Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive557

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Botnet attack?[edit]

See the log for edit filter 3, multiple IPs attempting to add the same nonsense information and edit summary to Guestbook. I checked a couple of them and they don't appear at first glance to be proxies, but they sure look like a botnet of zombie computers. Should these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the title of the article is a magnet for those who want to generate links to their own sites for search engine optimization. I've semi protected the article for a month. Should the spamming resume at that point, I think we should permanently semi-protect. You have to picture somebody following bad SEO advice to look for guestbooks where they can post to. This Wikipedia page is going to be the first thing that shows up when they search for guestbooks. Jehochman Talk 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I checked some of these at the time, and they all looked to be non-open-proxies. The IPs also look quite dynamic. While a block would not be inappropriate, the question really is how long the block should be for. Since the edit filter is already stopping them, and is likely to continue to do so, I'd be inclined to just ignore them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles[edit]

User 70.190.210.142 has been making edits to this article since April 21, 2009, most of which have been changing the order the Resident Evil 2 protagonists are mentioned to "Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy". Leon's character and scenario are mentioned first on official sites, in the manuals, game information, press releases and in the game itself. Therefore, me and other users (such as Geoff B and StarScream1007) think this is the order to go with for the Resident Evil 2 section of this article. Despite objections by trusted editors and requesting a reason for his edits on the talk page, the user keeps reverting the article and ignores community input. I therefore think this is to be considered disruptive editing and request a block of the user's IP. Prime Blue (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking hounding and harassment[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.

I've been at the receiving end and seen other editors receive very abusive treatment when they try to edit articles to include minority viewpoints consistent with our wp:NPOV policy. The policy states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet those attempting to include minority viewpoints are often hounded and stalked. I understand that user talk pages are important means of communication, but if someone is told they're not welcome and their comments aren't related to article content why is the behavior allowed to continue? Also, I've seen and experienced these same "editors" following me to other talk pages and commenting in threads I'm involved in. Is this kind of taunting and harassment acceptable? The violation of our core NPOV policy seems bad enough, but after watching some major content contributors leave because of this, I'm very concerned that these methods are used to promote censorship and bias in our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, you might actually get some help if you were a slightly bit more specific. General statements about how things are going aren't going to result in much. Can you provide some examples? Also, WP:UNDUE is probably the policy you're more concerned about than WP:NPOV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here are some diffs of an "editor" who has been asked dozens of times to leave me alone and yet continues to stalk, harass, and taunt me. I have never seen them contribute to an article, so I don't see how any of their comments could relate to content contributing or collegial collaboration. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and there's also more discussion of me on their talk page. I've tried to ignore it, but it hasn't stopped. I'd just like them to leave me alone and to do their ummm... whatever you want to call it away from editors who don't welcome this activity. I haven't looked closely at all these diffs, they're just a recent sampling, but I don't think any of the discussions involved them at all so their comments were wholly unwelcome and not constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What does all this about Baseball Bugs (and have you notified him of this) have to do with NPOV? - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Without having seen this, I'd left a note on Bugs' talk page asking that editor to avoid commenting on or interacting with ChildofMidnight (which Bugs had said would happen in the past). Rather than this turning into another endless Obama thread that produces nothing other than acrimony, can ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs both agree to not interact with (or comment on) one another? It should not be that hard. ChildofMidnight already sounds amenable to that, and as I said Bugs was at one point. I think that addresses the core issue, so let's see what the two editors have to say about that proposal before going any further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case, regardless of what you feel about the politics at the heart of the dispute, these comments are over-the-line in terms of WP:NPA and Bugs needs to stop this sort of thing. Calling someone names like "POV-pusher" is probably not very helpful in terms of resolving any dispute, and clearly violates the letter and spirit of WP:NPA. I think he needs to step back and stop making these sorts of comments at Wikipedia. Furthermore, it would help if Bugs and CoM agreed to stop interacting with each other across any articles if possible. Of importance here is a recent ArbCom case as well, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. --Jayron32 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you can't point out that someone is pushing a POV then why even have a policy against POV? From the post above where Child of Midnight complains about this issue he admits he is trying to add minority viewpoints, and a look at his edits shows he is indeed violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV by extension. I have no comment if Bugs went over the line, but the idea that you can't point out that someone is a POV pusher, especially with such longstanding evidence, is simply ridiculous. It's not a personal attack to point out when someone is breaking policy, and if they find that label as disparaging in some way the correct way to fix it is for them to stop breaking the policy, not to complain about the people pointing it out. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me. I should point out that I went to BB's talk page to notify them, but Protonk beat me to it. BB has also been asked to cease this behavior by numerous admins. I prefer to edit content than to chase down diffs. But if I need to I will try to come up with some. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (ec multiples)

ChildofMidnight, are you amenable to the solution put forward above, i.e. that you just completely avoid each other, assuming Baseball Bugs agrees to and abides by it as well? That seems to me the best way forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fantastic to me. If there's a discussion that actually invovles us both like an Arbcom issue or something fine. But he can keep to his section and I'll keep to mine. Otherwise I don't see any need to interact at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
One point of clarification to Jayron, none of his comments are on articles or article related, or in discussion involving him. Since I'm optimistic that at some point Arbcom will end their improper censoring of me, I don't want to be limited on what articles I can work on. I don't follow BB anywhere, but it's possible we'd be working on an article at the same time. In that case I think avoiding discussing each other directly would be fine. I already have enough people after me trying to chase me off wikipedia and off articles. I don't want to have to keep track of where he may or may not be. Like I said, I won't comment to or about him. No problem. That's the status quo for me at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Bugs has been clearly pushing your buttons. You've also been pushing his buttons and other people's buttons (your comments to ProtonK on his talk page on Aug 2, before Bugs chimed in; elsewhere). You and Bugs pushing each others buttons is actually staying remarkably restrained overall for how many times each of you did something to each other.
I agree that this is not constructive or civil. We have a tendency to let "experienced users" who get grumpy to poke each other for a while, if nobody complains then we assume everyone's thick skinned and can handle it. I think that's probably a mistake - even if you aren't personally insulted, it does bring down the level of conversation and drive away third parties, and the odds that someone will eventually become actually upset and it be a real problem are high.
Without ascribing any root cause / fault - if Bugs can not follow any of your comments, if you can not leave comments folllowing his, or like those you left for ProtonK on the 2nd, and you and Bugs stay separated for a while it would probably be for the best. The voluntary mutual topic ban Bigtimeinpeace proposed seems like a great idea to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I need to clarify this stattement after reading GWH's comment. I absolutely have not pushed BBs buttons. I avoid that editor like the plague. Your comment is a gross distortion and unless you have diffs to back it up I suggest you strike it.
My comments to Protonk related to his allegations against me which he didn't back off even when they were proved wrong. That behavior, in violation of AGF, was totally unacceptable and I let him know that. I haven't pursued the matter further and had you not brought it up I wouldn't have either. I see it as done and over. As you know from personal experience GWH, when there is behavior that I find disruptive and of serious harm to Wikipedia I address it. My comments to other editors and admins don't have anything to do with the stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship, and you're conflating the two is disruptive and somewhat outrageous. I don't pursue those I disagree with on articles and I try to stay focused on article content and to leave personal opinions out of it. Despite the smears against me I am quite moderate, I avoid discussing my personal politics except in a discrete and humorous way, and I think it's important that various viewpoints are represented consistent with our core policy as cited above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • CoM, I don't "engage" in any action against you, I just don't like your actions on some subjects. Like the Obama thread above. YOu are on restriction from Obama articles and talk pages but you knowingly post at an ANI thread about Obama doing an end run around your restrictions. That is bad faith editing. Then when you are called on it, Baseball Bugs or I have been mean to you or some crap. Act right, follow the rules, do something other than getting in people's business, follow your restrictions and maybe...just maybe...people wouldn't be on your case about everything. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If CoM would apologize for this [8] then he would need never hear from me again, even when I catch him violating his topic ban the next time, and the next time, etc. He's driven me away from political pages; he's tried to box me in in various ways; he constantly makes accusations against me (and many others); but I'll be damned if I'm going to let him dictate my efforts here any further. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you link to that thread often, though I'm not sure why it still bothers you so much since it was literally five months ago (I'm also not sure exactly what aspect of it bothers you since there is so much stuff there). Can't you just let it go at this point, and do you really think an apology will actually be forthcoming, or that requiring someone to apologize on-Wiki before moving forward is helpful? I'm genuinely having trouble understanding what you want here. You and C of M do not get along in the slightest and are seemingly never going to agree on much of anything surrounding this tiff. Why not just back away, which C of M says he will do, and avoid one another, which is what you said you were going to do a month ago? The dispute between the two of you wastes other editors' time and accomplishes literall nothing, so can't we just squash the beef (mmmmmm....squash beef....) right here and now? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Twice now I've turned him in for topic ban violations, and both time the experts agreed with me. He calls my reporting "stalking and harassment". For example, he accused me of "stalking" him to the Gates page. That is not true. I went to the Gates page to learn more about the subject, and there he was, violating his topic ban. I turned him in for it, and he didn't like it. Tough toenails. He's on a topic ban, and should know better. As someone else said earlier, he is constantly trying to push the envelope of that ban. The thing is, thanks to him and his brethren, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama articles, months ago. I want nothing to do with him. But he keeps popping up. With his complaint here, he's basically saying I don't have the right to report it when he breaks his topic ban. He has no right to dictate that. But here's the deal: He is basically saying he wants me to go away for good. I'm telling him how he can accomplish that. If he apologizes for that slap in my face back on March 8/9, he'll never hear from me again, unless he initiates a conversation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out, though, that it's not just due to narcissism on my part that I keep going back to that link. It's to point out that his political agenda, what I call his POV-pushing, has been there from the beginning, and nothing has changed. Then, as now, he accuses wikipedia of being a cheerleader for Obama. He impugns the integrity of many editors, not just me. He has demonstrated that he has not a clue what NPOV means. I worked on both political poles - Obama and Palin - at times when they were under siege by POV-pushers. I actually got compliments from Republican-leaning editors for defending the Palin page. What I got for defending the Obama page is stuff like what CoM said back in March - a beat he continues to drum here, against everyone who dares to stand up to his behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Until 1 January 2010, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are topicbanned from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties.

I support this, obviously, as I wrote it. Your turn. → ROUX  07:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I observe him breaking his Obama topic ban, I am not allowed to report it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Either it will be noticed and dealt with by users less ...attached... to the situation, or you may email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to let them know. In any case, the onwiki disruption is getting silly, so it's best for the two of you to retire to separate corners and stay there. → ROUX  07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
How about it if instead of reporting in on-wiki, you e-mailed an administrator? It's likely that someone else would catch it - and really you should just ignore his edit trail - but if something comes up you could always ask an admin to investigate. That would avoid on-wiki drama but make sure that someone looked into the situation.
Roux's proposal is fine with me, although it might not be a bad idea to simply make it indefinite rather than giving an end date, and to make it an informal arrangement which the two parties agree to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Indefinite, sure, but informal seems like a bad idea. CoM has already nibbled at the edges of his current topicban, so a clear and unambiguous statement--no comments on or about each other anywhere on en.wikipedia.org--is the best way to go. Simple and effective, with the usual escalating blocks for either editor even pushing at the edges. No commenting. Period. End of drama. → ROUX  07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Endpointed or not, if I happen to see what looks like an Obama topic ban violation, and if there's no issue about my sending an e-mail to an admin about it, then it's fine. And if I have reason to defend him (which I have done before, and which I did in a section farther down), then I would also use e-mail. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
And to formalize it, presumably amend the arbcom ruling page on this matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
However, he has impugned other editors besides me. Can the arbcom ruling also be amended that he is to refrain from accusing wikipedians of being cheerleaders for Obama, regardless of where he might say it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is fine, so long as both parties agree to it. I will state that hearing from CoM above that NH and Tarc act the same way with respect to CoM gives me pause. What we don't want is to establish a network of mutual editor bans where the real problem may not be negative pairwise interaction. If this is indeed the best solution at the lowest level, let's do it. If it isn't, then we should avoid it. To BB specifically, if you agree to this, I don't think you should worry about watching over CoM's vis a vis his topic ban. If he has really violated it in a specific area, someone else will notice and say something. Protonk (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec)See, the problem is that his accusation is false. I'm NOT "watching over" CoM regarding his topic ban. The two times I turned him in for possible topic ban, I did not "stalk" him as he claims, I just happened to see it. He came to the table here months ago with the preconceived WND-like agenda that wikipedia is controlled by liberals and that that problem must be "corrected". He sees himself as some kind of knight crusading against this alleged problem, as the pronouncement on his own user page proclaims. Thanks in part to his behavior, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama pages months ago, and I don't watch his page either. But he does not have the right to dictate what pages to watch. What I watch or don't watch is my choice, not his. But if the consensus is that I only use e-mail to report possible violations, and to pretend on-wiki that he doesn't exist, I can do that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, it's within your power to refuse to agree to a mutual editor ban. I'm just saying that should you agree to it, you probably shouldn't comment about CoM's edits at all. Protonk (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It's obvious he's never going to apologize for his offensive comments to me (and a host of others, but that's another story), so I'll have to settle for a "CoM on-wiki topic ban", and if I happen to see other rules violations that no one else has reported yet, I assure you I will not hesitate to report them myself, off-wiki as per the recommendation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • IRC useful channels is a wonderful place to handle on-wiki things, off-wiki - as I've recently learned. ;] - ALLSTRecho wuz here 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I've heard of it, and it doesn't sound like something I would want to get involved with. The next times CoM violates his topic ban or breaks other rules, I'll notify a trusted admin via e-mail and let him take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I do sometimes think, given CoM's ever-widening circle of targeted editors, that he has a secret wish to actually get perma-banned here. Then he and his WND buddies could do the "Told Ya So" dance together. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: I will pretend that CoM does not exist, for as long as he remains active on wikipedia, provided that he is required to cease and desist from using inflammatory terms including but not limited to "troll", "vandal", "stalker", "harasser", "censor", "abuser", "POV-pusher" and so on, against any and all established users. That would be on any and all pages. Then I will likewise refrain from any such labeling against any and all users. If someone is feeling abused or harassed or whatever, there are proper channels which are permissible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counterproposal (the part about avoiding certain words) would be agreed to, unfortunately. The usage of inflammatory terms is a serious issue, but I don't think a voluntary restriction is going to work (in the end further dispute resolution may be required). However a voluntary restriction can clearly work in terms of you and C of M avoiding one another, and it seems you both agreed to that above, but I'm not sure if you're withdrawing that and saying you need something more now. Rather than insisting on this counter-proposal, can we just stick to something that can actually be accomplished and end this thread knowing that both of you agree not to engage with the other? As said you can contact admins about any issues you see. I don't want this ANI thread to end with no useful outcome. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In the bright light of day, it occurred to me that it's easy for him to comply, because the only time he ever mentions my name is when I've called him out for rules violations and other bad behavior. So it's a one-sided deal, and unless there's some commitment on his part to improve his own behavior, we're done here. But I will do better to try to avoid him. Unless he changes his approach, he is headed slowly but surely for banishment (which is probably what he secretly wants), and there will be a parade of others to facilitate that; I won't be needed for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't understand the logic of the last comment. If you're not interacting with each other you're not interacting with each other, period. You would not be calling him out for rules violations (at least on-wiki) so he would not be able to complain about you doing that, so the behavior you dislike would stop. How is it a one-sided deal? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that you are indeed harassing him, Bugs. You are quite aware that your interactions with him are inflammatory and continue to do so anyways. Stop causing drama and leave him alone and there won't be any problems, as far as you are concerned. Jtrainor (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To explain my proposal in a little more detail. There are clear problems with some of CoM's behaviour and have been since basically his first edit. There are also problems with Baseball Bugs' behaviour, particularly with regards to CoM--there are unavoidable similarities here with AllStarEcho/Bluemarine. These problems need to be addressed. Unfortunately, when it's Bugs calling out CoM, the discussion quite neatly swings to being about him (Bugs) and not addressing the problems with CoM's behaviour. In much the same way that ASE's topicban regarding Bluemarine will allow those less attached to the situation to see problematic behaviour without any drama sauce on top, the mutual topicban (and I urge admins to impose it rather than ask for a mutual agreement; the latter is easy to game and far too nebulous. An imposed restriction is unambiguous) is intended to remove the drama caused by Bugs commenting about CoM, permanently, which will allow more clarity when viewing the separate actions of both Baseball Bugs and CoM, and provide more opportunity to find solutions. In other words, the solution proposed quite deliberately avoided dealing with any of the larger issues; the goal is to blow some of the smoke away and let us see whether there is indeed a fire burning and what is feeding it.

Imposing this topicban will very simply remove a source of drama while clarifying what, if any, the actual underlying issues are. Should those underlying issues be resolved--and one way to resolve some of them is ongoing at ArbCom as we speak, via ArbCom clarifying CoM's topicban parameters--I see no reason why this restriction on both users cannot be lifted at some date in the future. → ROUX  21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just implement the restriction as proposed by Roux. I could, and would, do this under terms of the Obama article probation. ChildofMidnight is amenable to this arrangement, and Baseball Bugs seemed to agree but then pulled back. Regardless the issue is clearly Obama related and admins have a bit more leeway in that area.
But I'd rather get a stronger consensus for an imposed "go to your separate corners" for these two editors. The basic proposal would basically be Roux's above, modified to make the time frame indefinite, with slight wording changes and a note about enforcement:
Until further notice, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are restricted from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue.
I'd like a few other comments on this as I said (and really I'm looking for uninvolved people here ideally), but I'm willing to implement this myself (if someone else wants to that's fine as well), inform the two parties in question, and log it here. Thoughts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Being that this is basically a community sanction, it should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, if not in both places. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just do it. It's a totally one-sided deal, because CoM doesn't have to do anything. It's easy to comply with something you're not doing. He's driven me away from the Obama articles, and if I see him editing anything else, I'll have to stay away from that page too. He better stay away from the baseball articles, though, or there will be hell to pay. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The thing that's irksome is that I have to give something up, and he doesn't. I report him for topic-ban violations, and I get punished for it. So here's another idea. He's topic-banned from Obama articles for some stretch of time, I'm not sure how long. I'm effectively prevented from reporting his violations of that topic ban or other rules, since I shouldn't be watching his contribs list, and if I randomly go to an article that he's doing something with (as with the Gates article), then I have to stay away from that article or risk a block. So just extend the no-contact ban to the point where his topic-ban ends. Because at that point, there'll be no reason for any crossover whatsoever, and both of our banishments will be over. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, Bugs. You can edit any articles you please. Just don't talk to or about CoM. And obviously stay off his talkpage. If you see him infringing his topicban, email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. The point of this is not to punish you, it is to remove some stuff that is obscuring the real issues at play, if any. → ROUX  01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. I cannot edit any article he's working on; it's not practically possible. And you won't be getting any e-mails from me. You can deal with him yourself. I report him for possible topic-ban violations twice, one of which bought him a block that stuck, and the other block was overturned simply because the admin didn't word it quite right, and this is the thanks I get for it. Similar to the thanks I got for defending wikipedia against his ilk back in March. No. You can have him. He's all yours. Have fun! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, that is your choice. But please understand that this proposal is like applying an ice pack to a sprained ankle; it's there to reduce the swelling, and after that's gone the doctor can see if any further damage has been caused--and fix it if there is any. There is nothing more to it than that. → ROUX  03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's your choice. You've taken away mine. Whatever. There are other fish to fry. But no e-mails. I get enough spam as it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
may I have leave to comment, please? I have a relevant opinion which, alas, I cannot safely express here without leave to do so despite being the target of the alleged Arbcom violation under discussion, thanks to a Cache-22 arising from a similar stay-away order. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever difference that is likely to make...--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe CoM is right about his claims of censorship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction enacted[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and put this into effect. Bugs (somewhat reluctantly) and previously ChildofMidnight are both agreeing to this, but I think we can also think of this as a community-imposed restriction and/or a restriction stemming from the Obama article probation, wherein admins have broader authority to implement measures like these. If there are concerns with how this was implemented I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action, deriving my ability to do so from this. But there also seems to be consensus from other editors and from the two parties in question, so I don't really think we have a problem.

I'll leave leave notes on both editors' talk pages announcing the conclusion here, and log the action in a couple of places. Perhaps the thread can stay open for a little while longer to make sure there are no major objections, but after awhile I suggest this be marked resolved and we all move on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, Obama probation allows individual administrators to implement reasonable sanctions without a full-community-discussion; the community in effect places an amount of trust in allowing them to skip a step. However, Obama probation is not to be used as a means of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community - that would be a serious breach of community trust. You used it exactly how it shouldn't be used. You should have made it plain that this was a sanction you were considering under Obama probation and that you were merely gathering other views in general. This is because remedies under Obama probation may be reversed at the discretion of the imposing administrator; unless specified otherwise, ordinary community sanctions may only be reversed by another community consensus, or via ArbCom channels. This did not happen. Instead, this discussion has all appearances of being one an ordinary community sanction, and Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction is not acceptable.
To summarise: as you believe that it's ready to be implemented, then it will be as an ordinary community sanction (that's how the discussion appears) - the remedy is not implemented under Obama probation at this time. Consequently, I am reversing the entry you've placed in Obama probation log of sanctions. If your imposing of this as an ordinary community sanction is acceptable, then the restriction itself cannot be reversed at your discretion - it requires another community consensus or ArbCom intervention. Finally, though this is a less major consideration, I hope you have not translated an informal agreement into a formal restriction - it's well known that informal agreements should be tried first, and formal restrictions should be more towards a last resort, so that parties have some leeway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You might have tried talking to me about it first, especially since you are not an administrator and you've essentially reversed an admin action. If you want it to stand solely as a community sanction, that's fine with me (and I could have reversed the edit on the Obama log myself had you bothered to even try to have a discussion with me), though I saw no problem with approaching the matter both as a community sanction and an admin sanction under the terms of article probation. I'm not much into rules-lawyering I'm afraid, and my point was to demonstrate that the restriction had support on multiple fronts (including from the editors themselves). The point was that the end result was "overdetermined" as we sometimes say.
You obviously don't know what I was or am thinking, and as such the idea that "Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction" or that this was a way "of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community" is something you are making up out of whole cloth. That is not what is happening at all. Nor did I have any intention of reversing the restriction, as it was also imposed in a communal sense. It stands until the community reverses it. Again, you might have asked me about the matter, rather than essentially accusing me of having no idea what I was doing and possibly committing "a serious breach of community trust." You are way, way out of bounds there.
And yes, this has been translated into a formal restriction, though I was not even the one to propose that. If you want to re-open the discussion about that feel free, but you're the first person to complain, and indeed in the end the two editors agreed to this. I'm disappointed in the process wonkery here, but far more disappointed in the fact that you could not simply leave me a note on my talk page to discuss the issue. I have no idea where you think your authority comes from to undo administrative enforcement, but I don't think you have any. Ironically we could have ended up with the same result if you simply would have left me a note. Please don't do anything further on this without discussing it here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll take responsibility for my actions, including my extraordinarily slow notification, which got mixed up in my tabs. I apologize for the unreasonable delay.
There a series of problems with putting it both under Obama probation and as a community sanction, particularly all at once. Both Obama probation and community sanctions are community-based; but they are separate - appeals, logging requirements, among other things, are different. Obama probation came about to avoid the need for individual-sanction discussions so trusted members put in whatever they want; community sanctions in the same area were to be used so that they are implemented after involving a full community discussion.
Given that the community sanction discussion ran its course, for one thing, it was not made plain that this sanction was considered under Obama probation and this was merely getting some other views. For another thing, it makes no sense for someone who isn't interested in rule-process-wonkery to add more of that process-wonkery, unnecessarily, to an otherwise simple remedy. It's ironic. Why would someone want to log it using Obama probation requirements which are more extensive? Finally, the other dimension Obama probation has is in appeals - that the imposing administrator can grant an appeal, while community sanctions require yet another full community discussion. With all these factors, my point is one can easily think that your actions appear to lack propriety; I don't personally believe they were deliberate - and you may gather that if you read the last sentence a few times, in the second para of my "lecture" as you called it.
I myself have no issue with the restriction and whether it's formal or informal - nor should anyone else. It's something for the parties to think about themselves. The amount of paperwork and process involved with Obama probation was intentional at the time of its creation; it highlights the difference between a community-based decision, and an individual administrator decision. I would not have known all this, had I not been the very user who proposed and enacted Obama probation for the benefit of the wider community. I knew that the effect of the sanction is not reversed based on your imposing it as a community sanction, and trusted that you would leave it at that. This is not our first encounter. Once again, I apologise about the notification, and even the delay in replying here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue is basically closed now (and as such this is a postmortem), but if you read the discussion above, you'll see I was originally going to enact this under the terms of Obama article probation, and just wanted a little more feedback before I did this (which I said specifically). Then another editor suggested it needed to be logged as a community ban, and perhaps should be logged both as that and as falling under Obama article probation. Because I had initially been only going to do the latter (and asked for feedback in that regard), it seemed a better idea to not switch solely to a community sanction, but to acknowledge that the action was originally going to be take under the terms of Obama article probation. I was clearly following another editor's suggestion, not going out on some weird limb by myself. I also wanted to take full responsibility for implementing this, as I noted above when I said "I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action." Obviously that is exactly what is happening here, as you have been criticizing me, not the collective discussion. The suggestion that there is an appearance of impropriety seems odd to me when I followed the suggestions of other users in terms of the wording of the remedy and the places where it was to be logged, and also in the end still said "I take responsibility for this." You could have clarified what was going on by asking me, rather than adding your own (incorrect) interpretation above without any consultation.
Your talk page posts to Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight muddied the issue. They had both agreed to this, yet you ran over there and said they could come back here and try to undo the whole matter. That's not true, and you could well have made things more complicated by saying that. I'm not sure you even read the above thread carefully enough to know what was going on here, because if you had you would have seen explicit agreement from both of these editors.
Again, the main issue, which you don't acknowledge, is not delayed communication ("notification" as you say) with me, but the fact that you took it upon yourself to reverse certain actions without talking to the admin first. That is common courtesy, you are not even an admin, and you have a history of over-stepping your authority and acting like an admin (or an ArbCom clerk) when you are neither of those things. It matters not that you "proposed and enacted Obama probation" (the community actually did the latter - but whatever), and you do not have ownership over that process. If we have another "encounter", please try talking with me first before taking me to the woodshed and reversing an administrative action of mine. Your concerns could have been dealt with by me in about ten minutes and with no acrimony by leaving a few sentence note on my talk page, so in the end you handled this poorly.
I consider this matter closed and will not comment on this again here, but if you want to discuss it further you can head to my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is better that this be our last encounter. Repeatedly claiming I've interpreted anything incorrectly, when that's not the case, plainly demonstrates how futile communication may have been - your own apparent inability to interpret my plain English above, however convoluted the wording may be at times, really should say it all. It's clear that there has been no change in your own approach in this Obama area since our previous encounter; though I am not so foolish as to provoke it further with details of that history. Your accusation that I muddied the issues by bringing up potential issues with it at the parties talk pages (let alone here) is baseless. I'm fully aware of the circumstances under which both parties agreed; and the circumstances under which this became a formal restriction. That said, I will be more open to an idea because I don't mind talking to competent admins before-hand - especially those who are actually able to handle criticism without further exacerbating a situation.
All that said, it seems that there are a handful of administrators who stubbornly insist they are taking enough care (and steps) to avoid troubling perceptions by others - obviously, it just may so happen that what they think does not equal reality. I can now understand why the number of troubling allegations made about administrators in general are increasing, with many in the past couple of days alone. My only concern is that perhaps the entire bunch is being blamed for the issues with a handful. I'm done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been off for a few days but I see, as usual, ChildofMidnight name-drops me once again. This is a continuing pattern, most recently seen in a topic at Bigtimepeace's talk page (User talk:Bigtimepeace#A regrettable unblock) where I expressed disappointment that CoM's block did not stand. This user employs either one of two tactics; #1 is to name-drop when the other person has not even been involved in the current situation, as above, or #2 does the vague and nebulous call for "disruptive and persistent policy violators" to be banned. When asked, by myself or others, to provide diffs and evidence to support such a claim, CoM either backs away completely or demands that the other person be the one to do the digging. I'm not sure in what Bizarro-world one expects/demands the accused to provide the evidence that damns them, but whatever.

This user is obviously having serious behavioral issues with a wide variety of other users, some so acrimonious as to warrant ArbCom intervention i.e. (CoM vs. Bugs, CoM vs. Scjessey, CoM vs. Wikidemon). It seems that ChildofMidnight is seeking to add more and more users to this list (i.e. myself and NeutralHomer, tho I haven't the slightest idea what the context is of the latter), some sort of "these are the meanie wikistalkers, keep them away!" shtick. Perhaps the solution to a problem of one user having a problem with many users is to sanction the one rather than creating more and more specialized one-to-one relationship restrictions. Investigate the source of the problem, not the branches. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I too share concerns with both the method and the wisdom of adding to the list of editors who are prohibited from interactions with this editor after having run-ins with him. Having created and maintained a number of the Obama article probation pages following Ncmvocalist's initial bold step of creating the community general sanction, I think the inclusion criteria for logging sanctions has been very loose to date: many of the 100+ on the list were blocked or banned on general principles, not with reference to sanctions. On the other hand, many who were sanctioned under probation did not make the list. Shall we add to the list all 30+ others who have exchanged mutual accusations of bad faith with this editor? That would remove at least one and possibly more of the administrators on this thread, one or more of the Arbcom members, and the co-founder of Wikipedia... more or less anyone who has tried to deal with the problem. To what end? What is the likelihood that removing involved parties will lead to a solution? Do you really think that if you forbid from interaction those whose patience has run out in favor of your own personal efforts to teach and have patience, you're really going to have a better result trying to reform this editor than all the others who have tried? I am a party to this latest incident, not of my own choice. Please let me know if I am free to discuss that here, and if not, please take this to Arbcom or some other forum where all of the interested parties are free to speak.Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The diffs at the top of the thread speak for themselves. Numerous admins have asked the editor to cease the inappropriate behavior for months. Stalking, harassment and personal attacks are unacceptable, and I hope that this solution will remedy the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that by commenting directly about Bugs, you have just fallen afoul of the editing restriction enacted by Bigtimepeace. An admin should block you for that. → ROUX  21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As this is an active discussion about editing restrictions that involve me it's quite reasonable and only fair that I be allowed to comment. As the restrictions have now been put in place I support the discussion being archived so we can all move forward. But if editors wish to discuss it further, then I think I am allowed to respond, don't you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No. The ban was enacted, it is in effect. You are no longer permitted to talk to or about Baseball Bugs anywhere on Wikipedia, bar an ArbCom case. → ROUX  05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(before ec) Please note - I've mentioned this issue, and also my query over my own ability to comment on it, before Arbcom.[9] - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Roux, ChildofMidnight is permitted to discuss it further until this discussion is closed - the same goes for Baseball Bugs. No administrator is foolish enough to inflexibly enforce it in the very same discussion. However, if there are no objections from either regarding the enactment of the restriction, or on the restriction itself, then there is no basis to keep this discussion open for any longer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
CoM, I see 7 diffs in regards to Baseball Bugs. Can you either provide evidence to back the "Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me" claim, or, y'know, stop making such a claim? Tarc (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Is 7 not enough? He's been warned repeatedly by at least three different admins and promised on at least two different occasions to cease the offending behavior. Netural Homer has also been asked on several occasions to refrain from baiting me and making unconstructive additions to threads where I'm involved. The diffs are in his talk page history. The concern about users teaming up, stalking and harassing an editor they disagree with is serious and legitimate. If this particular problem with this editor can be resolved, that's a good start and I'm hopeful that things will improve. There are no editing restrictions involved other than not being allowed to talk to or about me. They are still allowed to take any concerns that they have about my editing to an admin via e-mail. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Bugs; I actually agree that he has done much to exacerbate the situation, esp with this pedantic "apologize to meeeee!" stuff. What I'm angling for here is essentially a "put up or shut up" with the accusations-without-proof stuff. I may weigh in at ArbCom amendments and clarifications and at AN/I, and seeing your name pop up in article edits where it isn't supposed to be popping up, but that certainly is not, quote, being a "disruptive and persistent policy violator". That's the sorta thing that needs to stop. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, I honestly find the entire concept of "UserX and UserY cannot interact" as a permissible sanction to be a bit retarded. If some issue has reached a point where users have to be separated like a couple of brawling schoolboys, then just straight out block one or both for a period of time. Seriously, how much time has been wasted over the years in AN/I, ArbCom Clarification, etc...trying to clarify the Rules of Engagement for such sanctions, as the sides poke and prod what is and isn't allowed? I'd like to see this particular "remedy" removed from ArbCom's arsenal. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the only gaming that happens is because admins let it happen. The ban is simple: no talking about or to each other. Period. It's about as black-and-white as you can possibly get. → ROUX  05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Gaming occurs either because administrators are unaware that it's happening, or they let it happen because they're reluctant to enforce it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're quite done here now, and I'm archiving the discussion. The restriction preventing ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs from talking with or about one another on-wiki has been enacted as a community sanction and logged here. It is absolutely in effect at this point, and violations by either party will result in blocks from this moment forward—no ands, ifs, or buts (or "ors"). ChildofMidnight did indirectly comment about Baseball Bugs above after the sanction was officially enacted, but the thread here was still open and issues were being debated so I don't see this as a violation or as blockworthy. Let's all move on to more productive venues, and hope that the restriction imposed here is ultimately good for both editors and for the community. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:47, 9 August 2009 (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.

Frances Gaudet[edit]

Resolved

Can someone please have a talk with Frances Gaudet (talk · contribs)? He/she keeps creating multiple articles under various titles that are all basically the same text copied and pasted multiple times. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that George Pappas (talk · contribs) and Frances Gaudet (talk · contribs) are the same person (quack!). I G11'd the articles you mention as they are pretty much serve only to promote the subject and blocked both accounts for sock puppetry. Regards SoWhy 08:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:AXJ of the USA[edit]

Resolved: indef by Backslash Forwardslash Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody who speaks tinfoilese please take a look at User:AXJ of the USA and his edits, deleted and not? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Further information. AXJ = http://www.action4justicenow.com/indexa.htm, a birther and anti-Obama website. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • People are nutters. I dunno. I don't want to indef him, but my gut says that will eventually happen. Maybe he'll get bored of wikipedia before he runs afoul of it. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors also can't be role accounts. His userpage seems to indicate that, so best for someone to inform him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Current vote fraud by User:Duke81[edit]

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Duke81

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

User:Duke81 - diff

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Rather obvious vote fraud at this AFD, as outlined by reporting user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Duke81. Brought here for quick consensus or action per SPI guidelines for ongoing vote fraud. Nja247 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)
Comments by uninvolved editors
Remarks by closing editor


Is this an "exceptional high profile debate where possible disruption may need quick attention"? It seems that it can easily be handled through a normal SPI. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's read the box under that one please. Can't be handled via normal SPI as the vote is open. Nja247 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea okay that box talks about where the fraud doesn't affect the outcome. Is that a typo? Why take a report here where the vote isn't affected? Surely reports should come here where it's current fraud and the votes are affecting the outcome (regardless of whether it's high profile if there's even a definition of what high profile means), ie so we can take action to stop it. It's odd to wait for a vote to close knowing it's been unduly influenced and then do a CU. Nja247 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to also wonder who's sockpuppet the start of the AFD is - because that's no new editor... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Footlover277[edit]

Unresolved

Soliciting 12 and over females to indulge his/her foot fetish at Wikipedia:Sandbox. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, already indef blocked. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Saw it and already blocked. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
An admin should review the unblock request - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Declined--we don't need that behavior here. And just in case he gets any ideas, I've shut off his talk page and his ability to send email. Can't take any chances ... Blueboy96 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite his promise to toe the line, he got the boot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He should have been allowed to edit pages like this one Count Iblis (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Clever!


I don't really understand why you blocked his ability to edit his own talk page. Seems rather OTT to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Slightly creepy, perhaps, and I did consider offering him a {{Second chance}} to demonstrate bona fides but was overtaken by events. Perhaps I'm getting too soft in my old age- no jokes, please. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't have offered a second chance, I would have if he'd kept to to sandbox but as he harassed someone on her userpage then no. However his only edit to his talk page was a promise to stop it, and I really don't think that merits changing the block conditions to prevent him from editing it. We should at least give him the chance to explain himself. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
We all get "soft" in our old age. That's why they invented that wonder drug...
Geritol! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Blue boys explained the reason for the talk page block: "And just in case you get any ideas, you have lost any access to your talk page.". Seems reasonable to me since this person did sexualy harass people which is not what Wiipedia is for Smith Jones 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Soliciting sexual contact from minors is not something we need to provide any sort of forum for. ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Could a passing Checkuser take a quick look? I've been seeing rather a lot of it this past week, for example Bob87654321 (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have indef'ed Bob87654321. The obsession shared by these accounts are very similar to those of a couple of years ago, as I recall. Do any of the older hands recall these editors, and whether their styles are similar? It may be that there is just a coincidence of similarly orientated fetishists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This user looks a lot like Tenant23 (talk · contribs) who was also recently indefed for harassment. MuZemike 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking[edit]

User:MidnightBlueMan has started to stalk my edits, having Canvassed likeminded editors to follow the same procedure. This is at the least irritating and must surely be harrassment of an editor. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As this naming dispute has been a very contentious issue in the past, I should think that central discussion would be appropriate before altering links around. If you didn't attempt such a discussion, I don't see how you could be surprised that interested editors have responded with alarm. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made may edits to The BI talk page, including today!, and have been insulted for my efforts there. ie This Lie by MBM typical Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wheither anyone removes 'British Isles' from any articles or not, is irrelevant to me. However, If one chooses to do so? he/she should notify others first. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia say this and where have I removed 'British Isles' from any articles? Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't claimed that you did or didn't. I'm merely suggesting a guideline for the future. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than something for ANI. Wikipedia:Content noticeboard might be a better venue, although it looks like the Talk:British Isles page has relevant discussion that perhaps a WP:RFC could help with. I'm not seeing this as a "stalking" issue, and it's certainly not canvassing by the link provided. It appears to be exactly the place to discuss the issues. I'm marking this as resolved, at least for this board. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the advice Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Then remove the resolved tag. I'm just not seeing a problem with MidnightBlueMan or any of his edits. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I removed it. I have made many edits in the field of Beetles and Natural history. What is MBM's motive other than Wikihounding? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I looked at the link you provided - it was your edit. So I looked at the article history - and I don't see a single edit by MBM. Sorry, I've looked at what you provided, ... several times, and I'm just not inclined to go searching through more diffs and history. To be perfectly blunt, my perception is that you are trying to get your preferred version of this "British Isles" thing pushed through over the objections of multiple other editors. Sorry - maybe another admin. will see it differently - but I'm done here. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
What about this example? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Since Þjóðólfr appears to be doing mass changes of geographic names in a case that his been hotly contested, offering us an example regarding the distribution of beetles is unlikely to be convincing. You should familiarize yourself with past debates before you begin tinkering on a problem that has caused great passion already. The phrase 'British Isles and Ireland' seems like a neologism, and you should try to find general support before you start making this change. A good place for you to begin would be in the thread at Talk:British Isles#Replacing British Isles with "British Isles and Ireland" where you could try to present arguments that would convince the other editors. See WP:BISLES for more background. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT doing mass changes of geographic names and I've alraeady contributed to the above supposed starting point. Jeez. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Þjóðólfr has my sympathy. He added a reference to an article[10], which previously had none, only to have it deleted by User:MidnightBlueMan, presumably because the reference spoke separately of "Britain" and "Ireland". ClemMcGann (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Quantumechanic problematic way of editing the entropy page[edit]

See here for the nature of the problem. I want to continue working on this article which might mean that at some time I would find myself in technical violation of 3RR. As explained on the wikiproject physics talk page, this is absolutely not a content dispute, as I'm willing to have the other editor have his preferred POV.

The core of the issue is that because the editor in question turns out not to know much about the subject (beyond some very superficial knowledge), the collaboration that I had in mind (he edits and I offer suggestions for minor improvements, which is reasonable given that he prefers a different verion than me, so he should be doing most of the editing work) will degenerate into long discussions about even the smallest edits, which is worse than me editing the (for me) more difficult verion all by myself.

It may also be the case that this is a hoax editor who is an expert, but who wants to prove that you can fool wiki editors and get nonsense editited in wiki articles that will stick for a long time. Count Iblis (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued[edit]

Resolved: For now, at least. Full protection imposed on page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred:

"Far from trying to conceal these cultural sources [from ancient Egypt], they [the ancient Greeks] took pride in what the received from Egypt. For centuries thereafter Western historians too made no attempt to conceal this debt [of ancient Greece to ancient Egypt]; only in the nineteenth century did Grecophiles or Philhellenes, under the sway of Western racism, reject the idea that the sublime culture they so admired was not original or, worse, was not of Indo-European (Aryan) origin. The mere thought that Greece had been influenced by second-rate Egyptians or, perish the thought, by African, made them break out in a mental rash. They resorted to every trick in the book in the book to hide the truth and disseminate a perverted history with unmistakeably racist overtones. [...] For the African-American authors, reconstruction of the ancient world thus means liberation from the shackles of the racially distorted picture of the past and redemption of the historical truth. It means discarding the Eurocentric point of view in favor of a fresh description of the ancient world's history and its cultures - a description in which Europe has neither primacy, exclusivity nor supremacy." (Yaacov Shavit, History in Black, pp. 43-44)

Shavit certainly is not an Afrocentrist. "History in Black" is one of the best books on the topic. But in any case, there would be a lot more sources that say essentially the same. But regardless of my argument, the edit warring with Wdford continued, and currently I am at 3 reverts, if I count correctly. With his last edits, Wdford then re-added a lot of content from the previous revisions diff. To me this looks like a cheap evasion tactic. Wdford doesn't want to discuss the issue of the relevance of Eurocentrism for the article, so he adds some different content. But I am not falling for that. We need to discuss the issue, and I don't suppose that Wdford can bring forward a source-based argument that the "Eurocentric considerations" should not be mentioned in some form in the lead paragraph. I would revert him again, but that would be breaking 3rr.

In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Yes please - you might also be interested to check the talk page near the end of "Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph", where the complainant openly threatens to start an edit war in order to "speed things up a little" and then says "Let's see what the admins have to say about this." This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose to cause an article to be protected, so please would you look carefully before simply protecting the article. Please would you also review Zara's history of edit-warring, her previous involvement in this article specifically and her tendency to prefer to work on articles she is allowed to "own", as indicated yet again by her wording above.. Wdford (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And here we are again, in under a week, like clockwork. People still doubting my suggestion that everyone at that article should be topicbanned to let the cooler heads prevail? It isn't stopping, and nothing we are doing is working to end the nonsense. According to Wikichecker here, four editors are responsible for approximately 50% of the edits to the article, and many of the same names pop up when you look at theincredibly high number of edits to the talk page.

I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ROUX  15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, since Wdford was unfairly accused before (go check the arbitration record) and has been unfairly accused yet again, instead of listening to gossip you might instead review the actual talk page and edits and make a decision based on the facts. Topicban Zara, who is blatantly gaming the system here, and the threatened edit war won't materialise. Seems simple, but it requires admins to look beyond the superficial and the gossip. Wdford (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly, I am only number 8 of the contributors to this article. By the way, the main reason that I am editing there now is that another editor remarked on my talk page that I would "find it a more congenial editing environment" at the article by now. Most likely, that impression was wrong. I don't mind the additional work I have to for the article, but I don't really need it either. And I especially don't need having to deal with editors like Wdford. In a review of "Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History" by Mary Lefkowitz, August Meier, who some people from African-American studies should know, remarks:

"Not out of Africa" is an effective polemic. [...]Not recognizing that Afrocentric views are rooted in a long a respected tradition, she simply falls to answer the question raised in this books subtitle . To argue with the claims of the Afrocentrists is one thing, but to overlook or ignore the work of the band of Afro-American intellectuals and popularizers who enunciated a line of thought that was deeply rooted among rank-and-file Negroes would, I believe, reveal an essential Eurocentric orientations in this study. Thus, as a work of scholarship "Not out of Africa" is deeply flawed." (Emphasis added)

This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think these types of content disputes should go to content related noticeboards such as the article content noticeboard before coming here so that additional opinions on the content and citation issues can be solicitied in hopes that a consensus or compromise can be reached. That article, like many on Wikipedia, seems to be very contentious. But arguments over citations and content are not really administrative issues. Appropriate dispute resolution needs to be tried, and consensus sought. I'm not seeing clear behavioral issues other than frustration on both sides. Getting more opinions to try to work out the differences seems like the best way forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Both editors that have posted here are currently edit warring at the article. If you continue, you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja247 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here [11]. Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
They're both repeat offenders, but banning people isn't the best way to do this. Too heavy-handed. I'd prefer we settle this like civilized people, on a level-playing field, rather than the admins stepping in and dealing out punishment arbitrarily. The furthest I think we should go is a protection of the article; otherwise, I plan on discussing the matter thoroughly and possibly mediating a compromise between Wdford and Zara (who are warring right now). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Left messages on Wdford's page and Zara's. I'm hoping to get some productivity out of this. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm far from convinced I agree that banning is too heavy-handed. These kinds of POV disputes are rarely solved with out it coming to blows (figuratively, of course). Remember that this article is under probation from ArbCom and has been for quite some time, and that this article has been discussed here several times. It seems pretty unrealistic to think things like warnings and discussions are going to get us anywhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Topic-banning them won't do anything, though. It'll save us a headache, but I doubt they'll just give up. As has been said before, they're both repeat-offenders; they've already been talked to about this and punished. I just don't think that's the way. Listening to what they have to say and settling the issue in a human fashion, rather than telling them to back off for a week, is more promising, at least in my eyes. By no means is my idea binding; even if they agree to it, other administrators can block them. That's their discretion. I'm just not in support of that. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that at one point Vassyana was considerded as a mediator, I wonder if he could not be called in to manage this case; everyone woul dhave to agree and agree to abide by his process. For myelf, I have three comments: first, I think it is always a good idea for people toagree n general principles or a framework for moving ahead, and then just follow where that leads. Zara seems to have set up just such a framework and fram an admittedly quick glance it looks like the has broken work down into good stages. Two: introductions are not worth getting caught up in, especially when an article is being revised because introductions have to introduce the whole article. If the intro is the point of contention, just drop it for now and work on those parts you can agree on. When you have done that you may find the intro easier. Finally, after multiple protects and blocks, I think everyone should agree to a zero-tolerance policy on incivility. Wdford, if you fel you have to further your argument by labeling Zara "topic-ban Zara" as you have here, I conclude you have no game left to contribute to this discussion as an adult. You may as well leave. (My apologies to Wdford whom I misunderstoo) Zara, I have not checked everything you have written but off course this would go for you too. Why should anyone care about this article if it is only a space for personal attacks and squabbles? Try - I say this to all people involved in the dispute - to show how this is a conflict of ideas, and others may wish to get involved and perhaps even help resolve disputes. If anyone slings another drop of mud I would take that as an admission that they have nothing left to support their side so they are not worth listening to. I hope these comments provide the basis for a framework for everyone to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Please note, Slrubenstein, that I did not label Zara as "topic-ban Zara". I was suggesting to ROUX that actually topic-banning Zara is a possible solution to her threat to start an edit war, in response to his suggestion to topic-ban me. I’m sure that when you read that entry carefully you will see this, and will appreciate that there is a world of difference between my sentence and your assumption.

Re Zara's repeated complaints about her proposed opening sentence – I have stated more than once on the talk page that I accept the accuracy of the quote, but that I object to using it as the opening sentence of the lead section as I feel that it mis-defines the controversy. I hear and agree with Slrubenstein’s comment that lead sections must introduce the controversy as a whole, and that is specifically why I feel that this particular wording is misleading and inappropriate.

I did however include Zara’s sentence in my last attempt at correcting the lead section, but not as the opening sentence, and I reworded it slightly to better clarify the context. Although every sentence I added was referenced in detail, Zara nonetheless reverted this entire effort with the comment “wdford, your 'content' has so many problems that I don't even know where to start”. This is her usual alibi for not explaining why she is reverting referenced material, although she accuses me of disruption for deleting her preferred sentences without first providing a detailed explanation.

For those who are concerned that I am adding “unsourced” material, please check my contributions to the lead section that Zara reverted at [12] – they are fully referenced.

Re her insinuations about my adding an unsourced section on the controversial issues around ancient Egyptian art, my intention was to expand this to briefly describe inter alia the accusations by Prof Manu Ampim that artwork showing the ancient Egyptians as black people have been systematically destroyed, while fake artwork has been inserted into museums etc to deliberately misrepresent the ancient Egyptians as being lighter-skinned than he believes they really were. He even accused a respected scholar – Prof Frank Yurco – of deliberately misrepresenting evidence, even though Yurco was actually quite correct, and he did so after Yurco was dead and couldn’t defend himself. (See e.g. http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm for a taste, although the Prof is apparently a published author on the subject and there are many better references available.) I think such a conspiracy theory would qualify as controversial, and it is a widely disseminated theory. However this initiative was instantly reverted by Zara before any progress could be made, on the basis that I did not first obtain her consensus to add the section. I let it go at the time with the intention of following a consensus process, but please do not mistake my conciliatory approach for a mea culpa – I could have built that heading into a valuable and fully referenced section given half a chance. Hopefully that chance will come again.

Finally, I am more than happy to work with Master of Puppets to resolve matters.

Wdford (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article full protected for 3 days[edit]

I would like to encourage all the warring parties to calm down and try to work together. To encourage that - the article is fully protected (administrators can edit only) for 3 days. Further multiparty disruption after the protection expires will be followed by multiparty blocks. This is not acceptable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well, it seems that protection was decided upon regardless. I'm not in the position to remove the restriction, and I offer my full apologies to both Zara and Wdford. I still encourage you both to reach a consensus, of course, and I'm still more than happy to provide assistance if any is required. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks MoP, but 3 days of edit protection is not such a big deal. We have never before had an admin on the article who was prepared to get really involved in actually administering the process, so I am really looking forward to working with you. Huge respect. Wdford (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I hope I can help you guys settle this without any more blocks or things of that sort. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin urgently needed to fix mistaken entry[edit]

Resolved

Infobox made math calculation unreliable. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue

then see Queue 3, which is scheduled to go next.

then see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Connell&action=history

That article clearly does not comply. It is an article from 2008. I can see why the 5 day old age can be stretched a bit, but 9-10 months is too much. It is also not nearly a 5x expansion. If recognition is desired, GA or FA can be attempted but massive bending of the rules to get DYK is not right.

An administrator is needed to replace that DYK with another. Thank you Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "Illegal" is a bit strong, even if it was a problem, but DYK expansion is based on the prose content of the article, not its absolute size. If you follow through the article's history, the 5x expansion rule has been more than satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
My math shows it has NOT met a 5x expansion. On 11 July 2009, it was 3,379 bytes. It is now 11,973 bytes. That is a 3.5x expansion which is good but not up to DYK criteria. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is the DYK something that requires admin anything (other than it being on the main page)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Only an admin can add or remove things from the queue where it is now. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah... but DYK counts only prose, which means only the single sentence in this version (july 11) is counted which amounts to 86 characters. Expansion began on 2 August, and Peter Connell now has 3855 characters. This should be discussed at WT:DYK if there's a problem with that. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It's been expanded about 40x. Law type! snype? 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I just found out that the byte count in the history can be corrupted by an infobox. I brought it here because of the quick response that DYK talk doesn't have keeping in mind that the DYK was next in line. Thank you. Please don't block me for making a false, but well meaninged, police report. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
1. we don't do that and 2. we aren't the police. ViridaeTalk 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are. Yes you do. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol Mike R (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:NiveKJ13 and User:GMA Fan[edit]

  • This user (NiveKJ13) keeps Accusing me of sockpuppeting. I am not a sockpuupeter. Look at User talk:NiveKJ13 for evidence. He also vandalizes my talk page too. GMA Fan 9 August 2009 9:04PM
This matter can be explained in my talk page and in the administrator Mufka's talk page. And FYi, this is started by GMA Fan himself. And remember the thing Mufka have kept telling you?...never call edits that you don't like a "vandalism". --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
NiveKJ13, because your edits are very similar to Witchy2006's edits. Like blanking portions of LaLola (Philippine TV series). GMA Fan 9 August 2009 9:15PM
I have explained that to Mufka and it has been resolved. But what did you do?..you still continued adding the accusation in my talk page even though it has already been resolved. --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
OK Can we stop aguring and cooperate like friends. Wikipedia is a plae where everyone should cooperate. GMA Fan 9:23PM 9 August 2009
I wasn't arguing. You're the one using capital letters here. Showing only that you are angry or shouting. Its very unpleasant for the person you did that to even bother to cooperate with you. --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the threading in this, a bit. For the record, Ebhoy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is also Erickbhoy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), who is blocked in connection with two or more SPI cases. Looks like GMA Fan has done some socking, previously, but has hopefully stopped -- as would be wise. There's a lot of unnecessary bitterness going on, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, now might be a good time for NiveKJ13 to explain any relation between that account, WikiMemoryBot, and Witchy2006. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: GMA Fan (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for combat by Mufka (talk · contribs). -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Shnitzled[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, SPI case filed. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Per these edits [13], [14] and [15], can someone please indef block User:Shnitzled? Note also the block history, and this past ANI discussion, there is little evidence that this user wants to contribute anything meaningful to wikipedia. Stepopen (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Several previous blocks combined with those particularly harsh personal attacks certainly imply Wikipedia would be better without this individual. ~ mazca talk 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
How does it feel to know that I have about 19 other dorment accounts and over 50 IP's I can edit from? Ouch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.27.196 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly the sort of thing that will bring Wikipedia to its knees. It's not like all of your edits and accounts can be fixed with a single click of a button, or anything. Dayewalker (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shnitzled for anyone interested. --Jayron32 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You'd think someone who thinks they're so clever would understand that every time they post on a new IP, they simply allow that IP to be blocked. I mean I understand most sock-users frankly lack intelligence, but it's still embarrassing to watch. HalfShadow 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Non neutral biased title[edit]

Hi I am requesting administrators to take a look into this article Syrian occupation of Lebanon, please read the talk page Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon. A number of editors such as myself have been trying to move the title to a more neutral title "Syrian military presence in Lebanon" that is more reflective of the historical and political reality. But unfortunately the administrators who have had the final say on this article tend to be very biased by virtue of the fact that they don't look at the arguments and evidence and sources presented and always argue that there is no argument while editors such as myself have presented endless sources and proof. We just had a discussion where editors voted 8-6 in favor of moving the title name, but one administrator came and reverted the name change. I am asking for neutral administrators who have not edited or are not involved in or have not taken sides with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to take an honest and sincere look into this, because as an editor on Wikipedia I know that NPOV is the rule and not POV and this title is inherently POV, Please check the arguments and sources provided. Here are the facts. 1) The Lebanese president in 1976 requested Syrian military intervention. Unlike the majority of occupations Syria did not enter Lebanon by itself. The head of the lebanese nation requested that Syria intervenes. 2) The Arab League voted in favor of sending a peace-keeping force that was to consist of mostly Syrian soldiers. Therefore Syria was given 2 mandates to intervene in Lebanon, whereas the other belligerents such as Israel was never given any official mandate. 3) ALL non-biased sources such as PBS have termed the Syrian military intervention as a "presence". 4) Whereas almost all sources presented from the opposing editors are all biased, for example the former Bush administration. Politicla partisans like Daniel Pipes and Alan Dersowitz. 5) A number of honest editors have correctly pointed out that Syria's mandate expired in 1982 and that after that it was a legitimate occupation, but the problem is that the article speaks of the first 6 years which has no legitimate evidence of an occupation.

Any suggestions or ideas to resolve this because the current title is obviously biased and contradictory of the historical events. I ask any administrator that believes in Wikipedia's neutrality to take a look into this.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence the discussion was closed in an inappropriate manner. There seems to be evidentiary-based arguements being based which support both sides, and neither side in the discussion displayed controling a clear consensus. Based on that, the standard is to maintain the status quo. Any arguements on the substance of one side or another should occur at the article talk page itself, but as far as the administrative action, I can find no fault with it. --Jayron32 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jayron I appreciate your input, but the point that other editors and myself are trrying to make is that the status quo is biased; what can we do to fix or resolve that?.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be asking to have the status quo changed. Find reliable, mainstream sources which clearly back up your point without the need to add any extra interpretation or reading into it; start an WP:RFC to bring extra eyes and uninvolved editors to comment. That would be a good start. --Jayron32 05:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and continued hounding[edit]

Resolved

User:Theserialcomma was blocked for five days not very long ago for baiting other users. The discussion can be viewed here.

Today, Theserialcomma decided to harass me on my talk page. He has been asked not to post on it before. In that message he accused me of misusing rollback, also managing to bring up the fact that I lost rollback a year ago. Incidentally, I used twinkle, not rollback, and using tools to remove malicious external links is very well within policy. Also incidentally, I redeemed myself and my rollback rights were restored. This is, I believe, the exact kind of baiting that the Wikipedia community voted to come down harder on.

He also nominated a user subpage I maintain, User:McJeff/BlockLog, for speedy deletion as an attack page, and when that was declined, for MfD. I have seen other users keep a page about their block logs, but that is up to the community to decide whether this is appropriate. However, I believe his nomination is bad faith in that he only nominated it because he is the user blocked for baiting that it mentions, and that it was deceitful to write the MfD trying to make it sound like he was concerned about someone else's welfare rather than for personal reasons. See also [16].

Just to show that this is a repeating pattern. A couple days ago, Theserialcomma decided to complain about a dispute he personally was not involved in, because one of the involved editors, User:Tothewolf, was someone he had previously been in a dispute with, and in fact was warned by Admin User:Jéské Couriano to stop - see this discussion on his talk page.

Aside from the fact that he has been warned for baiting and continues to do so, an issue I have here is that TSC is trying to reignite an old feud. The last hostile interaction I had with him dates back to October 29, 2008.

Incidentally, TSC also has a months old very polite request to stop hounding me in his talk page history. McJEFF (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i expect User:Jéské Couriano to come in here any minute and block me. he's been harassing me and threatening to ban for me for a while now. i hope this community will review the situation before User:Jéské Couriano jumps the gun. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Listen to me good, TSC. You already have several users who are on your ass, myself included, because you repeatedly harass other users. I am just about tired of seeing your name pop up here every week in connection with another fragging accusation of harassment/hounding/stalking. And your response to each one is to pull a CofS or otherwise marginalize the complaint. I suggest you do yourself a favor and stop harassing other users. If you do not, someone will block you (but it won't be an involved administrator like myself). -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

oh jeske couriano, how i knew you'd show up here. first you accuse me of harassment without any diffs, just a link to my contributions (that is too vague, my personal harassment-admin), and then you, a representative of wikipedia, make an attack on me by comparing me to something allegedly to do with scientology, which is totally irrelevant to this conversation. if you have a grudge against scientology, leave me out of it. and if you are going to accuse people of harassment, you should provide diffs. and finally, stay away from me. really. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I do until you show up here again as the subject or starter of a thread. Your whole paragraph above is a dodge. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
you and i have no feud, mcjeff. i left you a personalized message on your talk page about what i perceived to be rollback misuse on an article we both edit. that was a good faith message. you have lost rollback before for similar abuse, so there should be no further misuse. and you did use real rollback, not twinkle rollback (see [[17]]). you are mistaken about that. second of all, i nominated your subpage for deletion because it's an attack page on me and serves no purpose for the encyclopedia. perhaps the community could view [18] and decide for themselves if that helps wikipedia in any way.
and finally, when you mention in your attack subpage that i (unnamed) was blocked for 5 days, what does that have anything to do with you being blocked a year ago? because i was blocked for 'baiting' a year after you were blocked, you think that's necessary to mention in your subpage? please. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I thought you meant this edit when you posted. McJEFF (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Complaint Withdrawn (and struck through) after discussion on TSC's talk page and an amicable solution. McJEFF (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

75.5.239.210[edit]

User:75.5.239.210 has spent the last hour plus removing phrases like "award winning" from articles. Is there a remedy for this? Deserted Cities 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Warn. 2) Wait to see if warnings stop him. 3) Report to WP:AIV if warnings are ineffective. --Jayron32 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this IP editing a few of the articles I have watchlisted. The user is simply following WP:ACTOR#On-going projects/to do lists. — Σxplicit 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really, they are simply deleting information that speaks to each subject's notability that indeed should be in the lede. If not in the first sentence then so be it but deletion is unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


I've already filed a report on this IP at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Emmy bad, 2 and a half hours ago. Unfortunately, as is the case with most of those off the wall noticeboards, no reply or action has been taken since. S/he isn't following WP:ACTOR#On-going projects/to do lists because if he was, instead of removing the "Emmy/Golden Globe award winning" totally, S/he would be moving it out of the first sentence further down in the lede per Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences. Please change leads to include mention of major awards, but do so in context.. -  allstarecho    07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And after leaving h/im/er a note on h/is/er talk page, and after undoing many of the articles, h/she reverted me. Someone else feel free to have fun with this one. -  allstarecho    08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved archived thread[edit]

A thread has been auto-archived before it was formally closed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345. Can someone sort that out, and perhaps an uninvolved admin close it? Rd232 talk 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Threads get archived without being formally closed all the time. This page would be huge without it. Why should this thread be any different? Can't any further discussion be done on Wikifan's talkpage? --Atlan (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way forward is to make a report at WP:AE and point to the recently archived discussion, as there is a clear case for discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. There's posibly a better chance of finding someone uninvolved there as well. Kevin (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged incivility and soapboxing by Keepscases[edit]

Resolved: No consensus for an admin to do anything, discussion is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from AN ViridaeTalk 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-pasted RfA thread
  1. Oppose User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA. Keepscases (talk)

...

  1. I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. Shappy talk 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Flimsy? You're not even taking a stand one way or the other, so you may want to dismount that giant equus caballus of yours. Keepscases (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    He has just yet to make up his mind. He is stating that in order to convince him to oppose he will need a more solid argument.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Like Gordon said, I'm Takin' My Time reviewing this candidate, making sure I have a good all-around perspective in them. Better than automatically opposing someone for their beliefs. Shappy talk 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    If you think anyone's being opposed for his beliefs, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Keepscases (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, it's obvious that you've used RFA as your soapbox against atheism. Perhaps you should try and review the candidate's contributions and their article work to give you a better idea of what kind of an admin they would be instead of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Shappy talk 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oh? Surely, then, you can provide an example of a time when I've taken issue with atheism itself, as opposed to elitist and confrontational attitudes that make someone of any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) look awful. I'll wait. Keepscases (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedder, you go as far as to bar good-faith users of WikiProject Atheism from becoming administrators due to a few users carrying a certain userbox. While not a bias against atheism per se, it shows that you have an unacceptable predisposition against good-faith users who are interested in the subject of atheism. Shappy talk 02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    The group in question proudly displays that userbox on its page to this day. I do not trust anyone who is associated with such a hateful group; the religious preferences of such a person are irrelevant. Keepscases (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    When you see a candidate using an atheism userbox you instantly infer that they are going to act inappropriately and cannot be trusted. Please please please explain in detail why this is. I do not like these userboxes, but boxes do not make the candidate. You are going out of your way to check if the candidate has at one point in time had an atheism related userbox. Can you also please explain why this is? I do not wish to sound mean, but I am utterly puzzled. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Sure--because I simply can't fathom how any responsible, respectful, and thoughtful individual--the sort of person I want to see promoted to administrator--would ever display such a userbox, or associate with a group who did. For anyone who paints me as anti-atheist--find me any other userbox, religious or otherwise, that is so intentionally disrespectful towards other Wikipedia users, and I will enthusiastically oppose its proponents with the same vigor you've all come to know and love me for. Keepscases (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    You are attacking a specific subset of editors with a specific belief. I can't see how that isn't worse than displaying a few pixels on one's userpage. Triplestop x3 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    I only agree with you if by "belief" you mean "belief that being condescending and confrontational towards other users is a 'cool' thing to do". Keepscases (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I'm not trying to stop you doing so; I knew before this argument. I just gave you advice on other ways to review RFA candidates. You've also been told by many editors that your stereotypes are just as, if not more offensive that said userboxes. Shappy talk 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    (ec) No, by belief I mean atheism. Hate/smugness between people of different groups happens everywhere. And I don't see you opposing based on this "condescending and confrontational" from any other belief than atheism. Again, Rfa is not your soapbox. Triplestop x3 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan16&oldid=306328221#Oppose and #Neutral.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. Are you proposing a ban? Malinaccier (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am helping to expose what this particular user is doing, to a larger audience than WT:RFA. I do not find that such behavior is consistent with building an encyclopedia, therefore the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should consequently be banned, or at least blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A link is sufficient. I recommend removing the text as it's distracting and will likely lead to more admins ignoring this than paying attention. Also, may I recommend Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases makes the comments above that Anyone associated with Atheism is a member of a "hateful group". He states that anyone who is an atheist, and not ashamed of it is a "condescending and confrontational" person. It can be read from other comments that Atheism is not a 'belief' to be respected like a religion is. How much of this Dominionism-based disruption and bad faith are we expected to endure here? By his logic, I should oppose every single RfA candidate who displays, or has ever displayed a userbox identifying membership in a faith in an irreverent, or humorous, or even sarcastic, manner. That will certainly reduce the number of candidates if it catches on. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, why is this here? No, I didn't move the comments asking why was it at ANI but I think the point was clear nonetheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me be more specific. He's been here almost two years. So why should his very recent behavior in two RFAs be justification for a complete ban as opposed to a discussion at WPT:RFA about limiting his discussion at RFAs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As of about four days ago (due to toolserver replag), 54.90% of this user's edits were in the Wikipedia namespace, with eight of the top ten edited pages in that namespace being related to RfA and all of the edits in Wikipedia talk namespace being related to RfA.[20]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside the minor issue of what the right venue for discussion is, a ban from RfA would sound like the appropriate measure to me. Looking at his contributions, I have a feeling he's been running a very long, very successful troll, knowing that Wikipedia has a high proportion of atheists and that tempers run high on RfAs. The trolling could be motivated by actual hatred for atheists, or he could just be doing it for, as they say, the lulz. But one thing that is clear is that these opposes do not contribute to the discussion at RfA, they undermine it. rspεεr (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If only you were as concerned about the reasons why administrator hopefuls might think disrespectful and confrontational attitudes are acceptable, as you are with the user who thinks such attitudes aren't compatible with adminship. When people like you claim that it's the jerks who are being persecuted and suggest that it's me who's the hateful one, I feel like I'm in Bizarro World. Keepscases (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed long copy-paste Badger Drink (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be at ANI if it is a ban discussion.....Malinaccier (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? I think ban discussions are more appropriate here than at the shitstorm that is ANI. See previous discussion on this here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#Use of this page. –xenotalk 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not this is Incivility and soapboxing, the user has a right to express his opinion. However, there are some points that are for sure:

  1. Keepscases's comments do not address individual candidates, the point of RfA
  2. Keepscases's comments have incited much conflict
  3. Keepscases asks many "unique" questions on RfA [21]
  4. The user has done nothing but do this lately

Triplestop x3 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Begin random lurker's opinion...) I have no dog in this fight, and no opinion one way or the other on what should be done. However, I think it's important to point out that the issue Keepscases seems to have is not with Atheists per se, but rather with the userbox that says "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself". The reason he brought it up at the RFA is that the candidate seems to have recently removed it from his userpage, which would appear on the surface to be an attempt to "cover up" something that would potentially have a negative impact on the RFA (as opposed to removing it because one no longer agrees with the sentiment expressed). Could he have argued his point more tactfully? Sure...but I think it's important to note that the disagreement seems to have its source in how the userbox was phrased rather than the actual sentiment behind it. Dgcopter (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's seems this discussion supports your theory. He should just file an MfD and get the box deleted if he hates it so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not an advocate of censorship. I think users should be able to create and display any userboxes they wish, but any user who thinks posting a disrespectful userbox is a good idea is an unsuitable candidate. Keepscases (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm increduluous that people are actually proposing to ban me. I'm not doing anything wrong. Your beef should be with people who insist my long-standing, very sincere opinions are not valid...most of whom blatantly misrepresent said opinions to try and undermine my credibility. I just now supported an atheist who appears to have no connections to publicly-displayed elitism and hatefulness, and I have done so in the past. Keepscases (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That does not excuse your long history of disruption. Triplestop x3 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
All I do is post my vote, guy, but don't expect me to stay quiet if people want to argue I don't have the right. Keepscases (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The right to do what? What you're doing is basically the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if all you were doing was fighting against a userbox (in which case you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Tedder), RfA is not the venue to fight against a userbox. rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't fight against any userbox, I oppose candidates who think it's a good idea to display it. I do not think any such user should represent Wikipedia in any position of power, "no big deal" be damned. I don't disrupt anything. All I do is cast my vote and then defend myself against people who attack me for it. Keepscases (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen edits alone to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan16, seventeen edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedder, ten edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24 2. These are just from the past couple weeks; the pattern has been evident for a long, long time. How many "keepscases oppose" threads are we gonna start? When someone generates as much mass drama as he does, it's clear whether they are a net positive or a net negative to the project, regardless of motivation. Highly support a topic ban from RfA or related threads. Tan | 39 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ECx7)Really? You are surprised that few other editors are voicing support for your bigotry? You're actively discriminating against a large, and growing, group of people, based on their beliefs. This is exactly the same as discriminating against the Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, seventh day Adventists, southern baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, protestants or any other christian group which proselytizes. I don't see you doing that; I see the opposite. Why should we keep around someone whose attitude is 'anyone who isn't a christian shouldn't be an admin, especially people who think really differently than I do about something which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's you who should be banned, for completely misrepresenting my beliefs and actions. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. I defy you to show me one edit in which I say there is. Keepscases (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban Besides the issue of having almost all of your edits to RfA religion based, you also repeatedly make inane edits such as these [22] [23]. This is 100% unproductive and does nothing but incite conflict. Triplestop x3 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, because the idea of actually making a potential administrator think about something new/unexpected, and give voters a little insight into his or her personality/demeanor, is grounds for a ban. Tell me, exactly what conflict did the edits you mention bring about? Keepscases (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
they didnt yet bring conflict but they were definitely a little silly and not really relevent to his duties as an admin. usually the questions show how they would interpret policy and improve Wikipedia nad not how they would cast a movie about Wikipedia!! Smith Jones 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Right as always, SJ! Let's slay these misconceptions about a Wikipedia movie! Skinwalker (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think if you go through my questions, you'll find plenty of instances in which candidates were sincerely appreciative for the opportunity to answer them and/or they were helpful in voters' decision-making. The one candidate chose not to answer my movie question, and you know what? Everything was fine. There was no drama. Keepscases (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)::Thats a fair point, and I agree wthat you dont deserve to be sanctioned because of THAT (I dont know about the other things too much) but i can see how that might be constured as being part of a pattern of mocking behavior. you have to see this from evryones perspective since this a community-oriented and circumobular project which sometimes things that you thing are WP:FUNNY are actually being seen as violating WP:CIVIL due to too much sarcasm or Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now supporting a full ban Keepscases was already blocked indefinitely for asking blatant, inane questions and was warned. See here [24] for examples. And he still continues to this day. I don't know what is going on, does he not get it or is he deliberately trying to troll? He clearly still hasn't got a clue and given his attack against Thurnax, it isn't likely he will get one anytime soon. Given that his edits to articles are all minor changes, and his inane posts at the Help Desk recently, I don't see that this user will turn around and go do something productive if he is banned from RfA alone. Triplestop x3 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Per below Triplestop x3 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what "attack against Thurnax" are you referring to? He accused me of something I've never done. As for my "inane posts at the Help Desk", I posted there looking to learn something. That is inappropriate why?