Ryan Vesey (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
For the record, I came to the original AFD '''completely''' at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
For the record, I came to the original AFD '''completely''' at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' As a peripherally involved editor I have found the negative interactions between the two editors in question quite disruptive, and I'd like to voice my support for User Stalwart111's proposed solution as outlined above. While on the face of it, the proposal may seem extreme, the volume of heat and friction visible across a range of poetry-related articles has reached intolerable and disruptive levels, and I believe that if both editors are prepared to place Wikipedia first then they should accept it. --[[User:Bagworm|gråb whåt you cån]] ([[User talk:Bagworm|talk]]) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Unilateral 'move' of an article under AfD discussion to another subject. == |
== Unilateral 'move' of an article under AfD discussion to another subject. == |
Revision as of 00:38, 3 December 2012
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked
I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.
He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[1])
The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[2]
He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[3], and I reverted back [4]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.[5][6]
He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[7]
Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[8] The user agreed to this[9], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[10] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[18] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[19]
Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.
During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[20] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.
Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[21][22] and Haiga[23][24], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.
While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. He/she immediately did so, still refusing to discuss the issue on my talk page or the talk page of the subpage in question. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[25]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[26] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[27] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).
User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[28], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.
elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ([that tanka prose is a modern English genre] was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... [s]top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem[29]). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.
It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.
I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.
I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.
While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.
Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[30] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.
- elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me.
Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging. Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
|
- Tristan noir is here for one thing, to promote the work of Woodward. He consumes a great deal of other people's time; other people who are here to build an encyclopedia, not push a tiny, tiny, non-notable fringe idea. He insults others. Could someone please do the right thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
While this discussion proceeds, User Elvenscout, contrary to WP:CANVAS, continues his campaigning and possible stealth canvassing, via posts such as this of Nov 27, or this of Nov 30, or this of Dec 1 on various user’s talk pages.
User Elvenscout also, contrary to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, continues to alter and / or suppress unilaterally the content of article talk pages, e.g., at Talk:Uta monogatari with edits on Oct 17 and Nov 30, and at Talk:Tanka in English on Dec 1.Tristan noir (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I am collapsing irrelevant, off-topic portions of the conversation. Personal issues with my actions on unrelated pages should be brought up with me on MY talk page or on the relevant article talk pages -- they should not clutter this ANI post, which is meant to address Tristan noirs behaviour. Next-to-nothing TN has posted above qualifies as a defense against my pointing out that his activities have been limited to posting spam/fringe theories to numerous articles, and undermining my integrity as an editor. Ad hominem arguments against me have no place here. TN has, throughout all of my interactions with him over the last three months, constantly failed to address his problems with my edits in the appropriate venues; several of the pages he has posted to contain some reference to a separate argument, as well as a reply by me that received no direct response until TN posted something else on an entirely different talk page. The current example is in his constantly using this page to moan about my edits to other pages, when his edit history shows that he has not tried to engage me directly on any other talk page for over two weeks. Probably the most blatant example is [41], where he attempted to use Talk:Tanka in English to attack my edits on four other articles, but has since failed to bring up his specific problems with my edits on either the appropriate article talk pages or on my talk page. His drawing a link between my edits to different articles was also bizarre, since my edits to each of the pages he listed only vaguely resembled my edits to "Tanka in English". This has made it very difficult to discuss anything with him. Accusations of canvassing on my part are ridiculous: my message[42] to BDD does not mention ANI once! It is exclusively related to a comment he made on a separate talk page two weeks earlier[43]. I also asked the advice[44] of an experienced Wikipedian who had intervened in what TN apparently considers an ongoing content dispute at Tanka in English -- on my side, of course, since TN's view is apparently that the article should include material not found in reliable sources, and should refer to unreliable sources as "noteworthy publications"[45][46][47]. Further, my messaging[48] Stalwart111 cannot be "canvassing", since he was the one who suggested[49] posting here in the first place, and he had already posted here[50] himself before I messaged him! I was merely asking his advice on what else I could do to stop TN's seemingly endless quest to post spam/OR/fringe on various Wikipedia articles. TN's initial response above also technically qualifies as an ad hominem argument in its failure to make any attempt to address my issues with his editing activities, but I guess it needs to be left intact since he is entitled to a response. I don't suppose he would like to post a more relevant defense against the accusations that he is here to spam Wikipedia? elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
Proposed solution
I have given my opinion (on a number of occasions) and am undeniably "involved" but would like to propose a solution nonetheless (I hope admins will allow that, given how long this has dragged on without a solution). As this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND based on differing opinions / personal views / supposed conflicts-of-interest relating almost entirely to one topic, a topic ban seems (at least to me) to be the obvious solution. An additional interaction ban would probably be a good idea.
Topic ban - if either party is genuinely here to build Wikipedia, they will accept a topic ban and move on to editing other unrelated topics. I suggest a topic ban for "poetry" (broadly construed).
Interaction ban - to prevent the battleground cancer from spreading, an interaction ban for elvenscout742 and Tristan noir is proposed.
For the record, I came to the original AFD completely at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. Stalwart111 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As a peripherally involved editor I have found the negative interactions between the two editors in question quite disruptive, and I'd like to voice my support for User Stalwart111's proposed solution as outlined above. While on the face of it, the proposal may seem extreme, the volume of heat and friction visible across a range of poetry-related articles has reached intolerable and disruptive levels, and I believe that if both editors are prepared to place Wikipedia first then they should accept it. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unilateral 'move' of an article under AfD discussion to another subject.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a series of moves, without any attempt at proper discussion, let alone any attempt to establish consensus, the contentious Palestinian incitement article has been renamed 'Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' - effectively creating a new and broader subject which has not been discussed at the AfD - one which must necessarily include Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians, which would no doubt make the article even more of an arena for dispute, and do little to ensure encyclopaedic content. I consider this change of article topic most improper, and have to question the motivations of those involved (who are from among the few contributors which have !voted keep, against the current clear consensus favouring delete). Can I ask for an uninvolved admin to move it back (I am unable, due to intervening edits and the creation of redirects), and for those involved in this unilateral move to be asked to explain their actions. This is a difficult topic area, and this undiscussed and arbitrary action can only serve to confuse the issue - though frankly, I'm unconvinced that this wasn't the intention of at least one of those involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The title was changed twice within the space of 3 minutes.[51] Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- it does not strike me as inappropriate to move an article with a POV title to a more NPOV title on a broader subject that can then be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Without discussion? In the middle of an AfD? And no, I'm not convinced that the new title is actually 'more NPOV' at all - it looks like an admission that the blindingly-obvious coatracking of the original article could be 'balanced' by tweaking the title, while making no effort whatsoever to change the content. And do you really think that an article under the new name will stand the slightest chance of giving the subject proper encyclopaedic coverage? We don't need more articles on the IP conflict, we need better ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- it does not strike me as inappropriate to move an article with a POV title to a more NPOV title on a broader subject that can then be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a note, there is no prohibition against continuing to do any work on an article which is at AFD, and that includes changing the title of the article. The article can still be deleted under the new title. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a change of title, it is (if NPOV is remotely adhered to) a change of subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a note, there is no prohibition against continuing to do any work on an article which is at AFD, and that includes changing the title of the article. The article can still be deleted under the new title. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given the overwhelming consensus at the AfD which means that the article (which I agree fails at least four Wikipedia policies, let alone guidelines) is going to be deleted in around 29 hours time, is renaming it a major issue? Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- (E/C) Perhaps, but so? The old title was hopelessly ambiguous (No one could know, whether the Palestinians were inciting or being incited.) Besides, it looks like it will be deleted in another day anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I've seen happen in cases like this though is that the activists who support the move now try to invalidate the prior calls to delete, claiming it's "not the same article" anymore. It is quite ill-advised to move mid-stream. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yup - though the only thing that has changed in this so-called 'article' is the title, and a token word or two in the lede. Nobody other than the few !keep voters seem remotely convinced by this. It is self-evident from the AfD discussion that Plot Spoiler for one intends to continue with his propaganda effort, and would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent any negative material regarding Israelis being included. But then the 'topic' was cherry-picked in the first place for its utility as a propaganda platform anyway. If WP:NOTHERE means anything at all, this has to be a perfect example of what it is about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the article is well sourced and that several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of contributors have stated that the article should be deleted as contrary to policy. Which it no doubt will be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the article is well sourced and that several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Being well-sourced is not the primary criteria in determining article retention, that is a common error usually made by newbie editors. As for the "several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change" claim...well, yes, the "several" including you who had earlier weighed in on keeping the article. You make it sound like people who have previously called for deletion have been swayed by the name change. Your wording is deceptive. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) AndyTheGrump—would you find an article such as Israel and the apartheid analogy more defensible (especially more compliant with policy) than an article such as the one we are discussing, which is presently named Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bus Stop, we know that pro-Israeli editors have long had a stick up their ass over the Israeli apartheid article, but that is supported by a wide swath of reliable sources and is not a slated fork of another article. Editors have made arguments to have it deleted in a dozen-odd AfDs over the years, but that opinion has always been a minority one. As I have noted elsewhere, it has long been a tactic of the editors of your particular POV to create garbage articles like this "Palestinian incitement" thing, to try and use it as a wedge to get the apartheid analogy article deleted. You have never won an argument with this underhanded tactic and you never will win an argument with this underhanded tactic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed "Bus Stop" was a major protagonist in the Judaism and bus stops classic a few years ago (though, confusingly, "Bus Stop" was not the author of the "bus stop" article. It's been part of the repertoire for years.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bus Stop, we know that pro-Israeli editors have long had a stick up their ass over the Israeli apartheid article, but that is supported by a wide swath of reliable sources and is not a slated fork of another article. Editors have made arguments to have it deleted in a dozen-odd AfDs over the years, but that opinion has always been a minority one. As I have noted elsewhere, it has long been a tactic of the editors of your particular POV to create garbage articles like this "Palestinian incitement" thing, to try and use it as a wedge to get the apartheid analogy article deleted. You have never won an argument with this underhanded tactic and you never will win an argument with this underhanded tactic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a debate on the relative merits of articles. And neither is it another location for debate on the proposed deletion of the one under discussion. However, since you asked, Bus stop, my own personal opinion is that Israel and the apartheid analogy is an article of questionable encyclopaedic merit - along with many other of the articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Islam and the like. It is by no means the worst of them though. In my opinion, we'd be doing a great service to our readers if we got rid of most of these soapboxing articles, and concentrated on a broader neutral coverage of topics in articles not cherry-picked to promote one faction or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Note. The article has now been deleted - I think that about wraps this up. Perhaps an uninvolved individual could mark this as closed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as [version without diacritics here]" to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
- The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
- WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
- WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
- WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
- MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
- and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
- I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Wikipedia. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Wikipedia. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <ref>{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}</ref> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- A Google search of only agreed-upon reliable sources, as was the suggestion, is surely the best way of determining what reliable sources say. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The template {{User:LittleBenW/Template_test|Lech Wałęsa}} : Sources for Lech Wałęsa on Google searches only reliable sources (the list of reliable sources can easily be changed). This template makes it so easy to research English-language usage (and rank the results) that it surely eliminates stupid excuses for not observing the above Wikipedia guidelines as listed above. LittleBen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect the only answer to this problem is going to be a diacritics-related topic ban for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah that is my feeling as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Djsasso: It appears that you asked User:AlexTiefling to try to sabotage the RfC, is that correct? LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, he asked me how to start an RfC on your behavior. He came to me and asked. Nice try though. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - TP 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelakeshoe 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Resolute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Formal topic ban proposal
I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Asking people to either follow Wikipedia guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Wikipedia) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Wikipedia guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: [52]. If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Asking people to either follow Wikipedia guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Wikipedia) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Wikipedia guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- support wording. - filelakeshoe 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Tarc. He's right KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- And now we have the much-anticipated appeal to Jimbo by Ben (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have added "strongest possible" to my support, primarily due to this edit by Ben that shows a) it's personal to him, and b) that he just cannot stop himself from personal attacks and bad faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support – LittleBenW's stridently anti-diacritic antics of the last two years has made it very hard to have any serious discussions of the issues. Holding him out of the way will allow more normal processes to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support; editors do have legitimate disagreements over diacritics; the battleground mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Being right or wrong is irrelevant here (and it's absurd to even claim that an issue like that has one clearly right and one clearly wrong answer). Disruptive edit warring gets you topic banned, simple as that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose gross over-reaction -- the person should absolutely be allowed to discuss the issues, and this ban would not aid Wikipedia as a project. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per Conti, being right is not the point here. And it is clear that Ben's editing has been found wanting. However, it does not automatically follow that whatever remedy someone proposes will be the best one. The behaviour of both sides should be examined here. It seems to me that some editors have been too eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics and giving them this satisfaction would not address that issue. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, a ban should be a last resort, after other reasonable measures have been tried but failed; not one of the first measures applied, for the convenience of silencing an opposing view that ought rightfully be heard. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I would support a short ban (a couple of months or perhaps as long as six months) to allow a cooling off period. I do not support an indefinite ban. I am also worried about the process within this ANI as I see some editors acting as prosecutor, judges and executioners. If there is to be a topic ban of over a few months then I think the more appropriate venue would be a user RfC (although those too can degenerate into kangaroo court). If an RfC is initiated before the end of the year, I think that all those who have commented here should be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support as per my 'informal' comment above. GiantSnowman 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Unlike a content dispute about the shape of the earth (flat vs. round), there is not an objectively correct answer about how to handle these diacritics. It's a somewhat arbitrary decision about house style, made by WP editors through discussion/consensus. If someone is acting disruptive, it's completely appropriate to remove them from the process, so other editors will decide the issue without them. Even if it's a different decision, it's still not "wrong".
Tarc's objection seems to be that there's a MOS argument for writing Lech Wałęsa without diacritics, so we're doing it wrong and we should accept unlimited amounts of disruption to avoid the catastrophic, project-destroying error (snort) of writing Wałęsa instead of Walesa in the article. The remedy for that concern is to have a talkpage or RM discussion narrowly about the Wałęsa article, not using it to fight a proxy battle about diacritics throughout the project. The discussion will close with either (depending on your perspective) either the "right" outcome (in which case the situation got handled just fine without Little Ben), or the "wrong" outcome (in which case we add one more to the countless tiny imperfections in Wikipedia, probably way below the millionth on the list in terms of consequence, so not worth any significant amount of disruption, and in case this outcome is to remove the diacritics as Little Ben wanted, it also benefits from his non-participation by decreasing the stridency). Our reading public is frankly not going to care one way or the other which way we write it. (And to whoever suggested a reader preference: no that won't work, almost all our readers don't have accounts, and anyway it would be a sort of POVFORK). 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Alternate suggestion
What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea, but surely the diacritics pushers would not support discussion on a fair and level playing field. LittleBen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to ask him first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support/Oppose - I would oppose this and the section above, but if these turn out to be the only two choices then I would support this lesser alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Part of the problem here is that some editors have been excessively eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics. Ben has played into this a little, because he does not appear to have to experience necessary to formulate a robust RfC question. This has led to his frustration. If he were given support to enable him to see an RfC through to its conclusion (and assuming he were willing to abide by the outcome), then that would substantially solve the problem. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Another alternate suggestion
Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|
"It's been over a day since this discussion started." When the community is deciding on an indefinite ban for an editor, a month at an RfC is not considered excessive. My count of the "votes" is 18 (excluding the IP opinion) to six, and a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus. I think that this should be reopened and lets see if a broader consensus can be found for a shorter ban rather than indefinite one. As I said above I think that two months for this ANI is more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- "a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus" - but 18 for, 6 against is exactly 75% in favour.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then if you prefer to split hairs a ratio of more than 75% ... Either which way I do not think that there was a rough consensus here. [Repeat of last comment]. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
CopyVio on Arizona State University
Recently, an anonymous editor has made dozens of edits to Arizona State University. Many of these edits are direct copy/paste from various websites. (Example: This is a direct copy of This.) This editor has been warned on his talk page by two other editors. In addition, I strongly suspect NPOV violations as this editor is strategically omitting certain potions of his/her copied text that contradict his/her opinion of the article topic. I'd like to suggest that the IP be temporarily blocked (or the page goes Semi-Protect). -Nicktalk 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the now quote. While quotes are permissible, if overly long relative to what they are quoting from, they can still represent a copyvio, particularly when there is no reason we can't use our own language. Just slapping quotation marks and a cite on a copyvio doesn't fix things. I'm not really sure what to do about the editor though. Monty845 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparent violation of WP:BLP and other policies by Zbrnajsem
User:Zbrnajsem, already familiar to ANI from a previous discussion relating to our article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (see archives: [53]) has chosen, after a long and rambling discussion over 'free speech' and why he thinks that Wikipedia articles should be sourced to whatever a contributor (i.e. himself) prefers to push a minority POV, to make a personal attack on the professional integrity of a respected academic, Professor Steven W. May (currently of Sheffield University, see [54]). Professor May is self-evidently well qualified to write on de Vere, specialising on the period as is evident from his list of publications. Zbrnajsem however, disliking May's descriptions of de Vere as the sometimes less-than-successful individual he was, has accused May of being "misleading or grossly false" and of engaging in "vile gossips". [55] This takes what would otherwise be a content dispute well into WP:BLP-violation territory as I see it, in that it is a direct attack on the professor, based on nothing but Zbrnajsem's dislike of anyone who fails to portray de Vere as the great poet, virtuous nobleman, and self-evident author of 'Shakespeare's works that Zbrnajsem wishes. I have asked Zbrnajsem to redact the personal attack, but he has declined. If he is unwilling to conform to policy in regard to resorting to personal attacks on the authors of source material, while likewise filling talk pages with what is self evidently vacuous waffle regarding his rights under the US constitution to fill Wikipedia articles with whatever he feels like (see for example [56]), I cannot see how his presence on the article talk page can be anything but a net liability. It is one thing to have a heated debate regarding content, but when unfounded personal attacks on outsiders are being made, and debates are endlessly dragged off-topic by irrelevances and a failure to understand elementary tenets of Wikipedia policy, any hope of reaching a reasonable compromise seems futile. I therefore ask that Zbrnajsem be asked to redact his personal attacks on May, and that he agrees in future to conform to talk-page policy regarding the de Vere article - staying on topic, not abusing it as a forum, and not engaging in pointless rambling posts regarding aspects of Wikipedia policy that cannot possibly be rescended on article talk pages. Should he fail to do so, I would propose that he be topic banned - at least from this article, though I suspect a broader ban regarding all articles etc touching on the 'Shakespeare authorship question' might perhaps be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I redact my personal attacks on Mr. May, if what I have written is qualified as personal attacks on him. OK, he is surely a great historian, and I hope this is appropriate. It is difficult and maybe futile to discuss anything on Edward de Vere if one has the sincere intention to see that historical person from all sides. What I have said and what I have done in the article - just deleting a half-sentence - was only with the sincere intention that this person gets so to say equal and just treatment as other historical persons, i.e. no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article concerned. I am frustrated, this I may say. I ask you to read the whole discussion about Edward de Vere from the last say five days. If you who read it think that AndyTheGrump was polite to me personally during the discussion, then I will believe it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Zbrnajsem, no one doubts your sincerity. But removing anything critical about a person is not giving "equal and just treatment as other historical persons". It is not the case that there should be "no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article" (compare the article on his contemporary Gabriel Spenser). It is the case that it should be fair and rounded. This half-sentence was the only "negative sounding" part of a substantial lede section. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think we need to remember that this isn't the place to engage in content disputes. Zbrnajsem has agreed to redact the comments regarding May, which is a start, but we still need to address the other matter I raised - Zbrnajsem's soapboxing on the article talk page, combined with an apparent inability to accept that WP:RS etc policies are non-negotiable, and that appeals to the US constitution etc regarding 'free speech' are not only off-topic, but downright disruptive. I'd like to see some evidence that Zbrnajsem accepts that the de Vere article must conform to policy, and that the talk page is no place argue otherwise. Contributors are of course free to argue that policy should be revised - but doing so on article talk pages is pointless. Instead, discussions have to take place within the necessary limits of existing policy. Unless Zbrnajsem accepts these limits on the scope of talk page discussions, the disruption is likely to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion. As far as the disputed full sentence in the article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is concerned, I still maintain my opinion that this rather long sentence has no sufficient inner logics and does not offer a proper consecution of arguments (see also the Talk on this page). It is composed from two or three sentences of different origin and with different points of view as intended by their authors. I maintain that this is no proper way how to argue on Wikipedia. Please look at the lede to the article. And I cannot think of any disruption of any discussion if the right for freedom of opinion and information is briefly mentioned in connection e.g. with the choice of sources. At times, however, during my participation in discussions, I had the impression that my participation was not welcome, and my views were fiercely rejected and not discussed properly. Of course, I have to take for granted that there is a policy of WP which maintains that there are mainstream theories on one side and a so-called fringe theories on the other side. My view is that in the past some theories previously labeled by the majority of scientists as fringe were later proven as correct, e.g. (but not only) Wegener´s theory of continental shift. So I suppose that it is within the limits of serious discussion on scientific fields if there is a certain scope of freedom for discussion on noticeable fringe theories. The existence of several articles on SAQ is a good evidence that there is such discussion on WP. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your response to my complaint that you were dragging the talk page discussions off-topic seems to me to consist largely of yet further off-topic irrelevances. Wegener´s theory of continental shift is of no more relevance here than the US constitution was in the original discussion - and we are not discussing the content of the lede here, we are discussing your behaviour on the talk page. You are hardly going to improve your case by once more demonstrating the problematic behaviour that lead me to raise the issue here in the first place. Once again I'll ask you - are you willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions like 'freedom of speech', and likewise argue that Wikipedia policy should be ignored where it suits your objectives? If you get the impression that your 'participation was not welcome', does it not occur to you that it might be because you fail to actually participate in discussions in the way expected? This is what is being discussed here, and this is what needs to be sorted out. Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs - it is an online encyclopaedia, written according to the best available credible sources (or at least that is the intention, if not always the outcome), and if such sources fail to reflect your opinions, you have two choices. Either work within Wikipedia according to the policies arrived at by consensus, or find another arena to promote your views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I am willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions. I would only like to ask you, AndyTheGrump, who decides that someone has argued for irrelevant abstractions? Up to now, only you have objected my contributions using this terminus. Likewise, I would like to read a very precise definition of irrelevant abstractions. If there is such a definition, please give it to me, then I would be better informed. Although I have got some education, it is not quite clear to me that it should be easy to decide about the content and quality of irrelevant abstractions. Besides this, there is no information that you personally would have the rights as administrator of Wikipedia. So it is possibly not quite correct if you, AndyTheGrump, give me very pointed advices and treat me as a pupil. Up to now, in this section, no administrator has objected my recent behaviour on Wikipedia, no administrator was engaged in the way you did in the above text, and also in the whole discussion which we had. My objections are now only towards the personal conduct between you and me, and could be made a case on my behalf. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that I'm not a Wikipedia admin. I have never suggested otherwise. AS for the fact that so far no uninvolved individuals (admins or otherwise) have commented, that is unfortunate - I too would welcome such input, and it was in the hope of getting such input that I started this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- If no one is listening here, you could consider going to [[WP:AE}] with a case for a topic ban. This thread seems to contain typical examples of Zbrnajsem's witterings and it shouldn't be too hard to put together plenty of documentation of his persistent tendentiousness in the SAQ area despite frequent reminders of Wikipedia policy. Doesn't address the BLP problem you originally raised, though presumably BLPN would be the place for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Zbrnajsem wrote: "I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion." that may not have been your intention, but it certainly was the result, as evidenced by the edit war that you instigated with your comments and participated in.
- You also directly above respond with irrelevant abstractions when told that you indulge in irrelevant abstractions.
- As to Andy's choice of language in trying to explain policy to you, how many times do we have to repeat a point before you finally get it and modify your behavior? Either your command of the language is deficient, or you're stupid, or you refuse to get the point. Which is it? Because it's been explained to you over and over. Nobody says you have to like it; but you do have to conform to it if you want to participate here. If you don't, that's fine; there are plenty of Oxfordian echo chambers where you'll be hailed as a hero and a champion of free speech. Make your choice what it is to be.
- I haven't chimed in on this before now because I'm sick to death of his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him--I've had years of it. For some reason they seem incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy and attribute their unsuccessful attempts at promotion to evil "Stratfordian" control. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I got it that Tom Reedy is a reviewer, but does not hold the rights of an administrator. In the same time, nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions, Tom Reedy. Citation: ...his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him... Would you please refrain from such expressions? I wonder what administrators possibly say about your misdemeanor on this page. AndyTheGrump, you forgot Paul Barlow´s contribution above. He reacted in a very decent tone. I appreciate it very much. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- "...nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions...." Oh? What happened to your little "freedom of speech" idea? I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and I didn't call you any name; I said I was tired of your bullshit, and I am, which is why I've been ignoring your droppings on my talk page and the deVere talk page. I'll now return to my ignoring you. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given that Paul Barlow has been involved in discussions on the de Vere talk page, he isn't 'uninvolved'. As for Tom Reedy's comments above, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why so many people seem to find engaging you in any sort of discussion so frustrating that they resort to incivility? I know I'm sometimes inclined to respond in this manner myself, often with less justification than might seem appropriate, but if you get this sort of response from so many different people, shouldn't you perhaps ask yourself whether you may somehow be at least partly responsible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I got it that Tom Reedy is a reviewer, but does not hold the rights of an administrator. In the same time, nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions, Tom Reedy. Citation: ...his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him... Would you please refrain from such expressions? I wonder what administrators possibly say about your misdemeanor on this page. AndyTheGrump, you forgot Paul Barlow´s contribution above. He reacted in a very decent tone. I appreciate it very much. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don´t think so. I cannot be made responsible for the conduct of other contributors. I have a certain standing, the others have theirs. I normally keep my actions pretty restrained, comes what may. It´s good to see that you lowered the tone of your previously temperamentful comments, AndyTheGrump. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- So are you going to stop using the article talk page as a platform for off-topic waffle about 'freedom of speech' and the like, and instead stick to using it for its intended purpose, or aren't you? This is the issue here: you aren't being 'restrained' at all when you climb on your soapbox and sound off about the injustices of a world that won't let you portray de Vere in the manner you so desire. Like it or not, Wikipedia isn't going to abandon its policies solely to place a long-deceased noble on a pedestal. If we were in the business of putting the world to rights, I somehow think that this alleged 'injustice' would come somewhat low in our list of priorities anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do you start it again? You have absolutely no right to tell me how I should think about Edward de Vere. And just deleting one half-sentence, when there is no inherent logics in it in combination with the other part of the sentence, this is no disruption of an article. Moreover, you are not obliged to take part in any discussion if it is too complicated for you to understand what is in stake. Paul Barlow is not so vehemently engaged here, he is interested in serious discussion. He in fact made a proposal for a cooperation of Wikipedians who are Oxfordians in their ideal world, but want to be part within the limits of WP. Furthermore, you can´t make me responsible for actions of other contributors. They are also free people as you and me. No administrator took part in this discussion, no administrator supported you, so please stop your comments. I don´t intend to waste more time with further answering. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- More bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive editor at Talk:Global city
Re: Jim Lopez (talk · contribs), at the talk page Talk:Global city ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
This editor is obsessed with the fact that if you look up "global" in a dictionary, that the term "Global city" (aka "World city") would then not make sense. He has had it explained by a few people that it should not be read literally, that Wikipedia does not define the language but instead only documents encyclopedic topics as they exist, etc. Still, they hammer on about it. Their argument is utter and complete nonsense, as there are more than enough reliable sources for the term, and yet they persist. Growing tired of the disruptive nonsense, I warned them against trolling, still they persist. At this point, I have no idea if the person is a true troll, or lacks basic competence at editing Wikipedia, or if they are simply not a native speaker and having trouble accepting non-literal meanings of phrases. Whatever the reason, they persist with the disruption.
I would appreciate some others taking a look. I was tempted to collapse the discussion with a DFTT tag; but given their persistence, I am not hopeful that would end their disruptive nonsense. Remaining options are a block, but I'm involved in the discussion, so I won't do it myself. I would appreciate other comments and opinions on the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've collapsed it - with an explanation as to why the discussion is unnecessary. I'd suggest we wait to see how Jim Lopez responds to this before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not surprisingly, he ignored the collapsing of the discussion and continues the disruption at talk:Global city under the guise of being "analytic." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've left a polite explanation that also serves as a final warning, that it is time to stop debating semantics. Perhaps hearing it from several people, some uninvolved, will instill some clue here. Hopefully it won't take a bludgeoning with the block stick to get the point across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- User:JamesBWatson has also added a reply that I think helps put it into context for him. There should be no question that this is a final warning and continuing will result in a block, likely indef since there isn't a way to determine how long it will take for him to get some clue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Mass reverts
Probably needed for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.168.226
82.132.139.248 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are a few that look legit, so be selective. May be a shared IP. Monty845 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, none of the edits made in the last few days was legitimate, and I've reverted them all. The edits fall into different categories. Some are material about non-notable awards. Some are unsourced material. Some are incompetent. Some are unencyclopedic. And many overlap multiple categories. I've also left a warning on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, and I also added a notice about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Define "legitimate". I think they appeared to be good faith edits, so let's not be overly BITE-y (not that I'm saying anybody was). Against the current (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The problem is if someone makes a couple of good faith bad edits, it's not so hard to undo them and talk to them. But when they make a lot of them, it's much more disruptive and much more work to undo all of them. It's also spammy. At the same time, I understand it's perhaps unfair of me to jump to a final warning except in the case of egregious vandalism. I sort of wanted to capture their attention. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's someone young, perhaps even a high school student in Maryland, but that's just a slightly educated guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, most likely. These are books aimed at an approximately preteen audience. But I understand your point regarding the magnitude of the potential disruption of that many edits. Against the current (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you made me feel a bit guilty, so I added another comment that if the IP had any questions, I'd try to answer them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a "Dear friend" section that should be a little less intimidating, suggesting they add their material to the article talk page. My impression is that the person is pretty young, and experimenting in good faith, so it may be good to just direct them to a different outlet (the talk page) for their additions until they get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you made me feel a bit guilty, so I added another comment that if the IP had any questions, I'd try to answer them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, most likely. These are books aimed at an approximately preteen audience. But I understand your point regarding the magnitude of the potential disruption of that many edits. Against the current (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The problem is if someone makes a couple of good faith bad edits, it's not so hard to undo them and talk to them. But when they make a lot of them, it's much more disruptive and much more work to undo all of them. It's also spammy. At the same time, I understand it's perhaps unfair of me to jump to a final warning except in the case of egregious vandalism. I sort of wanted to capture their attention. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's someone young, perhaps even a high school student in Maryland, but that's just a slightly educated guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Define "legitimate". I think they appeared to be good faith edits, so let's not be overly BITE-y (not that I'm saying anybody was). Against the current (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, and I also added a notice about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, none of the edits made in the last few days was legitimate, and I've reverted them all. The edits fall into different categories. Some are material about non-notable awards. Some are unsourced material. Some are incompetent. Some are unencyclopedic. And many overlap multiple categories. I've also left a warning on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/NewGuy1001
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hate coming here, but this is three times this week. The above user has posted some sort of code on both his user and talk page rendering them inaccessable. I would try to talk to him about it, but ...his talk page is inaccessable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) If anyone has a problem with this, please revert me. I have reverted the edits he's made. Talk page and User page should work. I'll also watch for any future things like that. Try now. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Edit. Can an admin please block him? He keeps readding his code. I'll leave him a warning if he gives me time.. But if that fails I believe a block is in order. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indef'ed. --Rschen7754 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to remove talkpage access so he doesn't keep doing it? Just an idea :) gwickwire | Leave a message 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll give him a chance to throw up an unblock request, if he does it again I'll pull it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ah I see. Thanks for the swift action! gwickwire | Leave a message 05:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Pls watch his IP if you have that ability. This guy fancies himself as quite the supergeek and I wouldn't doubt that we are in store for a shitstorm from him. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just looking through NewGuy's contributions and the articles he has edited for any IP pattern, I couldn't find enough data for me to believe he is using an IP at this time. If he does start, I'm sure we'll notice it the way he's editing. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll give him a chance to throw up an unblock request, if he does it again I'll pull it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to remove talkpage access so he doesn't keep doing it? Just an idea :) gwickwire | Leave a message 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indef'ed. --Rschen7754 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Edit. Can an admin please block him? He keeps readding his code. I'll leave him a warning if he gives me time.. But if that fails I believe a block is in order. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- His unblock request is not encouraging, and I'm thinking the admin who answers the request will revoke talk page access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever administrator that might be should review his interaction with other editors and consider that in his actions. He has been obstructive in just about everything he has done. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is screaming sockpuppet to me. I'm tempted to just remove talk page access as it seems clear this isn't their first account, and this is starting to look like amateur trolling on their part. They know too much to act this dumb. Even the name is consistent with my theory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just blocked talk page access. A CU might be handy, although my confidence level is very high, regardless of what CU finds. I'm more concerned about the other accounts he might have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever administrator that might be should review his interaction with other editors and consider that in his actions. He has been obstructive in just about everything he has done. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Legal threat over the speedy deletion of Kidd Cole
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tagged the article Kidd Cole for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. The creator, User:TeenHollywood, subsequently made a threat of legal action against myself and Wikipedia for "Defamation of Character". The threat can be seen on my talk page, this diff. I have warned the user on their talk page about legal threats, this diff. -- Patchy1 05:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Probably some socking going on at GOOD Music as well. I'm on an iPad, so opening an SPI is an issue for me. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)- Definitely a sock. He used his real name for both accounts. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely a sock. He used his real name for both accounts. little green rosetta(talk)
- Indef'ed as a spammer (promotional username, promotional material added). --Rschen7754 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Miguel Melendez his manager the page wasn't suppose to go wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.38.117 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Breast Cancer Awareness (causes of breast cancer)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not understand how to use that template to notify the users. If somebody could please do that for me, it would be greatly appreciated. The users are: WhatamIdoing, WLU, & Biosthmors.
User:WhatamIdoing, User:WLU, and User:Biosthmors have been notified.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hi. I would like to bring up a recurring problem that has been occurring at the "Breast Cancer Awareness" article. In the section "Shopping for the Cure" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer_awareness#Shopping_for_the_cure), there is a sentence that keeps being edited to false information (with regard to the source that is cited). Before this incident, the original sentence read:
The part of the sentence we are focusing on here is:
The first edit regarding this issue occurred about a week ago (11/24). With the justification of "read the articles for those chemicals. they say things like "scientists can only conclude that parabens may have an association with BC"", I changed it to:
The edit was first changed 3 days later (11/27), buy user WhatamIdoing, back to "that may cause" with the justification of "Simpler language". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525207587&oldid=525207341 Less than a day later, I reverted that edit, with the justification of "simpler, but less accurate". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525281846&oldid=525207587 Shortly thereafter, WhatamIdoing reverted my reversion, with the justification "No, the simpler version is more accurate, because it's the causative effect that draws the critcisms". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525284330&oldid=525281846 Then, on 11/29, I changed WhatamIdoing's edit, with the justification of "source only talks about alcohol and says "linked" not "cause"", to:
Then, yesterday (11/30), user WLU edited it back to "cause", justifying with "source specifies "cause" which is far, far more meaningful than "associated with"; how is it "associated"? Does it protect against cancer? No, causative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525624155&oldid=525623723 After this, WhatamIdoing edited back in "high-fat foods", justified by "One is the KFC Buckets for a Cure campaign in the U.S....KFC sells products that are salt- and FAT-LADEN…")". Note: she was correct here. I missed the KFC part of the article. I accidentally reverted WhatamIdoing's edit, which was wrong, so immediately afterwards, I edited the sentence, with the justification "the source says "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies". the wikipedia pages for those. WhatamIdoing is right about KFC, I missed that" to:
After this, WLU edited it again, justified with "better wording", to:
Then, with the justification "EVERY source says "linked to". WhatamIdoing provided a source for causation with alcohol in talk page. i would add that but i'm not sure how to add the reference. when/if you do add it, please separate alcohol from others", I edited it to:
After this, WhatamIdoing reverted this edit along with another, justifying by "Rv anti-consensus changes that are opposed in detail on the talk page." I am not sure exactly what she meant here. There was no discussion of "consensus" on the page. The word was never even said until I brought it up in response to her edit. I think she was talking about the other edit she reverted and accidentally mixed this one in with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525749399&oldid=525746104 And then, today, I edited it (when I was logged out) back to "linked to the development of", justifying by "again, the sources say "may be linked to". NOT "cause." NOT "contribute to". "MAY BE LINKED TO"." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525796829&oldid=525792905 At this point, I made a comment on the talk page, saying: "If you guys change it again without citing a source that accounts for all of the changes (ie if the source says alcohol but not the others, then separate them), then I will have to make a section on the Admin incidents noticeboard." Shortly thereafter, user Biosthmors edited it to "might contribute". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525797762&oldid=525796829 I reverted that, saying "I'm making a section at the Admin. incidents noticeboard". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525821939&oldid=525808513
The talk page discussion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breast_cancer_awareness#Shopping_for_the_Cure
The source can be found here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/breast-cancer-month-overshadowed-by-pinkwashing-1.561275 It says:
So, there are two issues at play here:
|
To sum up, the problem is that they put "cause" without a source that says "cause", and they lump all of the chemicals under "cause", when only one of them might actually be causative (if they had a source). Charles35 (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a dispute over content, which is really outside what we do at ANI. Admin don't decide content. Since you have been talking and can't come to a conclusion, WP:DRN would be the proper venue. ANI is mainly about editor conduct, and you don't seem to claim a problem with conduct, just a disagreement with content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a problem with conduct. They persistently break the WP:OR rule without giving any reason why. I can tell them that the source doesn't say that over and over and over again, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to edit their un-sourced material into the article. They don't even disagree. They just say (see the talk page) that since alcohol does indeed cause BC, then we must edit it in. I don't know what else to do. I don't think they will stop unless someone with some sort of authority tells them to.
- Alcohol is a proven, direct cause of breast cancer. It's not just wimpily "associated with": if you want to increase your risk of breast cancer, then get drunk.
- see full comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABreast_cancer_awareness&diff=525638561&oldid=525636749 Charles35 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OR is still an editorial factor, not a behavioral one, and admin do not decide what is original research and what is not, editors do. If they were edit warring over it, calling you names because of it, causing disruption because of it, then admin get involved. I'm not saying you are wrong on the content, I'm just saying that WP:DRN is the right venue because admin don't have the authority to decide content, only the community of editors do. We just mop up the place. If he is mistaken but acting in good faith, then admin don't get involved. At DRN, it will be discussed by fellow editors (some may be admin, but acting as editors only) who will help clarify the situation and find resolution. ANI is for problems requiring an admin jump in and act quickly, the I stands for Incidents. Most problems get solved with hammers around here, trust me, this isn't a good neighborhood to wander around looking for solutions. The format at WP:DRN is setup specifically for dealing with content disuputes as well, ANI isn't. Please file there, then notify the other parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I came across a dispute and incivility between Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 134340Goat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Metal Gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After looking into it some more I found that Eaglestorm had undone an edit with the default edit summary. User:Eaglestorm also left an incivil comment in a thread on the talk page.
134340Goat then tried to find out why their edit was reverted on Eaglestorm’s talk page, which was meet with incivility and personal attacks (see the user talk page history for examples), with edit summaries such as “rvt desperation by obsessed MPO fan”, “not interested in desperation rant” and “rvt trolling”. In his frustration 134340Goat began creating a WP:RFC/U, which I talked them down from so we could wait and see what Eaglestorm did next (that is, whether they do anything to explain the undo), the draft RFC/U is available here.
Eaglestorm has been warned a number of times for incivility and personal attacks (a quick look through the user’s talk page and archives will demonstrate that) especially in edit summaries. These warnings have included a number by admins. In this example Eaglestorm assumed an uninvolved editor (User:Smsarmad) was a troll and sockpuppet because he warned Eaglestorm for breaching 3RR.
Likewise when I (as an uninvolved editor) asked Eaglestorm to leave a note for 134340Goat explaining their revert, Eaglestorm removed it with the edit summary “rvt nonsense; nice try assuming I'm a 12yearold”. This demonstrates (along with the Smsarmad example) that Eaglestorm is not interested in explaining or moderating their behaviours when uninvolved (and relatively experienced) editors intervene.
In terms of what an appropriate action to take would be I'll leave that to those more experienced with the operations and results of ANI than I am. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- In terms of the reversion of the original edit, I think all that Eaglestorm needed to say was "remove WP:OR" or something along those lines, and it would be appropriate - it does, after all, appear to be uncited original research.
- However, Eaglestorm is required to explain the removal either through a proper edit-summary, discussion on the article talkpage, or a simple/civil response on his or the other editor's talkpage. He is also very free to remove posts from his talkpage as he so desires - repeatedly adding them/badgering clearly escalated his frustration.
- In short, Eaglestorm could have avoided that frustration by explaining his edit in the first place. The rest appears to be mere incivility, although I look forward to his explanation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, I've seen the notice. I have encountered the user before in other Metal Gear-related articles. Part of me says this may be just a sock of another problem editor whose hide I nailed two years ago for his raft of stuff also in Metal Gear-related articles and now discreetly gets back at me. Then again, this may be that 63.XXX.XXX.XXX anon I ran across four years ago because the idiot kept arguing for inclusion of certain unofficial sites (was rude to Hyperspacey and Strongsauce IIRC), even that one from WQ a few months ago.
- As far as MG areas go, the editor Callanec was referring to was nothing more than a nuisance because in the case of characters from MPO, he whined about their absence from the List of Metal Gear characters and called for their inclusion. When nobody would take him up on it, the fact that he repeated the same thread summed it up to me as another one of those contributors who keep fretting about what he wants. Why I deleted his threads on my talkpage? Simple: because I already tagged him as a nuisance from the quacking he's been done in all those Metal Gear articles he's edited, it didn't make sense to dignify his rants with a response. I will not deal with such people. To be honest, everything was fine until he came along. He has the NERVE to log a long-term-abuse report on me and tries to link me to any sockpuppets? I know what I'm doing. As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. Just, wow. If this is the type of response you think is appropriate - both in how you deal with other editors (even if you suspect them of being someone else), and in terms of the type of response you make in front of dozens of Administrators - then I'm not sure the Wikipedia community is the place for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- As far as MG areas go, the editor Callanec was referring to was nothing more than a nuisance because in the case of characters from MPO, he whined about their absence from the List of Metal Gear characters and called for their inclusion. When nobody would take him up on it, the fact that he repeated the same thread summed it up to me as another one of those contributors who keep fretting about what he wants. Why I deleted his threads on my talkpage? Simple: because I already tagged him as a nuisance from the quacking he's been done in all those Metal Gear articles he's edited, it didn't make sense to dignify his rants with a response. I will not deal with such people. To be honest, everything was fine until he came along. He has the NERVE to log a long-term-abuse report on me and tries to link me to any sockpuppets? I know what I'm doing. As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- " As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way. " - That statement alone shows you don't understand we are a collaborative project. I also see you are making some sock claims without filing a claim at WP:SPI, which is incivil at best. Without regard to the content, the behavior is over the top, my friend. Even if you are 100% in the right, you can't treat people like this here. Goat isn't any better with edits like this [57], but Eaglestorm, you have over 10k edits and have been here since 2007, so it is hard to fathom how you think your comments are okay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do apologize for my outburst. However, other than that, I had remained calm and civil. I was not in any way "whining" about the absence, I thought that the lists seemed incomplete without them. Then I noticed a similar trend on the article about the series in general. I attempted to add one minor detail to incorporate the elements of all the games in the series, then Eaglestorm removed it without explanation. Then all this began. Also, it now seems that Eaglestorm has now removed all of Callanec's and my messages on their talkpage, including the notice of this discussion. 134340Goat (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Editors are generally allowed to remove messages on their talk page. This proves that they read them, as a matter of fact. What you want to remember for the future is that other people actions might explain your own improper outbursts, but they don't excuse it. To keep a semblance of order around here, we ask you try to politely resolve issues on their talk page, then ask an admin for advice or follow the dispute resolution methods if that doesn't work. As to the content of your edits, I have no opinion since admin don't get involved in content. Use the article talk page, then WP:DRN if that doesn't help resolve the issue. This is all in the spirit of WP:BRD, a good guide to how we edit around here. Now it would be nice if Eaglestorm gave us an idea on they expect to move forward, as frankly, a few of us are concerned as to the general behavior exhibited here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do apologize for my outburst. However, other than that, I had remained calm and civil. I was not in any way "whining" about the absence, I thought that the lists seemed incomplete without them. Then I noticed a similar trend on the article about the series in general. I attempted to add one minor detail to incorporate the elements of all the games in the series, then Eaglestorm removed it without explanation. Then all this began. Also, it now seems that Eaglestorm has now removed all of Callanec's and my messages on their talkpage, including the notice of this discussion. 134340Goat (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure if I'm at the right place, but IDK what's apt. This appears to be a single-issue account, dedicated to adding Diego Firestone here. It also suggests to me a sock of User:AndrewFirestone777, since the singular emphasis is the same & the usernames are so alike. It's also a possible COI, IMO; this has the smell of said Diego Firestone angling for his own page. Any action would be appreciated. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked. as an account used only for spam. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've tagged both accounts for sockpuppetry as well. Obvious sock, may help with CU later if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Blocked for the username and an unambiguous threat of prosecution. This edit summary [58] references a "denunciation to the National State Police. I've left them a note as well, but am leaving for the day and won't be able to follow up. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to be a case of Don't overlook legal threats. Something fishy is clearly going on at those articles and it is for me very hard to determine what are facts... I have tried to engage him in moving his behavior from focussing on his legal position to an information-based argument, and am a bit disappointed (although factually fully correct, and possibly the outcome of a discussion anyway...) this has led to an immediate block... L.tak (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
L.tak is right. There's more than just an account issuing threats of involving the police, here.
- IIMSAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- DrManini (talk · contribs)
- Jageshwar (talk · contribs)
- Elena.dalis (talk · contribs)
What a mess! Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- L.tak is right. However, now we have another account making similar denunciations to the police. Their objections shouldn't be overlooked, but neither should attempts at criminalizing edits be overlooked. If there is some sort of disinformation campaign going on, that needs to be dealt with too, but not by calling the police. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- In trying to sort this out, Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization, Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute, IIMSAM, Sulaiman Al-Fahim and Diego Maradona (with peripheral activity at Monica Seles) and others appear to be the targets of a number of role accounts, some of whom are making unsupported or poorly supported allegations of misconduct, while others are removing them. Several editors have cut much of the junk from IIMSAM in particular (thank you all), but it looks like severe pruning may still be needed, with protections. I am particularly concerned about Jageshwar (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs), but IREOtruth (talk · contribs) raises the traditional alarms for usernames containing "truth." A number of other accounts may by organization staff. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is basically a fight for power/true UN representation of (disputed) subsidiairy bodies of Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (CISRI). That organization seems notable (it is established by international treaty and has UN representation). However IIMSAM is either a separate organization (standpoint of (former?) CISRI boss Manini) without UN representation or a subsidiary program of CISRI or both (2 things, and the suggestion of the IIMSAM org that it is affiliated with the IIMSAM program of CISRI). In both cases it doesn't need an article (as a non UN accredited org, I see no shred of notability; as part of CISRI it should be merged...). I will therefore propose a merge (I am telling that here, as many of those editors are clearly against any association between the two names, so a merge proposal is likely to be controversial)... L.tak (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that seems like a sensible course. I'm quite certain that it'll result in more denunciations, but so be it. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is basically a fight for power/true UN representation of (disputed) subsidiairy bodies of Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (CISRI). That organization seems notable (it is established by international treaty and has UN representation). However IIMSAM is either a separate organization (standpoint of (former?) CISRI boss Manini) without UN representation or a subsidiary program of CISRI or both (2 things, and the suggestion of the IIMSAM org that it is affiliated with the IIMSAM program of CISRI). In both cases it doesn't need an article (as a non UN accredited org, I see no shred of notability; as part of CISRI it should be merged...). I will therefore propose a merge (I am telling that here, as many of those editors are clearly against any association between the two names, so a merge proposal is likely to be controversial)... L.tak (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- In trying to sort this out, Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization, Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute, IIMSAM, Sulaiman Al-Fahim and Diego Maradona (with peripheral activity at Monica Seles) and others appear to be the targets of a number of role accounts, some of whom are making unsupported or poorly supported allegations of misconduct, while others are removing them. Several editors have cut much of the junk from IIMSAM in particular (thank you all), but it looks like severe pruning may still be needed, with protections. I am particularly concerned about Jageshwar (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs), but IREOtruth (talk · contribs) raises the traditional alarms for usernames containing "truth." A number of other accounts may by organization staff. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
← From a purely technical standpoint CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs) are Confirmed and as such I have blocked DrManini. Jageshwar (talk · contribs) is Unlikely and Elena.dalis (talk · contribs) is Stale. Hope this helps, Tiptoety talk 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The page is being vandalized several times a minute due to still-unconfirmed reports that the NFL player shot his girlfriend, drove to the practice facility, then shot himself. A report was made at RPP but it looks like there isn't anyone addressing reports there, at the moment. OlYeller21Talktome 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The page has now been protected by user Steel. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are still unsourced edits coming from autoconfirmed accounts.
I'm wondering if we should throw out the rulebook and apply level 2 pending changes...Appears to be confirmed now. – Steel 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)- FWIW, there were some edits on the Jamaal Charles page pertaining to this as well. Probably, it's because the report was that it was a 25-year old player who died and Charles is 25 (though it apparently wasn't him). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- THe report's now been confirmed by the KC police. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, there were some edits on the Jamaal Charles page pertaining to this as well. Probably, it's because the report was that it was a 25-year old player who died and Charles is 25 (though it apparently wasn't him). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are still unsourced edits coming from autoconfirmed accounts.
Offensive edit summaries may require action against the summary itself
Today I saw this edit summary which struck me as having the potential to offend. I explored the revision deletion process to receive the following, quite reasonable, answer "It is nasty and misguided, but is an appropriate subject for discussion by the general community" and a perfectly sensible statement that it was out of scope for being redacted by that team.
It seems to me that this is the appropriate venue to discuss the matter. I have chosen not to notify the anonymous editor of the discussion here because I feel we need to discuss the wider issue of what to do about offensive edit summaries of this nature, not what to do about this particular editor and incident. Your mileage may vary. I chose to place a simple warning on the IP talk page.
To me this edit summary is equivalent to a racial or sexual orientation slur. I don't know what our policy is with there in edit summaries either. My feeling is that the text should be removed, whether the edit itself is preserved or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Inspection just now of the IP's talk page after the warning shows an admission of misconduct. That lesson is learned. So I believe we can concentrate on offensive summaries, not on the individual editor. In my view no obvious purpose would be served by taking that editor to task, but I would truly like to see such edit summaries redacted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are covered by WP:CIVIL as much as edits themselves are. Although uncivil, the usual stance for a first time misdemeanour would be a warning. I wouldn't put this one up there with racial or sexual slurs so as much as saying that someone is being unnecessarily picky, in a rather rude way. Blackmane (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Agree completely. I redacted the edit summary in the history -- Samir 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's appropriate. Wikipedia is not censored, even when there exists the possibility of causing "grave offense." 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not censored applies to articlespace. Inappropriate edit summaries that are out of context to the edit and can be found offensive can by all means be redacted. The edit summary log is not meant to be the graffiti on the toilet door -- Samir 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- While we are at it: could someone please remove/change the name of these two vandals [59] and [60] Probably the same person: they vandalise the Norwegian PM´s article..and just please take me on my word: their "names" are extremely insulting, in Norwegian. (Actually, try translate.google for the second name) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, that's super uncomfortable. While we're censoring, any images of Mohammed we can remove for you? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- While we are at it: could someone please remove/change the name of these two vandals [59] and [60] Probably the same person: they vandalise the Norwegian PM´s article..and just please take me on my word: their "names" are extremely insulting, in Norwegian. (Actually, try translate.google for the second name) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not censored applies to articlespace. Inappropriate edit summaries that are out of context to the edit and can be found offensive can by all means be redacted. The edit summary log is not meant to be the graffiti on the toilet door -- Samir 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's appropriate. Wikipedia is not censored, even when there exists the possibility of causing "grave offense." 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Indefblocked the main account, but I'm uncomfortable blocking the IPs without Checkuser assistance. --Rschen7754 06:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say WP:DUCK, they have several articles and talkpages in common today, so if not the same individual, then WP:MEAT. Heiro 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP above too. --Rschen7754 07:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Almost certain this is a sock of User:NewGuy1001 from last night, due to the similar concerns expressed about censorship and Teahouse invites. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Was pretty sure this was a sock of someone, but no idea nor evidence for who. Judging by User:NewGuy1001s contribs, that would be a fair assumption. Heiro 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Almost certain this is a sock of User:NewGuy1001 from last night, due to the similar concerns expressed about censorship and Teahouse invites. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP above too. --Rschen7754 07:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
East Germany
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example [63]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have also recently had a problem with "Trust is All You Need", who renamed the Harmonious Society article (a well-known concept in Chinese politics and written about in English too) with his neologism "Socialist Harmonious Society", based on his personal understanding that "democracy in the Chinese sense of the word means Socialist Democracy, that is democracy that will not hurt one-party rule" (incidentally, China, like East Germany and unlike most Marxist-Leninist states, permits the existence of multiple political parties, although they don't act quite like Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Without a move discussion, and with nary a response to my inquiry, he has also replaced all wikilinks to his preferred title. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Citation needed. Our article states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of a primary source. As you are well aware, the supposed 'single-party state' had no less than five parties in the ruling alliance, including the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands, the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands as well as the Marxist-Leninist Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. It is simply factually incorrect to describe a five-party 'alliance' as a single party, and even more so to describe the first four named as 'Marxist-Leninist' - and yet you chose to add this, with not even a token attempt at discussion, into an infobox clearly intended for uncontroversial factual material. You knowingly and intentionally added misleading information into the infobox. That is a policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- East Germany was a puppet state taking its orders from the USSR. That's hardly a news flash. That's why Reagan asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is taking place at Talk:East_Germany#Single_party_in_info_box. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just would like to note that edit warring by User:AndyTheGrump in this article continue [64]. He made four reverts during just over last 24 hours; he also refuses to constructively discuss sources [65]. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, I think he (and possibly User:Trust Is All You Need) should be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions, unless they were warned already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments [66]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please self revert.I don't have to explain to you that 3RR is a bright line that you don't cross.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)One editor violating 3RR does not permit another editor to edit war while reverting them, so it makes perfect sense to sanction ATG. And TIAYN has yet to actually cross over 3RR. With 4 reverts within 24 hours and 18 mins, ATG should be sanctioned: " Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." He needs to at least self-revert. Keri (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments [66]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, I've not crossed it. However, if it makes you both happy, I'll revert - but with the proviso that I shall then expect My very best wishes to do the same, and restore the infobox to the state it was in before the entirely inappropriate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It was already reverted to your version [67]. Honestly, I think this discussion about "single-party state" is simply ridiculous. Even Soviet history textbooks always claimed that GDR was a single party state, just like Soviet Union, where the primacy of Communist Party was officially stated in constitution (which did not exclude "real democracy"). Based the article edit history, this is a long-term battleground between multiple parties. I must avoid such places. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an amazing discussion. Andy the Grump is arguing that describing East Germany as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' is against policy. If we have any trust in reliable sources, whatsoever, we have to tell him outright with no hesitation that he is just plain wrong, and will be banned for disruption the next time that he brings it up. Shouting "Black is white" multiple times, and then arguing that people who disagree with you are breaking policy, has no place on Wikipedia.
I'd like to point out something even more remarkable. At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes All You Need is Trust asserts that North Korea is not Communist. (And, in-context, it is clear he is arguing that it "never was" Communist). If you allow 2 people to scream "Black is white," and "No, white is black" and then ask for protection from Wikipedia policy because the other guy is being disruptive, then you are asking for every fringe quack in the world to come here and pollute our pages with their gibberish. Admins need to take some responsibility for this. Ban them both. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting we ban Trust for pointing out on an article talk page that some sources have asserted that regarding North Korea, rather than seeing it as being 'communist', 'we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia'. [68]. I was unaware that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens was bannable under policy, though I can see the occasional benefits of such a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A query regarding discretionary sanctions
~Since this has come up, and a quick look at the relevant page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe doesn't seem to resolve the issue, can anyone clarify whether East Germany (which by geographic standards at least is in Central Europe) comes within the remit of the Digwuren/Eastern Europe sanctions? From the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren it appears unresolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, my view is that edits to East Germany would be subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Wikipedia says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the dispute that provoked the DIGWUREN case (original name without the hair-splitting baggage of EE) revolved around "East-Bloc" issues, I'd be inclined to include East Germany as within the scope of the decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Wikipedia says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: on November 30 I uploaded File:Pr-22-aerial-view.jpg and File:Aguirre-power-plant-puerto-rico-electric-power-authority.jpg under the claim that these are pictures in the public domain. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise believed that they were not and tagged them as having file permission problems. A conversation follows suit at User talk:Ahnoneemoos on wether or not these pictures are in the public domain. IANAL so it takes me a while to find the proper laws that sustain my claim, but in the midst of the conversation, 3 hours after me explaining the reason why the pictures are public domain, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise unilaterally decides to delete the pictures.
I strongly believe that this is an abuse of power on his Administrator's priviledges, as I was able to prove, with several reliable sources, that these pictures are in the public domain per LPRA 31 1401e and several other documents that state that the information held by the Government of Puerto Rico is public and shall be made accessible to the general public[69] even when a website belonging to the government claims copyright with a copyright notice.
The user in question could have simply informed me of his interpretation of the law, and given me the chance to change the file permissions, but instead he opted to delete them unilaterally. This is a clear abuse of power, and a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CALM, and WP:ONLYREVERT.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just because a company is publicly-run, does not make its images public domain, ever. Appears to me that the deletions were very valid, and is saving Wikipedia from copyright violations. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- These photos come from the Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority which is
not a company, but a government agencya government-owned corporation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- These photos come from the Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority which is
- Bwilkins, the Government of Puerto Rico is not a company. There's a question about whether PR (Puerto Rican) government works are automatically public domain the way that works of the US federal government are. Based on the discussion on Ahnonemoos' talk page, I think there's enough unclarity to the issue that the deletion is reasonable, but Ahonemoos' argument is not completely bogus. It comes down to the fact that we're not lawyers and we can't rely on amateur legal analysis from random Wikipedia editors for stuff like this. It would be great if the WMF counsel or whoever we get our copyright advice from told us that it was ok to use this PR government stuff. If that happens, we can undelete. Ahonemoos, maybe you could share your analysis with the WMF? 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This incident report is not about public domain and copyrights on Wikipedia; it's about User:Future Perfect at Sunrise being absolute and deleting content rather than allowing contributors to simply change the permission of a file to WP:FAIRUSE. Per WP:NFCI we just need to change the permission to WP:FAIRUSE until WP:WMF deliberates on my claim. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, Ahnoneemoos, WP:CALM and WP:ONLYREVERT are essays, and thus one cannot "violate" them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I explained to you on your talkpage, Ahnoneemoos, changing the tags to "fair use" was out of the question here. The files I deleted could never have passed the non-free content criteria, being obviously replaceable. I left others in place where an NFC case seems more plausible and would encourage you to re-tag those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ahnoneemoos, I also see battleground editing on your part. You're still arguing on your talk page that the images are PD and threatening RFC/U against Fut Perf. If you've got a fair use rationale to use the images in a particular article, you might try writing up the rationale, naming the article, and politely asking Fut Perf or some else to evaluate it. I didn't see the image but if it's a picture of a power station that's still operating, then (as Fut Perf explained) that could make FUR difficult, since in principle a Wikipedian in Puerto Rico could go take another picture of the same power station, so we don't need the NFCC image. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- We are talking about these nine: [70]. One photograph of a power plant (visible here [71]), one aerial photograph of a road, and a couple of portraits of living politicians. All of them would be obvious open-and-shut deletion cases if claimed under fair use, so it's no use trying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, they are not. Did you even read the text available here: [72]? I will translate it for you by using Google Translate.
- In our Internet pages is only provided public information. Therefore, this information can be freely released, printed or copied by users.
- So, tell me again, what is your rationale for deleting the pictures taken from there? Is it truly for WP:NFC or is it a WP:WITCHHUNT, a WP:DISRUPTPOINT, and a WP:WINNING? You are power tripping. Stop this madness. Why are you still an admin after such behavior?
- —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, why would I have read that page? You never quoted that one. I'm not a clairvoyant. But this is from a different website, unrelated to the ones you cited the images to (as far as I can see). And it's again not a public domain release – it's about the free status of information provided on the website, not about the copyrights on creative works. Plus, what has all of this to do with our Non-Free Content policy and the replaceability criterion? – Okay, I've had it. I've been patient and polite with you up to now, but now my patience is run out. I hope somebody else can take over from here, because I won't guarantee I'll continue to meet this person with politeness if he continues like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, they are not. Did you even read the text available here: [72]? I will translate it for you by using Google Translate.
- We are talking about these nine: [70]. One photograph of a power plant (visible here [71]), one aerial photograph of a road, and a couple of portraits of living politicians. All of them would be obvious open-and-shut deletion cases if claimed under fair use, so it's no use trying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That argument is invalid since one picture was an aerial view of PR-22. I don't think that it is rational to say that, "a Wikipedian in Puerto Rico could go take another picture of PR-22 from the air". Regarding the power station, the same thing can apply, since the picture is taken from god knows where, and we don't truly know if a regular citizen would be authorized to (1) take pics of the plant or (2) be nearby the plant to take a replaceable picture of it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- "this information can be freely released, printed or copied by users" is not the same thing as CC-BY-SA 3.0 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor rapidly redirecting pages with no discussion
Article editor (talk · contribs) is making unexplained name changes. Talk page full of messages about such actions (all deleted today). Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked until he starts communicating properly and agrees to refrain from further undiscussed mass edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. I noticed AE's undiscussed move of Ahmadiyya to Ahmadism (a much less common term) earlier, and would probably have raised the matter here if I wasn't already monopolising ANI ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Please can an admin revert AE's undiscussed move of Wahhabi to Wahhabism and his similar move from Salafi to Salafism. I cannot revert it because AE has cunningly editted the redirect pages to make it impossible for non-admins to revert his moves.[73][74]--Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Both Done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone, I was off to bed, having just come back from a murder mystery dinner at a nearby stately home where we won the trophy for best solution (thanks in large part to my wife I need to add). Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
IP
Im not taking this too seriously and I was unsure if I should report it here or not.. But an IP made this comment to me recently at my talk page [75]. I think a warning is appropriate as I have remained civil, a threat of reporting me just because I tell the IP my opinion seem quite drastic by a one-day IP. Im not the only one being somewhat POV-ed by the IP I guess. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing to warn them about. Let him report you. Not sure for what, but it could be humourous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. (Personally, I prefer to mock them a bit first, but that can be construed as rude or battlegroundy or somesuch.) An extra step is to check the IP's other contribs to see if they're doing similar to other people who may be more easily pressured, or if they're resorting to legal threats (as opposed to just threats to "report") elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks guys! You both made my day:) I think this this edit summary by me at my talk page sums it up:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to respond to that. Following his revert(without an edit summary and IMO unjustly), I contacted the user [76] to understand the reason for the edit, reiterating waht I already said in my edit summary, that the information is already covered in another section and don't belong in the current section. To which the user responded [77] "Well, you are seriously POV-pushing right now" which ignores my concerns and just none constructive replay about my post rather in response to it. I guessed that this reasoning with guy is unlikely but still, I offered him one more chance to explain/resolve this before I report this to one of the arbitrary committees. Which sums up my part.
Meanwhile unknown to me. Just after my first attempt to resolve the issue, the user tried to flag my "seriously POV-pushing" edit as vandalism [78] and after it was rejected, he tried the same with claims I threatened him [79] and when this failed as well, he came here.
This guy maybe "civil" and "not taking this too seriously" as he claims, but that not how I see it. While I was upfront with him, he instead of communicating went behind my back and misusing the vandalism mechanism to fast track his requests( btw same with his next/last two requests, [80], [81]) and same here he ignored the "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" part. So Yes I find this user behavior not social, constructive nor contributing to a positive atmosphere.
Also I would still very much like to know the reason for the revert, so that I know how to proceed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Case closed move on. Basically nonsense discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, BabbaQ has yet to provide an explanation of this edit that has no explanation in its edit summary, despite being asked three times now for one. Yes, responses of "nonsense" and "you are seriously POV-pushing right now" are deflections and non-responses to a civil request for an explanation. A more reasonable response from BabbaQ might have been along the lines of "Your edit removed information. If something is in the wrong section, place it in the right section. Don't remove it.". But I'm only guessing here. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That the whole point, I don't know if he think that it should be moved or ? (Because that information is already presented in the section I specified, its first word linking to an article that deals with this subject specifically, providing an uptodate figures from 2012 in the lead.) So by ignoring attempts to resolute, providing a simple explanation or offer his versio, he waste all of our time with this elaborate process, leaving me one edit short of 'editing warring'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have responded already. If that response was not what the IP wanted to hear that is not my problem. I think the IP was POV pushing and stand by it and the IP was reported to ARBPIA for a reason, and that is my final comment to this meta debate. I think that users Bwilkins and Demiurge1000 responses to my request is quite telling about the general consensus concerning these kind of debates. Especially this comment sums it up "When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. " Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- In light of further concerns, maybe you can help solve the issue and explain how exactly this edit was "POV pushing", after all my edit summary, contact to you and explanation here are detailed and technical enough for that.(the rest of your post is just more attempts to deflect, all of which related to your conduct here which I already covered in my previous post).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me IP 109 is making good faith efforts to discuss changes where BabbaQ is making invalid AIV reports, not using edit summaries and, rather than respond with logic or reason, so accusing 109 of POV editing. Not constructive. NE Ent 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with this assessment, NE Ent. I think there are some long-standing WP:CLUE issues here. Against the current (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Repeated copyright violations by Deonis 2012
User:Deonis 2012 has made the following copyright violations on Syria-related articles:
- National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, 19 Nov 2012 (cf [82] AFP)
- Siege of Base 46, 25 Nov 2012
- Battle of Aleppo (2012), 25 Nov 2012
- source of both: AFP
- Rif Dimashq campaign, 16:31 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP)
- Rif Dimashq campaign, 18:35 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP, NOW Lebanon)
He gave a source in each case, but didn't understand that giving a source does not justify copy/pasting into a Wikipedia article.
He was warned on his talk page on 20 Nov, 25 Nov and 1 Dec shortly after each of these incidents. He apparently is a fairly new user (started 7 Oct 2012) who has never given an edit summary, and has never edited any talk page. Despite his talk page being filled with warnings, he has apparently not realised that he has to talk to other editors and come to consensus. Apart from copyright violations, there are several claims by other editors (see his talk page) that he has been involved in edit warring.
It seems to me that at least a short block is needed in order to convince him that free-licensing of our material is critical to the project, and that he needs to read and understand Wikipedia copyright policy and communicate with other users through talk pages and edit summaries rather than let (at least) perceptions of edit-warring continue. Boud (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- A new copyvio, and no response from Deonis on his talk page (nor any other obvious place):
- Rif Dimashq campaign, 2 Dec 2012 (cf [83] AAP or the source that Deonis gave)
- Boud (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, they violated copyright in two edits to that article. One was rephrased by another editor. I reverted the other one. I have left a final warning on their talk page that any more copyright violations will result in a block. Please feel free to update this topic or leave a note on my talk page if they do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- They did it again. I think they're clueless, probably mistakenly believing that attribution eliminates the violation. I conservatively blocked them for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks and unfounded accusations by User:Delicious carbuncle
Delicious carbuncle recently proposed a unanimously rejected, and, I presume, soon-to-be-closed topic/interaction ban proposal on AN for User:Wnt. I am only vaguely familiar with the context of the case, mostly through scrolling through comments on threads DC's started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, as well as from having once skimmed through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ, in which DC was involved. (What can I say, I'm a lurker sometimes.) However, seeing the procedural notification at Jimbo's page about the AN thread, I took a look. I saw that DC had created a subsection accusing Shrigley of "gross personal attacks" for these two comments: [84] (DC's response) [85] (DC's response). I took the occasion to note, as an uninvolved editor, that Shrigley's remarks were critical, but by no means personal attacks, and that mislabelling them as such was bringing himself dangerously close to the BOOMERANG effect.
Well, the boomerang has indeed come around, in part due to these still-un-retracted overreactions, but primarily due to DC's subsequent response to my comment - fittingly, also consisting of unfounded accusations. To wit, DC immediately accused me of sockpuppetry, in this edit, which carried the summary "Hi Paolo!" (Googling Paolo delicious carbuncle led me to a Wikipedia Review entry where DC mentioned a User:PaoloNapolitano, who was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry.) I responded by requesting that DC either take me to SPI (a venue at which I am still fully willing and prepared to defend myself against these claims) or retract his accusation. He responded "I'm not in the mood for trolls today. If anyone wants to block me for implying that you aren't the new and uninvolved 16 year old gay user you pretend to be, I'm sure they will also take a close look at your contributions, too." (Seeing as I've never substantially contributed to any article, I'm not quite sure what this could be referring to. See also his comment to User:Monty845 a minute later.)
I've waited about four hours to report this, mostly because I wanted confirmation that Delicious carbuncle was neither willing to retract his accusation or take me to SPI. After leaving two comments [86] [87] to that effect, asking for a response at his talk page, and finally tracking him down to Commons and asking him there, he responded to my message at his talk page here with this comment, once again calling me a troll and accusing me of being a sock of PaoloNapolitano. (He also removed my comment on Commons, with the summary "Go away.")
WP:NPA#WHATIS notes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence" under "What is considered to be a personal attack?" In light of DC's repeated refusal to retract his allegations of sockpuppetry, despite a refusal to take such claims to the proper venue, it is on these grounds that I start this thread. My apologies for having written so much. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Does this really need its own thread? Why can't you just continue this selfsame discussion in the thread where it was already happening. Furthermore, demands for satisfaction based on perceived or actual insults rarely go well. Anyone observing Wikipedia for any length of time will find that zero times in history has someone who started a long TLDR thread which demands that action be taken against a person, as you have done above, results in anything. I have no idea if your complaint has merit or not, but I am just noting the historical futility of similar complaints. Good luck. --Jayron32 01:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm in a poorly written detective novel. I only called you "Paolo" - how did you -- a user who has only been here for less than a month -- know that I was referring to PaoloNapolitano? But seriously folks, can someone look at Shrigley's comments with that excerpt from WP:NPA fresh in their mind. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I googled Paolo delicious carbuncle. This was the first result. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only skimmed what you wrote and missed that part. My mistake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I googled Paolo delicious carbuncle. This was the first result. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Francophonie&Androphilie blocked and then unblocked with an apology by Coren
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- F&A, I am quite certain you feel confident that no SPI could be conclusive. I am also quite certain that you are not a new user, that you are using this account to avoid scrutiny (possibly including evading a ban), and that you occupations – quite frankly – center around trolling in and around drama. If I were you, I would avoid playing the role of the poor outraged innocent victim whose honor has been wounded; it does not suit you. The editor doth protest too much, methinks. — Coren (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Might I ask why it is that you're so sure? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is useful to consider how two different editors might react to DC's comments: (a) an editor focused on building content for the encyclopedia; and (b) a returned user with an agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- How would you have reacted to them, then? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is useful to consider how two different editors might react to DC's comments: (a) an editor focused on building content for the encyclopedia; and (b) a returned user with an agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Psst! Coren! Who Francophonie&Androphilie claims to be isn't an off-wiki secret. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, well, "claims" is the operative word here. — Coren (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- This cannot be a brand-new user, and hopefully they are not pretending to be one. Perhaps F&A learned the ropes as anon IPs before they registered this account? It happens. I couldn't even sign my name when I first joined (four tildes?). Initiating an AfD on their second day here?[88] New users just don't do that, IMHO. Doc talk 02:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- First, some facts. F&A has been here for about a month as a registered account. During that time, he has made 3,055 edits, of which 559 are to article space. The largest number of edits by category is 1,116 to user talk. Second, his claims. He says he's 16. He says he's Michael Kelly's son. He says his name is Tom. He says he's Jewish. Michael Kelly has a son named Tom. Michael's spouse, I believe, is Jewish. So, his claims are at least consistent with reality. Third, my speculation. If he is 16, he's precocious. Even if he's a quick study, he had to know something about Wikipedia before registering his account. He's a bit florid in style and likes drama (stereotypically, that goes with being gay, another of his claims). I think he's interesting and entertaining, although I think he goes overboard on occasion, but so do many, and precocious doesn't necessarily mean emotionally mature, and even if he is reasonably mature, at 16 how mature can you be? None of this means he's not a sock; none of it means he is. You may how return to your regularly scheduled programming.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- "stereotypically, that goes with being gay, another of his claims"? Would you care to retract your pushing of the stereotype?--Peter cohen (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC) (ec with following)
- First, some facts. F&A has been here for about a month as a registered account. During that time, he has made 3,055 edits, of which 559 are to article space. The largest number of edits by category is 1,116 to user talk. Second, his claims. He says he's 16. He says he's Michael Kelly's son. He says his name is Tom. He says he's Jewish. Michael Kelly has a son named Tom. Michael's spouse, I believe, is Jewish. So, his claims are at least consistent with reality. Third, my speculation. If he is 16, he's precocious. Even if he's a quick study, he had to know something about Wikipedia before registering his account. He's a bit florid in style and likes drama (stereotypically, that goes with being gay, another of his claims). I think he's interesting and entertaining, although I think he goes overboard on occasion, but so do many, and precocious doesn't necessarily mean emotionally mature, and even if he is reasonably mature, at 16 how mature can you be? None of this means he's not a sock; none of it means he is. You may how return to your regularly scheduled programming.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- This cannot be a brand-new user, and hopefully they are not pretending to be one. Perhaps F&A learned the ropes as anon IPs before they registered this account? It happens. I couldn't even sign my name when I first joined (four tildes?). Initiating an AfD on their second day here?[88] New users just don't do that, IMHO. Doc talk 02:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, well, "claims" is the operative word here. — Coren (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Might I ask why it is that you're so sure? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm widely believed to be a homophobe and I find your "stereotypically, that goes with being gay" comment offensive. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no intention of trying to pick up on my initial complaint (though I'd encourage another editor to review it, since I believe it still has merit), but I just wanted to address this one small point: Bbb23 wrote a lovely comment, and the association of my persona with my sexuality gave me a nice chuckle at a time when I didn't have much to laugh about. (Not because it's inaccurate; because pretty much no one's ever described me as stereotypically gay.) And frankly, with as effective a response as Bbb gave, he could've written "plus he's a faggot" at the end and I wouldn't have really minded. Thanks, Bbb for doing a little digging, and helping to make a little headway for me to clear my name. Also, Peter and DC: as long as you qualify a stereotype as a stereotype, in my book there's nothing more offensive in saying "homosexuals have a reputation for being dramatic" than saying "16-year-olds tend to be noticeably less mature than adults." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked the account as an obvious returning troll. Everyone here has much better things to do than waste time indulging this sort of theatre. — Coren (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I would have written all that if I'd known you were about to block him (we overlapped without an edit conflict).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no clue how I should react to this... But I came here to basically write what Bbb did. I do not think he's a sock, or if he is, someone should prove it. Even if he is, heck, we can IAR in this case.. He's a very good vandalism fighter. Very good. I haven't run into any troubles with his vandalism. I'm in the process of checking other Wikipedias to explain his knowledge, but for all we know he could have just been an IP editor before an account. I personally think this block goes against everything here. Don't say duck or troll.. He made one post here on AN/I that has an issue. Yet, he adds more value to the project than he takes away. I'm really not comfortable with this decision to block him (but what does my opinion matter in the big scope of things?), but if it stays, I guess I'll live with it. gwickwiretalkedits 03:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, after re-reading this, I'm still not comfortable with this block. Heck, regardless of socking, he's a great vandalism fighter. If you're going to block him as a sock, I'd like to know who so I can go look at it. If you're calling him a troll.. I don't agree. But I could be persuaded differently.. gwickwiretalkedits 03:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That block really does seem rather an overreaction. This thread is not trolling, DC has just been really annoying lately - ask anyone who frequents Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Completely agree. Or am I a sock too? /sarcasm ⁓ Hello71 04:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, the substance of this thread is not a factor in my block. I do think that DC is behaving a bit atrociously. But I've been keeping an eye on this account for a while, and there are tells in his complaint that confirm that he is a returning banned user rather than the character he portrays himself as. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, nice to see you here. Since Russavia and Fæ are both banned, perhaps you could solicit comments from them and paste them here. I'm sure they they would have something just as useful to add to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I won't presume to speak for Fae, but I expect Russavia's reply will take Polandball form. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That block really does seem rather an overreaction. This thread is not trolling, DC has just been really annoying lately - ask anyone who frequents Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
@Coren, obviously this is not a new editor. But how can you assume he is banned or his other accounts are blocked? Clean starts are permissible, no? Indef seems like a waste of a promising resource. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Clean starts are not permissible if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against the old account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The only way such a "clean start" could be effected by a sock of a banned or indef'd user would be by staying away from past problem areas and by strict adherence to the rules otherwise. Alas, socks of banned or indef'd users typically can't help going back to the scene of the crime - and typically stonewall requests about their past here... just before they get indef'd again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- So you indefblocked someone because you assume they're a sockpuppet and for nothing else? This is an abuse of power. SilverserenC 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Rising from the dead) Coren very graciously reverted himself and apologized. You can see the context for everything at my talk page. Would anyone mind if I collapsed all the stuff in here about my block? Not that I'm embarrassed about it - but it's a whole lot of text for someone to read about what in the end was a zero sum game. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Possibly time to close this discussion, perhaps?
- Coren has un-blocked F&A 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Coren has declined a CheckUser 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Carbs has apologised 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I myself am not yet fully convinced that F&A is who they say they are. Tough luck for me. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Apteva disruption
I warned him (see User talk:Apteva/Archive 3#Warning) that another disruptive move and I would ask for a block at AN/I. His previous round of disruptive RMs and MRVs all closed against him, and his continued disruption after that led to the RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva. Even with that open, and a ton of editors trying to explain to him that his last two months of behavior has been disruptive and needs to stop, he went ahead with this WP:POINTy new one at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy_9#Requested move.
I would appreciate it if an admin with no prior involvement with Apteva would take a look at these links and see if a block to prevent continuing disruption is in order. Of course, it should be made clear to him that if he wants to continue participating in discussion at the RFC/U about him, he can be unblocked easily by agreeing to hold off on the disruptive behaviors while the RFC/U is open. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is an absurd example of being pointy. The RFC/U is merit less. Comets are spelled with hyphens. No one can dispute that. Check with the IAU. I do not decide what punctuation to use in comets, nor does Wikipedia - the IAU does. Apteva (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)In all honestly, yes, Wikipedia does decide what punctuation it uses. And Wikipedia has repeatedly come to consensus that it should stay how it is. I agree that you opening another RM was pointy. The IAU can decide what punctuation it uses, but Wikipedia decides through established consensus what we use. gwickwiretalkedits 03:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be completely accurate, yes Wikipedia can do whatever we want to do, but our policies and guidelines are not normally in conflict with each other. In this case they are, with the policy, WP:TITLE, saying to use common use, and WP:MOS, a guideline, saying to use a hyphen for comets, but uses a dash in a comet as an example of using a dash, which creates a conflict with the policy. It is just oh so simple to fix this conflict - admit that no proper nouns ever use dashes, and be done with it. See Wikipedia talk:MOS#Three corrections. Make those those three corrections to the MOS and eliminate the conflict. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then work to fix whatever comet-specific guideline it is, such that it becomes, "WP naming of comets should follow IAU practice". I for one would support that, whether it's hyphens, endashes or Egyptian hieroglyphs.
- What you're actually doing though is pointy, disruptive edit-warring outside this. That's a no. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be completely accurate, yes Wikipedia can do whatever we want to do, but our policies and guidelines are not normally in conflict with each other. In this case they are, with the policy, WP:TITLE, saying to use common use, and WP:MOS, a guideline, saying to use a hyphen for comets, but uses a dash in a comet as an example of using a dash, which creates a conflict with the policy. It is just oh so simple to fix this conflict - admit that no proper nouns ever use dashes, and be done with it. See Wikipedia talk:MOS#Three corrections. Make those those three corrections to the MOS and eliminate the conflict. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)In all honestly, yes, Wikipedia does decide what punctuation it uses. And Wikipedia has repeatedly come to consensus that it should stay how it is. I agree that you opening another RM was pointy. The IAU can decide what punctuation it uses, but Wikipedia decides through established consensus what we use. gwickwiretalkedits 03:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Although you may hold the WP:TRUTH, we go by Consensus that has been reached on Wikipedia, and not someone else's consensus. Try to gain ground on MOS for your desired policy. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Until then, follow Wikipedia's policies. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I should point out that Apteva has tried, repeatedly, to "gain ground on MOS", and failed every time. It seems he just doesn't hear it. Powers T 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeeesh. I am fully aware of the local consensus at MOS, and I do not appreciate the squashing of my attempts to "gain ground" by calling the RM's "disruptive". If anyone has a better suggestion for methods of "gaining ground" I would appreciate hearing them. A block would be incredibly out of place. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I should point out that Apteva has tried, repeatedly, to "gain ground on MOS", and failed every time. It seems he just doesn't hear it. Powers T 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Pointy disruptive RM closed speedily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If he does one more actual move, tell me and I'll block him myself. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is he or she, thank you. This is like telling someone not to use the letter K. This not Sesame street. This is an encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not Sesame Street, why are you behaving like a child? You're right then, "if they do one more actual move, tell me and I'll block them myself. Better? Still just as valid. This is not telling you not to use the letter K, it's telling you to NOT use the letter K when the rules of the specific language call for a C. We have a specific language - use it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is he or she, thank you. This is like telling someone not to use the letter K. This not Sesame street. This is an encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If he does one more actual move, tell me and I'll block him myself. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
False claim of vandalism
It appears that a couple [89] [90] of my edits have been reverted by the User:The Banner, falsely – in my view – claiming to be "vandalism". -- KC9TV 04:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Have you tried talking to him about it? Monty845 05:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had only just noticed this. This is is only five o'clock here in England and in Ireland, and he would normally be asleep! -- KC9TV 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, wait until he and/or you are both awake, there's a good lad. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had only just noticed this. This is is only five o'clock here in England and in Ireland, and he would normally be asleep! -- KC9TV 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good morning. Nice to wake up with not one, but two AN/I notices on my talkpage. Unfortunately, mr. KCTV is so shocked about my bold moves to revert his edits, that he even forgets to start a proper discussion and give me time to reply on it. Even more unfortunately is that I regard dubieus claims of being British (living abroad does not change your nationality) as POV and/or vandalism. In the Cosgrave-case, he even made that claim based on a paywalled source that he clearly could not check: Copy-editing. (An article in an Irish newspaper (and behind a pay-wall) is NO conclusive proof – if not a potentially unreliable source – of British nationality or citizenship, or status as a British passport-holder.)) The same with the Ruth Dudley Edwards case, where he cherry picks a comment for the duscussion, claiming that she said " I am .... a British subject .... " Unfortunately, the original source states "I am an Irish citizen and a British subject, so I can have two passports." Based on that sentence, I would not dare to say that she indeed has a British passport, only that she has the possibility to have two passports. And with his vitriolic comment about her alleged catholicism (According to the "Irish" or the "Vatican" definition, perhaps, but according to the "English" definition (and she lives in England, not Dublin), she is most definitely a Catholic).
Ergo, in my opinion KCTV is a lovely dramaqueen with a POV-agenda to push his pro-British and anti-catholic stance. The Banner talk 11:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC) For the record: I am a Dutchman, living in Ireland for almost 7 years now)
- This is a content dispute; even you are completely "right" and they are "wrong", these edits are not vandalism, and it's inappropriate to label them as such. - SudoGhost 11:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I admit that the claim on Irish migration to Great Britain, is unnecessary harsh and a misclick. My apology for that. A simpel revert had been sufficient there. The Banner talk 11:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- As SudoGhost said, don't abuse Twinkle's vandalism roll-back feature. Mis-labelling people as vandals only makes content disputes like this worse, and you are already right in the middle of a topic area that is subject to extraordinary restrictions on rollback. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Especially don't abuse Twinkle in the British-v.-Irish Catholic-v.-Protestant area. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Idle threat????
Special:FeedbackDashboard/61351 See RosePetals talk page for the threat itself (from an IP). I don't know how to respond. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it could be a problem, depending on whether something further happens. IP's tend to come and go, so a single posting often doesn't result in a block, though a warning could be appropriate. As regards the general subject, I once scared away an intruder by raising my statue of Elvis as if to strike him. But it was only an idol threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever. It's an IP making a threat against a newish vandal account. Unless the vandal's username is used elsewhere on the web, I can't see the police doing anything.--Peter cohen (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- No further admin action needed - User:Baseball Bugs has been blocked before, but in this case he opines that the other feller should escape any such sanction. Here at WP:ANI we find Baseball Bugs' opinions to be of key importance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not exactly. I said often doesn't result in a block. That does not mean I'm calling for no block to be issued (nor do I deny that past blocks against me were justified), I'm just reporting the typical action (or lack thereof) often taken by admins. Also, my comment originally was in part a response to an editor who basically said "So what?" and then erased his own comment. Feel free to look for it in the history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, no admin action is required, either against the OP, nor against User:Baseball Bugs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given that, this section could be boxed up. So what's stopping you? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, no admin action is required, either against the OP, nor against User:Baseball Bugs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not exactly. I said often doesn't result in a block. That does not mean I'm calling for no block to be issued (nor do I deny that past blocks against me were justified), I'm just reporting the typical action (or lack thereof) often taken by admins. Also, my comment originally was in part a response to an editor who basically said "So what?" and then erased his own comment. Feel free to look for it in the history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring the above that appears to be more Demiurge1000 baiting Baseball Bugs than addressing the subject at hand, note that someone with access to the block tool had already seen this when it came up on the BLP noticeboard. I'm keeping an eye on developments. Neither 69.204.251.91 nor RosePetalCrush have behaved well, here. Qworty has since pointed out some further problems in edits by 69.204.251.91 (talk · contribs), and Qworty and another editor are already addressing the article. If anyone seeing this discussion on this noticeboard wants to be productive, helping out with the article, per the BLP noticeboard discussion, is what to do. It has been the almost exclusive domain of three single-purpose accounts since March 2012. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I will no longer try to edit this article. I don't want to waste people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosePetalCrush (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Filter 139
A little help would be appreciated on monitoring filter 139 - all hits should probably result in a block, but I can't keep up with the rate myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You know about User:Animum/easyblock.js right? --Rschen7754 07:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do now, thanks :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Widescreen and psychoanalysis
Widescreen has been involved in numerous disputes regarding psychological articles, often pushing a pro-psychoanalytic POV and removes well cited material that contradicts it. Recently he's been in slow moving edit war in the Psychoanalysis article and has been told multiple times not to and is editing against consensus.
Previously Widescreen has been blocked twice for edit warring in psychoanalytic/psychological articles.
Because its the third time this came up and because its specifically in psychological articles, I think its worth considering a short topic ban. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Worth noting that while Widescreen can go OTT, CartoonDiablo hardly comes here with clean hands. In a previous dispute between the two CartoonDiablo was proved wrong on the content issue and Widescreen right when other members of the community got involved. In that case CartoonDiablo was pushing a strongly CBT position. On that occassion CartoonDiablo used an ANI report to obtain a ban for Widescreen. So if there is to be a topic ban I'd be tempted to make it for both of them. ----Snowded TALK 07:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some further background is at this old arb request. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thats such a cheek of CartoonDiablo! Thats no Editwar, that was the result of the discussion [91]! CartoonDiablo starts this WAR. The last edit of CartoonDiablo on Talk:Psychoanalysis was at Okt. 16. --WSC ® 09:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the editor who drafted the material (cited to reliable sources) that WSC twice blanked (first and second edits linked in the OP. I have to say from my point of view that did feel like a short burst of edit warring. I had the suspicion that WSC seemed to be removing any material that described psychoanalysis as ineffective. We have discussed things on the article talk page however and I would like to AGF a little longer. I've invited WSC to add references to articles which he thinks should be cited, if he feels the article is poorly balanced. That would be a better way forward than removing material he disagrees with. I'm not in favour of a topic ban right now; what is needed is more editors with knowledge of the field and of WP policy to be active here (ideally in drafting additions to the article, and not merely talk-page commenting.) Sadly, as in many technical areas, editors who are knowledgable are likely to have a strong POV and those without a POV may not know the literature well! Full disclosure: I probably fall into the former camp, as a psychotherapy researcher and a cognitive analytic therapist. WSC's relatively poor written English (though better than my German!) does not help, but can we wait a little before invoking sanctions? I'd rather not ensure a quiet life at the cost of excluding an editor who seems familiar with the area but might just need some guidance. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- From my point of view, it seems like no one is really interested in high quality. Kim Dent-Bronw drops two selected studies in the article by ignoring about 10 others ([92]). But it seems like no action is required. There's "material (cited to reliable sources)", the autor itself called gold standard (Cochrane Collaboration) are still excluded. No sense of responsibility for our contens we presented our readers is apparent: "Maybe anyone will balance that in five years or so..." In my view that looks like lousy work mixed with indifference. I would call this a kind of "naive positivism" in wikipedia. What is verifiable by a more or less good source is right. But thats no quality at all! --WSC ® 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- KDH's advice about WSC sounds good. Looking at the talkpage with WP:AGF, I didn't as much get the impression that WSC was "removing material he disagrees with" as trying to put the section into balance. If the literature about some topic represents views A and B about equally, and the Wikipedia article cites 90% view A, then view A is overrepresented (wp:undue weight) and the long term remedy is to research and add citations for view B until the representation is equal. But in the short term, the article has a neutrality problem (WP:undue weight for view A) and WSC's doubts towards "naive positivism" (also called m:eventualism) are understandable. In WP practice it's generally not ok to remove well-cited material from an article without consensus, and certainly anything removed from the article in that situation should be transferred to the talk page for possible later re-use. A collaborative approach (not always feasible) is for editors (using their general familiarity with the literature) to agree ahead of time about how much representation each view should get in the article, and then collect citations and draft text in the talkpage until there's agreement that it's well-balanced and ready to put in the article. If that fails and there's a dispute, then yeah, our practice is to put a neutrality dispute tag into the article and WSC did that[93] per KDH's advice.[94]
KDH and WSC, is it reasonable to say that the two of you are getting along ok now? WSC, can you live with the current situation of having a temporarily unbalanced section with a neutrality tag, until more material can be added to balance things out, or else trying to reach some agreement on the talk page about what to use before removing stuff again? That leaves a possible issue with Cartoon Diablo and I wonder if KDH has any thoughts. Maunus in the checklist section of the talkpage makes the interesting point that "psychoanalysis is not primarily a clinical discipline - its aim is to understand the mind, not necessarily to cure it - that is only an incidental aspect of psychoanalysis." From that standpoint, maybe the entire clinical aspect is overrepresented in the article. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Quick response to the above: I don't think WSC and I (I presume you mean me when you type KDH above) are collaborating terribly well, no. But he has stopped blanking the material I added and I can tolerate the NPOV tag he has placed. I don't by the way agree that the section is currently unbalanced - there is some material speaking to the effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment and some saying it's less effective. That seems balanced to me and to reflect the current scientific consensus. But we are straying into content discussion here and the main issue, one of conduct, is not currently a problem as far as WSC and I are concerned, in my view. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- KDH's advice about WSC sounds good. Looking at the talkpage with WP:AGF, I didn't as much get the impression that WSC was "removing material he disagrees with" as trying to put the section into balance. If the literature about some topic represents views A and B about equally, and the Wikipedia article cites 90% view A, then view A is overrepresented (wp:undue weight) and the long term remedy is to research and add citations for view B until the representation is equal. But in the short term, the article has a neutrality problem (WP:undue weight for view A) and WSC's doubts towards "naive positivism" (also called m:eventualism) are understandable. In WP practice it's generally not ok to remove well-cited material from an article without consensus, and certainly anything removed from the article in that situation should be transferred to the talk page for possible later re-use. A collaborative approach (not always feasible) is for editors (using their general familiarity with the literature) to agree ahead of time about how much representation each view should get in the article, and then collect citations and draft text in the talkpage until there's agreement that it's well-balanced and ready to put in the article. If that fails and there's a dispute, then yeah, our practice is to put a neutrality dispute tag into the article and WSC did that[93] per KDH's advice.[94]
- From my point of view, it seems like no one is really interested in high quality. Kim Dent-Bronw drops two selected studies in the article by ignoring about 10 others ([92]). But it seems like no action is required. There's "material (cited to reliable sources)", the autor itself called gold standard (Cochrane Collaboration) are still excluded. No sense of responsibility for our contens we presented our readers is apparent: "Maybe anyone will balance that in five years or so..." In my view that looks like lousy work mixed with indifference. I would call this a kind of "naive positivism" in wikipedia. What is verifiable by a more or less good source is right. But thats no quality at all! --WSC ® 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The dispute is about adding a POV tag, notice WSC removed material and then added a POV dispute tag without discussing it. Later Snowded did the same (diff) and made no mention in the talk page as to why. It seems clear that WSC and Snowded are trying to remove anything critical of effectiveness, and if not, to insert POV tags without discussing why they did so to make it look like the section is flawed when it isn't.
- And to the other point, Psychoanalysis has been considered a clinical since the 1890s which is why there is a vast literature of its effectiveness to begin with. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- At present the main person I can see actively edit warring is CartoonDiablo with this latest reversion to remove a NPOV tag yet again. Now myself I don't think the NPOV tag is justified, but I don't think I'd be right to unilaterally remove it and nor is CartoonDiablo. The right thing to do is improve the article to provide a fuller, more balanced and fully detailed picture. Warring over the addition/removal of the tag does not improve the article for the average reader of Wikipedia who is in ignorance about what goes on under the bonnet. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Mongo Feels Better
Mongo Feels Better (talk · contribs)
Please could someone take a look at the behaviour of this editor. Their edits have been BLP/OR violations against one particular subject. This morning I asked this user to stop posting on my talk page if they can't do so within policy as I've had to redact much of their posts as BLP violations three times. The response was this, which seems to be a threat to sock. January (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've blocked the editor for 48 hours for BLP violations, sock puppetry threats, and personal attacks (calling you a "shill"). Do you have any clue as to who the editor is, i.e., have they edited here before using another account?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- First edit from that account suggested they were familiar with its history - I had a similar dispute with another account just before this one showed up, but didn't think at the time it was enough for an SPI as they could also be one of the various IPs who have been adding attacking/negative material over the last few years. There is a Facebook group and Twitter account about Ankit Fadia who have been discussing his Wikipedia article and this is probably bringing his critics here. January (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Woah, that looks to me like a pretty crappy article, and Mongo Feels Better's concerns are legitimate. Obviously MBF's edits to the article aren't the way we do things, but wp:don't bite the newbies is still best practice. I think MBF is basically right that the article should be deleted and I'm not impressed with January's approach to this. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I've got a tin foil hat on here, but could this user be in anyway an attempt to imitate, discredit, or in any way attack MONGO (talk · contribs)? – Richard BB 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, given MONGO's notoriety here, it would be hard not to wonder about any relationship between the two accounts (I don't mean sock puppetry), but there are so many meanings for the word, I figured it was coincidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- A possible relationship (in the broadest possible sense) between those two accounts was my first thought as well, but it seems to be purest coincidence—I don't see any overlap at all between their editing histories, so socking, taunting, or a job job all seem quite unlikely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I also thought of MONGO but it seems coincidental. Anyway (re Bbb23) I think an AfD for the article is sadly unlikely to succeed. It's an article about someone working in a technical field (computer security) sourced primarily by popular-press articles that a security professional wouldn't consider remotely reliable about security stuff. So it ends up with a heavy slant towards stuff coming from publications that are basically marketing adjuncts to the IT product industry, yet AFD is unlikely to be willing to get rid of it, and we end up looking stupid to knowledgeable readers. I have other stuff to do today but may look into it a bit more later. I'd support an unblock of MFB if he can agree to back off the invective and help with the article's neutrality (it does have some poorly source cruft in it). I may try to talk to him later if he's still around. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was initially suspicious of User:Jimbo online. Go figure. Per Bbb23 "Mongo" could mean pretty much anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I've got a tin foil hat on here, but could this user be in anyway an attempt to imitate, discredit, or in any way attack MONGO (talk · contribs)? – Richard BB 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A moving war on A.C. ChievoVerona
I think A.C. ChievoVerona to A.C. Chievo Verona is controversial. However i probably started a moving war. Would admin first blocked the page to move first in order to let involving parties to sit down a give citation for and against on proposed name? Matthew_hk tc 12:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that either version has ever been protected in any way, shape, or form, so I'm confused: what do you mean by the "admin first blocked the page"? If you could provide a link at which the page was blocked, it would help. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I request to protect it first in order to avoid moving war continues . Matthew_hk tc 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean that you already asked somewhere else, or is this thread the way you're asking? I'm not trying to make it hard for you; I just don't want to respond to your request only to find that you asked somewhere else and got a response different from what I gave. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I request to protect it first in order to avoid moving war continues . Matthew_hk tc 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I asked for somewhat intermediate measure on that page, as i moved back to the original namespace twice already. Or as lease someone with admin status to have a look. Or did i solved already by edited the page A.C. Chievo Verona? Matthew_hk tc 15:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
User Anarose.antonio
- User being reported: Anarose.antonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Still introducing copyrighted images after talk page warnings and a previous block for copyvio: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]
Anarose.antonio seems to be motivated to improve articles related to Asian TV stars. Unfortunately we don't know whether they understand talk page messages, as they do not respond, nor use edit summaries. It is hard work picking through a long list of trial-and-error edits to find the problems. – Wdchk (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt that they do not understand talk page messages as they are able to navigate around the project just fine, heck they even know to upload the files to Commons. Additionally, they are currently serving a one week block on Commons for copyvios. I'm thinking that might solve the issue for now. Tiptoety talk 21:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Advice needed
Hi. Not sure if this the right place so please redirect me if necessary. If you examine some of my recent edits you will see I have overwritten certain material which in my opinion should not be on the site, even if the original editor does have justification through "history". Can you advise me if I have acted correctly and point me towards relevant guidelines in case I should need to explain myself. How does one go about becoming an admin, subject to first gaining sufficient experience? Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is the second time I have posted this today. The first was summarily removed by User:Widescreen without any explanation. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you post your first question at WP:EAR. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits you want others to look at. As for your second question, I think it's a little early for you to even think about becoming an admin, but if you're feeling really masochistic, you could start watching places where admins hang out (heh), like here, WP:AN, WP:RFA, and a whole slew of other administrative noticeboards. Also, it never hurts to read up on policy, guidelines, etc., to become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
User:76.189.126.40
IP account is engaged in edit warring on a talk page (removing posts by others) [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]. Any attempts to diffuse the situation have been met with hostility. "You have been educated" [107] "Stay off" [108] "You think you have any authority Rushyo" [109] and any notices/warnings have been deleted and ignored with threats [110] "You've been warned, stay off my talk page" [111].
Diffs demonstrating further incivility towards others: "Do you not understand English" [112] "As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing" [113] "Go away, sock. Your use of so many different accounts and laughable interpretations of how Wikipedia works make you someone that cannot be taken seriously. You don't even know how to spell your own name." [114] "Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all" [115].
I'm only just scratching the surface of this behaviour, which appears to be systematic towards a variety of editors. Add to that really quite absurd accusations of harassment [116] [117] [118] and I find it hard to find anything redeemable in this user's editing, he's just combative and uncivil. Attempting to de-escalate this behaviour is not working. -Rushyo Talk 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was just about to come here and request the same thing. The user is perceiving personal attacks where there are none. As I advised the user, removal of comments from talk pages should only be done in very serious circumstances (either ongoing WP:NOTFORUM contributions or clear personal attacks), and only be done by involved contributors in the most obvious and extreme circumstances where everyone would agree. I get that 76 believes there is sockpuppetry going on on that page, but s/he has yet to provide any actual evidence of that. Yes, that page is a mess, with a variety of people misunderstanding policy, and attempting to use Wikipedia for to advance their own personal causes...but especially in the last 24 hours, I think we're starting to get somewhere. The attacks on others are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- A note: I am very likely going to be away from Wikipedia for a few hours, so I won't be responding here rapidly; more importantly, I won't be here when the block expires, and comments on the user's talk page make me think the user may not be done reverting. So, eyes would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't see this - I have extended the block for 48 hours. IP is definitely WP:NOTHERE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
N-Word
Not sure if this should be for AIV or here. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- AIV will work fine in the future, but either way I have blocked the IP. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've RevDel'd the diff, and the edit summary of another containing the same phrase. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Block review
This recent AN/I discussion ended with me blocking two litigants on opposing sides of a court case who had brought their fight to Wikipedia. I unblocked one of them, Mary Cummins, after she agreed not to continue the legal battle on-Wiki. She subsequently started to comment on her own talk page, discussing the case and presenting her side of the argument. I warned her not to do this again, but she subsequently took the argument to another editor's talk page. I have blocked her and said I'd bring the block here for review. I will notify her immediately now that I have done so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If parties to a legal case are fighting each other here, they've not violated the letter of WP:NLT, because they're doing more than threats: they've already sued. Blocking them is the only way to follow the spirit of WP:NLT. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- No issues, as per Nyttend. Of course, stating your case on Wikipedia instead of holding onto it until your court date is pure stupidity ... but I digress. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Wikipedia contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Good block. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Good block. little green rosetta(talk)
- Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Wikipedia contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This editor is now requesting unblock. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- BWilkins declined the unblock request. I was about to do the same, but he's faster than I am. In her previous unblock request, the editor stated, "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." There are other reasons to decline the request, but her violation of that alone would be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Cut and paste copyvio fix
Hey Wikien2009 blanked User:Auric/Lia 19 with this edit then created Lia (actress). Auric's copyright was violated because attribution was not given in the cut and paste move. There was also some poor form on the part of Wikien2009 by even creating a page using Auric's content even if he had correctly given attribution. Can an administrator fix the copyvio by performing a history merge? Ryan Vesey 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Very poor form, very sneaky; but Auric does not own the "copyright": "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ("You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.") Keri (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Auric does own the copyright. He holds a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright license. The conditions of that license were not upheld in Wikien2009's cut and paste move. When you post something on Wikipedia, you do not release it into the public domain. Ryan Vesey 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are mistaken. And even if you were correct, Wikien2009 "distributed" the work under the exact same licensing as Auric, which is all that the license requires. Keri (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're very wrong. Wikien "stole" the work of another editor(s) and claimed it as their own. That's removal of the input/work that Auric had put into it, and thus violated the attributions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- You need to re-read the GFDL: "2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." As you clearly do not grasp what that entails, there is no point my continuing this thread. Keri (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're very wrong. Wikien "stole" the work of another editor(s) and claimed it as their own. That's removal of the input/work that Auric had put into it, and thus violated the attributions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are mistaken. And even if you were correct, Wikien2009 "distributed" the work under the exact same licensing as Auric, which is all that the license requires. Keri (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Auric does own the copyright. He holds a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright license. The conditions of that license were not upheld in Wikien2009's cut and paste move. When you post something on Wikipedia, you do not release it into the public domain. Ryan Vesey 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)