Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

incivility of user:Jäger[edit]

- Claiming his edit "was deleted yesterday by a Pole" [1]
- I don't know how to call this one, probably a strong candidate for the stupidest edit of year [2]


Jesus, if i think we are trying to build a serious encyclopedia with contributions from users like Jager I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Loosmark (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And again - user Jäger notified about this thread. Why do I have to keep doing this? Exxolon (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It is good that I am not an admin, as I fear I don't understand what you want the admins to do, user:Loosmark. The edits seem to have been made with mildly poor grammar, but the points seem to be the editor feels Poland, and some Polish agents, are making edits that are contrary to WP's best interest. This might be better for WQA but even there, other than the fact that the editor is focusing on the motivations of other editors instead of on the content, I am not seeing the problem, yet. - Sinneed (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well obviously calling an editor "a Pole" rather than by his name is offensive. I hope you recognise that if we all go around referring to each other as "a Pole, a German, a Chinese, a Spaniard" that would be very ugly. We do have usernames for a reason i think. Also spreading fringe theories about the Present of Poland making some conspirancy against wikipedia is a bit too much. Loosmark (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What's perhaps more disturbing is that this editor keeps on putting highly POV Nazi propaganda (the real thing - I don't mean that as a Goodwin's Law violation) into the article on Hermann Rauschning (article history here). In fact, the removal of this stuff is what Jager appears to be complaining about there (on the wrong article talk page) and I'm the "Pole" who removed it.radek (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am just an ordinary editor but my response to the adding unsourced propaganda is: Then warn the editor when the editor adds the unsourced stuff, and if the editor won't stop after enough warnings, the admins may be able to help. Earlier, I put in a "focus on the content not the editors" warning on User talk:Jäger, but I am not interested in diving into an edit conflict on the Nazi bits. I just don't see how the admins can help you now. The editor was unwise to add the "Pole" bit, it is rude. Again, if the editor does it again, an interested editor should courteously explain that it isn't acceptable, wp:WQA is a good place to get uninvovled folk to do that if the involved editors aren't comfortable or feel their warning won't be productive. I hope that helps. - Sinneed (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thank you. Loosmark (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sinneed, but share Radeksz's and Loosmark's general concern over Jäger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The reported edits, as well as his adding assertions of fact sourced only to a 1930 book written by Nazi leader Hermann Rauschning (correctly reverted by Radeksz per WP:V) are very troubling. If warnings do not help and this sort of conduct continues, a WP:AE report under WP:DIGWUREN with sufficient relevant diffs should result in a substantial sanction.  Sandstein  20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I can agree with anyone suggestions to help resolve this. I mean, you are looking at this siutation completeley the wrong way.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to explain how people should be looking at it, then. On the surface, Sandstein appears to have it covered. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ak36962 and suspected copyvios[edit]

Resolved: Articles deleted. MER-C 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ak36962 (talk · contribs) has created many articles about the Russian Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, these look like translated copyvios of the source articles provided in the respective articles. The English isn't perfect, which may mean these were run through a translator. I wouldn't mind if another admin who has a knowledge of Russian would check these out, just to make sure I'm not missing anything here... since a document that's been translated and then copy/pasted is still a copyvio. I figured I'd mention it here rather than there because this appears to be happening quickly and may need to be stopped by deletion if these are CSD G12s. I'd pursue it further myself, but I'm going offline for now... feel free to report to WP:CV and/or delete the articles in the interim if appropriate. --Kinu t/c 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I ran a test, taking the reference provided for Metropolitan Ambrose and running it through Google's translate program. It outputted a word-for-word duplicate of the article. As the reference was provided I assume this was a good faith attempt to build articles, but yes, it definitely looks like a problem. - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sent to CP. Nice catch. Gave the usual nothanks warning, though I am not fussed about others taking extra action. MER-C 06:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

23prootie posting disruptive edit summaries and engaging in borderline edit warring[edit]

23prootie (talk · contribs) is a long-standing edit warrior and, as demonstrated by their block log has been repeatedly blocked for this, most recently with a two week block in July. The key feature of his edit warring is endlessly adding countries to articles such as Allies of World War II, Pacific War and various other lists of sovereign states, often with racially charged edit summaries. Relevant previous reports include: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 month) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#User:23prootie edit warring again. Despite these blocks, he's reverted to form in the Allies of World War II article, and is adding countries and territories to the list, often without providing any citations or properly engaging in the discussion on the article's talk page (consistent with past behavior, he's simply asserting that he's right and is claiming that various Wikipedia articles support his changes). Two of these edits have racially charged edit summaries: [3] (summary: 'blue-eyed whites are so annoying, de-racismizing the heading, adding China to the leadership, adding relevant participants Ethiopia, Iran, and Iraq') and [4] (summary: 'removing racist commentary at the top obviously directed at India and the Philippines, clearly this article is trying to impose apartheid against colored peoples.'). Given this editor's long history of disruptive editing and edit warring and the failure of repeated blocks to change their behavior, I would like to suggest that they be subjected to at least a month-long block. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consult the talk page for Allies of World War I before making a decision on this issue. As you can see I have been active in discussing my view in a civilized manner and there were times when consensus was achieved. I would also like you to take in consideration this article (Declaration by United Nations) which is the basis of my edits.--23prootie (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to realize that i'm prbaly going to get blocked again...--23prootie (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You should be aware that Wikipedia, by nature of its open editing policy, is not regarded as a reliable source. You will need to find your own resources and references to establish the validity of your edits. I would also comment that racism works both ways, and that inferring that people are editing on a racial basis because of the colour of their skin when it is not the case is racial abuse of itself. I strongly suggest that you discontinue the type of edit summaries exampled above (and then the possibility of being blocked greatly diminishes). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't thought that it could go both sides. Maybe I'll consider that next time before I speak.--23prootie (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Another serial copyvio case[edit]

Could somebody please delete all photographs uploaded recently by Polibiush (talk · contribs)? They appear to be all copyvios. I found and tagged a couple the other day (see his recent deleted contribs), and another just now (File:Sk-art.jpg); he also apparently added copyvio text to articles systematically (see Bitola (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch). Fut.Perf. 10:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Crystal ball article?[edit]

This is probably the wrong place, I'm just coming here for guidance. There is this article called Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010‎. It is entirely crystal ball, since obviously the predicted events (let alone the year itself) have not happened yet. The notability of its author has been questioned, but that's another story. What I'd like to know is, what would be the Wikipedia policy towards works such as this which are pure speculation? I'm not talking about science fiction, which is obviously based on imagination as any fiction is. This is presented as a real-life prediction. So, should it be nominated for deletion based on violating crystal-ball rules? Or are there other factors to be considered? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it violates WP:CRYSTAL because it's describing a prediction made by someone else. WP:CRYSTAL is about articles which introduce speculation about future events rather than describe notable predictions made by others. If the predicted events don't happen that just makes it an inaccurate prediction. But I think there are notability concerns as most references are from Mr Panarin's own website. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the article violates the crystal ball thing but having read it, my feeling is the article is quite ridiculous and should be deleted. Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Among other things, I would suggest a rename to something less inflammatory (e.g., Igor Panarin's prediction of the United States collapse in 2010‎ perhaps - the current title is not some official publication title, and isn't even capitalized in the article lede), or propose an all-out merge back into Igor Panarin. If someone is considered notable for a web site, does that mean every concept they write about, or every individual page of their web site, is deserving of an entire in itself? Bad precedent IMHO. Wknight94 talk 11:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the article should probably be nominated for deletion per WP:N and WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:SYN. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYN is relevant - almost every comment by Panarin about the United States is assumed to be linked to this theory, which may or may not be reasonable. It might be an idea to invite Лъчезар (talk · contribs) to comment since he seems to be the main author of the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
On the article talk page, I pointed to WP:ANI, and since he visits the article nearly every day, I expect he'll weigh in at some point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I was about to post on his user talk page, but the message he has there seems to be a dis-invitation to post there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sam, the article is not making a prediction itself, rather reporting on a notable prediction by someone else. Nick suggests that it could be nominated under WP:N, but it is clearly notable, and WP:UNDUE is not bias to delete an article, rather to improve it. Anyway, I'm not interested in turning WP:AN/I into WP:AFD. Baseball Bugs, you can nominate it if you like, everyone has that right, but I personally would say keep, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone has since proposed merging this article to that of its author, Panarin, and that should at least start some discussion. The thing about this article is that it's basically the pet project of its primary editor, and something he passionately believes in. I became aware of it on the Apollo moon hoax page, where he kept talking about how "the truth" of the Apollo moon hoax would become known once this 2010 event happened on exactly July 1 next year. So another way to look at this is that it's an extended POV-push by that one editor - who is also currently engaged in a slow edit war with another user who wants more tags on the article, along with some wording disputes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryulong[edit]

Ryulong is tagging non-vandalism edits as vandalism after being warned, he reply to the warning by saying "Don't you dare start picking out every single rollback I perform as Mythdon had. I mistakenly tagged it as vandalism through the rollback script and changing a name to the wrong spelling could be considered vandalism." and then he started a discussion at WT:Arbitration/Requests#I can't think of a coherent subject name, so I looked at his contributions and found this revert of a non-vandalism edit where he put the edit summary "Vandalism" that was not "tagged it as vandalism through the rollback script" and 1 day after I warned Ryulong, I looked at my watchlist and found this revert of a non-vandalism edit tagged as vandalism, as WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism says "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism" as the user was not warned before adding the link the edit was not vandalism. Powergate92Talk 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not need Powergate92 or anyone going through my edits to find what they perceive as improper rollbacks. Mythdon was banned (not from the site, though) for doing the same that Powergate92 has been doing. Powergate92 and Mythdon often agreed with each other in disputes with me elsewhere. I began the discussion at WT:RFAR to see whether or not Powergate92 should be allowed to do this. Instead he just used it as a forum to list everything he saw that I did wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What doe's "Powergate92 and Mythdon often agreed with each other in disputes with me elsewhere." have to do with this? Powergate92Talk 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In my defense, that night those IPs were used for vandalism on other articles and were subsequently blocked (I think). The one spamlink addition I had thought was another one of the vandals (concerted attack) and rolled back accordingly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any need for administrative action here. These are not beyond the pale for rollback, which (gasp) does get misused now and then anyway. Ryulong seems well within the norm.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Powergate92Talk 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Although, if Ryulong is willing to revert "vandalism" and warn editors for such behavior, he should also be open to justifying his edits if an editor comes to his talk page believing that their edits were "not vandalism". Time and time again, I have seen Ryulong repeatedly just revert comments on his talk page without so much as a note left on the other party's talk page. And sometimes, he has given the user another warning of a higher level stating that the request for clarification on the reason the warning was given. on his talk page is also vandalism. Of course, it his talk page and he can remove any comments that he wants but if he is going to leave warnings and similar content on other talk pages, then he should be open to discuss the reasoning behind his edits.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
On another note, civility is also an issue that I believe could be adressed now that this user is being discussed at AN/I. The "don't you dare..." comment shown above and other comments appear to be quite nasty and even if Ryulong is right in a discussion, he should be able to communicate with other editors in a more polite and understanding way. It is somewhat concerning that he self-admittedly does not care that an uncivil environment is a poor environment for people to work in. True, Wikipedia Poor isn't strictly a rule in itself, but surely, everyone here (including Ryulong) would want a constructive environment to work in when helping towards the construction on Wikipedia. It would be good to see some of these issues resolved so that we can get to the sources of these problems and so that Ryulong does not have to be reported here again. He has shown that he can be a good editor. But it would be good to see a form of consistency in the promise he has shown here in the past.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not warn any user. I used the rollback function for edits I saw were vandalism. Powergate92 is merely acting the same way Mythdon was to me months ago and this should not continue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not acting the same way as Mythdon, as Mythdon would ask "How was this vandalism?" about edits that were clearly vandalism. (see here) Unlike Mythdon I say "This is not vandalism. Please see WP:Vandalism to see what is and is not vandalism." about edits that were clearly not vandalism. Powergate92Talk 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Same damn thing. And stop using those idiotic {{talkback}} templates. I can check this on my own accord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be fair Ryulong, maybe if you didn't have a such a habit of reverting your talk page messages, people wouldn't need to use the "idiotic" talkback templates to communicate (or try to) with you. Just a thought.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The talkback template was being used to notify that he replied to me here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with giving you a heads-up. After all, YOU are the subject of this thread and it is helpful to you to know when there has been new content posted in this discussion.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

←Ryulong is a big boy and can check ANI without being prodded by talkback notices. If he doesn't want them on his talk page, that's his business. Javért 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But there is nothing wrong with talkback notices, is there?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The point is not whether something is wrong with them or not, it is that Ryulong does not want them on his talk page. Javért 04:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is fair enough, but he doesn't need to communicate the way he does with other editors on their' talk pages in the process. Okay, how about, instead of commenting on this talkback template business, we get back to the reason this thread started, shall we Javert?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any interest in this thread other than to defend Ryulong's right to do what he wishes with his talk page. I would, however, like to see you lose the condescending attitude. Javért 05:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is about Ryulong's attitude and the manner in which he reverts his edits and then leaves nasty messages on other editors' talk pages. SEE ABOVE. If you read my big two comments above, I see this as a good opportunity to resolve any problems that are arising as a result of (this isn't the first time someone has reported him for this) his method of operation.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping that Ryulong, Powergate92 and any other involved parties can come to some sort of calm and civil understanding so that the behavior between Ryulong and Powergate92 or Ryulong and any other editor on here, does not need to continue.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping that I don't get another user who is constantly watching and checking up on my edits as Mythdon had.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Have no fear Ryulong. I do not want to become a problem for you. In fact, what I've been asking is a CIVIL understanding to be met here and now so that, as I said before, you don't get reported over this issue again and that way you can be able to mind your own business without worrying about anyone reporting you to AN/I for the same thing.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will like to note that Ryulong has reported a user below for adding public domain logos to userboxes. Powergate92Talk 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck does this have to do with anything that you originally brought up?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Without attempting to step into the discussion between Ryulong and Powergate, I would say that I object to several things about Ryulong's recent posts regarding me: (i) he unlaterally removed much of my previous userbox work without any prior discussion with me (and without researching the underlying wikipedia policies or trademark/copyright standards, on which he is clearly mistaken), (ii) he listed a complaint against me on this board without the courtesy of a notification, in an attempt to keep me from responding to his complaint, and (iii) he lambasted Powergate on Powergate's user talk page for giving me a courtesy notice of Ryulong's administrative complaint. I think some reprimand is in order. BillTunell (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is called User:Ryulong! I will like to note that when Ryulong removed the public domain logos from the userboxes he said in the edit summary "Addition of copyrighted image". Powergate92Talk 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of copyrighted images. What is the problem with that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
No you reverted the addition of public domain images and said "Addition of copyrighted image". That is the problem! Powergate92Talk 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no knowledge that all of the images are in fact public domain. It's the reason I reverted the addition of the images. Just move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, I think Ryulong needs to calm down. Swearing isn't needed, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this after seeing User_talk:BillTunell#University_user_boxes come up on my watchlist. I don't know about WP:CIVIL or not, but it seems pretty rude. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To Ryulong's MERIT, I don't actually think he broke the civility rule in that particular case. Maybe if the user was new then, WP:BITE perhaps. But no, I see nothing terribly concerning with this edit at all. --Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll give a general admonition. Don't leave talkback notices on an editor when a noticeboard discussion involving them is updated. It's annoying at best. Also don't leave them especially following a request to stop doing so. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong just removed my comment without my permission on BillTunell ‎talk page, I warned Ryulong back in July to not remove other users comments without their permission per WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong shouldn't be removing other people's comments, especially when he's been warned about it before. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Powergate92 should begin minding his own business.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Powergate might be partially at blame here, but that doesn't give you the right to remove comments by other people. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's sort this out[edit]

Powergate92, all involved parties, and anyone else who intervenes in this thread. All Ryulong wants is for people to stop checking up on his edits all the time. I believe that if Ryulong agrees to be more civil in future when communicating with others, then we shall grant him his wishes. He can be a good editor, we all know that. Just think how much better he could be if people didn't hawk watch his edits.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

if Ryulong agrees to be more civil in future when communicating with others, then we shall grant him his wishes. Riiiight. This would appear to be comparing apples and oranges: Ryulong sometimes uses the word fuck on noticeboards, therefore every time he hits rollback, someone should check the edit. Uh huh. ↪REDVERS The internet is for porn 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said opening this discussion, there is nothing here requiring administrative action. There's an encyclopedia needs a-building. Time to move on, people.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. In related news, we apparently have a Facepalm Facepalm template \o/. -- Luk talk 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
How is that related?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Civility and assume good faith would go a long way in working smoothly with others. I understand that Ryulong puts in long hours on Wikipedia (edits at 3 a.m.), but a bit of collegiality is required no matter how long the work day. Racepacket (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents[edit]

"All Ryulong wants is for people to stop checking up on his edits all the time." When three or more edits from one user in the same manner affect dozens of articles, it only behooves people to check his edit history to see what else is being done. In this case, he has decided to tag several images ineligible for copyright as copyrighted images affecting dozens of articles. There seems to be this mistaken notion that unless the text is of a named font with no ornamentation, variation, etc. then it is copyrightable. Nothing could be further from the truth and, as mentioned in various forums related to these images, the US copyright office, Wikipedia policy/guidelines/disclaimers, and US law back this up.

For his actions, I see nothing particularly hostile or inappropriate about them other than the fact I believe them to be in error (it's an honest mistake/disagreement as far as I am concerned). However, I would respectfully request that Ryulong do his best to control his language. Wikipedia may not be censored, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be polite. Just strike out the comment and move on. — BQZip01 — talk 06:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The userbox and copyright issues are unrelated to the original report. I have given you a more indepth discussion of what has happened on your talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I would agree they are not directly related but they are actions done by yourself in the past 24 hrs. As such, it is not inappropriate to discuss them here, but separate bullets would likely create less confusion. — BQZip01 — talk 07:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
He needs to tone down his language for one thing, and for another thing: he should stop removing people's comments. He's done it at least twice now. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Request closing[edit]

Everyone should know that I am definitely not Ryulong's fan. However, this all seems like a whole bunch of nothing and was nothing from the beginning. The only problem here is that people are still able to drag this on, and the people dragging it on aren't getting along with others dragging it on. Thus, this ANI thread has moved from a non dispute to a normal ANI drama fest. Please, for the love of God (sorry atheists!) someone just close this already. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West and otherwise inactive accounts[edit]

Long term weird vandalism[edit]

Resolved

Motsew (talk · contribs) seems to be a vandalism-only account, but spreads his edits out over long periods of time (with one or two normal edits thrown in to avoid being blocked. At one time, he also moved his own user and talk pages to Motsar (talk · contribs), and then moved them back. I'm not sure if that's also his account. He also vandalized warning templates on his own talk page with an IP. That kind of overall behavior is a bit comples for AIV, so reporting here. Latest vandalism was to Kanye West today, by uploading and linking an abusive photo. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a variation on Hanlon's Razor: Don't attribute to sockpuppetry that which can be explained by lots of people who don't edit Wikipedia, but once created an account, all watching the same television programme. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I merely raise the question, because it's odd that the both of them didn't edit for 2 years and then suddenly turn up in the same article. Which could indicate there's more going on. But we have to be careful not to go too far down that road, and to keep WP:DENY in mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West[edit]

Well this has obviously become quite the BLP posterchild in the last few hours. The article was semi protected for a long time due to prior BLP issues and now this VMA furore. Due to extreme and repeated BLP violations by established editors I have fully protected the article for 3 days until the immediate press/anger dies down. I have left a message on talk explaining and reminding people that BLP applies in talkspace too, but the talk page is seeing a lot of drive by attack edits of its own. Could use some more eyes on it, I am going to bed. Mfield (Oi!) 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the following rant, but honestly, this is bullshit. I've never edited the article. Never touched it. I dropped by for the first time this morning, and I noticed that the sentence that states that Kanye appologized via his blog is unsourced. Trying to be a good editor, I found a reliable source we could cite. Kanye West Apologizes To Taylor Swift For VMA Rant. When I went to edit the article to add the ref tag, the edit button was gone. WTF? If other editors can't follow the rules, why should everyone be punished? I'm an established editor in good standing. Instead of blanket protection, why don't we just topic ban editors who are unable to abide by policies? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Temporary full protection is sometimes the easiest and best measure when an article is hitting the firing range. Nobody is being punished, the article is being saved from drive-by's adding "Kanye is a XXXX" and "Taylor Swift XXXX's YYYY's". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice. So, I'm lumped into the same category as those who make "Kanye is a XXXX" edits? Gee, thanks, a lot. Perhaps my complaint is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but something must be wrong with the process if it's too difficulte or time-consuming to ban specific editors who commit such obvious violations of policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, no. Everybody is affected, it's not a slight against you. It's obvious that the Kanye article will be a target by many people for at least a day. Don't get defesive or paranoid about it! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
When an article is protected to prevent vandalism, good contributors are also prevented from editing. This is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Full protection should generally be used briefly and sparingly. In the mean time, if you have edits you would like made to improve the article, you can describe the changes on the talk page and then tag them with {{edit protected}} and an uninvolved admin will review the edits and post them if they are appropriate. Thatcher 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

and cue..... http://www.businesspundit.com/done-something-stupid-wikipedia-can-make-it-even-worse/ Mfield (Oi!) 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

aaaah, flagged revisions, where are you when we need you, there could at least be a giant disclaimer at the top of that screen. Mfield (Oi!) 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
And what would be the point of this site if we were to have flagged revisions? :S C.U.T.K.D T | C 09:20, 28 M 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The point of this site would be to provide valid information as well as to prevent or reduce BLP violations that could get wikipedia in trouble someday. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we simply topic-ban the editors who are being disruptive rather than punish everyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Protecting the article isn't punishment, and the sooner you understand that, the better. → ROUX  16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
And why can't I get a ham sandwich from the snackbar instead of chicken? Because that's just the way it is. HalfShadow 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Being deprived of directly editing one article is not "punishment". There are hundreds of thousands of other articles that are wide open for improvement. If there are any important developments about Kanye West, they could be posted on the talk page for consideration and an admin could enter them in the article. And that's not "punishment" either, it's just a little extra work on everyone's part, necessitated by protecting a bio article against vandalism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A very brief read for intelligent editors, everywhere (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The article talk page could use a few brave, patient, and diplomatic volunteers to help corral the onslaught of curious newbies.--Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How about addressing the substance of my complaint instead of getting hung up on single word? Let me rephrase: Why can't we simply topic-ban the editors who are being disruptive rather than ban everyone from editing the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Because topicbans take time, they are routinely ignored with total impunity, and they do nothing to alleviate the concerns of our readers -- you know, the people we write articles for -- namely the need for accurate, non-libelous information. → ROUX  17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The substance of this complaint is that the entire article was protected, preventing anyone from editing it. Reasons were:

  • major vandalism from at least 1 editor (it even made the news, embarassingly)
  • major potential for huge backlash from many registered and unregistered users
  • this means: the entire article was about to become absolutely fucked up and a WP:BLP nightmare.

Unfortunately, just like occasionally the 24hr convenience store shuts down for a few hours when they get flooded, or the electricity goes out, sometimes articles get shut down too. Note:

  • individuals do not have a right to edit Wikipedia
  • articles should not take more time to FIX than they do to become vandalized
  • when the potential exists for major disruption, then nip it in the bud early and PREVENT it.

There, substance is addressed. Back to one of the 1,000,000+ other articles, and thanks for your good work overall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP problems in Carl Lewis[edit]

Stale: JackRodwell101 has stopped restoring the material after this ANI report was made. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

JackRodwell101 (talk · contribs) (new editor, SPA) has repeatedly restored [6] [7] [8] [9] information over which there are WP:BLP concerns, after being warned about WP:BLP. A request for help has been made at Wikipedia:BLPN#Carl_Lewis, and discussions are taking place on Talk:Carl_Lewis#BLP_concerns.

I've made a few comments on his talk page, and we've had brief discussions on User_talk:Ronz#Carl_Lewis.

I'd like to see JackRodwell101 blocked, in the hope that upon his return he'd finally start explaining himself on the article talk page rather than edit-warring. Minimally, we could use some help from other editors familiar with handling BLP disputes. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon (film) has been on top in 'News'-section on Main page for two days[edit]

Resolved: These are not the cabalists you are looking for.  Skomorokh  15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To some this confirms that there are a clique of admins on Wikipedia engaged in promoting all things Israeli. Who the f...cares if one of their films have won anything anywhere? There are +200 nations in the world who wins just about anything anytime. Allthough Wikipedias servers are in the US, its users are distributed worldwide, and includes some very sofisticated and enlightenend individuals who takes offence of the display of such blatant disproportionality. Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And what did they say when you raised it over at the "in the news" section? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thats just crazee talk! Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it does make a change from "To some this confirms there are a clique of admins on wikipedia engaged in promoting all things Americans. Who the f... cares if Ted Kennedy died? There are people dying just about anywhere anytime". --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Very nice Michelle. "Sofisticated" overt racism by "enlightenened" individuals such as yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well said, Bwilkins. It's not that Michelle would come up with a list of all those Film Festivals taking place 24/7 around the world ("anything anytime"), mind. --RCS (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as an ITN contributor, the item was not posted because it was an Israeli film but because it won the prestigious Golden Lion at the 66th Venice International Film Festival. The item was posted following a discussion at WP:ITN/C which all items go through. The Venice Film Festival is listed at ITN's recurring items (alongside the Oscars, Golden Globes and Cannes) because it is one of the most prestigious awards in cinema, this means that it will be posted each year. Had any of the other 24 films (from 16 or so countries) won then they would have been posted with no regard paid to their nationality. There has not been many ITN-worthy items over the past two days which is why it remains at the top of the list (In all probability the Norwegian elections will replace later today). I don't think that blasting the ITN team with allegations of bias, when this item was thoroughly discussed and followed the usual process, is helpful - Dumelow (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Michelle has made no effort to actually discuss this at WP:ITN. This is not an incident and does not require administrator attention. ANI is not your sounding board. --Smashvilletalk 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting User:Boxedor[edit]

Boxedor is undergoing a major edit war on the article Philippines. He modifies other users' talk page leaving an offensive note. He leaves defamatory statements on the edit summary of Philippines. Furthermore, he is not responding to any warning to him.--JL 09 q?c 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on [10] [11] [12] and [13], I'd suggest that Boxedor be blocked immediately. This is the sort of behavior I'd expect from a vandal, not a good-faith contributor. Erik9 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Already done [14], actually :) Erik9 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with block. C.U.T.K.D T | C 09:20, 28 M 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. He is a suspected sockpouppet too.--JL 09 q?c 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome, User:80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157, and User:Mathieas[edit]

Removed unarchived thread that hadn't been touched in 24 hours--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have unarchived this thread because it is an ongoing issue that remains unresolved. I would appreciate further comments. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchiving was unwise. You're emphasizing a pattern of behaviour: off to WP:RFC/U with you for that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person who was accused of being a wikistalker (FYI not a real word). I am curious as to why this was archived without a resolution. I looked at the WP:RFC/U that Bwilins linked to and it stated that an incident can be archived for three reasons none of which I believe apply in this case. I don't claim to be an expert in wiki policy, so I would appreciate knowing why an unresolved matter was archived. Thanks. Mathieas (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything on this page is archived if nobody has followed up within the past 24 hours. If there are remaining issues, there are other dispute resolution avenues you could follow, like WP:Wikiquette alerts or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So the way it works is, someone makes an accusation against someone, there is a big long discussion (involving a bunch of unrelated stuff), then it gets shoved in a closet and forgotten without a resolution? Seems like a waste of time. So I guess this means I will not be going to wikijail. Mathieas (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what "pattern of behavior" am I emphasizing? I am simply following the rules stated at the top of this page. They state "Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment."

That is all I did. I unarchived a thread I believed did not merit being archived yet on account of not being resolved and I added a comment requesting more discussion.

Additionally, we already tried Wikiquette alerts and I addressed in the original post why I chose to go here instead of RFC/U. See quote: "Hi, an issue about User:Otterathome was recently raised over at WQA, but was closed as stale. I commented on the talk page of the user who was involved in marking it as such, and s/he replied suggesting RfC/U or if it was becoming a serious problem, ANI or ArbComm. After reading the limitations of RfC/U and the fact that the problem is continuing to escalate, I believe the issue needs to be addressed here. Below is the copy of the WQA alert, and at the bottom I have added some recent updates."

So that is why it was addressed here. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, off to RFC/U please:
  • "He has continued on his tendantious editing by nominating another web star" (from previous ANI) - "continued" means pattern
  • "He has also tried to impose his views on a quality scale rating assessment for Jessica Lee Rose" (from previous ANI) shows pattern across articles
It was already established beyond reasonable doubt by the community that Wikistalking was not occurring, and therefore immediate action was not required. You therefore were required to address the pattern that you were trying to establish if you wished further action to be taken. Nobody is going to be immediately blocked or banned for AfD'ing articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, remember how I said, since his previous AfD was over, I had no doubt his next one was in the works?
Have a look at this.
Again an LG15-related page, again a page he already tried to kill twice (once through AfD, once through calling for merge).
One month since the keep of the AfD, two weeks since decision not to merge.
How many LG15-related pages does he have to try to get rid of how many times until a pattern is established?
~ Renegade - 213.39.173.221 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
In the new AfD he, again, tries to brush off any argument he can't attack on factual grounds by pretending they are invalid and "suggesting" people argue differently. In particular, he is trying to gloss over the fact that the nomination shows multiple signs of being frivolous and in Bad Faith by implying commenters are off topic if they question the validity of the nomination in the first place, rather than just accepting it and going with it.
He has also directly and unambiguously admitted his nomination is wrong by now, due to the fact that doing exactly what he (supposedly) wanted, improving the sources on the page, messed up the reference numbers in his nomination.
Instead of fixing his nomination, he went on to direct me to hide my post in which I point out his argumentation as it stands is wrong. I am not sure how Wikipedia etiquette is usually on this topic, but personally, I think telling a commenter to hide from the discussion that the nomination is factually incorrect and incoherent, in order to ensure its validity isn't put in doubt, is very questionable and not a sign the nomination could stand on its own.
In addition, his nomination in general, as pointed out in the AfD, shows several subtle signs of bad faith - including, but not limited to, implying that the fact that sources cited don't include information from future (as in time travel) is a sign they're bad, personally deciding which sources are independent 3rd party sources and which aren't, and making unexplained and bogus projections about the future chances of press coverage of the show.
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see anywhere that says ANI is not used for establishing patterns of behavior, after all, one of the possible things ANI says it can do is impose a topic ban, which would not be possible without the person establishing a pattern of behavior. Additionally, I don't see anywhere that says that RFC/U is used for establishing patterns of behavior, muchless that it is the only place to do so. If there is such a page, can you please direct me to it? I am trying to follow the policies as written out on the respective pages, but so far all that has happened is I have been told I "unwisely archived" something that, according to the written policies on this page, was completely within bounds, and told to go to another page to establish my case, when nowhere says that that is the only avenue to do so. Could somebody please clarify this all for me so I can understand where this is coming from? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As you may not have realised, they won't stop complaining about me nominating their articles until something is done. They will defend their lg15-related articles to the end. See my archived comments for further details.--Otterathome (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think that this is exactly this kind of attitude that is the problem here. Since when are articles "owned" by one person or group? This is a community wiki. If you see articles as "ours" and "theirs" then you loose focus of the bigger picture which is to have a comprehensive community wiki of the highest possible quality. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, something does need to be done here. Otter has demonstrated a pretty clear pattern of bad-faith editing, and is very clearly on a crusade to get an entire category of articles deleted. He's also got a bad habit of throwing around negative labels like 'wikistalker' and 'SPA' when people criticize him. He also seems to be nominating approximately one webseries related article for deletion per week. His deletion noms are OVERWHELMINGLY webseries related. This includes one situation where he nominated an article(Jackson Davis, took it to DRV after it was closed as a keep, and then 7 days after the DRV ended, and a mere 16 days after the original Nom, renominated it. In that nom he repeatedly tried to partially cite WP:NOTAGAIN ("Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN", leaving out the bit about how that doesn't apply if it's only been a short time since the last one) as a counter argument when people complained about the short period. He also partially cited the DRV's decision(That it wouldn't be inappropriate to renom it...he left out the part where they said "later in the year").
Then there's his more recent nomination of Vincent Caso. The edit history. and the nomination text itself are both very telling. His first edit to the article consists of unilaterally replacing it with a redirect to The Guild[15] Mathieas reverted, protesting the 'unilateral deletion' in the edit note and also left a note on the talk page(the first and so far only edit to said talk page). Otter re-reverted to the redir, claiming in the edit summary it wasn't a deletion. Mathieas reverted again, saying it seemed like it to him. Otter never commented on the talk page.[16] [17] [18] A little over 6 hours later, he nominated the article for deletion. His nomination summary was: "One of my wikistalkers User:Mathieas feels the need to disagree/revert me, so I have to spam another afd. Subject seems to fail WP:BIO/WP:N and seems to be only known for being in The Guild so redirect there." [19]. The nom itself in the summary flirts with violations of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:POINT, by calling Mathieas a 'wikistalker' and saying straight out that he only Nom'd because Mathieas contested the unilateral summary redirect. Not quite 31 hours AFTER nominating it for deletion, he finally got around to adding a Notability template [20] and citation needed tags. [21]
Even more recently, he for the second time nominated yet another webseries related article, LG15: The Last for deletion. [22] This time he avoided the article entirely, posting nothing it, simply nominating it. He also managed to actually write an overall decent summary this time. Problem is, the nom is rapidly snowballing into a speedy keep per WP:NOTAGAIN The first nomination [23] was posted at 22:28, 3 August 2009... by otterathome. The previous nom, which had only one person vote 'delete', ended 34 days ago. He renominated it six weeks after his previous nom, and five weeks after it failed.
He's showing very clear signs of being on a personal crusade. In doing so, he's violated WP:NOTAGAIN twice, tried to subvert it by partially quoting it once, and has come dangerously close to violating WP:POINT and WP:UNCIVIL. He seems to be literally trying to 'sneak one by'; his conduct on the Caso article is particularly bad in this regard. Unilaterally replacing the article with a redirect, then edit warring and calling the person contesting it a wikistalker? Trying to go back after the fact to contest the lack of citations?
The overall pattern is pretty clear. Given that the closest he's come to giving anyone a chance to answer him when he contests the notability of a webseries related article was to issue an ultimatum... he simply wants them gone, and isn't interested in any sort of compromise. This shows he's not thinking about the good of the encyclopedia, but simply about what he personally thinks belongs here. It isn't just that he's going around nomming a lot of articles in one particular category that have problems, he's deliberately ignored consensus and has made absolutely no attempts to work with anyone or establish consensus. All he's done is to try to jam what he thinks down everyone else's throat. Does something need to be done? Absolutely. Otter needs to step back and realize that he can't just ignore his fellow editors, he needs to work with them and be both civil and reasonable as he does so. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Otter's response is a perfect example of the problem - he doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of a problem, or display any sign of willingness to talk about it - instead, he immediately jumps to implying fanboyism and dismisses the criticism as invalid. His entire "discussion" process consists of trying to discredit anyone opposing him in a debate.
There is a reason even WP:NOTAGAIN makes the exception of saying "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination."
There is a reason pages like WP:LETGO or WP:GETOVERIT exist.
At a certain point in time, the limit is reached and it is time to stop. Even if it was not questionable that he's basically trying to nominate the entire LG15 franchise - at least the fact that he tried to get rid of Jackson Davis and The Last thrice each in one month should be a reason to at least tell him to settle down a little and leave it alone for a while. Or, as the closing admin of Jackson Davis the 3rd put it: "Advise that it should be a lengthy time before a 4th AfD is even considered. "
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It is seeming more and more like that's the only way he's going to stop. I haven't had a chance to exhaustively check his AFD record(and I honestly don't know how other than spending hours going through his contribs), but of the recent noms of his that I *have* seen, NONE have succeeded. The best he's managed that I can find is a 'no consensus'. And if it does end up as a topic ban, the trick then is, what topic? I've yet to see him actually causing problems in the EDITING of articles, it looks like he's just going around trying to railroad delete them. And it isn't just lonelygirl articles, either(Caso is from The Guild, for example). Maybe what's needed isn't so much a topicban on Lonelygirl or even webseries articles, but a topic ban on Nominating on AFD? Admittedly he does have a knack for finding articles with issues, the problem is that deletion is his first resort rather than his last, in violation of WP:FAILN. If he bothered to actually try to work with people, he could actually be a huge asset. But given that the problem is not how he's editing the articles, but instead how he's FAILING to do so... I don't know that just a broad topic ban would really be the best solution. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*Facepalm* Obviously the more narrow ban you'd need to include redirects and merges too, since he's already trying to go that route to get around the deletion opposition. Can't believe I left that out. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Graptor's point aside, which I actually think makes sense, but I digress, I think that if we go the topic ban route it should not just be for lonelygirl15-related articles, nor even just web series articles, because he has gone after Vincent Caso, who is an actor for another web series, but also Tubefilter, which is not a web series but one of the most prominent and well-respected web industry news sources. Therefore, I'd say a topic ban should cover something like "web content" or a similar term. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Otter has now gone after ANOTHER web-based news source, GigaOM, putting up the {{Notability|Web}} tag with the description "will nominate for deletion in a few days, immediate editor attention required" This is absurd. The article is in fine shape, obviously not top-notch, but nothing on it indicates that it needs "immediate editor attention" (there's nothing libelous, etc). His statement that if no editor attention is given within "days" shows he clearly does not understand WP:DEADLINE. This is getting so frustrating. I really think a topic ban is in order here. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That right there... 'fix it NAO or I'll nom it for deletion'... from what I've seen that's an IMPROVEMENT, which is really sad. Still obviously missing the point of WP:FAILN: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." The problem lies in that he's not seeing the lack of clarity. He's unilaterally deciding that the topic is not notable, and can't seem to grasp what a 'good faith effort' to determine that entails. Though he's come down a lot from 'You have 30 days to fix it or I'll have it deleted' or whatever it was... Informing people that it has issues and inviting them to fix it, good. Hanging a deadline and an ultimatum over their heads while he does it, bad. Basically he's got it backwards. The idea is not to rid wikipedia of all articles that do not currently meet notability standards, it's to keep what CAN and get rid of or refactor what CANNOT. Obscure topics, Recently arisen topics, and recently created articles are all likely to have issues establishing notability; this does NOT equate to their topics not being notable. It can simply mean that for one reason or another the sources that ARE available haven't been included; that the article merely needs some work done to it to clean it up, rather than simply being removed only to be recreated later. Telling the difference is where Otter seems to have issues. He jumps to a conclusion too quickly, and in a very confrontational manner that puts people off. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the rampant and persistent nominations within a specific area is that it ties up editors fighting afd's that otherwise could be fixing, enhancing, or creating new articles within that area. I assume most editors have one or two areas of interest that they feel most comfortable editing within, if those editors are constantly dealing with afd discussions and ANI conflicts then the project suffers. Also, at this point given this particular users behavior any article he submits for afd is going to be met with suspicion and contribute to negativity among the editors. Mathieas (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban would clearly be in order unless the individual in question is prepared to use some common sense in the application of Wikipedia policies. The fact that they tagged: GigaOM for WP:N clearly shows that they are not making a good faith effort to even understand the articles they are tagging. This implies that the individual is working on an agenda that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. This is not the first time things like this have happened and clearly it will not be the last unless some action is taken.--Modelmotion (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

CRY FOR HELP TO ADMINS: You really need to intervene into Otterathome's behavior asap; I know that wiki debates are like schoolyard drama, but its no fun to even play (edit and contribute to wikipedia) at this point. I recommend a topic ban for webseries related articles, as at least two other editors have suggested at this point.--Milowent (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I still tend to think that if he does get topic banned it'd be preferable for it to be narrow. The single biggest problem atm is that he appears to be really, really terrible about passing judgment on the notability of articles and then AFDing them. Banning him from EDITING topics that he's NOT editing seems a bit outside the scope of the problem. Most of the articles he's nominated did or do have issues. He's simply deciding on his own that the issue is the topic not being notable without any regard for the possibility that it's just a problem with the current article's sourcing that can be fixed. As a result he's putting up a LOT of AFDs, and from what I've seen almost NONE of them are successful. This suggests a topic ban on NOMINATING articles for deletion, redirect, or merging only, as that's all he seems to have major issues with. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary OtterBreak One[edit]

Hmm, let's see:

  • All web series news sources
  • All LG15-related info
  • All possible fragments of other web shows.

...when Otter is done, everything left of the phenomenon web series will be the lonelygirl15 page and a page stating "After [[lonelygirl15]] was successful, numerous other web shows and news sources popped up. {{stub}}".
But clearly there is no bad faith involved. I mean, seriously...he tries to kill web series content, can't because it has references, so next he nominates the sources of the references for deletion, so he can discount the references on the original pages as being from non-notable sources.
That's obviously coincidental and not the intent at all. *rolleyes*

~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit: Since it seems like we are unable to textually express the extent of Otter's actions against LG15 in particular, and web series in general, I have invested the time to visualize the whole thing to allow administrators and uninvolved community members a quick overview of what has happened in the past one and a half months.
As you can see, Otter has been steadily involved in actions with the goal to remove web series related content from Wikipedia for the past 44 days, and only on four days in the past one and a half months he was not trying to kill something related to LG15 (during the Vincent Caso AfD).
In addition, of course, the The Last and Jackson Davis rows beautifully display Otter's overzealous behavior.
I hope this table helps to explain why exactly we are so fed up with Otterathome. This is not a matter of us being upset a series we like was nominated, this is a matter of Otter broadly and targetedly trying to erase LG15 and web series in general from Wikipedia.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Otter vs. Web Entertainment, August 3rd, 2009 - September 15th, 2009
[LG15] Katherine Pawlak AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [LG15] Katherine Pawlak
[LG15] Giles Alderson AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [LG15] Giles Alderson
[LG15] Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [LG15] Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty
[LG15] Jackson Davis AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD DRV DRV DRV DRV DRV DRV DRV DRV AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [LG15] Jackson Davis
[LG15] Becki Kregoski AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [LG15] Becki Kregoski
[LG15] LG15: The Last AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt Merge-Attempt AfD AfD AfD DRV [LG15] LG15: The Last
[LG15] Mesh Flinders AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [LG15] Mesh Flinders
[The Guild] Vincent Caso AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD AfD [The Guild] Vincent Caso
[News] Tubefilter AfD AfD ongoing [News] Tubefilter
[News-Owner] GigaOM Threat to nominate Threat to nominate ongoing [News-Owner] GigaOM
03.08.09 04.08.09 05.08.09 06.08.09 07.08.09 08.08.09 09.08.09 10.08.09 11.08.09 12.08.09 13.08.09 14.08.09 15.08.09 16.08.09 17.08.09 18.08.09 19.08.09 20.08.09 21.08.09 22.08.09 23.08.09 24.08.09 25.08.09 26.08.09 27.08.09 28.08.09 29.08.09 30.08.09 31.08.09 01.09.09 02.09.09 03.09.09 04.09.09 05.09.09 06.09.09 07.09.09 08.09.09 09.09.09 10.09.09 11.09.09 12.09.09 13.09.09 14.09.09 15.09.09
  • Way too much content for AN/I. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fairly impressive, and goes back further than when I'd come in. I wish you'd indicated the results somehow in the chart though. For those who don't want to bother clicking: Katherine Pawlak was deleted with only three comments. Giles Anderson was deleted with one comment, after running for 12 days when it was relisted after six days due to no comments. Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty was relisted twice, running for 13 days before it got a comment that prompted otter to withdraw the nom, because "The article was written in a way that it read like she only had minor roles." The comment was basically that she'd been in a LOT of things and had some legit sourcing. It wasn't closed for another 5 days after otter requested it. Jackson Davis ended as no consensus, went to DRV and came back no consensus with no prejudice against relisting. Re-AFD came back keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. Becki Kregowski came back delete with four comments, including one in favor of deletion from Milowent! The Last: 1st AFD came back keep, the merge discussion is short and not very productive, and includes this diff: [[24]], where otter absolutely gives an ultimatum. No one else wanted to merge it, though it being open for three weeks mostly seems to be because nobody closed it and for no other real reason. 2nd AFD(apparently he meant his ultimatum) currently has no comments in favor of deletion that are not from Otter. Mesh Flinders was snow-closed after five days due to an overwhelming number of keeps and no deletes. Caso got a large discussion, but was kept after the deletes were fair drowned(and I included diffs of what he did before and after above, they're pretty bad). Tubefilter currently has three keeps and no deletes. GigaOM obviously hasn't progressed to anything.
So that's... 3 deletes, two with three comments or less(one relisted once), one with four comments; 1 withdrawn(after two relists); 1 no-consensus AFD; 1 no-consensus DRV; 4 total keeps, one per WP:NOTAGAIN, one WP:SNOW-closed, and two straight keeps(both with LOTS of comments); and 1 failed merge, with no one else in favor. Also one re-AFD that looks to likely be ending as a keep and one that is trending keep but is still early in. Note that the DRV and Merge immediately followed the no-consensus and one of the keeps, and that both of those have been relisted on AFD since. One was kept, the other is the ongoing heavily trending keep. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • He has also attempted to AfD or placed a WP:N tag on the following web series related articles: Melanie Merkosky, My Alibi, Tara Rushton Billbowery (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, I don't get it; do any admins even care about this? It seems like no one is noticing the noticeboard (pun intended). How much more proof is needed for something to be done about Otter? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Billbowery, I just took the ones from the recent month I could quickly spot...I had no doubt there were more :)
Graptor: Listing them with outcome would require putting context in there, which would make the graph that much larger. Because, for example, even though you quickly list "three deletes", "1 no-consensus AFD" and "1 no-consensus DRV", you are not putting it into perspective. If you take a closer look, you'll see that all the deletes were at the beginning, with little participation, then came the no-consensus ones with more participation, and now, for a month, the outcome has always been keep, because everyone is aware of what is going on and is keeping a close look on the LG15-related pages. The outcomes are not related to notability, the outcomes are related to how many people are aware of what's going on and how many AfDs happen at the same time.
If you look at the volumes on the graph, you'll see that, at all times, we were able to save at least three of the nominated pages. As soon as the volume of nominations dropped below three at a time, we were able to make convincing arguments in all running discussions. It's a simple question of notifying interested editors and volume of work. We can't argue in six AfDs at the same time. And giving all that context, number of involved editors, spread over which AfDs, etc., etc. to give an accurate representation of the background of these outcomes would've exploded the graph. (It would also be interesting to see how many involved editors Otter actually notified as suggested in WP:AFD, but I'm not expecting many data points there.)
So yes. Short version: I didn't add the outcomes because simply putting them in there would imply all AfDs had an equal chance and equal participation, and some pages were just not notable enough. That is false. They were likely all notable enough, the workload was just too high to save & improve six articles at the same time.
~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, The Last has been speedy kept by now, I updated that row in the graph.
UPDATE: Nevermind, Otter put it up for deletion review

Arbitrary OtterBreak Two[edit]

To see any wrong doing, you have to first assume bad faith, and as admins haven't become admins by assuming bad faith, they see nothing wrong. Nominating similar articles for deletion isn't a crime. Why don't you try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct?--Otterathome (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if the admins do have an opinion on this, they'll state it themselves. No need for you to act as their medium.
Even if your biased, disruptive abuse of the process was not a "crime", as you put it, your constant violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NEWBIES are.
~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You keep repeating WP:CIVIL + WP:AGF like a broken record, yet none of the times have you bring up the two things you ever quote me being uncivil or assuming bad faith. Hell if you can find some uncivil quotes within the last 2 months I'll request to be blocked myself. I'm not actually convinced you know what WP:CIVIL + WP:AGF mean, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt.--Otterathome (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this forth as further evidence that Otter is not making a good faith effort to follow WP:FAILN. On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tubefilter, User:Billbowery said "But, in any case, you didn't even put a notability tag on the page or make a good faith effort to give editors a chance to improve the article.", Otterathome replied "it seems likely that if there was any significant coverage, it would have already been added to the article" [25] That shows his nomination to that article was in bad faith, as per WP:FAILN, which states: Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present...If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." [emphasis added] Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps if you lot wouldn't post walls of text, people would bother paying attention to this mess. → ROUX  15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • They need their walls of text to make you think there's a huge problem.--Otterathome (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To Otter: Once again, you insult the people bringing forth this ANI instead of actually addressing why you think it is invalid.
  • To Roux: Yes, I understand that it is long and probably intimidating to read, but at least on my part, and I would extend this assumption to others, the people bringing forth this claim are trying to show proof for our claims, and since this is such a long and complicated situation, long and complicated posts are needed. I am sure someone can put together a bullet-pointed list of the claims made here, but I'm not sure if we could do that and still maintain all of the proof accumulated here. I am sure myself or another use can put forth the effort though if you feel it is necessary? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't care. I've seen you forumshopping this crap around for at least, what, 2 months now? It certainly feels like it's been that long. And one thing I have learned about Wikipedia, particularly AN/I: the more that the complainants in a given situation to resort to long and dense walls of text that are, let's be blunt here, long on hyperbole and extremely short on diffs and concrete proof, the less likely it is that there is any actual problem beyond "Waaah he annoyed me once waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah." The relationship is pretty much 1:1. So. If you want any admins--I'm not one--to pay any attention to this, I suggest you do boil it down, and include diffs of the behaviour. All of this nonsense is getting nowhere. → ROUX  17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, well it's fairly obvious then that you haven't read the post in its entirety, not only because you claim it's too long, but because you claim it doesn't include many diffs. In fact, the original post had a large number of diffs, and each new claim has included new diffs to back it up. So no, this does not come down to "Waaah he annoyed me once waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah." and I would appreciate if you wouldn't just assume that is the case. Also, it is not "forumshopping" to take a situation from a lower level of dispute resolution to a higher level. Anyway, I'll try to boil it down, but since you "don't care" I'm sure you won't bother reading it anyway :) --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Roux, we are elaborating this much because, so far, we got no reactions from anyone, and were left to assume that we simply did not present the issue well enough. To assume there is little content in our text just because there's lots of it is fallacious at the least.
I will gladly answer your questions if you have any?
~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as an Admin I have to ask this: in 25 words or less, what exactly is the problem? Starting way back at the beginning, it appears that someone was accused of wikistalking someone, but then that accusation is modified to a complaint that Otterathome is nominating too many articles for AfD. If that is the problem, I am unclear about what special actions you want to be done about it. If these articles are notable, they will be kept; if he immediately renominates them, Otterathome will face restrictions for disruption. If the subjects are notable but the articles are being deleted, then the problem is something the average Admin can't fix. (And I'm not sure I have the answer to that problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason someone decided to merge which I believe are two separate issues: otterathome's allegations against me and the allegations against him. I had inquired about the two issues being separated after they were merged but that obviously did not happen. I had hoped for a definitive answer from an admin about the allegations made against me; unfortunately, they seem to have gotten lost in the flurry. Mathieas (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious editing, repeatedly nominating same genre articles for deletion w/o checking WP:FAILN, after they're kept, noming for merge/DrV/more AfDs, failing WP:CIVIL, etc. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In the last 44 days, on 40 days Otter had processes running with the goal to remove LG15-related pages from Wikipedia, at one point with 6 AFDs at the same time. He tried get rid of Jackson Davis thrice within one month (AFD, DRV, AFD) and LG15: The Last 4 times since August 3rd (AFD, Merge, AFD, DRV).
In the deletion discussions, he frequently violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NEWBIES and shows no sign of interest in cooperation or any other solution but deletion.
I am sorry this is longer than 25 words, but the data mounts as time goes on :S
~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason it looks like a wikistalking complaint that evolved is because there were actually two seperate, though related, complaints that someone merged into the same thread. Otter complained that he was being wikistalked and later Zoey escalated the stale WQA to here. A few days later someone merged the two into a single thread, confusing the issue further.
The problem with otter, in short, is that he's AFDing a LOT of articles for notability without making a good faith effort to follow WP:FAILN.
In more detail: Instead of trying to establish if the problem with the article is notability or lack of citations; he's firing from the hip with an immediate AFD. No templates, no fact tags, no posts on talk pages. These AFDs are mostly in the area of a webseries called Lonelygirl15 but have branched out to The Guild and a couple web based news sources since. Two of the articles in Question he has made no less than 3 attempts each in the last 40 days to have them disposed of(2 AFDs each, with a merge or DRV inbetween). In addition, the majority of these AFDs are not successful. He has displayed a serious lack of judgment in submitting noms to AFD, and a serious lack of basic good-faith efforts to reach consensus with the other editors. He's also come dangerously close(at best) to violating WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT in the process.
The overall appearance, given the focus on one series in particular and web-related subjects in general, is that he's trying to use AFD as a club to rid the encyclopedia of things he doesn't like, regardless of consensus. That may or may not be the case, but his methods are unconscionable. There are well over a dozen links above demonstrating all of this. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, wrong before I posted apparently. Otter has now initiated his fourth attempt to get rid of LG15: The Last. After the second AFD was speedily kept, he's now taken it to Deletion Review -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Graptor, I think you made a mistake in your assertions: The Guild was last nominated for deletion back in 18 March 2008. As for the two articles mentioned the most here -- LG15: The Last & Jackson Davis -- from the relevant comments, it's clear that Otterathome is skating on thin ice, & nominating either for deletion in the foreseeable future might just get him a vacation from Wikipedia. In other words, it appears as if the matter is being handled. I'd suggest to Otterathome that he focus on another part of Wikipedia, preferably somewhere unrelated to AfD. So let's allow this WP:AN/I thread to end & go back to working on content. [plug]Anyone else think that Nechisar National Park might be worth submitting to the GA process?[/plug] -- llywrch (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As I posted up above, with something like seven diffs, he nominated an ACTOR from The Guild, Vincent Caso, and the manner he did so is one of the best illustrations of the problems with his tactics...thus the diffs. The 'archived' chart that Renegade put together up above is the quickest and easiest way to see just what exactly Otter's been doing, except it doesn't say what the result of each thing in it was...the bit I put in right after it does though, after I went through and clicked every single link in the chart. I feel like I'm going in circles here, repeating the same things over and over because people aren't listening... -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ya know what...after some thought, I'm done. Everything I've seen here so far is utterly appalling, and I find that the tentative reversal of my opinion of the wikipedia community(Caused by discovering that most of my issues of four years ago have been addressed very well in new policies and changes of procedure) has been annihilated. Thus all point in my involvement here is lost. I find that my opinion from four years ago that the community here is not one I can condone joining is reaffirmed.
So far, I have seen: nearly the exact conduct that disgusted me so four years ago exhibited by Otter, in Violation of numerous policies, with attempts to cover it by wikilawyering. I've seen the Lonelygirl supporters 'borrowing' my arguments and trying to use them to support attempts to get Otter topic-banned from all Lonelygirl articles, despite the fact I've seen no evidence of disruptive editing by Otter in said articles(He saved that for Vincent Caso apparently). I've seen the WQA get ignored and go stale. I've seen an admin confuse and hobble the discussion here by [merging] two threads together as being "one incident" (Otter complains that a couple lonelygirl supporters are following him, a different lonelygirl supporter escalates the ignored WQA about Otter's disruptive AFDing), literally tacking the second onto the end of the first, making it very hard to follow. I've seen another admin dismiss the entire thing with, essentially, TL;DR, (I've read every single thing in this thread and on every single one of the linked AFDs. The idea that policy is being ignored because people can't be bothered to read ANY of the many desperate attempts to get someone to look at the evidence frankly offends me. Deeply.) In short, I've seen the very policies that gave me hope subverted. I've had every reason for my decision to not register here reaffirmed.
The sum total of my knowledge of Lonelygirl is this, in approximate chronological order: 1.) It's a webseries. 2.) The very title grates on me sufficiently to make me want to avoid it as much as possible. 3.) It's given as an example in approximately every other article on TvTropes. 4.) When crawling around TvTropes, 2 and 3 result in the recurring thought of 'Oh God, Lonelygirl AGAIN?' followed by either rapid scrolling or a tab close.
Prior to stumbling upon this epic failure, I'd never heard of ANY of the subjects that Otter AFD'd, and still don't know anything about most of them. And frankly, don't care if any of the articles in question stay or go. I saw a problem, but further saw an opportunity for my hopes about how the community here had improved over the last four years to be ardently confirmed. They have not been. I was hoping to keep this mess from ending up at ArbComm, but if what I've seen thus far is typical, those efforts were in vain. It's likely going to end up there, for no better reason than that nobody could be bothered to enforce policy. The policies may as well not exist if they are not enforced.
This will likely be my last edit to wikipedia for several years. Maybe in 2013 it'll be better. We'll see. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Graptor, but if you're still reading this let me explain a simple fact of Wikipedia to you: we're all volunteers here, all of us donating our spare time to improve Wikipedia. And I seriously doubt that the first thought of anyone with a spare hour or two to donate is to come to WP:AN or WP:AN/I & spend it reading through a thread of allegations & counter-allegations, & all of the related article histories & talk pages, hoping to find some problem to resolve. (After reading some threads here, I wonder if the proper solution isn't simply banning all parties in a specific dispute for a week. It might not solve the dispute, but the rest of us don't have to read about it.) So if you can't be bothered to lay out your case succinctly why you need an Admin to intervene (usually because the dispute resolution process can't handle the matter, or can't handle it in a timely manner), it's going to be ignored. Be clear, be organized, & be persuasive & Admins will help you. Otherwise, we can't distinguish real problems needing attention from the usual squabbling in which everyone is whining like 6-year-olds over who hit whom first. -- llywrch (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I was trying deliberately not to edit any more, but I just can't resist answering this. That's a great sentiment and all, but there's a gigantic hole in it that undermines everything wikipedia is supposed to be. It's not run by consensus if what gets enforced and what doesn't, and when, is determined by what the admins are 'willing to get involved with'. On an individual basis it's perfectly understandable and not a problem. On a COLLECTIVE basis it's a huge, fundamental problem with the system. If actual problems get completely IGNORED because six different people all try to collectively present an argument and a few(or most, or all) of them don't do it very well, then there is a problem. Having to present your arguments in a particular way is why we have lawyers in the real world; 90% of the population is simply not capable of effectively presenting their arguments in court(or anywhere else, frequently).
*SOMEONE* has to digest this stuff and either make a decision or present it to someone who can. Simply ignoring it can result only in anger, stress, drama, and ultimately, people quitting the project(Or like in my case, never joining in the first place). Yes sometimes it's a childish dispute. Can you tell when it is and when it's not simply by tone? I can't, this is why I read these things through. And frankly, if the people that are supposed to be reading these things and sorting them out won't unless it's written a particular way, the inevitable result is actual wikilawyers! People that can't explain the things in a way that gets noticed get someone else to do it for them, so they don't just get ignored. God knows it's the last thing this project needs.
This dispute is a perfect example. No one has stepped in to close it as being baseless, but no one has stepped in to sort it out and deal with it either, leaving the dispute in a sort of escalating limbo. People get more and more pissed off as they're repeatedly ignored, and end up typing out ever longer and more involved things trying to exhaustively document the dispute. They conclude that the fact nothing's been done is because nobody's yet seen enough to prompt them to do anything. If you tell them that it's because their arguments aren't well presented, they're just going to be hurt, angry, and offended, and it'll end up worse. Especially if it's a complex and extended dispute involving a lot of incidents over a long period of time, as it does with Otter.
If this dispute continues as it has in the past, there are only two possible outcomes. It ends up at ArbComm, because they're the only ones I've seen on here who bother to actually make sure everything that's presented is read... which is wrong on more levels than I can name. The other is it continues until one side in its entirety quits the project in disgust at what they see as the bias inherent in the system. Both are stupid, both are pointless, and both make wikipedia as a whole look really, really bad. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I offered the chance to quote 1 incivil comment of mine as they keep repeating WP:CIVIL, and if they find one I'll request to be blocked myself. Looks like they couldn't find any, so the offer is off. I'm sure I wouldn't have to look far to find some directed towards me though. That sums most of this up.--Otterathome (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to read WP:CIVIL a little better:
"Incivility consists of ... aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict... a behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks"
Almost immediate re-nom's for AfD of articles clearly fits the bill of being an "aggressive behaviour" and obviously one of "lead(ing) to unproductive stress and conflict". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
They were not immediate and were all justified.--Otterathome (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point: the fact that we're all here after days of going on and on shows that they obviously were percieved to not be justified. I go by a basic rule: If I CSD it, I don't then AfD it if the CSD is denied. If the first AfD fails, and I still think it deserves it, I'm wise enough to wait 6 months before checking its current quality, and then trying it again. This isn't rocket science, and doing otherwise makes one look like a raving rabid deletionist AND like you have a hate for specific articles, neither of which are necessarily healthy. I'm not saying the articles don't deserve to be deleted, just be careful with WP:DICKism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
They were re-nominated because only fans of the series took part, which means the AFDs could only go one way. So I was checking if it could be deleted, and the canvassing off-site and lack of neutral input meant it could only go one way. By re-nominating it again I was hoping that I would get some neutral input and less fans taking part, but I was wrong. This was probably already said elsewhere, but I'm not suprised you haven't read this story-length amount of text.--Otterathome (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If this was a different situation (like a bar), and I'd had a few drinks, I probably would have told you to "bugger off" at the suggestion that I had not read the "story-length amount of text". You know as bloody well as I do that I've read more than the above. Indeed, I'm the one who suggested an RFC/U long ago ... or did you forget that. Unfortunately, I'm also trying to introduce the concept of "common sense" and "co-operative editing" to you as we go, hoping it can be avoided. Re-AfD'ing because you didn't like the original result is disruption. Oh, by the way, if you call someone else's edits "useless", it violates WP:CIVIL, or perhaps you failed to read the story-length amount of text? Take a look around, there's not a line-up of people behind you here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I certainly did not see any such offer. But here are your diffs: the edit summary here, comments: [26] [27] [28] and that's just on the Jackson Davis 3rd AfD alone. I'm sure I could find more in other places if I looked. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Saying it's rant isn't incivil, because that's what it was. Nothing wrong with [12], [13] or [14].--Otterathome (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to leave that up to third party editors to decide. To any of them: I can clarify why I believe these are incivil if you'd like, but I honestly believe they speak for themselves and I don't see the need to justify why to Otter, who is obviously not going to believe his own comments are uncivil (and that's not just for him, I'm sure any editor would have trouble admitting their own comments were not civil). --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If I ever thought I had ever been incivil do you really think I would offer to be blocked if shown evidence? When you, and your fanbase stop assuming bad faith, 99% of this drama you have made will evaporate.--Otterathome (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly. And once again, please read WP:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Kinda cute that you made this uncivil edit and then trotted over here to withdraw the offer 14 minutes later. "If you want to buy in to drama without investigating anything yourself, by all means, act like a sheep"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
His useless word comments agreeing with other people without actually adding anything shows he is being a sheep. It was the best way to describe it.--Otterathome (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So you justify calling a user's post a rant "because it was one" and you justify calling a user a sheep because they made a "useless word comment"? So bascially these things are so because you deemed them such. And the way you deem these posts is that the users are operating under bad faith and making rants/sheep-like comments. And you wonder why people have trouble assuming good faith for you? --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Multiple useless comments recently. So calling someone a sheep has made all of your fanbase that you've canvassed assume bad faith for several weeks? Funny. I'm still waiting to find out where all these incivil comments I've made are.--Otterathome (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, you call users' comments "useless" which is uncivil and assumes bad faith on their part. And this entire thread has shown plenty of earlier examples of incivility, it is not my job to go through and rebring up every single one now; they have been said before. And 1) I do not have a fanbase, I am a user and 2) please provide proof that I, personally, have canvassed a single vote, either on or off wikipedia. You can't. So in summary, you are lying, being uncivil, and assuming bad faith in one post. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: You need to stop calling user's comments "useless" (see new diff) It is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing incivil calling someones comments useless, and it is your job to bring up incivility as you and your friends seem to think they exist. So much claim of incivility, yet no evidence.--Otterathome (talk) 18
19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of diffs have been shown. Please show me where in WP:CIVIL it says you are allowed to call a user's post useless or a long rant because you think it is? In fact, I would reread Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility #1d if I were you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to I can create a separate page and list all the assuming bad faith and incivilness from the group of users defending these articles, but it would take a long time and wouldn't be a pleasant read. But as you fans are so persistent I may not have a choice.--Otterathome (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, you keep telling users to WP:AGF but you find they won't, right? Read WP:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors which says "You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them." Perhaps that will give you some idea. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Otterathome has just essentially accused me of being a wikistalker [29] and has threatened to create a sockpuppet to further continue his behavior without detection [30]. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out this page, which is on Otterathome's sandbox. I believe it gets to the root of his POV.--Modelmotion (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to close this thread yet? It's becoming quite clear now that none of the users have been able to show evidence for any serious policy/guideline violations, despite going on for weeks. I don't mind a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Otterathome as there's little progress being made here.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering I recently posted a diff of you calling someone sheep, and you not only defended yourself but repeated the slur on this board, I don't think it's ripe for closing quite yet. Especially when you claim that nobody's posted evidence of incivility.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
He was inflaming the situation, and if that's the worst comment I've made, then why did all these huge walls of text exist before I made that comment? Oh yeah, because of all these incivil comments I made that nobody can seem to show me.--Otterathome (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary OtterBreak Three[edit]

Since this entire thing has turned into Otter yelling "they can't prove it, they can't prove it" over and over, I would like to add that I did, in fact, spend five hours+ yesterday, after he "invited" me, personally, to provide evidence of his behavior. I have already narrowed his 500 then-recent edits down to several dozen revisions worth a second look. The reason I have not pointed out a single revision is not necessarily that there aren't any, but that a) with at least 15 processes of his, assuming an average of ten posts each of his, even assuming only 4 primary policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:AFD, WP:AGF, WP:NEWBIES) to check, we're still talking about 15*10*4* = 600 different constellations to look at, and, more importantly, b) that Otters behavior is less a problem of "direct" aggression, and more of subtle, constant disruption and refusal to cooperate. Apart from the revision where he flat-out bossed us around, there are few singular revisions usable as "evidence". He doesn't go out and tell people to go fuck themselves or something. Instead, he just constantly ignores what they're saying, or continuously dismisses their opinions as being from irrelevant fanboys. Which is just as much uncivil, but such a pattern is not visible from a single revision, and only becomes clear when one lines up multiple revisions of the same, repeating, disruptive behavior again and again.
He knows that. Which is why he insists so much on a single revision, a single quote.
Rest assured, I am working on such a list, but given that I have to weed through one and a half months of revisions, it could take several more days, if not a week (I have other stuff to do, too, after all). Especially considering, that with aggressive PMs, random bold yelling etc., it's not like the list of uncivil behavior is shrinking.
In theory, I'd be open for a break of this discussion until I'm done, but in practice, seeing how Mathieas's issue was quickly archived and pretended to have never existed without any official solution, I'm not sure a break would serve the discussion.

As said, the behavior I'm talking about is hard to prove with only a few revisions, but still, in order to prove I'm not talking out of my ass, and actually am working on that list, I'll try to give an example from the revisions I checked so far:
Wikipedia:CIVIL#Co-operation and civility states:

"Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."

This how that looks in practice with Otter:

  • A discussion participant asks "Otterathome, the template is a statement that you don't think this article meets the guidelines, it is not an explanation of why. So, here's the question -- Can you explain why you think this article fails Wikipedia's guidelines? Please note that a mere reference back to the template you added is not a proper answer. Thanks!"
  • Otter's reply: "Uhm, you want me to copy and paste the template here? I didn't think an explanation was needed by looking at the sources. Source 1. primary source, source 2 is a stats page, and source 3 shows the website on a list of a 100 other websites. Here is the template for convenience though:" He then includes/substitutes the template again.
  • The original user replies: "No, Otterathome, I didn't want you to cut and paste the template here. Don't be deliberately obtuse. The template is a statement, it is not an explanation of why you think a template applies. Fortunately, you managed to (accidentally?) provide an explanation :

    Source 1. primary source, source 2 is a stats page, and source 3 shows the website on a list of a 100 other websites.

    That's an explanation, as opposed to the template, which is a statement. Statement != Explanation. An explanation is almost ALWAYS needed when applying a template, especially when an explznation is asked for. Makes your arguments go a whole lot smoother."
  • To which he says: "An explanation would be appropriate, but I didn't think so by looking at the serious lack of sources. Any editor with a basic understand of notability policies would know exactly why it was placed."

Not only is he clearly not "responsive" to a reasonable question, to the point where the asking user accuses him of being "deliberately obtuse", but in the process, he also constantly belittles the user, implying s/he shouldn't even have to ask, and that the fact that she had to ask is a sign of lacking "basic understand[ing] of notability policies", making for an entirely independent, secondary violation of WP:CIVIL, engaging in incivility.

As said, it's a pattern, it takes many revisions to show, but that was the best example I could come up with on a whim. I will try to show the pattern with multiple revisions, but, as said, with as many edits as he makes, it can take a while.

~ Renegade - 213.39.211.244 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I find it ironic that Otter, of all people, is the one yelling for proof, after it was him that started all this with a completely baseless accusation of "wikistalking" which purely served to discredit Mathieas. P.P.S.: Sorry for the post length :S

Out of 500 edits that is all you've come up with? Like I said, no serious guidelines/policy violations. Close now?--Otterathome (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You're making it clearer and clearer that you're a tendentious editor, Otter. I strongly suggest backing off and stop yelling that everyone except you is wrong. That way lies enforced wikivacations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm just trying to the bottom of this and get it resolved. But I can't resolve an issue I don't have evidence for.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yo, Otter, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish but Jujutacular has the most article for deletion nominations of all time.--jenlight (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein[edit]

At User_talk:Russavia#Topic_ban User:Sandstein notified me that I was "topic-banned from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months." I took issue with this, due to the editors who reported me to AN/I being as guilty of the same types of Battle over a variety of articles, and gave specific examples of it; inserting and edit-warring at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) over the insertion of accusations that the memorial is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist; which turns out was totally false, and the editors in question had not sighted sources they claimed to have done; the other being Alexander Litvinenko at which an editor professed his belief that Putin is a paedophile on the talk page, and the insertion of poorly sourced BLP violating material on said article on that accusation. The issue I had is partly the fact that it was made out that I am the only one who is guilty of such WP:BATTLE violations, and this is obviously not the case. As I wrote on my talk page "I am not blaming others, but I am saying that there are factors which contribute to such things, and that it is only fair that those factors be investigated also. Sandstein refuses to do this, which can only be seen as implicit approval of the behaviour of others as I have raised here. It's about being equitiable and making all editors responsible for their own edits, instead of using carefully selected diffs in order to get rid of a content opponent." So I am taking responsibility for my own edits, if anyone thinks otherwise, and am willing to cop things on the chin, within reason.

At User_talk:Russavia#List_of_articles I have posted a long list of articles I have been responsible for in creating and/or expanding, as a response to a question by another editor just above. Just below the list I wrote the following: "Having said that, I will abide by the topic ban...the history of the Soviet Union isn't really an area that interests me anyway---articles are so biased, that anyone with half a brain who should read them will know that they are biased and will take the article for the joke that they usually are."

Just below this, I queried of Sandstein how the Putin article wouldn't be part of the ban, but comments on a talk page would be. His response astounds me, as all one would have to do is "did you see on *insert name of Soviet history article here* Russavia's edits...what a fuckwit", and I would be in breach of the ban if I were to raise it, according to information I was clearly given This is doing my head in as much as yours, I know.

After the lifting of the permaban on myself, I posted High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve to namespace from my userspace. I tweaked a category on Dmitry Medvedev and reverted on Alexander Litvinenko (link to reasoning coming later). These edits garnered this response from Sandstein at User_talk:Russavia#Warning. Given the amount of conflicting information coming from Sandstein, as to what is or isn't covered by the ban (according to him), the fact that he all but said that Putin wouldn't be covered by this ban, led me to rightly assume that the articles I created would also not be included. The High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve was created 1 year ago, so is hardly history.

An uninvolved admin posted a request at User_talk:Russavia#Requesting_comment seeking clarification as to exactly what articles I can or can't edit, given Sandsteins interpretation of history -- something that I had already sought beforehand, but got no conclusive answers. Sandstein responded to this with User_talk:Russavia#Topic_ban_extended -- he has now banned me from ALL articles relating to Russia or Russians, and has made the laughable claim that I am disruptive in this entire area, which is clearly not the case. Also note Ezhiki's question "Dmitry Medvedev is a current politician as well, yet he was the first to be listed in your warning above. I guess I just don't see the logic (and by the looks of it Russavia doesn't either, and he has to work under this ban somehow). I hope you understand that under such restrictions a clarity of the guidelines is of utmost importance. Further comments, please?" It appears to me that Sandstein has extended the ban because he could not be bothered in providing details of what would and wouldn't be covered. How am I an editor under restrictions supposed to know what articles I can and can't edit when I get conflicting information from the admin handing down the decisions as judge, jury and executioner.

I posted at User_talk:Sandstein#A_solution a possible solution. That being that seeing as Sandstein believes I am a problematic editor in articles relating to the history of the USSR/Russia with the Baltic States, that the 6 month ban be limited to those types of articles. There is no evidence of me being a problem across ALL Russian articles, by any stretch of the imagination, and by limiting the scope to the areas in which I am seen to be a problem, there can be no ambiguity about whether an article I am editing is part of the ban or not. Simply blanket banning an editor from an entire topic in which it can be shown they are productive, because of a problem in a small corner, is not the way that an admin should be operating, particularly moreso when they have not provided sound reasoning for 1) what articles may or may not be edited and 2) extending the ban despite unanswered questions and objections from numerous other admins and editors in good standing.

I take responsibility for my actions, and agree to abide by a topic ban; that being the original topic ban as placed along with sound reasoning as to what articles I may or may not edit (very ambigious although even then), or the topic ban that I suggested on Sandstein's talk page (totally unambiguous as to what I may or may not edit). I recognise that it is my wikibehaviour which is the cause of the initial topic ban, and I take responsibility for that; other's behaviour can, and will, be dealt with elsewhere at another time. There seems to a consensus amongst those admins and editors who have already commented that the blanket ban now in force is draconian and is totally unwarranted. Sandstein mentioned it should be taken to WP:AE, but as this is now as much of a problem with Sandstein's conduct as the ban itself, it is probably the best solution that both issues be dealt with in the one place, as both Sandstein and myself are at fault here, and that is what I am requesting. --Russavia Dialogue 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, huge suprise, you ignored my advice to move on.
So you probably will ignore this advice to: large block of text will probably be skipped over and ignored, this needs to be cut down by 80%. You also have no edit diffs to support your allegations.
It is a real shame you will be indefenetly banned within a few weeks, if not a few days. Ikip (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is wrong place. If Russavia wants to appeal the sanction by Sandstein, he should complain at WP:AE. If he wants to sanction Sandstein, he should ask ArbCom. If he wants to reverse the previous vote at the ANI that had happened two days ago (the decision by Sandstein was supported by two other administrators and no one voted against), he should provide some new and really compelling arguments in his favor.Biophys (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Seeing this wall of text, I did some research
March 2009 - Russavia is warned by Jehochman to respect NPOV under RFAR/Digwuren
June 2009 Russavia is formally warned and placed on notice by Thatcher under RFAR/Digwuren
September 2009 Russavia is formally topic banned by Sandstein under RFAR/Digwuren
Among other things, all of the proper paperwork is in place and it is obvious that Sandstein is not the only administrator who has found Russavia's conduct in this area problematic (there are other blocks for stalking and edit warring, but I am focusing on these in particular). Unless this goes to WP:AE the sanctions will not be overturned and you will be blocked if you violate the topic ban. The other option is appealing to arbcom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification. MBisanz talk 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, you can move this to WP:AE, otherwise someone else will probably close this and move it for you. Again, I would strongly suggest condensing this by 80%. You can add this information later, if needed and brought up. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The issue at hand is not Russavia's behavior being problematic—he himself admitted that restricting his edits in the area where he is judged to have caused problems is warranted. The issue is that he was placed under editing restrictions, yet all his requests to explain just what exactly those restrictions entail were either ignored by the Sandstein (admin handling the topic-ban) or replied in a manner that did not clarify much (please, do take time to read conflicting and self-contradictory responses to Russavia's inquiries on his talk page). If one is restricted from editing certain topics and agrees to abide by such a restriction, why should the question to explain what those restrictions include be met not with a proper explanation, but with accusations of disruptiveness and extensions of the topic-ban? Such behavior can easily be seen as admin abuse, and this is precisely why Sandstein's actions were questioned by two other admins (myself included) and several editors. This is what this inquiry is about. What the ban was imposed for in the first place is beyond the scope of this thread—Russavia accepted it and only needed some clarifications, which he has full rights to ask for.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

The referrals to AE and arbitration clarifications appear to be correctly stated. The community does not have the ability to overturn sanctions that derive from discretionary provisions of an arbitration case. No comment or opinion on whether the current action was meritorious. Durova317 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No request to overturn sanctions has been made here. The request is to review the actions of an admin, who was unable to explain what exactly does and does not fall under the definition of the topic ban he imposed, and, rather than to provide such explanations, chose to extend the ban to include pretty much everything the user has ever been editing ("just in case", I guess?). It is my understanding that an admin should be able to explain his actions when asked to do so (and he was asked not just by Russavia, but by at least five other people, none of whom were involved in the shenanigans that led to Russavia's topic-ban). Is that an unreasonable request unsuitable for WP:AN/I?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Such a request should be directed to the Arbitration Committee because the acting administrator invokes an arbitration decision. Durova317 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So Sandstein unblocks an editor, and that editor makes his first edit a complain here... the topic ban was certainly justified, and a block following its violation seems justified as well, although I would quibble whether it was justified to make it an indef - I would go with a day or so for the first violation. Overall, I think Sandstein acted properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with the last two comments) The wall of text by Russavia above (after a day of exchanges in this vein) is too long for me to read as well, so I would just like to refer interested colleagues to the relevant prior discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Russavia unacceptable behavior at The Soviet Story and User talk:Sandstein#A solution. Should there be admin consensus to modify or overturn either my original topic ban or my subsequent expansion of it (although per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions any appeal discussion should take place at WP:AE), then that is of course fine with me, but I would appreciate it if any administrator making such an amendment would join the few of us who patrol WP:AE (rarely a fun chore, unfortunately). I apologize if any of my very unsuccessful attempts to help Russavia understand the scope of and reason for his ban may have been confusing or contradictory.  Sandstein  20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Support Sandsteins's actions without reservation; caution Russavia not to become disruptive in his characterization of sanctions against him, well and duly earned, as poor actions by the administrator who carried out the final phase. I note not the several warnings received, nor the previous discussions, have led Russavia to contemplate his actions with an eye to improving his demeanor and habits here, and suggest that unless he wishes to meet with further sanctions, he not waste any more bandwidth or time on complaining that he acted poorly and was justifiably sanctioned. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of moving on and not dragging this to infinity, I would suggest that Russavia should be placed under a topic-ban as outlined at User talk:Sandstein#A solution (in brief: articles dealing with the history of the Soviet Union and the Baltic States would be a no-no, while something as innocuous as Russian airlines or diplomatic relations with countries outside of the Baltics would be OK). In case of reasonable doubts, Russavia needs to be explained which kinds of articles he may and may not edit under the editing restrictions. It's not like the terms of the topic-ban cannot be extended later should that become necessary; until then there is no need to deprive Wikipedia of many useful edits Russavia made in the course of last months. Would anyone second that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:39, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose it would muddy the waters to overlay a community sanction on top of disputed impementation of the Digwuren arbitration discretionary sanctions. Please straighten this out through regular channels. WP:RFAR is thataway.