bookmarked the page to "remember" it. And as long as I'm at it, the little globe on the upper right-hand corner - I didn't even know that existed until I started reading this section - talk about subtle - kind of classy looking, but still not very noticeable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, the easy way: Special:ListUsers/sysop. Just type in the username, and Bob's your uncle. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess my advice was pretty lame :) "Just become an admin, kid, and we'll teach you the secret handshake." Sorry --Diannaa (Talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Bangladesh Armed Forces
I have been engaged in a somewhat frustrating dialogue with User_talk:113.150.9.211, which has not been helped by that user exercising his right to remove content from his talk page. The dialogue has extended over several articles but with reference to this one it originated with this series of edits made by him.
I regarded those edits as being potentially POV pushing and also potentially libellous, as well as clearly being uncited and possibly a copyright violation. Consequently I reverted them here and left a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning on the user's TP. The user blanked that warning and replied with a threat to block me here. The IP user also said that I had not given him enough time to cite, although the bulk of the disputed content appeared to have been inserted as a copy/paste.
I then explained my position with regard to issuing that warning in a series of messages here. These were also blanked and the situation at present stands with a [35] message from me following a further insertion of the material by the IP user, again without citations. It is now over 2 hours since that last insertion of the material into the article and it remains uncited.
To summarise my concerns:
- at least some of the material may be a copyvio, although I have yet to prove this
- it appears possibly to be part of a campaign by the IP user to push his point of view across various articles, for example here at Kader Bahini (in this instance, reverted four times by three different users (including myself). I note that one of the IP's responses to a message left by me included the statement that "I understand your reason's for deleting anything that implicates India's wrong doings, that is fine", which seems to suggest a recognition of possible POV (and also does not assume my good faith - I'd never heard of this group before etc).
- the additions are uncited
- it may be libellous, if any of the named participants are still alive: an accusation that someone is/was a war criminal is an extremely serious matter, especially if they were not prosecuted. I have no idea if they are alive or were prosecuted, but did refer this to the IP user and got no meaningful response. I don't know enough about the subject to confirm/deny myself and past experience with articles involving the India/Pakistan/Bangladesh area have shown me that searching for named people can bring up more irrelevant hits than relevant ones due to the personal naming conventions in those countries. I appreciate that these events happened quite some time ago.
It is because this is such a wide-ranging sets of concerns that I have brought the matter to this board. I would appreciate thoughts on this issue.
Note: above originally posted at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard but moved here - I was in two minds regarding the most appropriate board, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted it as it clearly needs reliable sources. I was reporting on that here when Chrome froze my edit page (which it does at times when I click on the tildes at 'Sign your posts on talk pages: and then I got distracted. I note the IP threatened to block Sitush [36] which is mildly amusing but I also see they removed (as they are allowed to do) a copyvio notice here [[37], Sitush, I think this should be left open to allow the IP to respond. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert. I was on the verge of a war elsewhere with the IP yesterday (he exceeded 3RR, I held back) & so didn't want to push my luck. The copyvio notice was issued by another contributor in relation to that particular incident. Let's see what happens next, as you suggest. There has already been another edit by the IP but it is harmless and merely replaces one uncited "fact" with another. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Urgent: article with NPOV tags on main page
Sathya Sai Baba, an article with multiple NPOV-section tags, has just been added to T:ITN because of overwhelming consensus in support at WP:ITNC. However, as the article contains these neutrality and dispute tags, it's not suitable for the main page and should be pulled post-haste until the tags are resolved. I've already left a note for the posting admin, but on the off chance that they went offline, could another admin handle it? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was removed, then reposted, by Fox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who gave the reasoning that the person's notability meant it outweighed the NPOV and factual accuracy tags to post on the Main Page. I strongly disagree with this and feel we shouldn't be displaying problem articles on the main page regardless of the person's notability. Requesting further admin input. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The NPOV tag can go FWIW, unless anyone raises new concerns. Once a dispute is expired it is supposed to be removed because otherwise it can be misused as a badge of shame. I took a look over the section and removed one of the worst paragraphs. The rest looks marginal but fine... mostly needs some TLC and rewriting. --Errant (chat!) 13:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Failure by User:LemonMonday to assume good faith.
I have become tried of User:LemonMonday failure to assume good faith. I asked him here to AGF after this edit. He was then warned by User:Ged UK to stop the personal attacks here. All of this is to no avail as today again he has attacked me here. Bjmullan (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- AGF is not a suicide pact. There's frankly a shit-load of evidence out there that would support an RFC asserting that rather than civil and respectful discourse and collegiate and policy clueful consensus building, the inevitable disputes that arise from the continued systematic removal of this term from the pedia are as ever being 'won' by good old fashioned tag teaming and game playing, what with WP:BISE having been abandoned, having been completely overwhelmed by massive amounts of TE, and a complete unwillingess of admins to get involved beyond what will be the inevitable outcome here, the elimination of the more wiki-naive half of the battlefield, leaving the other half completely free and clear to continue in the time honoured fashion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- A Rfc is required, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- LemonMonday is now indefinitely blocked until they can convince another admin that they will not make further personal attacks. I have no objection to any other admin lifting or otherwise varying my sanction, upon that undertaking being given. I do not feel they need apologise for past instances or for being blocked, just as long as they say that they will stop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Checking my watch for how long it takes for LevenBoy to arrive (unless of course he see this post & chooses to stay hidden). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- And let's not for one minute believe BISE was any use either. That venue, as much as it can be called a discussion venue at all, did at least sometimes grasp the basic idea that to respect the NPOV, first you go with the sources, and in the case of disagreement, you go with the balance of sources. In this 'case' though, we have 2 reliable sources saying BritishIsles, and one saying UK & Ireland. And all three of course, from the British Imperialist press (stop sniggering at the back). So, if BISE was still in operation, we'd no doubt by now be onto page 30 of a long tedious discussion covering the same old bollocks. All this to decide who gets to 'win' on an articlce not one of the warring parties even give a shit about, and have never editted before. LM in his naivety still seems to think BISE still exists, yet we have infact regressed back to the good old days where simple POV was an OK excuse for reverting your content opponents, which rather predictably sets off a train of the usual tag teaming and edit summary insults masquerading as 'civility', and these sorts of ANI reports, which as we see are quite effective at eliminating the dumber side of the dispute, leaving the other side completely free. I understood infact that there was some general santion logged somewhere about all edit warriors of the term get insta-bans. I wonder where that went for this article. I guess it's no longer important. Anyway, I digress. We were discussing a failure to assume good faith Bjmullen, no? Or are we all done now? MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Somekinda 'shut-down' needs to be in place for about 1-year, where British Isles can neither be added, deleted or replaced in any article. Violators can get 3 chances 'per article' & if still breaching, a block is placed. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. Fainites barleyscribs 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Somekinda 'shut-down' needs to be in place for about 1-year, where British Isles can neither be added, deleted or replaced in any article. Violators can get 3 chances 'per article' & if still breaching, a block is placed. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse an American butting in, but wasn't there an agreement at BISE for this very condition? Tiderolls 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- BISE is longer in use, it expired months ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- My, how time flies. I thought we were done with this. Tiderolls 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This AN/I has nothing to do with BISE but with the refusal of an editor to assume good faith. Any number of smokescreens will not change that. The editor has now rightly been dealt with after receiving numerous warning regarding his complete disregard for this project. Bjmullan (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. LM turned up in that dispute with not 1 but 2 sources explicitly using the term, and merely expressed the rather obvious concern that he was being tag team reverted by people who seemed not to accept his sources even existed, and had only eyes for their own source and POV. As far as BI bullshit goes, that's pretty high levels of AGF right there, other less wikified people have had a decidedly more normal human response to that sort of thing when they encountered it. Still, as you say, he's been eliminated now, and there's absolutely no need for anyone to dirty their hands with looking behind the 'smokescreen' into anything else here. I'm sure LM will be back full of the joys of spring and ever so willing to engage you next time, and I'm sure this little episode has acted as a beacon of hope and example of good practice among all editors. LMFAO. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This AN/I has nothing to do with BISE but with the refusal of an editor to assume good faith. Any number of smokescreens will not change that. The editor has now rightly been dealt with after receiving numerous warning regarding his complete disregard for this project. Bjmullan (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- My, how time flies. I thought we were done with this. Tiderolls 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- BISE is longer in use, it expired months ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse an American butting in, but wasn't there an agreement at BISE for this very condition? Tiderolls 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe so, but BISE went the way of the Dodo once the admins who were overseeing it realised that there would never be an end to how often the same argument could be raised and ignored by alternating sides, and rather than a venue for Guideline development, BISE itself had become a sort of quasi-official 'clearing house' for approving desired changes of the term, once you had succeeded by illogic/attrition/time and achieved a 'consensus' among 5 or so of the regular commentors (independent input was unsurprisingly never forthcoming, as is the case with all TE infested pits of doom), while ignoring the elephant of the room - the source of and reason for the requests, and the complete lack of any policy clue or wider community acceptance of any of its working assumptions as being anywhere near NPOV. The 'discussion' you see at Talk:Neil Robertson is about as nuanced as BISE 'case' discussions ever got frankly, snooker editors excepted. LevenBoy, Lemon Monday, Mo ainm, Domer48, Bjmullen, RashersTierney and Snowded are all just BISE old hands now without a home (although some of those never even really committed to it at all), who now seem to get some comfort in ambushing each other at random articles, so they can renew their old warm and friendly aquaintances. Not one of them gives a monkeys about snooker or Robertson, that's for sure. Which should put all the edit summaries and comments about sources, consensus and 'stable versions' into full context. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive me, Mick, I'm on a learning curve. TE? Tiderolls 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TE. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SOAP. Bjmullan (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. You do realise that that link advises editors not to use Wikipedia to advance one's own political agendas over and above NPOV? So, with that in mind, and with irony detectors set to full sensitivity, please regale us all with a link to those prior on-wiki discussions involving the entire community which you think give you free reign to use the search/what links here tool to systematically search for the term British Isles and 'correct' it in any and all articles, and/or do tedious battle with the people who unsurprisingly resist you, resulting in game-tastic ANI reports like this with depressing regularity. HighKing was asked that question for years, he never once came up with an answer. Can you do any better? I sometimes think you forget who you are talking to Bjmullan when you talk to me. I'm not some thick fucktard you can brush off like other less experienced editors you do battle with, I do actually have a passable knowledge of this dispute, your role in it, and all the relevant policies. I use acronyms for convenience, not as a cover for not realy knowing what they stand for. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- BISE appears to have lapsed primarily because, as with so many fundamentalist disputes in WP, there is no final way of resolving the irreconcilable. The underlying problem remains that some do not accept that the term "British Isles" can be used in an approximate fashion, eg, if there is mention of for example just something pertaining to anywhere in the UK and Ireland. Many of the edits are "based" on a spurious and superficial rationale, either excessively limited (the source must mention the actual term "British Isles") or over-comprehensive (it must refer to every part of the BI, eg, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, possibly Man and the Channel Islands and maybe even Rockall - yes it really does get that silly) before being accepted. However, there is also a determined contrary and equally silly faction that claim it can be used imprecisely anywhere where there is any mention whatever of something in the islands. Clearly the one true path lies somewhere between these. In the meantime, I would favour a total wiki-wide moratorium on all further edits and an RFC to try to constructively bang out a policy. Further harsh punishments for malefactors would also get my willing support. Doubtless we will see the further return of apparently perma-banned entities. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite James. The oppose faction may be equally silly in some respects but the whole topic only exists because of the ongoing long-term campaign to remove the phrase "British Isles" from articles where it was mostly originally put in by editors who knew nothing about the whole dispute. Some people believe the term has political implications.Fainites barleyscribs 18:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Gawd, is this whole silly mess still going on :( Just disengage with each other. Seriously, it is getting boring. --Errant (chat!) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- While you might find it boring, please do not extend your complete disinterest to others by archiving this report. There was at least one admin looking into the wider issues, so how about you give them a crack at it? Or is their input not valid? Otherwise, shockingly, the people who clearly cannot disengage, will keep going, and going, and going. Like, 'yknow, all unresolved disputes tend to do. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry which admin? I'm afraid all I see above are editors who simply cannot disengage. If you would like someone to force them to disengage then by all means I would be delighted to. (I assume you mean James, but I think his suggestion is, um, to use somewhere else than AN/I) --Errant (chat!) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tide rolls. He's an admin. See my talk page for an example of an admin trying to help. You're free to try anything you like, anything except closing yet another one of these game-tastic reports as 'job done, everybody forget about this dispute until the next one'. And if all you can muster in the way of admin action in this dispute that you freely admit never gets resolved, is to start blocking the people pointing out that it never gets resolved, and why, then go ahead. I'm sure someone can rustle up a barnstar for that sort of stellar assistance to the project. James has said nothing of the sort about failures to disengage, he's expressed his concerns about bad behaviour that can be seen going unchecked in this very incident. You want to help ease his concerns do you? Go look and see if you can see what he's on about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This has got to be one of the most outrageous threads to date. We have an editor getting indefinitely banned for this [38]? Tell me, I'm dreaming this, surely? As for some of the other comments, the one about the elephant in the room just sums it all up like no other. It is exactly the point. The British Isles deleting elephant is there at large but no one can see it. I'm not aware of anyone actively trying to put in British Isles anywhere, other than where it's previously been removed. So until the elephant is culled this will go on and on. As for the suggestion in some quarters of "guidelines", forget it. Look what happend with the so-called guidelines on the Londonderry issue. Guidelines become "rules" in the minds of some. We'd end up with an even worse situation whereby the systematic searching out of British Isles for deletion woould become a veritable industry. LevenBoy (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tide rolls. He's an admin. See my talk page for an example of an admin trying to help. You're free to try anything you like, anything except closing yet another one of these game-tastic reports as 'job done, everybody forget about this dispute until the next one'. And if all you can muster in the way of admin action in this dispute that you freely admit never gets resolved, is to start blocking the people pointing out that it never gets resolved, and why, then go ahead. I'm sure someone can rustle up a barnstar for that sort of stellar assistance to the project. James has said nothing of the sort about failures to disengage, he's expressed his concerns about bad behaviour that can be seen going unchecked in this very incident. You want to help ease his concerns do you? Go look and see if you can see what he's on about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry which admin? I'm afraid all I see above are editors who simply cannot disengage. If you would like someone to force them to disengage then by all means I would be delighted to. (I assume you mean James, but I think his suggestion is, um, to use somewhere else than AN/I) --Errant (chat!) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- While you might find it boring, please do not extend your complete disinterest to others by archiving this report. There was at least one admin looking into the wider issues, so how about you give them a crack at it? Or is their input not valid? Otherwise, shockingly, the people who clearly cannot disengage, will keep going, and going, and going. Like, 'yknow, all unresolved disputes tend to do. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Gawd, is this whole silly mess still going on :( Just disengage with each other. Seriously, it is getting boring. --Errant (chat!) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite James. The oppose faction may be equally silly in some respects but the whole topic only exists because of the ongoing long-term campaign to remove the phrase "British Isles" from articles where it was mostly originally put in by editors who knew nothing about the whole dispute. Some people believe the term has political implications.Fainites barleyscribs 18:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- BISE appears to have lapsed primarily because, as with so many fundamentalist disputes in WP, there is no final way of resolving the irreconcilable. The underlying problem remains that some do not accept that the term "British Isles" can be used in an approximate fashion, eg, if there is mention of for example just something pertaining to anywhere in the UK and Ireland. Many of the edits are "based" on a spurious and superficial rationale, either excessively limited (the source must mention the actual term "British Isles") or over-comprehensive (it must refer to every part of the BI, eg, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, possibly Man and the Channel Islands and maybe even Rockall - yes it really does get that silly) before being accepted. However, there is also a determined contrary and equally silly faction that claim it can be used imprecisely anywhere where there is any mention whatever of something in the islands. Clearly the one true path lies somewhere between these. In the meantime, I would favour a total wiki-wide moratorium on all further edits and an RFC to try to constructively bang out a policy. Further harsh punishments for malefactors would also get my willing support. Doubtless we will see the further return of apparently perma-banned entities. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. You do realise that that link advises editors not to use Wikipedia to advance one's own political agendas over and above NPOV? So, with that in mind, and with irony detectors set to full sensitivity, please regale us all with a link to those prior on-wiki discussions involving the entire community which you think give you free reign to use the search/what links here tool to systematically search for the term British Isles and 'correct' it in any and all articles, and/or do tedious battle with the people who unsurprisingly resist you, resulting in game-tastic ANI reports like this with depressing regularity. HighKing was asked that question for years, he never once came up with an answer. Can you do any better? I sometimes think you forget who you are talking to Bjmullan when you talk to me. I'm not some thick fucktard you can brush off like other less experienced editors you do battle with, I do actually have a passable knowledge of this dispute, your role in it, and all the relevant policies. I use acronyms for convenience, not as a cover for not realy knowing what they stand for. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SOAP. Bjmullan (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TE. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive me, Mick, I'm on a learning curve. TE? Tiderolls 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe so, but BISE went the way of the Dodo once the admins who were overseeing it realised that there would never be an end to how often the same argument could be raised and ignored by alternating sides, and rather than a venue for Guideline development, BISE itself had become a sort of quasi-official 'clearing house' for approving desired changes of the term, once you had succeeded by illogic/attrition/time and achieved a 'consensus' among 5 or so of the regular commentors (independent input was unsurprisingly never forthcoming, as is the case with all TE infested pits of doom), while ignoring the elephant of the room - the source of and reason for the requests, and the complete lack of any policy clue or wider community acceptance of any of its working assumptions as being anywhere near NPOV. The 'discussion' you see at Talk:Neil Robertson is about as nuanced as BISE 'case' discussions ever got frankly, snooker editors excepted. LevenBoy, Lemon Monday, Mo ainm, Domer48, Bjmullen, RashersTierney and Snowded are all just BISE old hands now without a home (although some of those never even really committed to it at all), who now seem to get some comfort in ambushing each other at random articles, so they can renew their old warm and friendly aquaintances. Not one of them gives a monkeys about snooker or Robertson, that's for sure. Which should put all the edit summaries and comments about sources, consensus and 'stable versions' into full context. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(resp to LevenBoy 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) )You are correct - that is the edit for which LemonMonday is indefinitely blocked (there is a difference). What part of WP:NPA/"comment on the content, not the contributor" do you have difficulty with? It appears you are also disregarding the issue of the editor being warned specifically against making such accusations regarding User:Bjmullan, which was noted - by being blanked - less than 24 hours before again violating policy. There is little point about complaining that guidelines not being adhered to when policy is apparently considered merely optional, which however is tangent to the issue presented at ANI; LemonMonday violated a policy, was advised and then warned in regard to it, and then did it again. Just as soon as LemonMonday undertakes not to repeat that transgression they can be unblocked. I do not see what the problem is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The diff you offer is is not the reason LemonMonday was blocked. I will assume that you misunderstood what transpired. Tiderolls 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is as far as I can see. It's cited in the first entry of this thread. LevenBoy (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this is what Errant is referring to by "cannot disengage". You posted an opinion based on a misconception. I endeavored to correct your misinterpretation. You restate your misinterpretation. Do you see how this is not constructive? Tiderolls 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- No. Quite frankly I don't. How this has got anything to do with "cannot engage" I can't imagine. It appears to me that one user complained about another user for what I would call a trivial remark. Now if you think I'm on the wrong track here, rather than issuing a mildly infantile rebuke such as "The diff you offer is is not the reason LemonMonday was blocked. I will assume that you misunderstood what transpired. ". Maybe you could explain to me what actually transpired. Van Speijk (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this is what Errant is referring to by "cannot disengage". You posted an opinion based on a misconception. I endeavored to correct your misinterpretation. You restate your misinterpretation. Do you see how this is not constructive? Tiderolls 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is as far as I can see. It's cited in the first entry of this thread. LevenBoy (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The diff you offer is is not the reason LemonMonday was blocked. I will assume that you misunderstood what transpired. Tiderolls 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I would've gladly answered any questions to clarify the situation, only there were no questions forthcoming. I'd be interested to know what brought User:Van Speijk to this discussion after a five month hiatus. Tiderolls 21:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, with its previous 24 edits all around the phrase "British Isles". :) I think we can safely assume yet another BI-related sock. Shame this can't be automated. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why is everyone with an interest here deemed to be a sock. Van Speijk (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- What brought me here was this utterly stupid debate on a subject I've been watching for some time now. And there are more than a few people working agasint the British standpoint. Van Speijk (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- What actually transpired was that LemonMonday was warned not to persist in personal attacks and was blocked for failing to heed the warning. Also, they were not "indefinitely banned", they were blocked for an indefinite period. Quite a difference. Tiderolls 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two suggestions. Firstly run a general SPI on all editors who have been engaged in the subject including those who have been permanently blocked, especially sock farms like Irvine22. A bit of forensic work might show up some of the problems. Secondly, open a strictly managed discussion on some guidelines. I've always taken the view the term is valid for geographical articles, but when anything to do with nationality is involved its best to use Political terms, or the common Britain and Ireland which is less controversial and used in Atlases. The project page has a couple of examples of the community coming very close to reaching an agreement but then in effect seeing it vetoed by one or two of the SPA extremists. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Irving22? What has your wikihounder got to do with this? And, I've got to say it, but yet again you're wading in with the view that British Isles is in some way controversial. LevenBoy (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Irvine22 was a protagonist on the issue LevenBoy before he was blocked, and used proxies and/or multiple Ips to hide sockpuppet activity. Also if you check the British Isles article you will see citations that say it is a controversial term, the issue is how we deal with the controversy. That's my last word on this thread, I've spend far too much time getting sucked into meaningless exchanges with you and LemonMonday. Hopefully with some new admins involved we may get some new perspectives. --Snowded TALK 21:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Irving22? What has your wikihounder got to do with this? And, I've got to say it, but yet again you're wading in with the view that British Isles is in some way controversial. LevenBoy (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two suggestions. Firstly run a general SPI on all editors who have been engaged in the subject including those who have been permanently blocked, especially sock farms like Irvine22. A bit of forensic work might show up some of the problems. Secondly, open a strictly managed discussion on some guidelines. I've always taken the view the term is valid for geographical articles, but when anything to do with nationality is involved its best to use Political terms, or the common Britain and Ireland which is less controversial and used in Atlases. The project page has a couple of examples of the community coming very close to reaching an agreement but then in effect seeing it vetoed by one or two of the SPA extremists. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- What actually transpired was that LemonMonday was warned not to persist in personal attacks and was blocked for failing to heed the warning. Also, they were not "indefinitely banned", they were blocked for an indefinite period. Quite a difference. Tiderolls 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Every time I see this dispute roll past it consists of the same people, with the same mud being slung around. I don't want to block anyone, I want people to disengage. This is a nationalist dispute, and traditionally these do not ever end, they just go on and on and on and on. In my experience unless there is a serious and indentifiable accuracy problem it usually best just to leave the status quo and remove those with a view from the topic area. In light of that, proposal below --Errant (chat!) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a wiki-nationalist dispute with a distinct difference to others. Most others have had broad real world backing on both sides. Our own article asserting there is even a dispute here however, is total trash. It's so far from being peer-reviewed as a well written balanced, work, it's unreal. It's closer to being deleted as a POVFORK than it ever is to being made a GA. Second, while other disputes have indeed suffered massive socking, the idea that socks have prevented agreement on guidelines in the past in this dispute is a total myth. We are not dealing with huge and well camouflaged networks here, they are small and obvious; even simple suspects are just ignored. SPECTRE they are not, frankly. Once proposals reach the wide community, their as-drafted incompatability with NPOV is what ensures they bomb with independent reviewers, not mass rigged votes or clusterfucked discussions. As with all the disputes though, far more disruptive to the consensus building is the hard core of meat puppets who represent one intransient POV on the issue. As they do in the edit wars, they do in these discussions frankly. Which is why archiving reports from one meat puppet once he's eliminated an opponent does nothing for nobody. Wide community review of clueful proposals drafted using actual proper consensus building will always get approval. They've just never made it to the community in that form via that process. Reform or exclude the meat puppets, ignore the sock drama, and provide an environment where prima facie NPOV failing arguments will be knocked on the head early on, and then you might see some progress. Those are the types of disruptive qualities you need to define below - nuanced TE, GAME and CPUSH, not the types you see in classic POV gangfucks such as Macedonia. MickMacNee (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposed discretionary topic ban
In light of the inability to disengage from the dispute I propose the following topic ban which can be imposed by an uninvolved admin on any participant in the BISE/British Isles dispute if deemed necessary to avoid disruption. The wording of the ban would be as follows:
- <editor> is topic banned from commenting on the subject of British Isles, changing article text in favour/opposition of "British Isles" or engaging with other editors within the BISE topic area, broadly construed.
A list of editors to initially impose this on could also be discussed below. --Errant (chat!) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll add myself to that list, provided all known deletors are also there (there are two currently active). LevenBoy (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Define disruption in this area. 2 reverts doesn't generally cover it. Massive levels of TE doesn't either. We've had editors make it their mission to seek out the term for attention, part time and full time, and they're still at it. If it was that easy for uninvolved admins, in this area populated by experience wikilawyers and tag teamers, and determined 'long game' civil-POV pushers, it would already be all but over. Take a look at any editor who was reverting that page out of their fervent belief they were correct in policy, behavioural and content, and tell me now which one of those was being disruptive? If you only come up with Lemon Monday, then we can archive this topic ban proposal now as pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a suggestion above that it only be LemonMonday - as he is already banned, I assume you were making a rhetorical remark Mick? On the suggestion, it's along the right lines. In fact, we already had a community sanction agreed - that all add/deletes of the term must first be agreed at the BISE page. This was well supervised by an admin who gave up after a while - the page then drifted and people returned to battling it out at the local article level, which has proven to be both unproductive and unhelpful. BISE had its drawbacks, the most serious of which was a tendancy towards repetition and continued rehearsal of the same arguments. The only other alternative (my preference) would be to replace BISE with a definitions discussion + a moratorium. Without either, the battling will simply continue, as has been repeatedly proven. I don't think that "disruption" is completely the criteria for removing editors from it either, unless "disruption" is also taken to include undiscussed serial BI add/deletes. As stated above, one or two editors are perennially engaged in deletes and there is the nub. Personally I think that must now be stopped and attention go to defining a ruleset. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- By a ruleset do you mean guidelines or MOS? If so, I don't believe it would work. As noted, it would merely give users the excuse to rigorously implement it, like the case now with Londonderry. I would just cuase yet more grief. LevenBoy (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- If a sensible guideline could be developed then that would be a stellar outcome. I suggest that someone builds a page with the relevant arguments, then everyone involved in the BISE dispute is "topic banned" from the page and you let it loose on uninvolved editors to form a consensus on which is the right way. Then you are all bound by it. Ends the ceaseless arguments. Ultimately, this probably needs to be decided by uninvolved editors. --Errant (chat!) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- We've pretty much gone down that route before and it was unsuccessful. That's not to say it can't be tried again but the divide between the two views is so great that it's just impossible to get agreement. LevenBoy (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- As Snowded says in the thread above, it was only "unsuccessful" in that when well-thought out agreements were close, they were rendered inoperable by the usual manouvering from those determined to see them unsuccessful - I very much include you in that category LevenBoy, but you weren't the only one. Clearly if you start from the position that compromise is impossible you have no role to play other than a blocking one. I don't find that helpful and neither I suspect would most uninvolved editors. I quite like the proposal put forwards by ErrantX. The uninvolved do somehow need to involve themselves in this and the uncompromising need to uninvolve themselves. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think Scolaire produced the last version and most of us agreed to it. Maybe pull that out and test the waters again - single statement per editor, no counters and let a couple of uninvolved admins resolve any differences. Given that version did have a lot of agreement its a good starting point. --Snowded TALK 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was too BI restricting, which is why most of you agreed with it. The deletors have always outnumbered those trying to maintain thr status quo. The problem would not go away with this, in fact it would make it worse. The trawling would continue apace and the deletors would use any guidelines justification for removal. I'm convinced the problem would escalate dramatically. The only real solution is to remove POV warriors from the equation, and if you want to include me in that category then that's your choice, but remember, I don't seek to insert BI anywhere. LevenBoy (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think Scolaire produced the last version and most of us agreed to it. Maybe pull that out and test the waters again - single statement per editor, no counters and let a couple of uninvolved admins resolve any differences. Given that version did have a lot of agreement its a good starting point. --Snowded TALK 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- As Snowded says in the thread above, it was only "unsuccessful" in that when well-thought out agreements were close, they were rendered inoperable by the usual manouvering from those determined to see them unsuccessful - I very much include you in that category LevenBoy, but you weren't the only one. Clearly if you start from the position that compromise is impossible you have no role to play other than a blocking one. I don't find that helpful and neither I suspect would most uninvolved editors. I quite like the proposal put forwards by ErrantX. The uninvolved do somehow need to involve themselves in this and the uncompromising need to uninvolve themselves. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- We've pretty much gone down that route before and it was unsuccessful. That's not to say it can't be tried again but the divide between the two views is so great that it's just impossible to get agreement. LevenBoy (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- If a sensible guideline could be developed then that would be a stellar outcome. I suggest that someone builds a page with the relevant arguments, then everyone involved in the BISE dispute is "topic banned" from the page and you let it loose on uninvolved editors to form a consensus on which is the right way. Then you are all bound by it. Ends the ceaseless arguments. Ultimately, this probably needs to be decided by uninvolved editors. --Errant (chat!) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- By a ruleset do you mean guidelines or MOS? If so, I don't believe it would work. As noted, it would merely give users the excuse to rigorously implement it, like the case now with Londonderry. I would just cuase yet more grief. LevenBoy (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a suggestion above that it only be LemonMonday - as he is already banned, I assume you were making a rhetorical remark Mick? On the suggestion, it's along the right lines. In fact, we already had a community sanction agreed - that all add/deletes of the term must first be agreed at the BISE page. This was well supervised by an admin who gave up after a while - the page then drifted and people returned to battling it out at the local article level, which has proven to be both unproductive and unhelpful. BISE had its drawbacks, the most serious of which was a tendancy towards repetition and continued rehearsal of the same arguments. The only other alternative (my preference) would be to replace BISE with a definitions discussion + a moratorium. Without either, the battling will simply continue, as has been repeatedly proven. I don't think that "disruption" is completely the criteria for removing editors from it either, unless "disruption" is also taken to include undiscussed serial BI add/deletes. As stated above, one or two editors are perennially engaged in deletes and there is the nub. Personally I think that must now be stopped and attention go to defining a ruleset. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
A 1-year ban on the addition/deletion/replacement of British Isles on any article content. With a 3-strikes you're blocked 'per' article. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an established and knowledgable editor whose valuable contributions are regrettably overshadowed by his inability to work consensually. There have been many discussions with and about him on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but the behaviour continues; we are now at the point where admin involvement is needed.
Background information:
- User_talk:Wtshymanski
- Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski
- Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs
The background information shows a pattern of removing articles by all means possible. I first initiated discussion on his talk page soon after I first encountered him: he mass-nominated many semiconductor articles for deletion; the proposals were resoundingly rejected, but despite this he went on to try removal by other means:
- AfD for BC548
- Following closure of AfD: pare article down, tag for notability concerns and suggest merge of much-reduced article: [39]
This behaviour, repeated often, led to:
- Me initiating discussion on their talk page
- Another editor initiating discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
Both of those discussions (linked to in the Background information) give considerable detail of the editing patterns and the many attempts of editors to reach a consensual resolution. Wtshymanski acknowlendges that he cannot accept the consensus but rather than learn to live with it or move on, he continues to do all he can to delete content he finds inappropriate.
The pare-and-merge behaviour is particularly concerning, best illustrated by articles on batteries:
- Pare and tag merge proposal at N battery. Note that although the article was tagged for merge, no rationale was given on the talk page as required by Help:Merging
- Redirect without any discussion
- Reversion by me and discussion (part of same initiated discussion linked to above)
- Repeat of redirect
- Suggestion by me to propose merge correctly
- Reversion of redirect by another editor
- Edit warring by Wtshymanski to restore redirect
- Reversion by a third editor
- Tag for merge proposal and talk page discussion (also for two other batteries, plus C battery was tagged for merge and linked to the same discussion but not mentioned in the discussion).
- Responses to merge, exclusively in opposition
- Merge against consensus
This merge was reverted and discussed at WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs. I hoped it could still be resolved, however more recently we have:
Can an admin look into this all this? Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) One thing that leaps out at me when I review the user's contribution history is an extensive list of edits that remove content from articles, attempts to delete or merge articles, and other similar activity. What I do NOT see is work that adds material or otherwise clearly improves article content. Further, the actual article edits pare content back to the point where context is lost to someone who is not conversant with the terminology or jargon, all in the name of getting articles to conform to IEC "standards". I'm used to writing tersely for some audiences, but the history described calls me to remind the editor that there's a huge difference between a precis and an article, and Wikipedia's goal is to provide informative articles, not terminology-laden precis that refer the reader to manufacturers' specification sheets or the IEC (if the IEC can be found online for free...which I doubt, although I haven't gone looking for it). Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not to get technical here, but this sort of problem is the exact reason that WP:RFCU exists: What we have is a user who is asking for an assessment of another user's behavior, which is EXACTLY what a Request for Comment is supposed to do. Generally, admins need to see evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person before issueing any sanctions; unilateral requests by User A to sanction User B, with no corroborating support, don't get anywhere. I would try RFCU and other aspects of WP:DR before coming straight to admins; at least it shows you have literally exhausted every avenue before requesting formal sanctions; and that makes sanctions a more reasonable conclusion. --Jayron32 20:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person"
- Did you read any of the linked pages? 8-(
- WQA is a pointless exercise. RFCU is an excuse to attack the person posting there, not the person complained of. ANI, for all its faults, does sometimes do somethign useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Thanks for your comments, Jayron. For clarity: (a) See the Wikiquette link: bringing the subject here for Admin attention was discussed in advance because that forum seemed to have reached its limit; this is not a unilateral User A vs User B issue; (b) I made no request for sanctions - just for admin eyes on the issue. I have always hoped this could be resolved amicably and an admin's comment may well convey the wisdom and authority needed without the need for sanctions. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not to get technical here, but this sort of problem is the exact reason that WP:RFCU exists: What we have is a user who is asking for an assessment of another user's behavior, which is EXACTLY what a Request for Comment is supposed to do. Generally, admins need to see evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person before issueing any sanctions; unilateral requests by User A to sanction User B, with no corroborating support, don't get anywhere. I would try RFCU and other aspects of WP:DR before coming straight to admins; at least it shows you have literally exhausted every avenue before requesting formal sanctions; and that makes sanctions a more reasonable conclusion. --Jayron32 20:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned with his edits to Salsa (dance), where he merged the content of Lady Styling into the article. The editor didn't notice that Lady Styling was originally a promotional article whose only references were to the website of a professional dancer. These references were removed as spam leaving a completely unreferenced article, and no wonder: a quick Google search shows that the phrase "lady styling" has no specific connection to salsa dancing. The editor should have made sure before merging that the content had some basis in reality and wasn't the invention of a PR hack. It's obvious to me that he didn't do this; when challenged after the merge, he admitted that he didn't know much about salsa, then told the editor challenging the merge to "fix it" "if" there was a problem. (He also structured the merged content in a way that made it look like "lady dancing" was a specific type of salsa, like New York and Cuban.) It's not other editors' jobs to fix poorly thought out merges; editors should not merge articles until they have consensus and unless they know enough about the subject to avoid this kind of error. The editor should have PRODed or AFDed Lady Styling instead. --NellieBly (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that W has been a continuing pain in the butt, at 2N7000 among other places. He's got a real negative attitude and behavior toward articles and editors that he disagrees with. Failure to work collaboratively is a good term for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure what can be done about it. It's probably not a blockable offense to be a jerk and hard to work with. An RFCU might be a chance to give him some community input, but it seems that he has had plenty of that, and just doesn't care what others think. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. We aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive. The way we deal with disruption is a bit of a blunt instrument. We cannot make him play well with others, and his faults are less than his positives.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Uncivil Behavior by Ultimate Koopa
The issue is regarding User:The Ultimate Koopa. He continues to act in an uncivil manner regardless of how many times or people ask him to calm down. He is constantly attacking others, writing in all CAPS, swearing, etc. Not only that, but he has been brought here, and blocked for this very thing, in the past. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Ultimate_Koopa#AN.2FI and right below it the result http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Ultimate_Koopa#Blocked , so he is aware that what he does is wrong, and continues to do it.
Examples include:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs#Season_20_Region_2. (Majority of the conversation under "Season 20 Region 2".)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs&diff=prev&oldid=424941306
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs&diff=prev&oldid=422090709
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs&diff=prev&oldid=411891281
It goes on and on, but you can get the picture. He's mostly worked up over whether or not this particular DVD set was released in a certain region or not. I really don't know for sure either way, all I know is that his rationale is "I can't find it, so it's not out", so I've undone his edits because his personal experience isn't a valid reason. But I'm not here about that, it's about the general way he handles things. I'm just throwing that out there for context. If he's in the right as far as the article goes, so be it. I just want him to stop ranting and being so rude to anyone who opposes him. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let me point out that this gross behavior isn't limited to Talk pages, it is also frequently in his edit summaries, as seen here. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, as proved by the bottom three links above. (There's more, though.) Guoguo12--Talk-- 22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have blocked Ultimate Koopa for 2 weeks, as a "wake up and smell the coffee" final warning. I have indicated that I would support an immediate unblock once they confirm they will temper their language - with a note that reverting to such practices will possibly lead to an indefinite block. I am hoping that this action will result in a valuable contributor amending their behaviour going forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
User Cooldenny spamming
Cooldenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
I just wanted to make Wiki administrators aware that User:Cooldenny has been messaging, IMHO "spamming" hundreds of Wiki users in the past 48 hours asking participation in some survey he's working on. If its an "official" Wiki project thats one thing, but something he's doing all on his own strikes me as an entirely different mattter. I didn't think that sort of thing was allowed. Check his user discussion page and you'll see I'm not the only one irritated by it. If nothing else maybe a warning to him is in need? You folks are the brains of the operation and I'm just a peon in the boiler room shoveling the coal (lol) so I'll leave it up to you. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I looked into this and found that Philippe Baudette of the WMF is asking questions of Cooldenny [40] so unless people want to comment on this I'd say admin involvement is moot, but thanks for your understandable concerns. Jusdafax 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I had also left a note on his talkpage (User talk:Cooldenny#Has survey spam been approved by the community?) inquiring about his methods; by doing so, I was hoping to avoid bringing this to ANI, however. I referenced him to a discussion I saw last month (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study) and asked for his response. Since User:Steven (WMF) closed that thread, I left a note on his talk page (User talk:Steven (WMF)#Research survey) requesting he steer Cooldenny in the same direction. I note that Cooldenny's edit count has 0 article edits and 89% talk page edits. BUT, he has not edited in the 12 hours or so that people have been questioning his spamming. So if the talk page discussions pan out, then admin intervention is unneeded. The only reasons for admins to get involved at this point is to monitor his edits; if he makes one more talk page spam before this is settled on his talk page, then a block is required to stop the spamming. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.246 (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently random threat
I have never met User:Ceoil, and have never interacted with this user in any way. Nonetheless, Ceoil left this threat on my talk page, apparently referencing an innocuous content dispute, in which he was not involved. I have not commented on Truthkeeper88's talk page in over three weeks. I have never reported a threat before, and I'm not certain if this is the correct place to do so. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:WQA is the place for "impolite or uncivil communications", but this seems much more serious than that. GiantSnowman 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's what I thought. I mean, I also wondered if it was said in jest, because it's sometimes hard to tell when someone you don't know very well is joking – but this came from nowhere and there were no emoticons or anything for me to judge the tone. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) also, but this crosses the line, in my view. That's a threat of violence. An admin should issue an indef block 'till this gets sorted out. Jusdafax 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- While searching for something on google today for an article I'm reviewing at FAC, the search returned a post I'd made. I then randomly plugged in my username and found that someone has been tweeting posts from my page, with doesn't make me happy, at all. I posted (and then removed that fact) - basically because I'd been chatting with Ceoil who has been on wikibreak, and I had mentioned to him personal plans such as travel plans etc, but won't anymore if my stuff gets tweeted. None of this is hard to find, but I won't be posting it here. Ceoil saw that I was upset, and reacted. That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- If he gets indeffed you'll have to go ahead and indef me too. But in the meantime consider the implications of women being wikihounded here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what is going on here, but the user conduct involved seems absurd. Could people seriously think before they type, whether on or off wiki. I'm not convinced any further action is required here, unless problems continue, which they really shouldn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with most of that. And please note that human beings are not physically capable of coming out of computers, unless the computer is very large, which most aren't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what is going on here, but the user conduct involved seems absurd. Could people seriously think before they type, whether on or off wiki. I'm not convinced any further action is required here, unless problems continue, which they really shouldn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Being warned not to carry on off-site harassment. Running off to notice boards for help. You should think more. Ceoil 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that Gyrobo (talk · contribs) has been Tweeting your Wikipedia details? And even if he has, there's no need for threats of violence - we have proper ways to deal with stuff like this. GiantSnowman 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have to accept snowman if most editors feel that the people who hand around here totally, utterly, unsuited to dealing with these situations. I wouldn't trust most wiki admins with a spoon, much less the privacy of a close friend. Ceoil 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't been tweeting anything, I don't even have a Twitter account, and I haven't had anything to do with Truthkeeper88 in over three weeks. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @NYB - my post got lost in endless edit conflicts. I'm not happy to have found that posts from my user page are being sent out on Twitter, and no it's not good user conduct. I've never been to AN/I; I've contributed significantly to this place; if contacting Arbom is the thing to do, then I'm happy to do so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- So you say Gyrobo is tweeting your personal information (I'm not sure why you'd put personal stuff on Wikipedia, but that's a separate question) and Gyrobo says she isn't? It would really help to have a link to this twitter account, and some information about how you determined that it was Gyrobo who created it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Posts from userpages should not be sent out (by other people) on Twitter; that seems fairly obvious to me, so I didn't think it needed to be said expressly. To whoever is doing that, don't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To FisherQueen - I thought Gyrobo was being accused of being the Tweeter, not Ceoil? GiantSnowman 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I searched twitter and couldn't find Truthkeeper88's name. Did I do it wrong? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- More edit conflicts Here is the thread that's being sent out on Twitter. No, Ceoil has absolutely nothing to do with it. I posted on my page that someone was sending the tweets, he saw. We collaborate. On Featured articles. Sometimes we need to know when the other is around. I should be able to do that without finding people are taking stuff of my page and sending out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @ FisherQueen - I don't even have a Twitter acct. I don't know why it showed up, but it did. Won't say any more. I am not lying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- After the original "Vagueness" discussion, Truthkeeper88 left substantial comments on the relevant FAC, which I attempted to address. When I had things to take care of offline, I asked the FAC delegates to close the review in a way that didn't make the reviewers feel as though they'd wasted their time. I never held any kind of grudge against Truthkeeper88, never had any desire to tweet anything about her, and I didn't even know she or Ceoil were women until this discussion. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @NYB - my post got lost in endless edit conflicts. I'm not happy to have found that posts from my user page are being sent out on Twitter, and no it's not good user conduct. I've never been to AN/I; I've contributed significantly to this place; if contacting Arbom is the thing to do, then I'm happy to do so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that Gyrobo (talk · contribs) has been Tweeting your Wikipedia details? And even if he has, there's no need for threats of violence - we have proper ways to deal with stuff like this. GiantSnowman 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Being warned not to carry on off-site harassment. Running off to notice boards for help. You should think more. Ceoil 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Question to Truthkeeper88 - nobody here disagrees that fellow editors shouldn't be Tweeting your information. However, where is the evidence that Gyrobo has been the one doing this? GiantSnowman 01:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @FisherQueen again - a.) I've been subject to on and off wiki harrassement before and it's not nice; b., it's no one's business why I post when I'll be around and not; but basically when people collaborate, it's good to know who's doing what when. That's how content gets built; c., no I will not post the what I found on Twitter - you'll have to AGF or not. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Snowman - now it's my fault. Great, Just great. Tonight I was to copyedit someone's featured list & instead dealing with this. Wonderful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is this it? It looks like a bot to me, republishing random links. What made you think that User:Gyrobo had anything to do with it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Truthkeeper88 - Nobody is saying it's your fault at all; but if you accuse fellow editors of harrassing you off-wiki, but refuse to back up such allegations with evidence, then there's nothing that can be done. GiantSnowman 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think they assumed it was me because I write about New York's Hudson Valley, and that Barrington Nixon person/bot who has been tweeting says they're from Kingston, New York? --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Its a bit more than that Gyrobo and you know it. The very fact that you opened this goes to show you a, well, prick. Snowman can you not see the irony in your requst to know more. Ceoil 01:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Truthkeeper88 - Nobody is saying it's your fault at all; but if you accuse fellow editors of harrassing you off-wiki, but refuse to back up such allegations with evidence, then there's nothing that can be done. GiantSnowman 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)