Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive197

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

RE: Possible hacking of my account[edit]

Resolved: No haxorz here. Icestorm815Talk 02:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that someone may have hacked into my account, by getting my password.

(Which I can swear I did not do. My contributions show that I have no interest in vandalising stuff)

Second time I logged on someone complained on my talk page about "Removal of valid AIV report without blocking vandal -- why" (see here)

Which I again did not do.

I have also since changed my password, any help would be greatly appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing your password is the only thing you can do. Please ensure that you are using a mix of numbers and letters, and something that is not easy for someone who knows you to guess. You should also reset your email password, in case this person also has the pw for that and can reset your pw that way. You may also wish to reset any other passwords you use, depending on how much similarity there is between them. → ROUX  18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have an email account associated with your Wikipedia account then change the email password too. If someone has access to your email they can change your password anytime. Chillum 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you not trace the audit trail, sou you can define not only the user ID but also the destination IP that made changes in question? Obviously, I am cencerned because this person could change anything under my name, such as vandalise under my name, getting me blocked on Wiki. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's something only a checkuser can do. Icestorm815Talk 19:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How can I do this. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edit to Windows Live Messenger, the most likely explanation is that you accidentally hit "rollback" when viewing your watchlist, page history, another user's contributions, or using an anti-vandal tool. It's very easy to do this and not realise. CIreland (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought. But it has happened twice, and when I view my history I have not viewed these pages where the complaints are coming from. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Change your password using the Secure Server ([1]) so the action is encrypted. Get anti-virus or anti-spyware if you do not have it already. Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone, it is appreciated. I have done what the above user has suggested.Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Checkuser shows the edits are from your current IP address. You may have a little brother or roommate who took advantage of the fact that your account was logged in, or a poltergeist, or you hit the wrong buttons by accident. Thatcher 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    Erm, yes, I didn't notice Thatcher already did the check, and I was coming here to report the very same result. I'd ask around your household to see if you had someone else browse Wikipedia not noticing they were doing so under your identity. — Coren (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very surprised to learn of that. My first thought was of other people like you both have said, but the pages in question which *I* have reverted are not in my computer history. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had accidentally hit rollback they would not necessarily appear in your browser history (depends on where you accidentally hit rollback - when viewing a user contribs, for example, if you rollback an edit for there, you will never see the page you rolled back.)

How do I search for someone in an indef blocked user list?[edit]

I remember that there is a list of blocked users. I think I am dealing with an IP address that acts suspiciously like someone we've seen before. I am checking first before filing the SPI. Some assistance, so I don't cock it up would be helpful. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Really the only thing I can think of is Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages as that cat is added to userpages of users with {{indef}} on them. Tiptoety talk 06:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This one? - Camw (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This one – lists all indefinite blocks. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 08:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, no, but both are pretty useful. Here's the thing: I've been dealing with an anon with some pretty familiar editing patterns. I did a IP lookup on the recent IP's used by the contributor, and they all appear to be contained within a fairly small geographic location. then I looked over the IP addresses used by an IP user who had stalked me some months ago. the results of an ANI report were that they stay away or be indef blocked. The edits from this older IP address list are - you guessed it - located in the same geographic area. Now, its entirely possible that two different users from the same geographic area would be pissed enough at me to follow my edits around, but the similar methods of posting and commentary are very similar.
The beginnings of the IP addresses aren't the same, which is what threw me, and as well, the location of the IP's aren't static. As I don't know a lot about the tech of IP addresses checking, my first supposition was that the person was posting from a mobile device, but frankly, i don't know. I still don't think I've got enough for an SPI or RfCU, as the former IP was just warned, not blocked. It seems something of a pickle. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

copyright problem[edit]

Resolved

Excuse me for bringing this here; I'm not sure of the right place to take it. I marked Doctors of Deception as a "suspected copyvio" even though it was a blatant copyvio, because it was lifted from two web pages and the db-copyvio template only seems to work for material taken from a single site. The author of the article agreed that deletion is the correct thing to do, but nothing has happened. At this point I'm lost in the bureaucracy and don't know what the next step is. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Marking it as a speedy under G12 would have been fine, as would marking it as a G7 once the author agreed that it should be deleted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that with {{copyvio}}, nothing is supposed to happen for 7+1 days. The delay is to permit time for verification of permission or rewriting of the article in temporary space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Geekyboy87 interference with AfD[edit]

Normally I'd just drop a note to the editors talk page myself, but in theis case, I think an admin might be better. User:Geekyboy87 authored the article List of Parental Advisory albums. The article is being discussed in AfD. Geekyboy87 went into the discussion and blanked the entire discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Parental Advisory albums. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the blanking and dropped a quick note on the user's talk page. Also, editors are just as welcome as admins to post notices and warnings on other user's talk pages. :) Icestorm815Talk 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

kgb_[edit]

It's come to my attention that kgb_, Cha Cha (search engine), and possibly other companies are directly copying Wikipedia's articles in their answers. Attribution is only given on their sites, and only if a user logs in to view their previous answers. No attribution is given in the answers themselves, and no links are given to the GFDL. Can a copyright aficionado comment on this? I can send off a letter to them if required. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it a live mirror? They go to m:live mirrors.
BTW, Wikipedia is a CC-BY-SA site now :) Stifle (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a live mirror. They take the relevant sentence from our article - for example "Baghdad is the largest city and capital of Iraq" - and copy and paste it into an answer. Then they hit send. Take, for example, this question - the source is given as www.serendipity.li/iraqwar.htm, when in reality the answer is a direct copy of part of the opening paragraph of Iraq War - "...Gulf War, the Occupation of Iraq, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing military campaign which began on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq ...". There are hundreds more examples of unsourced 'lifting'. This seems to me to be a problem - is it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, unattributed mirroring of WP content is quite a big problem (see WP:MIRROR); people don't seem to realise that attribution is necessary. If you fancy sending them a not unfriendly reminder to link to the WP article when reusing the content, they may oblige. If they don't, there is the route of DMCA takedown notices if you are the one whose rights are being infringed, but the only route after that is for a contributor to take actual legal action. – Toon 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Letter sent:
I also spellchecked it, so ignore the errors. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Insult-only account: User:UKisTheBest[edit]

The account User:UKisTheBest appears to exist only to insult North Americans. See this diff to Talk:Metrication in the United States. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Because the UK has done such a good job of metrication. I'm off for a pint of milk, making sure I drive no faster than 70 miles per hour. Inappropriate username, too. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The user also does not support national constitutions. He doesn't seem to realise he's already got one, the fact it isn't written down doesn't make it any less real :D Orderinchaos 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Not forgetting the Human Rights Act 1998. – ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
As they've only posted it twice I've reminded them instead that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not offering random opinions on the article topic. If they persist, you might post a vandalism report to WP:AIV. The username doesn't bother me that much, but WP:UAA is a good place to go if you would like this looked at. Euryalus (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A look at his brand-new user page may also prove instructive. --Calton | Talk 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the offending portion of his userpage and left a comment on his talk. //roux   20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy image history merge help needed[edit]

Resolved

File:TransMarchlogo.png was replaced with File:Trans March logo.svg. I think it should have been replaced on that page then renamed but that ship has sailed. Can someone please do histmerge and delete the old version? -- Banjeboi 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Images cannot be moved at this time. Maybe in another 6 months. MBisanz talk 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha, can you help with the history merge or is that un-do-able as well? -- Banjeboi 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also un-doable. Sorry. MBisanz talk 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! -- Banjeboi 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Block 95.96.94.126 please[edit]

To avoid any appearence of involvement, can someone block 95.96.94.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for repeatedly adding unsourced information in List of Heroes episodes? The IP has been duely warned, but that seems to fall on deaf ears, as he continues after a level 4 warning. EdokterTalk 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

small change in protected page[edit]

please change in Template:pp-meta below text:

{{mbox

to:

{{<noinclude>a</noinclude>mbox

after change this template will similar to other protect template--Amir (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like this should be proposed on the talk page using the {{editprotected}} template. –xenotalk 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's also a good idea to test code like this in a sandbox, esp. for highly-used templates. <noinclude/> isn't valid code. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And there's the fact that the template is functioning perfectly correctly in displaying the ombox style in template space, and that no good reason to change it seems to have been presented. Happymelon 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed,this is a very minor edit--Amir (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In conclusion: Not done. EdokterTalk 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
All of template in Template:Protection_templates shows with article demospace--Amir (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't actually work out quickly why that is; I don't think it's expected behaviour. Certainly I'm not convinced that it is desirable. Happymelon 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kürfurst reported by User:Dapi89[edit]

- Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues. - - 1 [2] - 2 [3] - 3 [4] - 4 [5] - - Dapi89 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Please take this to WP:AN3 Triplestop x3 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Licorne again?[edit]

Are User:Licorne and socks still supposed to be banned? An IP, 173.169.90.98 (talk · contribs · block log), not listed at User talk:Licorne seems to pass the duck test, including location in Tampa, FL. —teb728 t c 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediator needed at Talk:Grief porn[edit]

Could someone (admin or otherwise) head on over to Talk:Grief porn and try to mediate between 99.135.175.107 (talk · contribs) and Arcayne (talk · contribs) ? I can't really fill this role since anything with the word "porn" is firewalled here (don't worry though, it's SFW) and due to past history with participant(s) I'm recusing. The situation has been spilling out into numerous other forums and there's even an RFC tag up there (which I think should be removed, it needs a mediator, not an RFC). Thanks in advance, –xenotalk 13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's humorous, in a sad way, when two editors continually revert each other with edit summaries that are variations on the phrase "Stop edit warring!". I've commented on the RFC, but I'm not sure a mediator is what's needed, so much as a knocker of heads together. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
A rose by any other name...xenotalk 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I don't review enough edit wars, but this is the first time I've seen one side so passionate about The Truth(TM) that they revised the DYK template. Isn't that going a little too far? -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've offered to step in. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the participants, i would appreciate the assistance. Only one other editor, Padillah, has beenworking in the article discussion, trying to mediate. He is to be commended for his efforts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed on a number of other locations thanks to some forum shopping going on, so claiming that only one other editor is involved with the discussion is severely misleading. DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins please note that User:Arcayne has already been strongly cautioned about WP:OWN issues and incivility with this article at WP:WQA and that the discussion has also continued to the RS Noticeboard and, oddly, WP:FRINGE (the pseudoscience of misery lit?), where it looked like the conflict was pretty well resolved except for WP:IDONTHEARYOU problems. DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grief porn. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Dreamguy's very neutral comments aside, the anon was identified as a indef-banned IP user, there to harass me (remember the joyous fun that occasioned the 75 anon user back in March?). Some actual work might get done now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete redirect[edit]

Resolved: --Stephen 07:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a moment, can you please delete this redirect so I can move an article to the proper name? [6] Thank you. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I change a redirect page into a disambiguation page?[edit]

Resolved

The search phrase Asbru leads directly into the site Bifrost

It is much more logical to have it lead into a disambiguation page Asbru_(disambiguation) than directly into Bifrost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliorn (talkcontribs) 10:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Read WP:BOLD. --Triwbe (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear: when I try to change it into a disambiguation page I get a: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism" message telling me to use this noticeboard to change the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliorn (talkcontribs) 11:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can leave a request at WP:RFPP in the section for requests to edit protected pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What am I missing? Asbru does lead to the DAB page. Nothing I see was ever protected. Has whatever problem that existed been resolved? Tan | 39 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It didn't until today.[7] Not sure why Oliorn had a problem editing it, though. Either way, marking as resolved.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears it wasn't a page protection issue, but a local or global blacklist issue, as Oliorn notes in his comments above. It seems I can edit it now (although I didn't hit "save", and maybe that's when the blacklist kicks in?), so maybe it was a poorly written blacklist item that's now been reverted? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected TFA page[edit]

I would like to add the following sentences to a protected TFA page. The protection instructions against vandalism brought me here. The sentences should be added just after the sentence ending with "in Basel".

  • Calvin was mainly based in Geneva where he promoted reforms in the church. He introduced new forms of church government and liturgy, despite the opposition of several powerful families in the city.

Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • That page isn't protected. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
But it's on a "local or global blacklist", which means it isn't available to us mere mortals. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no sentence on that page ending with "in Basel". There's this:
After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where in 1536 he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion.
What do you suggest? - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 15:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Could you put the suggested sentences right after the one that ends with "Institutes of the Christian Religion". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about Golan consensus[edit]

Not really sure if this is right place to ask this. Since there is a consensus right now at the Golan Heights page that Golan is only Israeli controlled, and not a part of Israel proper, shouldn't we then follow that consensus at other pages? I mean are we supposed to have the exact same discussion at 100 different talkpages that mentions Golan? I'm thinking about the Sea of Galilee article, Druze article and also the Anti-Lebanon mountains article.

This is about basin countris, the lake gets water from Golan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&diff=299514700&oldid=299513289

southern Mount Hermon is in Golan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Lebanon_mountains&diff=299514201&oldid=299512301

The numbers of druze are including those in Golan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=299513684&oldid=299512685 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, good luck with that. I think linking to the consensus discussion at Golan Heights in your edit summaries, and on talk page discussions where you make the relevent changes is a good idea. But, given that this ethnic conflict is not going to be solved by a consensus discussion at Wikipedia, expect to receive a whole lot of shit for doing so, even if you are in the right here, based on that consensus discussion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I really need some more help then "Good luck with that" .. the one changing "Israeli controlled" to Israel is this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fipplet I have already told him when I change back the article that we should follow the Golan article but he keeps changing it. I'm sure if an administrator sent him a message that we should follow the Golan heights article, he would listen.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Although they may not directly answer the question Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines may be useful for reference or for progressing your case. --FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Al Franken[edit]

He was just declared the winner of the election. Be prepared for a possible lock on the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

both good and bad news. Crap, but that was a long recount... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A more pressing question: can we keep WP:NORMCOLEMAN? Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Resolved: Zapped. BencherliteTalk 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the redirect page...

For me? the tags take forever and I kind of need this done soon, Thank you ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

There is an ongoing edit war in the Baby Boom Generation article, would anyone mind taking a peek. thanks... South Bay (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The editwar in question has been over for many hours, since the sockmaster and puppets (the ones adding the 'information') were indeffed. → ROUX  00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?[edit]

MarkusBJoke (talk · contribs) possible Sockpuppet of Judo112 (talk · contribs). MarkusBJoke took part in about 15 Afd's since creation. In all of them supporting Judo112's position. The votes are very often made in a close timeframe to Judo112 [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Comparing their edits history i would say they come from the same computer. MarkusBjokes's first edit after account creation was a supporting vote for Judo122 [13] that made Judo122's position win. Maybe they are twins or wife and Husband or otherwise close connected as this behavior is ongoing in a recent Afd i would like you to have a look at it. Iqinn (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, my mistake, this should have gone to the Incidents board. Iqinn (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this should probably be here. Just down the hall, on the left. → ROUX  03:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Solved here. I moved it to Incidents. Thank's Iqinn (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

  • Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
  • User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
  • Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Assistance requested on Glass transition and Talk:Glass transition[edit]

On June 27, following a request from an uninvolved editor to intervene in an edit war, I edit protected Glass transition and blocked one editor for 24 hours over edit warring on that article. I have no knowledge of the subject at all, but the problem appears to be a fairly typical disagreement between two editors over article content and structure. The editor who I blocked has said she'll be away for a short time. Meanwhile, I'm getting nowhere at all with trying to determine the rationale for the other editor's preference for his version and with trying to create some kind of consensus. I have posted requests at RFC, 2 relevant project talk pages, and 2 related article talk pages as well as at the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page section related to the dispute, but so far no other editors have provided any input. A third, apparently otherwise uninvolved editor is urging me to revert to the preferred version of one of the involved editors; meanwhile, other editors have said that his editing has caused problems on other science-related articles. My repeated requests for discussion and consensus building have been met most recently with a bewildering technical mini-essay that, to my mind, accomplishes nothing. My concern is that the protection will expire and the edit warring will simply resume. Assistance most welcomed. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you posted this, several new editors who may help find a consensus version seem to have come by. I hope this is true, as I suspect that quite a few of us will be as lost in the subject as you are. Perhaps the thing to do here is step back and see if your requests for assistance from the various project pages will result in forward progress among the regular editors in the area? If several of them reach consensus, it may be easier to identify the odd man out if edit warring resumes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For some tangantally related events, please see here, here, and here. At the core is the same two warring "experts" as at the transition page listed above. Short summary, Editor A and B are warring about the page. B files an AFD on the page for a number of reasons, including almost as an aside two links of possible copyright violations. I see the copyright allegations while doing deletion sorting, quickly validate that they do indeed appear to be violations, and that the bulk of the article was added in a single initial edit. IMHO the entire article is thus suspect for copyright, and I hit CSD G12 on it. Editor A complained to his mentor, who then engaged me on my talk page, with the end result of me userifying the deleted article to the mentor's user space, with a promise that the copyright violations would be cleaned up.
I still do not know really what to think of this all. Editor B has expressed that, to him, the copyright issues are of lessor import. To me they are a serious issue, and I really do not know what to make of them. I want to AGF, but I see the hints of what could be a major copyright issue. OTOH, the subjects are highly technical, and the original sources, if there are such, may be offline books, and thus hard to pin down. All in all a mess, and I have no real idea where to go with it next, if anywhere. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, TexasAndroid. There has been some additional discussion on the talk page since I posted this, which is good, so for the moment I'm leaving it as is--the protection is set to expire in a couple of days anyway. If there are copyright issues, however, then the copyvio portions of the article should be removed immediately per the policy. The highly technical aspect of the subject is another problem with the article, as it seems to me that it's not being addressed to a general audience, but rather to a specialist one. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing exists that I can see that currently violates the copyright poli, but I am going to take my time with this and evaluate fully before I repost it to the mainspace for logger9. If you guys see anything in any article or draft article, please blank (or better yet, comment out) that section so that it may be rewritten. NW (Talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that per the policy clear copyvios must be removed. Suspected copyvios can be tagged for further investigation. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Celebrity death hoaxes[edit]

With all of the death hoaxes in the past week I think its time we sorted out our consensual policy on this matter. I've created a one-line article at Celebrity death hoax and created an RFC to go with it. Interested editors (including admins) are invited to give their opinions. Manning (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Um. Was it your intent to create that page in mainspace, rather than in project space? I think the latter would be more appropriate if the goal is discussion of policy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Recommendation" infobox at WP:Userboxes/Politics[edit]

Hello. I'm not sure if RfC might be more appropriate for this, but User:Ezhiki has requested I post here.

Ezhiki has created an infobox at the top of WP:Userboxes/Politics which carries a recommendation against the use of userboxes indicating "support for a pro-fascist, far-left or far-right ideology".

Ezhiki cites this discussion with User:Dc76 on his (Ezhiki's) talkpage as evidence of a consensus in favour of the box, but it the idea doesn't seem to have been raised in that discussion, and there doesn't seem to have been any (open) opportunity for other input before the box was put in place.

The box has now been there for at least six months. Three editors have objected, and I have asked Ezhiki to remove the infobox, but he refuses, claiming that he was properly discharging his duties as an admin by putting it there and that it is up to me to post here if I object. You can see the discussion here.

My view is that for a big yellow notice like that to be stuck on a page, there should be a prior process of presenting a draft and gaining a consensus (per WP:DISCUSS) and that the MoS for infoboxes should be followed. Ezhiki should remove the box and instead set that process in motion. WP:BOLD does not apply, because this is not about mainspace.

I don't think it matters, BTW, whether the basic idea of the box is a good thing or a bad thing. My point is that it isn't appropriate for one editor to create an infobox which gives a misleading impression that it reflects policy and the views of the community when no process has been gone through.

If I am right, I would be grateful if someone could explain this to Ezhiki.

Many thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I do not cite this discussion as the evidence of consensus. I cite it as the base on which an (administrative) decision to create and post the big yellow box was made (in order to remind editors of a standing guideline). Other than that, FormerIP's assessment of the essence of the conflict is correct (although I obviously disagree with the arguments he set forth), and I would wholeheartedly welcome further comments regarding the situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, June 26, 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Since this inquiry mentions User:Dc76, I have notified him of this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, June 26, 2009 (UTC)
I might perhaps approve of some of the sentiment, but not so dramatically prominent. No one ed. ought to in this way assert ownership over a policy. DGG (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Administrators are supposed to serve as the first line of defense when enforcing/promoting/educating about existing policies and guidelines. How are these actions "ownership"? If, when doing the said enforcement, I stepped over a line, I would appreciate being explained where the line is and what I did wrong—that's precisely the intent of this inquiry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

The intent of the rules on WP:USERPAGE is to keep people from having offensive or disruptive material on their userpage, not to prohibit people from stating their political affiliations in itself. In other words, if you can find a way to state that you support, say, ethnic cleansing in an inoffensive manner, then you can have that statement on your userpage; likewise, if state your support for a moderate, mainstream cause in a way that causes people to have reasonable concerns, then you have to remove it. IMHO, I don't see why anyone feels the need to announce their political, social or sports loyalties on their userpage: doing so always risks the charge of a conflict of interest & keeping people from assuming good will. -- llywrch (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that much is obvious—I myself wouldn't go as far as to pronounce every single box on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to be "offensive or disruptive" (every one of them is, however, completely and utterly useless, in my opinion). The crux of the dispute is whether the big yellow banner at the top of WP:Userboxes/Politics should stay there (as a reminder of WP:USERPAGE and overall collaborative philosophy of the project), or if it should be taken down, toned down, or completely re-designed. From those in favor of taking/toning it down, the only thing I want to hear is a good, coherent explanation of why having a collection of userboxes in question does not fly in the face of WP:USERPAGE and the spirit of constructive collaboration. From those who think I myself am "possessive" of this banner I would like to hear a suggestion of other ways in which WP:USERPAGE can be enforced in regards to this particular collection. That's all there is to it, really.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, June 26, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment of the big yellow box, it is however, very yellow. On a related matter I believe that these and ideally all non-wiki related userboxes should go. Ideally we are here as wikipedians, identify ourselves through our actions and leave partisanship for sports and blogs. Unomi (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I take the view that this is not primarily about userboxes and whether they are a good or a bad thing. Even if Ezhiki's userbox is deeemed to be the greatest thing ever, it should still go pending a chance for people to discuss it. No innovation without consultation.
Ezhiki: You ask for alternative ideas for enforcement, but this presupposes that enforcement is appropriate, and it also presupposes a particular interpretation of what exactly is to be enforced. Neither of these things seems clear cut, even looking at the few comments above. These are just two of the reasons why wider discussion should have been solicited before creating the box. Having to gain people's consent might take time, but I think it is essential to good policing. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ezhiki, the userbox war was fought three years ago. It ended in a cease-fire when those opposed to userboxes learned that ridding Wikipedia of them would take too much time & effort to accomplish -- time most of them would rather spend on other things. Moreover, it's fair to say that a userbox collection can reveal one useful thing about the user: there appears to be a strong inverse correlation between the size of a Wikipedian's userbox collection & the number & quality of edits that Wikipedian has contributed. In short, if you want to do something that will truly improve Wikipedia, it won't be anything connected to userboxes. -- llywrch (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Any more views on this? What is the best way forward? --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The box looks like policy rather than an opinion. I'd say first of all, a less glaring yellow, and second, a slight rewording reflecting its actual status. I personally think there is no problem with a user saying they are associated with a fringe party so long as the userbox does not exhibit sentiments. i.e. a neutral "This user supports/sympathises with the Bulamakankan National Defence League", not a POV "This user thinks that Yoobalubian migrants are impure and should be exterminated on sight by any man with a gun." Orderinchaos 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. The names are deliberately nonsensical as I wanted to get the point across without distraction.
If anyone could propose the new wording for the whole box, so that could be discussed, that'd be appreciated. As for the yellow, I have no problem with changing the color (I have the problem with not displaying a message :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

The warning box - if it is to remain at all (and I am not strictly convinced it should be) - needs to be toned down a lot so as to remain neutral. There is a somewhat dangerous precedent in our telling users which political views may or may not be "acceptable". For example, telling someone that a pro-facist opinion might be problematic is, while probably true, not exactly neutral. We should not be in the habit of judging political viewpoints one way or another. Instead, any such "warning" at the top of this page should be a neutral statement to the effect of "Placing a user box espousing any political affiliation or ideology on your user page, while not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy, is not recommended. This recommendation aims to remove one instance of disputes about settling a precise line of division between allowed and non-allowed content in userspaces. Although you are not required to follow this recommendation, if you do follow, you will be part of a large group of people that renounced posting similar content on their userpages for the sake of building a better environment. By refusing to post such userboxes you in no way renounce your right to hold an opinion." Shereth 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to post here so late, I was busy in real life. Personally, I think there is nothing procedurally wrong in one editor (doesn't have to be admin!) crafting a common-sense recommendation box. In fact the only reason why Ezhiki and not I did that is that I was lazy. (I am not an admin, never applied to be one, because I am not a computer professional and I don't like having regular duties more than what I already have in real life.) Ezhiki has not drafted an official policy, but a common-sense recommendation, and to check his common sense he discussed it with me. Therefore I suggest we discuss here how to modify this box to be more useful. If all you are interested is following the "right procedure", then I respectfully ask to be shown when is the rule that forbids us doing good things without following "the procedure". Everything that is not explicitly forbidden (by WP or real life norms) is allowed.
On the other hand, the box can be improved, and why don't we all be bold and do changes. From the discussion above I don't see anyone contradicting anyone else content-wise. Why are you afraid to edit then? The bright yellow color can and should be changed. The wording can be changed also. I agree to take Shereth's edit as a basis for drafting a better text. I have two suggestions to improve Shreth's proposal:
  • It doesn't have to be so long. The shorter the better. The more to the point the better.
  • This box comes as an answer to a real problem, not out of the blue. Therefore, while I appreciate Shereth's very diplomatic formulation, I believe it is somewhat too diplomatic and not specific enough given the fact that this is not a US statement to Iran. If there is negative reaction to the box being too specific in mentioning pro-fascist, extreme left and extreme right, we can alter the text of the box, something noone can do to a diplomatic statement. "Extreme left" here is clearly a synonym to "hardcore communist", and "extreme right" is clearly a synonym to "hardcore fascist that do not like the term fascist". People that feel so strong about these ideas that they need to put them under their name or avatar, would not find a friendly environment when editing WP. (There is nothing wrong in that. WP is a mainstream encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promoting fringe or "alternative" theories. Unfortunately, in reality there is big pressure from that direction.) IMO, there is no point in lying to such people and telling them they are welcome to join but not welcome to edit. Dc76\talk 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a place for promoting fringe theories (or fringe ideologies) - nor is it a place for promoting mainstream ideologies. Just because saying "I support Totalitarian Communism" is less popular than saying "I support the Republican Party" does not mean anything is wrong with it. If we are going to warn users against the pitfalls of endorsing political ideologies and platforms on their user page, the warning should apply to political ideologies equally across the board, and not just to those which we happen to find "extremist". Shereth 18:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, not warn users against the pitfalls of endorsing political ideologies, I would be totally against that. Please note the very last, underlined sentence of the box. It was only when Ezhiki agreed that it is essential that I started to support his suggestion to suggest removing political boxes. "We" want to somehow warn recommend users against the pitfalls of editing WP with a political ideology in mind. Political boxes would be absolutely ok if they would be on a forum's userpage. But WP userpages are userpages of editors. People write there what is relevant to them as editors. I do know that many people use their WP userpage as a sort of personal webpage (sometimes even uploading their CVs), and I would not support a drive to undo such things, because most such instances are totally innocent, like students that find it easier this way than to have to re-create the webpage at the start of every academic year. (They stop doing that when they grow a little older.) But let's be frank: such people almost never are promoting some ideology. My conclusion: it seems that I read the text of this box with one meaning, and you read it with another. Let's then edit it in such a way that there can be no confusion. Do not be hold back to edit this box.
  • I disagree with you about promoting mainstream ideology. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is the meaning one gives to these words. I believe that every time we talk about history, or social sciences in general, especially 20th century history, we do express a POV. IHMO it is impossible to talk about World War II without saying what was right and what was wrong. What we can do is make it very clear to the reader where the right/wrong assumption lies, so that the (intelligent) reader can trace the entire logical chain. Of course, I agree that we can write "World War II was a war faught by humans between 1939 and 1945 as a result of which 50 million people died." But that would be too dry, because we could not mention such obvious things as who and how started the war, who and where has committed war crimes, including holocaust. I am afraid that even the number of casualties and the start and end date could in some interpretations be regarded as non-neutral. Therefore I don't believe that neutrality is the key feature of WP, but information given in neutral tone, information that reflects the mainstream understanding of things, and that is presented clearly enough so that the reader knows what things exactly the mainstream interprets and how. However, I would like to repeat that this in my view has nothing to do with the box we are discussing. It is nothing more than my general regard at things. I am sincerely convinced I am right, but I am known to have committed errors of thought in the past (to put it diplomatically :-) ), so pls do not be held back to contradict me, I would think seriously about the meaning of everything you tell me, and do my best to understand what you mean.
  • BTW, originally me and Ezhiki came at this issue because I had a userbox saying that I support independence of Chechnya, which is nothing ideological, nothing extreme. In our discussion I had to ponder about one thing: how important is this belief of mine to me as editor? did I ever made one edit based on that? I understood that it is illogical to put on the userpage anything political, even support for a mainstream party. Because it is one's human integrity, not political views that are important to being a good editor. Human integrity is important because we trust editors to copy correctly when they cite sources, when they summarize in good faith meanings of larger texts, even if one has a very specific opinion about the issue, when they create articles based on logical (as opposed to political) organization of the subject matter, etc. Dc76\talk 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your well worded response. In order to keep things on track, I will point out that (unless we are trying to broaden the scope of this discussion) the original concern is about a recommendation with regards to the addition of certain politically-themed userboxes to one's user page. Without touching upon neutrality in general, user's editing habits, or any additional content that is allowed on user pages, it is my assertion that it is inappropriate for this "recommendation" box to single out certain types of politial viewpoints. At its root, the existing infobox is telling users to consider avoiding the use of userboxes that endorse certain political viewpoints. My point is to simply say that, in the interest of neutrality (which is, after all, one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia), any recommendation to avoid certain politically-themed userboxes should, in fact, be a recommendation to avoid all politically-themed userboxes. Even something as simple as "To promote harmonious editing among Wikipedia editors of differing backgrounds and opinions, please consider avoiding the use of the following politically themed user boxes" would be a vast improvement over what exists currently. Shereth 20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be partly satisfied if wording more like that proposed by Shareth can be achieved, which means two things:
  • Not arbitrarily singling out particular points-of-view deemed extreme.
  • Not making a "recommendation" where the provenance of the recommendation is unclear.
However, one thing that strikes me is the claim by Dc76 that what is not forbidden is allowed, and his request to be shown what the procedure is. There are two green-checked procedures which I think are relevant. Firstly WP:DISCUSS sets out that an infobox should be presented first as a draft for discussion, but this has been bypasssed in this case. Secondly, WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes) sets out that infoboxes should be created as templates and in a certain format. The effect of not doing this is that certain things cannot be done with the infobox (eg it cannot be transcluded and it cannot be AfD'd). Also, the policies are there because some feel that visual style is important, and this ought not to be disregarded.
You might think this is a bit lawyerly, but why should these rules be disregarded? If the job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly.
Lastly, there may be a legitimate case for dealing with Nazi and neo-Nazi userboxes differently, on the grounds that these userboxes are offensive on entirely non-political grounds (because they may cause general offence, contrary to WP:USERPAGE). I have great sympathy with this, but the whole category of political userboxes should not be dragged down on this account. --FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there doesn't seem to be an appetite for actually removing the notice (I still maintain that that is what should really be done), but there seems to me to be a clear enough body of opinion that it should be changed, so that's what I'll do. You'll be able to see the result here, please comment here or on the talk page if you think I've got it wrong. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal[edit]

Many of you will remember the contretemps I had with User:G2bambino now known as User:Miesianiacal. Unfortunately it seems to be slowly brewing again.

Over the past little while I've been looking at articles I have contributed significantly to, with the aim of getting them bumped up a level or two in their assessment rating. One of these is Arms of Canada, which per the history he has never edited, though he says he did in 2005-2008. He is now making edits (very, very poorly sourced edits in favour of his usual pro-monarchist POV, but that is relatively easily dealt with) to the article, and based on a discussion just starting there I can see his usual pattern starting again.

Without creating a whole lot of drama, it is worth noting that under his previous username, Miesianiacal was blocked for three weeks for harassing and wikistalking me. The stress he caused was severe enough that I left all articles relating to Canadian and British monarchy--the very reason I finally created a login in the first place--in order to avoid his behaviour. But I predicted that he would slowly start coming to the articles I was working on. A couple of days ago he showed up at the talkpage of an article he has edited twice[14][15], (under yet another previous username),whose tpage he had touched once in 2006, and once in September 2008 in order to leave a comment needling me further about a dispute we were having at the time.

Neither of these two articles have been anything like a focus of interest for Miesianiacal. For me, I got Arms of Canada back to GA status, and assisted User:Ecjmartin in getting Coronation to GA status; Ecjmartin, User:Surtsicna and I are currently working on improving the latter article even further, while Arms of Canada and another article are just beginning the peer review process.

I asked politely here if, given the amount of stress he has caused me in the past, he could stay away from the article. His response has been, minus a lot of verbiage, 'no', with an accusation of article ownership. I asked for clarification three hours ago so as to be crystal clear. He edited continuously for an hour afterwars, so I can only assume he has seen the message.

I would like to ask for an uninvolved admin to please request that he stay away from me rather more forcefully. I have poured a lot of hard work into these articles and do not want to have to leave them, whereas for him not to edit them is hardly an issue, given how little he has contributed. I have assiduously avoided him for months and wish to keep doing so without having to walk away from something I have worked on. → ROUX  22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty but on this occasion he doesn't appear to have broken any policies or guidelines. Try to ignore his needling, and amend poorly sourced contributions appropriately and sensitively. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is knowing his pattern of behaviour, particularly his pattern of behaviour towards me, and the amount of stress it causes me. I cannot work on this article knowing that he is going to show up again. Given his history of behaviour towards me I do not think it is inappropriate to request that he stay away from the articles in question. The bad-faith/unsubstantiated accusation of ownership is also concerning. → ROUX  17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing anything of the history behind this (sorry), it appears indeed inappropriate to request that he stay away from the articles that you want to work on. Such a request does come close to an assertion of ownership, and our policy WP:OWN is rather clear in that regard. As long he does not violate any norms of conduct - and I can find no fault in his replies to you that you link to - I see no grounds to impose any restrictions here. On the other hand, if there were concrete evidence of wikistalking, that would be sanctionable, but with blocks rather than article bans.  Sandstein  19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with the history then, as it will explain the problem. For the quick version, please see [his block log (three weeks by Fut.Perf for harassing me, RFC/U on his behaviour (and in the purposes of full disclosure the retaliatory one he filed on me here), and the last AN thread regarding him ane me here; note please that I had to leave all monarchy-related articles due to his behaviour; other users (note Franamax' comment at the last link, "My interactions with G2b on this wiki have been limited - in large degree, because one of my goals has been to avoid interactions with G2b [Miesianiacal now] on this wiki.") have had markedly similar experiences with him. I don't wish to turn this into another RFC/U on him; I just want him to leave me alone to edit in peace. He drove me away from an enormous swath of articles, and I am just asking him to leave me alone where I edit now. → ROUX  19:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And indeed I did predict that he would start doing this (showing up at articles he has never or barely ever touched that I edit; relevant quote: "I can't edit the one article area I have left--heraldry, specifically Canadian--in peace, because I know sooner or later he's going to set his sights on it." That had been sent in a private email to Mayalld as noted, while I had briefly left the entire project due to a complete lack of interest in anyone dealing with his chronic tendentious editing. It has even been pointed out to me via email recently (~4 weeks or so) that he is doing on at least another page exactly what he pulled with me and countless other users; wikilawyering, refusing to provide sources when asked directly, arguing around the issue, misrepresenting sources, using biased sources to support his POV, etc etc. Given that so many months have passed since I started avoiding him and he is still behaving in exactly the same manner, I cannot face trying to get a couple of articles to FA status knowing that he is incredibly likely to come and do the same thing, as indeed he has already started doing at Talk:Arms of Canada#In Right of Canada. All of this is why I am asking for him to be explicitly required to stay away from me. In case there is any concern, I will happily continue staying the hell away from him, away from articles regarding the British and Canadian monarchies (apart from Coronation, which only tangentially touches on the subject and is mentioned in my initial complaint above), and will in short not touch any articles he regularly edits or could be presumed to edit on a regular basis (Canadian/British monarchy, Governors and Lieutenants-general, and so on) even if he has not yet edited them. → ROUX  20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

←I have been asked to comment here by Roux as I am very aware of the history here. After reading over the thread I feel that I must echo the majority of the statements made by others above. Those being, I have yet to see any policy violations on Miesianiacal's part, and simply editing the same article as another person whom he has had previous issues with is not against the rules. That said, I can see where Roux is coming from. After almost a year of blocks, RFC/Us, AN/I threads, and various probation requirements the likely hood that both Roux and Miesianiacal will interact in a positive manner is unlikely (though, I note there have yet to be any large conflicts for close to a year). Roux, I think the answer is this: There is little that can be done to stop Miesianiacal from editing the same articles that you do (though I will note it would be wise for him to try and do so), and I think you should give this a try. So far he has not made any disruptive edits, something that you should welcome and until he does you should try and edit in "harmony" (wow, that sounds cheesy) with him. If there becomes an issue, feel free to contact me or take the situation back here. And Miesianiacal, please keep doing what you have been doing. None of us want to go through "that" again. Tiptoety talk 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you or anyone else who has commented here understands the sheer amount of stress he has caused me and continues to cause by showing up. So, alright, based on feedback here and a couple via email, it seems that nobody cares that this is a problem. Someone else can take those articles to FA status. Tiptoety, 'that' is also happening again, here, amongst other related places. → ROUX  04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Roux, please don't say that. I think I can understand and sympathize with the amount of stress working with Miesianiacal gives you...but I guess I am at odds as to what to do about it. I can not just tell him to stop editing any article you have touched, nor can I block him for making you stressed out. I guess I should ask, what would you like to see happen here? As for "that", can you link me to a specific thread? Tiptoety talk 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for any article I've touched, just a specific topic area that he has hitherto showed little to no interest in, so it wouldn't be much of a hardship for him. As it is, nothing can/will be done so I have removed the articles from my watchlist. As for 'that', start here and keep going into the vote section below. His behaviour there--especially refusing to provide any sources--is precisely the same as that here and here, eight months ago, and God knows how many before that. Nothing about his behaviour has changed, which is why I need him to either be required to leave me alone (declined), or have to leave the articles, as I have done, in order to avoid getting sucked into the same mess all over again. I accept that no administrators will do anything about this, so I have done so myself. → ROUX  05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Roux, I believe I know what you are feeling. Despite how I might sometimes come over I also feel stress when other editors revert my work for reasons I believe are unfair. I suspect I'm not the only one active on Wikipedia who does. My reaction, if the exchange is too stressful, is to simply move on to another article: Wikipedia has almost 3 million of them, almost all of which are in need of some attention. If this person follows you there, jump to another article once or twice more; if he follows, then you have him for Wikistalking; if not, then you are rid of him, & after a few months' time return to the original article & resume your work. -- llywrch (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Llywrch, it's not about being reverted. It's a pattern of behaviour that has been going for nigh on four years now with no indication of stopping; intense POV-pushing, wild misrepresentation of sources, arguing in circles, refusing to provide sources when directly asked. I have already left the articles in question. → ROUX  20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaelcholáiste Reachrann[edit]

Could someone take a look at Gaelcholáiste Reachrann? Again and again, going back to March 2009, IPs, as well as User talk:SkynetBot2201 once (SkynetBot is already blocked) have been persistently inserting "due to claims of abuse" or "claims of sexual abuse" into the same sentence about the school being reported in the national media. May well be the same person with a shifting IP coming back every few days. Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the last clean version (yours) to remove the defamatory edit. As this has been going on for just short of four months with three distinct IP addresses involved, I have semi-protected for one month. We will need to watch for accounts being created to continue this vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That's rather poor form. If it would be necessary/helpful to contact the school, let me know. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A Man In Black's (AMiB) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. AMiB is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron. AMiB is placed on a standard editing restriction for one year. Ikip is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing and from directing rude comments to users with whom he is in dispute. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. AGK 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See Anti-rule #14 Manning (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't criticizing anybody. I was just bemoaning the entire situation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it then. Another winner from ArbCom which will cause more detriment to the encyclopedia. Well done, everyone. Black Kite 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, because everyone knows that socking, incivil, edit-warring, block-evading administrators are net positive producers. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And oddly enough, my comments were absolutely nothing to do with the sanctions on AMIB himself - but clearly your mileage may vary on that one. Black Kite 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

discuss this

Unblock request from indefblocked user[edit]

Saikano (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected), a lolicon and anime enthusiast, was indefblocked in March 2007 for disruptive editing, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:IDHT and various other issues, having been dropped by their adopter when Wikipedia's standard clue-instillation measures had no effect. Their former userpage has been deleted, so the contents are admin-only.

Since that time, a number of sockpuppets have shown up, both confirmed and suspected (WP:DUCK has apparently proved a reliable principle with this user). All have all gone the way of the original account; relevant links are in the above template.

The latest account, Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), was blocked by me on 25 June this year following a report on ANI, now archived here. Initially this was a username block - I felt that 'Loli' was an inappropriate reference, given their userpage advocacy of lolicon (and related off-site activities found via googling the username). Their actual edits, however, seemed ok. During the ANI thread it transpired that this account was another Saikano sock, so I reblocked indefinitely. However, betwixt blocks and missed by me, the user had managed to get an unblock request in where they disclosed their former activities and made an apology and request to be allowed to edit Wikipedia legitimately once again. The talkpage of the Akemi Loli Mokoto account has been unprotected (thanks Hersfold, I forgot!) so they can follow through their unblock appeal, and some dialogue has since taken place. Their latest, and apparently last-ditch, appeal was this afternoon.

I believe the user is sincere in their wish to contribute positively to Wikipedia, although I have some serious reservations about their personal beliefs and in what form these may manifest if permitted to resume editing. I'm aware that my distaste for their preferences is influencing my judgement, so, in the best tradition of passing the buck, I hand this one over to the community... EyeSerenetalk 17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they need to at least finish off listing all their socks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nihonjoe - I realise you were handling the unblock request, but as your last post was a while ago I have to admit I thought they'd dropped off your radar (for which I apologise). Do you believe there are more than they've already admitted to? I suppose a CU might be useful. EyeSerenetalk 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors.[edit]

Hello,

There appears to be a disruption between editors. A discussion can be found here. I am not involved with the dispute, and am not sure of all the details. It appears to be a possible COI and series of Personal attacks. Editors have turned to me for help and I have none to offer. Is there any suggestions that can be given to them to help them out? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd get involved but this nonsense has been going on for months. As I noted before, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is trying to clean up some walled garden of buzznet articles, and keeps getting accused of a COI because everything thinks he lives in LA and personally hates them. The fact that one of the subjects in question keeps on going on about how he think that Hullaballoo is "editing from a library a few miles away from my home" and so shouldn't be allowed near his articles is how far this is going. On one side we have an editor who is aggressively cleaning up a bunch of articles (most BLPs) in accordance with policy, not just these articles. One the other side, we have a group of SPAs who want things like wedding speeches inserted into these articles and will file sockpuppet reports at the drop of a hat. (real WP:AGF there from Granny). Gordonrox24, do you have any ideas as to what to do? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ban them all (not Hullaballoo, obviously; the disruptive SPAs), and get on with building an encyclopedia? → ROUX  20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Would an outside admin like to consider it? On a serious note, I don't think this is going anywhere short of an WP:RFC or other method. If anyone else will wallow into the fun of these articles, I'll consider going back. I just don't want to deal with people like User:Tallulah13 (who clearly has NOT vanished]]). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Striken and removed possible OUTING concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • This has been going on for ages, and new threads appear here like clockwork. I don't know why admins haven't done anything about it, but liberal use of the Big Red Button with 'indef' selected would largely handle it. A CU could opine on rangeblocks. → ROUX  20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm too involved, but one problem is the clear meatpuppetry coming by. What do you do with something like this plus this? We have 2 SPAs, an explicitly-stated COI (I'm guessing his editor would want more works published), and a smattering of personal attacks, and nothing approach a consensus. Block them all? Any attempt to tell them to knock that stuff off results in rounds of "YOU'RE A COI! YOU'RE A HATER!" and a new round of users, plus the other character(s) I seem to have attracted (although he has an issue with me for a variety of reasons). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Well I, for one, didn't do anything about it for the reasons that I gave at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive191#Admin assist. Administrator EdJohnston echoed my reasoning at User talk:William M. Connolley#Hullaballoo vs. a group of editors who desire to expand music articles.

            I suggest that if you or anyone else wants something done about it, you come up with a detailed and specific set of administrative actions to take, rather than vague blanket suggestions which at least two administrators have already declined to enact. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request block on Vandalism-only account[edit]

User:195.229.237.37 Reverted an edit from this user today and noticed a few other warnings. Check his contribs and it appears that 100% of this users edits over the past year+ are vandalism. Granted they are spaced out, but the above fact stands. --MiloKral (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IPs are not accounts, so they cannot be "vandalism-only accounts" (see WP:Vandalism-only account for more information). In the future, however, if an IP or a user is vandalizing, you'll get the bets response posting it at WP:AIV. As for now, this IP has had only one recent warning, which doesn't warrant a block at this time. If the IP continues vandalizing after a final warning, please report at AIV. hmwithτ 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I do have some further questions however. WP:AIV does not apply to this case for the reasons you mention, granted. How is one suppose to handle IPs that fly under the radar by only vandalizing a couple times a month, but have history of vandalism nonetheless. It seems they fall through the cracks of the system since they do not qualify for for blocks in the short term, and as such also do not qualify for the Category:IP addresses used for vandalism by avoiding short term blocks. Is there nothing that can be done in these specific circumstances?? --MiloKral (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Three separate but related topic ban proposals for NYScholar[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
NYScholar is community banned from editing the English-language Wikipedia. 22 editors supported the community ban proposal, whereas 7 editors opposed the proposal (75.86% supported the proposal). I analyzed the arguments of both sides. People who supported the community ban proposal gave solid reasons why NYScholar should be community banned. AdjustShift (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I closed the discussion at 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC). I analyzed the arguments of the both sides for about 50 minutes (12:00 UTC to 12:50 UTC). Maunus opposed the community ban proposal at 12:54 UTC. I missed his argument because by the time Maunus posted his argument, I had already finished my analysis. When we add Maunus' argument, 8 people opposed the community ban proposal. But, 22 people supported the proposal, and their arguments were strong. The rationale given by Steve Smith was very strong. 73.33% editors supported the community ban proposal. There is a consensus to community ban NYScholar. AdjustShift (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is known to this noticeboard. Given some of his/her recent activities, I am proposing one topic ban against her/him and Ssilvers (talk · contribs) is proposing another. [Update: a third discussion/proposal has been added.]

Proposed topic ban on discussing copyright issues[edit]

NYScholar does a lot of work on copyright issues. Unfortunately, he/she combines a very poor understanding of the relevant issues with zeal, persistence, and an absolute conviction of her/his own correctness, even in the face of unanimous disagreement from other editors. Most recently, this has manifested itself in discussions about an image of Harold Pinter; these discussions can be found here, here, here, and here. It has become apparent to those of us participating in the discussion that NYScholar does not understand either fair use or WP:NFCC, continuing to make the same point (that the disputed image is under copyright, which is acknowledged by all) in numerous lengthy and often difficult to decipher posts. This has been an issue with NYScholar for some time: to see older examples, see this discussion and pretty much these entire talk pages: 1, and 2.

In light of this continued pattern of behaviour, I do not believe that NYScholar is ever likely to be able to contribute usefully to discussion of copyright issues, and that his/her involvement in such discussions is necessarily disruptive. Also note that I anticipate this section being overrun with lengthy posts very shortly, and so am taking the initiative to hive off a polling section immediately, notwithstanding polls being evil. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse proposed ban[edit]

  1. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Jack1956 (talk)
  4. Dreamspy (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2009
  5. Orderinchaos 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. teb728 t c 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) In particular NYScholar should be banned from saying that an admittedly fair-use image may not be used because the copyright owner does not agree to its use. (comment added —teb728 t c 22:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
  7. Broadwaygal (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Hex (❝?!❞) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Sarah 02:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Verbal chat 14:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. Given the information in the total ban discussion below, I feel this is an appropriate response. rspεεr (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. Endorse but only for a period of a couple months at most for a time out. Longer later if necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose proposed ban[edit]

  1. User:NYScholar
  2. NYScholar appears to be perfectly logical and cogent in their arguments. Triplestop x3 03:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. There are very often free images of well known people in the public domain, and there is at least a decent argument that if someone was alive after 2000 that this will be the case. "Free use" is then a crutch for laziness. Please see [16] for discussion of one particular case. AKAF (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    Er, what does this have to do with what's being proposed? So you don't like fair use images of recently deceased people; that's fine. There's room for a wide diversity of opinions on the extent to which fair use images should be used. Nobody's proposing topic banning NYScholar from copyright issues because of her/his beliefs; we're proposing the topic ban because NYScholar i. repeatedly makes flagrantly incorrect statements of fact, and ii. when told by literally everybody else in the discussion that these facts are incorrect, he/she refuses to budge. This has been, as indicated above, an ongoing problem for more than a year now, and not just with regards to fair use images (see, for example, here, where NYScholar disrupts a debate that he/she initiated by posting enormous amounts of irrelevant text on the subject of an entirely free image). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    It is the rather pertinent fact that "not liking" fair use images of (recently) deceased people is the default wikipedia/wikimedia position. Your position is hindered by being wrong on this topic, and there is a fair amount of precedent to show that for most famous persons that free images exist if only one is prepared to search. NYScholar may have made a pest of himself, but he happens to be right in this particular case. It appears that there is an ongoing acceptance on non-free images in the Harold Pinter article which is contrary to best practice. As far as the copyright discussion which you cite: Unfortunately on wikipedia "literally everybody else in the discussion" can be a bunch of 12 year olds in the school library, and so is hardly a great argument. I find his arguments on the image you cite persuasive, but interpretation of copyright law is not democratically decided. AKAF (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    "My position"? As noted here, I'm not even convinced that this image passes the WP:NFCC. This is not a debate over whether/when non-free images should be used. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    Actually there have been exhaustive attempts to find free images of Pinter on the web, both by NYScholar and others. I have five requests oustsanding using the boiler-plate image request emails, and have had three poltiely turned down. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. A site-wide ban on discussing copyright issues is just overkill, in my humble opinion. –blurpeace (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. He's wrong on many accounts, but that doesn't mean he needs a topic ban. Most actions seem to stem from the past week about a single image. While I admire his zeal, it certainly is misplaced. Other actions should be taken before a topic ban. — BQZip01 — talk 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    It’s not just a recent problem: I first encountered NYScholar's strange copyright theories in 2007 at here where he/she insists that the (1903) design of Nobel Prize medal is not public domain in the US. —teb728 t c 06:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. I understand that tensions are rising due to the "Someone is WRONG on the Internet" effect, but I don't think a topic ban is an appropriate response. Though I believe NYScholar is wrong about fair use, the more relevant problem is NYScholar's attempted "ownership" of the article and its discussion, and so the article is the more appropriate scope for a ban. rspεεr (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    Given more background information about NYScholar's history of wiki-lawyering, I am moving to support. rspεεr (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment
I find these actions on the part of these editors outrageous. --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Harold Pinter[edit]

User:Ssilvers should be along shortly to provide more detail on this proposed ban, on which I have no opinion. I'm just putting this here as a placeholder and to make people aware that it is also proposed (though I'm not aware of the proposed duration or scope). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar has presented a very serious WP:OWNership problem at Harold Pinter. For many months, and even years, he/she has blocked all attempts of other editors to revise the article. In its current form, Harold Pinter is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, that numerous editors have been discouraged from even trying. See, for example: [17] A peer review was recently opened, but the main suggestions about simplifying the referencing style were not accepted by this editor. NYScholar is so prolific, that he/she buries any objections under a flurry of talk page discussion so voluminous that it is nearly impossible to read (note the talk page's voluminous archives). A quick look at the footnotes in Harold Pinter will, I think, show the seriousness of the problem. As Steve Smith wrote with respect to the copyright issue above, Scholar edits with zeal, persistence, and an absolute conviction of her/his own correctness, even in the face of unanimous disagreement from other editors. His/her former mentor wrote: [18]. Another editor wrote: [19]. S/he also removes other editors comments from the talk page if he does not deem them relevant. See, e.g., [20]. Since NYScholar's last ban [21], s/he has continued to bar other editors from working on the article] [Updated evidence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)].

In light of this continued pattern of behaviour, I do not believe that NYScholar is able to contribute usefully to the Harold Pinter article, and I believe that his/her involvement in the article is disruptive. Since the article requires so much repair, I suggest a ban of some number of months to permit other editors a chance to try improve the article without his/her interference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse proposed ban[edit]

  1. Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Tim riley (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Jack1956 (talk)
  4. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Dreamspy (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009
  7. Orderinchaos 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Blurpeace (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Will Beback: This user has made 2765 edits to the article, while the second busiest editor has made just 60 edits. This editor has also made 2/3 of all talk page contributions, and a review of the recent ones shows ownership problems which the editor has failed to correct despite having them pointed out to him repeatedly. The editor is passionate about the topic and dedicated to improving the article. However this is a collaborative project and the editor does not seem comfortable with that reality.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) PS: I do not think the user should be allowed to edit the talk page nor other articles closely related to Pinter.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Abd (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) However, I'm uncomfortable with the total exclusion of NYScholar, who should be able to suggest changes. Page ban to the article may be more appropriate, with self-reverted edits to the article allowed; in that way, NYScholar may be able to efficiently suggest article changes, but they must be "seconded" by another editor and accepted directly or with modification. I have seen this result in improved cooperation, it forces the "expert," who may, indeed, know more about the subject than other editors (which explains at least part of the voluminous discussion), to engage and convince them instead of merely overpowering them. Tl;dr editing to the Talk page is also a problem, but there are ways of effectively addressing the legitimate part of objections to this. Overall, NYScholar should find and keep a mentor, who should have the ability to suggest to the administrator who closes this ban, and who should be responsible for maintaining and interpreting it, that NYScholar be further restricted, or that the restrictions be lifted, without further ado. If he cannot find such a mentor, acceptable to the closing administrator, that should be a sign to him that he's the problem, or that the world isn't ready for him. --Abd (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Hex (❝?!❞) 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. teb728 t c 22:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I hesitated to endorse this ban, but having read NYScholar’s comments below, I see that NYS *does* think (s)he owns that article.
  13. I am disappointed to see that the mentoring has failed and that we are back here with the same problems once again. I endorse the proposals here, but I must note that in reference to Abd's comments above about "self-reverting edits" for page banned users, I would caution any such editor from doing this as it does not have the support of the community and is likely to wind up with such an editor being blocked (and it's worth noting that Abd ended up blocked for doing exactly that). When a user's disruption gets to the level of requiring the community to step in and issue bans, there are serious problems and flouting a page ban with self-reverting edits is likely to end up with that editor blocked and users who make any edits to pages they've been banned from - self-reverting or not - do so at their own risk. If NYScholar ends up page or topic banned, I expect that to mean that he will not edit those pages, period, or risk being blocked, and that is what I am endorsing, not some sort of get out of jail free card wherein he continues making edits but self-reverts them so a friend can come along and restore his edits for him, thus continuing his problematic behaviour via proxy. Even if this kind of thing had broad community support (it doesn't) in NYScholar's case it would be extremely problematic due to the sheer volume of edits he makes flooding pages - 2765 to this article alone and 2/3 of the talk page's total edits. No, banned means banned. And perhaps if his flood of edits can be controlled other editors will be able to go in and make progress and reach some consensus for resolving some of the problems on that page. Sarah 02:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. Not for "being wrong", but for "ownership" and repeated inability to discuss the article constructively. rspεεr (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. Serious ownership issues, failure to discuss agreements with other editors (I just took a look to Harold Pinter's peer review). Myself, I saw problems with refusing to accept the fair use policy on images, and readding wikilinks multiple times after multiple editors removed them and explained why they shouldn't be there. Also, in the talk page, I see him making tl;dr replies that don't address the issues at hand. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. Verbal chat 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. Endorse for the time being, until he has demonstrated history of good editing practices elsewhere. (Also think the block should explicitly cover any Pinter-related article and not just the main one). DreamGuy (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose proposed ban[edit]

  1. NYScholar
  2. But let's not confuse this with support for his actions. A short term block for disruptive behavior is in order before we go all the way to a ban. — BQZip01 — talk 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment

As stated above, I find these actions on the part of these editors outrageous. --NYScholar (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I spent several weeks working collaboratively throughout the late summer/fall of 2007 with a good article reviewer named Willow [need to find user link later (did so now)] (she is possibly still inactive as she has been for the past few months) to bring Harold Pinter through its "good article" review, which was successful in October 2007.User talk:WillowW/Archive11#Harold Pinter (cont.)

After Pinter's death was announced (25 Dec. 2008) User:Jezhotwells, who at that time had recently returned to Wikipedia, entered the article (which had been stable for a very long time) and began to complain vociferously and continually about its prevailing citation style and other things; whenever I and other editors did not support Jezhotwell's views, the editor would file RfC and [mediation] requests and [various] project page complaints about me and the article, getting very little to no support. The RfC ended with two editors finding the citation style "reasonable" and agreeing with what I said about it, respectively; then Jezhotwells took the matter to "peer review", where some editors found the article of very high "quality", while Ssilvers jumped on Jezhotwell's bandwagon about citation style. The comments Ssilvers makes are all taken out of context, and highly partial. The article stands on its own two feet. One can simply read it and work to "improve" it, and then see if those edits stand up to further editors' consensus. I've contributed most of the work on the article (between approx. June 2006 and now), including providing the source citations; the material is there. Other editors are free to work on it further. It's been a great deal of work, unappreciated by Jezhotwells and Ssilvers, and some others, but appreciated by Willow and several other editors, including those commenting in the current "peer review". To ban the main contributor with the most expert knowledge of the subject from working on the article is, in my understanding of "improvement" and how Wikipedia works, wholly outrageous and even highly offensive. It shows a total lack of respect for hard work. There is no way that I am preventing anyone from working on the article. They seem to choose to want to talk about it in talk pages and review pages rather than actually to contribute work to editing it. They are of course free to work on it. I will be engaged in doing other work outside of Wikipedia, as my talk page notice states. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) [Added link to WillowW's user name and to her talk page w/ good article rev. disc. for convenience of others here. These links are provided already in Talk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

Please see the 2 secs. on Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7#RfC: Article style secs. re: its current citation (MLA) style. [One sec. was inadvertently archived prematurely and restored right afterward (contrary to Ssilver's insinuations above.]: only 2 editors responded to Jezhotwell's RfC:

(1) IceCreamExpress said that it was "reasonable" but that s/he could "imagine other choices that would also be reasonable": (added the dir. quotations for convenience here:)

Use of MLA citation format seems like a reasonable choice to me. Did you have a different template in mind? I can imagine other choices that would also be reasonable. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IceCream's request of Jezhotwells for suggestion of an alternative ("different template") got no reply.
(2)In response to my explanation of the style (see the link to the RfC if wish to read it), Levalley wrote:

"I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley" (Q added from RfC sec. 1 link above).

--NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have stated that I have no intention of participating in any "featured article" review. What happens to the article as it goes through that process will have no input from me. I do not see how my views of citation style have anything to do with that process. I have supplied a consistent MLA style sheet format for the article. What happens to it after it might be "stable" enough to be nominated for a FAC, has nothing to do with me. I stated that in the peer review. (cont.)

How I am preventing anything I do not know. I provided enough consistency in the style citations so that anyone can read them and understand them. But one has to be willing to do so. What I see is obstinant unwillingness to accept the views of the editors responding in the RfC. I can't do anything about other people's attitudes. They are responsible for them. I can only say that I worked hard to provide content and a consistent format for the article. If others do not appreciate that, it is not my responsibility to try to change their minds. They themselves have to be flexible enough to adapt to changing disciplinary documentation styles, which are continually evolving in writing and scholarly and critical research. --NYScholar (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Without wading into any of the other issues raised here, it looks to me as though the citation format used in the article is largely unlike that used at any other article I have seen on Wikipedia. It is unnecessarily complicated for the layman to follow; the preferred format (by extensive usage across Wikipedia) is for statements to be cited to specific portions of specific works. This has the double advantage of being extremely simple for readers (who outnumber editors by many orders of magnitude, so we must always remember to write for them first); click the convenient superscripted number[1], and get taken directly to the relevant entry in the references list, with either handy links to the reference itself or sufficient publisher data to enable the reader to find the reference online or in a library system. The second advantage is that style also makes it much simpler for editors to both verify and edit/update content in the article. The citation style as it stands, while it does conform to MLA standards, is much better suited to academic essays that will be read by experts who in many cases will have at least a passing familiarity with the sources than to articles on Wikipedia which in the majority of cases will be read by laymen. As it stands now, readers must read the article, then go to a reference and read an exegesis on the references which support/disprove the statement in question, and then go through a very long list of references to find the relevant work(s). This does a disservice to our readership, which is the overriding concern, as well as making it functionally impossible for other editors to add or edit references and content. Again, I don't wish to weigh in on anything else, but this problem alone calls for a large restructuring of the article to be more reader friendly, while still retaining the extensive sources used. //roux   03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly so. Unfortunately, NYScholar has been resisting all efforts by editors for over a year to change to a simpler and more WP conventional reference style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an outright false statement. It's patently untrue. Jezhotwells didn't even come along to this article until Dec. 25, 2008. Up until then the article had passed a "good article review" in Oct. 2007, with MLA style in it.

Moreover, I've had made continual changes to accommodate Jezhotwell's various requests since late December 2008. In January 2009, as a result of all those efforts by me, Jezhotwells declared the article "vastly improved"; I suggest you look at the "mediation" s/he filed then [now archived in its talk page].

There is abuse in it directed at me which should not be there, but it is by someone who has not returned, and who has a history of engaging in such abuse of other editors.

Jezhotwells never even responded to the question addressed to him/her in the RfC as to what alternative style s/he wanted. Just read the talk pages and editing history. Apparently, Ssilvers has not takent the time to do that. Every time J. made a comment, I tried to respond by adjusting to the request.

My mentor Shell did not really take the time to follow all that was going on and just accepted Jezhotwells' version of the story. She was too preoccupied with personal things and lost her patience with the whole thing.

I have no interest in participating in any featured article review process with this article or any other article. How Ssilvers sees that as standing in the way of allowing other editors to edit this article I cannot fathom. I leave that to others when the time comes. --NYScholar (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address my concerns with the citation format, as outlined above, particularly with regards to the difficulty faced by editors wishing to edit content? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that was your goal; it's an unintended consequence. //roux   06:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, of course that was not my intention. I supplied content from a great number of print sources in my own personal library (I've a large collection). I have over 40 years of accumulated books, articles, and other sources, all of which are carefully documented in publications of my own and others. I cannot help the fact that print sources are the most reliable sources on Pinter (as on most literary subjects), but that is a fact. Online sources can be notoriously unreliable, repetitive, and cliched. Newspaper articles are hardly as reliable as carefully-researched peer-reviewed articles and books. They are simply easier for amateur writers to cite because they are online sources and more accessible, but they are not necessarily correct or accurate. Indeed one of the Guardian's reporters reporting on Pinter's Nobel has a significant error of fact in her article, and I won't link to it for that reason or cite it as a reliable source.

My goal was to provide content and documentation of source citations to verify it in a thorough account of Pinter's life and work (via the related articles too). If they are print sources, they have to be verified in articles and books from libraries or personal collections. I don't know how to address your concerns about what other editors, who do not have access to these cited souces are to do if they are adamant about changing the prevailing MLA style of citations in the endnotes and Works cited. I think that they need to be more respectful of the work already done, in my view, as it is being done by one of the principal authorities in this field (me). Instead of trusting my judgment, they have been maligning me in the most offensive manner. That is unfortunate. It is really not my inflexibility that is going to create future errors in this article; it is the inflexibility of other editors who know relatively little about the subject and their commensurate unwillingness to accept that an academic scholar knows enough to write a "good article" in Wikipedia. (Remember that the article already passed a "good article review" in the course of which it was already revised considerably. Then Pinter died, and the article needed considerable updating.

The other editors, by virtue of this kind of "ban" request filing and earlier incivilities toward me, have just made it so unpleasant for me to continue working with them, that they have forced me into a position of no longer wanting to take part in working on the article beyond its current stage prior to its possible submissin (later) as a featured article candidate.

Editing here is a voluntary act. I have not got the time to become further upset by this process, and I have decided not to take part in any feature article review that might go on in the future.

I have no advice other than to consult the sources cited. They are accurately and correctly cited. If they are print sources, one needs to use libraries and/or bookstores to obtain them. Otherwise, one will simply be mimicking (possibly plagiarizing from) already published online articles in other encyclopedia and websites, as often occurs in Wikipedia when reliable third-party sources are not consulted firsthand. The farther one gets from examining sources firsthand, the more likely to be mistakes that will mislead readers. I have already streamlined many of the notes. No one seems even to have noticed that; I did a lot of that work over the past few days. There are editorial interpolations visible in editing mode. If you go into editing mode, you will see them. I'm not sure I really understand the above editor's questions addressed to me. I am just guessing at what you may be getting at. If I missed it, please restate. In general, one cannot expect a general Wikipedia editor who is not a specialist in a field to have as much knowledge about the subject and the sources as an academic specialist in the field. This is the case with "Pinter studies": it is a field in which advanced level graduate students write Ph.D. dissertations citing sources written by people like me and my colleagues. This article is not written in "advanced academic idiom"; it is written for the general reader. But the sources are the quality of advanced Pinter studies. Some of them are the best available sources in this field. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't really address anything I said. At no point did I criticise the content of the references; the article seems excellently sourced. For an academic essay, the format is, as I said, reasonable when one is presumably putting the work in front of experts who are already familiar with the subject. That is not the case with the vast majority of our readership, and the current citation format in the article is not only significantly more difficult for the layman, but is also incredibly difficult for editors to navigate around, as opposed to the Wikipedia-wide standard of using e.g. {{cite book}} to format references for statements in articles. I am the last person on Wikipedia to complain about experts writing articles; frankly, we should be encouraging it. Our antipathy towards experts is stupid and self-defeating. But my concern is that with your obvious familiarity with writing for your contemporaries you have somewhat missed the fact that we are writing for laypeople--as well as making editing easier for each other whenever possible. It has been alleged that you are stonewalling attempts to move all the citations to the general sitewide norms; without commenting on whether or not that's accurate (and for the purposes of this question I simply don't care), would you be willing to work with other editors to bring the referencing for that article in line with what is practiced across the majority of the project? //roux   07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of patently untrue, a summary of the mentorship might be helpful at this point. NYScholar agreed to mentorship last September after a discussion on AN/I about the possibility of a community ban.[22] Some of the issues were resolved, for instance, NYScholar no longer makes an issue of gender pronouns during discussion. Others we were unable to resolve, for instance the immediate accusations of abuse and personal attacks when someone disagrees with xem or the extreme persistence when NYScholar believes xemself to be correct. When the same problematic behavior occurred on the Harold Pinter article, I attempted to address the issue. I was a bit shocked when NYScholar's reply included a lengthy justification for the behavior mixed with a bit of martyrdom and finally even an attempt to shift blame to me.[23] I concluded that while NYScholar had said all the right things during the mentorship, in reality, no behavioral changes had occurred. Since I believed further work would simply break down again when a dispute arose, the mentorship ended on March 21.

NYScholar is capable of excellent, well-researched and well-written contributions. Unfortunately xe seems to be incapable of productively handling disputes over content and xir understanding of copyright misses the big picture; in fact, many of xir blocks for disruption have been over a misunderstanding of copyright issues as they related to Wikipedia and an unwillingness to concede to consensus. Shell babelfish 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell: you misinterpreted my comments at the time and have not reread them, or accepted my pointing that out. I thanked you over and over at the time. But if you don't want to mentor me any longer, that does not mean that I didn't appreciate your earlier efforts. I did not blame you and don't for anything. But I know from my own knowledge of what I wrote where and when, that you were not able to read it and were not able to take the time (at that time) to deal with all this. The fact that I have taken my time to respond to the previous person's question has nothing to do w/ Shell, other than for me to say that the ban request initiator's references to her comments taken out of context do not take account of the entire situation at the time. I am not used to this kind of treatment, as I am a highly respected academic scholar in this field (Pinter studies) and it is painful to deal with the kinds of petty issues that I have been forced to respond to in these talk pages. I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'd rather log out for now. I took time to respond to the earlier comment, but I don't have time or energy to read Shell's in detail now. I'll read it another time. --NYScholar (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I'm not surprised that, once again, NYScholar thinks that they are the only one who comprehend the situation; the rest of us simply don't have the capacity understand such things. The assertion that I was short on time or didn't properly deal with the situation is a blatant falsehood designed to cast aspersions on my comments. I was initially drawn to mentoring NYScholar because I believed the facade of poor misunderstood expert just trying to get along on Wikipedia. Six months of mentorship was enough to thoroughly destroy my illusions in that area.

As you can see from comments here and on NYScholar's talk, when the proverbial shit hits the fan, NYScholar will make noises in all directions of taking a wikibreak, no time for Wikipedia, real life is more important, no further interest in working on the subject area etc. This statement is usually accompanied by a tldr explanation of how only NYScholar really understands the situation, everyone else is mistaken or mislead etc. Despite this you'll note that NYScholar never actually stops editing Wikipedia; these tactics are only used to avoid dealing with the disputed issues and make communication difficult. If history serves, NYScholar will next stop using talk pages and repeatedly blank their talk except to say that they are not available to deal with these issues.

I apologize for my unusual candor here, but this combination of smug self-righteousness and perfidious self-pity simply turns my stomach. Shell babelfish 04:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar's apparent attitude is common among experts, who somehow imagine that they know more about the topic than the average Wikipedia editor, or even than all other Wikipedia editors. And they might be right. Definitely, it's a problem, but Wikipedia too often resolves the problem by tossing the expert, and the accuracy and neutrality of our content suffers. We should explore intermediate options which preserve and even value the expertise, but which place the expert where experts belong: as advisors. We should value advisors who are voluminous in their advice, but we should constrain and filter that. I appreciate it when my doctor takes the time to explain in detail to me why my opinions about my condition, based on my own research, are bogus, but I fire the doctor if the doctor tries to control my decisions. It is an error to expect NYScholar to filter himself, except as to civility, but it would not be an error to set up, for him, what might be called a "supervising editor," someone with rapport with him and the patience to read his discussions, but who also has the communication skills to mediate or advise him as to how to effectively persuade the community to accept what is valuable about his contributions. Experts are often poor communicators, it's part of the problem. Others specialize in communication and are good at it. Pending the discovery of such a supervising editor, NYScholar should be restricted to avoid disruption. Perhaps one of the editors who has supported NYScholar in the past will volunteer. --Abd (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned, that's exactly what I thought when I first saw the issue and trust me, if you'd ever like to commiserate over the tangible loss to Wikipedia when experts decide its not worth the effort, I could probably chew your ear off. The reason I took this mentorship (btw, NYScholar sought me out) has to do with my experience working with experts, translating for them with others and even helping them develop skills to edit successfully here; many a night has been spent on the phone calming someone who's irate when their knowledge is met with rudeness or incomprehensible wiki-jargon. We may not like it, but Wikipedia, as is, isn't well suited for experts.

Anyways, long story short, two editors have tried exactly what you describe with NYScholar. Please look above and see how even now, NYScholar claims that all of this occurred because I just couldn't understand. You've interacted with me in many places before Abd - do you really think the case is that I was simply unable to understand any of the issues that occurred? That final incident which caused me to release NYScholar from mentorship was one in a long string of repeated issues that all followed exactly the same pattern: NYScholar and I would discuss strategies for working on Wikipedia and handling issues; xe would agree on how to handle things right up until an actual issue occurred at which time everything would go up in flames. I will help experts learn to operate here and be at their beck and call for issues that occur - I will not be their midden boy left to clean up messes they refuse to address or even accept an ounce of responsibility for. Shell babelfish 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar[edit]

I may have been hasty in proposing the topic ban above, in that I did not fully research NYScholar's history here. I have since done so, and I would like to propose an indefinite community ban of NYScholar for exhausting the community's patience. NYScholar's prior block history is here, so one can see that the problem goes back at least to 2006: NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The following is a brief history of NYScholar's major appearances on this board and ANI since May 2007:

May 2007: NYScholar blocked for legal threats. He/she is unblocked after the threats are retracted, but User:Swatjester objects to the unblock on the basis of this edit, in which NYScholar acknowledges having read WP:LEGAL but refuses to retract the threat.

February 2008: