Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Misuse of Privledges[edit]

Hi, I started discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images and User:Jmlk17 removed that discussion, claiming it was general which most of muslims would not agree on, when I reverted his edit and placed {{Uw-tpv1}} on my talk page, he issued me a warning that I will be blocked. If I get blocked, It will most definately be misusage of his priveledges. Are my actions eligible to get blocked? Thank you XubayrMA Talk 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It would probably have been a good idea to read the huge pink box at the top of that page, before starting a new thread which has been said hundreds of times already. Black Kite 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah sure, you complain about censorship on the article page, but are censoring the talk page yourself. There is no reason to stop the discussion. Those huge pink box is illegitimate as it hinders consensus building and violates WP:NBD. --Raphael1 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Dozens of people turning up and starting the same thread over and over again is not furthering the discussion - it just clogs up the page and obscures the useful material. That's why the warning box is at the top of the page. Black Kite 11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure. And big censors like you decide what is useful material, aren't you? If you are not interested in improving the article go somewhere else, but let those who want to improve that mess discuss their issues.--Raphael1 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the thead was repeat of older discussions. I must have missed the pink box. XubayrMA Talk 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a subpage there recently for newcomers to the article to talk about their opinions on that issue. Don't know if it's still there. The thing is the debate was taking up all the space on the talk page so it was hard for it to be used for article changes to be worked out. Merkinsmum 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked in for a couple of days but all mo stuff about the images was being moved to the sub-page intended for that purpose, all general chat that wasn't about the improvement of the article was being removed on sight in accordance with policy (a bit more quickly than on a normal page because of the need to stop it being swamped with crap). --Fredrick day (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The page is still there. It's still swamped with crap (demands for image removal, censorship, threats, etc.), and I've been trying (often in vain) to keep it organized, as well as trying to avoid a forum from erupting. Jmlk17 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's use of bot on MickMacNee's talk page[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Edits by Betacommand to MickMacNee talkpage. 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary of issue: Betacommand used Betacommandbot to make 46 edits to an editor's page in six minutes, following that user's making of a page questioning BCBot's handling of NFCC 10 c. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this incident report is only a few hours old, and there is disagreement over whether it should have been moved to the subpage. Also, for some reason, the other report below, also about Betacommand and his bot, was not moved. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?[edit]

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

I think that's the question that needs to be answered.

I really appreciate the words of support above and on my Talk page, but I'm at the end of my rope on this website, and to be honest, on Wikinews as well. The last few weeks have been a bit too much for me. I started to edit Wikipedia and contribute to it because I can't stand the narrative that is force-fed the public in the mainstream media. In addition to scoring in the 95th percentile on the LSAT and going through law school, I also have a lot of energy, talent and creativity. I felt I brought a lot to the Wikipedia table. Two years ago today I did not own a camera until my sister bought one for my birthday, a cheap 2.1 megapixel Fuji camera. Some of you may not remember that back in 2006 there were very few photos on Wikipedia, and I thought I could contribute that way. Since that time, I have purchased PhotoShop, new camera equipment, new lenses, audio equipment. I have kept track of how much I have spent contributing to Wikipedia and Wikinews, and it is just under $5,000 (I can PDF you the receipts). Yes, I put my WIKIPEDIA name (everyone from the Wikipedia Review to Wikinews knows that's not my birth name) in the files - you spend the money, effort and time I put into it, you can name files the way you want as well.

With over 3,000 photographs on Wikipedia. 10 to 20 have been controversial. And this is a mark of a spammer? Of a COI? Of someone who routinely inserts POV? I dunnno - the Anger photo has now been twice removed by User:Nandesuka, who is perhaps still upset that few people agreed with him over on Talk:Pubic hair about my photo.

Since August 2006 I have taken over 3,000 photographs that illustrate articles in almost every language. I don't "hold back" in what I give this site. You aren't getting 100KB-size photos while I keep the 7MB versions in case I want to sell them. Indeed, when the brother of the kid on my Bong photo wanted to buy it from me, I told him he could have it for free. Additionally, when better photos that are superior to mine are put up, not only am I okay with it, but I at times congratulate the photographer. (See Catwalk, Sean Combs, Kerry Washington, John Waters (director), Michael Stipe (I actually liked the other photo better, but someone liked mine better and re-replaced it), et. al.)

In the last few weeks I had User:Georgewilliamherbert and User:Mangojuice block me on a whim when I violated no policy, simply because I allowed a page owner on Guy Fawkes to get me in a revert war over a title in the Talk page (even though he had been blocked for that behavior just a few days ago, and the non-3RR revert war was over a Talk page heading the disparaged me, I still got blocked). When the Israeli government invited me to their country specifically to take pictures for Wikipedia to improve how Israeli articles look, I had someone raising COI, ANI, BLP and writing all over my Talk page and on article talk pages that I was getting fucked up the ass by a porn star. Few admins took notice or even cared. Same thing with the Guy Fawkes issue, where it raised it on ANI and nobody did a thing (and then I got blocked by Georgewilliamherbert, who by the way, wanted me blocked for a few months back at ArbCom when nobody else thought that was an insane suggestion). I had User:WAS 4.250 (who thinks he is Jimmy Wales) threaten to 'punish' me on User:Jimbo's page, saying that you all "let" me contribute (essentially).

I don't get involved in the politics on this site (you notice I'm rarely involved in voting or any of the other drama), so when I need help I don't have a "network" I can turn to. I apparently am one of the few contributors left that if you look at my contributions, they are almost all content and not talk page arguments. Then when a handful of my photos out of thousands become become an issue, suddenly I'm tarred.

I have over 3,000 photos on this site that illustrate major concepts, people, places and things. I don't have my own website; everything I have done has been for this site.

But seriously, I have a lot of talent, I have a lot of intelligence, and I have been offered to be paid for everything I do on this site (but I make too much money on my day job). So, you guys should maybe figure out if you want to find someone else in New York City, who has the access I have, and is willing to spend 20 to 40 hours a week (every week, since I started) trying to build this site up because they believe in the Free culture movement. I don't know about anybody else on this site, but I have other things I can do with my time, and that would be more lucrative. I just happen to believe in the principles of this project; but I'm beginning to feel like human nature may doom it. I know I feel too battered from the last few weeks to want to continue. Really - some of the attitude toward me, some of the vile things that have been said about, and some of the ridiculous reasoning against work I put a lot of thought, time and money into, is not worth it. So vote away and let me know the results. Because the last few weeks working on Wiki have been about the shittiest, kick me in my teeth.

Seriously, I'm at the end of my rope on this site. If there is a cabal, I wish I was part of it, because the only way to work on Wikipedia is to form tribes of people who actually care about the project so that they can get past the nonsense, such as "I don't like protest photos - find somewhere else people get angry." And that Fury statute on the page doesn't even look like anger, it looks like Despair.

So, you all can have this site. I have better things to do with my time instead of giving away my time, energy, money, creativity and intelligence away for free. I've given enough to the free culture movement, and I'm tired of being smacked around for it.

--David Shankbone 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a couple userlinks -- lucasbfr talk 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not surprised. I am going to refrain from saying what I think of User:Aminz and the other editors that have contributed towards pissing off our best image contributor. Neıl 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, you're fine - anyone who has a sysop flag anywhere on a Wikimedia project automatically gains my trust unless something happens otherwise. Will (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is quite sad and disappointing; malgré the brief dispute I had with him the other week about the Mike Farrell picture, I admire and respect David, and consider him to be (doesn't feel right to say "to have been") a definite asset to the project. David, I sincerely hope that at some point you reconsider your decision to walk away. DS (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
David, I don't know how other to say this but if anybody has actually suggested we would be better off if you left us, they are a fucking idiot. Three thousand free photos. Wow. Just wow. Please don't quit. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I must agree. I haven't had more than a moment's interaction with Mr. Shankbone but I know him to be a tireless and dedicated contributor of excellent images and common sense. He is the kind of editor of whom we need more, not fewer. I'll add my voice to those who ask him to reconsider his decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Charlotte Webb on this one. Your contributions are incredibly valuable and I do hope that anybody who suggests you leave is prepared for a brush with a cluestick. Nick (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are an excellent contributor of images. I don't know enough about your conflicts with other editors to comment, but the quality of your images speak volumes. English peasant 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to expound forcefully on this one but I think CharlotteWebb nailed it. I hope you can think again about this. Black Kite 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(ECx6)(!)Support per above. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Charlotte nailed it indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with CharlotteWebb, too. Your work here has been excellent, and I still remember those great images you got for the Daniel Rodriguez article. 3,000 free images from a single contributor...that's amazing. Acalamari 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
David, you are an asset to Wikipedia. Please stay. But let's rename those images so "David Shankbone" is not part of the name, if you really really are not promoting yourself. (But you are promoting yourself, and we don't mind, so long as its kept within reason.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
He seems to be implying above that "David Shankbone" is just a pseudonym that he uses on Wikimedia projects. Maybe using this name, which apparently isn't his real one, in the titles of his photos would fall under a very, very broad definition of "self-promotion", I really don't know and really don't care as no photo credit or watermark is visible in the image itself (and even if this was the case, the creative commons license used would permit us to remove it). When I see an image title like "Drew Barrymore by David Shankbone" I think of it as a disambiguation scheme more than anything, an alternative to simply numbering the titles when we have multiple photos of the same subject. Harmless, seriously. — CharlotteWebb 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
His name is not Shankbone by birth, but seeing as he got a trip to Israel, while telling the press that this was his name, I'm not sure how that much it matters. He appears to be using it as a kind of photography name, which is sensible enough because his birth name is dirt common.
And David, you should stay. And I'm saying this as someone you consider (one of?) your archenemies. But stop threatening to leave every time you're not getting your way. You did this over citing your own Wikinews work on Wikipedia as well (which you continue to do, incidentally). You're cool. Please stay. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope David stays, and I appreciate the work he does. But even when supporting someone at a difficult time, using rhetorical labels like "Our best image contributor" and "our best article writer" (a label applied to someone else recently) insults the other people who contribute images and articles. We all contribute and we should all work together. It is very dangerous for individuals to ever think they are indispensable, or for others to state that they think someone is indispensable. Certain types of photos (even if difficult to obtain) shouldn't be lauded over others. 3,000 photos is amazing, but a drop in the ocean compared to the 2,000,000+ at Commons. I could take 3,000 free photos over the next few years (admittedly not at 7MB file sizes), but I chose not to. This is a long-term project involving thousands and thousands of volunteers. People come and go at their own time and with their own money. No single person is indispensable. When people feel they are getting upset, it is best to take a break. The encyclopedia will still be here when you get back. Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have voiced support for David Shankbone here, but Carcharoth makes it clear that any such support would be biased, and he will push for a block of anyone who does so. So see ya later, David Shankbone. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Where on earth did that come from? Thuran, are you attacking me here? Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense Carcharoth, but that is the impression you tend to give off. When I read what you write about many established contributors, the attitude that comes across basically is "get the hell out we don't need you". You might want to reexamine your way of interacting with your fellow editors here, Sir. We are not all "dogs" you know.--Filll (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you any more than you're attacking David Shankbone, or Betacommand. Filll hit it on the nose. Your comment makes it impossible to support David Shankbone without obviously admitting bias as a "Pro-Shankbone" editor, and thus, once bias is admitted, such editors as voice said support are disregardable, as they are obviously biased. the only editors who 'understand' the problem are the ones who agree with you. As such, I re-iterate: goodbye, David Shankbone. ThuranX (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What I don't understand is where you get "he will push for a block of anyone who does so" from? Is this going back further to something else before all this happened? Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what you do when an editor disagrees with you, and you don't like their side of things. you're currently pushing for a block on Betacommand, and you're pushing David Shankbone out the door fast as you can. That said, I'm abiding by your instructions, as an admin, to not compliment one user and not all users, because is shows undue favoritism. that's your point above. I am supporting you in throwing David Shankbone's ass out the door as fast as possible, so I'm confused by your hostility to me. ThuranX (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what I wanted to say originally. I'm sure there's a block comign, but here it is: Wikipedia wants david Shankbone. (but not in a dirty way.) David, you need to stick around. In the recent Betacommand and BetacommandBot threads, I've held you up as a model Uploader, one who creates and fully labels his content. Your work is almost always visually engaging, well thought out material, which adds to the subjects. (Sorry, Pubic hair might be a useful picture, but your junk isn't visually stimulating.) It would be a huge loss to the project to see you go. If peopel are getting on your back about images, please bring the problem here faster. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I quote charlotte Webb - "Fucking idiot"s. Don't let them chase you off. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And if you must know, my argument is that I've seen this cycle repeat many times on Wikipedia. Editor digs themselves in deep, thinks they are indispensable, something goes wrong, editor gets upset, community supports them, cycle repeats. That may not be what has happened here, but it is a vicious circle that is best broken, in my opinion, with a break and a refocusing when the editor returns. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
hi david, just to say that if you look at the thread Aminz started about the anger pic, hardly anyone has agreed with him particularly :) On the other hand, the amount of time you put into wikipedia is up to you, you can't expect people to fawn over you over it (though of course, some will appreciate it greatly), nor should you feel like a martyr over it. Remember that this is just a hobby. This is just the internets at the end of the day. Only you are responsible for putting your hobbies in perspective and the nature of the friendships built on the internet is pretty transient. Merkinsmum 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what Thuran is saying exactly, but your comment is a touch curmudgeonly. David should be applauded not just for his photos but his many interesting interviews. Marskell (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean Thuran, not I :) Merkinsmum 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think he meant me, actually, as I was questioning Thuran's comment. Still, my comments below were a general response. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(Responding to Marskell) I agree, but my point is that you need to strike a balance between supporting people and making sure they get their contributions in perspective. Too much support at the wrong time can lead to even more angst further down the road and a departure at that point instead of now. Supporting someone can be as much about helping them keep things in perspective as it is about offering uncritical support. David's contributions are immense and valued, but he should know that without having to ask here. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
he should know that without having to ask here. Does that make sense? should he? after the giant timewasting exercise we saw this morning (well morning where I am), I'm surprised more GF editors don't just pack it in on account of the complete shite that is allowed to carry on here at AN/I. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If this doesn't shut the people driving him away to shut the hell up then I don't know what to do. David's more valuable to the project than them so we can deal accordingly. John Reaves 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

series of comments removed by mutual agreement
I can see David made lots of good contributions here, tirelessly. We all suffer from disagreements, human nature, squabbles, spammers, vengeful (or just plain off-kilter) behavior, occasional bad administrative actions, and on and on. The more you participate the more you are exposed, perhaps even more so if you are prominent and stick your neck out. You may suffer sometimes from not playing the political game in a certain way, but those who live by that game die by that game. It's safer to stay neutral and fair than join a faction. Anyway, Wikipedia has very little politics as compared to other endeavors this big and important. Because it is a participatory project, no matter how productive and uncontroversial you are, by the odds you will occasionally find someone who misunderstands, doesn't get it, has their own agenda, is having a bad day, you just have an online personality conflict with, etc. That is the way of the world. Plus, people are free to simply disagree, and because this is a meritocracy, each person's opinion starts out with equal weight and is judged on its merits, not whose opinion it is. If you take 2,999 great photos, one is still free to say the 3,000th photo doesn't belong. David has earned the right to complain but I do think there is more drama here than necessary. Maybe that's not the intent, but when people support David to the point of singling each other out to the point of bitterness and calling names for having upset him, that's unhealthy. Wikidemo (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? He didn't cause the drama. Aminz did. John Reaves 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm serious. You might want to take my comments to heart too. Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the consensus here is that David's contributions to the project have been extremely helpful over the years, and that he will be welcomed back in the future should he find that his values, lifestyle, and outlook so permit him.
Carcharoth raises the legitimate points that we shouldn't take our other contributors for granted in their time for us; that we should be proud of the project that we have all built; and that as both individuals and the project grow, mature and change, partings of ways – temporary or permanent – are inevitable from time to time.
In the meantime, personal messages to David are probably best placed on User talk:David Shankbone, both because this matter seems to be well beyond the scope of AN/I, and because David is more likely to see your comments there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying he should leave? John Reaves 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do get the impression some think he should leave. But this is common among a certain "in group". Established contributors are of minimal value. I do not blame him for taking a break, either temporary or permanent. I have had 3 friends leave in the last 2 months because of the same attitude. Others can see some of the discussion on a related topic at [1]--Filll (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A better question should be: 'Does Dave want a cookie'? Seriously, Dave, get over yourself. HalfShadow (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What an idiotic thing to say, David is infinitely more valuable than you. John Reaves 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? Because someone who goes through the trouble of telling us how great they are sort of defeats the purpose. HalfShadow (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia wants David Shankbone. I know I do. Enigma msg! 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good conclusion. How about we just answer the question that Wikipedia can use David Shankbone, we hope he doesn't leave, we all get down sometimes, and if he ever needs help or support he can write any of us a message and we're there for him? That kind of celebrates the positive. Wikidemo (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to support him, but I certainly understand his frustration. Particularly when someone who has 3000 mainspace edits in 2.5 years, with the largest contribution being 161 edits to a list of Backardigans episodes feels sufficiently superior to suggest that David's contribution pales in comparison to this editor's documentation of the Backyardigans, King (TV series), Fraggle Rock, and Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends. This really is uncalled for. We should be encouraging people like David, not chasing him away.--Filll (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I'm not the one jumping up and down shouting 'Look at me! Oh gosh, look at all the things I've done!', yes. Yes I do. Thanks ever so for proving my point. HalfShadow (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's ok HS. You keep telling yourself how wonderful you are and how you have every right to kick other editors savagely. Wow what a nice example of civility.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, David, I hope this is a Wikibreak rather than a departure. I know what you went through with that bio article and now I'm sorry to have backed away from the anger image dispute. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see David leaving and I hope he comes back. I think our dispute over addition of those pictures was a mild dispute. It was about addition of certain pictures to several articles. That's all. It didn't matter for me if they were uploaded by David or someone else. And I honestly think (and still think) they were not appropriate for the reason I stated above. If the community disagrees, I would of course follow the majority.
I find some of the above comments against myself as an editor, rather than against my opinion. So, they are inappropriate (e.g. User:Neil's comment). This particular dispute was a genuine disagreement of opinions, and was mild compared to the typical wikipedia disputes that continue for a long long time and are about the content of the central articles of Wikipedia. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Shankbone has a right to be a bit upset. He's invested time and energy in making Wikipedia better, and some ass-clowns working off a different sort of memo than the rest of us decide he's useless or in dire need of some tough love and they push him out. A lot of the comments (refactored and otherwise) should serve as a relative gauge as to how respected Shankbone is in Wikipedia. As for the asinine suggestion that if we respond to his frustration at the block-headed thinking he feels he's encountered, we are only perpetuating a childish tantrum I say this - yes, there are editors who are self-important. There are definitely editors and admins who are legends in their own minds. Yes, we should limit the terms of sys-ops to about a year or two max, with a year of actual editing in-between.
However, David's contributions are important. It isn't an opinion - it's a friggin' fact. He is the benchmark that a lot of image-uploaders use to verify the usefulness of their contributions. How on earth could that be considered a bad thing. At the very least, Shankbone should be applauded for his contributions; at least he doesn't lie about his background, unlike some.
Clearly, there is some direction in the steering here at Wikipedia. While most of the editors seem to have their shoes tied correctly, there is a growing number who simply fail to get the point. Maybe calling for some de-sys-opping might serve to get the point across. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching this go on for a few hours now, and figured I'd bring something to the table. While everyone is grateful for the images, I'm of the opinion that some tend to get slightly overused possibly. For example this version of index finger with one of the disputed images, which is already in three other articles. It's hardly a matter of life and death if it gets removed is it? Let's use the images where they are most appropriate, not attempt to shoehorn them into every article possible. One Night In Hackney303 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to concur. Just as everyone's text gets mercilessly edited, so too do images. Nandesuka (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me point out something. If I posted something here saying "I've written dozens of FA and GAs, I'm invaluable, but people are holding me back," would that really be any better than what David's doing? I can sympathize to an extent, but the whole "I'm important, look at me" attitude which pervades his writing troubles me. I'm not casting any sort of shadow on his contributions; I barely know the guy, but I'm sure his contributions have been very helpful. But we're all just cogs, and shouldn't get some inflated sense of self over an online encyclopedia. David Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
See? At least one of you gets it. HalfShadow (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, any admin is free to review my comments at Guy Fawlkes. Frankly I knew nothing about this fella until I saw the ANI thread rearding the content dispute, and gave my input in good faith. Alas it seems some seem to want to elevate certain contributors above the rest, as this guy is being likened to Betacommand, to whom we are all supposed to bow to. Wikipedia is not an editcountocracy. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are nonsense, and wrong. There is a reason why new editors aren't allowed the same editing capabilities as more established editors -they have proven themselves via edit-counts and quality of edits. While mere editcount is not a worthy in and of itself, the quality of those edits is indeed worthy of merit. Wikipedia seems a bit like a meritocracy - do good work and make positive contributions, and you get kudos for it. Do bad work (vandalism, edit-warring, etc) and your activity within the community is severely hampered. If an editor does good work, shut the hell up and listen to him/her, and stop throwing an infantile tantrum about why they get celebrated and you don't. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense. What has kudos got to do with anything, how does that affect the application of policies? If you upload 3,000 images then your opinion on a specific content dispute overides someone who has uploaded 10? Patent nonsense and absolutely counter Wikipedia ethos. And how can you construe what I wrote as a tantrum for crying out loud, he has cited me in a complaint, I am entitled to respond. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
David, if you didn't own a camera until you started on wikipedia, well you have also benefitted greatly from working ont he project. I wouldn't dream of staying around if it weren't for those personal benefits that the work here gives us and surely your decision to stay or go should be based on your own selfish interests of how much you gain fromt he work you do on the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a prolific editor with much-needed talents that he is bringing to us for free, offering us expensive pictures that are not only free but completely free within our mandate as a free encyclopedia. We give him shit for it. He gets sick of the shit. So what do we do? Tell him to not mention his name at all, coz it's promotion. Because the world would come to a fucking stop if a good editor should be mentioned somewhere, somehow, for it. We say "it is best to take a break" like he's nothing in particular. "based on your own selfish interests" as if that's entirely what he's here for like some common spammer. "Seriously, Dave, get over yourself" and "Considering I'm not the one jumping up and down shouting 'Look at me! Oh gosh, look at all the things I've done!', yes. Yes I do. Thanks ever so for proving my point". You people - and the latter person in particular - disgust me. What part of "collaborative editing" don't you get? It means working together. I'm appalled. I really am. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, congrats. If he's sick of the shit, no one is compelling him to stay. But flagrant self promotion in his "retirement" speech only proves others points that he's thinking of himself too highly. I don't think anyone is complaining about his contributions; his form, yes. David Fuchs (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lovely. I only hope someone somewhere values you as much as you value him. I only hope nobody values you as much as I now value you. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)No, David Fuchs, you're wrong. Yes, Redvers is right. When you David Fuchs get to be as prolific an editor (and yes, it does matter if you've contributed 3000 vs. 10), I would expect that your "going away speecy" would be as drawn out as this one. Mr. Shankbone is welcome here, as are you, David Fuchs, as is Redvers. I hope he stays because I like looking at articles with nice pictures. I couldn't care less if it said "drew barrymore" or "drew barrymore by david shankbone". What a joke. 'Nuff said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The implication being you should think twice before contributing to any discussion lest you fail to meet the required number of kudos points. Take a look at guy fawkes and tell me why my opinion is worth less than his? MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No implications. Simple facts. When you, MickMacNee, have made 3000 image uploads, and are then treated the same way as DS, I would think that you would have a similar post as DS. If not, well then you are truly a saint. Can you honestly say that your contributions are equal in quality, quantity, profile, and length of time as DS's? And you think he is being "self-congratulatory?" Are you really that high on yourself and your own meager contribs? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Diet. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your problem? What allegation are you making here? I was mentioned, I gave my opinion. Just because you are not interested in it for reasons that are your own, you do not have the right to stalk me accusing me of trolling. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this thread is still open? What administrator intervention is required here? The conversation seems to have degraded a bit... --OnoremDil 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Personal attacks by Bleek25[edit]

I've just about reached the end of my rope. Bleek25 (talk · contribs) has gone to other users talk pages and made personal attacks after the filing of a (dismissed) sockpuppet case against me failed and has also filed false 3RR reports against me. I don't mind the 3RR and the sock, they were both disproven, but the repeated personal attacks which I tried to simply remove but he puts back three times, is over the line. This [2] and this [3] where he returned it and called my removal vandalism, and then again [4]. I asked for help from an administrator who helped with a 3RR issue but he continues to do this and it's gotten out of hand. I just ask he leave me alone and now he's bringing other editors in to this grudge he seems to have because he violated policy and I reported him. Could someone just warn him to stop?KellyAna (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I asked him to stop before bringing this here, but he removed the request as "vandalism." He has a gross misconception of vandalism. Apparently even removing a personal attack is vandalism according to him. KellyAna (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kellyana must think that she is an adminstrator.she has gotten in to it with me and User:Randy Jaiyan.randy even tried to make a truce and she just slapped him in the face see here.Bleek25 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a gal, but I think his comments to you would be very offensive to women and they are offensive to me. I also agree you removing a personal attack is not vandalism, see [5]. He posted at least three of these. Someone just final warned him. If he makes personal attacks again, please report here. RlevseTalk 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously offensive to a woman [6] and this is harassment [7].-- Ѕandahl 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP User who refuses to use Talk pages[edit]

For about a month now, an IP user who posts from addresses in the range 156.61.xx.xx has been attempting to impose his views on the nature of Roman leap days and leap years in articles related to the Roman calendar: Julian calendar, Roman calendar, Mercedonius and as of today Leap year.

This user absolutely refuses to debate on Talk pages, he just edits the articles. He only communicates his "justifications" via the Edit Summary line. The reason I have listed so many articles is that semi-protecting an article only causes him to find another one, even when the semi-protection notice clearly states that it is being applied to force discussion to the Talk page.

His POV represents outdated scholarship. He does not respond to attempts to point out contrary data or contrary argument, he just reasserts his own views. He also does not respond to proposals to change the text to say "the ancient sources aren't explicit. The current consensus is...", which would change the text to an accurate statement of fact that does not conflict with his views.

He used to insert long rants inside the articles, mostly against me, but final warnings for disruptive editing caused him to stop doing that. He now mostly confines his edits to statements that should keep him below the radar on that. I had hoped that his toning down the edits might mean we were getting somewhere, but this is not the case. His behaviour, though low key, is very persistent and is still disruptive. It's also the kind of activity that seriously undermines any reputation WP might hope for as an authoritative source.

Please follow through on the final warnings and block this user.

Thanks. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a couple of IPs (the only two, as far as I know, he's used more than once). Unfortunately, blocking can only achieve so much here since he changes IP frequently, and a /16 range (156.61.xx.xx) is a bit too large to give a block of significant duration too. Assuming those four pages are the only ones he's interested in, semi-protection should work fine. – Steel 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on past behaviour, I wouldn't assume that. I'm sure he'll find another page to carry on with. Also, a week's semi-protection has already been tried on Julian calendar and Roman calendar, and has proven useless. He just waits for it to expire and then circles back. Perhaps a semi-protect duration of 2 months on all of these pages might have an effect.

I understand that asking for a range of addresses to be blocked is a serious step. I think I've been very patient with this guy, and I didn't make the request lightly. I honestly can't see any other way to get him to behave. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bellwether BC seems to object to this unblock.[edit]

User talk:Thepokeratlas has created a user account and was blocked, presumably for having a corporate name and a user name that was similar.

I led a WP:AN discussion here. [8] which said this (see below).

I notified the blocking administrator. He did not object or say anything. About 3 days have passed and still no objection.

The user has been advised on what not to edit. They have complied and not caused trouble. Should we be bitey and block the person again like Bellwether BC and Friday seem to suggest? Archtransit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll thank you to stop opening threads about me without proper notification, and to quit misrepresenting my positions. I think you shouldn't be using your tools at ALL during your mentorship, per the RfC. This also appears to be Friday's position. It's not about this case, it's about your use of tools, AT. Please stop obfuscating. Bellwether BC 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Usernames being blocked, is this according to policy?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames#Company.2Fgroup_names

"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended..."

The policy states that use of a company name as a user name is not recommended but it is not prohibited. I used to think that all corporate names are prohibited and are to be blocked but I see this is not the case.

Should we stop blocking people for this reason? Or should we just ask that users certify that they are not a group account. Archtransit (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal rule on this is I block only if the user is using Wikipedia for advertising their group, business, what have you. If a user like "KevinsShoeWarehouse" created the article Kevin's Shoe Warehouse or adds the business to an article like List of shoe stores, that deserves a block. And really, unless they're using WP to advertise, it's pretty tough to tell if a username is a business, group, etc. Of course, if a user chooses the name of a very well known business or group, it is my opinion that they should be blocked, as this invites potential lawsuits, e.g. if a user named "Microsoft" vandalizes Steve Jobs. Cheers, faithless (speak) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I come by most company usernames is as faithless says above, they post ana d for their company. More generally, I think we assume that if its a group name, then its a shared account. Also, for major corps, there is of course the trademark issue. Even if User:Miramax didn't edit movie articles, there would still be the concern of trademark dilution. MBisanz talk 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This came up recently. We assume it's a role account unless we get confirmation (somehow, OTRS I guess) that it's used by only one user. I'm not sure what the relevant policy page is. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The other problem is that of people believing the account represents the company in some official capacity, either to push a certain view point or to vandalise. The question aside from advertising, is the username likely to be confusing or misleading? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and opinions[edit]

  • I think this unblock, after discussion, along with counseling to the new user is the correct thing to do. I think that trying to create controversy about this non-controversial action is being disruptive and trolling. Others have been indefinitely blocked for trolling before.Archtransit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Where was your discussion about the specific name with the blocking admin or on AN/I? The post you made was a general statement about company usernames, it was far from a specific block review. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are unhappy, continue the discussion here about why this user should be blocked. Is it to prevent disruption? If so, what disruption has the user done in the past 3 days since unblock (None). What disruption has the user ever done? (None). What punishment should this user get for using a user name similar to his corporate name? (Severe punishment? If so, isn't blocking not supposed to be used as punishment?) Discussion on proposed re-blocking welcomed; that's why I put the topic up for ANI discussion. Archtransit (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The implied suggestion to always list the user name in question will be followed in the future. If someone is unhappy, how would the discussion have changed if a specific user name was listed? Is it that someone has an anti-gambling agenda or anti-American agenda so they would act harshly in that case but not harshly in other cases? I hope this is not the case. Archtransit (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Archtransit, on your talk page, Ryan has said that unless you stop using the unblock button, he's going to take the matter to arbcom. Other than agreeing with Ryan, my only comment is that you don't appear to understand that nobody prevented the person behind the account from editing - the block merely required him /her to create a new user name. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Addhoc! Blocks should follow policy. It would not be following policy if you were blocked on the reason "Addhoc's name is mis-spelt, this is disruptive, he can edit under 'Ad hoc' but the Addhoc name is blocked". Archtransit (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to leave mentoring you to Ryan and Riana, however I'm concerned about your lack of understanding. Addhoc (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You say above, Archtransit, that Three days have passed and still no objection, yet you unblocked only one hour after your talkpage message to the blocking admin and your ambiguous post to ANI that was not even close to a consensus to unblock (or block, or anything else since you didn't name the user). Curious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are mad, block the user and see what happens (I don't advise this but you seem to be mad that this user was unblocked.Archtransit (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Not mad. You've misread my post. I don't get mad at Wikipedia, but instead I rather like the place. It's not about the blocking or unblocking. You have to know that Arch. I've been an ardent supporter of you in the past, but everytime I read a post here, or at your RfC, or on your user talk, I continue to be baffled by your responses. Simply baffled. It's not about the tools. It's about your communication style, your wikilawyering.. this isn't the place for this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm being quoted. I took that conversation as a broad, hypothetical, "what if"/"why" scenario. It certainly was not a block review/unblock check to me. MBisanz talk 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help me![edit]

Resolved: see below

I reported User:Prester John at Wikiquette alerts (take a look). For his removal of legitimate warnings, his discreetly racist edits and other things. He has since edited my report on several occasions to misrepresent my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 - He then threatens a Checkuser request against me without suggesting which user he believes I am and why. I believe that PJ is attacking me in order to divert attention from the report I have filed against him and am now of the opinion that PJ's threats warrant harder action than a mere discussion at Wikiquette. It is grossly innapropriate for a user to threaten another just because they have asked for comment on the user's conduct! Help me out here! (Also per WP:RFCU "checkuser is not for fishing") --Capitana (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping; so far, it's made its rounds at WQA and at two user talk pages. You made one complaint which contains a lot of 2006 and 2007 vios. which Prester John was blocked for in 2007. You were unsatisfied with the reply I gave at WQA, which you removed and I have restored, given that it is material of your current possible bad faith nominations and possible wikistalking. As a side note, Capitana user also has a current CheckUser request open. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You were correct to take this to WP:ANI. I'm sure an admin can intervene somehow as an objective party and warn the user. My advice would be to warn the user about WP:NPA first, and if it continues, report him/her to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked into it, and it appears that the WP:RCU was done in bad faith (none of the requirements or criteria for it have been met) after the filed report to wikiquiette alerts. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's my point. Where are the admins to help here! PJ is going to get away with this corrupt request! --Capitana (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the WP:RCU is legitimate, No bad faith at all. Prester John (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it will be closed (if not already) because many of the users you claim are Capitana are just so old. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting to note is this diff here. which seemed to confirm that Capitana is Lancastria. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, User:Capitana appears to have been indef blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
By a checkuser, no less. I think we can mark this one resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis[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.

Seems to have a desired outcome, he restored the good revisions of his talk pages that weren't vandalism, etc., and that seemed to be the main issue. Lets move on. Regards, — Save_Us 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


FCYTravis was asked by another user to restore the deleted history of his talk page, and refused. I asked him to do the same, as well as remove the indefinite semi-protection from his talk page, and he responded he'd only do it if ArbCom forced him to.[9] Now, he's threatening to leave the project if he isn't allowed to keep both his talk page history deleted and page semi-protected. Threatening to leave the project is not an acceptable reason to allow somebody to violate policy, so I'd like some comments on his behavior. I'm stepping away, as the discussion on his talk page was becoming less and less civil with each post. - auburnpilot talk 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular revision that you think needs to be resurrected? --TS 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
All of them. We don't get to delete our talk pages simply because we are admins, then refuse the speedy deletion requests of non-admins. This is a basic policy/guideline issue he is refusing to follow, especially with the protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:AuburnPilot. User:FCYTravis can undo vandalism just the same as the rest of us and the history is there for all to see. Using admin privileges to actually delete stuff and semi-protect you own talk page looks like a WP:COI. Ros0709 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It does seem unethical. Blanking ones page as 'archiving' is fine, but deleting it is clearly not the same, as only admins CAN see it, and only an admin who knows what they're looking for will even try to find it. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AuburnPilot as well. This is particulary bad form on his part. Deleting of the talk page (even as rare as that is) should not be done unless the users aim was to leave Wikipedia for good. In addition to that the indefinite semi-protection is horribly assuming bad faith to IP's on his part, and in fact, not being willing to communicate is something that was brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson in the proposed principles. I to request FCYTravis to undelete his talk page and unprotect it (until a legitimate protection is warrented). — Save_Us 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick scan of his user talk page log [10] sees that his old method of archiving was moving the history to sub-pages (which if I'm not mistaken is a satisfactory way of archiving), but he hasn't done that since April of 2006. All history of his talk from then until December 2007 is lost. His talk page log also shows he has his talk page on an almost constant protection, having protected twice in December (the last December protection is still in effect). — Save_Us 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that past revisions of user talk pages are only deleted if the revisions contain personal information, gross violations of WP:BLP, or other unpleasantness of that sort. Editors are welcome to blank their talk pages at any time at their own discretion, but we keep the history. Retaining a transparent history (as much as possible) is doubly important for admins. If an admin departs from Wikipedia, we will blank (and protect, if necessary) that individual's talk page upon request. In my experience, it is very rare for a request to delete a user's talk page history to be granted. Such pages are almost always retained, as it may sometimes be necessary to refer to old discussions in resolving future or ongoing disputes; talk pages contain the record of many editor's contributions, not just those of the nominal owner.
Semiprotection of user talk pages is relatively rare, but not unheard of. If FCYTravis has been the target of a particularly pernicious and persistent troll or vandal, extended semiprotection is a legitimate response. He is still reachable via email, and any concerns about his administrative actions can take place on AN/I.
I'd appreciate it if everyone here could step back from using words like 'unethical' until FCYTravis has a chance to comment. Turning up the drama unnecessarily tends to make people dig in rather than work to resolve an issue. He may well have a very good reason for wanting to clear those revisions from the history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
FCYTravis already made comments on his talk page regarding this earlier today, some responses include "[unprotection of his talk is] Not going to happen unless ArbCom tells me to - and if that happens, I quit the project.", "I do not want anon IP crap on this page" and "Please go away." Something I must say TenOfAllTrades, is how are IP addresses supposed to e-mail him or know to go to WP:AN/I if they disagree with him. Adminsitrators should be open to comment on their actions, no matter who it is from. I think his intent is very obvious from his comments: "Every time I get anon IP shite here, I have to delete the page and start from scratch again. There's no way I'm going to go through and individually select eleventy squillion good edits to undelete. So the semi-protection that you're complaining about, keeps the talk page history problem that you're complaining about from being worse." That comment is counter-productive to communication that is required from administrators. — Save_Us 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing 'dramatic' about using the word 'unethical' for his actions. They fit 'unethical' perfectly. He's using his admin buttons to stop contact, refusing to listen to others about it, and gives us a 'my way or i leave' ultimatum. I think someone today said, Users come and go, it's the nature of the project. So let him go. ThuranX (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this IP vandalism that he says is so egregious that he has to delete his talk page?! I've gotten plenty of user and talk page vandalism - swastikas and the whole bit - and have never felt the need to delete it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm hoping that he'll offer an explanation. It's possible that there is an IP pestering him for something he doesn't want to discuss in detail because (for example) it's related to his OTRS work. I do hope that he'll be more forthcoming here than he was on his talk page, though. If he has misinterpreted community standards or expectations about administrators' talk pages, that should be hashed out here. If he's being harrassed or there's something else going on, we'd like to know that, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing both the deleted talk pages in question and existing policy, unfortunately I am forced to agree that this does indeed appear to be an unethical use of the mop. I also find it rather troubling that when FCYTravis was contacted about the issues presented here, his response was to threaten leaving the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, FCYTravis has just left a brief but polite note on my talk page indicating that he has been the victim of extensive off-wiki harrassment, and that he believes that the on-wiki vandalism is related. If that is the case, I can see why he might seem disproportionately troubled by apparently minor childish vandalism. He also mentioned that he is in class at the moment, but will offer a (presumably fuller) response here in a few hours. I urge patience and calm here in the meantime.
Should it be necessary to explore the specifics of Travis' situation, perhaps he and AuburnPilot could select some mutually-acceptable trustworthy individual; I can understand why he wouldn't want to discuss the full details of off-wiki harrassment in an open forum, though I urge him to be as forthcoming as is reasonably possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If immature vandals insist on targeting him I'd say using semi-protect is no problem at all. Undoing that type of vandalism just wastes everyones time. David D. (Talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My full reply is here. I feel the essense of his talk page protection goes the core of the protection policy. The policy states specifically that user talk pages should not be semi-protected indefintely, and it goes on to say that the sole purpose of stopping anonymous editors' contributions with semi-protection when no vandalism occured, is a violation. Again, I sympathize with FCYTravis having trouble with anonymous IP editors comments, but pre-emptive protection when there are innocent IP addresses is wrong. — Save_Us 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
When the preponderance are not innocent I see no issue. There are other talk pages they can interact with him if they are desperate. If in dispute, the article talk page, if they have been warned for something, their own talk page. It's not as if all their avenues for communication have been cut off. David D. (Talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To Save Us 229, we do make exceptions to policy where it is in the best interests of the project as a whole. While semiprotection should not be used "solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users", I would argue that this is not what is happening here. FCYTravis has suggested that the semiprotection is to prevent editing (attacks) by a specific individual who always uses an anonymous IP. The distinction is subtle but important—his intent is to prevent a specific individual from engaging in harrassment (a legitimate aim), that anonymous and newly registered users can't edit his talk page is an unintended and unwanted side effect.
I generally support the policy on semiprotection. I agree that there are strong, sound reasons for not semiprotecting user talk pages indefinitely. I also agree with editors who note that Travis' intemperate responses to unprotection requests have not helped matters here. However, I think that if FCYTravis is able to make a compelling case then there is room for flexibility in this policy. I sincerely hope that all the participants in this discussion can continue to keep cool heads—today seems a day where a lot of good-faith contributors are in a bit of a bad temper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
FCYTravis has made a selective restore, so I believe this can be archived or marked resolved. - auburnpilot talk 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. — Save_Us 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:X1[edit]

caveat - This is a copy and paste from WP:AN. Thought this might have been more appropriate: Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AN thread an pasted a couple of add'l comments that were there to this thread. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A dumb, quick question: It seems templates Template:X1 thru Template:X9 are for people to experiment with. However, some editors (including me, and embarrassingly, including a block) are reverting edits to these templates, and warning the users doing so. The template itself says these templates are for experiementation. So,

  • Am I correct in my newfound understanding that people can do whatever they want to these templates?
  • Is there a way to make this fact more clear to clueless individuals like myself?
  • Wouldn't it make sense for a bot to periodically restore them to their original state, as is done with the sandbox itself?
  • An editor with multiple IP's has recently gone thru and blanked all 9 templates and their respective talk pages (my talk page too, but that's probably because I mistakenly blocked him). In spite of the templates' experimental nature, this seems vaguely disruptive to me. But semiprotecting would kind of defeat the purpose. Any ideas (beyond the bot I suggest above)?

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wisdom89 has set me straight on some of this, but question about a bot, and question about whether to consider this disruption or not (i.e. blanking all of them), and blockable for repeated occurances, still open. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I became involved in this, I myself reverted the continuous blanking of these templates X1 - X9. It seems user's with a similar string of IPs (e.g [11] have a propensity for blanking the entire template purposefully, and then turning on the users who warn or undo their blanking. [12] What is the appropriate action here? Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My talk page contains two conversations about the disruption of these templates [13] Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) {{x1}} is like Wikipedia:Sandbox, but designed for testing templates. The templates used to have headers that were reset automatically by bots, but the bots seem to have gone missing. The standard practice would have been to revert the template to the version with the headers, but I can't even find it in the history so the bots must have been missing for a while. --ais523 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the bot that is supposed to reset those templates every 12 hours? Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Update This is kind of getting out of hand, several editors are now involved in reverting almost continuous blanking vandalism from multiple IP's on these templates and their talk pages. Does anyone think a rangeblock is needed, and if so, does anyone know how to do one? --barneca (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 151.49.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Let me know if IPs from that range continue vandalizing the templates after the rangeblock expires. Nakon 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to have done the trick, thanks Nakon. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, thanks Nakon - Every IP involved has had that string. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling behavior by 12.39.2.83[edit]

The user in question is engaged largely in trolling or baiting. [14] His contributions to the NIU incident consist mostly of comments designed to confront, and not to further the article. Also, when he's warned about that, he deletes the warning, and goes to the user page to further his baiting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your initial characterization of the seige at Waco could possibly have been better worded, true - but I agree, the IP is not justified in editing anyone's remarks as he/she has. I've warned the editor, and further reverting should result in a block of 31 hours or more. I am leaving shortly, and won't have a chance to monitor. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, blocked for 31 hours due to disruption and personal attacks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I want to point out that I balanced the media-based flippant comment by characterizing the siege as a disaster. It was bad news all around. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got either a buddy or a sockpuppet removing the warnings on his page. This one (71.229.80.58) has a similar attitude to the blocked one, in his very short list of edits. [15] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note on 71.229.80.58's talk page advising him that deleting stuff from "other peoples" user pages was against the rules. As expected, he deleted it without comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's on his blood"[edit]

talk User:Taulant23 saying "It's on his blood" referring to meMegistias (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
NOw we know who wrote these on my page and many more [16],

[17], [18] [19] [20] Megistias (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with my blood and why i am an inferior race person or whatever.Should i kill myself now? jump of the window?Megistias (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could ask |Future Perfect to speak to Taulant about lack of civility in that post on FP's talkpage. Note however that all the anonymous edits you quote are from an ISP in Sweden, whereas Taulant23 claims to be in LA, California. Tonywalton Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Goodbye.Megistias (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Robson[edit]

Um ... take a look at the (Main page featured) article, the penises aren't going away, I have no idea what to do, or where else to get the problem fixed. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still there... AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also on Ronald Koeman, Jan Wouters, Guus Hiddink, Eric Gerets, George Hardwick, Franz Binder, Sef Vergoossen, Aad de Mos, Bram Appel, Hans Kraay, Kees Rijvers, Thijs Libregts, and it shows up in old versions of the pages. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine now. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what happened? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Something about the PSV Eindhoven manager's template I think ... Neıl 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the only way so many articles were hit so quickly. Luckily, the template's been fixed and the user who did it has been blocked. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes - see [21]. Fixed and the miscreant blocked by KurtShapedBox. I've protected the template. I thought someone was supposed to protect all the templates on main page articles. This was there for almost 30 minutes. Neıl 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I should have figured something like that. Thanks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copied the text of the article to my userspace and have protected with cascading enabled. This should stop any more vandalism to the article today. Also, you may want to check out the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Nakon 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion in China[edit]

Resolved: Article protected for two weeks to give everyone a chance to resolve the issues collaboratively. Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in the main article of Religion in China between pro-Buddhist and anti non-Christian religions/pro-Christian and pro-Secularist Saimdusan. If you don't mind, block this article for a week at least! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt I protected the wrong version, but it is at least secured. For future reference, please see WP:RFPP for these sorts of requests. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Omg... I'm not pro Christian! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cemal Gürsel needs more eyes[edit]

There are a number of questionable images located at Cemal Gürsel. However, there is a particularly mean and nasty user (different IP addresses but it's one guy) who refuses to discuss in any sensible manner what exactly they are doing. We just need more eyes there. I pointed out some images to User:Rettetast, which may have issues. He listed some at WP:PUI. So far, we'd had 81.131.50.14, 213.122.42.250, and 71.184.9.231 go after them (and then the user pages in response). Attempts to communicate have been less than fruitful, to be nice. More eyes would be helpful, as the last one decided to respond by tagging legitimate images for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Knight (filmmaker)[edit]

A recent AfD discussion on Christopher Knight has gotten out of hand, with one editor repeating wild accusations about myself and another editor not even involved with this discussion - said allegations were originally posted by a WP:SPA. These accusations are provided without any kind of proof, although the editor in question claims that they come from the subject of the article in question. Regardless of the basis of the argument between the subject of the article and the editor in question (a Google search provides no verifiable evidence), this posting clearly violates the rules on no personal attacks, and I ask that the offending material be removed by an administrator and SChadwell84 be warned about posting similar material in the future. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit desysopped[edit]

See WP:AN#Archtransit desysopped.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed link--Jac16888 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Slow Motion Vandalism IP 70.185.238.178[edit]

IP 70.185.238.178's sole contributions are slow motion vandalism. The IP has targeted Josh Cobb 2nd and 3rd over the last two days. ClueBot got his Legacy Five vandalism and then he moved to my own user page as I'd been the one to create the original re-directs. Have had no contact with this IP but am trying to avoid 3R and don't want to spent a week reverting clear nonsense. Apparently AIV is not the place as it's slow-mo vandalism. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now but have left a warning & will monitor this IP's activity. Reverting clear vandalism does not invoke WP:3RR, so you're OK on that one.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The IP is at it again. My personal favorite, Jossi and ClueBot have been busy reverting it this evening. Just another heads up. Travellingcari (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
New IP, same fascination with Josh Cobb. I requested semi-protection since there's nothing constructive. Thanks all for your help so far. Travellingcari (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sunray[edit]

This user is reverting material at Yi Ching claiming it is sourced.[22]. I have tried to explain on the talkpage[23] but he keeps reverting. He claims the source is at the end of the paragraph. When this is checked it does not support his inclusions. Grateful for help. Mccready (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a 3RR warning. Its a content dispute. Use WP:DR or if he continues file a report at the 3RR noticeboard.--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Crossmr, I cannot see why you have given me a 3RR warning and not Mccready. He has reverted exactly the same number of times as I have. Actually, though, neither of us has violated 3RR. However, if you read the talk page carefully, you will see that he has been acting alone and I have been working with other editors on the talk page.
Some background: I re-wrote the text in that paragraph [24] in accordance with long-standing concerns raised on the talk page here and here. The text I added contains the quotation from Needham that he likes but provides an online source and gives it context (per discussion on the talk page referenced above). My addition is a paraphrase of an article, which I cited. Mccready reverted me here, [25], but kept my citation, calling my addition "original research" (it is not, as I and another editor have explained to him on the talk page [26]. He reverted a second time [27], as did I [28]. I make that two reverts.
In addition, I reverted his insertion of a neutrality tag [29]. I did that because Mccready failed to give policy-based reasons for placement of the tag. I make that three reverts. However, following further discussion, I restored the tag [30]. Thus, no 3RR violation by my count. [But maybe I've lost my mind.] Sunray (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite simply because you performed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on the same article. [31], [32], [33]. As for McCready I didn't notice that his first edit was to restore a tag that had been removed a few days prior so I didn't realize it was a revert.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I said: three reverts. And, since in five years of editing, I've never broken the WP:3RR and Mccready has many times, I am still unsure why you gave only me a warning. Sunray (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't realize at the time that his first edit was a revert. Nor did I delve in to both of your extensive editing histories. For completenesses sake I've gone and left one on his talk page as well.--Crossmr (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[34]. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock range[edit]

Hi, I seldom edit en.wiki just to add interwiki to my local wiki .
Starting from some weeks ago, in most cases, I'm unable to edit en.wiki because my IP is blocked. The page says User:Ryulong blocked the entire range 79.6.0.0/16 for a very long time (a month or even more). I don't know if this is the standard procedure in en.wiki, but seems to me that blocking thousands people just to stop a single vandal it's not the best choice... the vandal probably changed his IP the same day you blocked him, and instead I'm a good (blocked) guy ;) Regards. --87.13.52.49 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(relevant block log) Thanks for your message. I can understand the frustration. User:Ryulong is probably more able than I am to answer you, but apparently the vandal is especially annoying since the range has been blocked twice because of him. The good news is that if you register an account, you will be able to edit even when your IP falls within this range. I know this is not optimal, but there are other benefits from creating an account! ;) -- lucasbfr talk 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer Lucasbfr. Well, I've seen the log, so the range is blocked since January 4! 65000 IPs for two month to stop a vandal who can change IP, and probably he can get also an unblocked IP (like I can). ::You're right, I should create an account, but it's not just my problem... in 2 months, how many people gets one of those 65000 IPs? --62.211.134.26 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The range described is of an abusive user who I had been attempting to reconcile with until he continually exhausted my patience and the patience of other administrators from which I sought assistance. The user in question is Tenkasei Ryo (talk · contribs). I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but I have not been able to narrow down that block (a semi-full list of his activities is here), and as soon as the first range block expired, the user in question came back. As I stated in the block log, you can seek assistance from the Unblock Mailing list. And if you would like to prevent this from happening on March 4 (which may very well happen as this user is persistent, despite my attempts), any assistance you could provide me in stemming this abuse and helping me file an abuse report with your ISP concerning this individual's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism of userspace[edit]

Over the past few minutes, myself and others have been reverting similar and somewhat disgusting vandalism from a variety of IPs to User talk:Jack Merridew and User:Doctorfluffy Here are the diffs:

Some of these contain threats. I think protections of the pages and blocks of the IPs may be helpful.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like others took care of it. What is it with these new mean and nasty vandals? I remember when the worst a vandal would do is write like "poop" on your page. Ah, for the good old days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you've been here since October 2004 you must remember Mr. Treason (that's one of the few surviving archives). Always good for a chuckle, if you're easily amused. See you in Trenton. :) Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like another 4chan sweep. Seriously guys: suicide. Consider it. HalfShadow (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more on this at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/8x Ranges. I expect that it is Grawp related. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemmey[edit]

Resolved: no action required

There are some facts about this user.

  1. He/she is continuously removing non English sources from from the article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence despite opposition from other editors.
  2. He/she is blanking his/her talk page after anyone posts a message with a edit summary "welcomes". When he/she was told not to blank non-English sources in his/her talk page, he/she blankes talk page[35], then I undid his/her edit[36], he/she again blanked the page[37]. I again reverted[38], this time he used the edit summary "Kun üstünlüğü ile evrensel insan haklar"[39]. At present he/she is blocked by User:Nick for edit-warring. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's absolutely nothing wrong with blanking warning messages off a talk page - it is assumed that the user has therefore read them. It is how they act upon the warnings that is important. No admin action is required here. Black Kite 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats at Hashim Thaçi[edit]

71.254.249.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed what appears to be sourced negative information about Kosovo's prime minister here. The edit summary included a legal threat that implied that the IP is associated with Thaçi's office. I checked the sources, reverted, and left a talk page warning. Thought I should report it here since this is a contentious topic. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The IP has not re-asserted the legal threat since the warning, so a block MAY not be necessary at this point, but please keep an eye on it. If the problematic behavior continues after the warning has been given, let us know and we will escalate to the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0/Payne2thamaxx[edit]

Resolved: All involved have been blocked.
Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Payne2thamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This whole thing is one big mess. Tasc0 was a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor. My only two encounters with him ever were at recent AN3 reports. He was indefinitely blocked by Ronnotel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following this death threat against Ronnotel's family. A quick glance at this evening's history of User talk:Tasc0 will show you what blew up, but basically, Payne2thamaxx made a trolling comment [40], Tasc0 responded in kind [41], Ronnotel blocked Tasc0 for the personal attack [42], the unblock was declined, and Tasc0 left the aforementioned parting shot prompting the indefblock.

Tasc0 has been in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx going back at least to October 2007 [43].

It seems at least possible that Payne2thamaxx and Same As It Ever Was are one in the same. Payne2thamaxx admits at [44] that he follows the edits of SAIEW. At [45], 12 days after registering, SAIEW is familiar with a dispute between Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax from some time before.

Payne2thamax (of whom Payne2thamaxx is an admitted reincarnation) was indefblocked for making a death threat. Payne2thamaxx was indefblocked for harassment, then later (September 2007) unblocked after he promised to reform. I see no evidence whatsoever of reform and have therefore reinstated that block.

I have filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Payne2thamaxx to confirm whether Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs) is related.

For now, pending the results of that check, I would like to ask for a review my block of Payne2thamaxx. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx, he just wanted to make false accusations of me attacking another user, which I clearly did not do it. It was a NY IP address, that can be seen here.
I also would like to ask my e-mail feature back, I can't e-mail nobody. I don't think that's very fare.
I sent an e-mail to my blocking admin apologizing for the threats and seconds after, he blocked my e-mail feature. I did not harass him over the message and I didn't get any response.
I have to admint that I don't even knew who Payne2thamaxx was before this situation. Now that I see, it's clear he's a sock of Same As It Ever Was. B's proves this with the diffs.
Note, yes: this is my IP address. It's the only way I have to comunicate. Tasc0 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just check my edits and you people will see how vandal am I. I enjoy vandalazing Wikipedia so much. Tasc0 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.186.126 (talk)
Tasc0, I've responded to your remark at my talk page, too, but I'm going to make a couple of the same points here:
  • I don't think anybody's saying that you were a vandal. In fact, User:B says the opposite, calling you "a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor". I would agree that I never saw any evidence of bad faith or vandalism from you; in fact, you did some good work fighting vandals.
  • That said, if any editor - you, me, B, Jimbo, anybody - posts the kind of thing you did directed at User:Ronnotel, that user should expect to be blocked. That sort of comment is - and this shouldn't even need to be said - totally unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
  • You should be aware that what you're doing here is technically abusive sock-puppetry, since you're evading your block. That said, I do agree that if you haven't abused the e-mail function, that should be restored. I won't do so unless I hear from Ronnotel, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser results are now in - Alison 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember thinking there was something fishy with Payne2thamaxx. His most recent contribs against Tasc0 came after long inactivity. I think 166.109.97.107, 166.109.0.247, and 166.109.97.168 (IPs which pretended to be Tasc0 on User talk:Real Compton G) could've been used by Payne2thamaxx. The IPs lead to New York, where he says he lives. And Tasc0, it's unfortunate this happened considering you're a productive editor. No matter what personal attacks you get, you have to keep your cool. I'd support an unblock, but first you really owe an apology to User:Ronnotel. SAIEW was also productive, but it's unfortunate he used abusive socks. I guess personal vendettas bring out the worst in people. Spellcast (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose an unblock. Maybe a lift on the e-mail block, so he can plead his case, but death / rape threats (directed at children!) do not warrant a drop of consideration from me, and they shouldn't from anyone else either. - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to apologize, but how I'm supposed to do it when my talk page is salted and the e-mail feature it's disabled? I'm not asking for an immediately unblock. 190.172.139.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be an unblock if there's consensus for it. Considering most admins who've commented endorse the block, there's no consensus to unblock yet. Although you were productive for a year, those attacks put a permanent stain on your image. I mean, who would want to continue editing and be known as "the guy who made threats to a family" (even if it wasn't a literal threat)? If the comments were less severe, you'd probably be unblocked. Like B suggested on your talk page, you could appeal to arbcom. Spellcast (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You can also email the unblock mailing list - email blocks only affect the on-wiki email feature. They do not prevent you from emailing addresses directly. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point; his talk page has been unprotected, though, so this shouldn't be an issue in this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Personal attack by User:Jayjg[edit]

Resolved: No administrative action necessary.

I had a problem with the Khazars article. Although reliably sourced material, I believed a section to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in Talk. I had agreement from several editors with one of them (User:Slrubinstein) deleting the section. It then became a very minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comments. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to Talk which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why despite my asking.

User:Jayjg, who had not taken part in this discussion then posted and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil and gave "examples" of my edits that proved it. This accusation was extremely upsetting to me. The edits he gave as examples actually not only did not support his claim but several were even favourable to Israel so I asked for an apology, instead Jayjg replied and told me to accept the consensus that it was relevant (without any reason required for relevance).

I started a WP:ANI here to get an apology for the accusation but it was archived without resolution. I resubmitted the ANI but was told that as an Israel/Palestine article dispute was already being worked out in Arbcom the admins had put my case on hold pending a resolution to that Arbcom so that the result could give a guideline on how to handle my case. That Arbcom was resolved I believe but I let the apology go and hoped to get on with editing.

Then this edit was made (diff) on the Khazar page. Distortion of history is a particular pet peeve of mine so I admit it annoyed me so I reverted (diff) the edit and was in turn reverted by User:Briangotts (diff) with the comment that the sources given backed the new version. This started a minor edit war with myself, User: Schlcoh who also backed the old version and Briangotts. After Schlcoh also checked the sources (which were not online) he also found they actually supported the original version not the new one. The talk history for this is here and here.In the interests of peace (Briangotts would not accept his own sources wording) we let his version stand and I added a note to the sentence (diff) to qualify it which was apparently accepted by all involved.

Now Jayjg came along and deleted the note (diff) claiming in the summary it was OR and my own personal commentary. In fact the note was copy/pasted complete with cites from a section in another Wikipedia article History of the Jews in Turkey which I explained in my summary when adding the note. This has led to another edit war with Briangotts now trying to modify the note so it confirms more with his view. Obviously I’m not getting any respect as an editor and along with Jayjg’s previous accusation not being withdrawn and now with another vieled personal attack on my credibility in a summary he made, I fear I could end up permanently labelled as an anti semite.

I request this issue be resolved and Jayjg be made to apologise for his original accusation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talkcontribs) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a misuse of this board. How many times are you going to demand an apology (longwindedly)? El_C 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't he demand an apology? Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with requesting an apology, so long as he does so civilly - which he has. However, I have to concur that this is not the proper forum. If discussion with the editor directly has been unfruitful, then a user conduct Request for Comment would be in order. There is no relevant admin action to be requested here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, if you've seen RFC/U recently, you'll see why I think its broken. And why is there no relevant admin action? Are blocks for incivility no longer handed out? (Not that I'm saying I support one in this case, but why is discussing incivility considered irrelevant?) Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I note, there is nothing wrong with requesting an apology, particularly when it is done as clearly and civilly as WLRoss has done here. However, I'm looking at the diff that generated this report, (here). Jayjg looks to have made what amounts to a good faith removal of material that he thought constituted personal commentary (which is, by definition, OR). Sure, he probably could have noted "Source doesn't support assertion" or "Synthesis" or some similar term, but he did not. The proper course would be for WLRoss to leave a note on Jayjg's talk saying "Hey, you reverted this, it isn't actually OR, I cite this source that says this, this source that says that, etc." If the edit summary was indeed a personal attack, then a note saying "Please refrain from personal attacks, as that is how I interpreted your edit summary at this diff" would be sufficient to convey WLRoss's displeasure. My concern was that the first impulse in this event was to run to ANI, which is unresonable. Jayjg was also not notified about this thread to defend himself, so I'm posting a note to his talk so informing him. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but see below. I am growing impatient with a growing culture that marks stuff like this "resolved" on sight and says things "nobody cares". Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we can just basically say "nobody cares". Seriously, ANI has had so many troll complaints about him it isn't funny any more. Will (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me make it clear: this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving. That being said, if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits." Until that happens, the complaints will continue, and if you, Will, don't like it, try and fix the problem instead of complaining that it isn't funny. Relata refero (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The way to fix the problem is for more people to help damping down the trolls and fewer to spend time enabling them. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is now the number one most important place to get your conspiracy theory or fringe view promoted. Look at the vitriol Judd Bagley unleashed when he was prevented from promoting his holy jihad against naked shorting. Look at freepers like Bryan from Palatine. Look at the level of disruption from JB196 because we wouldn't let him promote his book. And these people set up shop off-wiki and recruit allies, and undermine the people who protected Wikipedia against their flagrant and unambiguous abuse, because it is really really really important to them to get their POV on Wikipedia. Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Troubles. Israel-Palestine. This is not the good-natured laughter at the silly and inept wars over Gdanzig any more, there are genuine concerted campaigns to make Wikipedia not neutral on important subjects. So please OPEN YOUR EYES, people. We need to find a much much better and quicker way of dealing with obvious POV-pushers, because the old way does not work with the aggressive high-stakes POV-pushing we now get. Frankly I don't care who deals with it, but if nobody else is going to then it falls to the same burned-out surly old bastards every time. All hands to the pumps, lads, the ship's taking on water fast. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And you have no idea how strongly I agree with that. But the problem is that when rudeness becomes a weapon being used all round, it becomes very hard to figure out who's doing the right thing, and it becomes totally bloody impossible to get anyone else to weigh in. I disagree with you completely about Bagley/Weiss, though the problem was that if it hadn't been such a cesspool of incivility, other people might have waded in there and fixed it by now. I don't want to touch half the things Jay or IZak or Humus or Nishidani edit because they can be a little free with the insinuations. Somewhere on this page right now is part of an interminable war about issues which nobody outside certain parts of India would understand at the first go and nobody's touching that either because of the snappiness on display. Do you see the connection?
So yes, ArbCom needs to take a tougher line, no more blasted lets-all-get-along amnesties, and someone had better start handing out blocks to POV-pushers. And as for the rest of us who plug along in low-attention high-intensity warzones, it tends to undermine requests for civilized editing when the defenders of the blasted pedia are misbehaving in their own way.
Which is why I'll back Guy in particular, because at least he's an equal opportunity offender. What's Jay's excuse? Or Mikka's? Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a weapon, not in any sense. It's a natural human response to frustration. I have the ability to assume good faith of the most unlikely candidate given the slightest glimmer of light; a lot of people right now seem intent on a Blitz-grade blackout in that respect. I suggest that every single question be brought back to the same question: what will improve the encyclopaedia. In many case,s the encyclopaedia will be best served by someone with patience and tact explaining to the problem editor what they need to do to satisfy the community that they can be a net positive - and not arguing for an unblock until the user has demonstrated that they understand the problem. I know I am out of step here, but I don't see blocking as that big a deal, it's just one of many ways we protect the project. Maybe the block messages need to be more explanatory. Sorry, we had to block you this is not a big deal, we just need to get your attention and be sure you're here for the right reasons. And, you know, a lot of people aren't. That's not to say they are evil, but they are in the wrong place. We'd do better if people from specific wikis - alt medicine, paranormal and so on - picked up these folks who are here to spread the word and helped them to learn their craft on another site where advocacy is OK, and in the mean time teach them that on WP it isn't. Hell, I think people know what I mean, and if they don't them I'm likely wasting my time explaining. Bottom line: if Mantanmoreland is Weiss, I want him gone (but I don't see it being proven right now). We don't need crusaders. Experts, yes, but not crusaders after WP:TRUTH. And we get far too bloody many of them. Oh, plus there's an inevitable tension between teenagers, and people who are parents of teenagers. I guess everyone knows which group I'm in.
Incidentally, Mikka's excuse is probably User:Bonaparte, or at least in part. Mikka is a surly old bastard like me, but fundamentally sound and a decent fellow. Try talking to him some time. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think that's fair enough, though I maintain you'd get a lot more done if you could keep your temper in check about 25% more. And to refocus this thread ever so slightly, I will make excuses for you or for Dab or even for Squeakbox, because all of you are indeed trying to keep the cruft out. Unfortunately, however, when they ask us all to make a list of those whose agenda is keeping WP clean of that stuff, Jay, inspite of the laurels with which this community in its wisdom has covered him, will not be on most people's top 100 list. (To put it as mildly and unexcitingly as possible.) So he doesn't get cut the same slack, even if some deserve it. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know User:WLRoss's work, but I do know Jay's, and there are reasons beyond troll vendettas that his name comes up so often on AN/I boards, dispute resolution fora, RfArbs, and so on, and why so many intelligent, erudite, good-faith editors simply despair of trying to collaborate meaningfully with him. He does not approach core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR (the apparent locus of the present dispute) as goods in themselves, as higher principles, as guides to editorial self-discipline – the way, say, an ideal Supreme Court judge would approach constitutional law. Rather he approaches them the way a lawyer approaches legal precedent, as a means to a frankly partisan end, as rhetorical tools useful for retaining content he agrees with and expunging content he disagrees with, and if need be, as sharp weapons to be used against rival editors. He would no more submit his own work to the principles he cites against the work of others than he would grab hold of a scimitar by the blade end instead of the handle. Take for example his two back-to-back interventions today, on Benny Morris and Israel Shahak, the latter being a vociferous critic of Israeli policies, the former an equally vociferous advocate of same. The policy issue in both cases is identical – WP:BLP, and how it specifically requires especially good sources for negative material about living persons. Look at the Benny Morris edit and its corresponding talk-page justification: Jay removes the following paragraph –

According to Ilan Pappé, Morris is biased in his use of sources (he uses mainly Israeli sources), and is contemptuous of Arabs and Arabic sources, which Morris, furthermore, cannot read. Pappé accused Morris of having racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular[11]. He also attributes Morris's work, critical and historical, to a wish to be popular in mainstream Zionist circles.

– on the grounds that the source, Electronicintifada, does not meet the BLP clause for sources of negative commentary. Jay goes on to delete a better-written (and more temperate) version of the same material from Ilan Pappé, where its context was clearer: it's a response to Morris's own vociferous attack on Pappé, which begins, '"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."' Jay leaves the Morris attack and deletes the Pappé attack, citing BLP. Now look at Jay's edit over on Israel Shahak, where he restores the following paragraph, which had been removed citing the same BLP clause:

According to Paul Bogdanor, Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."

– which is cited to FrontPageMagazine (!). On the talk page, Jay explains that this attack on Shahak – which is unprovoked (i.e. not a rebuttal to a Shahak attack on Bogdanor) and considerably more incendiary and potentially libelous – "seems well and reliably enough sourced." Front Page F'ing Magazine, are you kidding me? Jay's edit also restores the following sentence – "Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press" – which is sourced to CAMERA, WorldNetDaily, and some other junk.

Now, whatever one may think of Shahak, Pappé, and Morris, it should be clear that for Jay, WP:BLP represents a strategic weapon and not an editorial principle. Edits like this are the meat and potatoes of his work here, and quite naturally they infuriate less powerful – but more intellectually serious – Wikipedians and would-be collaborators.--G-Dett (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, G-Dett, but... Electronicintifada calls itself "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction". Can we really take that as a neutral sources of information? As to Front Page Magazine, It hardly seems little better than a Right Wing political opinion blog, and thus probably no better. Both sections should be removed per BLP and the RS writings on the uses of Blogs. I would like to see Jayjg explain why one source is so much better than the other. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. I do not personally think ElectronicIntifada, CAMERA, or WorldNetDaily should be used as sources for potentially defamatory material. Removal of information cited to EI citing BLP is absolutely justifiable. In the present context – where the quote is one scholar's rebuttal to criticism from another, and both criticisms are comparably heated/negative, and the initial criticism is included in the article – then you could also make a case for its retention. Removal would be justified by a very firm, strict application of BLP, and one could reasonably expect the removing editor to apply an equally firm hand elsewhere. In this case, Jay's firm hand is waving its middle finger at his interlocutors, as is clear from his adjacent edits to the other articles.
What in the world does WP:BLP have to do with Israel Shahak, who is dead? Nandesuka (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
EI is doubtless a partisan source, somewhat like CAMERA, but it isn't an outright laughable source like FrontPageMagazine or WorldNetDaily. It's run by Ali Abunimah, a relatively respected writer if not quite an academic heavy-hitter, and it's a sort of clearing-house for pro-Palestinian articles of all kinds, many from other sources. And in this case, remember, the source is Pappé himself, and his response to a potentially defamatory criticism.
Incidentally, where do you find EI describing itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction"? I can find only reference to EI in those terms, by an obscure blogger unaffiliated with EI. Is this what you're referring to? At any rate, here is what EI's site mission statement says: "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media."--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's how the site lists itself on Google. Check it out. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Instruction, Thuranx.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hrmm, so it is. Still not much better, really. It's still just as clearly a biased site and source, and the play on words doesn't do much to distance it from the more violent biases of its readership. I still say both should go. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a pretty offensive statement, ThuranX, but at least we are agreed that both should go.--G-Dett (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving." This type of comment is exactly why I ask for an apology. Although I accept that writers GF opinion I'm still automatically labelled by the original accusation. Why am I not a reliable complainant? I've never been blocked for my actions, this is the first time I've lodged a complaint and I've never had problems with any other users or on any other articles despite averaging far more than 100 edits a month. And why does edit warring David Irving justify a personal attack? Has anyone even looked to see what was edit warred there? Although it was a year ago I think it was about his credibility on subjects not involving Jews which had nothing to do with Irvings anti semitism. Before this I have had (as far as I can recall) only one dispute with Jayjg. When I first started editing WP I deleted a dead reference in the Hamas article which he reverted. I asked him why and he told me policy allows dead links because they worked when first used. This led to me being ridiculed by other editors when I used that same explanation later for replacing a dead link in another article (one was MONGO so if you know him you know he doesn't beat around the bush when giving an opinion on someone). This incident is why I did't deal with Jayjg again after his first refusal to apologise. To address other points brought up that this ANI is not appropriate I would also point out that I was originally told to lodge the complaint here. It was archived twice on the basis that it would be dealt with later. I never informed Jayjg of this ANI as I posted it at 3am and forgot so i apologise for that (I did however inform him of the previous ANI and he chose not to take part). I also apologise for being "longwinded". Not being experienced with complaining I have no idea how much detail is required. It was Jayjg's comment that reminded me to bring it up again and the ANI is not actually for that comment, it's for the original unjustified personal attack. I believe this ANI is more important than me, too many editors are getting away with too much because they have a high profile or a large group of friends. Unless they are made to be responsible for their actions everyone suffers. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, because it is not at all clear why this is an issue for AN/I. As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over content and a series of unfortunate user interactions. I suggest that you and JayJg try to work things out civilly on a talk page or, failing that, seek dispute resolution via mediation or an RFC. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for an apology Relata refero. You are entitled to your opinion and I was using the quote as an example of what damage Jayjg's claim could have. Wayne (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not misuse the noticeboard in the future. It is reserved for actual, ongoing incidents, ones that are in need of administrative attention. Use dispute resolution. Thanks. El_C 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Misuse"? Why was this not put forward the first or second time when it could have saved wasting so many peoples time. Twice I have been told to wait and something would be done. I was never informed this was the wrong place for it.
This is not a case of someone calling another editor an idiot but of labelling an editor with what is probably one of the most offensive offences possible with no legitimate basis for such a claim. It has nothing to do with a content dispute as Jayjg took no part in it other than to use it as an opportunity to malign another editor. Working things out with Jayjg is out of the question as in my past dealing with him he lied, showed bias and displayed an inability to "work things out". Also, in three ANI's lodged he has declined to comment or defend himself.
I apologise for sounding a little annoyed but now that I’m being accused of misusing the forum it is hard to assume that this is not just another case of protecting Jayjg from the consequences of his actions. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Inflammatory behaviour[edit]

Resolved

User Cherso made these edits on Feb 17, 2008, in a timespan of 30 minutes. I find that these edits weren't made in good faith:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[46] 'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows" ??????? On his userpage. Inflammatory statement. Territorial expansionism.
20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[47]. "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)". ????? Comment on of the edit on the article Italia irredenta. Glorifying of irredentism ??? Non-Slav - what does this mean, that every cr*p is can be good unless it comes from Slavs?? Are we going to tolerate this?
20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[48]. "! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear...""??? On my talkpage. With this one he obviously tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.
Am I wrong or he has bad attitudes towards Slavs? Please, make conclusions for yourselves what kinds of attitudes are these. From my experiences with him, this looks like anti-Slav attitude.
As you see, he gradually shows that ("...breaks away from Slav control... I hope other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow", "beautiful day for non-Slav irredentism", "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories????????????").
These are heavily inflammatory edits and even worse. Something must be done. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're opposed to people abusing their Wikipedia user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Wikipedia. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. EconomicsG