Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive332

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

Noticeboard archives

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.
Main link from WP:ANI has been archived, so this should be as well. Please continue in new section or elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is currently blocked for one year under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice. This block may or may not mature into a ban. The user may appeal the block/ban by the normal procedures. As such, there seems no need to continue this discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, please check out for background and context.

Today I banned this user from Afrocentrism and its talk page for tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (you need to read the article and see how bad it is to get that one)). Please also check some of her contributions to other articles to get the full flavour of her/his POV-pushing. From the user talk we get such gems as this:

Directed at User:Wikidudeman, I believe. In response to my banning this user from Afrocentrism, I get told my actions are "unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall" on my user talk. Reviews? Opinions on further action? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion exchange (this was not a "discussion"; you blew me off) on this matter on your talk page here[8] and the amazingly flimsy excuses you've offered for your completely over-the-top action, I'd say my assessment of your behavior is dead-on accurate. I stand by it. deeceevoice (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
And, no. The comments were referring to DBachmann. And my assessment of his animus and motivations appears to be shared by others who've noted that he's frequently incivil and antagonistic toward editors who contribute in good faith, but who do not share his views. Just check out his RfC,[9] which at this point has 13 signatories. Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding, this appeared on a user talk page, and not in the article talk space. deeceevoice (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on Deecee's edits on Afrocentism per se, but I do believe she is guilty of multiple, repeated, and unapologetic violations of civility. Long as her block log is, I'm surprised it isn't longer given that she’s basically thumbed her nose at the arbcom ruling. She's been around since 2004--I'm not sure there's a way to reach her, though as I've seen people I respect say she's a good contributor, it'd be nice if there were an effective way to get her attention. IronDuke 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log and history here seem amazingly similar to the Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) situation in the section directly a few sections above here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. Similar blocks, similar long-term incivility, just a different POV is being similarly furiously promoted, for better or worse. Haizum was just blocked indefinitely (and then appears upgraded to an indefinite ban, afterwards). EDIT: Actually, Deeceevoice's block log looks worse than User:Haizum's. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that block log, I am inclined to indef and be done with it. She has had every chance in the world to reform and hasnt taken it. Good writer or not, we don't need people with her failings here. ViridaeTalk 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors and admins who will vigorously defend DCV's rights to slander other editors, create tension, soapbox, ignore the arbcom ruling, poison every article she works on with POV and accuse anyone who calls her on it of racism. I think it's about preventing systemic bias. Somehow. I don't see the logic myself. Neil  23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of personal attack blocks logged on the arbitration page, and the extent of the block log for the same. Is there two other admins who will support a year long block per remedy seven of the arbitration case: "She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.". I consider a failure to abide by the personal attacks policy repeatedly sufficient cause and the recent edits for which she has now been banned from that article. ViridaeTalk 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ban. We're finally winning the encyclopedia back from the trolls, so we shouldn't stop with this one. While it maybe a personal attack, you have to call a spade a spade, and with multiple blocks, ANI threads and an RfAr, it's not getting through. Will (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I would probably support a ban of some period. She's not here to improve the encyclopedia, she's here to fight some kind of race war. We don't need this nonsense here. Friday (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, although I don't oppose a block like the one you gave her, did you get the support of two other admins? Corvus cornix 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Neil and Friday are admins and are supporting the block. I have enacted it. ViridaeTalk 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, can you log the block on the Arbitration case, pretty please? And have it endorsed by two admins who agree to the one year ban as required. (Neil and Friday's endorsement of a ban of "some period" is not necessarily support for a one year ban as required at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation.) I personally would support something between a week and a month at this time, but I won't oppose a year if two other admins specificially agree. Thatcher131 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Logged. I may have been a bit hasty in enacting that block, but I think it will stick given that everyone appears to be sick of her behaviour - wouldnt have done it otherwise. ViridaeTalk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a month would have been better. This would show her what will happen if she continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground, but will give her one last chance to reform all the same. If she continues after my proposed shortening to one month, then I would have no objection to re-extending it to a year. While I see this year block as better than nothing, it nevertheless does not strike me as the ideal sanction at this time. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I simply feel that she has had ample chance. The block log is 28 items long, almost a third of which are since the arbcom case... ViridaeTalk 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, look at this another way: her last block, according to her arbitration case, is over a year old; to me that says she's generally reformed of whatever problems she was deemed to have back then (I was unaware of this editor back then, so I can't say). I'd say that's worth investing a little good faith in it.--Ramdrake 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Moreschi is the same user who called my requests for civility from Dbachmann "process wankery" (diff) I just wanted to add this so it is clear that Moreschi is not an "uninvolved admin." I'm not exactly uninvolved myself, but I want to say that to me this seems unfair. Where is the evidence? And if civility is an issue why isn't anyone saying anything about Dbachmann's lack of civility and unwillingness to cooperate with the proposed 1 revert rule to allow us to unblock the article and avoid edit wars? This is unfair. The block should be lifted. futurebird 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Instead of attacking Moreschi (who isn't even the blocking admin in this case), perhaps it would be more constructive to explain why a block of an obviously tendentious and disruptive user is even a controversial issue? ELIMINATORJR 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually SEEN the block log? Its as long as my arm. I am incredibly surprised she has lasted this long. ViridaeTalk 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
28 separate items in the block log, in fact. For all I know, that might be some sort of a record. John Carter 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's SPUI (talk · contribs) by a mile. Hell of an editor all the same. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How EliminatorJR conceived that comment as an attack on Moreschi, I don't know. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on a user's involvedness. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to comment on your own involvedness then. You kind of have this pattern of defending and giving support to abusive users if they are pushing some pro-black or Afrocentrist biased opinion on Wikipedia. I'm also pretty sure that that other administrator EL C what's his name will soon get all Che and "heroic" on this valid block. Make yourselves less predictable, or this place will turn into a complete joke to the outside world. 82.208.193.150 03:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pattern of defending "pro-black" editors? Like when I warned Jeeny and Taharqa about incivility towards their allegedly "pro-white" opponents? Or when I blocked Jeeny for edit-warring on Race of ancient Egyptians, and protected the article on her opponent's version? Or when I supported a month-long block of Deeceevoice? That's hardly a pattern of support, my proxy-using friend. Care to comment under your main account, or are you banned? Wait, don't answer. Picaroon (t) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • C'mon everybody knows this is all an act, feigning neutrality to cover your back. You block Jeeny knowing the cabal would be all over it in no time. Nobody is fooled. 222.231.8.175 (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you keep blocking people who have a lot of blocks then it's not a surprise that they have a lot of blocks. Second, I'm sorry if it comes across as if I'm attacking anyone. That's not my intention here. It is just that I saw the events that happened on the page Afrocentrism in a different way. Dbachmann, was the driving force behind the "edit war" and lack of civility on the talk page that got that paged blocked. Wikidudeman came up with an idea for a "truce" to get it unblocked. Deeceevoice and Dbachmann did not want to do it. They both refused. I don't understand Dbachmann's reasons, he seems to feel that he should not have to enter in to such agreements because it makes it hard for him to "fight trolls" (?) I don't know... (see his talk page to read it in his own words...)

Deeceevoice refused, possibly because she does not trust Wikidudeman, after all, he's the one who tried to get her user page deleted a few weeks ago. They seem to have had some issues in the past. Deeceevoice has not been the only aggressor in this.

So, if this quote, which isn't a personal attack as much as it shows that Deeceevoice is not assuming good faith (and if someone tried to get my user page deleted I don't know if I'd assume good faith...) is all that you have as the reason for this block then I think a block is way to harsh and unfair. futurebird 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as Deeceevoice is one of our best editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the diffs listed above and I don't understand how they support the charge?

  • This link here, which is given as evidence as to why deeceevioce should be blocked, seems to just be her responding to my question about a citation tag she added to one of my sentences in the article. I found her response helpful. (I don't agree with all of it, and will respond after looking at some sources) But, it's not POV "editing."
  • this isn't a "POV edit" either it's an explanation for a lack of trust. I hope that the context I provided makes this clear.
  • this is not a POV edit. If you read it in context it's something I agreed with. It's called "systemic bias" there's a whole project devoted to fighting it.
  • This is not a "POV edit" either.

I agree that her tone is at times harsh, a warning will do for that, But it's not like she is an admin and saying these kinds of things. None of this makes any sense to me. futurebird 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One question that I'd like to ask, is how much more scrutiny would have gone in that call to admin action if Deeceevoice's record had been spotless? I may be wrong, but I feel she's been summarily declared guilty of all charges in good part because of her past record, and I don't think this should happen, as it is the practical application of the logical fallacy of Begging the question, namely she must be guilty; just look at the number of previous blocks she has. Yes, her exchanges show that she had problems assuming good faith in the situation reported, but it should be clear by just looking at histories from Talk:Afrocentrism, User talk:Dbachmann and User talk:Deeceevoice that she wasn't the only one, at the very least. Look, one of the exchanges that are linked in the list of offenses she purportedly committed was directed at me, and I took no offense, especially in this extremely tense situation (and again, it should be obvious from looking at the Afrocentrism talk page that another editor actually started the tenseness. So, in summation, I must agree with Futurebird here that the sanction was totally out of proportion with the purported offense.--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to question the one-year ban also on the basis that it is customary at Wikipedia to escalate the length of blocks when offenses are repeated often, and when users stop offending for a long time, the blocks usually de-escalate. Based on this, I'd like to point out again that Deeceevoice's last block was in October 2006, was for 24 hours only, and that she's made litterally thousands of constructive edits since then. So, a one-year ban for repeating an offense one year after the offense garnered the offender a mere 24 hours is totally out of justifiable proportions. I say, if people feel she needs to be blocked, anything from one day to one week would be more appropriate, or possibly the time served so far on this block may even suffice.--Ramdrake 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously question a one-year block. For the record i seldome have agreed with DCvoice's comments or edits though it has been a long time since I have worked on the same articles. I know DCV can be conentious and have no doubt that s/he can use some cooling down right now - a few days, maybe a week at most. But I think that systematic bias at Wikipedia is a serious problem and DCV's POV is no more extreme and no less valuable that that of many active editors. Perhaps DCV can benefit from some mentoring. perhaps DCV and Dbachman need mediation. My point is, we MUST have better mechanisms for these kinds of problems than one year bans. I believe if anyone wants to ban DCV for more than a week that they file an ArbCom complaint and ensure that due process is provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Couple points.. first, yes, a year is probably excessive. Why not start with a month? Also, I agree that the case of POV editing has not been made well on this page. I assumed it was true because it's historically been a problem with this editor, and I assumed that the admin who banned her from Afrocentrism exercised due diligence in determining that it was warranted. If she's not still making unconstructive biased edits and being generally impossible to work with, that's another story. Mentoring is not an option in my view- if she cared about feedback from other editors, we wouldn't be having this problem. She's a racist with a chip on her shoulder, and if someone disagrees with her, she assumes they're part of the White Conspiracy Against The Truth. Does this sound like a mentorable editor? No, the solution is to keep her in a box where she can't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I'll vouch that her edits were pretty much in line with majority consensus on the article page, and this situation got escalated through the one dissenting user (Dbachmann); this should help explain some of the angry reactions to this user's block. I can provide diffs to demonstrate if needed.---- Ramdrake (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The incivility is over the line, and this is a long-term problem, so I think a block of some length is necessary to make clear that this won't be tolerated, but I'm also hesitant to support such a long-term block. Why not a week or month, with a longer term block if more incivility follows? -- Everyking (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence to justify a block of any-kind. I think a warning is all that is required in this case. Also, Friday, you tone is rather condececeding, and I don't think it's very professional to talk about keeping any user "in a box where she can't hurt anything." I think your tone is too harsh, in the same way that deeceevoice's tone is often too harsh. -- futurebird (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes necessary to attempt damage control here at Wikipedia. Maybe it's not nice, but it's what the encyclopedia needs. Friday (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
How many warnings does Deeceevoice need? How many has she had? Don't you think those multitudes of previous blocks would count as warnings? -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why she is being blocked this time? -- futurebird (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Wikipedia 24/7...) If you look at her block log, you'll observe that I'm not Deeceevoice's greatest fan, and have myself been the target of no small amount of her invective. However, I do feel somewhat that a year's block may be a little disproportionate to her actual recent conduct. Let's accrue some collective opinions about this for a little longer, before we declare this topic closed. There's no need to be hasty. — Matt Crypto 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved here, but I've seen Deeceevoice get a free pass on civil/npa like no other editor I can think of over the years. I've always been a little amazed how she gets away with it...I doubt very many other editors would have gotten as much slack as she has gotten since 2004. But having said that, a year long block is ramping things up a little fast. The ArbCom result aside, her block log isn't outrageous over the last year...I think a shorter block might be more appropriate for starters. A week or two maybe? RxS (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
After multiple suggestions, I am willing to reduce it to a month, only because she has been better (not perfect, just hasnt got a block out of it) recently. ViridaeTalk 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the six or seven edits p0rovided above as evidence justifying the ban, and I do not see how they justify any ban. If you are looking for a community ban, you need consensus and you do not have it. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and I obviously feel strongly about this. Several of the edits provided as evidencts of tendentious incivility and edit-warring are anything of the sort - the first edito for example is very reasonable and just what we would want contributors to post to talk pages. I see an conflict between DCV on the one hand and Dbachman on the other. If one merits a ban, so does the other. I see this whole proceeding as an attempt to side-step ArbCom because the evidence provided simply would not stand up under ArbCom scrutiny, or other editors who have been in conflict with DCV would end up being blocked or banned as well. I have seen a lot of crap at Wikipedia and the evidence offered above simply doesn't raise to a bannable standard (unless we have a racist double-standard that holds people we think are black or women to a higher standard of behavior than white men). Some of the edits presented as evidence are DCV simply registering dissent. If that were a bannable offence we would all be banned. Even a one month ban is not justified in this case. Am I wrong? take it to ArbCom and see how the so-called evidence stands up to a rigorous due process. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily. We know what we'll get if we unban this person. We'll get the same old use of WP as a blog, blatant contempt for other editors, same old POV editing (did people see what DCV was condoning on Afrocentrism?), same old time-wasting drama. Do we really want to? And yes, the same people protesting here are the ones who were quite happy to let screamingly bad POV content stand on Afrocentrism, along with DCV (thank heavens for this edit!) Either DCV appeals to the ArbCom or this ban stands. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily? Then take it to Arb-Com - I mean, take your complaint to ArbCom. Wikipedia insists that people with diverse points of view work together. DCV represents an extreme - but notable point of view. It is clear to me that some people cannot work with DCV, but it is also clear to me that other people can work with DCV. DCV's behavior is not more extreme or tendentious than many other editors, and oftentimes less so. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already been to ArbCom. They gave us measures to stop DCV from troublemaking in the future. Now we're enacting those measures. You also fail to understand that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is our most important policy. DCV's deviations from this policy cannot be tolerated, we simply can't accomodate them. If a user is POV-pushing we kick them out. This is obvious, so I should hope. DCV does not even attempt to edit in a spirit of neutrality, as the diffs and quotes presented show. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Slurbenstein, it has been to Arbcom. DCV was told to cease using her user page as a soapbox, and warned to respect our boundaries on civility and avoiding personal attacks. Not only does she ignore these enjoinders, editors like you passively encourage and perpetuate the behaviour by describing her poisonous, hysterical, self-martyring and aggressive ranting and rabid POV warring as "having a diverse point of view". Those who defend that kind of behaviour are no better than those who carry it out. Neil  11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. A "diverse point of view" is the last thing we want. We need one point of view - the neutral one. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, do you misunderstand NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly .... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Diverse views (use the plural please, when using the word diverse) is precisely what we want, and your attempt to ban a view you do not like is a violation of NPOV. Moreschi, I think you have revealed your true colors here. As for the ArbCom decision, DCV's parole does not mention his/her own user-page as a soap-box. It does as Neil suggests refer to disruptive edits. And this AN/I report provides seven examples none of which rise to any fair standard of "disruptive editing." On the contrary, I see Deeceevoice trying to comply with the ArbCom decision i.e. taking their counsel to heart. You should be encouraging that rather than look for ways to twist the ArbCom ruling to support your own POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no neutral point of view in the sense you are referring to it. NPOV is an amalgamation and a balance of various point of views in conformity with consensus. Why else do you think we are witnessing these conflicts and arguments on the talk pages of the articles. DCV might be uncivil, but the same problem plagues the other side as well. It is consternating to watch people label somebody as "uncivil" and "racist" without checking the entire facts. Given that DCV is prone to making comments that might be perceived as racist, she has also one of the long-standing and good-faith contributors to the project. What we need is a proper reform programme, otherwise we can only wonder how Wikipedia would sustain itself in the coming years – as both the number of articles and users increase on this website. Banning productive, but occassionaly disruptive editors is not the answer. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, that is completely not the point. We don't allow people to fervently push their own POV in the vague hope that someone else will push their counterbalancing POV as hard as they can, and so we get a decent article - it doesn't work that way. You have to strive for neutrality within your own editing, and not rely on other people arguing with you for neutrality to be achieved. DCV doesn't even make a pretence of editing neutrally. If you don't even bother, what's the point. For you two to fundamentally reject the concept of neutral editing makes me sick at heart. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not internally consistent. As the numbers of users increase, the fact that some disruptive editors make some productive edits should weigh less with us, not more. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Also in WP:NPOV is the statement: "NPOV is a point of view". I think that's quite clearly what Moreschi was saying. If this editor was incapable of editing without tendentiousness, if she clearly was completely uninterested in WP:WFTE, then I don't see how her presence would help the project. Relata refero (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the correctness of the one-year block (personally I think this was far too long), I am very uneasy that the unblocking admin did so apparently unilaterally, without any attempt to contact the blocking admin or any of the supporting admins per the terms of the ArbCom resolution. And does the topic ban on that article still apply, or has Slrubenstein's unblock cleared this user of all wrongdoing? This is all very messy. ELIMINATORJR 12:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I can't help but be very concerned that admins would say that there should be only one POV (the neutral one) (who decides it? based on what? who has a voice in the process?), and that those who disagree, and even those who support these dissidents, should be shown the way out of WP. Can everyone here stop and just ponder exactly what that sounds like??? Pretty please? Also, I think it is best if some admin uninvolved in the dispute is the judge of this and SLR just started taking interest in the talk page of Afroncetrism this morning, after the cause of all this commotion was over. Not sure what is being aimed at here.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I have refactored the above comment, which probably better addresses my concerns. as for NPOV, the policy page WP:NPOV covers this quite well. Anyone who has mediated on a controversial issue knows how difficult this is to achieve on a controversial article, because different editors' version of NPOV will differ depending on their viewpoint. In the end, though, it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions, not the actual content of that POV. ELIMINATORJR 12:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Eliminator, I fully agree with you that it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions. Now, keeping that in mind, please take another look at the history of the Afrocentrism page on November 15, and ask yourself again: where was the consensus, and if disruption can be considered to be in part pushing POV against consensus (or however you wish to define it, in the end), who was being the most aggressive in reverting without explanation and against talk page consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're going to have a war over this one as well - and an unhelppful block comment to boot.[10]. More than one person feels there's a problem here and the length was being discussed. Removing the block wasn't the solution. Shell babelfish 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence provided (40 -46) simply does not provide enough evidence of "tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing" to justify banning an editor. What is the solution? How about isolating a few major conflicts over content and one by one seeking to resolve these conflicts over content in ways that satisfy concerned parties and complies with core content policies? I have looked over the recent talk on the Afrocentrism page and it is not clear to me what the major "problems" ae that need "solution" - but I do see a number of editors including Deeceevoice who are talking to one another, trying to explain their views, in constructive ways. Perhaps that discussion does not get to the core problems, but neither is it evidence of a major breakdown in communication and collaboration. Again, I see no cause for banning one editor who has a strong point of view. And to be clear: it is not a point of view I share. Which is exactly why it is important to me that this view be represented at Wikipedia. If that doesn't make any sense to any of you, then i suggest you completely miss the point of our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
While there's no real consensus for a year long block, there's none at all for this unblock. Please reinstate it, at whatever length of time you feel this discussion justifies and we can go from there. You don't get to unilaterally decide these things. Another option is for someone to reblock at a length of time based on this discussion...at this point that would be supported I think. But the preferred outcome would be for you to take care of this yourself I think. RxS (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the unblock was a bad call. DCV is a disruptive racist and we don't need that kind of garbage here. Yes, the evidence presented here is weak, but if you're not familiar with the situation, why are you overriding the block of someone who is? You should at least note your unblock in the log on the arbitration case. I'm willing to believe she edits in good faith, but good faith alone is not enough. Editors must also be reasonably competent at following core content policies, and she's not. She doesn't even try. Send her off to Deeceepedia and let her do what she wants. She has no place here, where we expect neutrality and verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose unblock - the block was arbitration enforcement. Simple as. What use is AC when the decisions aren't binding? Will (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
To Friday: not sure if you're aware of this, but your latest intervention looks very much like an ad hominem attack. "She edits in good faith, but she's a racist, so let's block her anyway?" How about we calmly continue this discussion until a consensus is arrived at as to whether to block her, and for how long? I don't see that she's edited anything since her unblock, let alone disrupted anything, so it isn't like there is a clear and imminent danger to the project.
To Will: yes, there is an ArbComruling,and if we suspect a breach of conditions, how about we present the facts to ArbComand let them decide whatever sanctions are appropriate?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I almost never try to describe the mindset of another editor (because how can I really know?) but in this case it's relevant. It looks to me like people are calmly discussing. If an editor cannot be reasonably competent in editing according to policy, yes, we need to show them the door even if they're a nice person and are really trying very hard. A bull in a china shop may have good intentions, but he's still bad for business. Friday (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Not all of the editors were calmly discussing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The unblock by Slrubenstein was staggeringly against consensus. Based on the above, there seem to be a minority calling for a long term / indefinite block, and a minority of one (Slrubenstein) for nothing at all. Somewhere between the two extremes would seem appropriate, say a month. I won't do it myself, as I personally feel a month is not long enough, but it's a fair compromise. Neil  16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If I may interject, I don't see that there is a consensus around any specific sanction,so I don't see how unblocking the user while asking her not to edit mainspace articles while we try to arrive at a consensus (which we don't have so far) isn't the correct thing to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and also that unblocking the user at such a juncture would have sent the wrong message. But it would only be pragmatic to wait a while and let DCV comment here. Let's not take this decision in haste. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
To Ramdrake - did you actually read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation?
Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.
Arbcom have already passed a verdict on this. There shouldn't be a need for further process wonkery. Neil  16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The decision was given more than one and a half years ago. Since then DCV has improved greatly and tried to productively contribute to the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? I invite everyone to read this and decide whether this is the attitude of constructive contributor, or someone who's using the 'pedia to fight some race war. Friday (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It was rude, obviously, and this kind of attitude is not to be condoned. DCV has also had borderline personal attacks on her user-page in the past, which had to be removed after tedious discussions on the noticeboard. However, it must be noted that you had been an involved party in the arbitration case against DCV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the threshold before years of ongoing, low-grade or outright incivility becomes cause for a long-term block or banning? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 1 ArbCom? 5 ArbComs? Does the threshold reduce or increase if the person also manages to create some good content? Does being able to create a variety of quality articles excuse perpetually acting monstrous or racist towards your peers? • Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's no secret that I've been critical of her conduct for a couple years now. I still think it's a problem. I will freely admit I'm very biased against racism. Friday (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom decisions are binding until ArbCom say they're not. So if no time limit is set on the decision, it's indefinite. Will (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom exists for the 'pedia, not the other way around. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the merit of her contributions, she's still on probation. Will (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If Zscout was desysop-ed (even temporarily) for unblocking Miltopia, then certainly Rubenstein's rash action deserves consideration for the same. Not only was there no consensus to unblock, there was overwhelming consensus against doing so. If we go by 1RR=wheel war when unblocking without consensus (or in this case, against consensus), then Rubenstein is certainly guilty of this. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, there was no discernible consensus around any specific block length that I'm aware, so I don't see the harm of unblocking while we try to attain a consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw not one admin other than Rubenstein argue that this user should be unblocked. Thus the block, as status quo, should have remained, until consensus formed around a set time frame. This unblock is so far outside of policy that it's not on the same continent. And, as Jeff said below, how many chances does this user get? The probation statement by ArbCom was very clear on what happens if she becomes disruptive. It happened. Rubenstein undid it. Admittedly, I don't check in at AN/I all that much, but I'm here enough to know that going against a direct ruling from ArbCom is "desysop-able", that's for sure. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I thought decisions here were attained by community consensus rather than just admin consensus, and there were numerous editors who disagreed strongly with the original sentence. Slrubenstein raised the point that the evidence presented couldn't be construed as a breach of ArbCom conditions, and that should be reason enough to suspend the sentence until consensus is reached (which I don't think has happened). If several of the editors questioned that there was good cause in the evidence presented for a year-long block, I don't see that the ArbCom ruling was ignored, merely that the evidence wasn't found sufficient to invoke the strictest possible sanction in the ArbCom ruling. Moreover, I seem to remember at least one editor calling for a ban in furtherance of the one-year block, and that is distinctly not in the ArbCom ruling.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is of course one of the administrators who cozy up with the Pro-Afrocentist cabal on Wikipedia [11] [12] [13] [14], helping to push this agenda. Let the pretense charade continue. 200.64.191.49 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is just one more example of people taking WP:AGF to the extreme. This project will collapse on itself if this sort of user is allowed to continually disrupt encyclopedia. How many times does one have to say "maybe next time she'll do better"? 28 blocks (I think I counted correctly) should prove to even the most naive Pollyanna that this user is not prepared to fundamentally change. I endorse a block of whatever length the original blocking admin wants to give, and I completely disapprove of Rubenstein's unblock. This uneven enforcement of policy and these free passes to certain users simply has to stop. The time wasted fixing POV edits and debating one user's actions is not compensated for by either the quality or quantity of the edits. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you don't count the unblock line items, or the blocks that got reversed, the count drops down to 14 (which is still a lot admittedly, but I've seen worse). Also,the fact that this user had been blocked only once in the last 13 months would, on the contrary, strongly suggests to me she's trying hard to amend her ways.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The one thing I have no confidence she'll ever try to do is change her behavior. She doesn't want to be neutral- she thinks there are "white articles" and "black articles" and she doesn't think white people are qualified to edit "black articles". Again, we don't need this racist nonsense here. Friday (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the example of the user revert warring on the Afrocentrism article. It isn't a 3rr but it's edit warring nonetheless. Here: 1, 2, 3. Reverting another users edit more than once is edit warring pure and simple, even if it's not a 3rr violation. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WDM, with all due respect, if you will take a look at the edit history, you will see that she is not the editor who started this edit war (it was another, and there is currently an open RfC regarding this editor's actions), and the discernible pattern is rather that this other user was edit-warring against editor consensus at the page, even though he was invited by several editors to explain his objections on the talk page. But you're right in the sense that it takes two to tango, and she probably shouldn't have let herself be involved in the edit warring. But in this case, considering everything, I would say if one wants to mete out sanctions, they should be handed out on both sides of the dispute. Here's hoping this makes sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been released at least temporarily from an outrageous one-year block to comment here, but, unfortunately, I have no time at the moment. I'm trying to clear my desk to get away for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. I'll address this when I return. I haven't had much of an inclination or opportunity to read this matter here, but I'll say this. The charges of POV pushing at Afrocentrism are absurd and, as the post by futurebird clearly shows are totally without merit. I wonder if anyone posting in support of the actions taken against me have even bothered to investigate the talk page. It seems to me people saw my name and assumed Bachmann's charges were true -- including the admins who took precipitous and wholly unjustified actions against me. "Incivility"? That, too, is, IMO, baseless. I've been direct -- very direct -- in expecting/demanding that an admin justify his edits, that another justify her precipitous banning of me from contributing to an article. In both cases, I've gotten nothing worthwhile, just a kind of "tell it to the hand" response. Not good. I demanded that they produce diffs to substantiate their edits/actions -- and got nothing. And the diffs presented here are pretty sorry "evidence." Finally, Friday, you've repeatedly called me a racist here, and in your last post here you said I am "here to fight some kind of race war." Clearly, you have no clue who I am or what I am here for. Kindly refrain from such inappropriate, over-the-top, inflammatory and wholly inaccurate characterizations. They only feed this feeding frenzy -- precipitated by dBachmann's inrresponsible and unjustified charges (if you'll check his RfC, you'll find he makes a habit of such conduct). Those things said, I'm done here for now. deeceevoice (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the diffs, as well as your block log. The above admins are not incorrect in their assessments. You have blatantly violated the terms of ArbCom's decision. A friendly admin unblocked you against both consensus and the ArbCom ruling. Hopefully, you return from your break to a long, well-deserved block. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, Scott, just re-reading this AN/I should be proof enough that there is no consensus for the one-year block that was given to DCV; in fact, if there is any consensus at all emerging, it is that the one-year term is unjustifiably long. Secondly, I believe the hostility in your tone isn't really appropriate here.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. There is clear consensus that this is a problem user, who needs a long block. There was NO consensus to unblock this problem user. The only real discussion was whether there should be a 1-month or 1-year block. That she has violated the ArbCom decision is beyond debate. As for your assessment of my tone, that matters to me not at all. The facts of this discussion are about the user in question, not me. Stop trying to deflect attention from that fact. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do remember several editors besides myself say something to the effect that there wasn't really cause for a block, and several others say that there might be cause for a short block (around a week), and yet others for a medium block (a week to a month). So, no I don't see that there is a consensus that "this is a problem user, who needs a long block". And I wasn't trying to draw attention to you, just telling you you don't need to come across as angry or hostile, which unfortunately and by the way, you still do.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

section break[edit]

My opinion is if he is making personal attacks and acting incivil, he disserves a block. However a year is a bit harsh. It might be better if we started with a week (considering all of his other blocks were a day- otherwise I'd say a day). Yahel Guhan 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Steve's unblock was correct. Arbcomm rulings are not meant to be read as legal documents - the fact that DCV has contributed productively since the arbcomm case must be taken into account when trying to interpret the ruling. Reading a year old ruling as if it happened yesterday is inappropriate wikilawyering.

To begin with, the "ban from Afrocentrism" is nonsense. The links given show absolutely no evidence of "tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing". On the contrary, I see productive editing:

  1. [15] - in response to a question, she responses, in depth and at length. This is the sort of behaviour we want from editors. It's mind-boggling that this could be cited as evidence of any sort of "misbehaviour".
  2. [16] - there's nothing wrong with saying "based on your past actions, I don't trust you". Ridiculous.
  3. [17] - again, not trusting the process isn't grounds for a ban. Failure to believe that matters will get a fair hearing at ANI isn't grounds for a ban.
  4. [18] - explaining the basis for not trusting someone isn't grounds for a ban.
  5. [19] - deeceevoice rejects Ramdrake's suggestion that "we could also agree not to remove anything that looks unsourced until the editor who put it there has a chance to fish up a proper source", based on her distrust of dab. Quite frankly, based on complaints here, dab is a far more controversial editor than deecee. You can't add unsourced statements to a controversial page and expect people not to revert your additions.
  6. [20] - snarky edit summaries aren't a crime.
  7. [21] - removing unwarranted tags is the correct course of action.

So she was banned from the article for one snarky edit summary? And that by an editor who obviously by his own admission does not accept our core policy of NPOV? Dear God. Quite frankly, Viridae deserves to be blocked for disruption, and Friday strongly cautioned for repeated personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

you make a good point. Based on the above, I support the unblock. Yahel Guhan 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Responding to Guettarda's analysis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeceevoice (talkcontribs) 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your analysis, Guettarda, of the flimsy "evidence" brought to bear in this ANI. Just a couple of comments. Actually, I wasn't rejecting Ramdrake's suggestion that "fact" tags be slapped on unsourced material, thus giving the contributor of that information a chance to substantiate it. That is precisely what I told Wikidudeman earlier in response to his rather precipitous deletion of two photos, which he incorrectly labeled "POV." See the exchange regarding this matter here.[22]
And with regard to your characterization of my edit note as "snarky," that's not the spirit in which it was offered. I guess it depends on the reading. The notion that Alek Wek is somehow "Caucasoid" is such a patently absurd one, I figured it made perfect sense to simply illustrate how blatantly wrong-headed it is. An emphatic edit note doesn't equal a "snarky" one. The edit note is "snarky" only when viewed in the contentious atmosphere introduced when DBachmann inserted himself into the situation with obnoxious revert warring and equally obnoxious/nasty talk page commentary -- to which, incidentally, I never responded in kind. I simply repeatedly demanded that he produce evidence of "POV pushing" and "trolling" on my part. I restored both photos, with ample justification -- and this was called POV pushing. Read my comments on these two edits at my talk page here.[23] deeceevoice (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guettarda's analysis. Too often users are blocked due to some admin looking at their past block log, rather than looking at the facts as they stand in an ongoing situation. It gets to the point that anyone who happens to have been blocked in the past is automatically assumed to be "wrong" in any dispute that is ongoing. I know admins are often busy and don't always have the time to check the facts of specific cases, but I've seen it time and again, that established users are warned (or blocked) for trying to keep consensus versions of articles against pov-pushing, often ban evading, sockpuppets. The admin sees the "edit war" and the "clean" history of the sock account, and assumes that the established user is either "biting a newbie" or is a "tendentious pov-pusher" (because established editors are more likely to have been blocked at some point in time). A more thorough investigation by an admin would often produce the sort of analysis that Guettarda has provided. Clearly Deeceevoice is being banned for having been a supposedly disruptive user in the past, and not for the contributions they have made recently. Editors are not supposed to get banned over content disputes, which is effectively what is happening here. Alun (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

simple question[edit]

Let me ask a simple, discrete question so that I can get a simple answer. How is this edit by deeceevoive, POV pushing or incivility? Can someone please tell me, because it's part of the evidence here and I want to know why? Can someone just explain this to me because I'm mystified? futurebird (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

U 2? lol deeceevoice (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


None of Morechi's diffs point to much, and none of them point to a year long block, a block that, reading this whole post, came out of close to nowhere. Admins here seem to be acting on a two year old arbcom probation and a block log that has been clean for over a year, which seems hard to justify. This user's probation ended in October. Is, then, the user blocked for a year for incivility to wikidudeman? That is unsupportable also.

Viridae's action was out of all process. And unless there were unmentioned off-wiki discussions, his/her claim that it was supported by Neil and Friday was, frankly, a lie. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • So a user under Arbcom personal attack parole (among numerous other Arbcom restrictions) is going to get off scott-free for making comments like this and this? Shameful. - Merzbow (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt somehow this user will get off scott-free; for one thing I'd imagine the loss of face that would entail would prove hard to swallow. Besides, I don't really know what the standards are for blocking and levels of incivility. There is a something to discuss there, but there is a difference between getting tough with problematic editors and making a complete mess of things. Or is there?
Moving on: the arbcom ruling is so ancient that the concept of parole seems to have been done away with since. The page concerning it was tagged "historical" 1 July 2006.
Even if we take the highly unlikely view that parole was intended to outlast probation, the arbcom ruling on that was "She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations."
Just a personal reaction, re: your diffs, it's weird to me that you find that so outrageous. "my dear woman" is a patronizing taunt, after all, in that context, after which she calls the editor a hypocrite on the user page. I didn't look into it to see if he was or not...I suppose it's incivility on a user page. She'd already been called a troll it seems? The second diff doesn't seem like a personal attack at all to me, it's just challenges bedecked with winking emoticons with their tongues out, you know what I mean? Anyway, funny how we see it so different, I don't know who's right. No doubt all these things will be looked at by those who can block and ban.
(You're not the Merzbow, I suppose?) 86.44.4.103 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding[edit]

I find it interesting that it seems to completely escape Merzbow's attention that my comments are in reaction to repeated requests that dBachmann substantiate his reckless, utterly groundless charges of POV pushing and trolling and other snide remarks (which he directs not only at me, but at other editors). With each request Bachmann becomes more antagonistic, attempting to hide his revert warring with ad hominem attacks. This irrespondible, arrogant, abusive behavior is amply in evidence on his talk page as well when responding to me and other involved editors. Finally, at one point, Bachmann even tampers with the talk page record, tacking on a weakly worded "justification" to an earlier, nasty edit made 11 minutes before -- in an apparent attempt to make it seem he had responded to my repeated requests for justification. That is the only thing I did: demanded that DBachmann finally "put up or shut up," that he make some attempt to justify his edits, back up his charges of "trolling" and "POV pushing," cease his disruptive antics, revert warring - and against talk page consensus -- and his nastiness. As has been demonstrated at his still-open RfC by several different commentators, DBachmann has an ugly habit of slinging around invective and throwing around labels like "troll" and "POV pusher", targeting contributors who edit in good faith, but who have a different perspective than he does on the matter at hand.

Any objective reading of the talk page record will clearly reveal who is the aggressor here, and that none of the other editors returned his utterly unwarranted nastiness, arrogance and condescension, or his personal attacks -- myself included -- in any way, shape or form. All I did was stand my ground. That's what you do with a bully. The talk page record also clearly points out that the tone on the article talk page was calm, civil and constructive before DBachmann arrived on the scene -- and that it changed, with his insertion of himself into the matter, very shortly thereafter.

This entire matter has been a shamefully transparent put-up job from start to finish -- from DBachmann's red-herring charges as a smokescreen for his own appalling conduct, to alerting another admin (Moreschi) who habitually backs him in such matters and regularly excuses his offensive conduct, who wasn't "in the mood" to justify his (her?) egregiously irresponsible decision to ban me from editing an article on black subject matter -- which is an important part of the "get Deeceevoice" agenda among certain editors, to the feeding frenzy among editors who seemingly have arguably an axe to grind, or who have based their assumptions in this matter on an almost two-year-old Arb Comm case (it was opened in December 2005), and who have completely ignored the elephant in the room -- the paucity of evidence presented in this matter -- to join what is, IMO, little more than a lynch mob. And what have I actually done?

I have edited/acted responsibly and in good faith, and that is far more than I can say for my primary accusers, DBachmann; Moreschi; what's-his-face, the admin who enacted the year-long block; and then let me not forget Friday, who doesn't seem to have enough self-control to refrain from ridiculous, over-the-top name-calling and hyperbole, even on the ANI, charging me with racism and trying to start a "race war" on Wikipedia (whatever the hell that means). And I have very directly and persistently demanded answers when falsely accused of not doing so. deeceevoice (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

=Continued drama in the aftermath of !!/Durova[edit]

Resolved: problem does not exist :) - Alison 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that a polite note on User:!! talk page would peacefully resolve things but Giano has apparently taken offense to a request for !! to change his userpage to something not so pointy and antagonistic. Does !!'s userpage message do anything to lessen the drama or help the community to heal and move on? There is an arbitration case with workshops and pages of evidence not to mention a closed Rfc with countless talk page archives that have already beaten the heck out of this in every which way. Durova has not only apologized but has stepped down from adminship to help the community move on. Do we need to keep the bad blood boiling? AgneCheese/Wine 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to ignore the page if you find it offensive/inflammatory/whatever. No one is required to look at it, after all...it will be deleted fairly soon, according to !!, so the "problem" will solve itself soon enough. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The userpage doesn't really do much to cycle down the drama level here, but at this point I'd simply ignore it and move on; the editor probably has some reason to be a bit bitter at this point. I do think that Giano's revert of what was apparently a good faith request on another editor's talkpage wasn't overly helpful. User:!! seems perfectly capable of handling their talkpage on their own.--Isotope23 talk 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do ignore. It's time for things to move on. Consider it humourous and unwatch - Alison 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) I reinstated and replied to your request on my talk page. With the very greatest of respect (there is a lot of that on my talk page), there is no need to inflame passions and create further drama by bringing this storm in a teacup to WP:ANI. Please come back and discuss it on my user talk page rather than here.
Could someone add one of those magic ticky-box things that pretends that problems do not exist. Thanks. -- !! ?? 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll note that I posted this following Giano's revert and before you reinstated and respond. AgneCheese/Wine 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Candyland.--Isotope23 talk 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When should apparently redundant images be deleted?[edit]

I've encountered a problem, where I believe information important to honoring our contributor's liscenses is being lost.

I have uploaded over one hundred simple maps to the wikipedia. Some dozen of them have been uploaded to the commons by other wikipedians. Most of those other wikipedians were completely scrupulous about copying the attribution and liscencing information, and original date. I am sure the rest of the uploaders meant to be scrupulous, but some of them failed to copy some of the information.

Last night I started uploading those maps to the citizendium. Some of the maps I created are no longer on the wikipedia proper because a robot noticed that the commons bore an identical image, and nominated them for deletion.

The citizendium, like the wikipedia, and the commons, has a template where the uploader is supposed to put the date of first publication. I haven't been able to fill out that field for about a third of these images because the people who uploaded them to commons didn't preserve the original date of publication.

Presumably they didn't realize that preserving the original date of publication was important. I got notices of some of those nominations. It didn't occur to me to check that the original date of publication was preserved on the commons version.

These nominations are done by a robot. But, if I am not mistaken, the actual deletion is done by a human?

If so would it be possible for those humans to check to make sure the person who first moved the image to the commons,

  1. correctly attributed them;
  2. correctly copied the original uploader's liscense;
  3. correctly copied the original uploader's original date of upload/publication?

If I am not mistaken the only mechanism for transferring an image from the wikipedia proper to the commons, is for a fallible human to:

  1. download the image from the wikipedia to their hard drive;
  2. then upload the image from their hard drive to the commons;
  3. finally manually paste in the information on the original author, the liscence they released the image under, and its date of first upload, or first creation.

Given that humans are fallible, wouldn't it be desirable to have an automated, or semi-automated process, that allowed us to skip the step downloading the image to our hard drive, only to then upload it to the commons? Given that robots are good at this kind of thing, couldn't a robot be tasked with making sure the original liscence, author/uploader, and original date were all properly copied?

Wouldn't it be possible to have the robot that nominates apparently duplicated images for deletion to also figure out which one was uploaded first, and if it wasn't the commons version, suggest the liscense info on the commons be updated?

May I question whether the wikipedia version should be deleted, even if both images are now identical, if the wikipedia version had multiple versions of the image uploaded in the past? Deleting the apparently redundant wikipedia version erases access to the older versions of the image for ordinary readers.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

there is an error proof method of moving images to commons please see WP:MTC βcommand 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Kudos to the author of this tool! I made a request to be added to the list of users approved to use this helper.
I am still interested in a discussion of how those images that have already been copied, without all the original info, could be fixed. Am I correct that if the 2nd uploader doesn't copy the date of upload we are not fully honoring the creator's liscense? In a hundred years or so all those images would lapse into the public domain. Since we are going to be so scrupulous about making sure we only host truly free images, shouldn't we also be scrupulous about preserving the real date of first publication, so we preserve the date when the image enters the public domain?
I would still like to know whether the robot that nominates articles for deletion could make sure we preserve all the original liscense information on the version we keep.
I would still like to ask whether it is appropriate to delete the original of images that are identical, when that loses its history of prior uploads.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
the bot moves everything to commons, and thanks I wrote that bot. yes it does tag them as dupes. when the bot moves the image all history is kept so it is safe to delete the local copy. βcommand 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are some valid concerns here. People often copy an image to Commons saying "see English Wikipedia original for more info" and then the original gets deleted because it's "identical" to the Commons image. Please remember to make sure that all relevant information is preserved. Haukur (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There is another bot which helps out admins if images need to be attributed properly. east.718 at 18:27, November 24, 2007
Not exactly related, but possibly of use to OP, if you need help finding specific dates on which you (or someone) uploaded a particular image, your image upload log may prove useful. If you need a peek at deleted revisions of pages, that might be harder, but I can probably help out some if you know which page(s) you'd need. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a bot complaining about "see English Wikipedia original for more info" in Commons entries? (SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
Kudos to the author of this tool too. Am I correct that the logs only go back three years? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of Bus stop's ban[edit]

Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was banned indefinitely in August following discussion at the community sanction noticeboard (see here), has asked me to request a review of this ban on his behalf. He disagrees that the edits cited as evidence of disruption were actually in violation of any policies, and asked for clarification on how they were disruptive. I suggested a deal under which he would be unblocked, given a topic ban from Judaism-articles for a period of time, and asked to avoid Durova, the blocking administrator, which he indicated he would accept - but this proposal didn't work out. So, what are the community's feelings on Bus stop - should he be given another chance, or not? Picaroon (t) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

His userpage is scheduled to become unprotected on December 15. It should also be noted that just about every person who "stood up for him", including Dweller and Fred Bauder, has over time come to disagree with Bus stop regarding the acceptability of his actions. Personally, I think the best way to go would be to let the situation stand as it is, and let him renew attempts to get unblocked starting on the 15th, as per the last block placed on him. I know that I can clearly be counted as being far less than impartial on this matter, but I really can't see why the matter is so urgent that the remaining less than three weeks from his last effective disciplinary action should be voided. Like I said, though, I have no doubt Bus stop counts me as one of his top persecutors, and would doubtless impugn my objectivity and fairness. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't your proposal work out? It seems like a good compromise to me. Based on a reading of that thread, he/she was a relatively positive contributor elsewhere but disruptive on Judaism-related articles. It didn't become a siteban until his/her responses at CSN concerning a Judaism topic ban, if I'm reading correctly. —bbatsell ¿? 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the diffs below, it would have to be amended to a complete religion topic ban. It appears that the user in question simply cannot keep his/her cool on that subject. Does that apply elsewhere? I gathered that it didn't from the comments at CSN, but I have no first-hand experience. —bbatsell ¿? 22:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No chance in hell I would support an unblock unless this editor was to actually assume good faith, not accuse editors of being sockpuppets, not violate WP:NPA, WP:NOR, etc.. — Save_Us_229 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Expires in Dec? The block says an indef is in place...??? Besides, I have to agree with Save Us, what do we have to make us think he's changed? RlevseTalk 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd want to ask Fred Bauder and Dweller why they withdrew their offers to mentor him. I think that would be relevant. I believe his e-mails played a role in their decisions, but I can't remember all the details now. For what it's worth, the new Wikipedia:Accessibility advocates page was created by me at least partially as a response to this editor and his situation, but I'm not sure anyone else would be willing to offer to mentor the editor in question. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
He chose to not listen to any advice I gave him and just kept beating the drum. I don't think he has much interest in editing articles that are not Jewish related. I sympathize with his desire to patrol Jewish subjects and remove anti-Semitic vandalism. Perhaps some folks could work with him from his talk page. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse, the protection of his talk page expires december 15th, not the block itself.--Atlan (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose lifting the ban. We don't need tendentious and hostile editors, in any topic. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What he said. east.718 at 06:01, November 25, 2007

The above diffs were hair-rising enough. I can support unbanning only if it's guaranteed somehow that such behaviour will not be repeated. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors who clashed with Bus Stop the first go 'round, it's clear to me that no matter WHO tries to help him, or how they try to do it, he's stuck on a mindset that will not be adjusted by any weight of evidence, any amount of kindness, nor any amount of threat. The project is better off without him here. he was thoroughly tendentious the last few go-rounds, and likely to resume it. IF a ban on all religous content were imposed, he might be able to learn more about working with others, but as Fred Bauder notes, he's only interested in articles about Judaism, and occasionally other religions. I'd suggest, IF his ban is lifted, a full ban on religious articles AND Israeli-Palestinian content as well, to preclude end-runs around the block. ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop says he doesn't think he has ever edited articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and thinks it is an assumption of bad faith to assume he would have any trouble editing them. Picaroon (t) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Then drop that, jsut ban him from any and all religious articles. That said, I still thoroughly oppose any lift in his sanction, and only offer up such compromises in case consensus goes the other way. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Even tho' I can;t say I agreed with everything he's ever said, I can't see where he was the sole culprit in any clashes he had and of course I vote to lift the ban.FlaviaR (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Who else was responsible? Is their behavior ongoing? Do they require sanctions too? Picaroon (t) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've only seen one or 2 major disagreements with him, and, in them, the person he was arguing with gave as good as he got - and to to others as well. But with the Wikipolitics being exactly what i see them to be, sanctions will never happen. I am only here to try to be fair to Bus Stop.FlaviaR 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I feel I need add nothing more to this topic than my latest post at Bus Stop's talk page. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop would like to note that he still disagrees the edits cited at the community ban linked and referred to as "Recent disruption" were at all disruptive, and would like some clarification on the issue of what part(s) of them violated policy. Picaroon (t) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As you seem to be in contact with the editor in question, it would help if he were to specificy exactly which behavior was not disruptive, so that his disruption could be pointed out to him, if it existed. It would also help if he, or you, could point out a single other editor who agreed with him that his conduct wasn't disruptive at the time of the alleged disruption so that that party might be contacted and post statements regarding his/her opinion of the matter here, unless Bus stop's ban would permit his statements to you to be placed here. Also, I would like to know exactly why he doesn't seem to think that he should wait the three weeks of not editing his user talk page that was put in place some time ago, so far as I remember. Evidence indicating specifically why whatever reasons were given were not valid when that lock on his talk page was placed would be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly oppose lifting the indefinite ban. I was the editor who posted the community sanction notice that led to Bus stop's banning. Bus stop has a lengthy history of disruptive, tenditious, uncivil, counter-consensus, counter-productive edits. This history extends many months prior to his indefinite banning, and persisted despite many warnings, several temp blocks, attempts at mediation, attempts at mentorship, and 2nd and even 3rd chances to prove he could edit productively. It persisted even after he was banned and then re-banned, as his incivility continued in his own talk page to such an extent that an admin decided he should be blocked from editing even there. Dealing with this editor's disruption has taken up a lot of time from other editors and admins. He has gravely insulted other editors by groundlessly accusing them of anti-semitism, and comparing their activities to those of the Nazis and other hate groups. He insulted an admin in terms too obscene to repeat. I could hunt up and post dozens of diffs to demonstrate this pattern of disruptive behavior (and many have already been linked above), but I think the burden of proof at this point is not on those opposing a ban lift, but on Bus stop himself to show that he can edit productively. He could start by waiting until his talk page ban is lifted before requesting that his editing privileges be restored. An expression of contrition for his incivility, and a pledge to respect consensus even if he strongly disagrees with it are in order before any admin should even consider lifting the ban. Even then, a topic ban on religion should remain for several months before full editing privileges are restored. Though I would hope to be proven wrong, I have little reason to suspect that a 4th chance will be successful for Bus stop, and fully expect to be hearing of his disruptive activities again on the administrator's noticeboard if he were to be reinstated. Nick Graves (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Fiet Nam[edit]

This user has vandalized several times:

Those were all on Sept. 9 and Sept. 24, and the user seems to have been briefly banned for this, but he vandalized again at more recent date (Nov. 16):

The user posts articles which are machine-translated gibberish (Google Translator and similar sites just can't handle specialized texts, and what comes out is nothing close to a real translation and can't really be used as a basis for a better text) or texts from the Swedish or Norwegian Wikipedia which he has not even attempted to translate:

Generally counter-productive edits (although probably done in good faith):

  • Removing the letter Y from the Norwegian alphabet, insisting that "Norwegian doesn't contain the letter y": [39], [40], [41] (Cf. comments by a Norwegian user on User talk:Fiet Nam)
  • Similarly, removing the letter L from the Arabic alphabet: [42], claiming that "Arabic doesn't have L in it's alphabet" (It was undone by somebody else. Just to be sure, I checked with a friend, who said that this claim is bullshit.)
  • Changing links to articles to links to his own user pages: [43]

User talk:Fiet Nam contains several warnings for other incidents or pages which have been deleted. I have not looked at all contributions of this user, and I suspect that there may be more like the ones enumerated above. Some of those may have been bad but may have remained undetected. Most contributions of this user are to linguistic articles, and some are to languages that are likely to be less well-known to other people on Wikipedia and may not be on any other user's watchlist. Are these edits likely to be any better? Olaus (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the articles;

ELIMINATORJR 13:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd second this. This editor has made some very cranky edits to articles on linguistics. He's also tried to delete his own talk page amongst other things. Some evidence leads me to suspect we are dealing with a very young user. Whatever the case, he should be strongly discouraged from messing around with article content any further. --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
this section of his user page is nothing but an attack on the Danish language. This isn't just a skid who doesn't know better, it's an editor with some issues bordering on xenophobia. Long block is needed, as it's clear he's got a serious POV to push and hasn't stopped yet, nad will continue to do so. ThuranX (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I tend to agree. Immature crank or deliberate troll, the effect on Wikipedia is the same. Some of his edits are incomprehensible. He's already been warned several times. He won't be much of a loss. Long block needed. --Folantin (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've given him a strong warning that he will be blocked of he doesn't stop. If someone else wants to just go ahead and blcok I will not complain, but I feel we should at least try to reform him first. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for originally posting this at the wrong administrator board page. Anyway, Fiet Nam has continued today: "The Swedish name for nine is ni (not nio) and the Swedish name for ten is ti (not tio), that is like Danish and/or Norwegian having i at the end (filosofi) and Swedish having ia/o (filosofia/o).". The summary shows that he lacks even rudimentary knowledge of the Swedish language. Intentionally destructive or just ignorant without realizing it? I don't know, but why should other people have to correct Fiet Nam's errors. And who can fix whatever problems he may have inserted in articles like Yola language or Old Tupi language? For all I know, his changes there may be perfectly fine, but how can anyone trust that? Olaus (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the edits in question ([44], [45], [46]), I am really surprised this editor was not blocked last month as being a vandalism-only account. Now it looks as if Fiet Nam has graduated from outright -and easily spotted- vandalism to the more insidious sneaky vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And who can fix whatever problems he may have inserted in articles like Yola language or Old Tupi language? That's the nub of the problem. This guy has been adding blatantly false information to Wikipedia (like making the claim Norwegian contains no letter "y" [47]). How do we police the material he adds to more obscure subjects? Why should editors waste their time doing so? We're an encyclopaedia so deliberately messing with content is the most serious offence possible. With the latest edit Olaus links to, which came after he had his final warning, this guy has finally spent his credit and his account should be blocked as "vandalism only". --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice he hadn't been informed of this discussion on his talk page. He has now. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've deleted Värmlandic. There simply was no content, the single EL is non-working, and the ISO language code supposedly applicable to this dialect doesn't exist, and there are zero non-wikipedia-related G-hits. Looks like more fakery from this editor. Since Rodhullandemu has notified him of this discussion, it is only fair to wait a bit to give him a chance to reply, but I'm all for a long block, as it seems that this is pretty much a vandal-only account. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef, no point wasting further time. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Afterthought: it would be a good idea for any editor who is genuinely knowledgeable about Scandinavian languages (the chief focus of Fiet Nam's edits) to check through his contributions there to see if any damage he has done has been left unreverted. --Folantin (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Skoppensboer continued incivility lack of good faith[edit]

Could another admin, dispationately have a look at Skoppensboer (talk · contribs)'s latest sniping at admins and tussling with ReasonableLogicalMan (talk · contribs) (see [48]) As a quick background: I issued a uw-npa4im warning on 1st November - see User talk:Skoppensboer#Stop personal attacks which references the truely awful accusations (including "Listen up, you self-promoting vandal and liar" and "unlike you, whose edit history shows to be interested in only one thing: the promotion of your flagging and sad career"). The two had been edit warring on Prostatitis. When ReasonableLogicalMan created an article Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, admin User:DGG helped out by highlighting problems with that article (lacked citations and seemed synthesis/OR to collate the conditions in the manner that it did) and added a "under construction" tag, with a suggested review of situiation after 7 days. His actions then belittled with the snide remark of "Surprised admins cannot see the breach immediately"[49], and no sooner had the suggested 7-days pass, than Skoppensboer nominated it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology), during the duration of which citations were added and DGG made some major changes to the article to streamline it and address the OR issues. Subsequent comments at AfD discussion were then for "Keep and improve". A previously uninvolved further admin, Davewild, eventually closed the nomination as a keep[50].

Having got involved in prostatis and this AfD, I'ld be grateful for comment/action from my admin colleagues over resulting posting by Skoppensboer of [51], feining innocence and belittling again the work of admins (with "Someone closed the AfD") and more specifically clearly continuing to breach WP:AGF (which is of course an official policy) with "the editor has created an article to further an agenda" Given the past uw-npa4im, but were I not quite so entangled, I think I would apply a short 24-hr block for continued unpleasantness in what is meant to be a welcoming inclusive collaborative environment of a wiki. The final bit of the posting calling for an admin to speedily delete the article both further undermindes Davewild's admin action, and is ridiculous as the article would never now be deleted under the speedy process (given not clear-cut as per recent AfD discussion), but of course could be renominated for AfD. David Ruben Talk 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

David R helped improve the very rough revision I made to keepable status. I will say personally that I am not fully satisfied with all the comments of Reasonablelogicalman at all stages of the dispute, but that the comments of Skoppensboer seem totally incompatible with cooperative work on WP. Were I not involved I would have applied a much longer block than 24 hours. DGG (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
So anyone willing to suggest we don't excuse ourselves and that a block should/should not be applied ? David Ruben Talk 03:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to see this report here. I had chronic problems with Skopp on the Drudge articles going back maybe a year, but I though he had seen the light a few months ago, and was showing marked improvement in his attitude and behavior. - Crockspot (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As a DRV regular, I often see people who believe deletion decisions were wrongly made. This post doesn't stand out. Transcluding the AFD onto three daily AFD pages (18, 19, & 21 Nov.) wasn't helpful. We all know that keep isn't forever, and my read of that AFD is more along the lines of "the consensus isn't sure what to do with this, but we can give the improved version a try for a while" than a very solid decision. My reaction, really, is to yawn about the final edit that caused this thread to be raised. Some of the earlier ones, including those for which the referenced warning were given, are much more concerning. I'd say keep monitoring this editor, but I'm not inclined to act now. GRBerry 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable usernames[edit]

Resolved: Last name hardblocked. Can do no more until he shows up again or the IP check happens. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps creating unacceptable usernames in a short span of time:

Perhaps a checkuser should be run and an IP address blocked. Useight (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll file the IP check, but the underlying IP is prevented from making names for 24 hours anyhow (the latest was hardblocked). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Filed. It's in the CUs' hands now. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Private info. posted on Wikipedia:Reliable sources[edit]

Looks like an email to someone which has included their email address - [52]. uw-pinfo warning given. The recent edits on WP:Reliable sources appear to be 15% vandalism. Please consider protection. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please send future requests for the removal of personal info to oversight-l At sign.svg lists dot wikimedia period org (as to avoid the delete a page with lots of revisions and kill the servers problem). Thanks. MER-C 12:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Looks studiously at feet. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that only the person/s affected could do so ? WP:RFO & WP:OVER are unclear - I will ask them to clarify. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can submit a revision to be oversighted or a complaint to the Oversights via email. The subjects themselves may to go OTRS (but I assume normal users can, if they have information they'd rather not give on-wiki). x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the only way to request oversight is through email. At the very least, there is no on-wiki noticeboard for oversight. I imagine the reasons for that are rather obvious. Natalie (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight - the request must be emailed. And a good thing too. On the handful of occasions that I've needed to request oversight in my experience the response has been very quick and appropriate. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
....or flag an oversight user through any other private means, such as private message on IRC or IM. Cbrown1023 talk 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please show this user the door[edit]

Resolved

Icebear1946 (talk · contribs)

This disruptive editor has shown no remorse in continuing to disruptively edit Immanuel Velikovsky. He's been given enough second chances. Please community ban him and remove the headache.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support ban. Editor has removed sections of links regarding criticism of the subject, and instead replaced them repeatedly with two links from the same dubious group. Such repeated reversion and replacement of content cannot be permitted. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Support ban per the above and evidence of behaviour on Immanuel Velikovsky and its talk page. --Folantin (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Very funny but this is a serious matter. --Folantin (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There's never a matter that's too serious to be laughed at at some point. --WebHamster 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
True, but I LOL'ed. Loudly. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Flagrantly disruptive SPA. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Federation_of_Associations_of_Canadian_Tamils[edit]

Resolved

See this vandlism.Sulivanes (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism so much as an attempt to perhaps suggest a link between the two groups. It's hard to tell though because it is a completely contextless redirect to a page that doesn't even mention Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils. For this reason I've deleted the redirect, though if someone wants to take the time to write an article on the group or provide some context in the target article to justify the redirect, that would certainly be grounds for recreation, but apparent POV pushing that leaves readers confused isn't helpful to the encyclopedia.--Isotope23 talk 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template weirdness[edit]

I have recently received a warning here in which User:GreenJoe has told me that despite the fact that the Template:PPAP itself specifically now indicates that it should be replaced, he considers it edit warring now that I have done so twice. For what it's worth, I was replacing the banner in all such pages in order, again, as indicated by the template itself, so didn't know I had done so twice. Please advise of the proper way to proceed in this matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd hurry up as its value seems to be decreasing ;) --WebHamster 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Template's own page says its "depreciated". Di they know something we don't? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Must be a dollar thing! --WebHamster 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If they're transcluding it into another template, I guess it has a salvage value. :) —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Note to self, must check if there's anyone living in that template. My money's on Bluebottle. --WebHamster 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather he discuss the value of replacing the banner. There's no policy that say it must be replaced. Doing it twice is edit warring. I'm just warning him politely, as we do with anyone who does that. I'm trying to remain nice and assume good faith. J (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Then I politely ask you what reason you have for insisting that a template which itself explicitly states that it should be replaced remain in place. I have yet to receive any justification for the continued use of the template, only a notice that you consider it edit warring to do what the template itself currently requests an editor to see it do. To date, all I've had is a possibly inappropriate warning (3RR does not clearly apply to talk page templates) with no justification given why this one person's wish to keep the old template in place should take priority over the explicitly stated content of the template itself. I look forward to a reasonable explanation for why the template's own content should not be followed. Your comment that "your trying to be nice and assume good faith" is frankly ridiculous. I am doing what the template itself requests be done. I cannot see how there can be any basis for questioning the good faith of someone who is doing what the template itself specifically requests. Again, I look forward to a reasonable explanation why this one editor's opinion takes priority over the explicit text of the template itself. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion at the template page is where the determination that the template is deprecated was made. There's no requirement that the template must be replaced immediately, though it should be replaced in an orderly fashion. I see no reason to leave the template in place on this article--at least, certainly not in the absence of discussion on the matter. (The net result of keeping the old template, btw, is to keep the article out of Wikiproject Canada.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And, as that is seemingly one of only two reasons (the other being the fact that the new banner isn't entirely devoted to the Political parties project), I have to question what just cause there is to keep this specific article potentially unique in being apparently the only one which it is specifically demanded keep the old, deprecated, banner. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Docboss3[edit]

This user appears to have been created solely for the purpose of vandalizing the McDonaldland article after it was protected for repeated vandalism , specifically about the character Grimace dying of AIDS. The user has also uploaded an image of Grimace purportedly in the final stages of the disease that has been removed three times already. It also appears that he is a sock puppet of the banned user Docboss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his other puppet Docboss2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Ban again SVP, and possibly block the creation of the inevitable Docboss4, Docboss5, Docboss6...

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Docboss3 is blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've also blocked Docboss4 which is clearly a sleeper account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What's happened?[edit]

Resolved

...to all the Wikipedia shortcuts? They all seem to have been renamed to Wikipedia:Shortcut name. — Rudget contributions 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be working for me. I mean WP:ANI still points here. Is there a specific one that isn't working? —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There were a whole bunch that weren't -- WP:TW or WP:UNFREE for instance -- but they're back now. What the heck just happened? Gscshoyru (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, some have started working again. It may be my end. For example, look here in the shortcut section to the top left. — Rudget contributions 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
☑Y - All seem to be working now. Thanks to those who commented. — Rudget contributions 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article:Cillian Murphy[edit]

Resolved

I think somebody is screwing around with this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cillian_Murphy? Either that or my browser is going insane there was lots of headlines extra space on the top that shouldn't be there and I think introduction part was missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.188.87 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That was vandalism. It has since been reverted. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. You people work fast. --130.243.188.87 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)M.B

Need administrators to review behaviour of confirmed sockpuppets[edit]

Fellow admins, following Alison's release of checkuser data at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand, I would like some uninvolved administrators to review thoroughly review the recent contributions of some of the confirmed sockpuppets, and consider whether blocks would be appropriate for...

Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Hurooz already been confirmed? — Rudget contributions 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not what I'm asking for. These users are not banned. They simply have previous accounts that were blocked. We should not block people simply for having previously blocked accounts. If they have previous blocked accounts and are still editing in the same manner that caused their previous accounts to be blocked, we should consider blocking. But I would like other people's input, thus this thread. --Deskana (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, was going to post just that, then. I see from the block log, he hasn't. — Rudget contributions 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Shamsudin is a sockpuppet of a user who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry (User:Khampalak), so that's a block there. In addition, Hurooz = Jim-Bronson = Khan1982 = NisarKand who has also been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. So, blocks all around? --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say so. :) — Rudget contributions 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with this. I prefer not to block socks from RFCU myself, so that I do not involve myself in disputes that I know little about. --Deskana (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked them all. If anyone wants to review, I don't have a problem with unblocking if you disagree, as I'm not super-familiar with this case. --Haemo (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody please provide a reason (with clear understanding) why User:NisarKand and User:Khampalak were blocked in the first place? If no reason can be given then they both are entitled to keep making new account names, and that does not break the rules of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Both users were making excellent contributions, it is not justified to block someone because you may not like their race, nationality or ethnic background. You all know in your heart that you all have alternate account names which you use sometimes to avoid detection so you all are guilty of sock puppetry. I disagree with them being blocked and should be unblocked immediatly. It serves no purpose to block people who are proven not to be vandals... who are just helping Wikipedia by making excellent contribution... and who will make further user account names if you keep unjustly blocking them. We are suppose to keep this place friendly, not a place for war and hate.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe another RFCU needs to be run? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)NisarKand was originally blocked for flagrant, blatant, over the top, personal attack incivility. For the avoidance of doubt, the final straw was the worst such example I've seen. The post that was the final straw was a long screed (about as long as the prior portion of this thread) that managed to attack not only named editors but also a large branch of one of the world's major religions, multiple ethnic groups, and at least one entire country while also threatening physical violence, crimes, and war crimes against them. This user can be considered community banned under the "and no admin would ever think of unblocking" rule. All sockpuppets thereof should be blocked.
Khampalak was also originally blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Shamshudin also was incivil and made personal attacks. Ghaffar73 clearly engaged in an attempt to use multiple accounts in the same dispute in order to create a false appearance of consensus. Rudaki was also participating in the same dispute. So all of these accounts are clearly abusive and would merit blocking even if they were unrelated to Khampalak. GRBerry 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that so GRBerry (a.k.a. or I shall say sock puppet of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise)? I know who you are very well. You strongly support Beh-nam against NisarKand... same way you supported the now banned Tajik, who lives with you in Germany. All the things you just said about the 2 blocked people (Nisarkand and Shamshudin) are BS unless you provide evidence. You are known to hate Pashtuns and support Tajiks, so there will never be anything good coming out of you towards anyone who is Pashtun. By the way, Wknight94 is also Future Perfect at Sunrise). It's very funny to see that some general public who work for FREE as administrators on this free to the public website use sock puppets but they tell others that it is against the rules.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For the next admin along, the prior comment was added here. To avoid drama, I'll let you do the obvious. GRBerry 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you stop off under a bridge on the way here? --WebHamster 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm more astonished to find that the admins don't get paid. Please withdraw my application immediately! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If being an admin here, can that be used as a reference to show past employment history in job applications at super markets?--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. In fact admitting to being an admin here will disqualify one even as an overnight shelf-stacker in most UK supermarkets. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Ridiculous sock-puppetry accusations aside, I don't see how a unblocking a sockpuppet of someone who was blocked for using sockpuppets is a good idea. --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kappa Gamma Psi[edit]

The article Kappa Gamma Psi was nominated for deletion on AfD due to notability and copyright issues. The original author Badagnani continually removes AfD and CSD notices put on the article and reverts whenever I put them back. I put standard warning templates on his talk page, but he became angry for "templating the regulars" which I know I really shouldn't do (he's been around awhile) but I'm not sure he's understanding WP policy that you can't remove AfD templates until the discussion is closed (it hasn't been) or CSD templates from articles you originally authored. Wondering if an admin could help here, thanks Rackabello (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment from involved editor - Removal of template was simply for the reason that, although asked four times, the templating editor failed to provide justification for the placement of this template as the article's "Discussion page," per community norms and the recommendation on the template itself. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that (apart from some bot edits and removal of a db-org speedy tag (placed by Rackabello along with an AfD tag, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Gamma_Psi&diff=next&oldid=173989204), the two of you are the only editors who have edited this article. Why not leave the AfD to take its course, meanwhile the both of you staying cool? If you have some problem between yourselves taking it to your talkpages, or preferably email. might be more productive. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

considering the course of the AfD so far, this looks like an attempt to Ask The Other Parent. DGG (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ordering" someone to not use one's talk page[edit]

This entry is "discussing incidents" rather than "reporting" one, since this is simply an extended question, and I seek no remedy (and in fact decline to go into personally-identifiable details).

Is there any consensus on whether an editor can demand or command that another editor not use the first editor's talk page to attempt to resolve a dispute? My understanding is that this is the principal purpose (along with other forms of editorial collaboration facilitating) of user talk pages (and talk pages more generally), that WP:USERPAGE is abundantly clear that we do not WP:OWN our userpages or their talk pages, and that refusing to engage in dispute resolution simply because you've been offended by the other party is decidedly "unwiki".

I ask this here because I may well be unaware of developments, perhaps at ArbCom, perhaps more generally, that render my perception, above, presently inaccurate. And does the "commanding" party being an admin have anything to do with it, i.e., is there any precedent for admins having more leeway to "ban" people from their talk pages? I strongly suspect that the answer is "no", but I would just like to confirm that, and again I concede that there may well be precedent at ArbCom or AN/I or where ever that I am simply unaware of.

I'm not talking about anything cognizant under WP:HARASS, but rather the refusal to engage in usual debate and dispute resolution, refusal to even permit the other party to attempt it, and deletion of any such attempts, simply because one party does not like the other personally.

In absence of any such precedent and consensus, is there a consensus that it is okay to simply delete talk page posts from individuals that one does not wish to engage in further discussion with, rather than archiving and ignoring them? WP:USERPAGE seems a little wishywashy on the subject of user talk pages, to the extent that I no longer believe that its current text actually does reflect Wikipedia-wide consensus on the matter. (Aside from a general sentiment that has grown very strong over the last 1.5 years or so that posts should be archived instead of deleted, there is also a user-warning template for deleting other uw tags by offenders from their talk pages, and there are various other templates, e.g. relating to sockpuppetry, etc., that state that they are not to be deleted from the user's talk page; all of this suggests that WP:USERPAGE on this issue is few years behind the actual consensus curve. While the guideline is correct that there is no policy against doing this, I believe that the guideline itself should in part being a guideline against doing so, instead of its present non-stance on the issue.)

SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the general question may be for the Village Pump/. I would absolutely support a change that in the absence of vandalism, material should be archived (or at least redacted) . Requests not to post on a talk page in my view represent the degenerate stages of a quarrel. Requests for it here might make sense--as certainly would such a decision by Arb Com. But nobody should be able to ban someone from their own talk page. A admin saying this unilaterally is in the same category as blocking someone the admin was in a dispute with. DGG (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's kinda what I thought. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, it is still very much OK to remove templated warnings, rather than archive them. The removal can be taken as a sign that the message has been read. Demanding the warning templates be left in place can be seen as a form of humiliation by some, and outweighs the convenience of later readers of the talk page getting the 'full picture' (they can use the page history). I absolutely agree that ordering people away from your talk page if they want to talk to you is not acceptable, with some caveats for the exact circumstances. One thing that is acceptable is if an argument breaks out on your talk page between two other users, is to politely ask them to take the discussion somewhere else (to avoid flashing orange message bars, if nothing else). Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That all makes sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If the same things keep getting said over and over, asking someone to stop posting on one's talk page is acceptable, and should be heeded, or else it becomes harassment. --David Shankbone 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. This was more a case of:
  1. I raised an issue (a borderline WP:NPA violation), and tying up some debate loose ends from a recently close XfD, with an admin on their talk page.
  2. The admin posted a rebuttal (which again was very close to NPA territory if not over the line) and even questions, but in an edit summary that also probably triggers NPA, demanded that I never post on their talk page again, and put an XfD-style "do not edit" archive frame around the discussion.
  3. I replied anyway, below that frame, with a response to their rebuttal and answers to the questions, and observed that it was un-wiki to make such a "do not post on my talk page" demand, offered to move the conversation to my talk page, and also indicated that mediation was fine by me.
  4. The admin deleted this, but kept the framed part, without responding further, and has not done anything antagonistic toward me, which is why I'm treating this almost as if it were hypothetical and not going into names. I'm more mystified than anything else. And I'm generally not one to run crying to ANI for redress of some personality-clash-related grievance, in the first place.
SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Minor point of fact - I don't believe there is a user warning template that warns against removing posts from one's own talk page. If there is, it was created independently and should probably be deleted. There is, however, a general talk page warning, which warns against modifying or deleting posts on "talk pages" (the warning does not specify in what namespace) and is frequently misused to warn users against removing messages from their talk page. Natalie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I may have been thinking of that one, or it may be something that has been edited to not say this any longer, or was TfD'd. I haven't seen the one I think I was thinking of in quite some time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment[edit]

Resolved

This[53] is absolutely unacceptable and there are more posts like it in his history. Can someone block this user? And if the absolutely dopey supposition this editor made--that the editor actually lives in the city where his ISP is headquartered--were actually correct, this stuff should be removed or oversighted.----The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been taken care of by both me and Ryulong. east.718 at 23:54, November 26, 2007

User:DPCU prematurely closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister-elect[edit]

The above user closed this AfD after only nine hours. At that time the outcome was far from certain, with 4 Keep votes, 3 Merge votes and 1 Delete vote. I believe the editor acted rashly and selfishly in closing the debate so early. "Keep" is quite a different outcome to "Merge". WWGB (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a close on this. Looks still open to me. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The closure was reverted by Hesperian (talk · contribs). He has also left a note at DPCU's Talk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see that now- but what is a three-week editor doing closing AFD's? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, it's not the first time he has pulled this stunt - this one on his first day. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see he's now blocked for 24 hours anyway. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Le Wiggles[edit]

User:Basil45 has created an article that appears to be a hoax. I've already taken the article toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Wiggles. But since I've taken it there, he has become more blatant with his creativity. The article now claims that Voltaire and Rene Descartes are members of the group. Another person has warned him about creating hoaxes. The editor continues to embellish the fiction. I come here for two reasons: 1) I'm not sure what the next steps might be. 2) If there are next steps, I believe they should be taken by somebody other than myself as I am already involved with it.Balloonman (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it. This guy was obviously just out to waste other people's time. -- Vary | Talk 05:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also Tobias Nuttall another hoax article. He also appears to be creating sockpuppets,User:Qwerty babe is obvious and there are possibly others that I am less sure of. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And there is this since redirected, and this vandalism Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know is VERY, VERY late[edit]

Not resolved now! Time keeps moving on... It is now overdue Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that Did You Know is overdue. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK is over 10 hours late. This means that almost 2 cycles of DYK hooks have been lost (opportunity to post it has been lost). Admin assistance requested in moving the hooks from the next update page to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this one night earlier this week, decided to do something about it, but gave up after I found the instructions too confusing. Any hopes of a simple set of "step 1, step 2, step 3" instructions being written so that interested Admins who have a spare moment can make the occasional update? -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't WikiMedia be programmed to automatically update the page, if a few days worth of DYK's are set up in advance? Or are there already such mechanisms available in the software? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Not at the moment, since the pages that will lead to DYK are editable by everyone, and main page content may only be put there by admins (to minimize vandalism and embarassing gaffes). We would need an admin-only preparation page to make your suggestion possible (and probably some more things as well, I'm not versed in MediaWiki things). Fram (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine's block[edit]

(follow up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive331#Sambure_and_Porcupine)

As many of you probably know, User:Porcupine was blocked for a month after this thread on ANI. Back then, we all thought that User:Sambure was a new user. Checkuser proved meanwhile that Sambure was (yet again) a sock of User:Bonaparte. Porcupine/Rambutan asked me to paste the following statement:

After consideration, while I still think that regardless of who was Sambure Rambutan was very wrong, I think that he was most probably tricked here. And I wanted to gauge the community consensus on a shortening of Porcupine's block. -- lucasbfr talk 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock. Will (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Reinstate editing priveleges with the proviso that he watch his temper in these situations. I've gone through similar stuff (first with BlackStarRock, then with Dereks1x), and I did not find it hard to keep a calm head. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Leave blocked or shorten slightly. Porcupine wastes too much of our time. John Reaves 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are designed to be protective rather than punitive, as lucas. correctly points out. Unblock tomorrow, and strongly caution over the encyclopedia's requirements regarding policy and guideline obedience. If Porcupine restarts his nonsense again, re-instate the block. Anthøny 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Endorse unblock. I thought a month was a bit excessive anyway. EdokterTalk 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Unblock; whereas I agree that given that situation Porcupine should have acted differently, I though 1 month was too long and given that he was tricked by a banned user, I think it's only fair to let him go now. However he should be warned that if this happens again, a block of similar duration will be put in place. TSO1D (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's worth noting that there's no suggestion that Bonaparte was targeting Porcupine specifically, though it's quite possible that Bonaparte was trolling in a general sort of way. The block of Porcupine arose because Porcupine's conduct was unacceptable regardless of who he was dealing with. Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) ( Rambutan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) has a long history of incivility and biteyness; the fact that it was coincidentally aimed at a banned user doesn't really excuse the sheer rudeness that he was demonstrating right on AN/I. (I note that Porcupine only drew Bonaparte's attention after making a poorly-adjudged AfD nomination.)
There's no indication that Porcupine knew or suspected that Sambure was a banned editor—that Porcupine thought that his own behaviour was an appropriate way of dealing with a new editor explains why he should remain blocked. Disputes on Wikipedia sometimes involve editors where one is clearly in the right and one clearly in the wrong. In this case,