Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive339

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Image:199245.jpg[edit]

Resolved

Please can an admin delete this image it has had a disputed tag on for ovr seven days now. Procedure for deletion met please delete acordingly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Neıl 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Missed the chance to stop #11. Ready to block other obvious socks yet?[edit]

I brought this up about a week and a half ago. No action was taken then and #11 was able to vandalize a few more times (ex. [1], [2]) before finally being blocked. His unblock request makes it clear that he isn't planning on stopping. Can we block 13 and 14 yet? Am I reporting this to the wrong place? It doesn't seem simple enough for AIV, and it seems far too obvious for SSP. I figured this would be done a week ago. Is there a more appropriate place that I should have brought it up? (or should I just ignore the overall picture and check up on each sock's individual contributions periodically and report them one at a time to AIV once they've vandalized enough to be considered disruptive...) --OnoremDil 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 13 and 14. Is there any way to just block any account (or stop it being created) if it starts with "Paradocks"? Neıl 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears these were sleeper accounts, as shown from 14's creation log: 18:46, May 21, 2007 Paradocks14 (Talk | contribs) New user account. 15, 16, 17+ are not created, so if account creation was disabled, it should take care of the issues. ArielGold 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. --OnoremDil 13:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Troll check[edit]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this guy is a troll who should be blocked for waisting our time? Rklawton (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would advise any blocks to be based on something more substantive than "wasting our time". And maybe try actually communicating with them (to provide guidance and warning) on their talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Or craft up a custom tin-foil hat barnstar for uncovering the TRUTHTM... I wouldn't necessarily block, but communicating or ignoring are the best options.--Isotope23 talk 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just you. I can't find any incivil comments or edits that would even raise a red flag. It seems like the editor is merely expressing his opinion, much like you, and you disagree with it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hopefully if we ignore him he'll get back into his black helicopter and fly away, but experience indicates that True Believers are rarely so accommodating. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued problems with editor - disruptive editing[edit]

An editor who has nominated an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms) for deletion has recently interfered with efforts to improve the article by repeatedly reinserting an inappropriate quote and finally by attempting to block further edits and improvements to the article.

The history is as follows:

  • AfD nominator threatens repeat reversions:[3]
  • warning on user's talk page:[4]
  • counselling of alternatives to reversion:[5]

11 Dec 11:03 - all citations not explicitly using the word "apostasy" removed from "Apostasy" row with edit message "replacing synthesis with 2 sources explicitly defining apostasy from the Jewish perspective; srcs not containing the word apostasy removed"[6] This was part of a general effort to improve the quality of citations and remove WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the A-D portion of the glossary.


3 reinsertations of citations

Attempt to block future editing

Thanks in advance, Egfrank (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this ANI on her talk page. Egfrank (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the page protection tags, anyway. That's just plain silly for a non-protected page, not to mention misleading to other editors. Jeffpw (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Egfrank posted the following on Teclontz's talk page:

I just wanted to let you know that I'm also finding some of the more polemical additions unsettling - we can't very well ask for respect from other religions if we are not willing to give it back. There are ways to make points about religious boundaries that both truthful and respectful. And there are ways to make Jewish feelings about those who convert out known, also without insulting the integrity of their most likely difficult decisions. Egfrank (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of the actual POV editing which is going on on this page. Because Egfrank felt that a highly respected and abundantly sourced citation was "polemical" and detrimental to interfaith dialog, he saw fit to remove a highly pertinent citation.
Jeffpw, I apologize for putting the protection tags up. I misunderstood the protection policy, and was trying to prevent further damage. I've now put the request for protection in according to the page you linked for me. Thanks for that. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't get a chance to look through the edit history yet, but I changed "votes" to "opinions" as AFD is not a vote; it is an attempt to achieve consensus through discussion.--Isotope23 talk 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to give a little background, Lisa appears to be resolving edit disputes by nominating the page for AfD and THEN making changes and excessive edit reverts as part of the justification for eliminating the page. After a case of vandalism this morning she appeared to lock in her own vandalism with a protection tag and then reported other editors for vandalism on the AfD page! That's like playing on the same "team" in a ball game you betted against, and then reporting fouls to the umpire after kicking someone. The concerns of other editors generally revolve around Lisa's use of language that only makes sense to Jews, and not wording it in such a way that everyone understands what is being said (a major example is using the term Christian when you mean Gentile). That being said, I believe Egfrank ALSO suggested that if you are able to document the exact same information in a more neutrally acceptable way, even better. In short, I've tried to help Lisa be understood, and Egfrank has tried to help her be acceptable. Neither of us have attempted, or wish to attempt a detraction from her religious point of view -- especially since we share it! I apologize for us not being able to handle the vandalism internally, but none of the other editors on the page have the experience in edit warring that Lisa appears to have -- and we don't have the desire for it, either.Tim (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I closed the AFD. There was no consensus there, though I do note that the article needs serious work. I also note that while I think the participants there were well meaning, much of the refactoring/etc made that AFD a complete and utter mess. I nearly relisted it for a fresh AFD. Personally though I don't see the harm in allowing a period of time for contributors to clean up the article issues before a decision is made on whether or not this will ever be a useful encyclopedia article. Beyond that, I simply urge the contributors there to remain as civil as possible, use the article talkpage, and follow dispute resolution if you can't agree.--Isotope23 talk 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke o Puke and Wikipedia Review[edit]

There's been a recent discussion about Duke o Puke (talk · contribs) and Duck of Luke (talk · contribs), see #User blocked for username requesting unblock for name change. Duck of Luke recently created the article SureFire M6 Guardian, which is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureFire M6 Guardian‎. It appears that he may have been asked to do so by Wikipedia Review. See [7]. AecisBrievenbus 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed the sentence saying Jimbo has one. We would not include that if it were, say, Matt Damon. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Duck of Luke and deleted the article. My actions may look overzealous, but that WR discussion makes it obvious that: (1) the article wasn't created in good faith (2) it was created because Jimbo owns one such flashlight (3) this article is created on behalf of banned user Daniel Brandt. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Editing on behalf of Daniel Brandt isn't the wisest move. Agree with your block and deletion. The article was created with the intent of banned editors like Brandt getting to add content to the site, which is a big no-no. — Save_Us_229 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's proven that he was meat puppeting for a banned user, I don't disagree with the ban however I disagree with the speedy deletion of the article. The AFD should have been allowed to complete and there was a consensus that the article should have been kept. I believe the rationale for deletion (WP:CSD#G5) was invalid because Duke of Luke or Puke wasn't the only editor to that article if I recall. I can't tell for sure as the article has been deleted. Also, if I recall, deletion based on the motivation for creating the article is not reason enough to delete the article as long as the article can be improved and add value to the project. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the history of the article, and the only author was Duck of Luke. The other editors made maintenance edits: adding cleanup tags, adding wikilinks, categorizing, etcetera. AecisBrievenbus 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My interactions with the Duke/Duck are that he is a very reasonable person. I ask that he be unblocked and warned not to recreate the article. He has been an editor in good standing prior to this and I believe he will contribute positively to Wikipedia if he is unblocked. Looking over the banning policy, I believe that he had to be banned first before creating the article before it can be deleted according to that CSD rule. Many Wikipedians like myself endorsed keep on the article not knowing of external influences. Regards, Ripberger (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We should judge an article on its content not on the motives of the creator. Paul August 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I think. Wikipedia is a reference work. I also believe that we should focus on the content, not the contributor. Ripberger (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree and that is what I said above. It's a moot point now as someone else recreated the article unless it's going to be speedy deleted again. I would recommend the version before deletion gets restored as it had more information was better sourced and categories attached. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything about the creation of this article that was so disruptive tat it required an indefinite block? AniMate 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the block was for meatpuppetry for a banned user (apparently one that seems to be widely disliked but I don't know the whole story). The article seemed benign to me though. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It was closed with "Anyone is welcome to recreate this page in good faith", so just go and do so. DGG (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's still the issue of the Duck/Duke being blocked. I'm certain he will not be a problem for anyone if unblocked. Just give him a chance. He's done great work for the project well before this brouhaha and the article he started was well-sourced. I do not see a reason why he should remain blocked. Regards, Ripberger (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BAN:

Editing on behalf of banned users

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.

No-one's disputing that it's verifiable; the article has even been recreated now. He's explained his independent reason for creating the article. (he thought it was cool that it was the same flashlight that a friend has)—Random832 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just two notes on this: (1) Does it really matter whether an article was inspired by something somebody said on one of the notorious so-called "attack sites"? What should matter is the merits of the article, not how it happened to come about. (2) Wouldn't this discussion have been much harder to understand without the link to the relevant thread on the site in question? That's precisely the point I've always been trying to make with regard to the insistence on the part of some that no links to "attack sites" should ever be permitted under any circumstances. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is irritating that it was posted by proxy for a banned user, there is absolutely no excuse to delete a perfectly good, well referenced, highly notable article. There is no possible reason that the deletion of that article in any way enhances the encyclopedia. For the record, I have a SureFire M6 as well as an M3. I used them on my rifle in Iraq, as did quite a few others. Surefires are almost ubiquitous amongst military and law enforcement. I understand the text of WP:BAN but there is no excuse to take an action that directly damages Wikipedia for the sole reason of punishing an already banned user. That's just not what we do.

I've unblocked the user, on the condition that he does not edit by proxy for Brandt again in the future. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all I'm sorry for not being able to respond here earlier. Now my replies to the above comments. I admit that deleting the article wasn't the best idea, refactoring it would have been enough. There is a very good reason not to trust anything that comes from serial troublemakers, but it wasn't applicable in this particular case because the article was very short and wasn't written by Brandt himself. Anyway, it's much better now after it was recreated. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Beenturns[edit]

Unresolved: Can we have some opinion on whether Beenturns is a sock or not? Cheers! Davnel03 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only edits of Beenturns (talk · contribs) so far have been to nominate Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of Virginia Tech massacre, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seung-Hui Cho. Very suspicious, to say the least. This appears to be a sockpuppet out to prove a point, possibly in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Hawkins. AecisBrievenbus 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Beenturns' edits look suspicious, but without checkuser, it will be difficult to determine if he is a sockpuppet. His contribs and log show no evidence of who created the account. — Wenli (reply here) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's Symbol possible vote.svg possible that this user is a sock puppet of another user, but right now the contribs make it Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive. Also, it is unlikely that a checkuser will be agreed to for "Crystal 128 babelfish.png fishing". I think the best course of action would be to monitor his contribs. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User TeePee-20.7's posts after ban block[edit]

I'm reluctant to engage this user personally but feel some attention should be given to their recent posts. I was going to simply delete this per WP:RBI but then saw they're again referring to other editors as maricons which they were specifically told was inappropriate. If someone else could step in I would appreciate it. Benjiboi 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • More User:Iamandrewrice collateral damage (not sockpuppetry, I think; this editor seems to have been caught in the crossfire). I'll have a word. Tonywalton Talk 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My bad I meant to say they had been blocked not banned - will try to be more careful about mixing up those on wp. Thank you for dealing with this. Benjiboi 11:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Tony, I don't see this as resolved. I found his message on my talk page agressive, and his continued defense of the use of either Queer or Maricon highly inappropriate, as well as restoring the homophobic slurs for which he was blocked immediately after he returned. I also found his edit summary decidedly uncivil when he deleted my respose to his message to me from his talk page. That was after your little chat with him, by the way. Most annoying. Jeffpw (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, Jeffpw - let's keep an eye and see if his behaviour reverts. Tonywalton Talk 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like more than an eye, actually. I'd like to see the homophobic slur about me reverted from the pages he restored it to. At least one of the diffs is in the original post of this thread, and he restored it to another page as well. It baffles me that he could be blocked for making the slur, and then no action is taken when he repeats the remarks immediately after returning. Jeffpw (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages[edit]

User:ChazBeckett has been removing a discussion between Radiant! and Wandering Ghost from Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, arguing that it's 'not appropriate', 'between two people', 'concerns behavior not content'. I don't believe any of these justify the removal of people's comments, especially since they haven't signalled their permission. Whilst many admins will be sick of the spoiler debate, I ask you to consider whether Wikipedia will benefit from this sort of talk page 'sanitising' becoming established.--Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note the thread was not deleted but moved [8] to User talk:Radiant!. A note was left [9] on Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler linking to the new location. The only two users involved in the thread were Radiant and Wandering Ghost and the topic was each other's behavior. A user talk page is most appropriate for such discussions. Chaz Beckett 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The talk page in question is for discussion of a guideline. That talk page has been plagued for months by accusations of serious misconduct, but those making the accusations seem to be unwilling to do anything but exacerbate any damage caused by repeating the allegations over and over again in the middle of policy discussions. This poisons the atmosphere.
Moving the discussions to user talk pages is good, but in the long run these people should be persuaded to follow the dispute resolution process, instead of picking at the wound. ---Tony Sidaway 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The clear point of WP:TALK is that talk pages are meant for use in discussing changes to the corresponding main pages. We already remove comments from article talk pages that are unrelated to changing the article. It makes sense that, from time to time, it may worthwhile to do that on policy talk pages as well. I participated in the discussion on WT:SPOILER page for a while (my last comment there seems to be Nov 15), but stopped because I didn't see any progress being made. The talk page discussion was (and apparently is still) made excessively difficult by continued allegations about misconduct by editors. Moving those comments to user talk pages or dispute resolution can't hurt. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It can hurt if it becomes common practice on Wikipedia. Imagine people removing comments they don't like at the drop of a hat because they're 'off-topic'.--Nydas(Talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's already common practice. However it's not quite how you describe it- we remove comments to keep talk pages on topic, not because we "don't like" them. This is a crucial difference. Disagree with the removal if you wish, but please don't describe it inaccurately - it's unhelpful to productive discussion. Friday (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but one can be selective in removing off-topic comments. Nobody is without bias, so the best thing to do is to live and let live.--Nydas(Talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
An even better idea than "live and let live" is to keep the postings on-topic, in which case there's no need to move them. Also note that the whole thread was moved, including posts from both "sides" of the dispute. Again, it's about keeping some semblence of order and moving topics to where they belong. Chaz Beckett 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The page WT:SPOILER is plagued by irrelevant, accusatory, troll-like behavior by two or three editors, including the editor who opened this comment. As explained at WP:TALK, talk pages are for improving the project. They are not the place for launching accusations of abuse, misconduct, or bad faith. Wikipedia has other mechanisms for dealing with those allegations. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleting (or moving) a thread from an article Talk page needs implied consensus by the Talk participants. I don't perceive any general view by the active editors that moving this thread was correct. It is somewhat less intrusive if you 'box up' comments that you deem inappropriate for the article talk page using the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates. This is easily reversed, and it still allows the suppressed thread to be viewed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In this thread, only one editor is complaining that the thread was moved; all others agree that it didn't belong on the Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Chaz Beckett 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(To Marc) I've hardly touched the page for weeks. As I say, I think your interpretation of the various talk guidance pages is both unprecendented and open to conflicts of interest. Arbcom's ruling on personal attack removal (that it should be done sparingly, if at all) seems to me to apply equally to 'off-topic' removal.--Nydas(Talk) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it may be your interpretation that's unprecedented. ArbCom has never ruled or implied that off-topic discussions shouldn't be moved to more appropriate locations. It's common practice and good organization to do so. Chaz Beckett 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not? WP:NPA is a policy, whilst WP:TALK cited by Marc is just a guideline. Why have strict, sparing interpretation of a policy, but lax, free-for-all interpretations of similar guideline? Especially given that personal attacks are far more serious than 'off-topic' comments, and much more worthy of removal.--Nydas(Talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the discussion was not deleted. It was moved to a more appropriate location, the talk page of one of the two participants. Removing personal attacks is somewhat controversial as the comment doesn't exist afterwards. In this case, it was just moved. Just like when someone moves a file from one cabinet to another; they're not throwing the file away, they're moving the comment to a better location. Chaz Beckett 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I support the removal of the off-topic comments as long as a reference trail is left for those who want to depart to that thread. The hostility was overwhelming the progress. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be emphasized that this isn't a casual move taken over a few comments. The attacks on that page have been going on for about five months, all parties making them have been, and continue to be, urged to seek a proper path to dispute resolution over their grievances, but the majority of discussions on the page continue to be plagued with such attacks. Moving the attacks to user talk pages is a last ditch attempt to avoid taking action to stop this longstanding disruptive activity unbalancing the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of wrongdoing[edit]

Moved from WT:SPOILER

Allegations of editor/admin misconduct do not belong on this page. This is the page for discussing the Wikipedia Spoiler guideline. Contributions to this page should be on the presumption that all participants have a good-faith and policy-compliant intention of improving the encyclopedia. For those who believe that either bad-faith or policy-violating behavior has taken place, this is not the forum. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved some of the discussion to a user talk page, as it was only between two users and focused on behavior instead of content. Chaz Beckett 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I find accusations of "censorship" to be fairly absurd, as the content was moved, not deleted and a link to the new location was provided. I fully agree with Mark that this is not an appropriate forum for allegations of misconduct. Chaz Beckett 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, to the admin's noticeboard we go. It would help if you could cite policies, guidelines and precedents to justify your actions.--Nydas(Talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about keeping talk pages focused on the topic at hand. Dicussions between two users about their behavior belong on well...user talk pages. Chaz Beckett 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You can claim anything "isn't focused on the topic 'at hand'". What gives you special insight? --Nydas(Talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was between two users and the topic was each other's behavior. It doesn't take special insight, just common sense, to realize this belongs on a user talk page. Chaz Beckett 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nydas asked for "policies, guidelines and precedents". Here they are. Per WP:TALK:

  • The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
  • Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you
  • Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
  • Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.

Noted there as justification for removal include:

  • Deleting material not relevant to improving the article
  • Removing personal attacks and incivility

Allegations of editor/admin misconduct, no matter how strongly felt, do not help improve the the Wikipedia:Spoiler project page, and therefore do not belong on this talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And above all: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Disputes between editors are taken seriously, but there are procedures and guidelines that should be followed in order to resolve a dispute rather than exacerbate it. Some of these allegations go back to mid-May, this year, and the disputants should by now be aware of the appropriate methods of resolving disputes on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:TALK states editors exercise caution in editing other's comments and seek permission. Declaring 'I'm going to remove them unless an admin tells me not to' is not cautious, it's effectively a declaration of page ownership. --Nydas(Talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is also getting off-topic. I'd recommend continuing it on the ANI discussion you started rather than here. Or even better, just dropping the whole darn thing. Chaz Beckett 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Declaring an discussion you are involved in as 'off-topic' is a conflict of interest. If you feel that certain comments are unncessary, why not ask an uninvolved admin to take a look? They could discuss things with Radiant! and Wandering Ghost and hopefully come to a mutually acceptable conclusion.--Nydas(Talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, just drop it. It's verging on disruption at this point. I've no idea why you created an ANI topic if you were just going to continue the same conversation here. I'm backing out of the discussion as it's gone so far off-topic. Use my talk page or the ANI topic if you feel the need to continue arguing. Chaz Beckett 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not about a conflict between me and Ghost, this is about him continually telling me about alleged improper deletions and admin abuse, despite having been told several times already that we have forums for such matters. >Radiant< 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The editors who've been removing content from this talk page know it riles some editors up. There have been many long discussions about this; the page would be less cluttered if editors refrained from removing content. Unless they want cause arguments, which would mean they're trolls. --YellowTapedR (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussions would have been much shorter and more protective if editors stopped accusing each other of "bad behavior". --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
They would be shorter if the anti-spoiler people didn't feel the need to police the discussion they're involved in. It's disrespectful and wide open to a conflict of interest. Part of the reason the removal of spoiler warnings is so damaging to Wikipedia is that the tactics used could spread to other, more important stuff.--Nydas(Talk) 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one man's suggestion: Everyone should stop removing content from the page unless there's a very good reason to do so (criticisms of previous actions by either side doesn't count and calling them "personal attacks" is a huge stretch). Then, the page will stop getting cluttered with discussions about removing content, which is quite frequent. Really, it's not worth fighting over. --YellowTapedR (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WT:SPOILER has been nothing more then 6 months and 6 pages of constant accusations of wrong doing and "cabalism" which has gotten us nowhere. All it ultimately does is poison the well of any useful discussions or compromises. --Farix (Talk) 01:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages and the right to vanish[edit]

User:DashaKat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has invoked the "right to vanish" and requested his user and user talk pages be deleted. He had previously done so anonymously, but he finally logged in this afternoon to make the request. However, he has a number of warnings in his user talk history (e.g., this archived version includes civility and RfC abuse warnings). Wikipedia:User page says not to delete talk pages in such circumstances. Both User:Friday and I have refused to delete the page, but DashaKat continues to push the issue. Is there any reason to grant the request? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Only reason I can think of is if it's simply quicker and less dramatic to delete it and be done. But, we have good reasons for not generally deleting user talk pages. In my view, we shouldn't give in to drama queens, because by doing so we're sending a message that we'll make exceptions if only you whine sufficiently. Not a good message to be sending. Friday (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Has this user agreed to leave the project permanently, without changing his or her mind in the future? The account is not blocked and I have not checked to see if the user promises not to continue editing in the future, either with that account or with another. I don't see a compelling reason in this case to delete the page but it is sometimes just the easiest option, so long as the person promises to never come back (see permanent departure, WP:VANISH). --Yamla (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Such a promise would be meaningless and unenforceable. Why would we ask for one? Friday (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If there's been no reveal of personal information and if the user is not planning on leaving the project permanently, there's no grounds under WP:VANISH. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The other thing this user has mentioned is that "three other accounts" of his have had their talk pages deleted. I'm tempted to ask him which accounts they are, to check their talk histories and the reasons for deletion. (Maybe they had clean histories, so deleting the talk page was a non-issue.) The flipside of that is, he won't want to admit it openly, lest it go into the talk page history. Have him email the names? —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with C.Fred on that point.--Hu12 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm leaning in the "do not feed drama" direction. Unless there's privacy violations there, there's no compelling reason to delete the page, and it does document violations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish > needing a talk page of someone that is no longer here. If they started editing again, undelete it. We should have no less respect for someones privacy because they have been disruptive, than if they have been an outstanding editor, wikipedia has a very high google rank. ViridaeTalk 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A big campaign against articles about fictional events[edit]

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If my memory serves me, someone was indef blocked for the same behavior a couple days ago. If I were TTN, Collectonian or any of the others who've joined in this crusade, I'd be taking notice. Yesterday. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have the Augean stables to deal with, strong measures are needed. The domain of pop culture fiction is full of cruft, there's no denying it. Somebody just has to start cutting into it. How else would anybody do it? Fut.Perf. 08:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You know... actually improving the encyclopedia by working on it is a start. There are also tags, work groups, wikiprojects, talk pages. These editors on a crusade do not seem to be willing to work with others collaboratively, rather, they jump past the normal steps that should be taken before an AfD and either attempt to unilaterally merge the articles or AfD them. The unilateral merges are worse, imho, since these turn into edit wars where the crusaders (for lack of better term only) tend to react with incivility. NPA says that dismissing arguments due to affiliation with any group is out of bounds, but you don't see these guys getting chastised or warned for it when they dismiss others as "fans". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If an editor sees no realistic prospect that an article could be improved, then getting rid of it is precisely the only rational thing to do to improve the encyclopedia. What else? I mean, seriously, something like this hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever approaching the status of a legitimate encyclopedic article. It's lightyears away. And in the - extremely unlikely - event that somebody actually does come up with something interesting to write about it, they can still un-redirect it. But why earlier? Fut.Perf. 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, TTN and company aren't doing this only to clear cases like the one you linked to. They are doing it to major characters, episodes from notable television programs and main characters from video games. In many cases, these articles would have met with at least no consensus keeps at AfD, but since they can, via mass merging, cut out the whole discussion and inflict their preferred remedy upon Wikipedia. I note that you did not address the NPA infractions that I voiced concern about... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean like you do? Oh, wait, by your criteria, you haven't actually worked on improving the article in weeks, maybe months (got tired of looking for some real edits after four pages). Too busy complaining about real work being done, I guess. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been involved in discussions to improve multiple articles, as I suggested you do, as recently as yesterday. I guess you missed that, eh? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want an example of me adding to an article, this morning I checked a source on the Salman Rushdie bio and improved the documentation of who testified before congress that an attempt was made on his life by Hamas-linked militants. Several articles I've been involved with are currently edit protected due to the tendentious nature of where my interests lie outside of fiction so I'm unable to add content to them. But this seems a bit off-topic and appears to be an attempt to try to poison the well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but the accusations of meat/sock puppetry here, in multiple AfDs, and in other places are not attempts to "poison the well?"AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Diffs please. I do not believe I have ever typed those two words in conjunction. I've gone back 500 entries in my history, to October and not found any evidence to support your accusation. Were you confusing me with someone else? All us "fans" look alike, ya know. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I stand corrected, that was Sasuke9031 (joys of carrying on the same argument in two places at once, wee!). Still, your lumping me with a bunch of people I don't know and making the remark that we should be "actually improving the encyclopedia by working on it" is uncalled for and insulting. I do work on improving articles at length. In the last 3 days alone, I made some significant improvements, additions, and citations to no less than five articles. I've personally created eight articles, improved several others to the point that they went from stub and start class to B class, and am a significant contributer to the TV and Film projects. Despite what you may seem to think, I have tagged dozens, if not hundreds, of articles. I've also initiated clean up and merge discussions on others. In some cases, where I feel the articles clearly fail WP:FICTION, I either prod (if I think it will be uncontested), or AfD. I've also taken it on my own shoulders to do the merging and other work when those who screamed against deletion loudest then did nothing about an AfD decision of merge. Now, I'm gonna follow a recommendation from another editor in that other argument regarding wikistress and go have some coffee and dinner, since I suspect my responses are getting less and less polite. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And I accept that you do more than simply add pound redirect to a ton of articles. But I don't accept your WP:Fiction argument nor do a lot of others. These articles seem to be spawned off of a larger article via the second exception in that guideline. The "merges" that are being do not return any of the information from the merged articles into the articles they are being merged into, instead acting as a soft-delete circumventing discussion. And, based on the responses here and elsewhere where this activity has been discussed, it seems to not have community support. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, who do you say was blocked the other day? Fut.Perf. 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Kill the Non-Notable Articles (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The case is not quite the same, this user was actually tagging things with CSD notices. At least in those cases, someone could catch them in the act. The delete via unilateral "merge" (I'm quoting merge cause nothing is actually merged in 90+% of these cases) is even sneakier since the only trail is the users contribs. At least CSD notices place the articles in a cat and, potentially, lead to a review by a deleting admin. Here is the ANI thread: [10] And I believe the user was reported prior to his final meltdown. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not the same at all; a vandal coat-tailing on this issue. --Jack Merridew 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
He only turned vandal after being caught and reported here, though. And I did say the case was not quite the same. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Every time someone complains about TTN and cites something he's redirected and every time I look at what he's been up to, I find more dreck. Perhaps if the fans all cry along the shores of the Alpheus and Peneus rivers, TTN can sort this mess once and for all. --Jack Merridew 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for dismissing other editors simply due to them being fans. As I pointed out earlier, this is against the WP:NPA policy. Simply because an article is bad, or cow dung as you nicely linked to, does not mean it cannot be cleaned up. And that is the gist of my argument, these users do not care about cleaning up arguments, they are focused solely on deletion or deletion via merge. And in the vast majority of cases, they do not discuss these merges and if they are questioned, they respond in an inappropriate manner. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean that as a personal attack — I was attempting a bit of wit re the Augean stables. The cow dung reference was based on my immediately previous edit adding the term to Augeas. I do not share your view that many of these articles can be cleaned-up — in the sense that an encyclopaedic article may emerge from the dreck. In many cases the requisite sources and out-of-universe information simply don't exist. I've looked at a lot of these articles, have engaged in lengthy discussions, and have responded reasonably to those with different views. --Jack Merridew 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying my best not to name any names in this thread, but you're not someone I've ran into acting in an incivil manner in regards to this issue. (Although, your support of TTN in his arbcom case troubles me somewhat, but I'm dealing and hoping for a positive result in that.) And um, big greek words went over my head. Sorry. :P For the matter at hand, I think CBM's cut to the core of the dilemma regarding the vast majority of these articles. I'm not even fanatic in my inclusionist feelings for a lot of these articles, I just don't like the tactics being used. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick précis re the big greek words: Hercules cleaned a huge load of shit out of King Augeas' stables in a single day by routing two rivers through them instead of mucking them out one messy shovelful at a time. TTN really has not being particularly uncivil; just look at all the talk page posts he makes. --Jack Merridew 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully subscribe to one Arbitrator's assessment of the situation: "TTN is making a good-faith effort to implement an editing guideline and is encountering resistance from individual editors who contribute a type of article that policy does not encourage. The massive scale upon which TTN is working reflects the ease with which unreferenced pop culture articles can be created and populated with in-milieu information, and the popularity of this kind of editing." [11] Fut.Perf. 10:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In the very same edit, which you linked above, the same Arbitrator proposed: "The parties are urged to engage in centralized discussion of underlying editorial guidelines and their proper application rather than adopt a piecemeal approach." This seems to support my "go discuss before leaping into broad merge frenzies" point. TTN, and this isn't only about him, may be doing the right thing, he just seems to be doing it in a way that isn't ideal and may be disruptive overall. Afterall, Wikipedia seems to be awfully popular with people interested in Bleach (manga) and he just AfD-ed three bleach related articles. In the end, if TTN and company delete all these cow dung and that cow dung happens to be what most users of the encyclopedia are reading, what purpose does the continued existance of Wikipedia serve if it loses its userbase? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for stuff people are simply interested in, Wikipedia is for knowledge that can be documented from reliable sources. When Wikipedia will lose that part of its userbase that doesn't get this simple idea, it will come all the closer to being a real encyclopedia. Fut.Perf. 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And here I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be the next Encarta or Brittanica gathering dust in some small corner of the internet. I love how you dismiss those who use the encyclopedia, doesn't the reader matter? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is for knowledge that can be documented from reliable sources" - Poorly stated argument; everything from fiction and games can be documented to the primary source... which is perforce reliable on the subject of its own content. This isn't about reliable sources. It is, ostensibly, about notability. The idea is that every page in Wikipedia must be independently established as notable. That's a fairly standard and reasonable view, but it runs into conflict with the implementation of two other standard practices. Specifically, it is equally established that every fact in an article does not require independent notability... if the subject is notable and the information relevant and verifiable then it can be included. Further, it is standard practice to 'split out' sections of articles to help organize information - rather than having it all on one exceedingly long page. So what happens with these fictional topics is that relevant verifiable information gets split out for organizational purposes and suddenly people are saying that you DO need independent sources for the notability of each fact. That's a change from past practice and IMO a bad idea... it just encourages keeping all the info in one large article - which is counter to good article design under 'Wikipedia is not paper'. --CBD 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. At the root of this is a conflict between merging and splitting (per summary style). WP:NOTABILITY says: "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.". WP:SUMMARY says: "Wikipedia entries tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new entries. The text of any entry consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be summarized from the present entry and a link is provided to the more detailed article." The sticking point comes over whether the criterion for splitting out to a new article (or conversely resisting the pressure to merge) is just size or notability of the subtopic. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the real-world has commented on this issue. --Jack Merridew 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (thanks to Kww)

This one is better. [12] I love the spatula. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that silly little WP:Civility policy, how is it, all these people are getting away with their multiple unfounded accusations against editors, including accusations of meat puppetry, sock puppetry, a "planned campaign", etc. without any reminders that it is against policy or reprimands? I've been given reminders when I've bitten a few newbies before (and will probably get one for my snide remark above). Yet, these folks are allowed to bandy about serious unproven accusations all over the place? I guess if that kind of thing is allowed, I should start doing the same for Ynhockey, Sasuke9031, Kyaa and the other "OMG, don't you dare delete articles" crowd. After all, they just run through the same AfDs going "me too" to each others keeps and are actively recruiting one another and others to "save" their articles. They must all be sockpuppets or meatpuppets or something, you know, because no two people ever think a like independently. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? What administrator action is needed? This is currently under consideration of the ArbCom, and they will handle the problems, if it is deemed they exist. So what is the purpose of this thread? I (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be made policy that deletionists import the articles here before nominating them for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.175.58 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some other lists we could do away with[edit]

Since we are so keen on deleting lists which do not cite reliable sources independent of the subject there are many others which should be considered;

Go get 'em guys. There is a whole list of pages like these over here. Once we've taken care of the lists I know where we can find some articles with these 'problems' too. :] --CBD 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment is not productive, since it avoids the primary issue being discussed entirely, in favor of attacking a caricature. --Haemo (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin Abuse[edit]

Look, I believe I was the victim of admin abuse by the user name Jeske. We both had a dispute that went on throughout my userpage. Well, he stated getting fierce, so I did too and he blocked me. I know the sockpuppet was over the line, but i do believe he should've been punished too.V-Dash (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So you got blocked for a 3RR violation, then started editing with a sock puppet meaning the block got extended and you think there's admin abuse? Is there any more to the story? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
After this and this? Who will be the lucky admin to whack you with a Kraken today? 68.193.198.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I should state that after looking at several threads involving you, this is looking like you're starting to harass Jeske - I suggest you drop this right away as the disruption you've made over the last couple of days cannot continue. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest he quit while he was ahead. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. The quicker you chill the better. I suspect a one week block will prove to be the shortest you will see -- indef more likely. -JodyB talk 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
V-Dash, you've now put yourself on the radar of countless admins, so you'd do well to stick with constructive editing from now on. (Cue Pete Seeger: "When will they ever learn...") Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Whilst sock puppetery and personal attacks are clearly not appropriate and the block was justified on those grounds, the admin's behaviour was far from civil, didn't show a great deal of sense and only perpetuated the problem by taking part in such in asinine arguement, not the kind of behaviour one would like to see from an admin. --Neon white (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantlefish, V-Dash is used by Mantlefish (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to evade an indef block. I have blocked him likewise. Review welcome. Sandstein (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's too late. I misread the puppet/master relationship in the above checkuser case. Unblocked. Sandstein (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Too bad, I was liking the end result anyways. — Save_Us_229 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with admin opinions above. V-Dash needs to tone it down at least two notches or he's going to have a profoundly unsatisfactory Wikipedia experience, which nobody wants. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Dash Jr (talk · contribs) (aka PolluxFrost) is actually one of V-Dash's detractors. That being said, Dash Jr is V-Dash's GameFAQs forum handle (I found this out when I started the first thread here), and here on Wikipedia is an impersonation account run by PolluxFrost. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • These will be the last words I will say on the matter of V-Dash: V-Dash is extremely polemical to the point Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto want new lawyers. I have seen that he will use sockpuppets to support his agenda (Mantlefish asked if I were to be blocked along with him in the prior thread, and the last 3RR block laid on him (assuming the 3RR report on him hasn't finished) had to be extended to 10 days as he used a sock to evade the block and insert the same comment that caused the 3RR block on him in the first place); he selectively picks points to counter and disregards others; he uses ad hominem attacks, and (from the GFAQs forum I looked at) does nothing but pick specific topics he knows will be divisive to create strife. He makes severe accusations without an iota of evidence, and has an incivility matter above and beyond BlackStarRock's capabilities. I will say it again: Enough is enough. It's time for a ban. We don't need people like this here on Wikipedia. And in response to Neon White, I have disengaged from him; I'm staying away from him. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also like to make a note about his persistent edit warring and incivility on his talkpage and Pokemon Diamond, which almost made WP:LAME. Marlith T/C 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Charlie McCarthyism to avoid a block for 3RR is completely unacceptable and usually earns the violator an additional block if not an outright ban. Following it up here with a bogus gripe about the blocking admin only compounds the impression of intentional disruption. Raymond Arritt nails the issue above, and if this sort of behavior continues a ban needs to be discussed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • V-Dash is not blocked. The only sockpuppet he ran when he was blocked earned him a ten-day extension; the two since have been used to make baseless accusations of administrative abuse. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Duk[edit]

User/administrator User:Duk just made this edit, which vandalized my user page to insert a reference to stuff I said months ago during a long-ended dispute. This doesn't seem to be conduct becoming of an administrator, is it? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not really. Wow, er... any other opinions? J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Disgraceful is the word I think everyones looking for, I've given him a warning that if he repeats any such action he will be blocked - we don't need attacks like that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Disgraceful! Yes! That's the word I was looking for! J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Administrators are trusted members of thew community, and as such they should not be disruptive towards another user. This conduct is unacceptable regardless of who does it, and he should be blocked if this persists. Maser (Talk!) 04:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, we all get frustrated at times, but this was seemingly from months ago, totally unacceptable.RlevseTalk 11:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, Duk seems to have apologized for airing his grievances in that manner, but is apparently unapologetic for bringing it up altogether. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears there is another such edit here. Lawrence Cohen 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TheSausageMonster[edit]

Their is another user that has nearly the same name as this guy. The suspected sockpuppet's name is The Sausage Monster in 007: Sausage. And The Sausage Monster is a big vandalizer. We need to get him banned before he vandalizes some more. --75.175.86.207 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I trust a user who is thinking Arby's. — Save_Us_229 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never even been to Arby's. But I don't like the looks of Sausage's contribs; move vandalism. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If no administrator is willing to unblock this individual, then consider him by all means and purposes banned from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I at least found the username funny. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a funny username. :) ...and for the record, I have been to Arby's. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sunflower seed shells are firing out my nose. ;) And, while I haven't been to Arby's, I've eaten Arby's. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelofdeath275[edit]

Resolved: User:Angelofdeath275 indefblocked

I removed several external links from the Tokyo Mew Mew and English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew as per Wikipedia's WP:EL guidelines and WP:COPYVIO policy.[14] Besides being unencyclopedic fan sites, they both have multiple blatant copyright violations and promoting bootlegging and illegal activity. The contribute nothing to the article, except to try to make a WP:POINT against the English adaptation of the show. The user Angelofdeath275 reverted both removals with the summary of "you did a very wrong move. those sites are what we used for refs. they MUCH. MORE. RELIABLE. than other fansites. I'm sure you did not boher to look at them throughly.."[15]. I reverted and he put them back again, then left a nasty message on my talk page. I explained why I removed them, again, and why I called his putting back such inappropriate links vandalism (spam links). In attempting to discuss the removals, he has grown increasingly incivil, claiming I blew him off (despite my having answered each of his messages, though I'd rather have ignored him). He full admitted that the sites are against Wikipedia policies, but in his final message he says "Your being one huge ass prick. I'm going ignore that part of the rule, partially by your attitude."[16]

Normally I'd go with a wikittiquette alert, but on his user talk page, he is blatantly antagonist and "warns" that he will be mean to other editors if the mood strikes him. This, to me, is not an appropriate attitude to have coming to Wikipedia. His response to the removals is also over the top, particularly when he himself has done the exact same thing on other articles![17][18] so he seems to know the rules and just doesn't want to play by them on this particular article. Maybe a WP:OWNership issue, or he just can't stay neutral for whatever reason. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy went way too fair with this lady and he needs to think before he acts. He could have asked other editors, but he doesn't and harassed this lady. He needs to leave wikipedia for a while or be blocked for a couple of weeks to think about his actions. This guy did not want to reason with this user at all.--Stco23 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SHE is very angry with this user. SHE has never gotten so mad at an established for as long as she has been on Wikipedia, as this person also has an attitude.

SHE is in one crappy ass mood, due a vandal on three other articles, who will not even bother to talk, find a source for their biased section, as this has been going on since November 27th. SHE has not had anytime to add constructive stuff because she is busy keeping one sole vandal under control, with another person ever since. (break the 3RR). SHE is the sole person trying to make sure fans keep their stuff off of the Tokyo Mew Mew articles (there were orignally 3). SHE felt blown off my that user as she gave proof why the links should stay. Throughtful ones. That person has no clue how crappy many Tokyo Mew Mew fansites are (typical which character likes who, made up stuff), that SHE looked through many sites (fan and not fansites) and saw that those were the only two that had factual information (something the person probably would not care about). That person has no clue that finding info for Tokyo Mew Mew and Mew Mew Power is hard work, so had no clue why I reverted. That person must have went with the mentality that all fansites are bad, and did not bother to acknowlege that there are VERY VERY FEW fansites, that arent bad, so that annoyed SHE. SHE will probably log off after sooner or later, cause she is pissed off. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Being pissed off is de rigeur for a teenager, it's not an excuse to inflict your teenage angst on other editors. Being uncivil and bratty is not the correct response for being told a spam link is not appropriate for an article. The correct response should have been to read WP:EL then left a message saying that you were wrong and that you apologise for being uncivil. It's obvious from your talk page that you take great pride in behaving like a "bitch" (your words not mine), I'd also recommend that you will be doing yourself a big favour by removing that statement/warning as it will taint any occasion when you are in the right. --WebHamster 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well SHE should seriously consider not posting uncivil almost trollish comments on a board that is surveyed by several administrators or chances are SHE will end up blocked for uncivility. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You could have talked with other editors, but you didn't. You need to be blocked for a while, but if you keep it up, you will be blocked for life.--Stco23 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as if these comments are wholly constructive and civil. The links clearly violate external links policy because they are merely spam links, and copyright violations policy because they link to sites that merely distribute illegal copies of videos. Nothing more, nothing less. Looking at the contribs (Angelofdeath275 (talk · contribs)), I don't see anything that is too alarming, but just take the regular course of action with the templates and if it escalates further, just file it here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are overwhelmed trying to keep crap and vandalism out of an article, there is no shortage of places you can go to ask for help. There is however no excuse for such incivility and WP:IAR does not overrule the copyright policy. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
He did it again. He put back the links, but his edit got reverted. I think he needs to be blocked for good measure.--Stco23 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
We looking at 1, maybe 2 weeks, or an indef? Indef might be a bit severe, but do what you need to do. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I would say maybe 72 hours-one week seeing that while the account has engaged in uncivil behaviour and may have disrupted the mainspace to fit her taste this would be the first block on this account and there are some constructive edits in there as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
He did it earlier, I thought he did it just a couple of minutes ago, but I was wrong. Do you think I should have left that report of him on the vandalism page.--Stco23 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Who do you mean by "he"? I get the impression from your earlier edits that you maybe confusing who is male and who is female. Both Collectonian and angelofdeath275 are female. --WebHamster 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this ironic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

angelofdeath275 could use some warnings on 3 counts. I see a potential for a username block due to potentially rude/inflammatory intimidative "angel of death" name. Also, the user's userpage clearly broadcasts an intent of incivility, and last but not least, they have followed up on their threat by actually being incivil when challenged. IMO, this user should get an indefinite username block and only be allowed to create a new account on the condition that they drop the manipulative posturing. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, Buspar (talk · contribs) seems to be inserting in some questionable links. I gave him a notice on his talk page, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a username block would be appropiate, it certainly isn't "welcoming" but it doesn't really goes to the extent where a username block would stand. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the username combined with the threats on the user page and user talk page that puts me in the opinion. Agreed, the username by itself is only a bit rude, but the user's published intent clinches it. I'm not doing it without consensus here though, because it isn't cut and dried. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ether way he or she, This person needs to respect people when angry. I don't mind the person's user name, but most of the stuff on this person's user and talk page needs to change. This person is good on video games, but not on respect.--Stco23 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I'll add a firm warning to remove the bluster, but won't block for now. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by, took at look at the user contributions out of curiosity and noticed this; User:Angelofdeath275/Policies and Guidelines#I will blow off. Sounds like someone is planning to not play nice with others in the sandbox. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This user is blatantly fostering a culture of hostility in order to exercise their will regarding ownership of several articles, apparently, as indicated in the edit summary history. That isn't what this project was designed for. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I had given the user a timed opportunity (24 hrs) to remove the offending material and get back to work, and the response was more abuse [19]. If someone ever wants to unblock a newly repentant Angelofdeath275, I'd suggest having the offending material removed be one of the conditions. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy article and User:Mattisse[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mattisse is on a rampage on the Psychopathy article. At first it looked as though he might have SOME kind of knowledge and point but as he goes on I am coming to realise that he doesn't actually have a clue and is not going to let that discourage him from completely disrupting the entire article. I see he has a recent block history for similar. HELP! --Zeraeph (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse again! Well, i personally believe that you can still discuss that at the article's talk page. As i see, you are both handling a productive and civil discussion and believe there's nothing which can be done here for the moment. You can still try Wikipedia:Third opinion or Request comment on articles. I'll be keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The only thing wrong with that Fayssal is that the issues she is raising on the talk page are actually fictions or fantasies, they aren't even POV. You try to discuss them and she responds with a new fiction...meanwhile making all sorts of subtle changes to the article that individually look acceptable enough, but in combination are seriously disruptive AND misrepresentative of the topic and sources. It's got to the stage where I am going to let her get on with it and revert anything that is not a genuine improvement tomorrow.--Zeraeph (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fayssal, it seems from you comments that you have a poor opinion of me. User:Zeraeph is repeatedly reverting my edits without discussion. I worked hard on getting them correct and referenced properly. What should I do? He has not discussed substantive issues or addressed my complaint on the talk page. What do you recommend that I do, so you will not have a poor opinion of me, as he continues to revert without discussion? Thanks! Mattisse 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse, you edits are not correct, not referenced and frequently not even faintly relevant and are just disrupting a fairly good, medical article. I feel at this stage that your only motivation is the pursuit of ongoing personal attention. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This post to WP:AN/I is inappropriate block shopping. What you describe is a content dispute, which should be dealt with on the talk page, or by methods of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Iamunknown 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute. Matisse is actually claiming PUBmed citations are dead and invalid when they are not, that they do not say things you only have to click on the links to see that they do say, posting uncited personal commentary, and outright irrelevancies. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute to me. --Iamunknown 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph, this is mainly a content dispute. You'll need an expert or a third party opinion to verify if the edits in question are part of original research or a kind of fiction. It is difficult for us here to (actually we don't) judge content.
Mattisse, it is not that i have a 'poor opinion' of you. I just see your name being mentioned at the ANI quite often lately. Different users have been bringing their differences with you here. I have no idea whatsoever if your edits are wrong.
I gave you (both) my suggestion above. I'd also hope to see you discussing it further at the article talk page and probably leaving the article alone for a while until you reach a consensus. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not done anything to deserve an ill opinion from you. The other editor does not discuss, except now, having seen your comment, he says I am wrong and that is why he is reverting. I will report it to 3-R - I have never done that before and maybe that would have saved me grief in the past, as I do not report things. I am not a bad nor a disruptive editor. Thanks! Mattisse 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As i said above Mattisse, it is about the frequency of reports about you from different users. I haven't used any judgement. I suggest that you both delve into a productive discussion and believe that reporting Zeraeph to the 3RR noticeboard would not be helpful. Both of you can get blocked for that and you'd surely have to restart again the discussion process. It would be just a waste of time. Invest that time in discussing your edits instead. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have time or energy to discuss this with Matisse any further...so she'll just have to do as she pleases with the article until another editor does have the time and energy. I hope that is soon because what she has tried to do to that article so far is the kind of distortion or information on a medical article that people tear Wikipedia apart over --Zeraeph (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussion page? Maybe just now he has put something there. But before he had not, except to say I was wrong. The advice to discuss with someone who appears (from the edit history) to WP:OWN the page is not helpful. Perhaps if I received some help sometimes, you would not see my name as much. I have only tried to do what is right always. I have made mistakes, yes, but nothing major. And I do not engage in revert wars. I am sorry that you have such an opinion of me. It is one of the very discouraging things at Wikipedia that no one ever looks at my history of edits and contributions but merely judges because they have seen my name a lot. I am sorry. It is very discouraging. Mattisse 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) He still has not discussed. He says I am inventing, that I am disruptive, that I am wrong. I have given citations that he has removed. What else can I do? Just take it you are saying. Mattisse 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You only put in one citation with a comment that had no relevance to the topic, I removed that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&diff=177259646&oldid=177259501 --Zeraeph (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to close this thread because it seems that it doesn't help the situation. Zeraeph, if you are really tired please have a break from the article. You can get a 3rd opinion if you want. I see at your userpage that you have already decided to retire which is unfortunate. So please, whether you refer to Wikipedia:Third opinion or stop reverting. Mattisse, please do the same. You both have reverted more than enough today. It is just unacceptable. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No sourced information[edit]


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests[edit]

Resolved

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests can probably be closed now. Mercury 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Johncons (again)[edit]

Resolved: Wikipedia has quite enough unrepentant POV warriors, so I showed Johncons the door. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A few days back, I brought this user to the attention of AN/I in respect of his actions in bringing no less than four vexatious complaints here and at WP:WQA, after I and other editors pushed back against a 200-edit fringe-theory/POV-pushing spree on Grandiosa from the user.

User:Manning Bartlett blocked him for 24 hours on 7th December for disruptiveness, refusal to comply with established policies regarding sourcing of information despite being advised on several occasions, instigating frivolous administrative actions.

The user, who has a self-confessed agenda (namely that he believes that a scandanavan pizza company is putting dead people into pizzas), greets any editor who tries to implement or explain policies that don't suit his agenda (whether by firm but civil instruction, or by patient explanation) with cries of "harrasment", and did so again on his own talk page after being blocked.

Once his block expired, he posted to User talk:Tom harrison asking for advice on harrasment, because he felt that users were harrasing him (he picked this user because he had edited Harrasment, although in an ironic twist, User:Tom harrison's only recent edits to that article were to revert vandalism!)

He seems to be firmly of the view that any editor that disagrees with him must back off from all interaction until an agreement on future interaction can be reached (presumably leaving the way clear for further POV-pushing)

Throughout, I have remained civil, and actually spent a good deal of time and effort trying to work with him, but it appears that the only help that he wants is help that might allow him to do exactly what he wants to do. Anything else is "harrasment". I have responded to his question as to future interaction by stating that, provided he refrains from adding unsourced POV material from articles, and ceases to make malicious reports, there need be no future interaction. He has responded by making legal threats here

I don't believe this user to be an avowed disruptive vandal, but unless he can be dissuaded from his current editing practice, the effect will be the same. Clearly, I've failed to make any headway on helping him to become a constructive editor, but that isn't to say that others wouldn't have more luck!

Could I ask that an admin takes a good look to determine whether there is any possible course of action that might achieve a positive outcome without having to resort to further blocks. I have refrained from adding {{uw-legal}} on his talk page, as although it is clearly warranted, I feel that it would inflame the situation if I did so, and that it would be better if the warning was issued by another editor.

Mayalld (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Overissuance of POV tag by User:Jjk82[edit]

On the South Korea article, a series of POV tags has been issued without reasonable and persuadable explanation by Jjk82. Jjk82 has been accused of his disruption on various South Korea-related articles numerous times before, though he is still actively participating on editing those articles. I really would like to see justice comes true in Wikipedia. Thank you.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're referring to is the fundamental oddity of tags. If they are not discussed and rationalized, then they have no more legitimacy than any other user edit. I.e. his putting them there and your removing them are equally justified, if there is no consensus. If a person continues to place an edit that the consensus is against, then it becomes an issue for AN/I, as it is edit warring. If a person reverts 3 times in 24 hours, that is a violation of one of our policies and calls for a block. The issue of justice should be alien to content disputes. The issue we have to address instead is consensus and discussion. If the POV tags are argued out at the article talk pages and if neither side has consensus for its point of view, then the article may need mediation. Geogre (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Qworty on Mitt Romney[edit]

Seems to be engaged in severe POV pushing ("This section should include Romney's racist Mormon beliefs against African-Americans, for example"), which is prolonging the protection on the article. Article originally protected because of dispute over alleged UNDUE weight for including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors. A rough consensus has emerged that this should indeed be covered in a section relating to Romney’s religion and the impact it might have on his presidential bid. However, User:Qworty seems to be using this as a forum to introduce every wacky fact about Mormonism he can think of without regard to actual sources. He does not feel the need to provide reliable sources in connection with Romney and, say, "Mormon underwear" because "Every single article that refers to his membership and position in the church supports the inclusion of the underwear. The burden of proof would be on you to show that he is wearing the wrong underwear and therefore going to hell." He excels in BLP violations and undue weight, and is generally editing disruptively, so that the page must remain locked. Yesterday, he edit warred on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008.

Romney's religion, including uncomfortable topics like blacks and the priesthood certainly should be covered with due weight, but this POV pushing is way over the top. I think editor needs to step away from this topic. Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this dispute, but a major candidate's article really should not be full protected for 8 straight days... --W.marsh 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ejfetters[edit]

Ejfetters didn't delete that article, they simply nominated it for deletion, and if you disagree with the decision made by the deleting admin, take it to Deletion review.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, Ejfetters isn't an administrator so he did not delete anything. He nominated for deletion and the AfD was closed by a Wikipedia administrator as a consensus for deletion. Unanimous opinion isn't required. Since this was closed as an AfD, the closing administrator deleted the article.
Also there is no rule against blanking one's user page, just a preference for archiving. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute at List of Cuban Americans[edit]

I'd like assistance from an administrator to help out with on ongoing edit dispute at List of Cuban Americans with XLR8TION. The problem began when I first edited that list. When I later checked the page I found that my edits had been completely reverted without any justification. When I tried adding names back on the list they were again reverted and now he just reverts all my edits sight on seen labeling them "ongoing vanadlism". [21] [22] Yet as you can see what he describes at vandalism is hardly that. I included references in the page that he deletes as well, how could references (added to verify the subject's ethnicity) be vandalism? He seems to think he is the sole arbitrator of what goes on the list and that he is always right. Like in this diff [23] where he states: Any further attempts to undo the corrective and positive edits I have taken will be addressed to an administrator(s). He's completely unwilling to reach an agreement, it's either his edits or his edits. There's an ongoing debate, with the major grievances listed at Talk:List_of_Cuban_Americans#RfC: Multiple Entries and Non-Notable names. I've tried to remain civil even though his tone has been rude and abrasive from the get-go, but it now seems he's just looking for a fight rather then to reach a compromise. Any help would be great! InMySpecialPlace24 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Metal to the Max![edit]

User has been warned several times about being insulting to others. In the last act of defiance the user really mouthed off at me on his/ her talk page here. I think this at least warrants a block, considering the user has been warned many times before about this. Thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page history, I can't find any previous warnings, aside from the current conversation happening. Am I missing them?? I've left a waring, but blocking may be appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse again, I'm sorry[edit]

I feel as if I am risking a community ban by posting this again, and I am scared, particularly when I see User:SandyGeorgia making posts like this [24] and this [25] which are not very truthful personal attacks on me, obviously aimed at exacerbating the situation, there is NO WAY what is happening on this talk page Talk:Psychopathy is a "Content Dispute", or in any way for the good of the project.

User:Mattisse is well known [26] there is even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mattisse. Psychopathy is a medical article that needs to have a certain amount of integrity. User:Mattisse's behavior on the talk page has escalated to the point of being completely unhinged. There is no point in waiting for Third Opinion, because Mattisse is so well known that no one wants to get involved. Please, someone do something, it's about the integrity of a medical article, not about me. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:FayssalF closed out a thread above, a complaint by User:Zeraeph, that I was adding material to his article. He was advised, as I read it, to consult with me. [27] User Zeraeph also asked User:LessHeard vanU for help and he advised consultation with me also: [28] Now, above, I see that SandyGeorgia wrote to me and I have read that now and feel better. I will go with what SandyGeorgia says and I thank her for that. I feel better now and wait for another day to fix the article. Thanks! Mattisse 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) And I see several requests for citations there, and a lot of back-and-forth about what is correct and what is not. This is a classical content dispute; please pursue dispute resolution if you wish, as this page is not to try to get one's opponents in a content dispute blocked. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
O.K. I take that to mean that I am also allowed to edit the article. Thank you for that, as all my edits have been removed. It sounds like you are saying since I have discussed my ideas at length on the talk page of the article that I can go ahead and edit it also and add my references back, even if the editor says No. Thanks! Mattisse 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd, have you read that talk page? It's not a valid content dispute, it is constant determined disruption of a valid, fully cited medical article, by an editor with a long reputation for it. There is also, now, the matter of the personal attacks made on me by both User:SandyGeorgia and User:Mattisse. They are not a "content dispute". --Zeraeph (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph blocked for 1 month for persistent edit warring. The user has already been multiply blocked for this. The longest block was 1 month for uncivility, which is continued in edit summaries. `'Míkka>t 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

edit war/talk page comment deletion[edit]

See Bobby Petrino and related talk page. User:Enigmaman Keeps reverting on the article, and deleting people's comments on the article's talk page. I left a 3RR warning on his talk page and he removed that, and then went and reverted the article again as well as removed part of comments on the article talk page. -- ALLSTARecho 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of edit warring, I have reverted to the version that doesn't report rumors as fact... I don't think we should be speculating here. --W.marsh 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch talk page[edit]

The problem brought up in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Quackwatch continues. The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it,

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"
"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"
"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"ARRRGH!"

The arguments began 27 November 2007. Over 400 edits to the talk page later and we're making little or no progress. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for replying here, but would this be better considered by article request for comments? —Whig (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Like Adam Cuerden, my concern is that the discussions are just going in circles. We've already had a large number of outside editors give their perspective after two requests for outside opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? A great many publications are not peer-reviewed, many of which are respected & reliable sources. It's insisting statements about a presumable negative condition, for example "Seattle is a city in Washington state of the United States, and not a neighborhood of Tel Aviv." I'd share a real example of this from Spy magazine many years ago, but I suspect it would be redacted due to WP:BLP. -- llywrch (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That's like trying to prove to certain people that the moon is not made of green cheese. Graham87 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the crackers, Gromit. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation at Talk:Quackwatch. I'm sorry you see it that way. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you said, "you've misrepresented the opposing POV". Misrepresentation is a serious accusation. Please back it up with diffs or remove it. Please indicate which editor you feel is misrepresenting something. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my previous comment offends anyone. I don't see any reason to remove it. What Adam and you have effectively done with the above summary is say those with the opposing POV have said nothing more than "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!" Do you feel that is a fair representation? --Anthon01 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem isn't that it offends, but that it's pretty inappropriate per WP:TALK to make such personal accusations here, much less in an edit summary. However, as I noted on your talk page, as a new editor, you may not be familiar with the use of "misrepresentation" in WP:TALK.
I quoted Adam because I thought it was close enough to what is going on. I also clarified my own point of view with my initial comment, and my reply above to Whig. I also added 16 diffs to your talk page of your own comments on Talk:Quackwatch to indicate exactly what I mean.
I also preferred Adam's summary because it did not list any specific editor nor any specific section of the discussion. It expressed his frustration, and my own: that no matter what is done, the responses are changing little if at all. --Ronz (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anthon01. This depiction of events above is inaccurate in that it misrepresents one side as being blindly stubborn without any policy to back up their position. This could not be further from the truth. Please consider revising to actually reflect both sides position or simple remove this from AN/I as it may be an inappropriate forum for such a grievance. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of complaining, follow TALK and CIVIL to help progress the discussion along. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the language properly represents the discussion. —Whig (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of complaining, how about helping to progress the discussion along? --Ronz (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll make an RFC/Article. That should help. This doesn't seem to be the place for content disputes. —Whig (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Stuck tag. Apologies if it's inappropriate to do so. I've already disputed the need for further RfCs, though I've written one up myself. The problem is that we're stuck. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Rfa[edit]

I know that this is already here on the noticeboard, but I feel that Kurt is harassing any user that decides to nominate himself/herself for Adminship. If you look carefully at the current Rfa's you will see what I am talking about. I see only one other place that he has currently voted and that is also an oppose. It seems as if he is only voting on Rfa's that are self-nom and they are always an oppose. Isn't that harassment? Dustihowe (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep (as its my RFA, I do consider it to be harrasement). Davnel03 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(ecx4) No its how democracy works. You stand for a position and people take pot shots at the candidate. There has already been an RFC and lots of drama on this already. Kurt is entitled to express his view and the 'crats who assess the outcome are free to weight his comments accordingly. It all evens out in the end. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is healthy given that quite a few people seem to be upset or hurt by his comments - it's having this effect on quite a lot of users now and regardless whether or not you personally believe it's a problem, it has to be considered one when this number of people consider it disruptive. Kurt knows some people consider it disruptive, yet he has carried on regardless - to me is increasingly looking like disruption of the RfA process. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In my view it is disruption, in the RFA nomination stuff there is nothing that says you cannot nominate yourself. Davnel03 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing that says you can't nominate yourself the first day you're registered. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to oppose you for that reason. Epthorn (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. It's disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. I'd support an RFA ban for Kmweber, or at the minimum, an injunction against opposing on grounds of "self nom". SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup; the correct place to protest is certainly not in the individual noms of other users. Surely there's a precedent for, say, an inclusionist who opposed every single AfD on the same principles? Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In my view, his opposes should be removed. Something needs to be done to stop his opposes, that seem to spiralling onto all of the "self-nom"'s FAC. Has he shown any sign of backing down and communicating with other users? Davnel03 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a vote: I seriously doubt that his one vote has swung a single RfA, because bureaucrats can weight it as they see fir when closing. Regardless, it's still a silly and ineffective way to protest. He's said that he's not backing down, but seeing as the whole point is to draw attention he seems willing to at least discuss the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Except, RFA is not a battleground for protest. You've just effectively shown that he is using this as his personal battleground. WP:NOT, WP:POINT. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This horse and every other animal on the farm have already been beaten to death. The bottom line is that the community accepts and supports Kurt Weber's right to oppose requests for adminship, despite how specious his reasoning may seem at face value. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
O RLY? Can you show me this consensus? Because it appears right now that there are a good number of people who disagree with it. Consensus can change, don't forget. And please show me where he has the right to oppose against a certain class indiscriminately?SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
YA RLY. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber, which got comments from a far broader range of people than this pile-on here. --155.98.230.202 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(ecx3)Joy. However, consensus is that these comments are not trolling and should not be removed. I hold no animosity to Kurt for his view point (and even have defended him in the past). But twice in one day we see his RfA comments at ANI (once by me, of course) ? Either the community accepts it's all okay, and everyone complaining about him is wrong, or Kurt accepts that his actions could be seen to be disruptive, as per Ryan. Let's also not forget that Kurt is also a very valued contributor across the project. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This and this are germane, as are several crats asserting that his opinions are OK even though little stock is held in them. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't find them that disruptive, but the disruption comes from the fact that a lot of other users do. If self noms were discouraged, I would fully support Kurt, but they are welcomed at RfA. Given this is not going to stop, or people are not going to stop being hurt by it, I would endorse an RfA ban at this point. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not harassment, Kurt just has a closed mind on this issue. In the same way some other editors refuse to support children for adminship. RMHED (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict): A closed mind is not how we do things here. It's never acceptable to disrupt wikipedia for a point. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that it's not harassment, but it is getting disruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So we are willing to "disenfranchise" a user who opposes candidates based upon their self-nom, and whose !vote can be "discounted" by a bureaucrat after close, but in the case of my failed RfA, trolling, disruption, mayhem, and sabotage by the sockpuppets of two banned users was allowed to occur and continue, with no consideration at all on the part of the closing bureaucrat? There's something seriously wrong here. - Crockspot (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Rude? Yes, but that is it. It is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose someone for admin-ship. I would think the tone of the message could be altered, but you cannot stop someone from expressing a legitimate concern. IMO, however, blanket policies such as Kurt's are ill-advised as he does not appear to even consider the individual user, but again that is his perogative, even if not too many others appreciate it. But everyone judges one's character differently, and this appears to be how he is comfortable making that judgment. More power to him.--12 Noon 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope your statement "more power to him" is idiomatic, and you don't actually support giving more power to people who vote on RfA candidates ostensibly without looking at their contribs. - Chardish (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
More power to express your opinion to him. If he failed Kurt's litmus test, then there is not much point in digging deeper. Like I said, blanket policies are not my preference, but who is to prohibit individualism? Not me. --12 Noon 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kurt's behavior is very disruptive. To be wary of users who self-nominate is acceptable, but to copy and paste the same vote on every self-nomination is disruptive to the RfA process, which is supposed to individually evaluate the merits of candidates. - Chardish (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Each time that comment comes up, more of the community expresses the opinion that he is being disruptive. I have not reviewed all of his RfA remarks, but in what I have reviewed, I have yet to find an oppose that was based on any apparent review of the candidate. Since RfA is supposed to be a consensus discussion, making a blanket statement without any knowledge of the candidate does appear to be disruptive in intent; it strongly appears to be nothing more than a WP:POINT. I agree that 'crats may well be overlooking his !vote, but I'm not convinced that resolves the actual problem here. Shell babelfish 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It seems to me that Kurt's contributions to RfA are in clear violation of WP:POINT, therefore I am suprised that they are allowed to continue. They clearly are disruptive, otherwise no-one would complain. TheIslander 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's a disruptive violation of WP:POINT. If he has a problem with policy, he should take it up on the policy page. Rklawton (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The WP:UNBLUEDPOINT is simple. Twice in one day Kurt's comments have been bought to ANI. Their validity is not the issue. The fact we've had two threads inside 12 hours is prima facie evidence that it's causing disruption. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a novel approach: Ignore him. Let the crats give his !vote the appropriate weight. - Crockspot (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been tried that way, and look where we still are. It's not the weight of the argument, it's the upset it's causing some users. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Too bad. If an admin candidate is going to get upset by an oppose vote, no matter the rationale, they have no business using the admin tools. What are they going to do when they take some REAL heat? - Crockspot (