Perhaps someone might be kind enough to have a tactful word with user:Allstarecho about canvassing, and also point out that yes we do delete biographies where the subject expresses a clear preference for not having an article, if the subject is of marginal notability (e.g. a not terribly significant musician with a part in one indie film). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that and a bundle of others; they all came along to !vote Keep. Which is fine as it goes, but as I say, canvassing is not really encouraged. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the word has been had, check his talkpage (also, I think the note was posted before this thread). Avruchtalk 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me state, for the 3rd time (2 in other places) that I was not canvassing. I was notifying people who have particpated on the articles talk page in the past. What should be reported here is that you removed content while the article is under protection and then nommed the article for deletion. And thanks for letting me know I was being discussed here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets not attack the user unless need be. The edits were perfectly proper under WP:CANVAS. LambtonT/C 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no canvassing, only canvassing paranoia. I'd also like to add that there's never been consensus regarding bio subjects requesting deletion, and how much that should effect a deletion decision. It barely clings to WP:BLP because some people believe they are more qualified than others in judging issues of morals. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I also see no canvassing. I came and voted keep, but nobody left a notice for me. The fact that the AfD is heading for an overwhelming keep is not due to canvassing. DGG (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There remain some errors on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The following decision was altered, reversing the original reporter (me) and the reportee (G2Bambino):
I'm not going to get into altering this myself for obvious reasons. It came about because of a good-faith typo editing error by G2bambino.
G2bambino's original posting against me was deleted by me (unintentionally) and no administrator ever saw it. I submitted my complaint minutes after his, and thought it was a duplicate post of mine. So I guess it's only fair to restore this one and have an administrator rule on it.
I know this is a mess that neeeds to be verified and no one wants to deal with it, but the record should be corrected. Is there some uninvolved party that can handle this maybe?
I'm not against the restoration of this report, but I wonder about the worth; the report is actually against User:Quizimodo; every edit linked ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) is his, not mine. I've only made two edits to Dominion in the past two months.--G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The warning was against you and User:Quizimodo for removing neutrality tags I'd placed on the Dominion page; your warning is listed as being against me; for obvious reasons, that's unfair. You (mistakenly and in good faith as I explained) switched our names on the decision. Doing this got you blocked, until we figured out that you thought you were correcting what was a typo. I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged this and at least switch this back. In return, I offer to restore your original complaint against me for restoring these neutrality tags, a report I had accidentally deleted (also in good faith) as a double posting of my own complaint. I think that's fair. --soulscanner (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
New user User:Lostanos tagging other users as confirmed socks
Lostanos (talk ·contribs) has tagged at least a dozen user pages as confirmed socks of Hkelkar (talk·contribs). Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Lostanos (talk ·contribs)'s entire edit history is sticking Helkar sockpuppet tags on Users' User pages. Corvus cornixtalk 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please block this guy ASAP and delete all of his nonsense edits. Corvus cornixtalk 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely - might be an innocent explanation, but there's something certainly not right about those edits. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we go about cleaning up his mess now? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I just spot-checked about a dozen of the accounts Lostanos tagged, and all of them were indefinitely blocked as socks of Hkelkar. But they were all blocked on October 26, 2007, so I agree there isn't much value to posting a bunch of sock tags tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
They just asked for an unblock claiming that all the tags were on blocked but untagged hkelkar accounts... which appears to be correct, on spot check of 20 of them.
It's obviously not a real new user, and it's really darn suspicious to me... but I'd like second opinions on whether to leave blocked or not. One thing that occurs to me is that it might be Hkelkar doing a PR stunt run.
In the meantime, I think maybe just leave the tags as is, as they appear to be right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My immediate thought was an Hkelkar sock. Corvus cornixtalk 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say there's enough here for a checkuser, to see if it is a hkelkar sock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I was way ahead of you on that one. Filed and listed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Entirely possible, but the question remains: how in heaven's name was this disruptive? Relata refero (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Moreschi and Relata, Not me. I didn't go anywhere near there. It could very well be a PR stunt by the dirty guru, as GWH suggested.59.91.253.184 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates.
I'll repeat what I told another admin just earlier to keep it simple:
"I'm not sure why you told me to go to ANI, the first thing I saw was a notice board telling me to report vandalism at the page that I reported it on. I'll explain the issue to you, perhaps you can help.
Ned Scott is taking ownership of templates that he created on the grounds that he has every right to make each template a unique color and size. Personally, when viewed on the pages these templates are featured on it detracts from the article, and in some cases is a technical issue of being difficult to read due to poor color choice and cause the template to look bad on lower screen resolutions. This is not the reason I posted his username on Admin intervention, the reason is how uncivil he has been towards me and how poorly he has been going about "fixing" the problems that he sees.
He has been using the undo function on about 30 separate templates reverting back to, in many cases, his last personal edit of that template. The problem with this is that in addition to removing the unsightly styling he also removed code tidying that I performed and worse other user edits that include things like adding and updating links, so on and so forth. I have brought this to his attention I believe three times now, but he continue to, by the definition of the word, knowingly vandalize these pages destroying positive and useful edits made by multiple users.
I invited him to discuss the styling issue he had with other members of video game project and me and kick started the discussion. Responses have mostly been that other felt the same way as me about personal styling on what's suppose to be a standardized way of navigating between pages of a related article. In that same discussion another admin warned Ned about using undo, and Ned's response was that he'd stop. He has not stopped. The most recent act of vandalism marks the fourth time he's done blind mass-undos and despite being told in plain english, continuing to ignore changes made by other users. In a few cases other users were turning his edits around in protest, and he goes and revert their changes as well.
Ned has been wholly uncooperative with me about this, I have attempted to communicate and failed, I have brought him into discussion and failed, I have given his very merciful warnings and failed. Unless someone intervenes and puts a stop to it he will continue to disregard his infractions and fellow Wikipedians. He even pulled his own warning off the intervention page, tell me yes or no if that was acceptable behavior.
It is far beyond a simple disagreement and I regret not putting it on the dispute page earlier, but this immaturity is destructive to this project and needs to stop."
If this is the best place to seek help regarding the issue then that's fine, but Ned should know better than to do a blind undo when he's been told repeatedly they are destroying valid changes. He's behaving childish towards me, calling me a liar, etc., and will not attempt to create middle ground. I don't have the patience for blunt-faced attitudes like this so I need help. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a few things wrong in this post. For one, never have I claimed that I created these templates.. I'm not sure why Aeron thinks so. Second, only originally did I completely undo his edits, since I saw his other modifications as minor technical changes. Since then I've made sure that those edits were saved, and made independent edits to add back in custom options that the templates originally had. He's completely wrong about me restoring to a completely older version, even though I've specifically pointed this out to him more than once.
You can see my original comments to him regarding this issue: [9], [10], [11]. If anyone could please talk some sense into Aeron I would be greatly indebted to you. -- Ned Scott 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Might as well get in on this while I can. I first encountered a conflict with Aeron here and again here. Notice that I didn't revert the template code back from when it looked like this because I generally agreed with the navbox look; the only issue was the width which I thought didn't look so great when the entire right side of the template is empty when at full width (on my screen). I was going to revert him again on the issue, but then User:Servant Saber got involved, only to revert himself which I found odd, so I checked his talk page and came to this discussion (I'm the 'other guy' he refers to btw) where Aeron talked about how the template at 50% the screen width would look very different then at my full width. Realizing this, I did a test by shortening my browser window and realized what he was getting at, so I went along with his edits. Then Ned got involved and (since I've had a good amount of experience with Ned in the past) I knew things were going to heat up since in my experience Ned can be very steadfast in his points and likes to do things quickly without much hesitation, or so I've come to realize through working with him for close to two years now on various issues. I knew that if Ned started reverting things, Aeron probably would too, and if he did that, Ned would just revert him again, and I see this is what happened, which of course leads us here.
My opinion on this issue falls on three template which I created: {{Key}}, {{Strawberry Panic!}}, and {{Higurashi no Naku Koro ni}}, so naturally I have them on my watchlist, so I was able to notice when the code was being edited. After either Aeron or Ned would edit, I'd come in and create a middle ground so the template still looked nice rather than disjointed, but I didn't revert either of their edits, mainly because I didn't want to get in the middle of it. In the end, the discussion about template widths made me agree that perhaps putting the template on full-width is better, but that's pretty much the only thing I agree with Aeron on regarding these templates. I do not see a problem with the colors, even though I've never used them myself, but that's because I'm too lazy. Also, I saw at {{Navbox}} that there are two bullets you can use in the template, {{·}}, and {{•}}, and seeing as I had a choice between the two, I chose the former since it was less obtrusive and looked better, though Aeron later reverted me on {{Key}} with this edit, saying that the much bolder separators are easier to see on higher resolution screens, and since I didn't feel like edit waring over such a tiny issue, I didn't really care, even if I do prefer the less bolder bullets. This comes back to Aeron's template standardization efforts, and the fact that he is not leaving any room for any deviation from a single standard, but I say what's the point in even having two different bullets to separate links in a template if we are only ever going to use one because it's "easier to see on higher resolutions". Same thing goes for template colors and width choices, since they are still a part of the navbox template code, and they were put there so people wouldn't have to only make a single choice when making a template and could somewhat color outside the lines a bit if they felt like it.
In short, there's no real policy or guideline preventing users from being a bit creative or having the choice what bullet type to use for a given template, and I do not think Aeron really has any real backing in order to systematically alter all the templates used on Wikipedia under a single standard due to there being no consensus as to use a single standardized template or not. I'd recommend Aeron start a discussion at WP:MOS or someplace similar which could get a community-wide discussion going as to whether templates should all look exactly the same or not, rather than just a tiny discussion at WikiProject Video Games.--十八 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a classic case of WP:BRD with Ned conducing the reverting part. There is no guideline or manual of style recommending the use of {{Navbox}}, so it is left up to the individual template editors and the related WikiProjects on whether to use it and how. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My monitor is 1680x1050 and only 15.4", and I can see the small bullets just fine. I agree the width probably should be full, since many navboxes need it, and having a standard is usually a good idea; and, horizontal nav bars in web pages general are full-width. It also makes sense since nothing else can/would ever go on the left/right of the box anyway, so I don't see the need to limit the width. Full width means they can be as wide or narrow as people need them to be, as opposed to specifying a set width, which limits everyone needlessly. Equazcion•✗/C •14:08, 10 Feb 2008 (UTC)
"wikipedia's policy's on civility including alluding to other editor's being less informed, intelligent or otherwise seemingly inferior to you are simply not acceptable. Not if you're in a bad mood, not if you feel you've explained everything already or for any other reason. In your latest (and, to me, excessive) reply to me you've insinuated that I'm "huffy or stupid", have "nothing but a bag of personal feelings", called me "parochial", non-objective; you've insinuated that I want to use anything but reliable sources which is simply false. I think you've again crossed the line but I'll invite you to ANI to see if I'm off-base on this."
As I'm one of the involved parties I didn't think I should post a civility warning on their talk page. I also didn't comment on their response, in the same edit, to another user that also seems to be full of borderline statements. This RfC has been a series of editors who state their concerns and this user verbosely counters apparently swaying no one. Personally I would have walked away, however, I feel their aim to install an image that the majority of those editors on the RfC have deemed unneeded is persistent and needs to be addressed. Benjiboi 10:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Previous request for advice. Benjiboi 11:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that Arcayne gets away with a lot of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, largely since his comments are just so lengthy. El_C 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good summary. He's gotten better since joining, but he can backslide. ThuranX (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I admit that I can get pretty hot under the collar - as those who have posted in response here have, as well. I will also admit that my growing frustration with what I feel as a small group of three people determined to ignore/misinterpret wiki policy, guidelines and instead display rather OWNish behavior in the article has allowed me to forget to be more patient and polite. I will certainly work on that, and I had in fact apologized for my slip. Feeling a bit like Sysiphus made me lose my temper a bit.
While we are on the topic, it would be splendid to have some admin eyes on the article. Two editors - of which Benjoboi is one - have ignored my suggestions that they consult with an admin on the policy on point, or seek MedCab. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you need an admin? El_C 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I think it might be helpful if it weren't just myself pointing out policy and guidelines. I certainly feel that way, esp. when the sole reasoning for keeping the image out is the 'i don't like it' corker. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've commented there, but just as a uninvolved user. DGG (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry of Neutralhomer
Per pretty clear evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neutralhomer, I have indefinitely blocked Flatsky (talk·contribs) as a sockpuppet of Neutralhomer(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) used only when evading blocks. Flatsky's edits all took place during periods when the other account was under a block (within an hour of his Sept. 3 block and two days after his Jan. 10 block). Because of this, I have also reset that Jan. 10 block. Just posting this here for other eyes on it. Metros (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's getting to the time when we'll need to kick Neutralhomer out for good. He's causing more problems here than he's solving. The next block should really be indefinite. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article... 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have done it this time. He's had plenty of chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I did have that thought, but decided to just reset it. If anyone wants to open discussion on an indefinite block or just put one in place, they'd have my full support. Metros (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. βcommand 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutralhomer clearly desires to help edit Wikipedia, but his interactions with Calton and JPG-GR tend to be disruptive. Could we try to think of some creative solutions, as opposed to extending the block on the main account? Here are my thoughts.
One thing that seems to get him into trouble is his use of automated reverts, like TWINKLE & popups. Why not remove all popup-enabled tools from his monobook and then protect it? If he wants to add a script, he could ask a sysop. (I recall that he and Riana are on friendly terms.)
Also, does he edit in the same areas as Calton? If not, I say we limit both of their interactions with each other. (I say "each other" because interactions, initiated by whomever, between Neutralhomer and Calton, tend to result in Neutralhomer getting blocked.)
I'm not certain how we can manage his relationship with JPG-GR ... as I recall, they frequently edit in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could do some type of probation or mentorship with an admin?
What do others think? --Iamunknown 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The blanking and protection of his monobook was done on one occasion - I think TW is a problem for him but his incivility is far worse. I've often interacted with him *during* his disputes and he's been perfectly friendly to me, and turns around to be as rude as possible to his 'opponent'. JGP-GR has been civil in his interactions with NH, despite his attitude, so I wouldn't object to a mentoring relationship there - I think it would be best to have an admin experienced in that area. Calton goes out of his way to belittle Homer, but if the latter is banned from interacting with him (I'd say they should both be, but Calton doesn't go looking for NH, it's the other way around), I'd be satisfied. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reality check: when Neutralhomer stalks my edits by blindly reverting and then proceeds to leave a series of actively insulting messages on that my talk page ("Ma'am"?), then that is NOT "go[ing] out of his way to belittle" him, at least not on this planet. I had not the slightest awareness of his newest incarnation before he inserted HIMSELF into my awareness by the aforementioned behavior. That's a problem with his impulse control and nothing to do with me. --Calton | Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
An update: I am in contact with Neutralhomer, who states that he currently retired and that he does not plan to contest the current block on his account. If he were to want to come back (I hope he does), I hope that we would try more creative solutions than, as mentioned above, a swift "kick" and an indefinite block. --Iamunknown 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't gonna comment here at all, as I frankly want nothing to do with User:Neutralhomer, but how is his statement of being "currently retired" any different from the large box saying the same thing that he posted on his user and talk pages... before he started editing under a separate account to avoid a block? I have complete faith in the fact that he will be back -- whether he comes back in a month as User:Neutralhomer or turns up under another name remains to be seen. JPG-GR (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdsdfsdf
I draw your attention to User:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdsdfsdf. I'm 99% sure that someone with that user name isn't here to do much good --Capitana (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for violation of WP:U (lengthy and random username). For future reference, there is a dedicated board for reporting inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA. Sandstein (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that we don't block lengthy and random usernames anymore. That clause was removed from the policy after a discussion at WT:U where nobody could come up with a good reason why they should be blocked. While it is true that many users with random-looking usernames are vandals, we are already quite good at blocking vandals for vandalism, and this habit of blocking people for "looking like they were about to vandalize" simply created far too many incorrect blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Jazzing up text with html
– Article speedy deleted
A new user has been jazzing up an article (apparently about himself) with html. I reverted it as I presumed it's a violation of WP:STYLE to do this, but I can't actually find anything at the style page that forbids this. Are you allowed to do this or not? Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd classify that as disruptive. You should politely inform the user on how we format articles, and report him to WP:AIV if he continues to apply idiosyncratic HTML formatting. Sandstein (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It was originally listed for deletion, but I tagged it to be speedied, which was rejected, so the deletion discussion has been resumed. The article creator tried to remove the speedy-deletion tags, which I warned them for. I'm still surprised this article was rejected for a speedy deletion- it has five cleanup tags on it, and appears to be an advertisement and non-notable... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a blantant copyvio and should be speedy deleted. Lara❤Love 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(after EC)It looks like the jazzed up version was copied/pasted from here. The jazzed up version was then toned down to wikipedia standards but the information remained intact. AngelOfSadness talk 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object, then, if I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Article has already been deleted. Momusufan (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who rejected that speedy, but I just deleted it. It's not only blatant advertising, it was also a copyright violation in its entirety. A copy/paste including HTML tags of their own website. Unsourceable and placed here only to promote themselves. Lara❤Love 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Question - if its his own website, written by himself, why is it a copyright violation? Isn't he simply releasing his work under GNU Free? Avruchtalk 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
But getting back to the basic principle - where does it actually say you can't use HTML extensively in creating an article? I've always assumed you can't, but I haven't come across anything in the policy pages that says as much. Shouldn't there at least be a line or two in the style guide about this? Gatoclass (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a cold war going on at Ang Lee, Lust, Caution (film) and probably other, related places. In particular, User:TheAsianGURU has made multiple edits to Lust, Caution (film) to remove or dilute references to Taiwan, such as here. I got involved when I noticed that they had removed a sourced fact and used a misleading edit summary. Can someone step in before this gets out of hand? Thanks. David Lodge (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean this edit. The one you point to is an innocuous edit by an anon IP. Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I meant this one, which I have corrected above. Your diff is the edit that got me involved in this. Thanks. I see you got bit by this already [12]. David Lodge (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
This guy is someone's sockpuppet. I can't remember who's, though maybe one of you can. The history is the guy only edits his own page and always has all caps username. Please block, and if you know who it is, please tag him. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions I don't see any disruptions, vote-stacking etc. If you have reason to believe that this is a sock of a banned user, then I guess we should block him/her. I suggest we wait and see how this user edits the mainspace.Bless sins (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
By all means. In fact, this user has created several sockpuppets, and as said, has been blocked in the past for constantly creating WP:MYSPACE violation accounts, of which this is clearly just another. Therefore, let me make clear, that even if the user wasn't officially banned, he was blocked for precisely this type of action. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a valid request. I do remember the case from AN/I last month or maybe the previous, I've also unfortunately forgotten the identifying details. Orderinchaos 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Threats and unacceptable behaviour
The user Wilhelmina Will delighted us with outburst such as this [13] already yesterday and was warned that such behaviour is unacceptable [14]. Today, the user is back threatening me with a hospital visit [15]. JdeJ (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Gave him a level 4 warning about civility. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No final warning needed after that ("you will have more money than you could ever dream of spending, but you'll never have enough to pay your medical bills") threat, or "curse." Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Administrator removing NPOV tag on Hilary Clinton BLP after 13 minutes
NPOV tag says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."User:Stephan Schulz removed taghere.Tvoz did the same 2 weeks ago. There have been 8 different editors expressing 8 different specific npov concerns, yet article managers/watchers will not allow NPOV tag to stay on the article long enough for the broader community to reach a consensus.
I have had a look at the article talkpage. It seems pretty active, with participants including you and Tvoz. Therefore whatever POV concerns there are seem to be debated. NPOV tags are fine where an article is inactive, or there is only one POV that is being given, but where there is active debate it may itself be POV to place such a tag on the article; as it is a bit like waving a flag saying "Beware - this article may not be 100% accurate/unbiased" which could be considered sensitive under the current circumstances. I shouldn't worry too much about the process, just as long as your concerns regarding the content are being addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I just removed M.ge's POV-tag that he readded. This article (as well as Barack Obama's) has a long history of people using the POV-tag (and other tags as well) as weapons to try to force the content they want into the article. Bellwether BC 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This "Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." is what I am relying upon.
It's ridiculous that the NPOV tool (tag) is being seen (not only in this article) as as a "weapon" or red flag. Where is that paranoia and assumption of bad faith coming from? It's not to be found in policy. Maybe "POV-check" is seen as less of a weapon; I'll put that on as a last effort. Or maybe the NPOV tag should be dispensed with if it has taken on various negative assumptions as to its intent; but it's patent nonsense to have a NPOV policy endorsing the use of the tag which article watchers/managers quickly remove. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Last sentence of the second paragraph at WP:NPOVD says that "tags should be added as a last resort". I maintain that since the talkpage is very active then the likelihood is that any one area of disputed POV is being discussed, and if an area of dispute isn't being discussed it is because the previous one hasn't been agreed on yet. As for your own example, I note that tags may be removed if there is consensus; and since different editors have seen fit to remove the tag then there is likely consensus to do so. As for accusations of bad faith, I would comment that there seems to be an assumption on your part that removal of the tag by "article watchers/managers" is itself a biased action, even though it appears that you are active on the talkpage. Finally, NPOV/D does not endorse use of the tag - it allows/permits its use, per my first point. I doubt if you are going to get a sysop to intervene in this matter, and can only suggest that you raise this point with whatever other concerns you have with the article at that talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Siddharth.igcse
User:Siddharth.igcse seems to be a vandalism-only account. His latest marauding ([18]) was in Fuck#John le Fucker, replacing "John" 3 times by an Indian name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: the last one was almost a week ago. - Revolving Bugbear 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have issued him/her a level 3 vandalism warning. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I indefblocked. Clearly nothing but vandalism was ever going to come from that account. Enough already. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
factual error on the main page
Factual errors on the main page makes all of us look bad, but only admins can fix such problems. Can someone with sysop powers attend to the error reports at WP:ERRORS, pls? Thanks. --74.13.129.197 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the two reports for DYK. Nakon 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. --74.13.129.197 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure asking two people is really in the realms of disruptive canvessing, and given that people certifying are "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute", if they haven't they can't certify. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the MFD and comments from the parties involved in the canvassing for the full context. This whole thing has basically turned into an effort to do a retaliatory smear against User:Cumulus Clouds. Lawrence § t/e 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree strongly with the above editor. I do not think notifying two people about an RfCU which they could potentially certify qualifies as canvassing. The editor is simply pointing out to two editors whom he believes could certify that the RfCU has met the two person threshold has been met that they could indicate as much. It is a bit of a request, but it basically as neutrally-worded, and certainly about as short, as such a request could be. I don't see any reason to believe that the behavior guideline has been violated in any meaningful way. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well your message is rather opaque, perhaps if there is stronger background to believe something disruptive is occuring you should post more complete information and not assume everyone reading here will have an indepth knowledge of the background. I haven't gone off and looked but stand by my original comment. The only people eligible to certify the RFC is a pretty limited audience, if those two aren't in the correct position to certify, then they'll be ignored and the RFC closed anyway. If there was a broader audience who could certify that the message should have gone to, I'm not sure it makes much difference, they've restricted the possibility the RFC will be certify by not giving a broader coverage. Remember everyone can participate in the RFC if it is certified and all parties to the dispute are going to be the subject of the comments, including the originator. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You are supposed to have others certify and sign that they have attempted to dissipate the problem. How else am I supposed to let them know? Are they just supposed to watch the entire page 24/7 and see if a dispute they were interested in pops up? You will note I did not ask them to support me in any way, only to certify that there is a basis for the dispute. If you will also note, they have not endorsed my opinion either. Perhaps this could be clarified in the directions. — BQZip01 —talk 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not had a dispute with any of those editors outside of a pre-existing conflict with you. None of them have previously attempted to resolve any dispute with me, but all of them have voted in your favor or argued in your defense on the MfDs, in the original ANI request and at your RfA. Your request for their assistant was performed in bad faith. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That they had an opinion regarding the subject is irrelevant. It is simply certification that they have tried (and talk pages qualify too). It doesn't mean that anyone should/shouldn't support/oppose based on that input, but that something has been tried and didn't work. No malice should be assumed in certification (it is merely acknowledging that a conflict exists - I think we can both agree on that - and that this is the appropriate forum - which it is). — BQZip01 —talk 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He may correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not in conflict with Johntex (or BillCJ) about anything outside of your dispute with me. Neither of these users have ever engaged me in a discussion about any of my edits independent of the MFD, ANI or RFA. I don't see how either one of them could certify this issue. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that part of the problem was your edits on the RfA, ANI, and MfD, his input certainly is valid. You don't have to have a conflict with him personally for him to certify he tried to resolve the dispute and failed. — BQZip01 —talk 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This was not user canvassing with respect to the message on my page at all. I had already declared my intention to certify the RFC. BQ was just letting me know it was ready. Johntex\talk 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The same here. People should read WP:CANVAS. This is not a violation, regardless of who is being asked. A few more recruits, and it would be good of someone to investigate any possible partisanship, though. LambtonT/C 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
During the recent ArbCom election, I asked the candidates for their views on the fairness of RFC's on user conduct. One of the most mentioned problems was insufficient input. Posting messages to talk pages is one of the few methods available and known to an average editor. To say that the people involved in an RFC (on either side) can't use this method would be ridiculous. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Asside from the obvious lack of consnsus for inclusion, the link invariably fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I would be interested in broader consensus on the issue. --Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree and have re-added it to the local blacklist for now. This is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, so I guess we probably don't need it here as well. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Wikidas and User:79.97.0.103 are vandalizing articles suck as I-Foundation and just being a nusance. Thanks. Any help would be appreciated, I don't know where to go from here - but I don't wont this to become a pattern. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Update. After I gave warning Wikidas/79.97.0.103 is still attacking my talk page and I-Foundation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Urbanarcheology has repeatedly attacked myself and NcSchu[26] and attempted to show his superiority in regards to to how the article should be edited,[27][28] including telling editors that they should stick to other articles.[29]
Urbanarcheology also claims that he has an assistant,[30] who does work for him, namely User talk:Jbdesign2. This user has been equally abusive,[31][32] and even uploads pictures that claim to be by him, but Urbanarcheology claims that he is merely uploading pictures that are really by Urbanarcheology, so it is difficult to tell if this is really another person or just a sock account.
Things had mostly calmed down recently and some discussion was progressing, but today I found this on my talk page. This same random IP was earlier claimed to be Urbanarcheology himself.[33] and [34] leading to [35].
This user, and his assistant, both seem to believe that they can attack those who oppose their opinions in an attempt to get what they want, even if it ignores Wikipedia rules. The359 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the ip for 31 hours, issued a level 2 npa warning to Jbdesign2 and left a message with Urbanarcheology which includes a civility warning. I hope that they get the message that respect for other editors comes before how good their contributions may be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be an issue regarding the Miss Tourism Queen International articles and the behaviour and possible COI of Lianga13 (talk·contribs). Angelo De La Paz (talk·contribs) appears strongly convinced that that user account is one of many others used by the same person, which appear to be vandalising articles. Angelo De La Paz needs a bit of a nudge towards figuring out WP policies (see his message here and this message on my talk page from a couple of days ago for a couple of examples) so I thought I'd bring this here and see what you thought. Basically I'm a neutral observer on this one... just trying to bring this to the right channels. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Twicemost leaving threats on talk pages
User:Twicemost has been going through various anime articles removing information about the series being aired in other countries, then leaving messages on the talk page saying the removed it because "we only care about the english dub" and that including such information violates the MOS. (which is a false idea). The real problem is, though, is that he has including in his message statements like "don't dare to revert this or you'll pay it with your life" (see [36] and [37]) or that "you asked for it" [38]. From his note here, he seems to be deliberately being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. I finally settled for leaving a warning on content removal for his latest edit, but not sure what else should/can be done, but I do feel administrators need to be aware of this. Leaving death threats will certainly scare off some other editors. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Twicemost (talk·contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by LessHeard vanU (talk·contribs). It's not entirely clear how seriously these threats were meant, but this is clearly a combative editor who was being disruptive. There do seem to be some earlier constructive edits, so I suppose it would be reasonable to consider shortening the block to a definite time frame if the threats are unreservedly retracted. MastCellTalk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a week-long block and an explanation from the user. the_undertowtalk 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have indef blocked Twicemost for the threat. This has no place on Wikipedia. If it is retracted and a promise to abide by npa/harass is made then a revision of the tariff may be appropriate. Without any such undertaking I would oppose allowing the editor to resume contributing.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Question:
The Paris Hilton article is in semi-protection.
Yet it was edited earlier today by "Abdulmatics", whose first-ever WP edit was 10 hours earlier. It seems based on this that semi-protection might be better called "just a tiny protection".
Am I missing something about the actual protection?
The account was created on February 1 ([39]). It is the time from account creation that is taken into account, unfortunately making it easy for editors to create many accounts to slip past semi-protection. Black Kite 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Beat me to it Black Kite. Semi-protection protects against IP accounts and any account less than 4 days old. In this case, the account was nine days old. Metros (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)His account was created on 1 February, [40] and he began editing on 7 February. [41] However, it appears that his/her edits are disruptive, since they exclusively pertain to adding links to a pair of external websites about Paula Abdul. I will leave a linkspam warning. Horologium(talk) 22:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. My knowledge grows. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous user 216.27.105.10 (talk·contribs) has been continually reverting the article Naveen Jain into a piece of Naveen Jain glorifying fluffwork, which is essentially unverifiable, and in the process he is removing well referenced material [42]. Since he has been providing edit summaries, giving this the appearance of a content dispute, I wasn't sure this was trivial enough for AIV. And while the inclusion of the fluff-work I would certainly consider a content dispute, I still consider the removal of sourced information vandalism given his refusal to use the talk page (despite being reverted and messaged by three editors), and his use of essentially false edit summaries. It should also be noted, as can be seen on the talk page, that this article has had quite a history of being edited Naveen Jain and/or his employees, although the IP in question doesn't resolve to anything that would confirm such. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See a history of beautification of this article at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen Jain. Major newspapers including the Seattle Times and USA Today reported that Jain left the board of InfoSpace under a cloud in December, 2002, amid charges that investors were deceived about the health of the company. This is the information that 216.27.105.10 (talk·contribs) keeps trying to remove from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OrionClemens (talk·contribs) and Athoughtforyou (talk·contribs) have requested to be unblocked, but had their reviews denied before the checkuser results were listed
Done all - can you post the relevant apologies/unblock notices, I need to get back to work. ViridaeTalk 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall do that. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, Academic2007 (talk·contribs) was listed as "likely". The other account has been unblocked, so it would make sense that this one would be unblocked as well. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Paul Hartal was blocked quite a while ago for making legal threats and other disruptions. Apparently he is back as an anonymous IP editor (currently 66.131.182.80. Please reblock. Thanks! --74.128.171.150 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This advise apparently did not have any effect on the user, and hence again, the user's repeated revert wars, without discussions or without gaining consensus, led to him to the above mentioned 2 weeks block.The block is now expired, and the user immediately started posting the disputed template literally hundreds of article talk page (Eg: [43], [44], [45]). At the least, after multiple blocks related to that template, the user was expected to start a discussion with wider audience, and should have arrived at a consensus before using those templates. But unfortunately, that has not happened.
Even he doesn't even hesitate to involve in revert wars, after being blocked multiple times for revert warring; some of the latest revert wars being: [46], [47], [48].
The main concerns here are: Lack of willingness to discuss; revert-warring; repeated offense even after a clear and strong advise from an Admin, and yet after multiple blocks;
Well,now, thats the "3RR violator continuing after block" part of the story, and next comes more.Severe personal attack on me, calling me racist. Please look into the section: Talk:Veerappan#Removing_WikiProject_templates and that gives complete picture instead of me writing about it. And now, you admins decide if there is any racist attitude displayed from me. On the other hand, you decide how the discussion is totally dragged out of context when I asked the question how the person (of that article) is related to the so-called civilization. I am strongly offended with this personal attack.
Next: I am totally confused and wondered, with what this user's intent on Wikipedia are. Please see this edit which is made after his latest block expiry. He has gone ahead and termed Cinema of Karnataka as Cooliewood. I have never heard that term before, and I am a member of Karnataka wikiproject and a contributor to Cinema of Karnataka. This is most concerning issue because, one of the meanings of Coolie is A contemporary racial slur for people of Asian descent, including people from India, Central Asia, etc. Whats more, even Google search couldn't determine what this user is saying. For starters, Karnataka is an Indian state, and apparently this is a severe insult on Wikipedians from that state, and ofcourse on the state's film industry. This kind of gross incivility is highly unacceptable in a community project such as building an encyclopedia.
I have reported all these to an involved Admin User:Nishkid64 and he suggested I start an ANI discussion on this, and here it goes. Thank you, - KNMTalk 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things:
The "Cooliewood" diff is absolutely unacceptable. The Tamil film industry is sometimes called Kollywood, but I cannot believe that this was a genuine mistake.
Templating talkpages is always problematic. I remember the to-do about India-Pakistan templates on Indus Valley Civilisation sites some years ago. That being said, there is nothing per se wrong with templating [[Talk:Veerappan] with a Tamil or Dravidian wikiproject template. The exchange that KNM posts reflects badly on both users.
He's been blocked for edit-warring for two weeks. I suggest that he be given a little while longer for the "Cooliewood" diff unless he posts a good explanation for it.
I don't see any reason for an indef. Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that template has been the centre of much controversy in the first place. The Cooliewood slur has a lot to do with Wikiraj's failed attempts in the past to sell the whole of South India and everything existing in South India as Dravidian (music, literature, architecture, people, cuisine, clothing, etc etc) as "Dravidian civilization". A page he had creeated to that effect was removed because there was no concensus that such a civilization existed or exists. Unles the heart of the issue is resolved, this problem will continue. The racial slur is only a small issue in the big problem of "race". Extending his block will not help. And may I ask, what does a dravidian template have to do with a person?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Relata refero: In the original post, I have not written about why there is a dispute over these templating, because it is plain content dispute, and WP:ANI is not meant for that. That is why, I was just writing only user related items. But if the discussion on template dispute is required, well and good. The simplest summary is, Wiki Raja is posting {{WPTAMCIV}} template on hundreds of talk pages, while there is no such thing called Tamil Civilization! The current link of Tamil civilization just redirects to Dravidian civilization, while Tamil Civilization is a red link as of now. And the user was (and has continued now also) posting {{WPDRAVCIV}} template too referring to an earlier version of Dravidian civilization article which is now deleted.
Please note: The current article was created by an admin (User:Utcursch) after the earlier version was deleted per an AFD discussion, because there was no such particular civilization "Dravidian civilization" existed. The validity of these templates apart, the user was asked and advised (as shown above) for initiating discussion and gain consensus before simply adding the templates. I believe, now its a good time to sort out both these issues, one is content dispute on those templates, and the user misconduct and incivility. Thank you - KNMTalk 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I quite understand that the template issue is beyond this board. The template, however, is linked not to any article but to a wikiproject; if you feel that is problematic, I suggest taking it to WP:Miscellany for Deletion. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Relata, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand what you are referring to as "unacceptable" in Cooliewood diff, whether it's providing the diff itself or Wikiraja's edits. There is no doubt that Wikiraja made that edit meant as an insult to Kannada film industry due to his long lasting disputes with members of WP:KARNATAKA. It sure is an racial insult term and it hurts to see someone using the term so freely in an encyclopedia. I'm sure he used the term deliberately because there is not even one instance so far that the Kannada cinema industry is referred to as Cooliewood. He has clearly shown his intentions of editing Wikipedia after being given so many chances. No discussions, no consensus, severe personal attacks including accusations of racism on KNM, gross incivility, repeated violations of 3RR and frequent revert wars. Let us also not forget, the account User:Wiki Raja is a sockpuppet account of User:Indrancroos. User:Wiki Raja account was indef blocked because of sockpuppetry, but the user requested admin Aksi_great that, he intends to continue with Wiki Raja account instead of Indrancroos account. Blocklog here. Gnanapiti (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that using the term was unacceptable, which is why I suggested extending his block. Relata refero (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* How many more violations from wikiraja do we have to endure before he is packed off for good? I've been on wp for around two years now and I've not seen anything quite like this. Here's a guy who's been blocked multiple times already for repeat offences which cover the entire gamut between simple edit warring to sockpuppetry to uploading obscenity and yet his victims have to continue to grin and bear it. I'd really like to know why?
Personally, I am usually against permabanning editors for anything.. but there has to be something that can redeem an editor -- some useful contributions, some evidence of being a collaborative editor.. something... anything! In wikiraja's case, I see nothing - absolutely no contributions worth mentioning or to even use as a fig leaf for his indiscretions.
As for his templates and taking it to MfD, well.. we've been down that torturous path before. No sooner does a template or article get deleted (or rewritten from scratch) than he comes up with a mutant strain of the same thing! It was 'Dravidian civilisations' yesterday and 'Tamil civilisations' today. Wonder what it will be tommorrow. Expecting other editors to keep hauling him and his templates to TfDs and MfDs and AfDs each time is insensitive and an insult to those editors who have better things to do on wikipedia. And the cooliewood thing ... *sigh* how much more juvenile can it get!
In short, this editor has not a semblance of constructive edits to boast of and has done disproportionately more harm to the community and the project than good and the community is better off without him. He's been banned for 3 month stretches at least once before (perhaps twice) and if for some esoteric bureaucratic reason we cant permaban him, I recommend that he be locked away for atleast 6 months or a year this time. Sarvagnya 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: As per Relata refero's suggestion for me to explain, I shall. Since the beginning of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations we have tried to present a diverse array of Dravidian cultures such as the Tamils, Malayalees, Telugus, Kannadigas, Brahuis and so forth. Even before the formation of this WikiProject I have noticed on the Classical dance of India page that classical dances from three Dravidian states were presented accept for Karnataka. Finding this rather odd, I have went out of my way to create a page for Yakshagana which was praised by Gnanapiti here and here just to find out that there already existed such a page. As a matter of fact I have tried my best to promote all Dravidian groups here on Wikipedia by even creating special user templates such as these, and include the different Dravidian scripts on the WikiProject page here (ie. Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil). Why on earth would anyone think that I have something against Kannadigas? For everyone's information, I have been able to find Mollywood for Malayalee films, Tollywood for Telugu films, and Kollywood for Tamil films. However, with the same situation as with the Classical dance, I was unable to find a similar name for Kannada films. So, the name Cooliewood was found from this web site and thus, I have used that term to categorize Kannada film along with the other "Dravidian woods" for film. If I have offended anyone on this matter, I humbly apologize for the misinterpretation and misunderstaning this may have caused for some folks. As a habit I like things in order and complete and thus felt that Kannadiga topics such as film and dance should not be left out of Indian, Dravidian, or whatever topic. As a token of sincerity from my part I will remove the link from that page and will rename it to Kannada film. If anyone still has a grudge against me, then that is on you. I've already said my piece. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Sarvagnya here. When Wiki Raja states that he has been promoting "Dravidian culture" that is the onus of the problem. What is "Dravidian" and "Indo-Aryan" is obviously disputed. Dravidianism is generally a racist philosophy, terming North Indians and Brahmins as "invaders" and "Dravidians" as "victims of light skinned oppression" (in quotes for educational value). A very important string of edits got Wiki Raja's sockpuppet Indrancroos (talk·contribs) blocked a while ago [49]. This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page) of Wiki Raja's attitude towards the pages he edits.Bakaman 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I was new to Wikipedia almost 2 years ago. However, after being blocked I created a new name to start new on a clean slate to edit and created legitimate articles as a contribution to Wikipedia. Proof can be seen in two WikiProjects, several articles, and expansions of numerous articles. Our project focuses on promoting articles comprised of all Dravidians (Tamils, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Telugus and other groups not properly represented). Other groups include but are not limited to Tuluvas, and Brahuis, for example. As a matter of fact, I have also voted to keep the article on Brahmin Tamils here since Brahmins are a part of the Tamil civilization, while Tamil civilization is part of the greater Dravidian civilzations. If you disagree with some of the articles, you are clearly entitled to your opinions. Also, it is not nice to compare fat people with feces. What do you have against fat people? Wiki Raja (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No one compared fat people with feces. Bakasupraman just commented that you added picture of feces and fat people on an article about Indian martial arts. Don't try to provoke people by making unfounded statements. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not trying to provoke people. It clearly shows that Bakaman stated "This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page)". It's posted right in this section. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to stir up others with this post was completely uncool. I have reverted it.--Versageek 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was uncool to compare fat people with feces. That's why I posted it. If you took it wrongly, I apologize. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Although such a comparison was NOT made, for argument's sake, if it was, what you wrote on the talk page of that article had a clear aim of trying to instigate something very unnecessary. As you've been a member of Wikipedia for the past 2 years, you should have known that this is not the way you should have gone about dealing with it.
As the main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Team, and as an editor/reviewer, I also request that Wiki Raja be blocked for an extended period of time of at least 6 - 12 months, if not greater. Editors who persistently make disruptive edits and comments in Wikipedia and in effect, disregard Wikipedia's policies and procedures, clearly should not be allowed to edit in Wikipedia. In this case, his limited constructive contributions (if any at all), combined with the extremely inappropriate way in which this editor has behaved (during this process in which an incident about him was being reported), has heightened the need for this extended/permanent block/ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Persistently making disruptive edits? Are you talking about our WikiProjects Dravidian civilizations and Tamil civilization? Show me where I have been persistently been making disruptive edits in the past month. What does WikiProject India Assessment Team have to do with this? The bottom line is that there are folks out there who are hell bent on bending historical truths in order to satisfy their revisionist lust. With that said, it is not surprising why we come under attack to the utmost for merely breathing on Wikipedia. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You may note that I was speaking generally regarding persistent disruptive edits. Precisely, who is 'we'? Many of your contributions appear to affect articles that fall under the WikiProject India banner, and of course, you are welcome to at least try to show me (and others) otherwise, that your constructive contributions outweigh the non-constructive (or perhaps disruptive) ones. In any case, I'm fascinated by your nonsensical reasons as to why users (such as myself) feel you should be blocked. You are not being reported here as an attack, but purely so you can take time out to re-familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and to hopefully learn to behave and deal with things more appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Whoa! this web site??? I wonder, does Wiki Raja ever seen WP:RS policy page and if yes, being an editor of Wikipedia for nearly 2 years, does he have any respect to it? Among billions of books, newspapers, journals, websites, this is the webpage he chooses to select the name of a state's film industry, the page which doesn't even appear in google search for "Cooliewood", and a page anyone, anytime can create without any credentials, any verification. Does he think WP:RS, WP:V policies are just for fun? Does he even know, that page could have got created after he gave the name "Cooliewood" to the Cinema of Karnataka? By apologizing here in ANI and reverting that particular edit, does he assume we can get away from it? One cannot expect other editors to watch each and every edit of his, and when a problem is found, "just revert it and apoligize" is NOT a solution. There are thousands of edits, and it is editor's responsibility to work/edit correctly and constructively all the time, and not just after the misconduct is made public in ANI. Provocation / Forum Shopping are not at all the good way to handle the disputes. He has done this time and again, and the latest provocation (mentioned above in this very thread) is just one more part of his disruptive contributions to the project.As Ncmvocalist as mentioned above, Wiki Raja's disregard to Wikipedia's policies and procedures are highly unacceptable, that too after repeated warnings and multiple blocks.As I mentioned above, for a user whose block is just expired, the least expected is to initiate a discussion instead of involving in the same offense of revert war that fetched him block.Repeated offenses of revert warring, disruptive editing, severe personal attacks including allegations on racism , totally unnecessary and harmful provocations and forum shopping...the list goes on and on. This has been happening since a long time now, and it has adverse effects on the Wikipedia and other editors' productivity and thus needs be addressed as early as possible. We just cannot let go forever. After a block, some maturity is expected from the editor's part. But even after multiple blocks, we are back to square. Time for indef block. - KNMTalk 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of racism. That's a good one KNM. Would anyone consider this racist:[50] Would anyone consider these attacks and threats against me by your group:[51]. Enough with this nonsensical piety. This is just a drop in the bucket with their numerous personal attacks against my ethnicity and self. Also to mention the number of blanking, and blind reverts on their part. However, I have made a mistake by responding to these types of editors which make matters worse. I will admit that and am very sorry for even giving them the time of day to hear a response from me. I appologize to anyone else if this matter has caused anyone an inconvenience. Responding to trolls, socks, and other trouble makers does not make things better. I have learned from that mistake and shall go about this in a more appropriate way. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not try to mislead people by providing giving an irrelevant diff for my complaint on your racism allegations. As indicated in my original post in this thread, I was referring to this personal attack] you have made on me. - KNMTalk 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I too propose an indef block of Wiki Raja. I feel this user has only one purpose on wikipedia, and that is to template every South Indian article with his "dravidian civilization" template. In addition, he has prepared other templates now such as the "Tamil civilization" etc, though I am not sure what actually is "Tamil civilization". Those who come to wikipedia with a "mind" will contribute constructively, those who come with a "mindset" will only be an obstruction to others. After one year of interaction with this user, I feel he is not interested in achieving concensus on any of his pet issues, all of which revolve around the "Dravidian race". The very fact he does not bother to get concensus is because he knows he will not get it. His current excuse of using a web page to justify using "cooliewood" is only an alibi. Here is why. Let us take the example of the Yakshagana art form, an ancient form of religious/folk theatre from the Kannada speaking regions. Initially he tried to establish that it was a dravidian art from. When he could not get concensus, he tried to demean it by adding a transgender template, because in this theatre, men can wear feminine costumes while performing theatre. Here are some links to this.[52] and [53]. Also read his justification on the discussion page of that very article under the heading "LGBT template & Homophobia on Yakshagana" where he finds a convinient alibi for his actions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So, now gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgenders are demeaning? This conversation is beginning to make me sick with all this intolerance of peoples race, ethnicity, faith, bodily structure, and now sexual orientation. Some people think that they own this site turning Wikipedia into an un-democratic dictatoral web page to nurture racists, bullies, and homophobes. I am through with this conversation and feeding trolls. Also, one more thing, due to folks who may not be aware of what discrimination is, please read this this. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet again!! Whom are you calling trolls now?? I request all the admins to please look into this ongoing breaches of multiple of wiki-policies, this time it is WP:NPA. This editor's incivility is going beyond control. - KNMTalk 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiRaja, please dont misrepresent what I wrote earlier. Yakshagana is a performing art and topics such as this should have been treated with more deliberation and care. Thats all. Any irrelevant template would naturally misguide a reader and hence is be "demeaning". This is what I meant. If you really wanted to improve the quality of that article, you should have first involved yourself in a constructive discussion, before adding that template. You however added that template after your failed in your attempts in templating that art form as "dravidian".
And please dont try to digress from the topic at hand and divert attention from the main issues.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is funny how this was started and now is going in a whole different direction. It is clear that wiki raja has apologized for his actions and is now engaged in discussion rather than just revert. There is no point in bringing up old matters specially after he has been blocked for his mistakes. Users are making small things into huge matter and are letting this situation out of hand. Clearly , everyone who is involved in this conflict (as described by Wikiraja as Tamil "discrimination" ) have made their shares of mistakes. That includes everyone ! This is something that needs to be solved through mediation and not sheer blocks. What makes anyone think that blocking wikiraja will end this problem ? There are other Tamil editors who feel that there is some sort of Tamil "discrimination" going on. If wikiraja is blocked, then things will go into the wrong direction. A block after an apology is against the norms of wikipedia's blocking policy which is supposed to be "Preventative and not punitative". Furthermore, some violations accused on wikiraja is not even violations of any wikipedia rules. He is currently discussing [here]. I am not even seeing a tangible evidence that justifies a block for adding wikiprojects on articles. Wikiprojects are there to make articles better and wast majority of readers do not even see what wikiproject each article begins. It is not the same thing as adding an article into a category. Bakasuperman violated the WP:3RR but was not blocked because he decided to contact an admin. This is a positive step by both Bakasuperman and the admin who is discussing the matter with Bakasuperman. This is a good idea. However, why does this scenario not apply to wikiraja ? Why is he not given the opportunity of contacting an admin and is being stoned on AN/I ? This is wikipedia and everyone is free to edit and are encouraged to do so. Last, those who are here accusing wikiraja of not discussing are themselves doing the exact same thing by asking other to block wikiraja and not taking matter with him. Enough said ! Watchdogb (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear difference, considering the extremely inappropriate way in which Wiki Raja responded/behaved as can be seen in this post just a day ago (despite being here at Wikipedia for the last 2 years). An apology does not defeat the need for a block. It would mean anyone could get away with anything, as long as they apologized prior to being considered for a block. The block would serve to give him time out to refamiliarise himself with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and give him time to learn to deal and behave with such situations more appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Did I say I apologized for notifying editors of this comment about fat people? I only apologized if this may have caused misunderstandings. If someone or a group demeans a particular gender, race, sex, ethnicity, etc. for that matter, I will notify folks of similar interests on this issue. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You've clearly demonstrated that you are in desparate need of the time out if this is the way you operate here at Wikipedia. Your behaviour is absolutely inappropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is that behavior inappropriate ? He notified concerned people of the comment that struck him as "discrimination". You are not making you case here Ncmvocalist. Just because you pull out words and say this is inappropriate it does not make it so. Where in wikipedia is it inappropriate to notify concerned people that they have been attacked ? If you were attacked in an article, then of course you would want to be accepted. Just as if someone is racist against a certain race someone would notify the leaders of that community of what has happened. Watchdogb (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Again just because you say something it does not make it true. I may feel that you are in desperate need for a time out. Does that suffice for a block on you ? You may feel I am in desperate need for block. Does that mean it's justified ? Watchdogb (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, he was not supposedly attacked in an article as this is an administrator's noticeboard. Secondly, just because an incident (or more) were being reported about him and/or his positive contributions (or lack thereof), doesn't mean that you can assume bad faith. He clearly failed to assume good faith if his first course of action was to go tell the 'community' of the "massive injustice", instead of trying to find a way that he was not misinterpreting what was said (and in this case, a reasonable person is likely not to have misinterpreted it). Thirdly, if you are discriminated against, or suffer any other sort of problems by an editor in Wikipedia, you do not have the right to disruptively instigate something unnecessary with other editors. You'd follow Wikipedia policy/procedure by either asking the editor to refrain from subjecting you to such a 'crime', and/or asking an administrator to take the appropriate course of action. It is highly inappropriate to deal with the situation in the way in which he did, which is why his remarks were removed. Even after 2 years of staying at Wikipedia, and more or less in your case, not following this simple policy/procedure is very worrying in itself. It really is a matter of common-sense for editors who are here for such a long duration - well, perhaps only the reasonable ones who have any common sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Even after 2 years of staying at Wikipedia, and more or less in your case, not following this simple policy/procedure is very worrying in itself" ? If that was aimed at me, then I will ask you to Preach after you practice. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The issues are misleading here. The consensus for the original version of the Dravidian civilization is No Consensus and not Delete. But without enough consensusUtcursch redirected to a new version inappropriately. If Wiki Raja should be indefblocked, then others too should be investigated for gaming the system. We should take this to Arbitration as there are evidence here that SarvagnyaKNM and Utcursch are ethnically united than upholding the Wikiproject in large.Sudithar (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Leaving Wikipedia (Adam C)
I am leaving Wikipedia over the Arbcom case, to this end I have deleted the Reqwuest for comment on me, as there was a lot of accusations and such in there, and I'm not going to havce that show up under a search for my name for the life of Wikipedia. I will be going through and deleting my name from various other places as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam C 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think deleting RfC's is covered in RtV... That will probably be restored, and the AC case won't be deleted, so you should request courtesy blanking via e-mail or get a name change as part of your RtV. Avruchtalk 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If the user is leaving Wikipedia—and in any event, will not be using administrator tools for awhile per the arbitration decision—I can't imagine what possible reason there would be to push for undeletion of the RfC, especially since this user edits under his real name. I am, as I invariably am in these discussions, more concerned and saddened by our losing a dedicated user than by the question of which project pages may be deleted or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, so should anyone be. I don't recall seeing or hearing about other RfC's deleted for the same reason, I assumed courtesy blanking was the standard here to preserve access to formal processes. (We don't even generally delete talk pages). I still think a protective name change would be a good idea, as he can't remove every edit he's made with his real name and all the places it still appears in his signature. Avruchtalk 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not supposed to be an all out stab at ArbCom, but the RfC showed fairly strongly that Adam should keep his tools. I'm not sure why they haven't listened to this. There was no prior RfC to give him feedback about his actions, just straight into an arbitration case and proposed desysopping. It's not as if he was even the worst admin we ever had. I've discussed this on the arbitration talk page to no avail - it's a little upsetting that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
More than a little. For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible. If I say anything more about the situation at this point, I'll probably regret it later. MastCellTalk 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, for what its worth. What is the point of suspending in favor of an RfC, if only to unsuspend and ignore the result? The whole point was because lesser forms of dispute resolution had not occurred. If the result of a lesser form of dispute resolution was to be dismissed, then directing people towards it was a waste of time. Avruchtalk 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I have a number of fairly strong opinions about this particular case and its handling from start to finish, but this is probably not the best time or forum to express them. MastCellTalk 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this was handled very badly. So much for the test case. Are you all satisfied? What purpose did it serve? Who else is next?--Filll (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No. "For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible". Pig's arse. Since when was it better for decent editors to leave? You can stick WP:CIVIL up your a++e, because if that's what you think, you are fools. Sorry for my bluntness.
If decent editors like Adam are on the point of leaving, and a whole group of scientists are discussing a boycott, then there is something very seriously wrong. I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia (1st edit last August) but I got quite keen quickly, and had 3 DYKs in January. Not much compared to many editors, but I was quite pleased. But now I'm pissed off with the whole thing because somebody who doesn't know much about some articles that I helped to expand has fly tipped POV tags all over them and there's nothing I can do to remove them. No contributions by the editor other than the drive by tagging. I've tried discussion, moderation of the articles, but a flat refusal to talk has been the result, leading to me becoming less civil in my remarks than WP demands, and if I don't back down then I'll get a ban, I suppose. Just because of drive by tagging of articles that I think are OK, well sourced. etc. That's Wikipedia.
The most important, probably fundamental thing here is that it seems to me that Wiki is at the tipping point. Is it going to be an authoritative encyclopedia, or a playground? This is the question that is now arising daily on ANI and across Wiki generally. If you want the former, then analyse what it is that is pissing the serious editors off, and change it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is very sad that Adam was driven to resign. He was an admirable Wikipedia editor, and his leaving is a serious loss to the project, especially science articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a definite loss for the encyclopedia, and I am quite dismayed at the result of this case, which seems to have put a strong contributor and user in the impossible situation of being selected by ArbCom to be made an example of. Awful, awful precedent. FCYTravis (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am so disgusted that the situation with Adam has been allowed to degenerate to the point where he feels no choice but to leave. The ArbCom members who have forced this situation should feel ashamed, and should recognise that they have severely damaged their reputations and credibility. I will have more to say about this once I am able to write something appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been able to write anything appropriate about this for a while now. (Deleted rant). To Adam, I hope you change your mind. To Arbcom, message received loud and clear, though I don't imagine it is what you intended it to be. R. Baley (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding dumb, which ArbCom is this from, I looked at the most recent couple cases, and didn't see AdamC listed at all. ThuranX (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. People who keep the pedia clear of fluff, like Adam, and people who write excellent articles, like Giano, are subject to various sanctions for incivility; but people who think they are working to minimize drama - Guy, to choose but one of several examples, and David as well - are not? What does this say about our priorities and effectiveness? What baloney. Relata refero (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see you leave, Adam. I hope you will reconsider. I reiterate comments made by others who have asserted your value to the project and to science articles in particular. Orderinchaos 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I too am sorry to see Adam go, his contributions to the features article on evolution in particular were superb. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am also sad to see Adam go, although I don't see why he is doing so now in such a histrionic way. I don't see that the Arb Com case was acutally closed with any particular remedy against Adam. I was a participant in the RFC and I think it was pretty clear from the RFC that Adam did use his admin tools inappropriately in disputes he was engaged in. I think that it is very clear by the admin guidelines that Admins should NOT do this. I don't think it is clear from any of the discussions that Adam every really admitted that he did anything amiss. I don't think that the high quality of many of his contributions gets him out of having to follow the rules, or, when he was wrong, admit that he was wrong. At this point, I don't think that he should be taking matters into his own hands by willy nilly deleting any discussion that contains his name as he exits. He should have another admin or a bureaucrat help him figure out what he can do to remove his real name from the encyclopedia. You are not an island, Adam, you are part of a community. Stop being a lone wolf. Abridgedtalk 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) NOTE the following mass deletion of my user page: [54]. Abridgedtalk 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My recollection is that Adam did apologize and promised to be more careful. He did agree to give up his tools for 6 months willingly and be under probation for another 6 months. My understanding is that Adam objected to the wording of [of Fact #9] and had asked repeatedly that it be modified. Others agreed at the RfC and at the Arbcomm talk pages, including some Arbcomm members. I hope Adam reconsiders, but I would not blame him for coming back under another name, or never coming back. I also think there is a limit to how much hounding a person can take, given that this is an unpaid hobby.--Filll (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
From the discussion of that point, it looks like the arb com bent over backwards to accomodate him, but were unable to go to the extent of changing a true statement to an untrue statement to save face for him. Honestly, Fill, at some point everyone has to be held accountable for their actions. Abridgedtalk 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well we can beg to differ on what the Arbcomm did and did not do, and I suggest that I am not alone in interpreting things different than you do. However, in terms of holding everyone accountable for their own actions, I wonder why you were not held accountable for yours?--Filll (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What the bloody hell are you talking about?????? Please supply a diff if you are going to make bizarre vague accussations. Abridgedtalk 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned this is the (not unexpected) result of an ArbCom "experiment", I don't really care if it's technically allowed or not. Perhaps we should not try to keep finding new ways to poke him with a stick. That is all for now. Civility Rules! (if not for thee, then for me), </no sarcasm> R. Baley (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second. Am I right in thinking he actually deleted Abridged's user talk??? Isn't that just more abuse of admin tools? And look at the all-caps edit summary, too. [55] and [56]If I'm right in what I'm seeing -and I can hardly believe that I am- you guys are actually defending this user? This is the last straw for me. I defended this user as being basically a good guy who needed to admit his mistakes and reform. I would have been happy if he'd done so. But this really sucks. He can't even leave WP without deleting someone else's talk page? And other huge disruptions? This is exactly the kind of abusive behavior he's being desysoped for, and he obviously hasn't learned a thing. No, one can only say the ArbCom took the measure of the man, and made the correct decision. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He shouldn't have done that, and it's been fixed. On the other hand, actions performed in anger, on the way out the door after what can justifiably be described as a debacle, cannot be used to retroactively justify previous findings. MastCellTalk 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is one debacle after another, from one point of view or another. It was the way Adam handled previous debacles (or potential therefore) which got him desysoped, and the way he's dealing with this one shows he still handles them the same way. Unfortunately. And, that is just more of the same defense as used at the RfC: things are bad so it is OK to act bad [57]. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it another way: If Adam came back now and said "I acted badly. I won't do it again. What others did and the circumstances within Wikipedia are not an excuse for what I did. And in addition to abuse of my sysop tools and other problems brought up in the RfC, my editing style was non-consensual and sometimes abusive. I'm going to make every effort to adhere to the highest standards of civility, neutrality and admin ethics." I would even now write to ArbCom and say he should be given another chance. Yes, at this point I think he would abuse that chance, but the above is basically something which every Wikipedian is supposed to adhere to (minus the admin ethics). That Adam won't do that shows what is wrong. In addition, that his friends won't do that shows what is super-wrong. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your comments are correct, and that the problem was not and is not limited to a single vanishing user. Homeopathy is still under probation, for instance. —Whig (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You'll notice I didn't ask for anything which constituted a humiliation, at least not in my opinion. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Look - Adam made some bad decisions with the tools. Instead of the usual process of community feedback, followed by a chance to improve, he was rushed to ArbCom by an angry Arbitrator as a "test case" and his desysopping was proposed within 12 hours of the case opening. He was then poked with a stick incessantly for about 2 months, after which he snapped and has apparently left in a huff, inappropriately deleting some pages on the way. And now I'm hearing, "Gee, look at how angry he got - he really deserved to be poked with that stick after all!" MastCellTalk 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been poked with a stick far more than Adam. Defend me. They backed off and gave him an RfC, where he consistently refused to get the points being made by other editors. ArbCom represents WP. If he feels wronged and like WP has mis-treated him, then he should indeed just go. But if at the RfC he'd just acknowledged what the ArbCom was obviously saying, and had said to everyone -and himself- "stop defending me on the basis of what others did," he'd be a Wikipedian in good standing now. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Martin, you have in the past been one of the most reliable employers of the "they did something worse!" defense. I'm glad to see you're turning over a new leaf, and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. But since you raise your own case as an example: you had the benefit of an RfC as a first step in dispute resolution. You were treated with kid gloves in your first ArbCom case. After your second ArbCom case, you were placed on fairly mild probation. That is a much more typical and appropriate algorithm for resolving problems. If you'd been rushed to ArbCom right away without the benefit of an RfC or any preceding community feedback, and extremely harsh remedies were proposed against you within 12 hours of the case opening, then I'd like think perhaps I would have defended you. MastCellTalk 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What Adam has been doing is removing himself and, as far as he can, all trace of himself from Wikipedia. Which in my opinion is sensible, this is a dangerous place to be identifiable. Thanks go to Whig and Abridged for helping to accommodate that right to vanish, I'd hope that others can assist in completing the removal of contentious mentions. The object that some people have had of removing his admin tools has been achieved. The "example" this has set can be discussed in principle, without dragging his name into it. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I wish ac well. At this point, I am leaving Wikipedia too. I think that communities work if people in general follow and respect the rules. This AC case, and all the static around it, has shown that the wikipedia community has serious problems around this. So many people were so willing to defend an admin who was clearly not following the admin guidelines, civility is not taken seriously at all, and the edit wars are really unpleasant. What is the problem with having various povs mentioned in an article? Isn't that what NPOV is about? Why rampage through the encyclopedia deleting everything you don't agree with using excuses that guidelines don't even support? Awhile back, a number of admins and others voted to ban me from wikipedia becuase I brought an RFC asking AC to retract a personal attack. What did I really do that was so wrong that so many editors and admins were willing to PERMANENTLY BAN ME FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR THE ACTION??? These same users were defending AC, when he DID BREAK ESTABLISHED RULES. These users included: ScienceApologist, Shot info, Filll, OrangeMarlin, Horologium, Skinwalker, Neıl, •Jim62sch•, BLACKKITE</font, Raymond Arritt, User:Fyslee, User:FeloniousMonk, and Guettarda. Why is this stuff allowed to go on????? Abridgedtalk 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you people realize how insane this looks? I swear, Wikipedia has reached the point where everyone defends bad behavior by saying "but look, other people didn't get sanctioned for bad behavior!" Someone has to be the first to be sanctioned for bad behavior, or you're stuck in an eternal circle of blame. -Amarkovmoo! 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Arthur Rubin(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) for WP:3RR on Alex Jones (radio) per this 3RR report. Since this editor is an administrator and has been previously blocked before for edit warring on the same article, I'd like for the community to see if there is a possible need for an article probation or other restrictions for this editor. Thanks, Nakon 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should leave it at this block for now. Being blocked twice for edit warring on the same an article within a month is a bad sign, true, but I don't think it indicates a need for anything beyond a slightly longer block. If it continues, we may end up back here, but I think we can see if he'll stop after this. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is of course bad practive for any editor to edit war, especially an administrator who should be setting an example to the community. Although the edit warring took place on the the same article as the previous block, we shouldn't hold the fact that he's an administrator prejudice our actions here - how would we react if this was an editor without +sysop? We'd give them their block and that would be all - we wouldn't suggest community restrictions against them on an article. I agree that a block was reuquired, would you consider reducing it down to 48 hours rather than 3 days? It's more in line with similar blocks in the past (yeah, I know it's a pedantic issue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice User:Hereward77 was blocked for edit warring on the same article just a few weeks ago and made at least 3 reverts, as did User:Snowfire51 but who has not been previously blocked. I know we hold admins to a higher conduct standard, but neither of these other users were even warned for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I only made three edits to this article, and tried to get this editor to discuss them repeatedly. I warned him he had already violated WP:3RR, and he blew me off and continued. I stopped at three, and even though I disagree with something on the page now, I have elected to bring it up and clarify it on the talk page, rather than violate WP:3RR. I had no desire to enter into an edit war, I tried to discuss things to gain consensus and this user was not interested in anything that took his edits off of the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked User:Hereward77 for edit warring as well. He didn't technically violate 3RR, but multiple previous edit warring blocks including one for edit warring on the same article means that he should definitely know better.
To Snowfire51: edit warring does not only become a policy violation after the 3rd revert, it is disruptive from the first. Consider this a warning. Mr.Z-man 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning received. I stand by my contributions as evidence that I understand policy, and will uphold it in the future. No hard feelings. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not we hold admins to a much higher standard? Two 3RR blocks in such a short period of time while being an admin is shocking and really very disturbing. What does the community suggest as an appropriate course of action? Bstone (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be unprecedented (and logically flawed) to desysop an admin for edit-warring on a non-protected page, if indeed that's what you're implying. — CharlotteWebb 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd advise that the user takes an optional Wikibreak; I think some cooling down is needed if this has happened twice recently. Hopefully this doesn't happen again. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Arthur needs to take a break or risk losing his bit next time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin used admin tools while blocked?
Was this block issued by Rubin while he was still blocked? Can a blocked admin still admin? Lawrence § t/e 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocks affect the "edit this page" function, but a blocked admin can still block, unblock, protect, and delete. MastCellTalk 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, _WHAT_? I thought that was fixed. I specifically remember a bug that was resolved by preventing all admin actions with the sole exception of a self-unblock (for dealing with accidental blocks, I imagine, since you're not supposed to unblock yourself normally) while blocked. —Random832 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmph, maybe. I haven't tried it, but it seemed to me that a recently vanished admin wsa able to delete a few pages after blocking himself. Could be wrong, though. MastCellTalk 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor abusing Rollback privileges
Undead warrior (talk·contribs) has created a number of footer templates for music artists which are OK except the user did not use the correct/standard/consensus colour format and instead has chosen the "more metal" black colour scheme. No big problem. An attempt was made to correct the colour format but the user has decided to vio WP:OWN on the templates and is using his newly acquired rollback permissions to revert constructive edits which are clearly not vandalism. Some of these edits are [58][59][60][61][62]. The user left a talk page post here in which he states "If you change the colour I will just keep changing them back" Which shows that the user intends to continue to violate WP:OWN and may also ignore WP:3RR to do so. And... for these reverts... is using the 'Rollback' function which is intended for vandal hunting and not edit warring. Can someone take the time to explain WP:OWN, WP:3RR and the proper use of 'rollback' to this user. Perhaps a little WP:CIVIL explanation would help as well. 156.34.234.144 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this appears to be an abuse of the rollback privileges. This is not clear vandalism that is being committed and he even admits this himself when he says that the changing of the colors is a matter of "personal preference". I think his rights should be removed. I'll leave this here for a bit longer before I do just to get input from other admins first. Metros (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it clearly looks like abuse of rollback. Removing it seems reasonable. Friday(talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
based on the evidence given, the editor is using the rollback tool for edit warring behavior. Jeepday (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Additionally the editor was given the rules that Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.[63] prior to engaging the inappropriate behavior. Jeepday (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite got to it just as I was about to edit it. Metros (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse fully. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, clearly a misuse, hence why I removed it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it appears editor is using rollback to edit war. Removal is very reasonable.--Ѕandahl 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, also, and endorse Ryan's removal. Sarah 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It would have been nice to have recieved a little bit of warning before being revoked. The warning came and then the privelages were removed. (i might have spelled that wrong) Either way, I did not know that the rollback tool should not have been used as I had used it. I thought it was being used justly. I had warned the user that his edits were un-constructive. I had reverted them previously and told him where to find the standard template. He just kept on re-doing his old edits without justification. Undeath (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Er, so you didn't read the message left upon being given rollback, nor did you read the extremely clear instructions at the top of the WP:RFR page when you filed your request? I'm sorry, I hardly consider that Ryan's fault. Daniel (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The user's edits were unconstructive because they were at odds with you? GlassCobra 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see the notice because after I had edited, I had to wrestle my match. I read the instructons, and I thought that I had given fair warning before I reverted using rollback. I say that his edits were unconstructive becasue they were accomplishing nothing. He just changed the color around. Plus, I have been trying to convert certain templates over to the new template, which, when I was going through this, I would get an edit conflict thus loosing my changes. I have now successfully(spelling?) created the new version of the template for Sentenced. Undeath (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And after re-doing another template due to another edit conflict, I have successfully(spelling?) created SatyriconUndeath (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(resetting indent) And "unconstructive" is so clearly the same thing as "vandalism"... also, why were the edit unconstructive? Is standardizing color unconstructive? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having that very conversation with the editor right now at User_talk:Metros#Templates. My main question is why is it "constructive" to make the templates a non-standard color (black) but "unconstructive" to make it the standard colors. Metros (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to Nousernamesleft I am trying to state that I warned him that if he was not going to standardize the entire template, like I was in the process doing, then not to do anything to it at all. I kept getting the same edit conflict after a long process of work on a template and, naturally, I became very frustrated. I believe this has been blown completely out of proportion. I made one mistake, or 5 I guess if you want to go with Metros. I made the rollbacks in a very, very short period of time. The warning was given after that(also after I had signed off), and that warning gave me no time whatsoever to redeem myself. Note, before my so called "misuse of rollback", I had used it like it I was supposed to do. Undeath (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong. The "warning" was issued to you upon applying for and receiving your rollback privileges. The warning on how to use it and not use it is on the application page as well as in the notice sent to you on your talk page when the rights were enabled. Metros (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The warning was not sent until after the damage was done. At 1:23 you sent the notice, which was after the damage was done, and then at 1:36 the rollback privelages were removed, which, I might point out, I had not made any rollbacks between that time. I had not made a bad rollback between the warning left on my talkpage and the time it was taken away. You can look at my cotributions yourself if you don't believe me. Also, I KNOW that the "how to use it and how to not use it" is on the main page. I had stated that, IMO, I was reverting vandalism. Now, that, by the sound of it, is not your opinion, but it was mine at the time. I was doing what I thought was the right thing. Undeath (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
These edits were not vandalism, and that's not just Metros' opinion - read the definition provided in Wikipedia: Vandalism. Natalie (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mike0001
On February 5th, User:Mike0001 edited the Rough Collie article by adding some NPOV remarks, an image of his pet collie, and a spam link. I reverted the changes and left him a level 1 NPOV warning. The next day, he put back the image again[64], which was again removed as it did not comply with WP:IMAGE (doesn't illustrate the text) and the article is far too short to support anymore images. Two days later (i.e. today), Mike reverted that removal, as well as edits in between calling it "vandalism"[65]. I undid again, and apparently he has decided that he is going to edit war over the issue. We have been back and forth for almost an hour, with him not only trying to readd the picture, as well as breaking the article in attempts to denote a whole paragraph as needing citations. In readding the picture, he also reuploaded it (first as Image:Shadow Rough Collie.JPG then as Image:Lamtara Golden Spritzer.jpg), seemingly in an attempt to disguise that it is a picture of his pet collie. I've attempted discussing the issue with him on his talk page, after leaving another warning, but he continues to just put it back and put it back.talk page diff, since he's since erased all messages I finally left him a 3RR warning (which he'd long since violated), and he responded by leaving me two.[66][67] He also seems to be engaging in edit disputes on other articles including Faust (History), Boiling to death(History), and List of nontheists (History) among others (a quick look at his contribs show quite a few, but these are some of the most recent). Anyone undoing his NPOV, unsourced, and often blatantly wrong edits is apparently a vandal.
At this point, my temper is too high to keep dealing with him, and in undoing his mess, I've also gone past the 3RR mark, so I'm asking for admin intervention. While I was working on this report, the was been protected, to a previous bad version, by another admin. As soon as the protection is gone, I'm sure Mike will continue his campaign, and meanwhile he will continue to cause problems on other articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
merged from other thread. Black Kite 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User Collectonium seems to think that he is the only person allowed to edit the Rough Collie. This is not WP policy! Also Lamtara Golden Spritzer is registered, has a pedigree, and is called Shadow by his family!
All the edits I make here and elsewhere are well justified. I am a retired academic! NOT a vandal. Mike0001 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of Image:Lamtara_Golden_Spritzer.jpg in that article, and is referring to User:Collectonian - I fixed the spelling and added a link in the header. —Random832 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be an actual report, or a response to my report two up from this? Of the latter, can it be moved up to keep the conversation in one place. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to seem spammy, but I'm restoring again as Mike decided to vandalize one of my user pages last night since the rough collie article is still locked.[68] I don't suppose someone will look at it now? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From a look through the dispute, it's not really a huge issue, and really should be directed more towards dispute resolution than for admin consideration. I've suggested to Mike that he not edit other peoples' userpages like that in the future, and suggested he look at WP:3O or an RFC. I'll keep an eye on things, in case there's further issues. Tony Fox(arf!) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I might agree, except now he appears to be Wikistalking and being harrassing. He has left comments like this and this when I leave someone an warning note. He also apparently likes Edito*Magica's "sneaky vandalism" term[69].
He left me warnings for removing his unnecessary and inappropriate remarks from my talk page [70] , [71], [72], and [73]. I removed the first three, and someone I do not know (I believe a vandal patroller) undid the last one and left him a warning. So he posted a message to their talk page[74] making more incorrect statements about me and requesting I be banned. He has also now vandalized Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism[75]. For someone who claims to be a retired academic, he certainly isn't acting like it and seems to be on a full scale rant/assault. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm on this. I've asked Mike to desist, and have both parties directed to the article talk page for some informal mediation. (and now I'm off to do some real work for a while.) Tony Fox(arf!) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In a continued effort to avoid edit warring, I've submitted this follow up to yesterdays report on a similar incident.
Quizimodo continues to move [dubious – discuss] tag on contested term "dominion" and "semi-autonomous" on Canada page; dominion has been used as an indication of "semi-autonomy"; the two words are linked. His rationale is that I haven't shown that there is a debate.
The debate is in fact a longstanding one in which we both have participated. See polls below for summary of editor opinions on talk page. The intent of the tag is to draw attention to that debate, and warn users that a good number (in fact a majority) of editors disagree strongly with reference to the word Dominion.
I think it is reasonable for a small tag to remain on the questionable wording until the dispute is resolved. A larger neutrality tag is not necessary as it would be overkill for what otherwise stands as an FA-Class aticle. --soulscanner (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In sum, this editor has not demonstrated the need for these tags, and has been adding them to make a point and be disruptive. There is no doubt that there has been debate in Wikipedia regarding Canada becoming a dominion upon Confederation in 1867, but the debate is an artificial one, with various reputable sources corroborating this fact and various editors seeking to deprecate this notion from the lead of the 'Canada' article or throughout the 'Dominion' article. Beginning in Sep., said editor exacerbated the situation by advocating for one position and then reneging, then engaging in tendentious editing and continuously contesting well-sourced information or insinuating that it is incorrect or imbalanced (representing a 'monarchist' position). Some of the polls cited above (instigated by said editor) are confused, and have generally yielded results not in said editor's favour. Said editor's behaviour also precipitated an edit was at 'Canada', and that article was locked. Relevant debates were allayed when said editor departed from the discussion -- the article was relatively stable regarding this point until this editor's return months later, after which a number of additional reports were filed (including an abortive request for arbitration), engagements and insinuations against G2bambino (whom he has referred to as my 'associate') and the 'Canada' and 'Dominion' article have been locked again.
Given this editor's continuous disruption, Soulscanner should be sanctioned, the 'Canada' and 'Dominion' articles should remain locked until disputes have been resolved, and or the former article's feature article status should be reviewed. In the very least, neutral administrators should monitor 'Canada' and 'Dominion' for potential disruption by the reporting editor (or anyone else). Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Quizimodo acknowledges there is a debate. That is why there needs to be a neutrality tag to identify the disputed term. He believes tha any challenge to his views are "artificial" because he has contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. He has been warned against removing tags already here and here, so he is aware of the policy. He knows he should not remove them. --soulscanner (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is logical fallacy: of course there has been discussion, which has been conflated and contorted by this editor and allies, hence it being an artificial one not reflected in the body of literature about the notion.
And I don't mind editors who disagree with me: it is those who continue to insinuate bias and irrational arguments despite clear citations indicating the opposite, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures, who are irksome. Sycophants, hypocrites, and those who are disingenuous in behaviour ever more so. I mean, do you dispute that the term is in -- and remains in -- the constitution? At its base, this is all that is required. If you stand back, answer that honestly and accept that, you will answer your own question -- to date, you have not, which is one reason why further discussion with you and selected compatriots seems futile. Quizimodo (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree fully that both articles should remain locked, until it's agreed to keep dispute on those respective discussion pages (agree not to 'edit war'). GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem with repeated incivility from IP user
– User blockedRudget. 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been some problems with an IP user where the user's first edit mentions spoofing. The next edit tries to insinuate against another editor by implying they wrote something and questioning their motives. The next edit is an obvious personal attack. The next edit tries to call into question the editor and the motives of the editor instead of tackling the substance of the argument. Then again the user tries to direct an attack against another editor. I then placed a warning on the user's talk page. The user then insists on replacing edits[76][77][78][79][80] (and many more) that have been reverted due to containing incivility and personal attacks.I have initially reverted the user's changes that violate AGF or contain personal attacks, however now because of the user's editing pattern I have my strong suspicions that this IP user is evading a ban for using sock puppets. Basically IP the user started editing on the same topic, binary prefixes, as the other two banned users and is using the same IP address range to edit from (IP address starting 217.87 which is the same German ISP). These can be seen in the last section "IPs to keep track of from" on this sock puppet history page.While this suspected sock puppet activity is related to this issue my main priority is for the IP user to stop making edits that attack other editors and to be civil. Fnagaton 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The IEC binary prefix issue on Talk:Binary_prefix can bring about lively debates. In this case I have to agree with Fnagaton that the IP user is just being obnoxious. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
After seeing the latest edits from the IP user I have to agree with this edit that this IP user is a sock puppet evading a block from User talk:NotSarenne. I've tried creating a sock puppet report but have been told I cannot edit the page due to a previous report being there for User talk:NotSarenne, so I'm a bit stuck. :) Fnagaton 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll help out now. Just looking over the report. Rudget. 12:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Although the IP user is using an ISP that hands out dynamic IPs so it can be difficult to track. Good luck! Fnagaton 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the contributions of the IP is has been blocked for 2 weeks, although as it is a daily interchangable IP, it might be best to keep a track of the pages it it likely to edit. I've also reviewed the contributions of CapnZapp, could it be possible s/he is a sock of someone? Rudget. 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to wade through what is quite a complex issue. I don't have access to the IP logs for CapnZapp so just going on the contributions thus far I don't see a sock puppet problem? I'll keep an eye out for other IP users from the same ISP (or newly created accounts) editing the same pages and topics that the IP user has been connected with. Fnagaton 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Page moves by Dove1950
– on final warning
Dove1950 (talk·contribs) has spent today reverting half-a-dozen moves. All were submitted to WP:RM, and all of the discussions were closed move. In some cases he has gone so far as to cut and paste the article and the talk page to the title he prefers; in most of these cases, he is the only editor to prefer it. The guidelines he insisted on has also been changed.
Lebanese lira to Lebanese pound. Closed by AjaxSmack, 3-1 and a comment preferring direct change of guidelines.
I am moving these back. Quite apart from the debates at RM, WP:ENGLISH is clear that the most common English name is to be preferred. Black Kite 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Since this is the second time this editor has done this, and he's been warned by an admin before, I have issued a final warning. Would be useful if a few other admins could watchlist these pages too. Black Kite 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Dove1950 has a rather long history of doing this sort of thing, for example, look at his moves at Renminbi: [81]. This kind of behaviour needs to stop. I wonder if a conduct RfC might be in order sometime soon. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is a Wikiproject (Numistics) with a tiny number of participants that wrote a naming convention into their project page. This defies our basic process of hwo proposals turn into guidelines for basic stuff like naming conventions and it's in conflict with our base naming conventions. Now that they've written it, they think they can bulldoze it across the articles they think their project is responsible for. Dove1950 thinks he's doing the right thing because nobody has cut off this errant Wikiproject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well, actually, that's kind of been fixed now. The project's guidelines were recently changed to be more in line with our common names and English name guidelines, although Dove1950 opposed this change. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 05:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This can be marked as resolved. Dove1950 has been warned, and the most recent articles he tried to move have been move-protected (preferable to a block in this instance). Neıl☎ 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Brian Reddyb again evading his community ban and engaging in disruptive editing. (For a full list of accounts and IP addresses used by this sock puppeteer, refer to his talk page.) IP 86.42.206.133added "Brian Reddyb" back as a founding producer of Rednex despite this having been proved to be a hoax months ago. Same IP would later specify "Reddyb" as a female condom manufacturer instead of the (apparently) legitimate "Reddy" brand name. Illbreddy (note similarity of name to other socks) created the Reddyb page as a redirect to the female condom article; the page would be speedy deleted soon afterwards. Requesting indefinite block for Illbreddy, and a medium-term block for 86.42.206.133. CounterFX (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone really should have a talk with this IP. For 3 days now he's been removing others comments on this article talk page. He's been warned, warned, warned, reverted, reverted, reverted but continues. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for disruption for 31 hours. If he does it again, let us know again, and he will be blocked again, for longer next time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the block, here he/she entirely re wrote another IP's coment.--Hu12 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, looking at the text of the comment he replaced {Some mention should be made of the fact that Mr. Atwater currently maintains a residence in the lowest circle of hell, right next to the Devil himself.) I could see that as unhelpful to editing the article, POV and needlessly inflamatory. If you hadn't reverted him, I'd be tempted to remove it myself. Pairadox (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit by User:BQZip01
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There has been some heated discussion on some issues, but I'm stopping here. This edit is going too far. Prefacing the comment with "an example for dramatic effect" means nothing, those words have no place here. Can someone step in to cool things down a whole lot? Franamax (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: I am part of the discussion on the page in question - though opinions differ as to whether I am "involved" in the issue. There is actually something of a meta-meta argument over that very issue.
I really don't see what BQ was trying to prove with that example, but I don't see that it violates any rules either.
Actually, it was made in reply to a post by Franamax which said, "...Once you started that page on-wiki, didn't AGF pretty much go out the window?..."[82] I think that may have been a violation of WP:AGF on the part of Franamax. Franamax questioned whether I was acting in good faith just slightly up the page.[83]
Franamax has offered to mediate this dispute, but I am not certain he is coming at this from a neutral perspective.
In any event, there is disagreement occurring at that page, but I see no reason for a WP:ANI post or any administrative action.
Additional feedback on the RFC itself is certainly welcome. Johntex\talk 06:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(e/c with closure) Johntex, thank you for letting me know about this (I assume Fran not mentioning this was an oversight; no malice thought of). This particular edit was designed to illustrate a point (no disruption was intended, so WP:POINT does not apply): to show that actions before/during an RfC are certainly applicable to show a pattern of disruption. If I file an User RfC about Joe Schmo's behavior and he turns around and says "Yep, you are the dirtiest whore I've ever seen. I outta blow your brains out.", well that can be included in the RfC. Furthermore anyone who addresses it and attempts to calm down the situation can be used as corroboration that attempts to diffuse the situation have been attempted. That was all I was trying to say. My disclaimer was intended to explicitly show I was not attributing these actions to the subject of the RfC, but merely stating them as a hypothetical. I believe anyone who reads it can clearly see my intent. — BQZip01 —talk 07:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Extra out-of-closure-process take-a-deep-breath sorry-for-the-drama note: all covered as fast I can type (=slowly), some words will cause me offense, rhetorically or not. Took multiple deep breaths. Closed. Franamax (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
INdeed. I am closing this discussion as it is basically drama spillover. No one is going to get blocked, and no page is to be protected or deleted. There is no incident here for an admin to deal with, and this thread is little more else than a drama magnet.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:03, 11 February 2008 (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.
– FreeThoughts blocked for 24 hours Gwernol 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This new user is changing mentions of Scientology in several celebrity bios to indicate that it is a cult. I don't care if it is or isn't, but don't want to see WP used as another tool in the recent campaign. Pairadox (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just block. This person is obviously a POV pusher. Cult or not, this isn't what we mean by collaborative editing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently there has been a dispute on Poverty in India. While things get heated, users and admins should abide by policies. Admittedly the inclusion of a beggar image is contentious, to say the least.
User:Olivier, who is an admin, has an opinion that the image should be removed. To that end he has argued on the talk page against it ([84]). On February 11, he removed the image, and then immediately protected the page.
My question is: is it appropriate for an admin to protect a page on which he/she is one of the disputing parties?
According to WP:PROTECT "Administrators protecting pages for this reason should do so regardless of the state the page may be in, and not revert to another version, or otherwise modify the page, except as permitted below...Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute."
You just answered your own question. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your diffs are correct, though it might be better to assume good faith that Olivier was trying to resolve the content dispute. That said, the article should not have been changed because of the dispute and then protected by the same person. That seems a little iffy to me —αlεx•mullεr 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps ask him if he recalls this policy? Bstone (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have notified User:Olivier of this thread. - Philippe | Talk 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Bstone, no one should be protecting pages if don't recall the protection policy. It says as much every time you click the "Protect" button. The best approach is probably just to ask Olivier why s/he reverted to the preferred version, and ask him/her to self-revert back to the "wrong" version. MastCellTalk 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This page actually has an history of protection and unprotection. To my best understanding, the previous time I had unprotected this page, there was a consensus to remove the picture. So I removed it and then unprotected the page. I was later notified on my talk page that the edit war had resumed and that the picture had been re-posted. So I deleted the picture again to return the page to what I understood to be the previous consensus and then protected the page again. Removing it happened to also be my personal opinion. In fact, what I said was that there should be at least a warning before a reader could see the picture. Basically I was an outsider called into this heated discussion and my action reflected my best understanding of the consensus. I was not trying to seal my personal opinion by protecting the page. If you want to have a clearer picture of what happened, please have a look at the history of the page, at its talk page and at my talk page as well. Thank you. olivier (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this count as canvassing or friendly notices? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard I find it hard to draw the line because it's not like he's contacting 50 users; on the other hand, he is specifically writing to those who have been on the opposite side of Abd in debates at Talk:Instant runoff voting and similar fora. This would seem to fall under Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking. He has been warned once. 129.174.91.119 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears he was warned by User:El_C and has ignored that warning and persisted in inappropriately canvassing oppose !votes. I've blocked him for 24 hours; up to the closing 'crat at the RfA whether any !votes need to be weighted to account for canvassing. MastCellTalk 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Following off-wiki coverage, this page has become a focus for some unhelpful behavior and perhaps also for some users with specific viewpoints and agendas. Examples evidencing the behaviors, and that others have noticed this: this comment, thisrevert, and incivility issues [85].
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter are, Jossi has stated that he will not edit those pages for the time being. It is appropriate that others do not use the wiki as a battleground either to attack people on them.
Proposed -- slightly more eyeballs on this page and its talk page, and a few warnings (and admin action if needed) when personal attacks, incivility, or unhelpful editing is taking place. Would it be okay for a few people to keep an eye on this area for conduct?
Re: this diff, would someone other than me tell JzG/Guy to lay off the personal attacks? Had it been me, I'd be blocked for sure. Additionally, the attack should be removed. I will give someone else plenty of time to do that before I do it myself. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Allstar, you were incredibly rude. You were blocked by Jimbo only recently for "unrepentant incivility", and you have personalised that deletion debate to a remarkable and wholly unjustified extent; I note you've also been blocked for WP:BLP violations and edit warring. These are a bad combination. We are dealing here with an upset article subject who feels that he has been deliberately snubbed and insulted by Wikipedia. Do try to show a modicum of tact. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making sure to point out that I've been blocked by Jimbo. There is no BLP issues regarding the Bannan article. He even hosts the very same sources on his own web site. But that's not the issue here.. the issue here is your attack against me. Can you stick to the issue please? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you went over the line, Guy. Please tone it down a bit.
That said - Allstar, this is a BLP issue, and you are not showing it due WP:BLP sensitivity at the moment. It's also an OTRS issue, and on current review it appears like there's a serious problem with your behavior on both accounts. I'm going to also log this to your talk page, but this is a final warning regarding abusive behavior and this article topic. No more. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not done one thing disruptive or in violation of policy regarding this AfD. Mind pointing out specifics? Thanks. And you threaten to block me but just tell him to "tone it down a bit" ?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also please note that I have removed the personal attack. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You accused him of trying to sneak it by people. Counterattacking is not a wise or ethical response to claims of canvassing. Whether what you did met the technical definition of canvassing or not, your comment was rude and uncivil and failed to assume good faith about Guy's motivation and tactics. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't *accuse* him of anything. I *asked* him if that was his intentions. There is a difference. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's sophistry, and coming right after you at least borderline canvassed I can't AGF anymore about your intentions on this particular AFD.
...especially since Guy also "just asked a question". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You aren't normally abusive or problematic, but this is a particularly sensitive question, and you have been particularly insensitive for a bit here, and the combination is not OK. Please take a short break and re-engage on the topic in a manner which won't increase drama and incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I think Gwh's comment is probably best for all. While ASE is not always sunshine and light, I don't think his comment is excusable, but the reaction has been a bit overboard as well. So let's all step back? The AFD itself is approaching WP:SNOW, the picture issue needs to be checked out, and I personally would like to hear from the subject of the article why they're all-fire against the words "openly gay" being in the article when they have blared their sexuality in half a dozen interviews. In other words, can we work on the encyclopedia rather than each others' nerves? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy's language,regardless of what preceded it, was totally inexcusable -- it could be seen as a physical threat. Any other editor would have already been blocked for it. I am quite prepared to block for the length of time appropriate to physical threats if there is any support for it.DGG (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I did see it as a veiled threat but between him and George ganging up on me, I decided to move on from it. When I pointed out the PA, I got threatened with block by George but Guy got a "Please tone it down a bit" by George. No need to keep this going with any blocks of Guy but I would say that for someone to be in such a high esteemed position as Guy (he made sure to point that out here), he should consider how he talks to people. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I concurr with DGG that the comment by JzG constitutes an implicit threat of violence. However, the placement of an extended block against a current administrator's account would result in a serious conflict. Concerns relating to misconduct this severe by an administrator should be addressed directly to the Arbitration Committee, which, in view of the seriousness of the situation, may be willing to consider the matter without prior formal dispute resolution. John254 19:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
JzG's comment is yet one more in a long line of unprofessional and unnecessarily personal comments directed at editors he disagrees with. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be inappropriate, but it's a very big stretch to actually consider this a physical threat. Common sense is a wonderful thing. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The comment may have been uncivil, but in the context, I certainly don't see it as a threat either. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no way this was a physical threat. It also wasn't appropriate for the level of provocation, but I've seen a lot worse. I think Guy reacted with too short a fuse, perhaps seeing a level of bad faith that just wasn't there. --A. B.(talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat
Since no admin seems to have the sense to have unblocked User:Zenwhat yet, I'll make this a new section. This user was blocked for removing a section he started on the village pump [86], with the edit summary "Too angry when I wrote this. I don't want a flame-war. I changed my mind. This thread is getting deleted."
He was trying to make the situation right, and got blocked for it. Some users can be a pain in the butt, but guess what, no one has to edit Wikipedia, no one has to go to discussion pages. If people like Zen drive you mad, edit somewhere else, but you don't get to block them because you don't like them. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This user's pattern of edits to project-space have been very eccentric, to say the least, and unhelpful. If he is unblocked, he should be restricted to editing only articles and their corresponding talk pages. *** Crotalus *** 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should block people for personality qwerks. Unless they're actually being disruptive, don't block them, or restrict them. Criticism of the Foundation, however misplaced it might be, is not banned from the Village Pump. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the interesting quirk to look at is the pattern of making edits and either deleting them or claiming "oh well, I do silly things". Making mistakes is one thing, continually making mistakes with the justification that one makes mistakes is another. No I don't have a set of diffs. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We users are often reminded that blocks are to protect WP and to prevent disruption, and are not used punitively. The blocking admin's rationale was that removing the comments of other editors was unacceptable. Zenwhat recognises he should have archived rather than removed. The comments have been restored, and the discuaaion in question is archived. There is thus little "protective" benefit to be had in continuing this block. Since I know that punitive blocks aren't permitted, the situation here must be that no one has noticed the discussions above or that not removing the block is an oversight - after all, none of Wikipedia's admins would ever act to punish an editor. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Zenwhat seems to have a history of acting, then recognising and apologising for inappropriate actions. To the extent that this statement is true, then the protective benefit of a continuing block is to prevent the disruption caused by these recurrent mistakes. The time-out also gives pause for reflection and hopefully self-remediation. Franamax (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have spent a lot of time on two serious efforts to convince Zenwhat to become more responsible in his actions. He accused me of violating WP:AGF and WP:AHI by criticising him. I invite those who feel that blocking Zenwhat was unjustified or not necessary to prevent further disruption to read my two long conversations with him (see my talk page). If this does not change your mind, then presumably I approached it in the wrong way and would like to get some feedback on my talk page. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, if this was just a "personality quirk", that would be one thing. But this user seems to live to stir up the shit with twisted arguments that I have doubts over the sincerity of. (1 == 2)Until 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I missed this second thread, but per above, I unblocked about an hour ago. Orderinchaos 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Though Zenwhat is "retired" now, there is previous User:Nathan admitted, and see above similar edit pattern (briefly) a user banned? called something similar to User:Karmaisking. Are there issues of the socking nature that deserve more attention?
Interacting with Zenwhat on WP talkpages recently has been a rather frustrating experience.
I have no problems with Zenwhat being unblocked at this time, however, if the user comes back from retirement, some remedies (ie agree to abide by talkpage guidelines, and respect both WPspace and mainspace as decent venues for building knowledge, not a battleground).
Other editors have commented on Zenwhat's energy, prolificy, and remarkable tendency to hurl accusasions, of CABAL, assume bad-faith, invoke IAR, SPADE, -ICK, etc. The incivility is the main issue, and the user will not acknowledge the need to drop such nastiness in the future. But, then, they've retired. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Unblocking him was not the most smartest thing to do, since he has a history of becoming 'Hostile' towards other editors that disagree's with him, I'm not going to Bite him or call him a troll though his attitude is nothing less than what an actual troll does, he earlier created to policies on Meta called Precisionism and Don't be a crybaby with the latter being the one which defines his attitude perfectly..Previously he edited as an anon, where his attitude has been similar and he also had personal Grudges against editors like Sceptre and also making personal attacks against him as well as near edit warring here and on a deleted article maybe to enforce a POV... I don't think this person will ever contribute positively to wikipedia and thats why I disagree with the unbanning...--Cometstyles 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are the meta essays he wrote particularly bad? I for one find the "Don't be a crybaby" essay, while unfortunately named, a particularly illuminating essay and the approach with which I (try) to approach Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You may have misread Cometstyle's comment. I think it is safe to say that Zenwhat behaves like the crybaby in the essay: he is rude and overly inflammatory. I am not sure if he imagines he is acting like the Zen master of the story, or if he wants to teach us to behave like the Zen master, by openly playing the martial arts student. In both cases this is at the same time a good and useful essay and another example of Zenwhat externalising his faults. There is also a chance that he wrote this essay as a reminder to himself, but then it clearly didn't work. As to "precisionism": I have never heard the term before. Apparently he wanted to popularise it because he thinks it describes his attitude.
The problem I see with the unblock is that it allows him to continue in his delusion of having community support for his disruptions. I hope that the next time he has to be blocked for outrageous activities it will be for less than a week, so that the educational effect won't be spoiled by another unblock. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand, his behavior, while not the best, didn't warrant a block in the first place. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. This is what makes Wikipedia great. A user comes here simply to complain about the place and make a scene, gets blocked for it, and scores of admins who apparently don't have time to worry about important things like vandalism reversions and taking care of other ANI posts, sit around and argue about the precise definition of troll. This is almost as bad as arguing about Coolcat's userpage. The fact that I'm edit conflicting in posting here only proves my point. Not that we're feeding, or that I've seen this happen 500 times before or anything. Get on, guys, do something useful; you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If the user wishes to contribute, let him say sorry now (as the community has so agreed), or he can find another username anyway, which he obviously doesn't. And then END OF STORY, move on. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, we are 7 users who have nothing better to do. The 3 admins in this thread have contributed only 1 post each and didn't argue much about the semantics. I will certainly stop doing it now. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked this was a volunteer project, and users can choose to spend their time in one area or another if they wish. Yes, we could ignore this, but we chose to look at a situation which bothered us, discussed the issue, and I'm sure we hope that the discussion effects more than the immediate issue. -- Ned Scott 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
ZW is unblocked. ZW is "retired". ZW chooses not to comment at the AN/I. ZW chooses not to acknowledge any need to respond to the concerns of editors who, collectively, have been attacked and insulted by ZW. All done? Newbyguesses - Talk 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat is a extremely intelligent person who unfortunately is badly let down by his equally extremely impetuous nature. If he were to think before he acted more often, he would be a great contributor. He does spot his own mistakes and correct them, which is a sign that he is learning, which is a positive thing. I'm fairly certain that he isn't intentionally trolling. I've been scratching my head about what to do about the impetuousness, though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good summary for most purposes, actually. Orderinchaos 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've only interacted with Zenwhat once at the Help Desk the other day, but I certainly didn't get the impression he was eccentric or impetuous as people say. And he was working on an improved Wikipedia:Bots/Status page (although now reverted by him for some reason). Frankly the comments about him here on AN/I are fairly insulting, although given that other editors seem to have encountered him a lot more than me, I'll not jump to call them impetuous either. I just think any indef block was/is way overboard -- Zenwhat just needs to spend several hours reading and absorbing all of Wikipedia policies is all. In short, I do not believe admin action is required. • Anakin(talk) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
IP editor being disruptive -please help
Editor 201.245.216.200 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) is continuing an ongoing wiki-campaign to disruptively add (randomly inaccurate) information to infoboxes of multiple celebrities without discussion. I noticed this latest time here (edit on Michael J. Fox page diff). Some of the other IP's doing the same thing (most likely the same user) here:
It's all s/he does, I'm tired of dealing with it, more eyes please. And please check all of the latest contributions. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Yamla, R. Baley (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You might want to file a suspected sock complaint. You may be able to take action against the user via that route as well. LambtonT/C 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jovin Lambton, and thanks for the suggestion. However, I think it's pretty clear that it's the same user here, so the main questions are: 1) Is the level of disruption worth a range block, (2) how many/what type of users will be affected by a range block?, (3) How long to implement it? I don't know any of those things, so in the mean time I'll just save the post, and if/when it comes up again, re-post with the new info as needed. Is it dull? sure. But it's about all I can do on my end. R. Baley (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I would support any effort to block this editor if the use of multiple IPs has had the effect of generating false consensus. LambtonT/C 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a 3RR report on Bakasuprman (talk·contribs) here only to find out that Admin Nishkid64 says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman and not have him blocked here. However, when I went over the 3RR, he blocked me instantly here. This is straight out favoritism and an abuse of power on this admin's part. It is not fair that one editor can have such privileges to avoid being blocked for 3RR violations. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You have not presented any evidence that this is due to "favoritism". The circumstances may have been different. Alternatively, he may have simply taken two different courses of action at two different times; there's no algorithm for how to deal with 3RR reports. -- tariqabjotu 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect if one has broke the 3RR rule, doesn't that entitled the editor to be blocked? Correct me if I am wrong, but on the 3RR page it states, "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. The rule applies per editor." This was found on the 3RR page here. So, please let me know if 3RR only applies to particular editors (race, caste, creed, sex, nationality). Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And doesn't the same exact page you just cited say the following: "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action."? So, in this case, Nishkid64 made some judgment here. Metros (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Raja, I blocked you in September for disruptive edit warring over the addition of WikiProject templates on talk pages. In January 2008, you violated 3RR over the same WikiProject template on an article talk page. I had told you before to seek a consensus before adding those templates back. You failed to engage in such discussion and you violated 3RR, so I blocked you. Also, I did not handle the 3RR report you filed. Bakasupraman contacted me off-wiki hours before, and asked for my thoughts. I reviewed the situation, told him he had violated 3RR, and issued warnings to both Baka and Relata refero. I chose not to block the users because they were engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I was going to protect the page, but I decided to leave it alone for the time being. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So, would it be ok for me to edit war just as long as I have dialog on the page? Wiki Raja (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR violations are handled separately. You engaged in repeated disruptive edit warring, so I blocked you. Bakasupraman has a history of that behavior, but I didn't think it was appropriate to block him (and Relata) when they were both engaging in serious discussion on the talk page. If you had been engaging in serious discussion and violated 3RR, an admin might consider just protecting the page, instead of blocking. However, like I said, it's an admin's call. Different situations need different action. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I quite get you on this matter. You state that I did not engage in dialog, when I did engage in dialog here in the section titled Removing WikiProject Templates. But, wait a minute, for some odd reason, my discussion is not shown in the history section here. Now, can you tell me what's going on? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Umm...yes, you didn't engage in any serious discussion that would achieve a consensus in your favor. That's why I blocked you twice. You told them not to remove the templates, but I don't see where they commented. The history wasn't deleted at any point, so it's possible that the discussion took place elsewhere. Also, there seems a consensus to not include the template. If the other editors remove the template, do not undo their edits. Get them into discussion, and try to convince them. If that doesn't work, then you could try consulting a larger audience (don't go as far as forum shopping, though). Nishkid64 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's because they didn't bother to reply and continued reverting. When one was coming close to a 3RR, they get another account to continue the revert. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that Nishikid is practicing "favoritism". But sometimes I feel that decisions on WP:3rr are handed down (by many admins, not just a particular one) quite inconsistently.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You doubt? Then that means we're not really sure of that. BTW, can there be an explanation as to why my two previous posts which can be clearly seen here under Removing WikiProject templates is not showing in the history section here? Wiki Raja (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about; all of your posts are in the history. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the dates in bold face below really close and show me that it appears in the history.
I replied on Wiki Raja's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is puzzled by the reference to me. please do have a look at re:3rr. I do think Nishkid has mismanaged a few situations, particularly in his desire to shield someone who really should have been banned by ArbCom three times by now, but I think he's already been madea aware of the problems. I do trust his off-wiki discussions with Bakasuprman will be followed by more careful investigation in future; its not as if Bakasuprman has much of a reputation for accuracy. Relata refero (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not shielding anyone. As I told you already, you made an uncivil comment, and I warned you. Dealing with problematic users doesn't give you a right to violate WP:CIVILITY. Don't make unsubstantiated baseless comments about my actions. Also, I investigated the matter, as I already told you on your talk page. Drop the irrelevant side commentary on Bakasupraman. He has issues with edit warring and incivility, but don't tarnish his contributions, many of which have been beneficial to this encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I didnt violate WP:CIVIL, as I have explained at length on your talkpage. There was simply no other way of making that point.
What is an unsubstantiated baseless comment? I have based everything I have said on what you have told me specifically on my talkpage - in a conversation linked above, so anyone can check. Dont make unsubstantiated baseless comments accusing me of making unsubstantiated baseless comments:)
And "side commentary" on a seriously disruptive, POV-pushing, habitually uncivil user who violated 3RR yesterday and didn't even care is hardly irrelevant at AN/I. His mysterious positive contributions, which consist as far as I can see of 50 minimally researched stubs in one subject area where he is not an expert, are not really Giano standard, you know. Relata refero (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This individual has something against folks who do not belong to the same faith as this user which was also the case with the recent 3RR this person committed. Further, the admin who let him of the hook makes me feel that he also favors editors of the same interests. Admin or not, I'll have to state that there sure is a lot of favoritism going on in here. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Now, which is lower? Wikiraja trying to divert attention from himself or Relata refero taking a snipe at Bakasuprman from behind Wikiraja? Bakasuprman has been through arbcoms and come out clean. He has been upheld as an editor in good standing by arbcoms more than once. If RR doesnt like it.. just too bad but just dont bring it here and waste people's time. Sarvagnya 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Bakasuprman has benefited due to dirty admins playing the favoritism game. Birds of the feather flock together. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sarvagnya here. WR's use of "Jews" in that statement proves that he is attempting to throw mud at the wall (in hopes of some sticking) considering I have collaborated with numerous Jewish users, and no user in good standing has ever indicated anti-Semitism on my part. On the subject of Muslims, Wikipedia's articles on Muslim history would be lacking without articles on Khwaja Ahsanullah. Shamsunnahar Mahmud, Habibullah Bahar Chowdhury, etc. Looking at Christians, please do compare Hkelkar's version with mine.Bakaman 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this group is slowly trying to evade the topic on Nishkid64's biasedness towards certain users. You can throw all the piety and adminship talk at me, but the truth shows there is favoritism for editors of the same feather. If favoritism was not the case, I would not have been blocked in a heartbeat and would have been given the chance to speak with an admin just like the chance you gave Bakasuprman. Who is he anyway to receive preferential treatment over other editors? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Call for block of Relata refero
Relata refero is an obvious sock puppet account which started editing Wikipedia in October 2007. Since then this user has targeted a certain number of users who edit controversial pages. The sole purpose of this sockpuppet has been to cause disruption and enter into disputes. Therefore, a block of this account is called for under the Good hand, bad hand sock policy, perhaps that might encourage this user to login through their original account. — Nearly Headless Nick{C} 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is he a sock of and who is being targeted? Lawrence § t/e 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can apply this Good hand, bad hand sock policy on the Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti accounts. After all, both usernames have been confirmed to belong to the same person here. What's fair is fair. Wiki Raja (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Sir Nick, this is a pretty wild accusation and would need a lot more substantiating. For all I can see, Relata refero is an excellent editor with a wide spectrum of interests. Yes, his early contributions of last October indicate he was probably not a newbie at the time, but that doesn't mean he is an abusive sock. He could be a reincarnation of a user in good standing who left. He could even be a legitimate alternate account, although I doubt that. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sir Nicholas is talking rubbish, as usual. There's no reason to block Relata refero: he's been doing a good job in a number of problematic areas. Unless you can prove to me, via checkuser or otherwise, he's an abusive sockpuppet, I will strongly oppose any suggested sanctions. I'm aware that some think he's User:Hornplease, but, with all due respect, Hornplease was not banned, had a virtually clean block log, and has stopped editing anyway! This would be a legitimate reincarnation - and I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest Relata is Hornplease anyway. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article... 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Sir Nick is standing right next to the guy here who blocked and then unblocked the confirmed socksSarvagnya/Gnanapiti. There's a lot of hanky panky going on around here on Wikipedia. It's time for a serious cleanup before this gets out of hand. Wiki Raja (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not usually quick to shout "admin abuse" or "cabal", but Sir Nick is really pushing it here. Relata refero is an excellent encyclopedia editor, and I'd trade ten Sir Nicks for one of those any day. dab(𒁳) 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The accusations against Relata refero are baseless and absurd accusations. And I will echo Wiki Raja's comments above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick, please strike this attack on Relata Refera unless you can provide hard evidence that the general community can review. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely. Wouldn't litigiousness befit a lawyer in training? rudra (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya were initially confirmed as sockpuppets because of geographic similarities. A later CU showed that they were indeed two separate users. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Come on. This dirty cover up is getting so old. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Raja is begging to be blocked himself, by raking this issue up again, for no reasons, and without having any recent findings. Per the previous discussion with another admin, he is not supposed to bring this up again, but he has violated that. See the discussion, here. As I have mentioned in "Wiki Raja" section above, these kind of disruption is happening time and again, and there is absolutely no use to Wikipedia with all these, and is just consuming time of everyone. I call for an immediate block on User:Wiki Raja. Thanks - KNMTalk 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This mobster and bully mentality on Wikipedia has got to stop! Wiki Raja (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Not commenting on Nishkid64 or Wiki Raja, Relato refero is a very serious and dedicated wikipedian. He regularly shares his thoughts on WP:RSN and other policy making venues. While he has been involved in disputes (I can name you admins that have been involved in ugly disputes), his overall contribution to wikipedia is positive. No evidence above has been provided that would suggest otherwise.Bless sins (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
do not endorse - I do not endorse any sanction against relata refera. the user is a good editor, who works hard for the encyclopedia. there are many others who should be shown the door prior to relata refera. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
YHBT. HTH. rudra (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt Nick would be making such allegations without evidence to back it up. I'm sure Nick will be able to properly substantiate the aforementioned claims. Similar editing patterns on Narendra Modi, Nandigram massacre and Sonia Gandhi for a start piqued my suspicions, and the basically identical wording and attitude on talk pages confirmed my suspicions. I would assume Nick has something that is more convincing, which he will probably disclose in the near future, considering that he has not taken action yet.Bakaman 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And all one has to do is just click on your username and see your resume. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this group is slowly trying to evade the topic on Nishkid64's biasedness towards certain users. You can throw all the piety and adminship talk at me, but the truth shows there is favoritism for editors of the same feather. If favoritism was not the case, I would not have been blocked in a heartbeat and would have been given the chance to speak with an admin just like the chance you gave Bakasuprman. Who is he anyway to receive preferential treatment over other editors? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops, someone beat me to it anyway. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Raja wasn't a party to Hkelkar 2, but he needed to be hit with a stick anyway. Frankly, I think the Hkelkar stick needs to be used more often, on more people. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See how we have resolved conflicts much more equitably in WP:SLR. Many editors who used to violate wikipedia rules now play by the rules, others keep out of trouble. What really mattered was a bunch of admins who really wanted to resolve these issues in a neutral manner who were more than ready to use their admin powers liberally. Another one is WP:IPCOLL. India caste and religion related articles require such a dispute resolution process where truly uninvolved neutral admins are willing to participate as enforcers of civility, neutrality etc. Al what you guys have done here is to put off the problem by two months without resolving the route cause of the conflict itself. Taprobanus (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of cultural impact sections
I've had a problem with editor User:DJH47, and I'd like some clarification. On the page for Rock Lobster, I had readded a section detailing a reference to the song on Family Guy. After some discussion on the edit page [98], it stood. User:DJH47 then deleted it, saying it was not notable.
After I pointed out to him several other articles of note that contained cultural references sections, he went through and deleted every one of those sections [99][100][101][102][103][104] without any discussion. He has since gone on to redelete every editors attempt to readd the section, [105][106][107][108] without explanation on the talk page.
I don't want to enter into an edit war with this editor, much less one that stretches across multiple pages, so I've tried to engage him in a discussion on his page User talk:DJH47 and also the Talk:The Butterfly Effect page. He is deadset against the validity of sections detailing cultural impact or references, and doesn't seem to want to discuss it before deleting them.
By my understanding and experience of watching and editing wikipedia pages, the general consensus is that these cultural reference sections are approved. Personally, I enjoy them if they're edited well. In my opinion, references in other works help to show the notability of the quoted work.
Anyway, my opinion doesn't matter much in this, I'm only here to ask about consensus on these sections. Am I out of line for asking for discussion before deletion on something that's common on wikipedia pages dealing with songs/movies/tv shows?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as I certainly don't want to edit war. I'd like to make sure I understand the current consensus. Thanks. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, there has been alot of discussion over the years regarding cultural significance/crosscultural references etc. with folks lining up on both sides. The surest way to avoid rather messy edit wars from time to time is getting 3rd party references. eg. some book, encyclopedia or journal citing the relevance. I have not seen the diffs yet. If you have any references and referenced material is being deleted then that is more difficult for him to defend. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Generally these sections are quite frowned upon - usually almost all of these pop-culture references are not relevant to discussion of that topic, though they might be relevant in the article of the connecting subject. See Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective trivia and Wikipedia:Relevance of content. I'd have to agree with the removals in the articles you cited above, and would prune or remove them if I came across them; they are all rather unwieldy and off-topic, and leave the articles less focused. krimpet✽ 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Family Guy wiki? I am baffled by the astonishing number of citations I see to this series here on Wikipedia; it (along with The Simpsons and South Park seems to be referenced everywhere, and I suspect that those three series are the heart of every trivia section on this project. I'd love to see some sort of pop-culture wiki where all of the trivia content could be transwikied and be done with it. Horologium(talk) 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Snowfire, this is the tip of a larger iceberg, many of the themes can be seen here. I think some can definitely be referenced and written better. Some on quick scanning are clearly notable while others are less so. Thus the need for some references or commentary/3rd party sourcing. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Horologium, I have proposed the same thing in the past. I think it's the only viable long-term solution to the inclusionist/deletionist wars regarding popular culture articles. *** Crotalus *** 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that fans of shows whose stock in trade is making pop-culture references love their shows so much that they want to add every joke to every applicable article. It's almost an extension of the 'plot summary' problem seen on many TV Episdoe articles. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with ThuranX, and I'd like to add that the connections themselves would be unverifiable from a historical perspective. Many connections make sense now to quite a few editors but do not necessarily support the historical perspective of an article of the topic. Every kind of media will be culturally attuned to the contemporary environment, which is constantly changing. The uncited connections of popular culture references won't make sense to readers 50 years from now since they cannot dwell in and thus comprehend the environment that entitles current viewers and readers to "get" the references. Ultimately, the most important references will be addressed by secondary sources, not necessarily in the same decade as the media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to be argumentative, but if I say "Vitameatavegamin", or "a rilly big sheeeeewwww," a substantial group knows what I'm referring to, even fifty years later. I can't speak for "South Park", but I'm reasonably certain that "Family Guy" will be a similarly-remembered show, and I'll be shocked if "The Simpsons" isn't. (Okay, actually in 50 years there's a more-than-reasonable chance I won't be around to BE shocked, but I trust you take my point.) Gladys J Cortez 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Most people here have no idea about "A rilly big sheeeeewwww", and even the name Ed Sullivan doesn't ring a bell for many of them. (I'm almost 40, and I don't remember the sheeeeewwww myself.) Vitameatavegamin is probably a lot more widely known, because of the widespread reruns of I Love Lucy. While I think The Simpsons and South Park will be remembered 50 years from now (both pushed the envelope in ways that Family Guy never did), I doubt that FG will have the same impact, and its densely packed current pop-culture references will date it badly. Just my own thoughts; YMMV. Horologium(talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that the sort of judgments we should be making, or should we be recording popular culture as it becomes notable, whatever we think of the actual merits? DGG (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The sad fact is that there is no current consensus about "cultural impact" sections. Such sections have both flaws and virtues, and there are editors both new and experienced who may loathe them or champion them.
Although content removal does not go by the same rules as XfD, it is probably best to go by the standing convention in XfDs that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Otherwise people could edit-war their way to deleting any part of the encyclopedia they dislike. I am with you in that I do not want to edit war over such material; the solution here is that User:DJH47 should be urged to form a consensus for the deletion of such material if others contest his removal of it. If he opts to edit war to enforce his views over it, the prohibitions against that are well established.--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a very old commercial for Wendy's noted, "show me the beef". We seem to be going round in circles in our quest for evidence. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Autoblocking the uni proxy is a very rookie mistake, and at the very least that needs to be cleaned up. "For the admin who reviews this, please first talk to User:Thatcher or User:Deskana. Checkuser evidence shows that this user and user User:DrEightyEight are connected to the account User:Unprovoked and on February 1, 2008 they edited from the same IP address, alternating, in a matter of minutes which puts them on the same computer. Lara❤Love 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)" seems like a some very weak evidence to block first and ask questions later. Blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned, nice to see you again. Rookie? I went on the results and recommendations of a bureaucrat/checkuser and another checkuser. Also, the underlying IP is not blocked, according to said 'crat. So have a seat. Checkusers and 'crats have the trust of the community, so considering two of them have stated that the evidence links them, everyone needs to move along. It's not a conspiracy, a Albion moonlight refers to it. It's not shady or weak. It's actually (Thatcher or Deskana correct me if I misinterpreted) pretty strong evidence. So as much as I like a nice puddle of spewed bad faith on my talk page and an ANI on my action without anyone notifying me of it, I've got work to do. Lara❤Love 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The number of times checkusers and checkuser results have resulted in blocking of non-socks is great enough that one would be a fool to simply "move along". User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, anyone? I really need to start keeping a list. And Lara, please stop taking this so personally. Look around at the comments aimed at other admins, they're pretty cold at times too, but you don't see them freaking out every time someone objects to a decision they made. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me spell it out, we have more than one user using a uni proxy, and again haven't even stopped to consider that they might know each other. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't play that "don't take it personal" card. This is not like the last situation you popped your head into regarding me. I'm not taking this personal. I'm pointing out that you're challenging the block of socks confirmed by two checkusers based on failure to do your research. RDO already stated he doesn't know Dr88. Yet, they edited from the same computer and the same IP alternating within minutes of each other.
> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)
> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
Is that how dynamic IPs work? Lara❤Love 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have over 30 active comments on WP:ANI right now, most involving blocking discussions related to sock puppet accusations, and you believe I'm going after you? WTF? You being the blocking admin makes little difference. I'm challenging a block that where normal users don't have access to the evidence, and are asking for a little more explanation than "trust the holy checkuser results". They might be socks, and I'm certainly not asserting they're not, but I am well within my right to question something like this. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ned, frankly I know more than you, and without discussing the details I can only say that RDOlivaw's unblock request bears only a passing resemblance to the truth. I would strongly suggest that these accounts not be unblocked, unless it is to give this user a second chance, and that any admins moved to unblock should first contact Arbcom, who can review my findings in confidence. Thatcher 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't question that you know more about this than me, and I have a lot of respect for you. But given past incidences I hope you can understand why we might question stuff like this. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As has been shown at User talk:DrEightyEight there's a concern that the edits concerned were made from a Static IP address (Freebox) where the modem has the static IP, and multiple computers can use the modem and will show the same IP. That could perhaps explain the sequence LaraLove shows above. DrEightyEight had been indefblocked with autoblock enabled, so I've unblocked and reblocked with the autoblock removed, in case that was also blocking a university network. User:Unprovoked has never been blocked, and I don't know if there are any other accounts blocked in this connection which could have the same issue. Presumably the DrEightyEight whois relates to Grenoble university, however an IP which RDOlivaw apparently used more recently when logged out showed as a Nottingham University network on whois. I've requested clarification of the alleged disruption but have yet to be shown any diffs or any indication other than the claim that "they have supported one another in various discussions regarding article content and such". Concerns have been raised in the past about indefblocking newbies, and care is needed. . . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me clear up a couple of things. First, LaraLove did not know that RDOlivaw was editing from a proxy at Univ Nottingham, because I didn't tell her--IPs are rarely disclosed, except when absolutely necessary or when the editor has given it away himself. I didn't check for other editors because at the time I ran the check, RDOlivaw had only 3 edits on this IP and they were not germane to the issue of sockpuppetry. If I had checked, I would have seen a lot of good users and I would have told her to disable the autoblock. But I didn't. Second, RDOlivaw has himself stated that he edits through a "University proxy." and from wi-fi. There is nothing in the whois or rdns information for his Grenoble IP address to indicate that it is a proxy and he is the only editor on that IP. But for the one edit that gives him away, he has no logged-in edits from any other location such as wi-fi hot spots. Finally, it is clear to me that these two accounts were carefully created to give the appearance of being different individuals. RDOlivaw edits exclusively from University during work hours Monday-Friday, and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a residential IP (probably DSL) on nights and weekends. Except for one mistake, the best I would ordinarily be able to say is possible based on similar geolocation. I am normally hesitant to describe precisely what that mistake was, to avoid making this person a smarter sockpuppeteer next time, but Deskana has already given away the basics on user talk:RDOlivaw. DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a single residential IP address, probably DSL. There are no edits from other users suggesting this might be a wi-fi hotspot or LAN. This series of edits
> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)
> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
were all made from DrEightyEight's residential IP address. These two editors have stated they do not know each other, the only possible explanation is that DrEightyEight is running an unsecured wi-fi hotspot that no one has every used except himself, but for one day when RDOlivaw was driving home from work and was struck by a sudden need to protest his being added to the list of editors under probation [109] and by coincidence was driving past DrEightyEight's apartment and found his hotspot for a single edit. Thatcher 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The commonality of the subject of these edits should also be noted.
Yet, they edited from the same computer and the same IP alternating within minutes of each other. - the _lack_ of this rapid-fire alternation on the same IP address was used as evidence _against_ Jeffrey O Gustafson; and your claim that it was "the same computer" is absolutely unsupported as an independent claim vs merely being the same IP address. —Random832 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not unsupported at all. The checkuser tool gives information on the computers used to make edits. The fact that they edited from the same private residential IP to ask the same question within minutes of each other, on the same kind of machine... that's not suspicious to you? When that is their *only* overlap? You need to think like a sockpuppeteer to understand them. --Deskana(talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser tool does not and cannot make evaluations about how much equipment is operating at an IP address (and i'm not aware that it returns browser, user agent etc data, even though it would be technically possible for it or another tool to do so - which would be necessary to even say "the same kind of machine") - that was all that I was saying. I didn't mean to be questioning the validity of the sockpuppetry claim in general, it's just that saying "from the same computer and the same IP" makes the claim sound stronger without adding more substance. —Random832 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Same user agent, whatever. RDOlivaw has just one overlapping edit, his "fingerprint," on a static residential DSL IP used exclusively by DrEightyEight. Otherwise RDOlivaw edits exclusively from a college during working hours and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from his residence during non-working hours and weekends. I guess they are roommates, and RDOlivaw has never, in the last month, had an urge to make more than a single edit outside of working hours. Thatcher 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
User agent? Does wikimedia use some kind of fancy extended checkuser that's not pictured in commons:Checkuser? —Random832 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Dave souza, thank you for making me aware of this thread. Simultaneous to Thatcher looking at these users, Deskana forwarded the issue to the ArbCom mailing list. Several current and former arbitrators with CU looked at the evidence and felt that that there was abusive use of multiple accounts through either socking or meat puppets. I do not think that we have made a mistake here but as always are glad to answer questions. There are restrictions on what is ordinarily disclosed to adhere to the Privacy policy and keep sockmasters from learning how to beat the system. This may make our decision seems weaker than it actually is. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Small point (as in "I might've been wr, wr, wrong):
The English of RDO and Dr88 is a bit different, but hardly enough to distinguish between the two. Also, there is one troubling similarity: both RDO and Dr88 end their posts without punctuation, adding instead two dashes (--) followed immediately by the sig. Finally, neither one seems to like edit summaries, at least on that talk page.
The above isn't conclusive evidence, of course, but it does seem an odd quirk to share. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone and in particular Thatcher, for clarifying the detail of the checkuser supporting the blocks of RDOlivaw and User:DrEightyEight. That's rather more detail than I was expecting, but certainly it's informative. You don't mention User:Unprovoked – if that user has been cleared, presumably the sockpuppetry template should be removed from the user page. Anyway, it's certainly been educational for me, and there seem to have been procedural issues that might be improved in the light of the outcome. The notice placed on User talk:Unprovoked stating "evidence presented here: Refer to User:Thatcher," wasn't terribly helpful as there was nothing on your talk page about the case, and an enquiry made to the blocking admin had met with an accusation of bad faith.[110] An enquiry was then made to you, but by the time I read your response RDOlivaw had already raised the question of blocked university networks. The user had disclosed an IP which showed on whois as Nottingham University, but obviously I was cautious about disabling the autoblocks – which was a major reason for my late night posting here, and I'm glad that the autoblocks were disabled by reasonably early on Monday morning to minimise any disruption. So, in conclusion, it might be best for blocking admins to be ready to answer questions about reasons for blocking, preferably indicating the alleged disruption as well as the simple fact that a checkuser had been carried out. Where block notices refer to another admin's page, it would be helpful if that admin's talk page had a mention of the blocking. And obviously care has to be taken to avoid autoblocking networks. It's sad that what seemed to be a promising editor has to be blocked, but there is indeed a considerable weight of evidence of sockpuppetry. Thanks for your help, .. dave souza, talk 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the confusion. I thought it would be obvious that directing one to User:Thatcher and User:Deskana, being that they are CUs, meant to direct questions to them rather than check their userpages for evidence in a sockpuppet case. Regardless, reports filed at RFCU don't give details, and I didn't even have all the details. I wasn't sure how much was supposed to be revealed, so I didn't find it appropriate to give out any of the CU results. As far as my comment linked above, considering OrangeMarlin's post to my talk page was "...there's nothing I dislike more than a sockpuppet, except for an admin that makes improper blocks" and the section below referred to the situation as a "conspiracy", I'm not sure how I was supposed to take that in good faith. But perhaps it's just me. Either way, I'll file a report in the future. Lara❤Love 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't thinking of anything more than "they were colluding on page x, and checkuser has confirmed they are sockpuppets, ask Thatcher for any further details". I appreciate that there was some snarking going on with OM and Whig, but Jim had made a reasonable enquiry and a simple answer would have cleared things up quickly. We all make mistakes, as I did when forgetting to tell you and the others about this AN/I. Sorry about that, .. dave souza, talk 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the situation is resolved now. Evidence is strong, users remain blocked. Apologies given and accepted all around, everyone have a beer (I'll have some Dr Pepper) and it's done. Good times. Lara❤Love 01:34, 12 February 2008 (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.
Moved long thread over 50k from WP:ANI. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not just you, and the whole thing has been giving me an itchy block finger from the outset. I found "one or two" SPAs when I first responded to an OTRS complaint about this:
What say, block the lot? Guy (Help!) 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. AfD a pointless mess, being used to continue some pointless vendetta. Not that the article talkpage is much better. Relata refero (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Would another admin please review this huge number of blocks? While it seems likely that some of them are either sock or meat puppets (I even filed an SSP report on some of them), I think others have demonstrated a willingness to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Blocking the lot of them as "disruptive SPAs" seems excessive. Pairadox (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is overkill. I'm looking at Jrichardstevens (talk·contribs), who is requesting unblock. His explanation of how he found the AFD seems reasonable and he is a long-time, though infrequent user. Unless someone can offer a really good reason for this block, I'm inclined to remove it.--B (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
These are all single purpose accounts with an agenda of either promoting or knocking a marginally notable company. We can do without them. All of them. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note the newly created User:Athoughtforyou, another SPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just looking at Nomoskedasticity, I see no reason for this account to be blocked. It's focused on a single article, yes, but it is not being disruptive about it in any way that I can see. Sandstein (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine, unblock that user then. The rest can stay blocked, at least until the deletion debate is finished, and forever if the article is kept. They are bringing an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, and that is all they are doing. We simply don't need that. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
With your agreement, I've granted Nomoskedasticity's unblock request. Sandstein (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Review of three of the above blocks
I agree with B that this is overkill. Three are quite clearly not single-purpose accounts. I agree in principle with the blocks of those editing the article and AfD disruptively, but I don't agree with the lengths. The Oxford Round Table situation needed sorting out, but some of these accounts are new (only 2-5 edits), and probably arrived here to take part in the AfD, but, if handled correctly (a stern warning, for example), could learn their lessons and (in time, after learning how things work around here) contribute to Wikipedia. They could be, for example, American or Oxford academics, who, if properly guided and introduced to Wikipedia, could really provide some good contributions - this at least argues for a warning and guidance, rather then being labelled SPAs after only 2-5 edits (sockpuppets excepted, if we can identify them).
These are as far from being single-purpose accounts as it is possible to be (remember that the Oxford Round Table article was created on 13:10, 9 December 2007):
Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Wikipedia namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more. But given his reaction to the block Guy placed, that may no longer happen.
Two minor edits to the article in question. Absolutely no reason to block.
If we look at the account creation dates for the accounts listed in that ANI thread, we see that all the accounts, except three, were created in the period from December 2007 to February 2008. Two of those created before that period are the ones I've mentioned above. The other one is Drstones (who created the article in question):
For Guy to say the following in the block log "Disruptive single purpose account", is incredibly frustrating, and a flagrant abuse of the SPA label. I understand fully that he was acting out of concern that this conflict, which apparently includes an off-wiki legal case, was being brought on-wiki, but that doesn't mean he or we have to suspend judgment on these issues. These three accounts are clearly not a single-purpose account, regardless of whether it was disruptive or not. The Drstones account is a bit different, because he created the article, but it is still clearly not an SPA. Maybe disruptive, but not an SPA.
I think Guy owes all three of these accounts an apology for incorrectly calling them "single-purpose accounts" in the block logs, and I think he should apologise in this ANI thread as well. I am incensed that blocks like this are still being handed out, and that the SPA (single-purpose account) label is being abused like this.
And there is more.
Look at the sequence of events in the ANI thread:
Gb posts at 17:08, 8 February 2008 - with an initial query
Guy posts at 17:50, 8 February 2008 - long list of alleged SPAs
Relata refaro posts at 18:17, 8 February 2008 - a brief agreement
Guy blocks 15 of the accounts between 19:46 and 19:48
What does that brief timescale (less than 3 hours), bad blocks, bad advice, and small amount of input remind anyone of? It reminds me of the recent MatthewHoffman arbitration case. The difference here is that the objections to some of these blocks are slowly but surely arriving, and as far as I can see, Guy has provided no justification for his incorrect labelling of three of these accounts as "single-purpose accounts". If there is OTRS or Foundation or checkuser concerns specifically linking these accounts, then that needs to be made much, much clearer.
Oh, and there are actually 17 accounts listed there: Franknfair was blocked earlier for legal threats (so why did Guy list that account as one to be blocked?? Surely he should have looked into the account history before listing it at ANI?). And Coligny seems to have slipped through the cracks - looks like Guy forgot to block him at all. That is not the mark of someone doing a careful and thorough job. Getting things this badly wrong is not good.
I'm left asking myself - was I the only one to bother reviewing all the accounts that Guy blocked? How can ANI be so bad at doing a review like that? Why did Guy take a single reply in that thread, after it had been up for three hours, as an OK to indefinitely block the lot of them?
Note that two of the blocks have already been lifted: Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity, but one of the blocks, the most unjustified of the lot, had a block review declined! See the next bit below.
I've been following this on and off all day, along with e-mailing several people to ask them to review Guy's blocks, but the last straw was the following hideously unfair review process, where the reviewing admin is not being independent, and is just accepting without question what Guy says:
[127] (Trusilver declines unblock request by parotting reply from Guy)
Guy said: "A group of people have brought an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, this dispute includes real-world legal action and has prompted complaints to the Foundation. This user is one of a group of single purpose accounts with no history outside this subject. I blocked the lot."
Trusilver accepted that reason without so much as a murmur, and went back and declined the unblock request. It is clear that Trusilver looked at the edit history in question, so why didn't he point out to Guy that his claim of "accounts with no history outside this subject" was patently wrong?
Please look at the account creation date and look at the twoedits this account made to the article (early on in the history and with no apparent connection to the later conflict). If Guy had any other evidence (eg. checkuser) then he needed to actually say this. Amelia9mm has made a total of 12 edits in the nine months since she registered an account. I made a total of 6 edits in my first six months here. Please don't bite the new editors!
For some questions arising from this, see the next section below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Questions arising from these blocks by Guy
To sum up, my questions would be:
(1) Blocks: Which accounts should be unblocked or have their blocks shortened? Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity have already been unblocked. Franknfair was blocked in January for legal threats. Coligny was never blocked. I think Amelia9mm should be unblocked straightaway, with full apologies and the incorrectness of the block noted in the unblock log. Drstones, who is more involved as the creator of the article in question, although not an SPA, should be reviewed along with all the other editors (including Nomoskedasticity) for the "legal concerns" Guy mentions, but I don't think indefinite blocks are appropriate. Two of the editors: Billingsworth and InformationKey blocked for sock puppeting - more sockpuppets may exist.
(2) Blocking reasons: Why did Guy block all these accounts without checking their history properly? Even a brief look at the account creation dates and the contributions shows us that three accounts (Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens, Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm, Special:Contributions/Drstones) are clearly not single-purpose accounts, and were created and were editing before the article even existed.
(3) Speed of blocking: Why did Guy act so quickly (3 hours) instead of waiting for more input from ANI?
(4) Advice given: Why did Relata refero give the advice he did? Does he stand by his comment?
(5) Responsiveness and defending blocks: Why did Guy continue to insist they were all single-purpose accounts when objections began to arrive? Why does he object so strongly to his blocks being overturned? Do people sometimes think it's not worth challenging a dismissive and confident block handed out by Guy?
(6) Other reasons: If there were other reasons for blocking the accounts, why did Guy not say so?
(7) Role of ANI: Why did no-one reading the ANI thread spot that some of the accounts were not single-purpose accounts? Did anyone even bother to review all those blocks, or did they just trust Guy's judgment?
(8) Failure of block review process: Why did Trusilver not carry out an independent block review of the Amelia9mm account and instead parrot the reason he was given by Guy?
I really hope it is possible to get proper answers to all eight of those sets of questions. I've already posted to Guy's talk page, and I'll notify Trusilver and Relata refero now. I have already e-mailed Guy and Trusilver, and several others (communicating by e-mail because of some silly wikibreak I was trying to stick to), but I'll keep everything on-wiki from now on (other than replying to the e-mails I sent earlier). I've also notified the three accounts in question: [128], [129], [130]. I've also notified Nomoskedasticity and the previous participants in this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of these. They need to be reviewed by a checkuser with OTRS access. At least one (that I removed) was a flagrantly bad block. JzG says there is OTRS evidence that needs to be reviewed so I don't have enough information to make a decision. --B (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Even after reviewing the evidence by Carcharoth above, this looks awfully like a meat puppet ring which sprang into joint action over this particular nomination. I don't believe JzG has done anything monumentally wrong. If we start getting mindlessly bureaucratic such as the above, we are giving trolls a free pass to take over the encyclopaedia and AN/I becomes even more useless than it already is. We make people admins in order that they can deal with crises - this AfD qualified, in my view. Orderinchaos 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
...and the terrorists trolls win! You remind me of what the Bush administration, and other like-thinking politicians, keep saying as they flush civil liberties down the toilet. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've got no problem with due process. Those who follow my contribs on here will see I've unblocked quite a few people, sometimes controversially, because the case built against them here is a house of sticks based on speculation. I was merely commenting that I don't think the above 8 questions help the encyclopaedia and just introduce more bureaucracy. A real life example - when a suburban party gets out of control and the neighbourhood's getting trashed, the police will typically arrest and detain most of the people they find at the scene - even as many as 400 or 500. As the following hours proceed, it will follow that most of those people (all but maybe about 10 or even less) will be freed as the investigation proceeds, usually after a couple of hours. Does that mean the police should rewrite their rule book? No. I'd be sympathetic to the blocks being struck off the accounts' records in such cases if a review finds them to have been totally mistaken (as I believe was the case with Jrichardstevens) but I think in general policy is being managed acceptably. Could be better, but so can most things. Orderinchaos 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Dan, I agree with Orderinchaos here - he has unblocked Amelia99m, so he is being fair here. Orderinchaos, the reference to a meatpuppet ring is fair enough, but I was focusing on three accounts in particular - all of which predated the creation of the article. I hope you would agree that Amelia9mm shouldn't be accused of being a meatpuppet. It seems that Jrichardstevens was aware of the offsite debate (though I haven't checked that yet), but he should be seen as some who was already contributing to Wikipedia, who decided to try and help out - Guy accusing him of being an SPA was way over the line. I'll repeat what I said before - it is a common pattern to see sporadic contributions for the first year or so at Wikipedia before people dive in deeper. We can't assume that this sort of pattern of sporadic edits over a few years means anything more than that, and I hope you would agree with that. No, actually, I know you agree with that. I hope that those who currently disagree will change their minds, and that Guy in particular will hold his hands up, swallow his pride, and say he got these two blocks wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that these two were not SPAs or meatpuppets - in fact JRS voted the same way as JzG on the AfD, and Amelia didn't vote at all, so if they were aware of the debate from outside, they exercised either independence or restraint. Like I said it's been a sweep of a thoroughly nasty situation that caught up some people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have few other edits on the encyclopaedia but who were likely good faith editors, much like my police analogy above. I still am of the opinion there should be a transparent mechanism to nuke incorrect blocks off the record, as whether we like it or not, people come to assumptions based on the block record. Orderinchaos 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As a person marginally involved in this (someone called me in to Oxford Round Table when it was getting a bit out of hand and I secured consensus for removal of the worst of the poorly sourced material), I think JzG acted in a timely and sensible manner. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about assessing blame. It's about determining the disposition of these users. At least one of them is a professor at a major college - SMU. We have a real problem on this encyclopedia with chasing away experts. If the blocks are 90% right and 10% wrong, we need to identify and unblock the 10%. The best way to do that is if someone with checkuser and OTRS access could take a look to see which ones are socks and which ones were making edits for which there is evidence of problems in OTRS. --B (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Who mentioned blame? I gave up OTRS access a few months ago, but the activity here has been particularly egregious and blatant. The evidence is on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Tony, are you seriously saying that Amelia9mm was involved in all this? Are you seriously saying that the block of Jrichardstevens was justified? Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made no statements about the activities of either editor. I refer to JzG's timely and sensible actions. If there are editors in that long lists who were not involved in the abuse, they can be unblocked. This is in fact what these discussions are for. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but do we expect outsiders to know how things work at wikipedia, and when they oh-so-suprisingly fail to do so, block them for it? ViridaeTalk 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If they come to abuse Wikipedia, yes they must be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
How the hell do they know they are abusing wikipedia if they don't know what rules they are breaking? Seriously when it comes to the academic establishment, we might want to try and educate them about how wikipedia works before breaking out the banhammer. ViridaeTalk 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I said this earlier in the thread. Some academics are particular prone to 'fighting' against restrictive Wikipedia polices, but some are perfectly reasonable, and we mustn't scare those ones off. I am going to quote in full what Jrichardstevens said on his talk page:
"Thanks for the attention to whose looking into this. I am trying to be patient (perceived injustice is difficult to swallow, even in the short-term). I do understand the rules here, but I have to say that the invitation for non-regulars posted at the top of the page that led to my block does seem to invite exactly the the type of comments I left. I weighed in as a person being talked about in the third person (one of the justifications for deletion was that academics would get the wrong idea about the conference. I weighed in and spoke as one of those academics who had found the site). I do not see how an editor can block users who leave comments like mine when there is a clear invitation for such comments at the top of the page. Right now, I am rather disgusted with Wikipedia. I know that there are checks and balances underway, but it seems I lost access as one person who expressed a particular view, and so was judged by the "company" I keep in opinions. Guilt by association is alive and well, it would seem. The thought that my first (and only) interaction with "Guy" could be his block of me (with me having no recourse to even speak to him directly about his decision) doesn't speak well for how the Wikipedia community has developed over the years. Again, thanks to the editors arguing on my behalf. Sorry if I seem touchy." - Jrichardstevens
I still think Guy needs to go and apologise here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Have reviewed and in my opinion:
Amelia is most likely a good faith user. Needs to be educated re our RS and BLP policies re other edits.
Jrichardstevens is fine and should be unblocked.
Drstones is clearly an SPA and the block should stand.
Drstones edited other articles before creating the one in question. He edited two other articles after creating the one in question. In any event, even if he were an SPA, there's nothing that says we block all SPAs - we only block those that are disruptive. On the surface, I see someone who doesn't understand our policies and practices, but I don't see someone who is intentionally disruptive. --B (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article he created, battled to defend and has invested more than 90% of his edits in is now being handled by OTRS. Those who have reviewed that evidence have said there is a strong case. That's good enough for me - we should show some responsibility as a Top 10 site here when outside bodies take the trouble to bring these things to our attention. Orderinchaos 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Has a Checkuser reviewed the situation? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe so, but I can't say for sure. I'd run with the assumption that they haven't, though. Orderinchaos 02:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Amelia9mm should be unblocked, she's not a SPA and she doesn't have any obvious connection to the sock/meatpuppetry affecting the article and the AfD. Jrichardstevens is already unblocked. For the rest, a Checkuser request might bring some clarity. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Amelia9mm has been unblocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to notify here. I agree with the Checkuser request idea, not sure how to raise it though! (Normally it's by username, but there's so many here.) Orderinchaos 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've checked this out for myself - #2008012410015146 is the associated OTRS ticket. Basically, these users are coming in from an outside forum - this diff from a now-blocked user sums it up pretty accurately, and this appears to be the forum thread in question. A CU should be able to see if any of these accounts are sockpuppets, but I suspect at least some of them are separate users of this (fairly highly trafficked) forum who are only barely familiar with how WP works. I'd suggest looking into unblocking the non-disruptive ones, though of course they should still be considered as a bloc for matters related to this article and AfD, and the AfD closer should take that into account. krimpet✽ 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet, thank-you for quoting the OTRS ticket number - here is a question for you - if any of the blocks were based on an OTRS ticket, should Guy have quoted the OTRS ticket number both in the block logs, the ANI thread and the AfD? That would have made things a lot clearer to anyone actually carrying out a review, as ANI is supposed to be for. As it stands, I've looked through Guy's contributions, and comments like "What say, block the lot?" and "the whole thing has been giving me an itchy block finger from the outset". Guy mentions OTRS once, as far as I can tell, in this ANI thread, and mentions the off-wiki legal actions once or twice, see here and here, as well as the AfD. My problem is that Guy seems to have combined a nebulous OTRS complaint with a (seemingly justified) suspicion of sockpuppets, and then indefinitely blocked everyone in sight without checking things such as account creation dates or actual edits. He may have been relying on people filing unblock requests to overcome wrong blocks, but I was gobsmacked when the Amelia9mm unblock request was denied on the basis "no history outside this subject" - which is plainly wrong - it you are going to unhold an indefinite block like that, please get your facts straight. Regarding the Drstones block, if, and only if, OTRS confirm this legal threat involving Drstones, then I endorse the block of Drstones, though I do wonder whether our WP:LEGAL document means he would be allowed to edit other articles or not? I would also urge people blocking on the basis of an OTRS ticket to quote the OTRS number (surely that is not too difficult?). Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm that the litigation as outlined in that diff by Franknfair is in fact true. However the ticket isn't really related to any of these later sockpuppetry concerns, it was over the content that Drstones and others were adding to the article, including criticism sourced solely to forum posts and their self-written blogs. The ensuing AfD was Guy's own decision to undertake it seems; it wasn't a "per OTRS" action per se. krimpet✽ 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Chronicle forum, and I think Krimpet is right--many of these SPAs are probably people who were reading the forum and decided to join in on the fun at Wikipedia. I suppose this falls under WP:MEAT, but it doesn't look like it's being coordinated by any particular person, nor are there any posts on the forum telling people to go to Wikipedia and take a specific action. So, I'd agree that their votes shouldn't be given much weight at the AfD, but if these editors are interested in becoming productive contributors to Wikipedia, we should unblock them. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just bring it to checkuser already. I declined Amelia's RFU and given the exact same circumstances, I would deny a similar request. On the surface, there is nothing that Guy did wrong with the possible exception of maybe being a little quick on the block. Amelia has very little of an edit history and dropped in to participate in a hot button issue after a long time between edits. That smells extremely strongly of a sleeper sock to me. At the very least it is incredibly suggestive. The amount of work that's gone into this whole thing is downright amusing. Checkuser...problem solved...it all comes out in the wash. Trusilver 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The main reason I unblocked Amelia was that she didn't make any edits to the AfD and her edits to the article were very minor. (Her edits to other articles, strangely, were actually more problematic.) Had I seen AfD edits I think it would have taken a clear consensus to unblock. A checkuser isn't going to help much, come to think of it, if they are dispersed users coming in from a forum. I agree with Trusilver re JzG's actions. Orderinchaos 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Trusilver, two of the accounts I highlighted (Amelia99m and Jrichardstevens) don't warrant checkuser - in their cases any checkuser request would just be fishing and an abuse of the checkuser process. You have to have stronger evidence of any sockpupettry in their case. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser request filed. But this probably won't be "problem solved"; I'd place a bet that some of these users are going to come up as "unrelated". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe because (gasp!) they are unrelated? It is possible you know. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, thank you for at least addressing question 1. I agree that the Drstones account should remain blocked, but would question why the Nomoskedasticity account (which is as much of an SPA as the others) gets unblocked. Either block them all and tell them to register new accounts but stay away from that article, or review all of them to determine the level of disruption, and unblock accordingly. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I think you've done an admirable thing in trying to ensure that these blocks are investigated fully. Your instincts are spot-on here. The only problem is that when I look at the above, I see Guy rather distinctly saying something along the lines of "AfD a mess, legal action involved, even if some of them are not SPAs, that can be discussed and they unblocked after the AfD is over." Now, by the standards of murkiness and arbitariness that have been set recently, that is both a lot of information and a great willingness to step back and compromise. Perhaps you could have chosen a better example.
About whether I would give him the same advice, that's a good question: I certainly think that an account that has had three or four edits over months and suddenly explodes into life on one issue contentious on RW is, if not necessarily a sleeper sock, hardly anything other than an SPA. DrStones made five edits to three articles before spending a lot of time on this one. If you look at the AfD at the time that Guy brought it here; it consisted essentially of the above list of accounts warring incomprehensibly; a look at the talkpage of the article isn't very different. I find it difficult to believe that they were contributing any useful information for other commenters; or at least that there was any more forthcoming from them. As such, from the point of view of the project, they were not helping - disrupting our work - non-socks or no.
Finally, Guy is liable to make courageous blocks. Some of them are mistaken - though these not so much. I had a tiring time last night with one user who should really have been banned as a menace to the project at any of the last four arbcoms he went through. I wasn't when, sitting and reading up on the background, I discovered that in the last one the only editor who bothered to go out of his way enough to propose banning him as a disruptive POV-pusher was Guy. (It didn't pass, because the dear little ArbCom gets confused when they have more than two issues to think about at a given time.) You may not like it, or the way he goes about it, but Guy's actions in most cases end up helping the project. Relata refero (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. I only questioned three of the blocks. And some of the accounts that were blocked had never participated in the AfD. (That shoots down Guy's argument straightaway, and shows that he just blocked indiscriminately). I said I agreed in principle with the other blocks (if not the length), and I now agree with the Drstones block (it was only late on that I realised that he created the article - Guy could have helped by making that clearer). As for "five edits to three articles before spending a lot of time on this one", this is along the lines of the "90%" comment made by Orderinchaos. Stats like that can give a misleading impression. It is actually 40 edits over a period of 5 months, 30 of which were to the article and its talk page. I make that 75%, not 90%, but let's not quibble there. My point here is that Drstones clearly did bring an offwiki dispute on-wiki, but he should be allowed to learn a lesson from this. Guy's abrasive attitude is not best suited to handling that sort of thing. My editing history shows that up until the end of July 2005 I had made most of my edits to 7 July 2005 London bombings and related articles and debates (about 100 out of 110 edits). For all intents and purposes, I was a single-purpose account focused on that article. In today's climate, if I had made a mis-step, said something unsourced about one of the bombers or bomb victims, or encountered a bad block for a multitude of other reasons, I might have been so affronted at my treatment that I might never have returned. As for the thoroughness of my review, I wish more people did reviews as thorough as this. The impression I got, in the day that I waited for various replies, was that no-one was bothering to review all the accounts, when two (going by the account creation dates) were sticking out like sore thumbs as bad blocks. I'll finish by quoting what Jrichardstevens and Amelia9mm said on their talk pages when requesting unblocks:
"Right now, I am rather disgusted with Wikipedia. I know that there are checks and balances underway, but it seems I lost access as one person who expressed a particular view, and so was judged by the "company" I keep in opinions. Guilt by association is alive and well, it would seem." - Jrichardstevens
and
"I don't know why this is blocked, nor do I know what I could possibly have done that is disruptive. Why would I want to bother to come to improve info on wikipedia if some total stranger can block my account? How is it that someone I have never heard of can block my account INDEFINITELY? His linked page says "I am here for some very limited purposes.." Hello? Some explanation could be useful here! [...] Could someone help explain this statement about a legal action? What is that about? I don't know anything about any legal action. What am I purported to have done?" - Amelia9mm
How on Earth does that help the project? I still say, very strongly, that Guy owes those two accounts an apology. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree that Guy's attitude is sometimes too abrasive for efficiency.
Disagree that the project isn't better for the incident.
Agree that completely that more thorough review is always a good thing, and again, thanks for putting the time in on this. Relata refero (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocks placed more carefully, where they belonged, and not where they didn't belong, would have been beneficial. But there was no urgency.
These were hasty. They were not all tied to the AfD. And the AfD nominator should not have placed them (wasn't acting on OTRS info). Carcharoth says they weren't even all at the AfD. Biting new users is an ongoing problem. And what kind of biting is worse than an imprudent block, not even preceded by warning? Admins should not be so quick to dismiss these as inconsequential. Jd2718 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Another question
I'm sure I'll get accused of trolling again, but seriously.. An AfD by JzG/Guy of the Oxford Round Table article and then he starts blocking people left and right that are participating in that very AfD? Sets off bells for me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's an important detail that was left out. Umm ... yeah, that's bad. --B (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that he blocked many people who agreed with him that it should be deleted. So it's hardly the egregious violation of COI that is being suggested here. Orderinchaos 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He used tools in a dispute that he was involved in. There really should be no further discussion beyond how sharp a reminder/reprimand is appropriate. Jd2718 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. Starting an AfD on an article does not mean you cannot enforce policy with regards to users who edit that article. This is particularly true of users who are working with the OTRS system to resolve sensitive problems. FCYTravis (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He should have quoted the OTRS number in the block logs. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Oxford Round Table shows most of those users having been editing or discussing for a consensus since at least December 2007. How could they be considered SPAs? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Excepting the three I mentioned above, the other accounts are SPAs because they were only editing that article and associated articles. To be cleared of the SPA accusation, they would need to have edited unrelated articles (thus showing they were interested in diversifying their interests), or (even better) to have edited other articles well before arriving at this article. The hallmarks of the SPAs is that they were created in December 2007 or later (after the article was created), and have only contributed to this and related articles. Blocking them indefinitely does little harm because they can re-register with another account and edit the rest of Wikipedia, while staying clear of Oxford Round Table and associated articles. In the Drstones case, his creation of the article and the resulting fuss would indicate that the account should remain blocked until the legal case is ended, or he should, like the meatpuppets, create another account (free of the taint of this incident) to edit other areas of Wikipedia. What they shouldn't do is create other accounts and go back to editing that article - let others handle that article (I think it should be a footnote in some Oxford University-related article). Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and thanks for explaining it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth explains it well. Related articles include some Oxford colleges and at least one deleted article, which I'll dredge out in a bit. These are people who have brought an off-wiki fight to Wikipedia. Do we need that? I don't think so. Especially since the off-wiki fight apparently includes legal action. I am not "involved" in this dispute at all, all I have done is respond to an OTRS complaint and an article which was created and is being abused to pursue an external agenda. Next time I'll just nuke the article and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that. Nuking the article might have been better all round. It was clearly started to bring an off-wiki dispute on-wiki, and it never really recovered from that. If there needs to be any article at all, it would benefit from a clean start, though not, obviously, by the same editors. I guess I should toddle off and say that at the AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to remind everyone involved that "disruption" was simply agreeing with Guy that the article should be deleted. I cared less about whether the article was good for wikipedia than how useful it was for academics interested in the event. And that was why I left two comments supporting Guy's suggestion that the site be deleted: the page is terrible and the controversy had ZERO influence on my decision concerning whether or not to attend the conference. For my support, I was blocked. I truly think Guy compiled a list (either by himself of with the help of others) of "known unknowns" and blocked the lot without investigating the facts of each individual case. This mirrors the very reputation-based mentality that constricts the offline publishing world. It seems your behavior might not evolve THAT differently from traditional publishing after all? As someone who reads much, edits little and talks even less, I would suggest that none of you can judge the intentions of an editor based on sporadic participation. Silence or only occasional editing might mean that someone is inclined to read more than write, something I think you would favor in at least some of your membership.Jrichardstevens (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think anyone is arguing you were disruptive. I had no doubt on reviewing your contributions that you were a good faith editor who'd been caught up in a rather wide sweep, and your agreement with Guy's points in the AfD pretty much eliminated any doubt that you were part of the mess which had overtaken the AfD and were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. I then posted here (above) "Jrichardstevens is fine and should be unblocked", only to realise another admin had already reached the same conclusion and done so. We do owe you an apology, and I think Guy has already done so for his own part in this. You're right in saying that reputation is often used as a barometer, and that new users and in particular IP addresses get a fairly rough run. By comparison, relatively disruptive long-term users go through endless process after process and may never be blocked. An interesting thought in comparison to the world of offline publishing, too - I hadn't thought about it that way. Orderinchaos 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, the only deleted articles I can find are: SMUDailyData (by Drstones) and Larry M. Buchanan (edit made by OnionClemens linking a mention of the Oxford Round Table). I can't see any smoking gun there? Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocking is a last resort
Ok everyone, repeat after me: Blocking is a last resort.
Even with evidence that some of these users might be meatpuppets or SPAs, that in no way is justification for these blocks. We point out these users in the AfD, and leave them messages (not warnings, but messages), and we assume good faith. Being an SPA is never a blockable offense, and being a meatpuppet is very speculative and needs to be discussed before being acted upon (and even then should not be blocked unless there continues to be a problem). If you don't like this, or think it's a pain in the butt, then don't get involved with being an admin. This is why it's a mop and not a shotgun on many admin icons. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In practice though, the SPA label is abused like you would not believe. "Disruptive SPA" is a common block log reason. I would be much happier if people said "disruptive account", and didn't try to bolster their blocking reasons with appeals to the "SPA" label. It is not listed at User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks 2 (a very interesting analysis), but I would be interested to find out how many indefinite or shorter blocks are made with "SPA" or "single purpose account" in the block log. Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The disruptive single-purpose agenda account is a well-defined and clearly extant species on Wikipedia. Being an SPA alone is not sufficient reason to block anyone, and I make absolutely no comment about these particular blocks. But "single-purpose account" plus "tendentious editing" plus "using Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy" is not an unusual combination, and frequently and appropriately leads to sanctions. A disruptive user with varied interests has more potential for reform, because they're presumably interested in the encyclopedic process on some level. A disruptive SPA is often here specifically to promote a narrow agenda, and the likelihood of them becoming constructive contributors when that agenda is stalled is commensurately lower. My point being that "Disruptive SPA", while laconic, is conceivably an appropriate block rationale assuming it's borne out by the facts. MastCellTalk 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, you may be interested in the thread on AN. See the link down below (quite a long way now). Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My posts below edit conflicted with you, but I'm glad to see that your check picked up MedWoman (which I'd already discovered while looking around) and some other accounts as well, and I'm glad you used the qualifier to indicate that the unrelated ones are notall SPAs, as Guy was insisting. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you now owe Guy an apology, Carcharoth. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may wish to read some of Carcharoth's later comments to Guy in the subsections below, particularly the message timed at 12:51 in the last one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Some more points (before the blocks)
A few more points, some already stated, but getting lost above. This one is about the thoroughness of the initial blocks by JzG and the initial review/advice by Relata refaro:
Special:Contributions/Athoughtforyou - pointed out after Guy made his list - Guy blocked but failed to put a notice on the talk page of this account.
Is it possible that Guy threw together a poorly compiled list of accounts without thoroughly checking them, came here to ANI to get it rubber-stamped (why do that when there was an OTRS ticket open?), that Relata refaro agreed without doing a proper review, and that Guy then went and blocked the accounts too hastily (after only three hours at ANI)? That is my reading of what happened here, and that is the reason why two accounts were caught up as collateral damage. This would have been totally unnecessary if Guy or Relata refaro had done a proper review, if Guy had quoted the OTRS ticket number in the block logs (though hopefully the two bad blocks would still have eventually been overturned), or if Guy had had the patience to wait for a whole day, instead of three hours. I think if we can all agree on that, and if Guy apologises (or provides a good reason for the two blocks in question - Jrichardstevens and Amelia9mm), then we are done here as far as the initial actions are concerned. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Guy could have waited longer, but if it was related to an off-wiki legal problem, it is possible that he thought the quicker the better.
Also note, that Guy doesn't really bring things here to be "rubber-stamped". He tends to go off on his own. This is a positive development, and should be noted as such.
Finally, I agree that my brief review of the accounts provided had at least two major and unacceptable lacunae - out of the longish list - and I will certainly do better in future. (This is not to say that I would note have suggested some other action against those particular accounts.) I do think its fair to note that at least I conducted a review beforehand, which nobody else seems to have done until it blew up. Relata refero (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for totally dismissing other editors who did review the situation and asked for admins to intervene. Pairadox (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Err, twelve hours later? Perhaps I should have made it clear that I meant before the blocks. Relata refero (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why this section was all quiet. Can we get back to agreeing (again) that actions like this should not normally be taken after only three hours and the input of only two other editors? Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Some more points (after the blocks)
A few more points, some already stated, but getting lost above. This one is about whether the later review process (this ANI thread after the blocks had been placed) and the response to the unblock templates:
Initial ANI reaction after the blocks - Concerns about the mass block started trickling in four hours after the blocks were placed. Pairadox said he had filed a suspected sockpuppetry case, while B seems to have responded to an unblock request from Jrichardstevens. Around 24 hours later, two accounts (Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity, who both filed unblock templates) had been unblocked, so the system seems to have worked there.
Successful use of the unblock template - Two editors have posted to their talk page objecting to their block, but not using the unblock request template. This may be a common mistake made by new editors who get blocked, and it didn't help that Guy left terse notes, rather than a template that would have pointed people to the "unblock" template. Have a look at Mediawiki:Blockedtext and see how long it is! I sometimes wonder how many people even bother reading all that? Anyway, the two editors are: Academic38 and Slintfan. I have left notes on their talk pages - can someone please make sure they don't get forgotten about.
Unblock request declined - Amelia9mm filed an unblock template, but the request was initially declined by Trusilver. I still believe that Trusilver failed to perform an independent review here, and that he should state here how he will improve his handling of unblock requests.
Later responses - I raised my concerns above, and this led to Amelia9mm being unblocked. Both Amelia9mm and Jrichardstevens are now being welcomed with templates and encouraged to continue to participate in Wikipedia. Hopefully this will overcome any lingering ill-feeling from Guy's blocks.
Later ANI opinions - Some editors support this entire review and the unblockings so far. Some still continue to object (with some also supporting the unblocking) and say that what Guy did was OK. It is clear to me that the unblocks themselves show that Guy was too hasty to block in those cases. I think this is a problem, and I think it would be appreciated if Guy said something here at some point, and if he could apologise to those two accounts as well.
Guy's responses - I'm concerned at Guy's defensiveness over questioning of his blocks, and some people not being critical enough and going "oh, I trust his judgment". When someone asks for a review, we need to actually review it, and not just rubber-stamp it. Guy's defensiveness and insistence that these were all single-purpose accounts, can be seen in the following:
Concerning Jrichardstevens: "These are all single purpose accounts with an agenda of either promoting or knocking a marginally notable company. We can do without them. All of them." (he said this despite being told that Jrichardstevens was not an SPA)
Concerning Nomoskedasticity: "Fine, unblock that user then. The rest can stay blocked, at least until the deletion debate is finished, and forever if the article is kept. They are bringing an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, and that is all they are doing. We simply don't need that." (this is stange actually, as if Guy was being consistent, he should have insisted that Nomoskedasticity remain blocked - but more worrying is that Guy is still failing to recognise that he is being clearly told that he has wrongly labelled accounts as SPAs)
Concerning Amelia9mm: "A group of people have brought an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, this dispute includes real-world legal action and has prompted complaints to the Foundation. This user is one of a group of single purpose accounts with no history outside this subject. I blocked the lot." (this shows Guy parotting his stock response to the whole blocks, even when told that an individual review had been requested - no inclination shown by Guy to take another look, or to even consider that he might have been wrong, and still saying "no history outside this subject" - when that is patently false in this case)
Respect for Guy from Stifle: "I have high respect for you and I just wanted to run it by you before unblocking in case there is something else I should know" (I agree that Guy does good and necessary work, but I would plead with other editors and admins not to show too much respect to anyone - we can all make mistakes, and even if someone is convinced they are right, they may still be wrong - a combination of too much respect and trust in another admin's judgment, rather than one's own judgment, is what I think led Trusilver to decline the Amelia9mm unblock request)
Independence of unblock request reviewers - I am still deeply concerned that the unblock request system failed Amelia9mm. Trusilver was correct to check with JzG to see if there was anything else going on, but a combination of JzG's refusal to admit that he had included some non-SPAs in his batch of blocks, and Trusilver saying to Amelia that her edit history looked OK but not saying this to Guy, led to the most hideously unfair block decline that I have ever seen.
General thoughts - And I should probably say something about my response to all this. Firstly, I was trying to take a wikibreak when this all sucked me back in, and that explains why I spent most of yesterday sending people e-mails and not posting on-wiki. After I gave that up as a lost cause, I posted all this and the preceding stuff. To forestall criticisms of how I've responded to all this (or maybe it will encourage such criticisms, I don't know, but I should be the last to object to any criticisms people make of me), I will state openly that I am hypersensitive to incidents like this. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman for an example (and I'm saddened to see how that is ending). I am also aware of Guy's present circumstances (having left two posts to him about that, which I hope were of some comfort to him), and I have asked one of the blocked people concerned to be nice to Guy. My concern here is addressing the ingrained culture that sees blocks like this as acceptable collateral damage. I made a similar long set of posts about the conduct of Betacommand and East718 over the recent Main Page deletion/merge incident. See here for how I handled that. I feel that a thorough and systematic handling of incidents like this helps to resolve them properly, make clear what lessons need to be learned, and help the admin corps as a whole improve their conduct. But this can only work if admins accept that they will, ocassionally, be criticised like this, and accept it with good grace, instead of taking it personally.
And hopefully that will be enough, and lessons will be learned. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi just to say that editors/admins looking at an AfD can spot a Single Purpose Account or one with few edits, in fact people thinking an account is one can label it as such on an AfD. I personally signed up to wiki to participate in an AfD, and here I am well over 2000 edits and two years on! So these accounts definitely shouldn't be indef blocked- not any of them that haven't been shown to be doing anything dodgy by the checkuser. Any indef blocks involved in this, and the user not shown as a wrong'un in the checkuser, should be lessened. Not just the individual ones that people 'like' and protest over here at ANI. As to Guy, I am sorry for his loss, but let's be honest, there's nothing new or particularly unusual in any of his recent behaviour on wiki, we've seen incidences similar to all of it before from him. Merkinsmum 12:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Carcharoth, for doing good work here, the emails did get through but I was at choir rehearsal all day and at a company dinner in the evening yesterday. Note that Nomoskedasticity came up as likely in the sockpuppet check, but let's not worry too much about that. I defend my block of the numerous accounts that turned out to be socks, and the balance that are SPAs, but will be more wary in future to keep the definition of single purpose rather more focused. What was, in my view, important here was to rebuff the attempt to bring a litigious off-wiki dispute into Wikipedia. The blocks of confirmed socks below shows that there was indeed a problem, and we really do not need people bringing their battles here. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the calm response Guy. I was worried what your reaction might be on finding this massive thread here! :-) I saw the Nomoskedasticity result as well, but as you say, not too much to worry about as long as they keep on the straight and narrow from now on. Would you agree with Merkinsmum above that any non-sock SPAs can be unblocked? Say, after the AfD is finished? I agree entirely that off-wiki disputes need to be kept off Wikipedia with extreme prejudice, but do you think you could give your opinion on the other points I raised above? Would you consider using a standard block template so that those who are blocked get more information on how to appeal? Would you consider waiting longer next time to allow for more opinion at ANI? Would you consider taking the time to look further into any objections the next time someone comes to you saying that someone has requested an unblock and they have concerns? Final thought: do you have any opinon on Trusilver declining that unblock request? Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I think Guy and I were in complete agreement on this point (not about the puppets, but about the useless utility and divisiveness of the "controversy" element). It sounds like Guy had a lot of distraction. Perhaps he wasn't in a position to read closely enough to determine which of us were disruptive and which were trying to follow the rules of his invitation? It happens to the best of us. I just hope incidents like these raise awareness that more checks and balance and monitoring of each others' decisions may be warranted. Carcharoth has gone above and beyond the call of duty here. If he were not trying to raise these issues, I would certainly be gone from this community and be torching the lot of you in my media classroom (which would be erroneous on my part). Jrichardstevens (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Noting here that there has been a response from Amelia9mm. I would urge everyone to take the time to read what she has written here. In my opinion, it is pure gold dust and a breath of fresh air that may hopefully open up some people's eyes to how difficult Wikipedia can be for those who haven't figured out yet how things work around here. A brief sample: "For most new users, wikipedia and its "administration" and lingo [What is a sleepersock?] are like being in a maze with no idea what the maze looks like and no idea if it's worthwhile to bother finding out. Thus, many are just sporadic users who come looking for information on a topic and see they can contribute a bit, and do that and not much else." I'll be quoting this in full over on the AN thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that Jrichardstevens is unblocked, I believe some of the socks are also unblocked but I will not reblock them, I'll leave that to someone else. Are we done now? Guy (Help!) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There would have been less drama if this had been set to checkuser or suspected sock puppets before anybody was blocked. SPAs at AfD can be tagged with {{SPA}} so that the closing administrator can give them proper weight. We can block more sock puppets with fewer "false positives" by presenting the evidence, waiting for independent review, and then taking the necessary action. JehochmanTalk 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of them were reported at suspected sock puppets (it didn't qualify for checkuser), but there was absolutely no input from anybody else until after the blocking was done and this had become a big conflagration. Geez, you follow the procedures and nobody notices or cares... Pairadox (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, thanks for providing the OTRS ticket numbers, and thanks for apologising to both Jrichardstevens and Amelia99m for their blocks. Given that you have apologised, it doesn't matter much, but I would still object to your "probably a misjudgement" statement about Amelia9mm - do you have any evidence that you aren't sharing with us? Because to my eyes that account looks totally uninvolved. I don't see the problems with the two edits Amelia9mm made: this edit and this edit. How are they "not good" in the context of the dispute that erupted later? Do you mean "not good" as in not doing much at all, or "not good" as in they were a vicious attack on someone or something? That's a rhetorical question, of course. But in the context of this discussion, a bland statement like "not good" can be misinterpreted. I would say "totally a misjudgment" and "the account remains in good standing and should do well with guidance". But then your apology shows that you probably agree with that. I am going to write something else below on sleeper socks, SPAs and new editors - but please, don't assume that accounts with very few edits spread over several years are automatically suspicious. I would say block the socks, but engage with the people behind the accounts (many of whom are academics) and encourage them to create new accounts and continue to contribute, provided they stay away from the article in question and don't add stuff about it to other articles. At the moment, only two of the accounts that are still blocked are appealing their blocks: Academic38 and Slintfan. They are questioning their blocks on their talk pages - maybe you (Guy) could go and talk to them, seeing as you forgot to leave a note telling them they could use the unblock template? One other loose end: Coligny never got blocked. Any reason why not? Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments from someone who was caught up in the collective blocks (and now, obviously, unblocked). First, I am not involved in sockpuppets - see my comments on the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones page for my response to the "likely" finding. Second, though I realize many people find this ORT business troublesome in the large, it seems that no effort was made to look at actual edit behaviour, at least in my case. I recognize that this would be time-consuming. In my case, what it would have shown is a continuing effort to learn and play by the rules. I got a COI tag on my talk page - and from that point on I didn't make a single edit to the article, only worked on the talk page to suggest changes and to try to secure consensus. A review by Sandstein confirmed that my edit behaviour was not disruptive.
As for SPA, as the information page on SPA notes, new users typically start out working on what interests them, and then some diversify. I'm glad to see recognition of that here, and of the advice to welcome newcomers. Look, I've been unblocked (thank you Sandstein, and thank you Guy for agreeing to it), so as far as I'm concerned it has all been resolved fairly quickly. It was not pleasant to be blocked after trying to play by the rules (and particularly without the blocking admin first warning me on my talk page about allegedly inappropriate editing) - so I do hope a different approach can prevail. But it is reassuring to see all of get reviewed like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Loose ends
There are still some loose ends here. If I miss any, please add in this section.
JzG has now blocked the two extra sockpuppets that the checkuser found.
The talk pages of the non-sock accounts need checking - some people are querying the blocks (I make it three so far - User talk:Drstones, User talk:Academic38, and User talk:Slintfan) - per Merkinsmum, I'd be inclined to unblock any non-sock editors that request it, but per Guy to wait until the AfD is finished. The response by Drstones is particularly encouraging.
I hope that Guy (and Trusilver if he is reading this) will respond to the points I raised here.
That should be it. Carcharoth (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to unblock any non-sock editors that request it, but per Guy to wait until the AfD is finished.
Why wait until the AfD is finished? If they aren't socks, unbound them. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be right. My point here is that, as I've being trying to tell Tony Sidaway, is that it was mainly the three non-SPA blocks that I was reviewing. The other blocks, given the OTRS tickets on the article, I'd be happier letting Guy deal with those. Preferably now, but he (and others) have the full OTRS details. I have noted Drstones saying that he would prefer to see the article deleted (he was the original creator). See his comments here, here and here. What I will say, is that Guy's "shock and awe" approach does seem to have knocked sense into the people that were legitimate targets of his blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also surprised that the non-socks haven't all been unblocked yet. From what I can tell the OTRS tickets have nothing to do with sensitive information, and were simply e-mails that pointed out the connection with an off-wiki forum, which isn't a violation of any of our policies. They didn't even all agree on that forum, and getting outside opinions is healthy for Wikipedia. There's no reason for any of the non-socks to still be blocked. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Could I make what should now be an obvious point? All of the sockpuppets were from the ORT side, maybe from the ORT itself. ORT did the same thing at the Chronicle website. None of the ORT's critics were sockpuppets. Did I read correctly above that Guy unblocked the sockpuppets? Why?
I'd also like to make an observation about the behavior of admins. At least two admins, Nilfnion and Guy, came in and made dramatic changes without consulting anyone on the article talk page. Nilfanion apologized for that. Guy puts the article up for AfD without consultation even though consensus had practically been achieved before a deluge of ORT sockpuppets. I think Guy owes apologies to more than just the non-SPAs. In addition, everyone was given COI warnings on the article, even though there was already ample evidence that only one side was breaking the rules. "Even-handed" treatment isn't even-handed when the underlying behavior is dramatically different.
Finally, what is an OTRS ticket? Can non-admins look at these? I ask because I tried to look at one but the system did not recognize "Academic38" as a user name.Academic38 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not even admins can (I'm one and I can't see them) - OTRS is a confidential reporting system. You can read about it at WP:OTRS. As for the socks, they are still blocked. Those not identified as socks were unblocked by Viridae yesterday. Orderinchaos 09:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
