Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Antisemitism on Phyllis Schlafly[edit]

Elstong (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been edit warring to add "Jewish" labeling and general antisemitic content to the Phyllis Schlafly article; when I reverted his partial page blanking/sourced content removal and inappropriate content, he very oddly started calling me a vandal, accusing me of abusing him, and has made the allegation that I'm anti-Semitic on the article talk page and in edit summaries. He is, to put it bluntly, obsessed with Jews. I request someone take a look at this SPA and Schlafly fan and see what can be done. IMO he's here to whitewash her article, malign Jews who dare criticize her, and call anyone who attempts to prevent him from doing so names. Were I not arguably involved I would indef as a disruptive account. I could, of course, be in error. Contribs include the telling edit summaries (most recent at top, as in History):

  1. 15:10, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Elstong ? (remove inappropriate abuse from KillerChihuahua|talk) - this is removing a warning I left him
  2. 15:09, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (remove false jewish comment by KillerChihuahua|talk)
  3. 02:45, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": removed anti-semitic accusation against Critchlow)
  4. 23:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (the weasel words were written by the Jewish columnist about a Jewish issue; see the talk page if you want to change it)
  5. 06:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": jewish columnist complained about ignoring jewish winking)
  6. 23:41, 12 August 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": change jewish accusation to what NYT said)

Followed by [1] and [2]. thanks for your kind attention - I will be offline for a bit but please post questions here anyway if you have any and I will answer when I return. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for now, but if he comes back with the same crap I suggest indefinite next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have unblocked him after further reflection. His edits are problematic, but a block is a bit premature at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
So edit warring and violating 3RR doesn't rate a block? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it does, but new users also deserve proper warning about why their actions are inappropriate before jumping to a block. People aren't born knowing the rules. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the substantial issues at stake here, but the editing pattern is that of a disruptive, ideologically motivated single purpose account. If it were up to me, I'd just indef-block it, but won't do so without further discussion, so as not to wheel-war with ThaddeusB.  Sandstein  07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
+1 for that. We need agenda-driven WP:SPAs on WP:BLPs just slightly less than we need page move vandals. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Sandstein and Guy. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Sandstein, Guy, and John Carter. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree fully that the pattern was one of disruption, however after reflection I decided it wasn't obviously disruptive enough to warrant a block without attempting to resolve the issue. Elstong was "correcting" what he/she viewed as a biased statement, and genuinely doesn't seem to understand the issues with the edit. He has not (yet) returned to disruption after the warnings.
I do not think it is particularly likely that Elstong will edit productively, but I think he/she deserves a chance to prove otherwise before being re-blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, except as it turns out, this is an alternate account of an established user previously blocked five times for personal attacks, COI, and edit warring. I'm blocking this one for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IP problems again[edit]

The problems with certain range IP reoccurred. I have already informed community on the issues surrounding 124.190.113.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and its "supporting" IPs like 203.56.87.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), 211.28.47.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) earlier [3], [4] and I was advised to reach out community if the problem resume. Currently IP 124.190.113.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) resumed his "clean up" of certain articles:

Basically he is following my contributions: I fixed reference [9] after some time he removed that content; I inserted references [10] after some time same IP came and removed that [11], [12]; I reinserted references after some time same IP come [13] and removed them. Can anybody finally stop such harassment, and deliberate damage to the articles' content? Thanks, M.K. (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Systematic bias, conflict of interest & racism on the Somalia Affair article[edit]

Yesterday, as I was going about my usual rounds of editing, I was attracted to the Somalia Affair article by an anonymous IP who, for some strange reason, felt the need to replace the word "teenager" with the word "monkey" in reference to Shidane Arone, a Somali teenager who was beaten to death by a group of rogue soldiers in the Canadian army. I then noticed the continued gratuitous use of the offensive word "nigger" in the article's text, an epithet whose presence in the article the principal wiki-editor, one User:Sherurcij, has justified (and not for the first time either) by claiming that replacing that word with a simple allusion to so and so using "racist language" is tantamount to "water[ing] down the accuracy" of the passage at hand & is a "personal summar[y]". If that weren't enough, this editor also de-linked the word scandal from the article's lede, ostensibly to hide the fact that what was described in the same sentence as "Canada's national shame" is anything but that. He also removed sourced material (taken from this New York Times article) indicating that one of the soldiers implicated in the beating was "deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating" and "was also demoted to private", that another "tried to hang himself after being arrested and suffered serious brain damage" (he also de-linked the word suicide in reference to this attempt), and that still another was "dismissed from the army". In addition, he later re-arranged that same portion of the text (a table), apparently in an attempt to conceal the quite noticeable removal of that material I just alluded to, & he even put the individual convictions meted out to the rogue soldiers in question in between so-called "small" tags, thereby making them less noticeable to the casual reader. Please note that this is the same user whom another editor and I as well as an uninvolved administrator have had problems with in the recent past (e.g. 1, 2, 3) over his unjustified & still unresolved use of copyrighted images of torture on this same article (images which are still prominently displayed there, btw), including one this editor himself again, with no external prodding whatsoever, voluntarily titled "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers". Just to give you some additional perspective, this is also the same editor who added an image of David Irving to the Wikipedia article on that infamous white supremacist & anti-Semite, and did the same for Ian Verner Macdonald (an article he himself created), a man also often accused of anti-Semitism & of having ties to neo-Nazi groups. He even added a quote from Macdonald on the Ku Klux Klan article basically expressing sympathy with their "cause". Taken together, it's pretty obvious what is going on. I therefore think it's time an uninvolved administrator stepped in and had a look at the issue, as there is clearly bias and quite likely a conflict of interest at work with regard to the aforementioned editor. This editor has already indicated to another editor that he would like to nominate this dreadful article for Featured Article status, but I don't see that being possible if he keeps reverting any and everyone that does not share in his desire to selectively exonerate convicted criminals & engage in pointless race-baiting. Middayexpress (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: As predicted, the editor has yet again just reverted all of my changes under the same absurd and disingenuous pretext as before. Middayexpress (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Three points. One - you didn't notify Sherurcij about this post - I've done this for you. Two - you've not posted on his talkpage about this. Three - you haven't posted on the article talkpage either. To be fair, he hasn't done either of the latter two actions either. Without digging into this it looks like a content dispute/edit war with zero discussion. Suggest protecting the page to force the editors to discuss this. Exxolon (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
quick note of context, Middayexpress has some strange vendetta and has been warned before not to "accuse respected long time users of being racists"...that from the same sort of "uninvolved admin" he just demanded should "step in" and sort things out for him. And the only user I have reverted on the article is Middayexpress, so it's definitely not true to claim I don't allow other opinions or editors to contribute to the evolution of the article.
For context (since it "appears" to be without discussion), User:Middayexpress earlier tried to have all the image/videos removed from Wikimedia Commons for being "offensive" and thus a large amount of conversation took place there - not on WP - as community consensus was that he was wrong in suggesting the images didn't belong and should be removed. He strangely summarises his own nearly-identical-to-this complaint there to be proof that I have a history of this...yet you'll notice in the conversation he links...all the images were kept and it was determined I was right and he was wrong...an administrator just promised to look into the images for him.
I find it strange when people run immediately to ANI to resolve issues - but since Middayexpress is so fond of diff links, I notice that users on their talk page warn that "she will attack you personally, gleefully, viciously, relentlessly - and with no regard for actual facts. It's her way." So I guess that explains the ANI.
I have to say I find claims like suggesting I'm engaged in "pointless race-baiting" to be grossly in violation of multiple WP policies. The word "nigger" only ever appears in quotation marks, and only ever while reporting the (offensive) actions of the Canadian Airborne which were subsequently played all over Canadian television news programmes for nearly four years. Should we rename Niggas With Attitude to "Social perjorative terms with Attitude" to meet his "cleansing" standards? The quotes are only used in their proper context, and if anything, paint the Canadian Airborne in a negative light...how the article could possibly be construed as offensive to Somalians is beyond me.
The claim that I am a White Supremacist based on the fact I have added images to random articles is amusing, of course, since a quick look at my userpage will show that I believe Middayexpress just chose about the only two white people about whom I've written biographies and 95% of my work is dealing with controversial Canadians of all stripes. I mean...I wrote a (fairly damning) article that portrays Canadian racists in a terrible light and shows them at their worst moments...and I get accused of "supporting" them? If I wrote the Paul Bernardo article, would Middayexpress similarly accuse me of supporting the rape of young schoolgirls? He also claims that routine aesthetic work (such as using HTML break tags or font tags) is somehow a conspiracy against him to mitigate the seriousness of criminal charges...rather than to make an in-line template fit onto users' screens. Similarly, the only information I removed was from a table that offered "guilty" or "Not guilty" for each soldier, and he went and edited in personal biographical information on them thus screwing up the table's size and scope. There's hardly any malice on my part - I even agreed with him that one use of the quoted word "nigger" in a video title was extraneous and removed it myself, changing it to "racist language". But it's hard for me to understand hi attempts to justify the belief that exact quotes should be boiled down to something less vulgar than their historical truth to avoid offending sensisibilities. The soldiers charged in the affair used the word "nigger", the newspapers and government inquiries re-printed the word in its exact context within quotation marks...but WP shouldn't do the same? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: Just a quick note to explain/correct the erroneous statement above saying I haven't used the article's talk page to help shape its progress - I'm actually the majority-editor on the talk page (Talk:Somalia Affair) and have been since June 2009; it's Middayexpress who's never wandered over to it. I created a To-Do list there, I requested help with footnotes there, I asked opinions about article-merges there, and SimonP and I both spoke with each other about Middayexpress's continued "revert to my version because your version has swearing in it and you're a racist" disruption to the article. SimonP even suggested to Middayexpress what possible routes he could take if he had a legitimate grievance to help us "understand" his problem and he never did. Anyways, just didn't want anybody thinking I'd avoided the talk page. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Exxolon - This is not just a random "content dispute", and this issue has already been discussed ad nauseam (follow the links above). This is a case of an editor with a proven history of editing & even creating articles on racist and anti-Semitic figures deciding to upload images -- ones that he has yet to prove are copyright free -- of race-motivated torture, voluntarily naming one of those images "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" although he is already well aware of Wikipedia's policies against inappropriate names (an image which, incidentally, he has had months now to try and get renamed, but hasn't even so much as lifted a finger in that direction), knee-jerk reverting sourced statements which outline the legal punishments meted out to the offending soldiers involved in the race-motivated torture in question, refusing link throughs that suggest anything even remotely close to the well-established fact that this was a major scandal, and gratuitously including the word nigger when less inflammatory language works just as well (for example, he insists that the following phrase in reference to the offending soliders which goes "one using racist language and loudly complaining about the presence of black soldiers in the Airborne" doesn't capture his preferred "one stating loudly "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne" -- other than the all-important presence of the word nigger, which Sherurcij insists on using throughout the article, just as he insisted on including it in that torture image's title, anyone can see that the two phrases are virtually identical) , a word which he has already demonstrated in my previous discussions with him that he is not at all shy about using. That's what's going on here. Middayexpress (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sherurcij - Niggas With Attitude are a rap group consisting of several black men who voluntarily elected to call themselves that. That is the name of their actual group. It is not something someone else called them in order to disparage them & a Wiki editor then felt it just imperative to parrot. Moreover, the niggas in their name is a term of endearment where they come from. It is not the same as nigger; hence, the two separate Wikipedia articles devoted to what are two separate topics. What you've just described bears no relation to the race-baiting you are gratuitously pushing on the Somalia Affair article wherein certain Canadian soldiers are racially taunting people(s) of another race, at least one of whom they would go on to kill. Really lamentable analogy, but oddly appropriate and predictable considering the circumstances and your own previous remarks on this issue. Middayexpress (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually voted in favour of renaming the video clip back in July 2009, as you may have noticed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv - do you have another argument? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a "request". That was a statement of fact. And that link above doesn't work, FYI. Middayexpress (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything here that admins can help with? It looks to me like a WP:CENSORED argument over a content dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree it's a content dispute, page protection and such are out of the question over-the-top-interference. I think this ANI was likely just blowing off some steam (although interestingly, it was only 24 hours after the dispute arose) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's part of the problem. Basically, what I would like to do now is simply to add the source I have described above without this other user attempting to remove it as he has repeatedly done. Could you help me with that? The reliable source in question is this New York Times article, and the statements I would like to add are featured in this edit. I would also like to add an internal link to the scandal article in the lede, as it isn't linked to anywhere else in the article despite the Affair being a major military scandal, as well as render the sentences meted out to the offending soldiers in normal wiki-code rather than in between so-called "small" tags so that readers can clearly see what became of the accused\guilty parties. Middayexpress (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added both. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you only retained (not "added") one sourced statement that I first added to the article, but only after having first stripped it bare (you changed the phrase "Deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating, Boland was also demoted to private" to a bland "Demoted to Private"). In doing this, you reverted for the fifth time in less than 24 hours the entire edit in question. You also did this after both myself and another user explained to you on the article's talk page via Wikipedia policy the exact problem with your continued gratuitous use of the word nigger (the rest of your edits I've already addressed above), and even after I had warned you that you had breached 3RR. Middayexpress (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal & incivility...[edit]

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{Unreferenced}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[14] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

180.149.208.124[edit]

Resolved: 24 from Kralizec! (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:AIV is what you're looking for. Tan | 39 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Durwoodie[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 48h. MuZemike 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Durwoodie (talk · contribs) has been inserting unsourced POV statements in the articles Psychiatry and Biopsychiatry controversy. He was reverted by several users (in the process violating 3RR) and pointed to relevant policies concerning reliable, independent sources. Durwoodie now has posted violent personal attacks on my talk page and on the Psychiatry talk page. Given the way this user acts and reacts, I don't think mediation is helpful and as the pharmaceutical industry has neglected to pay me in recent years, I don't really like to be called their whore... Assistance is welcome. --Crusio (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Tan39. First unblock request declined by yours truly. MuZemike 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
He's made a more substantive unblock request on his talk page, offering Crusio a full apology.--chaser (away) - talk 02:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Rayman Advent" and related hoaxes[edit]

IPs 70.188.151.191 (talk · contribs) (oct. 11-now) and 68.0.235.112 (talk · contribs) (oct 3-10) have been going around and adding to various BLPs' voice/filmography things like Rayman Advent, which, near as I can tell, don't exist. Help cleaning up after them would be appreciated Cleanup done, would appreciate an admin looking into this and taking appropriate action. Nifboy (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Child Of Midnight inappropriate block[edit]

Resolved: User unblocked. Ruslik_Zero 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM was blocked for incivility. [[15]] I find this block to be totally inappropriate. No where in this was CoM ever incivil and ask for an admin to overturn as blatantly wrong. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Keegan, who keeps me close by cellphone contact knew that this was a bad idea. COI and and shitty block. the_undertow talk 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(copied from CoM's talkpage). I have an entirely different view on the recent sock puppet shambles to most of the acolytes who gather around whenever this contributor is involved in controversial issues. I support no one or everyone, but not any particular tribe, if you know what I mean. However, in this particular instance the highlighted reason for blocking CoM for half a day cannot be construed as incivility. I share his sarcastic outlook, so if I had responded with an equally sarcastic but opposite contribution would I have been blocked? Of course not. It does look slightly reactionary and you could have let it go or waited until it developed into something genuinely uncivil. (but I may have missed something). Leaky Caldron 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't consider that diff incivility. However, it was very nasty and a hair's breadth away. CoM should be unblocked, but warned in the strongest possible terms that making casual allegations of that sort against another editor is (as Keegan said) not conducive to a collaborative environment, and absolutely out of line. ╟─TreasuryTagballotbox─╢ 09:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The response to the block by the_undertow (recently disgraced Law (talk · contribs)) seems inappropriate, and possibly block worthy, but the incident that started this off doesn't. Of CoMs recent misbehaviour, this is very mild. Verbal chat 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I resent the fact that you consider me disgraced. I can deal with the 'Lex Luthor of WP', or 'mentally unstable' or just about anything else, but NPA still applies. I outed myself. There is nothing lacking grace with wanting to rid my own making. Just because I am blocked does not give you free reign to make such an assertion. Never. "Disgraced" is subjective. With that, you deserve your own admonishment. the_undertow talk 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are using two different meanings, or at least nuances, of the word "disgraced", undertow. Verbal seems to be referring to your recent loss of the tools, which can be categorized as "disgrace". As your post referenced the recent events which led to that, this is most likely. I do not know how you're interpreting it; but I see no implications beyond the meaning I have given. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I stand by the description of this twice banned and desysoped, by arbcom, editor as disgraced, and for the record I would find calling him mentally unstable to be a personal attack. However, disgraced is backed up by the facts. Verbal chat 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not overturning it because I was chatting with CoM in the hour or so before this happened. As such, I don't want the appearance of a conflict of interest on my part (A Wiki admin that is worried about showing bias, imagine that?). Still, the block was obviously a bad idea and should never have been made.Trusilver 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any incivility there either. Agree CoM should be unblocked. Keegan doesn't seem to be very active though. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hence why we are here. Someone should unblock with an admonshment that it was towards the dge. Let's defuse this while we still can. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: CoM has not requested unblock nor has he disputed the block. He's not a noob; he knows about {{unblock}}. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps CoM has gone elsewhere for 12 hrs. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
If I'm correct he hasn't requested it yet because it's still the ass crack of dawn in his neck of the woods. How do you think he's going to react to something this blatantly stupid. It'll probably go over as well as a fart in church. Also if I have a problem with this block I can bring those concerns here, today it is CoM tomorow it could be you or me and I['d be pissed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Obviously a bad block, not justified by any element of blocking policy or civility policy. Moreover, it was the last actin of Keegan before signing off for the day (see his contributions), giving no effective recourse. This is especially ironic in the context of [[User:Keegan/On administrators#Blocking|Keegan's own stated view on administrator blocking]. Bongomatic 12:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it wasn't nearly long enough, as the last one was for an identical 12hrs, and he's apparently slept through most of it. Our dear CoM has been running his mouth for weeks in various forums here about the evils of admins, the cabals that are out to get him, the fantasized stalkers, harassers, disrupters who are "out to get him" etc... You can only go so long in slagging, insulting, and denigrating anyone and everyone who has ever disagreed with you before it comes back to bite you in the ass. Keegan's name will be tacked on to the list for the next round of insults that flows from CoM's direction. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Somebody with 3 bad overturned blocks, and a possible 4th dislikes admins?--Otterathome (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Many Admins are out of control when it comes to blocking. Sometimes they forget that being an editor is different than being an admin, and they put the two together without thinking it through.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree with your comment Jojhutton that "many admins are out of control when it comes to blocking" most admins do a good job quietly. The policing aspect of the job is always going to be denegraded, no one much likes being told off or having your privileges taken away for a while, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not it could be considered incivility, why was he blocked for one comment, though? Don't we warn people and then see if they do it again? On the question of civility, I've seen much worse. WebHamster got away with stuff ten times as bad as this for years before he was finally blocked. The fact that CoM was talking to admins in this case probably had something to do with it, and it really shouldn't have. Equazcion (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If he was making those comments for weeks, I assume that he was warned multiple times. Joe Chill (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That would be a nice assumption but I don't see any such warnings on his talk page. I just see a block notice. Equazcion (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks.

Well, I don't consider this a conflict of interest because if I did, I would be like Mr Wales and never be able to use my block function.

I don't take blocking lightly, and I don't block often. Maybe less than a couple hundred in three years.

I can understand the jaw dropping and calling it a shitty block, it seems random and inappropriate.

From my view, what was inappropriate and incivil was the comment on the undertow's talk page. Don't get me wrong, I am in incredibly sarcastic person that thinks and sometimes says things along the lines of what CoM says. What happens when I do say these things? I am appropriately admonished to prevent me from being such a dick again. Well, at least for the forseeable future. Eventually I slip up again, it's human nature.

It was a 12 hour block to prevent further "snarkiness" for the evening, well within my descresionary bounds. I think that is reasonable, but I can understand why others think it isn't. Bottom line is that I was working towards something amicable, this user is not. Plain and simple. The block expires shortly after what I assume was a good night's rest for CoM (please note:Do not read that as a cool down block, it wasn't) and we can all get on with our lives. I'll take whatever lumps ANI chooses to give me, I'm a big boy, but I do not regret what I did at all.

We are trying to work in a collaborative environment. Tempers flare, there is drama, I get that, I have plenty of experience on this website. This is an encyclopedia, not a shooting gallery. Happy editing to all, Keegan (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any response as to the lack of a warning though? People aren't generally blocked for one comment, as I've mentioned above. Even assuming the statement was undoubtedly uncivil, a block still seems like an excessive immediate response. Equazcion (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It's his seventh block this year. He's been previously blocked for incivility. Those could probably be considered "fair warning". Note that I am not condoning the block here; I'm merely stating that if the comment did indeed violate policy, a warning would have been superfluous. I remain neutral for the moment. Tan | 39 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What Tan said is the reason for my lack of warning. Keegan (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also find Keegan's response troubling as it sounds to me like he's saying the block is so short that we shouldn't be concerned about its appropriateness, and that he's not so concerned with what people have to say about it. Being willing to "take your lumps" at ANI is only an honorable stance if you're also willing to participate thoughtfully and re-examine your actions accordingly. Equazcion (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you have obviously made your stance clear. Thank you; no need to reiterate a dozen times - if you want other people to "participate thoughtfully" and examine their actions, you need to be able to do it yourself. Tan | 39 16:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where I've repeated myself, except once, regarding my concern with the lack of a warning. Keegan neglected to mention that in his statement, so I felt the need to bring it up again. "A dozen times"? Exaggerate much? Equazcion (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked with 2 hours of the 12 remaining, (a) because the single snarky comment does not appear to meet the standards required of a single comment to justify an incivility block (b) the block was unaccompanied by a reason, which is problematic for future interpretations of the block log. In addition, I would say that if CoM does have a pattern of making these kinds of comment, that pattern might be construed as uncivil (in the broad sense of creating an uncivil collaborative environment). That would (a) require more substantive evidence, perhaps via WP:RFC/U; (b) justify a longer block. Rd232 talk 16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The block seemed proper to me. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of disruption and a long block log. CoM is also under multiple ArbCom restrictions about getting into dust-ups with other editors, not to mention a topic ban. Granted, CoM's comment on Law's talkpage was not within the realm of any ArbCom restrictions, but it's obvious that CoM has shown a pattern of disruptive behavior. CoM's comment was highly inappropriate, and has already been deleted as such.[16] If CoM repeats this kind of "pot-stirring" behavior, I would support a longer block. --Elonka 17:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of situation which lends credence to the view that civility blocks are ineffectual. I don't happen to subscribe to that view in a general manner, but this way of applying it definitely is ineffectual. An editor who picks up a block roughly once every six weeks for most of a year engages in habitual sniping, and one of many instances garners a 12 hour block. 12 hours of rest might correct a one-off problem, but not this situation. It is pretty much guaranteed that a variety of editors will line up on both sides and the block will become more trouble than it's worth. If something is the proverbial 'straw on the camel's back' then put a brace on the spine rather than removing or adding individual bits of straw. That is, after seven blocks in a year either propose a community sanction or let it go. Miniscule blocks for habitual problems make a mockery of process. Durova322 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put. A short-term block should be applied if there is an appropriate short-term problem of sufficient severity. If there is a long-term problem which is sufficiently documented and agreed upon, it warrants appropriate sanction, and a short-term block isn't it. Rd232 talk 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Its the standard civility block paradox. Blocks can't literally be preventative without precognition, and ex post blocks can't modify behavior. Either we accept some nuance and block only where obviously necessary or we cut the gordian knot and indef editors who agitate and provoke in such a way that short term 'civility blocks' are the only solution. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Indef block or short-term block are not the only possible responses to short-term or long-term civility or civility/disruption issues. Rd232 talk 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Rd232 puts it well, and this is distinct from the garden variety civility problem. A civility block can have an effect when a normally collegial editor gets hot under the collar because a particular discussion hits a raw nerve. Most of us have a sensitive spot somewhere; that's just human. When an editor is getting increasingly worked up and rude and polite interaction fails to curb the problem, a day off for rest and food and fresh air can solve the problem (and demonstrate that limits do exist before the overall tone turns poisonous and other editors pick up on it also). When the outburst seems out of character and continues despite attempts at engagement, blocking can be preventative before the editor digs him/herself in any deeper. Durova322 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, hence "either we accept some nuance...". As Durova said, different folks, different strokes. Protonk (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. Durova322 05:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement that multiple short-term civility blocks are not an effective solution. However, neither is it helpful to say, "Civility blocks don't work", without proposing some alternative. It is my opinion that when an editor engages in a chronic pattern of incivility, and appears unwilling to moderate their own behavior, at some point we need to say "enough" and simply remove them from the project as a disruptive influence. However, where do we draw the line? I am in agreement that sometimes good editors just have a bad day. But for me, when an editor has received warnings from multiple administrators, has recently been blocked for disruption, and is spending more time sniping on various users' talkpages than actually working on the encyclopedia, that's where I think it's time to consider a lengthy block to remove the user from our environment. Otherwise we just get into an endless revolving door of second chances, where our policies mean nothing, as the user knows that no matter how poor their behavior, there are never any truly serious consequences. Without consequences, policies are meaningless. --Elonka 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I was always under the impression those block lengths were supposed to get progressively longer. I would hope by the time someone has hit block 7 for the same thing, they should be looking at a 2 month block or more. It might have a greater effect as a deterrent and preventative measure both for now and in the future if people realized there were genuine and lengthy consequences for their behaviour instead of a couple days vacation.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems CoM is destined to have a block log with multiple blocks that have been reversed as problematic, flawed or unjustified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA that could use an early closing[edit]

Resolved: Belongs at WP:BN, if anywhere.

Durova325 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango 2

The tally is currently 10/53/8. I'm not alone in thinking this has no chance of succeeding. I would close it myself, but I've participated in the discussion. Maybe someone uninvolved could have a look? Equazcion (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I think you have to ask the 'crats about this. Crafty (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the main RfA page, a SNOW closing can be executed by any member in good standing. Only RfAs closed as passes must be done by crats, according to the page. Equazcion (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
True, it's just such a nasty situation that the Solomonesque adjudication of a 'crat might be beneficial in this case. Crafty (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's possible Tango might be using the RfA to reply to past criticism. (He may be looking to rehabilitate his reputation and may not care about the vote totals). If Tango is not complaining, why not let this one continue? The comments by the RfA voters may give some general insight as to what the community expects from its admins. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Tango has stated in no uncertain terms he wishes the RfA to remain open. With new editors, there can be a slight urgency to close a tanking RfA because they didn't know what to expect. That is not the case here. I don't understand why there's a rush, or concern. If he wants the opposes and criticism, he's entitled to it. Tan | 39 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
He stated that he wanted to keep it open within the first few hours (when even then people were suggesting he withdraw). He hasn't had any new contribs recently, so it's possible he's not aware of how bad it's gotten. There's no particular rush in closing it, but I don't see any particular point in leaving it open, either. It's like watching a dead horse take a beating. This seems like what WP:SNOW was made for. Just my thought. Equazcion (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What's the harm in it remaining open? If people don't want to bother with a dead horse then the don't need to comment. Grsz11 04:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to add to a resolved thing. The candidate asks for wider editor involvement - they left a message on the RfA talk page saying they'd left a notice on CENT. (I've worded this as neutrally as I can. Feel free to strike or remove if it's not appropriate.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:138.88.255.130[edit]

Could someone uninvolved deal with the legal threats here by User:138.88.255.130. I suspect it's one of the prior users there again arguing "I think I know copyright law so I can make up whatever lyrics I want" earlier up that page. I'd also ask that the poorly sourced (and BLP-violating) lyrics be removed with protection anew, if that's considered appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a threat of legal action. Perhaps incivil, yes. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty harsh when it comes to legal threats and I'm not really seeing one here. He's trying to cite law but nowhere does he say it's being violated. --Golbez (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly not a legal threat. Simply mentioning the law != legal threat. His post is about as much a legal threat as this one is. Ironholds (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on (mainly) film articles[edit]

I originally brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Plot_summary_copyrights, but that page seems a bit quiet at the moment, and this is the first chance I've had to look at it again since I posted there.

I came across an article, Smiling Irish Eyes, created by Coin945 (talk · contribs) last week, and noticed that the plot section appeared to be a copy of The All Movie Guide and the trivia section was taken directly from the IMDB's trivia section on the film. I edited these out, replacing the plot summary with a brief paraphrase. Having a look through the editor's contributions, I found a number of other apparent copyright issues, some of which I listed at Copyright problems (listed below for convenience); I wanted to confirm that this was a copyright issue (the individual source pages are marked (c), but I wanted to make sure there were no exemptions on, for example, user-generated content on the IMDB). I also left a message on the user's talk page, to which they haven't responded, except to re-add the trivia in what appears to be a fairly close paraphrasing. Since then, Coin945 has created a number of other articles, including Perth Hebrew Congregation which is a copy of that organisation's website ([17], [18] - NB. I can't find any explicit copyright claim on this site, nor can I find any free license) and Innocents of Paris, which copies the trivia section from the IMDB and the plot section from a user comment on the same site. I have not checked all of Coin945's contributions yet, but they have created quite a few articles on films, and I am concerned that they do not fully understand the issues on copyrights, plagiarism and close paraphrasing.

The reason I am posting here is to a) confirm that this is a problem; and b) if it is a problem, is there a process for dealing with this? Coin945 has been editing since 2006: I'm not sure how far back this kind of editing goes, but there may be a significant number of edits affected.

Articles originally listed at WT:CP

I will be notifying the editor in question momentarily --Kateshortforbob talk 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your listing at WT:CP, which I typically try to keep an eye on. Been some crazy days in my part of the world & wiki lately. There is no exemption for user content at IMBd. Their terms of use makes clear that user contributed content is licensed for use by IMDb and sublicensees, but it is not public domain. There are processes for dealing with this. Although it is sorely in need of more contributors, WP:COPYCLEAN does have a page for listing contributors who can be shown to have infringed in multiple articles and whose contributions may need more thorough review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys. (Did I mention that it is sorely in need of more contributors?) Typically, when I see plot sections copied, I remove them with a note directing contributors to the talk page and leave {{plot2}} to explain why. And with [29], lack of explicit copyright notice isn't the problem; it's lack of explicit licensing compatibility that's the issue. Unless we can verify it is public domain, it's a WP:Copyvio without that. Any contributor who is violating copyright should be cautioned, as persistence at this is likely to lead to blocking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've found several more examples already. I'm going to have to run a contribution survey to organize this. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Coin945. For the record, I've spent over an hour digging about here already and so far I've found copyvios in every film article I've viewed but one. Primarily these are straightforward pastes, but some are WP:NFC violations, with entire summaries or reviews copied. Anyone want to help out? It's all organized at that link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the information and for looking at this, Moonriddengirl. I thought there might be somewhere centralised to deal with stuff like this! I'm glad that the editor has responded to you on their talk page also. I'm just dropping in now, but I'm hoping to have a significant amount of WP editing time this afternoon/evening, so I'll try to head over to WP:COPYCLEAN and get my head round the process there. Thanks again! --Kateshortforbob talk 10:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be great. :) If the process seems complicated, please feel free to drop by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

walmart class action suit[edit]

Resolved: WP:SOFIXIT :-) Tan | 39 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

someone hacked in and put some not very nice language in the first paragraph. someone should correct it. this is what give Wikipedia a bad name and questions the legitimacy of something that would and could be for the common good.

anyway -- you'll see it -- refers to "menopausal c#$%s...etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.93.16 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Could you please provide a link. also, don't you think it would be good to sign up for a wiki user name? Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. It's been fixed; definitely not something ANI worthy. Tan | 39 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jungle Island Advertising Campaign[edit]

Unresolved

I was working on RC Patrol when I noticed an IP turning the Jungle Island article into an advertisement. I reverted it a few times, but the IP added it back. Then another IP showed up to revert my revert, writing in the edit summary that I was a vandal. Now WP:SPA User:Maxitup16 and seems to be continuing the campaign. I have not alerted any of the IPs or the users of this discussion, as I am not sure who, if any, of them should be alerted. I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I am asking for someone to look over the edits and page and decide how to handle it. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • article tagged appropriate for now to identify the culprit, should the template be removed. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also toned down the language some, and removed some of the spammier sections. --Bfigura (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ecoman23 and Bfigura. I know it's a lot of work going through and removing all the ad stuff, and it is much appreciated. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPA User:Maxitup16 appears to have put back most of the advertisement. Another user reverted the ad, but I don't think it will last. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have sent the article to AfD. It doesn't appear particularly noteworthy, even separate from the promo copy. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's pretty clearly notable, despite the lack of sourcing. Maxitup16 is probably going to get blocked for edit warring shortly, though, as I'm pretty sure he's past 3RR at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Spam?[edit]

Not sure if this constitutes spam or not. Would appreciate if someone could have a look? Thanks. --Aiken's drum (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes spam, advertisement sought of. good block on IP will sought the problem before it is too late. user adding the same link to several articles. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have therefore reverted the IP's edits and left a message on the talk page. Thanks. --Aiken's drum (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User 137.138.115.223[