Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive399

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

Noticeboard archives


Improper block[edit]

Hello administrators. User:Raul654 has blocked User:NCdave for a week. This block is in response to some edits NCdave made to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. However, as NCdave pointed out on his talk page, and as I repeated on Raul654's talk page, Raul654 did not have the authority to block NCdave, as Raul654 has been involved in content disputes with NCdave at the aforementioned article. Wikipedia's blocking policy states that:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Please review this situation and take appropriate action. Thank you. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, the more important question is whether NCdave needed blocking, and the answer to that question is clearly "yes." He's been engaged in tendentious editing across a wide range of articles for a long, long time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • After a quick review of not the whole thing, a some kind of block for disruption seems appropriate. The only inappropriateness was that an "involved" admin performed it. NCd needs to be mindful of collaboration, and that topics around evolution, and intelligent design draw from the most arguementative selection of wikipedia users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul654 has a history of blocking users with whom he edit wars. There is no reason to believe any other administrator here is willing to inform Raul654 about proper procedures here, because here at Wikipedia users who have a persona that can fallaciously be appealed to, procedure does not matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you prepared to back up this canard with an RfC or RfA, or will you just hand wave and not provide proof of your claim? Corvus cornixtalk 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What good do you think an RfA will do when people only appeal to authority? Look around, the evidence abounds. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're not willing to back your words, then you're in serious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Corvus cornixtalk 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Here is a forum where the issue is discussed. Not much hard evidence is given, but UBeR's opinion seems to be shared by others. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now THAT is a reliable source. (note: I removed the linkage.) Corvus cornixtalk 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do that? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to that particular website are deprecated. Corvus cornixtalk 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's the BADSITES pseudo-policy that's deprecated; it was soundly defeated, in case you are unaware. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was my edit that NCdave replaced, I don't think a block was necessary, and I doubt that an uninvolved admin would have given it. No disrespect for Raul, but NCdave is an editor as well, and a one week block seems excessive to me. Mackan79 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for using that link to WR. I wasn't aware that WR is an anti-Wikipedia site. Also, I apologize for suggesting that Raul654 regularly misuses his admin powers. I have no evidence of that. I know that Raul654 is a valuable editor who has contributed much to this encyclopedia and has been here far longer than I have. This is in fact the first time I have disagreed with Raul654 over a blocking. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do have evidence. As User:The Evil Spartan stated here:

If he has a problem with my previous actions, come out and say it. Otherwise, it's clear that they are what they are - empty claims, without merit.. I do have a problem with your previous blocks. I believe you have repeatedly blocked users with whom you are in an edit war or whose edits you found disagreeable, under sometimes misleading edit summaries, and always for far longer than allowed by WP:BLOCK. Since you asked for examples, I will provide almost every non-checkuser, non-maintenance, non-vandalism block you have done in the past several months:

Special:Contributions/ - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) 1 week for "vandalism and POV pushing" for this. No warning, Raul directly in an edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/ - (WTC) 1 week for "vandalism" (in fact, was POV pushing, had no warning, did not deserve block).

User talk:Obedium - (Global warming) - As stated on the talk page, "Really, the problem is that Raul654 is in an edit war with this user, and blocked him inappropriately. The indefinite block is only an extension of that. ~ UBeR (talk) ". Raul in a direct edit war with thisuser.

Special:Contributions/ - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked, apparently, for having the chutzpah to state this. Reverted by Raul. Raul in a direct edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/ - (Intelligent Design) blocked for this innocuous mistake.

Special:Contributions/ (Intelligent Design) "vandalism" - blocked for this and removing a small section, without warning. Article which Raul edits, giving opposite point of view.

Special:Contributions/Mawest217- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for "vandalism" for having the chutzpah to add an {{NPOV}} tag to an article you routinely watch: [1]. Reverted by Raul, in a direct edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/ (Intelligent Design) - blocked for POV pushing for again, adding POV tag: [2]. Speaking against Raul's POV on an article he routinely edits.

Special:Contributions/ - (Intelligent Design) blocked for "POV pushing" for [3]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/ - (An Inconvenient Truth) - blocked for inserting the word "controversial", with a source, and after using the talk page, and in a direct edit war with Raul: [4].

Protected article - (Global warming) protected your own version of the page: [5]

Yqtb: (Intelligent Design) locked his talk page for removing a message from you: [6], which is allowable by policy (not to mention blocking him 24h for quite mild vandalism on an article you were involved in).

Special:Contributions/ - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for "POV pushing": [7]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

User:UBeR - (global warming) -blocking for 3RR, etc. on an article which you clearly have a stake: [8].

Special:Contributions/Brittainia - (global warming) - edit warring.

User:Rtc - (Intelligent Design)- blocked for "trouble-making" (which, as every time, involved a point of view opposite your own)

User:Iantresman (ultimately global warming related) - blocked for "harassing" a user whose POV you agree with on the articles they were editing.

Special:Contributions/ (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for a week for POV pushing for this (reverted by yourself of course, which is not POV-pushing, and certainly not justified without a warning, and most certainly not from an admin who is POV pushing in the opposite direction.

Special:Contributions/ - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for edit warring with you.

Special:Contributions/Zeeboid - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocking an editor with whom you were in dispute, and losing a good contributor for it while at it.

Special:Contributions/ - (ID)[9], etc. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Admin_blocking_a_user_with_whom_he_was_in_an_edit_conflict ANI thread.

At this point, I tire of going any further back than April (I believe the mountain of blocks above suffices). So, no, to answer your questions, my statements were not "empty claims, without merit." The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Naerii 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the edits above were clearly problematic, and should have been instantly reverted.
Most also don't count as simple vandalism, though, by anyone's definition. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm...half of the list above are sock puppets of User: Scibaby. Calling User: Zeeboid a "good contributor" must be some kind of joke - he was the meat puppet of a radio talk show host only here for provocation. I've looked over the edit history of "Expelled". Raul has made 10 edits in the last 4 month, and as far as I can tell, only one of them (the latest) reverting NCDave. That is a mighty low-intensity edit war.... Raul has warned him against tendentious editing two weeks ago, however. We cannot interpret "being on the other side in a discussion" as "being in a conflict" - its normal that our good editors are on "the other side" of POV-pushers. Also, a participation on a talk page does not "a conflict" make - we want our admins to communicate before they take out the banhammer, not to hover over the pages and strike without warning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that in response to me? Because if so it makes no sense. Perhaps you've put it in the wrong place? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's in reply to Naerii quoting Spartan - I got confused by the indention level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, TheEvilSpartan's summaries of the above blocks are highly misleading, if not outright false. I'm not going to sit here and jusity every block, but just to give a few examples, consider this edit that EvilSpartan classified "an innocent mistake". An anon changed every instance of teleological (the correct word) to theological (the wrong word) - something he shouldn't have done anyway. He somehow managed to spell "theological" correctly in the edit summary, and mispelled it every single time thereafter. That's not an innocent mistake - that's intentional vandalism with a false edit summary. User: I blocked because I caught him with checkuser gaming the FA process, disrupting an article while logged out and logging in to file an FAR claiming it was unstable. The only relavant question on the AN was whether or not the account block should have been indefinite. (It was upheld). Obedium, a user I blocked for POV pushing, turned out to be a Scibaby sock. Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV. Iantresman is community banned for POV pushing (and the arbcom has twice upheld it and refused his appeals). Brittainia I blocked because - at Raymond's suggestion, I ran checkuser and found out "she" was a sockpuppet of user:Rameses. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

As to the current block, NCDave has been warned on three separate occasions that his editing is tenditious.[10][11][12] In fact, there was an entire talk page thread at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed dedicated to his problematic editing on that article. He was given more than sufficient warning. At the time I issued his final warning, he claimed I was involved in in a dispute with him (he collected every edit I had ever made to the article - regardless of whether or not they pertained to him - to claim I was involved in a personal dispute with him). Claiming he is involved in a dispute with an admin seems to be his favorite tactic to prevent admins from sanctioning for his behavior. At the time, I informed him that this was not the case. He continued his disruption, culminating in today's block. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to make one final note that I find JBFrenchhorn's actions here very fishy. He filed this complaint here and never notified me, as is generally expected and/or required. Raul654 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, although I did state my opinions on the issue on your talk page, I did not notify you of this thread. I should have done so, and I apologize. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, why are you suspicious of anyone with an opposite viewpoint? I read over your history of blocks and many of these constitute admin abuse. I mean, come on! A WEEK LONG BLOCK!? The second edit he made was one that several users thought should have been made. Are you going to block them too? If you want someone blocked that you are disputing with then please let someone else handle it and don't abuse your admin powers! Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I make no judgment to the previous blocks which seem to have been generally reasonable, but I would note that the two warnings other than Raul's here come from "Angry Christian" and FeloniousMonk, which suggests they may not have been entirely neutral (I believe both are on the other side of these content issues). The other seems related to another page. As to the specific edit, it was entirely appropriate, adding the word "reportedly" to a characterization about a movie that hasn't come out yet. I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never edited at the intelligent design (ID) related articles until yesterday after DaveNC was blocked. It seems that he was blocked for objecting when several editors tried to insert into a Wikipedia article that ID is an "intrusion" in science classes.[13] I agree that it is an intrusion, but DaveNC was correct that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and is not a place for POV-pushing. DaveNC may have violated some other Wikipedia policies, but I feel very uncomfortable about a 1-week block for opposing blatant POV-pushing. Incidentally, the vast majority of courts in the U.S. have held that ID is not an intrusion in science classes at private schools.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
First, your understanding of the law is faulty. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. (Courts of subsequently interpreted "Congress" means the "government", both federal and state); hence public schools (and an arm of the government) are bound by the first amendment not to allow religion to be taught as fact in a s science classroom. Courts have not ruled that ID violates the first amendment in science classes in private schools because the constition does not apply in private schools.
Second, you description of the events on that article is equally faulty. "Intrustion" is the word that has been used in the article for a while. Mackan79 and later NCDave were POV pushing by trying to change it. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I agree with you that "Courts have not ruled that ID violates the first amendment in science classes in private schools...." So, why should this Wikipedia article assert that ID is an "intrusion" in science classes, if it's perfectly legal in science classes at private schools? Maybe solipsism would also be an intrusion in science classes, but should Wikipedia really be taking such a position? Again, I agree that ID (and solipsism) should not intrude in science classes, but that's just my personal opinion. The word "intrusion" has been in this article for awhile, but the talk page shows that it has been controversial, and for good reason I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You confuse the legal with the semantic. Courts have ruled that ID is not science. Hence putting it into science classes makes then "science plus crap" classes. You cannot "include" it and still call it a science class. Private schools are allowed to teach religious crap in the US - that does not make it science, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Legally speaking, if any court ever said anything about the propriety of ID in a private school science class, then it was pure obiter dicta not binding on anyone. It's probably true that ID does not belong in a "science" class like physics or biology or chemistry. But by the same token history is not "science" either, and yet it's not really an intrusion when a physics teacher discusses the history of a great scientist's life. Anyway, I think I've pretty much said all I wanted to say here. Thanks for the opportunity.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Intrude means to put it somewhere it doesn't belong; the court said exactly that in the Kitmizller case. Changing it to 'include' is a pretty clear attempt to water down the (correct) language in the article, and is POV pushing. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That was a nonsensical argument. Cooking is not science either, but you can discuss the science of cooking. ID proponents floated the idea of creation "science", which is not science at all, in order to undermine evolutionary biology, which they see as a threat to their religious beliefs. I'm not aware that anybody sees the history of science as in any way incompatible with the teaching of science. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss ideas such as phlogiston and Descartes' principles of natural philosophy without asserting that they are anything other than outmoded staging posts on the way to modern understanding. When Hooke demonstrated that one of Descartes' principles was provably wrong, proposing instead what became known as conservation of momentum, it was considered quite a big deal by the Royal Society. Hooke's experiments and methods merit study as the pattern for much modern experimental practice - Hooke and Boyle, for example, were the first to present the results of an experiment in tabular form with the expected and observed values compared. This is an extremely interesting field of considerable relevance in the teaching of science and experimental practice. What do you think the teaching of intelligent design adds to the understanding of the development and methodology of science? Guy (Help!) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I regard the teaching of intelligent design to be an intrusion in a science class. However, disagreement exists.
Many great physicists believe that the fundamental laws of nature are by the design of a creator, and it's not absurd to suppose that someday biologists might find something similar going on in the evolutionary process. I doubt it will happen, but it could happen, and I don't see anything wrong with a biology teacher mentioning such a possibility. When we pick our mates, we are in some sense helping to design offspring, and science is developing ever-more-powerful methods for us to create a designer baby; I cannot say with 100% certainty that no intelligence beyond our own is affecting the evolution of our race. Life is a mysterious thing, and we don't know all the answers. Anyway, JzG, someone once told me that smoke is an essential component within many electronic devices, the proof being that whenever those electronic devices cease to function there is an observed escaping of the smoke....Wikipedia would be entitled to say that a theory like that would definitely be an intrusion in a science class. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
To correct, Raul, I didn't edit anything related to the word "intrusion." If your view of my comments is based on the idea that I did, I'd ask you to reread them. Even so, changing "intrusion" to "inclusion" isn't exactly awful, since both would seem to share a roughly equivalent amount of POV. Mackan79 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following the intelligent design articles at all, nor this argument, but a week long block for just one edit, that in fact seems to be an obviously good faith edit (which appears to have been instantly reverted by the Admin who claims he is not in an edit-war with NCDave), seems a big overreaction. Yes there were (apparently) earlier problems, but the fact that it's been at least 2 weeks since any of the problematic edits occurred makes it difficult to claim that they are justification for a block, you don't block someone after a 2week delay....Restepc (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

replying to myself.....the review by.....I've forgotten the name now......ah yes, Mango_juice, points to NCdaves actions on the talk page, so perhaps my above point is not as relevant as I had thought. Restepc (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I'm here too, and so is JBFrenchhorn. All FOUR of us believe that the word intrusion was POV pushing. The word inclusion, does not push a POV in any way. Saksjn (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The best way to solve this problem is to apply zero tolerance to advocacy of fringe views in mainstream articles. Virtually the entire problem here has been people promoting content that goes against the dominant mainstream view. The same is going on around parapsychology / paranormal articles, articles on fringe scientists, any form of pseudoscience, 9/11, vaccines, chronic fatigue syndrome, asperger's, water fluoridation, anything to do with creationism, and that's before we get to the religious and ethnic feuds. Wikipedia is the single most important place to get your fringe POV validated, all controversy tends to be massively over-represented and quite often accorded substantially inflated significance within articles, and we seem to be giving more consideration to ever-so-polite people who keep requesting the same invalid changes with the same invalid arguments month after month, than to people who enforce NPOV and try to prevent hijacking of articles by fringe advocates. Are we going to do something about this at some point? Or are we simply going to wait until each mainstream defender loses patience and ban them one by one for incivility, leaving the place free to the soup-spitters? The place to advocate parity of ID is Conservapedia. The place to advocate parity for global warming denial is ExxonMobilpedia (OK, maybe we don't have an article on that yet). WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are the policies here, and people who wear out the patience of everyone in sight while trying to weasel their way around those policies are a problem. So we need to deal with it, without endlessly spinning it out. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No the best way to solve this is to simply abide by the Block policy and don't block someone with whom you are in dispute, even if you are an admin, crat, checkuser, arb, or demigod. Simple as that, no big hullaballoo needed. All the discussion about whether this speicific block (or the dozen others listed) was otherwise good is completely beside the point -- there would be no drama at all if an uninvolved admin made the block, which is exactly why the block policy forbids this. Discussion of the content dispute itself has no place here on ANI at all. Unit56 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation in Kina Grannis[edit]

I found this note on my talk page today. Apparently, there has been conflict over some material in the article. This is a serious violation of the 3RR. I thought I would bring it here to see what everyone else thinks should be done. I suggest, since an IP is involved, semi protecting the page and a issuing a warning (poss. level 2) to all involved parties and watching the page. However, I'm new to something like this so maybe I'm wrong. Dustitalk to me 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the IPs involved might have a point on this one. A 5 year old source, that doesn't mention the article subject by their full name (although I do agree it's a logical assumption), is being used as a reference for who someone is currently dating. I think that the statement shouldn't be included unless a current ref can be provided. --OnoremDil 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, however, they still need to act within policy, or if they disagree, they need to contact an admin. Dustitalk to me 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The people restoring the information need to act within policy. Removing violations of this nature falls outside 3RR. The article is now protected to ensure that the violations are not restored. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
They also shouldn't have been socks of one another, either... Daniel (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question by email[edit]

Hanging out at WP:Help desk, WP:Editor assistance/Requests, WP:New contributors' help page, etc. I try to help editors with problems. By email I received this question, which I pass along.

An editor was involved in a content dispute with another editor. It happened that the other editor was an admin, who blocked the first editor for being disruptive.

Question: Is it proper for an admin to block another editor when he himself is involved in a dispute with that editor? I always thought that the admin should seek an uninvolved editor to make the decision and block if appropriate.

The editor was warned by that admin about a week ago. The editor politely requested the admin to identify the inappropriate edits so that he could learn from his mistakes. The admin never told him what edits were wrong.

Some admins are so trusted by the community and have been here so long, they might block someone editing an article they're both involved in and cause only a brief flurry. However, most admins should never block editors with whom they have been editing content on the same article, but ask another disinterested admin to review (some admins post here seeking a review). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: How can an editor improve his behavior if he does not know what edits were improper? Shouldn't an admin help an editor to learn from his mistakes?

The editor in question did not give me permission to release his email so I have to ask these questions in rather general form. I hope you can offer meaningful help without examining the specifics of the case. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin should clearly tell the editor what was thought to be untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If he wants help, he is going to have to release something so people can look at the situation. Or if you want to help him on the basis of what he sent you, look yourself and judge the appropriateness of the block. If you think it was inappropriate, and he won't let us see, he might be willing to email arbcom. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite difficult to offer any worthwhile comment without something a touch more specific. Generally, though: sure, admins should strive to avoid using their tools to gain power in content disputes, and should try to make their rationale for admin actions reasonably clear. Hard to say whether any of this happened without knowing what happened at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Admins should be extremely careful in exercising admin powers in relation to a content dispute. This does not mean, however, that an admin cannot block an editor just because they have interacted before.
It is not common to block a user without their having being warned first. Warnings will usually indicate the article where the problematic edits were made, and roughly what the problem is.
All editors should be prepared to explain their edits on request. This applies double for warnings issued, and triple for admin actions like blocks.
If a user feels a block is unfair, they should use the {{unblock}} template on their user talk page and an uninvolved admin will review. In some cases the user talk page may be protected (which happens just a shade too often for my preference), in which case they should use the unblock mailing list. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block.
That's really all that can be said without details. Would it really be improper to identify the user who was blocked? Bovlb (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm being wikistalked[edit]

I think that User: (contribs page is wikistalking me. S/he has been going to articles that I was the last to work on and removing my edits without putting in any reason. Not only has s/he been doing that, s/he has also inserted deletion tags as well as changing my edits back, and I would hardly think that s/he would bother to remove my edits as well as tag the articles if s/he didn't have some kind of grudge against me. I left a message on his/her talk page asking why they were doing this, but I'm kind of freaked out and I'm not totally sure what to do. Suggestions? Asarelah (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left the IP a note about this. Whois stuff means nothing to me (need to learn some day, I do) but it seems to be a static IP. If they continue disrupting, a block may be warranted. What can you do? I'd say the best thing is just keep an eye on their edits, remove incorrect prod tags, and ignore them otherwise. (See WP:RBI and WP:DENY for some philosophy.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm new here, but I think I can be of some help. I did a whois and it says the ip is registered to Tiscali UK Limited, so it's from England, and it says "Concerning abuse and spam ... mailto:".--Jaeger123 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Tiscali UK is an ISP that assigns an address from a large pool every time a subscriber logs on - blocking Tiscali ip's is not effective, as all a vandal has to do is log out and get a reassigned address. I know this as I am a Tiscali UK customer. I would also comment that if their efforts at tracing an individual abusive account is as good as their spam filter... well, best of luck! (You'll need it!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits ... again[edit]

Hi all. Various people are once again edit-warring over the contents of banned editor, Vintagekits' userpage. I've no interest one way or another in this matter, but I'd like the community to decide one way or another as to whether the page should be blanked or kept. One side thinks it's useful and of historic interest; more useful to the community than a blank page. The other side says that banned editors have no right to a userpage. All the while, the original Vintagekits is happily socking away. The last time I caught him was Wednesday.

Either way, I've fully protected the page at the customary Wrong Version. Can we have some decision here, or this page will end up on ANI on a weekly basis. The last time was just over a week ago. Thoughts? - Alison 08:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, MFD? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's not really a question of deleting or not the page (nobody thinks the page history should be deleted). -- lucasbfr talk 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a policy on wp:en to systematically blank the user pages of banned editors ? That would sound logical (because blocking means deligitimisation) and that is the practice on wp:fr. Ceedjee (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As his page testifies he has written literally hundreds of good pages, on uncontroversial subjects. If people reading those pages want to check the authors details I can see no possible harm to his sig linking to a page giving those details, albeit with a banned template. Most of VK's last (legal) months at Wikipedia were involved in dispute with those editors now seeking to have his page blanked. This group of editors, which centred on the now banned (and worrying) David Lauder, have constantly sought to influence Wikipedia's pages with their own very right wing British political POV, this has included pages on their own relations. This has caused many problems, not only with VK. VK was not and out and out pure vandal - most of his contributions were of great value, that finally he succumbed to constant war with these editors is regrettable, and history. However, there is no good reason for his page being completely blank, but by all mans protect it from his enemies. we owe him that in return for his many good contributions to the project. This petty behaviour of blanking and warring over his page seems to me to be akin to smashing a dead enemy's tombstone. Not a sport in which I would be proud to indulge. Giano (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In reply to "we owe him that in return for his many good contributions to the project", so what do we owe him for his disruptive sockpuppetry, a shrine? There have been editors with thousand upon thousand of edits who got indefblocked and thier userpages are no more, what makes this userpage so special to you, or are you just doing vigilante work against The Enemy® as usual? If there is useful content on the page, feel free to hit the edit button, copy and paste it in your own space, and stop trying to make an indefblocked sockpuppeteer sound like some kind of martyr. — Κaiba 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not a shrine. An undeleted user page, which makes it easy to see what has happened. And please skip the amateur psychoanalyzing or innuendo or whatever it is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Couple things, 1) You obviously don't know what psychoanalysis is if you think that was applied in my comment, two, it was hardly innuendo as that requires an innocent party, one Giano probably doesn't fit under, and three we don't owe a disruptive user a damn thing, but if your going to play that card, the history wasn't deleted it was blanked. Any content anyone wants to look at is the page history and revert warring over whether it is actually visable is petty. — Κaiba 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
owe ? wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this "wikipedian editor" has no particular notoriaty on the web, has he ? why would somebody arrive on that page to see the work he would have done. As it would be a "start point" of his study ??? I expect any reader is more interested in the content... That is not the way wikipedia is assumed to be used... Ceedjee (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Very true. He was abusing Wikipedia and should be thankfully all his edits have not been reverted! Blank it. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not customary (or indeed practicable) to revert all the edits of a prolific editor. Or do I miss your point? -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, he doesn't have any particular notoriety on the web. Because he's not notorious, a page seems harmless. Somebody might arrive on that page from a comment he made in a talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
True, it's not practical, I'm not saying it should be done; but is it not allowed? Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverting every edit by VK would be a grotesque proposition. If VK edited a given page once, taking it from stage A to stage B, and if it had thereafter been improved to stage C, then the obvious options would be to take it back to A (simple but counterproductive) and to adjust C in terms of the change from A to B (requiring human thought). Multiply that by a few hundred or thousand. Or are you asking whether blanking is page his not allowed? (Good of you to ask, though you might have asked it before you blanked it.) Putting aside what is and isn't allowed, you may wish to explain the advantages of blanking it. The obvious place for such a discussion is, I suppose, its talk page; but I see that somebody has already deleted that and might not take kindly to its re-creation. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not willing to engage in conversation with someone so keen on twisting what I say. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent)The point is the only editor not allowed to edit Vk's user page is Vk. Anyone else can and is entitled to put factual content onto it ([14]) so until the policy on banned editors' user pages changes to permanent protection on a blank page then your stuck with it. - Bill Reid | Talk 10:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Alison- keep it blank, there's such a thing as a page history and anyone wanting to read the page as the other editors want it, can easily find it there. It's not like the info has been removed, with the click of the 'history' button it's there.Merkin's mum 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed we had a policy that users were allowed user pages and that non-/banned/indef-blocked users were not. If Giano wants the "useful" content from the page (a list of boxing-related articles?) then they could be put on a subpage of Giano's userpage with a redirect from VK's userpage. Otherwise, if someone is really interested, there is always the page history. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why Guy is ignoring this discussion and has recreated the page anyway? --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback and Landon1980[edit]

User:Landon1980 is continually changing the genres on Nickelback so that they are separated by line breaks. He cites WP:MOS and is edit warring. He refuses to discuss the matter and is edit warring just to get his way. I explained to him on my talk page why the genres should stay as they were (separated by commas) and asked him to respond, but instead he just reverted my edit, citing WP:MOS again. He needs to understand that the genres should not be changed, and I'm hoping he will be more inclined to listen to an admin or some editor other than me. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Timmeh! 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either commas or line breaks can be used. Grsz11 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Today I made an edit, and left a talk page note related to this very issue. It really doesn't matter what delimiters are used as the discussion about it ended with no consensus. Just like you shouldn't change words from English to American spelling, you shouldn't be changing delimiters. It is pointless. Much less, no one should be edit warring over this. Seraphim♥ Whipp 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
While it's pointless to be continuously making this edit, Landon hasn't broken 3RR. He's made the edit once in the past 24, none in the 24 before that, then twice before that. Grsz11 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that Landon continues to believe that genres should be separated by line breaks for bands and commas for solo artists. He refuses the discuss the issue and keeps reverting my edits changing the delimiters back to commas after explaining to him why the genres should stay as they originally were. He only reverts when I change the genres back and I'm really getting sick of it. He also has recently made false accusations against me on User:Hoponpop69's talk page saying I only revert his and Hoponpop's edits because I believe that they are the same person. Although I am not convinced they are the same person, they sure do act the same way: refuse to discuss issues and edit war before consensus is reached stating their own reasons. Timmeh! 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is possibly aproaching lamest edit wars. Both of you need to ask yourself: which format best serves the reader? Personally, using linebreaks looks a little more organized. EdokterTalk 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann on Egyptians[edit]

Looking for opinions. User:Dbachmann was edit-warring on the article Egyptians after being solicited by User:Funkynusayri to make changes that had not yet gained sufficient consensus on the talk page. He broke 3RR after I left him a note, reminding him of that and his latest arbitration. Another editor is now blocked, but not Dbachmann. The blocking admin is saying that I might have broken 3RR myself, though looking back at the history again I don't believe I have [15]. Still would like to address Dbachmann's conduct here. I consider his comments on the article's talk page to be attacks rather than constructive criticism. In the past, I would have said that these types of eruptions were out of character, but lately I'm not sure. Discussion with blocking admin is here. — Zerida 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any attacks. I do note, however, that I copped it from someone on that page for accepting your definition of them as "pan-Arabist". Apparently that was an attack - by you and I. Which should remind us all not to throw the word "attack" around. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
First, I almost never use the term "pan-Arabist" which is only a subset of Arab nationalism. Most Arab-nationalist wikipedians are self-proclaimed judging by their comments on talk pages. Among the many points that Funkynusayri consistently misses, however, is that I hardly have him in mind specifically when I use that term casually. He might think I do because he has been religiously stalking me for months, but the fact is that this type of disruption and tendentious editing has been an on-again, off-again problem by a few editors who associate with each other (the most problematic being this one, who was a close friend of Funky). Now that I recall though, in one of his many instances of soapboxing to that article's discussion page, Funky does indicate something to that effect, so it's hardly presumptive.
Getting back to the main issue of this discussion, I do consider these comments by Dbachmann blatant personal attacks: "we get it already, the author of the article doesn't like Arabs" (an odious charge that forces me to defend myself when I shouldn't have to. At least if it were true, I would not have put up on my userpage the second barnstar that an Arab admin gave me in large part *because of* that article) and "with Zerida 'defending' his 'Pharaonist' article" (whatever that means; must be a kind of circumstantial ad hominem to which one resorts when one runs out of logic or has nothing substantive to say in the face of reliably sourced information). The comments were clearly insulting and belittling, but I take confidence in that my edit history, the quality of my contributions and the level of scholarship that I have established on the main Egypt-related articles, and pushed for during Ancient Egypt's FA nomination, all speak for themselves.
This incident is just one manifestation of the problems that plague Wikipedia as a community. That someone who has been through multiple RFCs for questionable user conduct and an arbitration is still given free rein as an admin to continue to act in violation of our core policies is quite symptomatic. Admittedly, when I first came across the arbitration case I was conflicted. I had even previously invited him to help mediate an article when I still respected him as an editor. Some of those who set up the arbitration case themselves had been trying to force an Afrocentric POV at every corner. The problem, however, is that many of the points raised against him were valid. Watching the article Race of ancient Egyptians as an example go through many rewrites month after month of discussion, several drafts and RFCs until a modicum of consensus was reached by editors with very disparate points of view and, let's face it, didn't like each other very much, only to have these efforts repeatedly disrupted by Dbachmann because they did not conform to his own opaque Eurocentric view of the topic, and of ancient Egypt in general, was to say the least frustrating and tiresome (not that the article is in any good condition right now, but for different reasons).
The truth is I've found myself sometimes having to spend too much time cleaning up after Dbachmann on Egyptological articles due to his poor editing and poor knowledge of the topic. But that and a guy with a bruised ego are the least of my worries around here. His ability to list a litany of Wikipedia acronyms on style guides doesn't impress me either when his edits don't comply with any of them. His continuous edit-warring on articles that he targets, however, or asking help from his associates to do it for him to get around policies, is what really needs to stop, especially when an admin blocks an editor for 3RR but not him, then makes threatening comments to those who take the blocking admin to task for it. — Zerida 22:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangup & Count Mospak[edit]

Vandal User:Graf stefan, who is most likely a sock of User:Mospak and User: (based on identical edits and identical reposting of deleted edits), keeps vandalizing Mangup by cut-and-pasting the entire content of the WP:HOAX article Count Mospak, which is currently up for AfD:[16]. This extremely annoying vandal keeps adding the cut-and-paste hoax to Mangup, no matter how many times it's deleted. A block of all three accounts is probably in order, along with protection of Mangup. Qworty (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The true vandal is this Qworty who should have a sock placed in his mouth. The fact that this common computer know it all has failed to provide any proof that he has any personal knowledge on the workings of the Orthodox Church or nobility brings great question upon his self appointing ability to block users or content.

God Save the South (talk · contribs) and anti-Semitism[edit]

LBHS Cheerleader(s)[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required: Sockmaster is already blocked, vandalism from IP is very old and the IP is shared. -Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just detected (not blocked) behaving as another sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader. Do we need to ban her or continue to revert, block, and ignore?

The sockmaster is allready blocked. As for the IP; it is a shared IP and only a single abusive edit has come from it (over 15 days ago) I don't think a block of it is mandated. -Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
shared = no, dynamic = yes GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Consensus is to keep indef blocked

User:Piercetheorganist has been indef'd. I support this block, but he's asking for an unblock and I think input would be helpful given it's at least somewhat related to the worries brought up through the GStS thread above. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamla has declined the unblock citing an example diff. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that diff, this user needs to never come back. Grsz11 18:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, it's the same example diff that Guy used, and that according to the user has been "moved on from". (Certainly not current.) And the AfD nomination was, in Dhartung's words, "borderline A7", at the time of the nomination. So is that the only recent "disruptive" act you can come up with? Sounds like a misunderstanding to me. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have considered the unblock if the user categorically promised never again to act like that. But the user was not willing to make such a promise. I grant that the multiple violations were some time ago, but with no reason to believe they won't continue in the future, I couldn't support an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another "misunderstanding" for you then - [18]. Does this sound like a user we really want? I don't really think the fact that it was 2 months ago is relevant at all - a leopard doesn't change its spots in that time, especially given the screed he posted on User talk:God Save the South in the last 24 hours. Blocks are preventative - preventing someone making an edit like that (or the one above) to a BLP is quite within WP:BLOCK. Black Kite 18:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the analogy to child rape in the unblock request probably tells us everything we need to know here. Wildly inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • And that one was five days ago. Case closed, I think. Black Kite 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec^n) Yeah, can't fault that one. Thanks. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And I know it's not on-wiki, but his belief that feminists are pagan whores, combined with the refusal to state he won't continue his behavior makes it hard to believe he can be a constructive part of the community. E kala mai. --Ali'i 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be "baby-killing lesbian feminists" in particular, I think. No wait, he says those are the ones to be put to death.
No, I don't see this gentleman being able to work while assuming good faith of fellow-contributors. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, case closed. Did he think he could hide that? Grsz11 18:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
An excellent block, there's simply no way we should be considering unblocking the chap in question. Nick (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Very strong endorse. Looking at his talk page history and the original version of his user page, I'm surprised this guy wasn't bounced sooner. As a North Carolinian and an African-American, I say away with him. I've gone further and placed {{banneduser}} on his user page, as there is no scenario where I can imagine him ever being allowed back. Blueboy96 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what's really sad is that he was a decent editor on organ related pages, and many of his uploads were of pretty good quality. I could see a situation where he categorically stated he would cease his racist edits, and could be unblocked, with the banhammer coming at the first sign of a continued disruption. Perplexing really. --Ali'i 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the last version of his talk page before he archived it, I don't think even that chance is in the cards. Blueboy96 19:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
When I saw those diffs this morning, I was amazed he hadn't been blocked already. Thanks to this IP editor for noticing them - the edit summary is fairly priceless too. Black Kite 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block / ban until he agrees that this is Wikipedia, not Wikkkipedia. GBT/C 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. I recall having a minor run in with him over this version (now deleted) of his userpage. I figured he was headed for trouble and the diffs cited above are absolutely unacceptable.--Kubigula (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh! I like. A restriction to organ-related articles and no BLPs on non-WASPs would mabe work if he's at all helpful there still, but I prefer not to leave others having to monitor every edit of bigots who can't check their prejudices at the door. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. A Jekyll and Hyde editor whose evident bad far outweighs the admitted good. If he had not taken down that previous userpage (advocating in apparent seriousness the mass execution of political opponents) after Kubigula and I objected this may have come to a head sooner. I am unwilling to extend further grace. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. It helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack, other issues with Rbaish[edit]


- The claimant is satisfied. Adjourned. the_undertow talk 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A cursory review of Rbaish's contributions gives the impression that this is a single purpose account. A review of the user's talk page and block log shows that the account is generally disruptive. Rbaish has recently been edit warring (again) over on the mess of an article Black supremacy. Other editors are discussing a contested change on the article talk page but Rbaish apparently refuses to do so (with the exception of one brief "vote"), preferring to edit war without comment or even an edit summary [19] [20] [21]. While technically staying within the confines of 3RR (though there are a couple of IP edits which might easily be Rbaish logged out), the user violates the spirit of it and refuses to engage in a conversation. This is a longstanding pattern.

After enjoining the user to take it to talk in an edit summary, which had no effect, I left this message on Rbaish's talk page asking him to discuss the changes and suggesting that he take a more collaborative approach to editing. His reply on my talk page (with the heading "Bite Me") was "You are a white hating assclown with an agenda as clear as the morning sun. Go jump off a cliff."

That attack is grounds for a block I think (it doesn't bother me personally - his comment is so ridiculous it actually made me laugh), and given this user's history I would recommend a rather long term one. This editor is not here to build the encyclopedia - they are here to push a racial agenda and consistently use disruptive tactics in order to further that goal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon a brief review of the editors contribution history, talkpage and blocklog (all of which revolve around the same few subjects) I executed an indef block, on the grounds of disruption. I welcome review and, if considered necessary, revision of the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on the editor's talk page, but I get the feeling I underestimated the disruption levels of the situation. For the moment, I endorse Less's block. Anthøny 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; but I am somewhat confused by the edit-war on Black supremacy where this editor was re-inserting the word "racist" (in order to make the article equivalent with White supremacy) yet kept being reverted for no apparent reason [22], including that revert by an editor who was quite happy to edit-war to add the word to the latter article [23]. Double standards, or am I missing something? Black Kite 00:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That is somewhat of a separate issue which will be dealt with at an RfC. Yahel and Rbaish both apply double standards to these articles, but like I said, the latter will be resolved. the_undertow talk 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all for taking a look at this and to LessHeard vanU for enacting a block, which I think is wholly appropriate. As to Black Kite's question, edit warring over the term "racist" has been a persistent issue on that article (and I guess the white supremacy one as well). There was significant discussion on the talk page months ago which ended in a rough consensus that it was fine to put the term racist in the first sentence. Yahel Guhan never really agreed with that and removes it from time to time, while others like Rbaish generally revert him. I don't care enough either way to revert either of them, though clearly the previous consensus was to employ that term in the opening sentence. Anyhow, as the_undertow notes, this is indeed a separate issue from the overall issue of Rbaish's editorial practices and Wiki behavior. I view the latter issue as closed, unless of course others disagree with LHVU's block.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also Rbaish requested an unblock but formatted the template incorrectly. I think I fixed it so hopefully it will show up now and an admin can review the request.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Declined. Saying "there is no reasoning" with other users definitely isn't the way to get unblocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested[edit]

I blocked Luminous-Lint (talk · contribs) this morning for spamming and for having a promotional username (the name of the website he was linking to). I left him a note saying I would unblock if he would change his username, read WP:SPAM and WP:EL, and promise not to continue linking to the website. The website is some kind of rare photographer/photography repository. It appears to contain photographer biographies and large collections of their works.

He has read the policies, and agreed to change his username, but is advocating linking to the part showing the galleries of their works. I am unsure what to do at this point. Links to the photographer bios (which he was adding before) are unneeded and go against WP:EL. A collection of photography from a particular photographer would be relevant, but on the other hand this is not Commons, where the photography could be uploaded depending on the license. Check out his talk page to see what he wants to link to. He has been very civil throughout the whole process. Opinions on how to proceed are welcome. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at these photographs and the bio he's provided, there is no need to have the link. The person who took those photos died more than 100 years ago, so they're all in the public domain. It's not necessary to link to a gallery with all 101 photos, especially if he intends to put the link at the top of the page as he says; just the photos that provide particular encyclopedic insight can be uploaded to Commons and used here. I'll post this explanation on his user page, but I don't think what he's proposing is in line with policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the help. KnightLago (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dchall1 calling "vandalism"[edit]

I have the impression that Chris would like to have his private definition of vandalism. I have been trying to make clear to him that any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

I request that someone tries to convince him to not "shout vandalism" when in fact he is in disagreement with good-faith editor behaviour, however misguided or rude that may have been. This only makes matters worse. Please note that I do not wish him sanctioned, just enlightened will do. (Chris and I differ on a lot of things, and I am not one he is likely to take advice from.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a standard comment added by Twinkle, which needs to be overriden manually. Corvus cornixtalk 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh... yes and no. TW gives three rollback buttons, a green "Assume Good Faith" one, a blue "basic rollback" one, and a red "VANDAL" button. The "vandalism" comment is only automatically added by the last of those three - both AGF and basic will prompt you for a reason as to why you're reverting, and the green AGF button will add a further note that you are assuming the edits were made in good faith, but you're still reverting for <reason>. It may be we just need to tell him to use the other buttons instead of the big red one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Adding three paragraphs of unsourced conspiracy theories to an article then edit warring over to keep them in doesn't smack of "good faith" to me. --Haemo (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned on Xiutwel's talk page, yes, I viewed dumping three paragraphs of conspiracy theories into the article without discussion to be disruptive. However, I left a Template:uw-unsourced1 on User talk:Jhon1000's talk page (rather than a vandalism template), along with a polite request to discuss changes on the talk page and a pointer to the arbitration case. The only place where the accusation of "vandalism" came up was in the Twinkle edit summary. Furthermore, apparently two other users took the same view of these edits. The tone of his edits was sarcastic and combative, and I believe one could be forgiven for assuming vandalism at first glance. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 23:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointless conflict with John[edit]

John keeps removing the "Afro-Caucasian People" category from Sydney Tamiia Poitier, arguing that no proper source is given. On the contrary, this info is duly sourced and relevant, as Ms Poitier is a notable biracial (i.e. : she is the notable daughter of a very notable black man, who is notably married to a somewhat notable white woman). This information is in no way defamatory and does not invade Ms Poitier's privacy. The same thing goes for Ruud Gullit, whose relevance as a "multiracial icon" I had duly sourced and Thandie Newton, whose biracial heritage is also sourced. I have found exchanges with John (who has come to the point of being needlessly agressive and threatening) to be extremely difficult to cope with, and can no longer believe in this user's good faith. He keeps ignoring any sources that are given to him and indulges in extremely tiresome debates, motivated by what I suspect to be ideological/personal reasons. I am also quite baffled by his behaviour on such a trivial detail. Since I do not want to waste my time on a nerve-wracking debate and or any kind of conflict with John, I would just like him to be reminded that he should refrain from completely pointless edit warring. Behaviors such as his are the best way to disgust users from contributing to wikipedia, their good faith notwithstanding. Thank you. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I and another admin have pointed out several times to this user the constraints of WP:BLP and WP:V. It was all at his user talk until he removed it with the summary "removing the trash talk". Alternatively, Wedineinheck, you have the right to WP:FORK and create a project with different rules where people are classified, apartheid-style, according to "race", as it seems you would like to do. I wish you well in either case, but as long as you are still editing here, please do not add or restore racial categories for which there is no evidence, especially to articles on living people. It is courteous to inform an editor whose conduct you complain about here. --John (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this editor is continuing to do what I strongly advised him not to do. Adding Category:Courtesans and prostitutes to the article on Quentin Elias seems highly questionable, and Ruud Gullit may well be notable as a "multicultural icon", but that is not the same as saying he is properly a member of Category:Afro-Caucasian people, as has been pointed out already. Maybe it is no bad thing to get some more eyes on the problems associated with contentious use of categories; other users besides this one may have misunderstood our policies. Basically, a category cannot be added unless there is good, verifiable evidence to do so. Same as everything else. And, like everything else, we need to be extra careful when dealing with living people. --John (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks that want some background on this will want to read this version of Wedineinheck's talk... The case has been made in depth that raciality has to be established by sourcing, and further, to include it in an article, there has to be reliably sourced reference material that the raciality is significant to the person's history, career, etc. Merely stating that the person is notable is not sufficient to justify inclusion. (contrast Vin Diesel where this has been done, with Sydney Tamiia Poitier, where it has not) This is essentially a content debate, except that W has been warned multiple times not to revert removal in violation of BLP, and is on a path to get blocked over it if it's not discontinued. It appears to me that W is trying to forestall that by preemptively making the opposite case but I hope that is an incorrect evaluation. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What race this actress is or isn't factually holds little importance compared to Wikipedia's role in labeling her. When we see a less common term being used in an article, we want to make sure that it's been used in independant sources to identify that person as well. Editors doing the math of "Black father plus white mother equals..." doesn't cut it. On a seperate note, I'm not seeing sources suggesting Poitier's specific racial identification as anything to do with her notability.Gwynand | TalkContribs 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am rather confounded by John (and Lar)'s orwellian display of bad faith, overbearing, condescending, and threatening attitude, and obvious non-neutral disregard for the actual state of wikipedia. John's suggestion that I endorse apartheid is so blatantly defamatory that any comment is superfluous. The "eurasians" category numbers over 400 articles, so I considered a category for black/white biracial persons would be logical : hence the creation of the "afro-caucasian people" sub-category to the "afro-caucasians" preexisting category. The biracial heritage of public figures, especially artists like Thandie Newton or Melanie Brown, or very notable ones like Ruud Gullit, is obviously important to their public images : whether one likes it or not, ethnicity remains an important social/cultural construct in today's society, and only few people in the western world tend to consider that it doesn't exist or isn't important. Now, I do not care about John and Lar's pigheaded, blatantly POV attitude, nor about their personal biases and complex, nor do I wish to waste my time in any kind of conflict with them or anyone else : my only goal is to stress the problem they pose. If wikipedia wants to ignore the ethnicity factor, it should delete the "eurasians" category, as I very much doubt each and every one of the 400+ articles features sources explicitely stressing that their mixed heritage is central to their personas. Delete this category, and I will consider this as a logical policy. Don't, and I will stick to my point of view, though I consider continuing in any kind of edit war to be an utter and complete waste of time. Now, if John wishes to continue his own edit warring and then putting the fault on some else, it is entirely his problem : I do not wish to have any exchange of any kind with him. He should just be reminded that he has to treat wikipedia users as his peers and not act like he owns the wikimedia foundation. Now, if he wants to keep wasting his time in removing properly sourced information (as I spent myne in sourcing all the articles at his initial suggestion, when he still acted politely), and wants to debate the validity of "1+1=2" by asking for independent sources, more power to him : I just couldn't care less and do not wish to waste any more minutes of my time in conflicts with this particular fellow. Wedineinheck (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is mostly a content dispute with a leavening of an editor (Wedineinheck) refusing to listen to multiple experienced contributors pointing out that the categorization W keeps adding is inappropriate. Tossing around mischaracterizations of intent probably isn't a good approach for W to take but whatever. I expect most seasoned admins would tend to overlook that, chalk it up as par for the course and not care, as long as the edit warring itself stops. What W is having trouble grasping (even after being told repeatedly by many others) is that his assertions about whether categorizations are appropriate or not really aren't valid, and this is a BLP issue. He's been warned now that any further reversion will be viewed as disruptive and will result in a block. I will say that deleting the Eurasians category doesn't sound like such a bad idea, actually, though. ++Lar: t/c 05:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

this shouldn't be a redline[edit]


BTW this noticeboard page is 405 kb long and takes 5 minutes to download on my slow connection. Not happy. Mccready (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean by "a redline"? Also, that link is to a page on commons, this is the English Wikipedia Admin noticeboard. If you have a problem with something on commons, you need to deal with it on commons. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a suspicion the problem is that the title of the page Image:NewvanHove.png is in red, being that it's a Commons image. Wild guess. (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the articles that was linked in the description was not interwiki'd to wikipedia, so it was a red link to a nonexistent commons page. I fixed it when I saw this thread, but did not make a note here. --Random832 (contribs) 06:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP and the Mob[edit]

I'm becoming increasingly concerned that we have a lot of biographies of living people that are making allegations that people are mobsters, and criminals, and are doing so somewhat recklessly. We seem to have a lot of mafia-related articles that contain poor sourcing. Many specific allegations are unsourced and all that is sometimes given is a list of external links, often consiting of either primary sources or centering round the personal research of one Jerry Capeci. I've removed lists of associates, informers and "soldiers" from some of these articles, nominated some for deletion (are they notable?) and nuked a few under the BLP policy.

Now, I need help. We can summarily delete articles that contain only unsourced (or poorly sourced) allegations - I've had to do that on some occassions - but in other occasions a less drastic approach is needed. But there are loads of these, and I'm following links and uncovering others. We need a small task force to review these articles and delete/remove BLP violations.

To give some ins to follow for links:

Was looking at the Lucchese crime family article ... it ought to be restored minus the questionable versions. There was a spree of mostly IP editing from February 29 on--I propose restoring everything prior to the March 3 edit. I commented out the "informants" section on the Gambino article. Blueboy96 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That version is still full of unsourced allegations.--Docg 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A notice at WP:BLP/N will get some eyeballs on these and help clean up the mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, probably should have posted this to BLPN.--Docg 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might have been the right way to go. Looking back at it, it seems that the main culprit is Char