Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I'll leave the user a note. I've deleted Spinner145's userpage, so that's now admin only. I don't think a block is merited at this time, as while it was a bit ]y, I think Alex was trying to communicate, however not in the most ] manner. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'll leave the user a note. I've deleted Spinner145's userpage, so that's now admin only. I don't think a block is merited at this time, as while it was a bit ]y, I think Alex was trying to communicate, however not in the most ] manner. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
== ] and ]'s advice on how she can skirt her DYK topic ban ==
DYK topic banned ] asked if she can have someone else nominate an article for her.. She was told, "Yes, you can,
" by ] who is also, apparently, advising her to do it via e-mail so she doesn't get caught. "Be careful." He is also, apparently, advising her that she can "create" sources for her articles. See ]'s talk page and talk page history and {{{user3|User:Wilhelmina Will}}}'s contribution history for the exchange.
A community topic ban was a small step, it seemed appropriate for the situation. However, the user is clear that she will not respect the ban, and is actively seeking and being advised on how to get around it.
The articles she has written, that she submitted to DYK with the full knowledge she did not understand the material she was using to write the articles, but simply hoped someone would correct the crap, still need corrected. There are some 30 of these articles, so she says, 3-4 of which have been partially corrected, all of which probably contain unusable crap.
Essentially, from the link above, this was her plan with the 30 articles:
<blockquote>"I am not afraid or humiliated to admit that '''I don't really understand the terms used in paleontological journals''', which are the only sources I can find over the internet, most of the time, '''but I thought that the article could at least be left the way it was until it became a DYK article, and ''then'' the corrections could be made'''. I would even have helped, the best I could, to fix it up."</blockquote>
She used sources she admits she did not understand--it was clear she did not understand the sources or what she was writing from the articles she wrote and how she used the sources, as every line from a paleontological journal that she included, except for one, was wrong, when I checked a couple of her articles. This was about 20-30 lines of misinformation deliberately given to Misplaced Pages's readers. And another 30 articles ''at least'' sitting on Misplaced Pages just waiting for someone to correct them because Wilhelmina Will won't because she can't.
At this point, it is clear that this user, Wilhelmina Will, has '''''no''''' respect for Misplaced Pages policy or Misplaced Pages articles. She is here to submit content that will get her "Misplaced Pages awards," under any circumstances. I ask that she no longer be rewarded for crapping up Misplaced Pages. Also, if she cannot be trusted to even understand the conditions of her topic ban, there's no point in allowing her to continue to edit as badly as she has edited.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Ottava Rima (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
This editor has continually made accusation after accusation; each meritless in their own way, and demands everyone retracts their statements or strikes them when he is the only user who disagrees. He filed a WQA against S Dean Jameson - no editor or admin felt it warranted any action or warnings whatsoever because it was meritless. He disagreed and it remained open for sometime. I closed the WQA with a similar view . He refuses to let the issue go, as can be seen at the bottom of my talk page, and has declared () that Risker is abusing authority because of commenting on the situation at my talk page and asking him to stop being disruptive. It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go and will continue to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground. His block log speaks for itself. I request he be blocked for no less than 6 months. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, meritless accusations below by Ottava Rima. This is probably the first occasion I've interacted with S Dean Jameson, and here he is claiming bias at every single editor and admin who has tried to deal with the WQA, including myself, who closed it as a complete third party. His behaviour continues to be blatantly disruptive - Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and the only defending i'm doing is by invoking the DefendEachOther meatball for his inappropriate conduct re: Risker. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked the user to retract his closing of a wikiquette request here with the comments "Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input" and "I find that the claims made here are meritless, so I'm of the opinion that it be dismissed. As the filing party has so far not agreed at all with the similar opinions expressed here, I'm closing this as stuck". The reason why can be found here. I believe that the user made false allegations about my feelings on the matter, did not actually read the discussion, and allowed his previous relationship with User:S. Dean Jameson to conflict with his ability to be unbiased in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Also- "It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go" As you can see from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, et al, I have repeatedly attempted to "let the matter go" but the person Ncmvocalist is defending refuses to. The user he is defended, i.e. Jameson, even criticized a user here for giving me a barnstar for my constant asking for people to stop using personal attacks in disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(with ECx2)Crap. I hate finding myself on the same side as NCMVocalist, who I'd rather have nothing to do with. However, OR's behavior as regards all things Wilhelmina Will has been questionable; in fact, I pointed this out in the thread about WW that was just here on AN/I, and suggested that OR needed some time away from things. I'm not sure 6 months is right, but given that following the WW debacle, OR ran right to swinging wildly to see who s/he could take down in revenge or anger, I'd certainly support a one or two week block to ensure that OR returns to the project with a level head and no more interest in these sort of tit-for-tat antics. Let's prevent more needless drama.
Further, as seen post-EC, OR's insistence that s/he is right absolutely is more than mildly irritating, and this isn't the first time i've seen her throw that attitude around. It's disruptive in and of itself; every time OR sees a response that doesn't agree, the saem talking points and self-righteous indignation appear. everyone's a biased involved party, of course by nature of getting involved in the previous thread as uninvolved folks, and soon we'll run out of such 'uninvolved folks'. Block to prevent gaming as well.ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What am I "right" about? That I believe there is a problem between Jameson and I? And that I sought help via Wikiquette? Otherwise, how is your comment on topic? I am sure you will try to say this is me further trying to be "right" because you established a logical loop that would critique any response as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you were right about anything, I said you 'insist that you are right'. there's a difference. 2+2=5, and I insist that's true! doesn't make it true, but I'm insisting I'm right. Similarly, you continue to insist in multiple venues that you're right about whatever the topic is, no matter how much else is said by however many others. Look at that WQA, or the WW thread above. lots of people say A, you say 17, and insist that it's always been and will always be 17, no matter how many people say A. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Question, are you saying that I would not understand my complaint and why I filed it better than others reading it? It seems to be what you just stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In no fucking way am I an associate of his, beyond noting him in an AN/I thread and commenting there, and possibly in the related articles. This is the gaming the system that I'm talking about. EVERYONE who ever talks to each other is an associate, thus exploitable by OR to avoid the spotlight on her behavior. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
A glance through ThuranX's edit history shows he's in a different universe. But I see nothing that would prevent an association, other than the fact we're both here to edit an encyclopedia, and it appears we don't edit any articles in common. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I too find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Ncmvocalist's actions on the Wikiquette thread. Ottava Rima complained on Ncmvocalist's talk page that he did not have the authority to close the thread because he was not an administrator, so I piped in and said that, as an administrator, I agreed with the close, and asked OR to stop as his behaviour was becoming disruptive. In response, Ottava Rima tried to bully me by implying that I was acting improperly, threatening to start a thread here about my "inappropriate" actions and hinting that admins have been desysopped for such behaviour. It seems that welcoming other editors onto my talk page, and having them ask me to comment on articles, somehow renders me biased in favour of such editors in Ottava Rima's mind. Unfortunately for some who have visited my page, that is not the case at all.
Ottava Rima has some skill at editing and has proven helpful on some articles, but has also been involved in multiple tendentious situations. I would like to hear from some of the people who have found his editing to have been helpful (or some who have benefited from his "mediation work" that he referred to in his post to my talk page) before considering any type of sanction other than to simply say "cool off". Risker (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide the diff and quotation where I said that his closing was improper because he was not an admin. I wrote the section, I've reread the section, and I am unable to find it. Also, there was "cooling off" as per User:Fritzpoll, where I stopped posting responses to Jameson, but I can show where he refused to do the same, and his associates attacked my character in Wikiquette. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Two consecutive posts by you, the first demanding to know if Ncmvocalist was an admin, the second insisting that he remove the closure of the Wikiquette thread or "if needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close". Are we done here? Risker (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Two different points. I hope that clarifies things. Also - stating that I would apply for an admin would mean to go to AN or AN/I, asking for an admin to act, as if I were to act, that would be edit warring. Knowing if he was an admin or not would be important to prevent possible Wheel Warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima's block log reads like a seven-month long train wreck. Their most recent unblock was on June 23rd, and ironically reads "User has committed themselves to collegial and non-tendentious editing - ergo block is no longer needed". On the basis of the interactions here and elsewhere, Ottava Rima's commitment doesn't seem to have stuck, because this whole interaction has been less than collegial and tendentious. I am therefore blocking Ottava for 8 days, or twice 96 hours. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been involved in two lengthy arguments with this user, the aforementioned WW thread and the one above under "Raul's reply". I must admit, that it can be rather frustrating to debate with this individual especially when they say things like: Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC). Support block and agree with Guy's assessment. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Per xeno. A special thanks to Nandesuka for being bold and tackling the issue for what it was, and preventing damage for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima has suggested that his unblock request is just an attempt to get attention rather than to get unblocked (deliberate disruption, it seems). Frankly, I think he's been much luckier than other editors in terms of the circumstances leading to his blocks - in the past 3 months alone, on multiple occasions, he was counselled by several users about his poor conduct. It doesn't seem to be sinking in, even now. All avenues of trying to get him to understand (& stop) have been exhausted (except through mentoring, if anyone is willing and able to handle it). In the absence of any such agreement, assurance or understanding by Ottava Rima (prior to the current block expiring), then I note that serious consideration needs to be given to deferring to Moreschi's initial indef-block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: after seeing my above comment, he has made the following edit(s).
(This will be my only comment on this situation.) I completely agree with Vocalist here. I expended a lot of "WikiEnergy" defending myself against Rima's baseless accusations the past two days, and it appears many other editors have been treated similarly over the course of Rima's time on the project. I think an indef-block, until that time when Rima will commit to stopping this type of behavior, is wholly appropriate. S.DeanJameson15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Community patience exhausted; proposal of infinite block
Er... S. Dean Jameson, OR did commit to stopping this type of behavior at their latest block, you know. I think he's used up all his chances and all our good faith and all our patience, and I suggest an infinite block. Yes, infinite, not indefinite. Indefinite was last time, and he quickly reneged on it. We've surely expended enough wiki-energy on this user. Also, note that not even "infinite" is the end of the road; the possibility of eventually appealing to ArbCom will remain, provided there's no socking.
I've removed the "resolved" template and propose that the user be temporarily unblocked to take part in the discussion of an infinite block. (To edit this thread only, not talkpages etc; enough with the talkpage attacks already.) For background, see these ANI threads:
20 June:
23 April, 2008, "Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima:
21 April, 2008:
21 March, 2008, "User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus":
See also many a talkpage, recently, User talk:Ncmvocalist, a good example of OR's standard manner of communication with other editors: .
The only reason I oppose this right now is that OR doesn't seem to grasp the wrongdoing for which he/she is blocked. If we Indef Ban now, I have every confidence this user will return as a SOCK, and will continue socking. The user is too committed to 'the truth', currently, As such, mentoring offers far more hope that we can get OR to 'get it', and at least understand WHY an indef ban is being proposed. If OR rejects or fails to seriously engage in a mentoring process, then we've truly exhausted all options, OR can appeal to ArbCom, and then the indef ban can set in. ThuranX (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for evidence that OR has been prepared to acknowledge the valid concerns raised numerous times over the weeks, but can't see any; feel free to point out any I missed. All I see here is a troublesome user who is taking more time to keep in line than can be justified from the benefit of their contributions, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support this. Not only does Rima not acknowledge any wrong-doing, but there seems to be a martyr-complex thing going on. Rima composed a "poem" about this, and has been soapboxing about how s/he's been wronged. It's apparent to me (in reply to ThuranX above) that OR will never "get" why what he does is wrong. Extending the community's good will any further in dealing with this "bad actor" is not necessary in my view. S.DeanJameson17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a fear that OR may disrupt Misplaced Pages whatever course of action is taken. Which then is the lesser of two evils? The choice seems to be between further (arguably good faith/unintentional) disruption of the type documented ad nauseam in the AN/I archives, and presumed new intentional/bad faith disruption such as sockpuppetry. To me, it seems like a logical error for the community to choose not to ban OR based on a bad faith view of them. Perhaps a ban accompanied by friendly advice and counselling about where OR went wrong? I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be qualified to offer that, but it does leave the door open for future positive contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No, he shouldn't be unblocked. We can have a discussion transcluded between pages if necessary, though. Frankly, I think the following alternative remedy would be worth considering, and I doubt it is something that would be too different to an ArbCom remedy either.
Ottava Rima (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. Should Ottava Rima resume editing Misplaced Pages after this period, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist Ottava Rima in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.
thought: It's ridiculous that all of this (recent stuff) got started because OR decided to stick up for WW, who just got the book thrown at her. If OR had reread what had been said about WW, all of this could have been avoided. I notice that Kim Bruning is talkign to OR on OR's talk page. SHould we see if that can yield a change in behavior? ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Kim asked OR, "What was it this time?" OR responded with more obfuscation, denial, and blame. I'm not arguing with you, ThuranX, but just pointing out how this current "interaction" seems to be simply more of the same. S.DeanJameson17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw, And i think we all know how this will turn out, but in the interest of avoiding more sockmaters, I made the suggestion. ThuranX (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Support for the "infinite" ban. This is not for "incivility" in the usual sense, because I oppose the usual sense, but for threatening, hostile, and really quite schizophrenic lability. It's hostile to hateful to loving to hostile to complimentary to hostile, and lots and lots of pretense. It's impossible to edit with or near such a user, and the user himself is intent on gathering attention. This is poisonous. Geogre (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see here for further tendentiousness. Rima acts as if Fritzpoll somehow concured with him, when in fact, he did not. In fact, when Fritzpoll initially questioned Rima's reasoining in bringing the WQA, Rima accused Fritz of being "involved" and unable to judge fairly what was going on. This is a habitual problem, and there is no remorse at all for the crap he put me (and Blechnic, among others) through the last two days. S.DeanJameson19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some clarity whether we are being asked to consider an indef block or a community ban? I agree with ThuranX's concerns about sock-puppetry but I would not consider that to mitigate the problems caused by Ottava Rima rather the opposite. And I second SheffieldSteel's remarks that a ban accompanied by an explanation might be constructive. The fact that I can't find any diffs indicating that Ottava Rima understands why their behaviour is problematic does not help their case (if I missed that please point it out). For the moment I am leaning towards supporting a community ban--Cailil19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh? In practice it's the same thing. A community ban is decided in and by such a discussion as the one we're having here. If the discussion leads to consensus for a ban (which is beginning to look likely), somebody will indefblock the user. Any admin can put the ban into practice by blocking OR. Me, for instance, since I made the proposal. Is that clear now, or what exactly is the question? Bishonen | talk19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC).
I do catch your drift Bishonen and I'm aware of the difference and similarity of indefinite blocks and community bans. However I think it would be somewhat clearer to say "community ban" rather than "infinite block". The issue for me is that with a block there is an implied possibility of unblocking, however if we are discussing a community ban we are seeking consensus for both an indef block and for a resolution not to unblock. Especially in case that Ottava Rima appeals this process it would good if we were all crystal clear about what we are implementing. I'm nit-picking and I know know it - but I'd prefer to have all our ducks in a row. Also having considered the evidence further I do support a community ban of Ottava Rima--Cailil20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I find Ottava to be a largely constructive editor: Samuel Johnson, which he largely wrote, is only days away from FAC, imo. He is able to collaborate, but in urgent need of socialization into our community norms. I think an outright ban would be self defeating to the project; maybe a probation period during which he is mentored and resticted from posting in cetrain formus and name spaces. Mentoring I'd be prepared to take on myself; although I have no experience in this area, I do get on with Ottava. ( Ceoil20:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(ecx500000)For the record, no one "baited" him in this last episode. (And from the research I've since done into his background, he has rarely been "baited" in the past.) This was written before you refactored out your "baited" claim. He simply started firing baseless accusations of "personal attacks" around, with little regard to the veracity of the claims. And his block log (and recent comments) show a recalcitrance that does not lend itself to the belief that there is any hope that he will forgo this type of behavior in the future. S.DeanJameson20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No Dean sorry; I wasn't being specific about baiting there; that was just a general observation / musing. ( Ceoil20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Striking, per your above. Probably still a bit flustered from spending quite awhile defending myself against the baseless accusations. S.DeanJameson20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Understandable on ANI! Look, I'm not denying or confirming or holding any paticular openion on anything above or on either of ye in this; I'm just saying restrictions and mentoring in Ottava's case are worth a try from my experience of him. ( Ceoil20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil, this is what I was talking about: lability. He can be fawning, then impossible. "His" is a lot, even though very little of it is. Samuel Johnson is "his?" Why does that make me fear for the article? Is it all Jackson Bate? When OR has insisted most loudly on being expert, he has been novice. His knowledge is limited, his ability to take correction zero, his ability to tolerate edits, nil. I don't know anything about the reality of the person operating the account, but it seems like a "first year," but one with a hideous personality. The inability to recognize, much less respect, other people and their skills, the intolerance of being in error, the histrionic response to being over-ruled, these are the issues that matter in determining fitness for a cooperative editing project like Misplaced Pages. Regurgitating Irvin Ehrenpreis and calling it Swift or tossing out Bate and calling it Johnson is something his professors will teach him not to do, but neither is going to balance out the poor writing, the bad syntax, and the personality. Geogre (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes well, <ahem> I have my own openions about Ottava; which I'm prepared to share with him in private, but not on a public noticeboard ;) Swift and Johnson are outside my area so I wouldn't be able to spot OR there, and for sure I see that in disputes he's well, y'know. But so sanction him, take him out of areas where he most comes into dispute (FAC usually), and restrict him to colleborative efforts at adding content. Put him on strict civility patrol /1RR for a year, ban him from FAC/FAR etc for 6 months, article talk for 3, 9for example) strict mentorship; and if that doesn't work; pah, throw away the key. Dunno, I had hoped earlier (a few weeks ago only), to work with him on pages I would have a stronger grip and more familiarality on the sources (romantic poets), and would be able to reason with him from a more informed pedestal. That I might not get the chance is dissapointing. ( Ceoil21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be clear, I was not commenting on the person. I don't know the person. I was commenting on the behavior. The behavior is what I have seen (and what I once did) as a first year: you find a textbook account, and you charge in telling the world that this is it. Very, very soon, humility or humiliation will teach you to back off, to look for nuance. I wouldn't just clip Leslie Marchand for Byron; that's something a mug or a fool would do. Marchand has his position, but he's been superseded and augmented and was never sufficient to begin with. What I have seen is a consistent jumping up and claiming ownership of all knowledge on a field based on a single book. It's textbook "fool" behavior (a fool is not stupid; he is unwise). But what makes it a matter of AN/I and people wanting bans is the reaction to any word. I have seen no nuance, just extremes, and that kind of brittle zooming about just makes other people want to stay clear. That's the opposite of collaborative editing. Geogre (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No, indeed. It isn't the hubris that's blockable. It's the reaction to cooperative editing. I've made this clear throughout. The hubris means that he's going to make big mistakes, and that means that he's going to need to have other people edit. When they do, though, he goes berserk. That renders him unfit for cooperative editing environments. A person who goes about modestly adding "and love Big Macs" to the articles of burger eaters is not going to need to interact a lot, but someone who says, "I know all there is to know about Samuel Johnson, because I checked Bate out," and then "I know everything there is to know about Swift, because someone told me to read Ehrenpreis" is going to be involved, quickly and often, with people having to take away the wide eyed and clumsy mistakes, and such a person needs to have an appropriate temperament. OR does not. Geogre (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with this assessment. The issue is not, in my view, that OR is a great editor who happens to run into trouble with other editors from time to time. He or she is an editor with decided limitations (we all are, of course), who doesn't realize what those limitations are, and tends to react rather badly when they are pointed out to him or her. That is certainly the backstory to the dispute with User:Awadewit, for instance. On the other hand, as I've said, he or she is not always wrong, and can sometime (increasingly, I think) work well in collaboration. I support the idea of mentorship. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Euf sorry Geogre; if only I had the gift of the gab and not the ability to put my foot in it. Sorry, didn't mean to imply; just was having a sly dig at the fact that my own openions are rarely fit for public consumption. I'm just going to leave this settle, my offer is simple, either people think its a good idea or not. ( Ceoil22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
4 and a half admins supporting a community ban.... If Guy confirms his support, then that makes 5. Any admin who does not? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Much of Rima's damage was done on talkpage's as well. I'm not sure how effective a straight namespace ban would be. S.DeanJameson21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Add my name to "support indef" if you're counting heads. I fail to see how "but they'll make illegal socks and continue because they are dense regarding what Misplaced Pages is Not" is an argument against a block or ban. KillerChihuahua21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No, were only counting admins; see above. Ncmvocalist I find your "4 and a half admins supporting a community ban" comment highly offensive. And your cry to Guy to be the last word beyond the pale. Shame, it seems you prefer a head to a solution. ( Ceoil21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a shame you don't assume good faith. I suggested a ban and mentoring - not just a ban like above. Strawpolls do not determine consensus - they're just one measure. I called Guy's comment half-a-vote because his reasoning seems to support the ban, but it does not explicitly state 'Support'. If he confirms, then (obviously) it's a full vote. That's why I asked if there is any admin who does not support it. You're reading too much into it; so much so, that you're way off base. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
"4 and a half admins supporting a community ban.... If Guy confirms his support, then that makes 5. Any admin who does not?" - If thats not stawpolling, then I wonder what is not. ( Ceoil22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. I took offence because I found the remark "Any admin who does not" to be exclusionist agianst us non admins. Maybe a bit over sensitive, but not the best phrased headcount I've seen so far. It came accross as if I was being talked over. ( Ceoil22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - I genuinely don't see the significance of admins' opinions in a community centred discussion, and I say that as one of "them". Fritzpoll (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh. Well, I'm not sure its still on the policy, but at one point at least a community ban was when "no admin is willing to unblock" - so any admin objecting would mean not a community ban. No offense was intended, I am sure. Head-counting the supporting admins has often been used to guage whether enough admins have looked at the situation - 5 is not enough, certainly, for this issue. KillerChihuahua22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Opppose, sorry, but I concur with Ceoil, and since he has offered to mentor, I think that is a good option. Ottava Rima brought Samuel Johnson to FAC-ready status with about one weeks' work; he clearly can be a productive editor. Further, the way this thread and issue has been conducted is reminiscent of the issues that led to the shutdown of WP:CSN: I see a bit too much of a hurry to indef block an editor who has done good work, and I'm concerned that WQA can't be effectively used as it is intended to be used because threads are being closed and archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'd encourage you to look more deeply into the baseless accusations Rima was throwing around against first Blechnic, then me. Distracting at best, disruptive at worst. There's no acknowledgement of error from him, no remorse for the distraction he caused, and he's still blaming me for the whole thing. He's a good editor, but is that enough to make up for the disruption he caused (and has caused in the past)? I say no. You disagree? S.DeanJameson21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What I see is that someone has offered to mentor him, which makes the issue of an indef block look like a lynching that will end up at ArbCom. In the meantime, Samuel Johnson stands as a testament to OR's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There are people one knows just enough to make a hash of, and there are people one knows well enough to know not to try it. I won't edit the Pope page or the Johnson page, because I know how fast-moving they are. It takes a certain amount of hubris or actually supreme work (not the kind done in a week, I assure you) to write a fair job on either author. What's easy is to follow one of the standby authors, to act as a clipping service. What's hard is to be accurate, complete, and concise. I have no problem with an overly bold person rushing forward and making a stew of things, but I wouldn't praise them for it. Geogre (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I understand the feelings of some of those here arguing for a community ban, but it is not in the interest of the project to ban this editor at this time. It is true that OR is excessively forceful in their opinion, and this certainly has to change. As far as I am aware, however, and certainly in relation to recent events, no lasting damage has been caused by this user. At worst, some users have had their time wasted (and this could have been avoided in some cases by not rising to the comments) and whilst this is in itself disruptive, OR is not merely a timewaster, but someone has done good work and who seems to be genuinely defend the project's principles, albeit in a misguided manner. The best thing we can do as a community is make out displeasure known (as we have) and attempt to mentor OR back into the fold. Banning should be a final step, not our first resort. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry; first resort? That is almost amusing. Various people have spent a great many hours, and there have been multiple warnings and blocks. Kim Bruning tried mentoring a bit, as did others to different extents. This is hardly the "first resort". KillerChihuahua22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps "first resort" was the incorrect term. However, the meaning of my post should be clear - I think there is room for one more chance from the community. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I think "do not respond" is a good choice of behavior with User:Ottava Rima. I learned that on my talk page. I have watched over and over as editors have fed into his/her responses. It is not necessary to do this. Responding gives some editors a feeling of unresonable power. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Editors are now responding over and over on his/her talk page. This will just make the situation worse, in my opinion. I think the best way to go about this is to let the eight days pass in peace. After eight days, User:Ottava Rima will have had time to think. Not, however, if there is a constant interchange of emails and talk page posts that are stirring the pot. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I have had my share of run-ins with Ottava Rima; at times I have felt driven to distraction, I admit. He/she often takes up positions that are best described as "odd," and defends them with stubborn tenacity. I can quite understand where people are coming from when they ask for a block. But sometimes, in my view, he or she is right. And an "infinite" block seems to me to be way over the top. Ottava Rima can collaborate productively with other editors. It is true that he/she often falls off the wagon but there has to be a more refined measure (topic bans, 1RR, mentoring, whatever) than the crude use of this ultimate sanction. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose if the editor will simply admit that he or she made some mistakes with his or her attitude, and that he or she will try to do better in the future. Ottava is an asset and I would hate to lose that. Someone who has shown a willingness and ability to contribute should be given many chances. Enigma23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So just make it a ban from the namespace, as suggested. Let the editor contribute content and strongly discourage the bickering part of it. Enigma23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose none the less a potentially excellent editor in terms of content. I would support a log ban on using WP and WPT space--even indefinite-- to encourage the concentration on article writing. DGG (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Commment I find this editor extremely difficult to work with, but even so, he's clearly a productive article builder. I think that one more chance, with the knowledge that an indefinite block awaits if he continues down this path is merited. A WP/WPT ban also seems like it might be a good idea. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose indefinite block. It appears that OR is a valuable contributer. . .though s/he doesn't know when to just "let it go" at times. It's a big jump from 8 days to indef, and I don't think it's called for at this time. Speaking of "letting it go" this thread should be archived soon. It doesn't appear likely that this will garner consensus, so there's no need to further fan the flames. Suggest that this thread be marked resolved and archived in the interest of moving on. R. Baley (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about the breakdowns that are occurring at WQA, which is where this issue should have stayed. And, the notion to ban Ottava Rima from WP and WPT spaces also concern me, particularly considering the breakdown that occurred at WQA and the heavy-handedness that is going on there. It's supposed to serve for dispute resolution. And if OR is prohibited from WP space, then he can't nominate Johnson to FAC or GAN? Not good. Again, this is too reminiscent of the breakdown at the now-defunct WP:CSN and the banning of Ferrylodge, who appears today to be a productive editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ottava Rima's attacks against me were so baseless, off target, and hard to understand that it's clear the response his/her attacks merit and should routinely be given: just ignore him/her. There was a level of expertise in the attacks, among the ramblings, that should be dealt with though Also, he/she should have been blocked sooner, for less time, in my opinion. In addition, a cool down period is in order, before banning for a year, in my opinion.
I'm concerned about people who don't address the level of nastiness of the attacks since they consider OR's contributions worthwhile. Where is that line drawn? I don't give OR any credit that can be exchanged for bullying and threatening other editors for valuable contributions. --Blechnic (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I was dismayed that Ottava was blocked for eight days apparently just for taking a complaint to wikiquette which he is fully entitled to do. Although I've yet to find the time to wade through the total record, I can say that I've yet to see any truly egregious breaches of civility from this editor - at worst he just seems to be a somewhat difficult person to negotiate with at times. What I have seen from him however, are plenty of solid contributions in Misplaced Pages mainspace. Carcharoth reminded me only the other day that not every productive editor has an engaging personality and that admins needs to take that into account, and I think this may be a case in point. So please let's try and keep a sense of perspective. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose indef per SandyGeorgia. However, I'm not thrilled about OR's comments at the VPP about BLP issues and think that in addition to DGG's excellent suggestion of a ban on WP space, that close attention be paid to any editing by Ottava Rima of non-public-figure biographies. His incivility addressed to us is one thing, but I really saw no indication in that discussion that he understood that articles can harm people even if they are not libellous. Furthermore, you cannot be sued for libel about something that is true is a true statement, but that's not the final word when we're dealing with people's reputations. Darkspots (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Mentorship
It would be a pity to let this thread run out in the sands along with the other four Ottava Rima ANI threads over the past four months, which I linked to above. We're surely not going to do this once a month ad infinitum? <sigh> People are already citing lack of time (see Gatoclass just above) and/or reluctance to "wade through" those threads. Next time, when it's five threads instead of four, the wading will be yet more daunting, and even fewer of those that post will presumably be in the best position for forming an opinion. I suggest, instead, that Ottava Rima and the community should accept Ceoil's handsome offer to mentor the user. Ceoil, thank you for suggesting it. Could you perhaps undertake to do it per WP:MENTOR, and to report to this board in case of serious problems? If appropriate, the ban issue could then be discussed again. Would that be acceptable ? Your thoughts, please?(Everybody's thoughts, not Ceoil's exclusively.) Bishonen | talk12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC).
As the admin who blocked this time, I specifically suggested mentorship to Ottava Rima, and I think that this is a good solution. That being said, in the past some editors have offered to mentor other users, and then found that they didn't actually have the time. But if Ceoil is sure s/he has the time and the bandwidth to take on this project, then by all means let's go for it.
If the mentorship fails, and OR can't reduce the Drama Quotient, then I'll almost certainly think it is time for a community ban. Nandesuka (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I could support this measure, especially if it's provided that the next incident of baseless accusations and the like is the last time it happens. I'd encourage those who only looked at OR's article work to take a peek at the accusations he leveled first at Blechnic, then at me (for defending Blechnic), then at anyone who ventured onto the WQA to let him know it was a baseless report. It's an interesting (and frustrating) read, to be sure. S.DeanJameson13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The accusations were not "baseless." How they were pursued may be another question. But, for the record, I was asked by Dean to look at them, and, lo and behold, OR was essentially "right." However, he ran into a brick wall, as is common with such. Being "right" isn't enough here, being able to collaborate with other human beings is also very important. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The accusations were completely, utterly, totally baseless. At your talkpage as here, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what even provided the genesis for these "complaints" by Rima. I've placed a nutshell view on your talkpage, so you can fully understand just how baseless Rima's "complaints" were. S.DeanJameson19:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)]
If you have accusations against me, Abd, report them to me, to AN/I or somewhere, with diffs, but don't toss them around as if they exist without confronting me with them. As you failed to confront me with the accusations they the poorly built houses S. Dean Jameson calls them. Even OR had to retact his/her last accusation against me, that I was an associate of another editor. Not a crime on Misplaced Pages, by the way, but a quick view of both of our edit histories, which OR apparently did not make, shows we have no association. Accuse me or don't, Abd. --Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
At this point the consensus seems to be for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. After a certain point, however, the house becomes so full of bathwater that you just have to open the front door, even knowing that the baby will surely be swept away. I hope Ceoil will be able to make this clear to Ottava Rima. SHEFFIELDSTEEL13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Support mentorship for Ottava Rima by Ceoil. Also, SheffieldSteel's comment above resonates with me a good bit, OR would do well to consider it. Should there be a definite time frame on the mentorship? R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The block was entirely appropriate, and WQA is (and continues to be) utilized as it were intended in dispute resolution, often being cited in later steps in dispute resolution (including a few of the more recent arb cases) - despite what a certain FAC-regular has predictably claimed about it all. Although I wanted a definite-duration ban in filing this to begin with, as stated earlier, I'd support a mentorship proposal - it's worked in some cases, and I see no reason not to refuse it here, unless of course, there is no one who is willing and able, and qualifies. But per SheffieldSteel and one of my earlier comments, if mentoring is not sufficiently effective (even moreso if further sanctions/blocks are required), then I think we're at the last option - community banning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Support the mentorship proposal. It is great that Ceoil volunteered here and I hope Ottava will accept Ceoil's offer. Ottava has, to put it diplomatically, a difficult personality and can be obstinate as hell, refusing to let go even when it is clear that the best option is to walk away from a particular conflict. In the WilheminaWill episode Ottava's position on the core issue of the dispute was, in my opinion, quite irrational (It is clear that WW's edit summaries, were in fact insults directed at Blechnic; the attempt to explain them away as meaning something completely different from their apparent meaning was not credible) and O.R.'s dragging the matter to WAQ and beyond only made things worse. However, it is also the case that Ottava Rima has made many valuable mainspace contributions and is a good content editor whose main motivation is to improve the project and not to disrupt. It would be a pity to lose such an editor. Mentorship would be a good way to go here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Support but with a frown. If C. can manage the user, then that's great. If my doubts are unfounded, that's great. If the person learns how complex major author fields are, that's great. If the person learns to listen to people and accept help graciously, admit faults politely, and let go a bit, that's wonderful. If the user is too much to mentor, then we can at least be sure that amicable solutions have been tried (sorry about the passive). Geogre (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. There needs to be some kind of formal guidelines set out for this. Something to the effect of, "Before reporting users to ANI/WQA/RfC, please refer the issue to Ceoil" or something like it. I say this, because a mentor in name only would almost be worse than no mentor at all. S.DeanJameson16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Support but I do want to point out that some of the people he's come in conflict with on article content issues are every bit as stubborn as he, and any mentor will probably in practice need to be a mediator here as well. DGG (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply; I would be pleased to be able to give this a go, providing of course that Ottava accepts the terms placed on him. I'll be away for the next few days, but will speak to Ottava when I return, and after that talk to others who have done something similar. Note that I'm not an admin, and its been suggested that it might be useful if one work with me, even from the sidelines, in the (likely!) event of drama. Hopefully this thread can be closed now, any restrictions, terms etc can be discussed elsewhere when the current block expires. ( Ceoil17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Support Mentorship is something that should be used more often. One point is crucial: the one being mentored should voluntarily accept the mentor; and should also be able to suggest other possible mentors. While it is desirable that a mentor be as experienced as possible, any editor in good standing, reasonably familiar with the Misplaced Pages guidelines involved in the apparent problems, should be able to serve. If a mentor, or the mentored one, find that the relationship is not working, either can withdraw and the situation returns to the prior status. To my mind, the real benefit would come if an editor who is experiencing problems (or others are experiencing problems with the editor) finds someone reasonably trustworthy, who is going to understand the issues raised by that editor and assist in their resolution. Which includes telling the "pupil," "You're all wet on this, and here is why," with reasonable chance that the pupil will swallow, read it carefully, and absorb what is acceptable of it. Or, alternatively, "You're right, and here is how to pursue it. Don't touch the live wire, instead, go to the glove closet, etc., etc."--Abd (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Support mentorship for Ottava Rima by Ceoil. To plagiarize one of my fellow editors (an associate in Misplaced Pages). There's no reason not to try it if Ceoil is willing, and, above it appears Ceoil is ready to set ground rules and take it seriously. Good luck. --Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1. I consider it more important to get extra eyes on the dysfunction at WP:WQA than on Ottava Rima. OR is one editor; systemic problems are developing at WQA that affect many editors (I've seen it going months back, but recently escalating), similar to what happened at the now defunct WP:CSN. More eyes are needed there if it is to be an effective step in dispute resolution rather than a place where disputes are escalated.
2. Ceoil is not an admin; it will be hard for him to be successful if an admin doesn't volunteer to help out, particularly in the event baiting of OR becomes an issue.
3. OR runs afoul of editors who have similar characteristics to those they attribute to him (reference also DGG post above); Mattisse nailed it about those who can't walk away (I've tangled with OR, and found that backing off for a day allows him to return to jovial productive editing, unlike others who hang on to grudges long after the incident passes). When editors with similar charactersitics tangle, it's like putting two scorpions in a jar, but since OR and Ceoil's aren't admins, without an admin helping out here, OR is at a disadvantage, and may eventually be hounded off the Project. Another reminder that Ferrylodge is a productive editor today, although he was almost banned under similar circumstances. It wouldn't be right to set OR up for failure by not finding an admin willing to back up Ceoil's offer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Saying it again, and hoping someone will pay attention. WP:WQA is out of control, and responses there (by the same group of editors showing up frequently at ANI) are furthering disputes rather than calming then. WQA is not working, and is heading the direction of WP:CSN, where a small group of editors, operating outside of broader input, determined outcomes that ended up festering until they came before ArbCom. If the early steps in dispute resolution continue to be rendered ineffective, with WQA used as part of a popularity contest, we'll keep seeing long threads like this one at AN/I, and festering issues ending up in front of ArbCom. I hope some readers here will have a look at recent threads on WP:WQA to see the inconsistencies there from the same editors who are crying foul about Ottava Rima here (quickly, since the trend at WQA is to archive 'em off the board before others see them). If editors can't turn to the first step in dispute resolution for consistent responses, disputes will fester as the Ottava Rima situation did. We need more experienced eyes on WQA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia. I'd put up a cautiously encouraging message on OR's Talk. Then, User:S. Dean Jameson posted to my Talk page,, "I'd encourage you to look a bit deeper into the User:Ottava Rima matter. The way he treated me (loads of completely baseless accusations, hours and hours of wasted time) was despicable. The links can be found scattered in the ANI thread." and, as requested, I investigated and came back with comment, which, apparently, Jameson did not like. Here's a permanent link to today's version of that discussion. Definitely not a user who gives up easily. And that seems to be what happened in the first place. Ottava Rima was apparently concerned about what he saw as a personal attack (by a different user, on a different user.]. When I reviewed it, I agreed, it was indeed such, though not severe by our rather weak operational standards. Jameson continued, though, to claim that OR had made "baseless" charges. It is certainly possible to argue that the other user's "attack" was justified, i.e., by necessity. That is a separate question, which would require careful research to determine. But the appearance was clearly of a personal attack, as defined at WP:NPA, and thus not "baseless." And then the situation seems to have become one of massive WP:AGF failure, on the part of many editors. Too common. If an editor accuses me of something, it's my obligation to assume, at least at first, that, even if I know I'm "not guilty" of that thing, that it must have appeared so to the editor. And then it becomes a matter, if it is important, of looking underneath the hood, so to speak. What actually happened?--Abd (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
...and if you had no relations with Dr. Christensen then why without his knowledge might you be editing the Misplaced Pages article about him? Besides, why would anyone have reason to personally attack Jiuguang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I also received e-mails from Julie Dancer. Be advised that they have many sock puppets and are likely to continue harassment using these; I advise blocking all of them for a similar period. Dcoetzee17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked this account for a week for block evasion. I'm going to block for longer if any more socks appear. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All of this blocking activity is clearly for the purpose of fulfilling the agenda of Communist dictatorship by the masses through the act of denying users the opportunity and benefit of reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.224 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment, but if this diff is what is being referred to as "antisemitic", I'm not sure that is accurate. In a discussion that compared the Patriot Act to Nazi Germany, this user referred to another as a "lieutenant in the SS". While obviously inappropriate (and somewhat confusing), it was contextual to the conversation (i.e. a Nazi Germany comparison), and not necessarily a reflection of an antisemitic attitude. I am in now way defending the comment, but I also don't think an editor should be labeled "antisemitic" inappropriately, as this may severely influence actions taken against them. If I misread the situation, or if the accusation is based on other, more relevant comments, then feel free to ignore me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
While I concur that the November 2007 comment was borderline anti-semetic at best, I don't think it has a bearing on this block. It's reasonably clear that this editor is working in tandem with Julie Dancer, to the point of echoing similar accusations (utilizing similar phrasing to do so), and is easily considered a meatpuppet. It's quite possible that they're socks, which checkuser would reveal. As for the one week block of Julie, I conceded that it might be a little light for the threats indicated. My thinking was that it was a little heavy for a first block, but that anything less than a full week had limited value. It was also unclear at the time whether it was someone whose article was deleted flipping out about it, or someone with genuine malice of intent (with threats and contacting an editor's college off-wiki, for example). No objection from me if other editors think a longer (or indefinite) block is warranted. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the first place it is Jiuguang who is attacking Julie Dancer on the grounds of his difference with the article she wrote in the Wikia which uses logic to define, support and defend the existence of God. I agree that some Jews may be offended by her personal conclusion that Jesus Christ is God but she is only claiming that as the personal basis of her religion and not implying that anyone else does not have the right to believe whatever they choose. In the case of Jiuguang he is not Jewish and was born in Beijing, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, trained from a very early age on computers and sent to Atlanta at age 12, where he eventually entered Georgia Tech where he is now a robotics student. His statement that he disagrees with Julie Dancer's article in the Wikia makes his subsequent nomination for deletion of her Optimal classification article in the Misplaced Pages a personal attack and his subsequent deletions of her links between her article in the Wikibooks and references in the Misplaced Pages an act of stalking and harassment against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
and are two examples of NCMVocalist closing and removing to subpages two very large threads. As Kelly notes, Ncmvocalist is not an admin, nor an AN/I clerk. Is there a good reason for him to do this, esp. on threads he's involved in? ThuranX (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you've been around here for enough time, discussions that are getting long are moved to subpages - that's not archiving. And another thing you've got wrong - I'm only involved in one of those discussions - and that was closed from agreement of all involved. The other discussion I'm not involved in, but needs enough space for full discussion. Assuming good faith as always ThuranX...what can I say? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever assume good faith Thuranx? The pages were not archived, they were moved to their respected subpages to keep down on the length of ANI. The page is 256 KB long, with two subpages not included, and it renders slow for many users who have non-high-speed Internet connections. This has been ongoing for a while, to move discussions that have all but ended, to subpages so that it may reduce the page load. This requires no immediate administrator attention, or even any administrator attention, for that matter. seicer | talk | contribs19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Ncm for doing this myself, even on a high speed connection it made for navigating this page rather tedious. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In regards to thread moves to subpages, I think it would be best to at least ask for consensus before doing so. From what I've seen, moving threads to subpages basically kills all input from uninvolved parties. This means that the only people left talking are the most-partisan, resulting in zero-consenseus max-heat min-light conversations with no result. Stop moving to subpages without agreement. Ncmvocalist has no authority or consensus to do this type of work in any case, and should knock it off, particularly in threads in which he is involved. If it needs to be done, let an admin do it. Kelly19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What I think is...both you and ThuranX need to stop engaging in this unseemly conduct and move on. No, I don't think it's best we let this ANI page go from 375kb to 500kb asking for consensus to do a routine task: moving obviously long discussions to sub pages so that this ANI page remains readily accessible to the sane community. It has never been, nor ever will be a requirement either. I also think both of you have major issues if you think someone is involved in a discussion they haven't contributed to, or they become involved in a dispute just for offering third party uninvolved input. An admin has clearly stated that "this requires no immediate administrator attention, or even any administrator attention, for that matter." I fully agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as I wrote to the editor who filed the ANI, that was a mistake on my part - I should've put it in a sub-page and waited the necessary amount of time prior to archiving/hiding. The editor who filed the ANI on the other hand was perfectly willing for it to be archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So when you described me and 2 others as edit-warring over it, what you meant was that one (an admin) had corrected your mistake, another editor had repeated your archiving, and that I had simply done exactly what that admin had done (in the absence at that time of any explanation or apology from you on this page for your mistake)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize the mistake until afterwards, amidst, what appeared to me to be an edit-war at the time. Other than that, you've summarized it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
"Move on" from what? Please stop your attempted "clerking" on this page until you have some consensus to do so. The subpaging is counterproductive, in my opinion. Get some authority or consensus to do so before you continue it, please. Thank you. Kelly21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, OK. That's one of the most singularly unhelpful responses I've ever received. In that case, I'll feel free to revert you in the absence of any other consensus. Kelly21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What's going on at WQA is becoming a big problem and rendering it ineffective as a step in dispute resolution; it looks like those who have "taken charge" of the page are turning dispute resolutions into disputes, it's reminiscent of what led to the downfall of WP:CSN, and some fresh eyes might be needed at WQA so that it can be used as was intended; also concerned about a lot of premature archiving here at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but could people please stop edit-warring on AN/I over the archival of threads? Enigma21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to stop (I already have) but Ncmvocalist continues to disruptively subpage content from this page. Kelly21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It was subpaged with approval by User:Seicer, which is much more than I can say for any of your disruptive revert-warring. This is not about archiving threads - it's about keeping ANI accessible; something Kelly is seemingly intent on making unaccessible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea which thread you're referring to. If there was consensus to subpage a particular thread, please point me to the consensus to do so. If there is a general conensus to subpage threads once they reach a particular size, point me to that. If there is neither, then knock off the disruptive subpaging. It interferes with obtaining consensus by removing it from general public view. Kelly21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
With all respect to Seicer, he has no special authority on this page, nor do you. I see no evidence that this page has become significantly more inaccessible lately. Please stop aggressively archiving/moving sections. If it's important to you find a consensus for a solution. RxS (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
With due respect to you then, both editors and admins (in their numbers) obviously disagree with you - it is taking too long to load. The claim that it is outside of public view is meritless - the section still exists pointing to the subpage it's been moved to. This has been a long established practice of dealing with ANI complaints when they get lengthy. It hasn't been archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Link to policy/guideline/consensus, please? (I've asked this already, why is it so hard?) Kelly21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the last discussion I see shows no consensus supporting your position . Did it develop elsewhere? And is there some evidence that load time has become a problem? RxS (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Several editors and sysops have agreed that it has become a lot slower since the size of this page has been as large as it has lately. That's why they came to thank me on my talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Because norms are not always (if at all) codified. You're welcome to check the archives and find each subpage that already exists if you like though. You refuse to stop with the unseemly conduct, so I think I'm done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That discussion was about standard archiving (leaving no link to the thread), not moving large threads to subpages. Consensus for this doesn't come from some policy or guideline, but (as it often does) from accepted practice. People have been moving many large ANI threads to subpages for the last 6-8 months (see for the complete list, which I remember having only about six pages about six months ago). If the concern is getting fresh eyes on the discussion to promote resolution, you can post a new thread to ANI repeating the link and asking for fresh participants or spam links to the village pump, for example.--chaser - t22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with the above - there is no such consensus or standard practice. When it has happened, people have complained, and more importantly, discussion has died. Kelly22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Kelly alone has violated 3RR in deliberate WP:POINT, and nothing's been done. If the entire community is going to sit back and let this group unreasonably and repeatedly continue to do so, then what's the point? I see no need to contribute here any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Group? I wasn't acting in concert with anyone, but if there's a group, let me know who my compadres are. Kelly22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You've both violated 3rr, but the edit-war has stopped, so blocking shouldn't be necessary.--chaser - t22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to dispute the fact that the discussion whose archiving I reverted needed closing. I reverted because it is rude to deliberately hide the discussion four minutes after the discussion is closed. That is what is rude to the participants. The several people discussing on that thread deserve to at the very least see that the current discussion is closed and should be open somewhere else, not that it should be wiped off this noticeboard on an editor's whim. And before someone says "check the archives" or something similar to that garbage, tell me, how many people look at subpages compared to this board? —Kurykh22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that AN/I gets big, and sometimes it gets a bit too big, and something needs to be done about it, but moving big threads to subpages isn't the right way to go, IMHO. As has been pointed out above, moving threads to subpages takes away the attention, simply because the threads don't appear in anyone's watchlist anymore. Yes, sure, you can always watchlist the subpages, but first you got to find out that there is a subpage. Depending on how you use this page (Using your watchlist or the RSS feed, instead of visiting ] every now and then, for example), that's not likely to happen. It happened a couple of times to me now that I was wondering why no one was making any edits to a particular thread anymore, only to find out that it has been moved to a subpage a few hours or days ago. Additionally, I think Kelly made a pretty good point above as s/he pointed out that uninvolved parties are not as likely to comment on a subpage. Yes, it's just one extra click, but it's one extra click for every thread that was moved. --Conti|✉22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how else to deal with it. This page is basically impossible on dialup, and it's not as though we can predict what threads will be huge when they're started.--chaser - t23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Horologium has archived it, I've moved the thread to the bottom of this page (where people go to look for new threads), and I've also spammed WP:VPM and WP:AN to get more eyes on this topic.--chaser - t23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am much happier with moving large thread for clarity, but we do need to work out a better way of making them still evident. Perhaps the AN/I main page could quite specifically carry a list of currently open subpages, right at the top? DGG (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that something should be done, and I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, either. Maybe we need to rethink how AN/I works in general. Maybe we should use subpages for every thread (That way people will get used to it and regularly check out what they're interested in. Then again, uninvolved people will still be less likely to appear in a given thread). Moving threads about unresolved subpages to the bottom of this page is a good idea, tho. Maybe we could add a short (and neutral!) summary of the subpages to the corresponding threads, too? Often enough, it's not clear at all what a thread/subpage is about until you look at it. A list of current subpages sounds like a good idea, too. --Conti|✉23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, because even on a cable modem (pulling down 15 MBps here), ANI chugs on FF3. That's beyond reasonable, and it's impossible for many on dialup or slower connections to even view this page with any reasonable expectations. ANI needs to be restructured, or at least have a TOC bar for threads that are on subpages. But let me repeat: edit warring over the subpages is never acceptable, and those that continue it will be blocked as such. seicer | talk | contribs02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll take an apology for those 'You never AGF' comments now. Clearly I'm not the only person interested in this matter, and since I did it AFTER seeing another person comment on it, I more than AGF'ed. I never edit warred about it, I asked. ASKED. SO you can both, right here, post some nice simple retractions. thank you in advance. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If there was some way to put all discussion on subpages and have just the first post from each discussion show up on AN/I to give people an idea of what the thread is about it might help. What this thread boils down to though is that regardless of ncmvocalist's insistence that he has consensus to behave as he does, the constant threads and people taking issue with what he does would indicate he doesn't, and continuing the behaviour will become a point of disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on Ncmvocalist's behavior. There's no consensus, as evidenced by the fact that this keeps coming up, both here and at his talk page. How many ANI threads about him and his premature archiving, and how many times will he ignore requests from other editors (calling them "trolls" and saying their comments had "0% weight") do we have to go through? Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're being sarcastic, it isn't really helping the discussion. If you're being serious, that also isn't helping the discussion. This keeps coming up because we have an editor who believes he has some sort of mandate for his behaviour, when there clearly isn't one. When anyone interferes with what he believes to be his mandate, edit warring ensues (remember it takes 2 sides to edit war), and he uses the occasional uncivil and rude comment to refer to those who disagree with him and dismisses them out of hand.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think he wasn't being sarcastic or serious, he was just cracking a joke. :-) Which I suppose doesn't help the discussion either, but it may help with people's blood pressure! bah, that should be a bluelink! --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There's obviously no consensus; that's why the vigorous discussion above exists. I don't really know what the solution is either: on the one hand, the page definitely suffers from excessive load time, but on the other hand, moving to subpages kills discussions on important issues, for the very reason that they are attracting a lot of attention and therefore generating a lot of text. Personally, I think the load time is a price worth paying for having active discussions, although I wish there was something that could be done to solve both problems. Everyking (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The answer seems rather obvious - as DGG proposed above, a box showing currently active subpages would probably be the best route, though I personally don't quite get why a decrease in size from 500KB to 375KB helps anyone at all. The snarky behavior of NMC is rather disquieting, as is the hilarious citation of AGF by seicer above. --Badger Drink (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm just this guy, but personally I liked User:Conti's passing idea of making subpages standard for threads; you could have the main AN/I page just listing a very quick summary (probably the original post would suffice?) and a link to the full discussion, so as to not discourage "uninvolved comments" too much. I also heard a rumour about having mw:Extension:LiquidThreads on Misplaced Pages at some point; I'm not up on how that works, but would it help any? --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
NO way no how with the thread subpages - this has been disucssed on the talk page and the consensus was firmly against it. One idea I personally Liked was 5 seperate ANI pages with a single splash page - the new thread gets posted to the splash page, a bot moves it to the least full of the subpages and leaves a note directing unfamiliar users to where it has been moved. The note is removed 24 hours later. That leaves 5 (maybe 6 if you include the splash page) pages to watch - not the thousands that would end up accumulating if you were watching a thread per subpage. It would leave the watchlist nbumping that currently occurs in place (people watch for threads of interest in their watchlist) and would mean the continued exposure to the majority of the community, ntot the subset who are interested enough to actually go to a new page to scan the topic. Viridae12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we bring this up at the Village Pump instead for further comments? This would be an ideal solution if we could have a bot relocate dead or older threads to other pages before full archive. seicer | talk | contribs12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea to have a focused discussion and straw poll of some sorts to determine if non-bot archiving should continue. –xeno (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(in case this section gets archived before I learn where the poll is...) I'll go on record here and now as being opposed to Ncmvocalist's premature archiving. (as well as premature and unwarranted "collapseboxing", refactoring to other pages, and other moves that serve to stifle and confuse discussion) Ncmvocalist has been asked not to do this several times now. There is no consensus for it. I find Ncmvocalist's responses to be somewhat condescending and not very collegial, as well. Ncmvocalist needs to internalise that not everyone approves of his approach. ++Lar: t/c22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the merits in terms of content, I would regard a substantial change in custom and practice here of being worthy of discussion on the talk page before applying such changes, remembering that WP:BOLD does not apply outside Article space. However, I have some sympathy for readers of this page, and others, who have to load the whole page before they can catch up on topics of interest to them. In one sense, I can understand a page consisting solely of transcluded other pages, such as we have in many other places here; however, I frequently scan this page and find information and opinion of interest, which may not be the case with a transclusion system. The existing system isn't perfect, but then, neither is any other. Let it be. --Rodhullandemu22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, you do a good job. Everyone knows the subpage topics are the best, and the links usually persist for many days. Jusst put them at the top of this page in a little list, so people can look at them. Then remove them when the drama expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.231.39 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 August 2008
AN/I clerk? Is there such a thing? I see that mentioned and think it would be a wonderful idea to formalize such a role. Of course I'm not an admin so it's not my call...Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way I've found is to create the new cat, change the article links via AWB, and then delete the old cat. True, you can't actually move a cat. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be a page in the MediaWiki namespace that puts a "speedy rename" tab at the top of Category: space articles. That would reduce a lot of confusion for newbies and editors not familiar with category renaming, wouldn't it? —Mizu onna sango1502:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article on the Main Page today is being vandalized by various anons.
The instructions on how to safely view an eclipse are being screwed up into nonsense. This is very dangerous because a reader might believe the nonsense and damage their eyes.
Last I checked[REDACTED] is not an instruction manual. If we're providing instructions for readers to perform a task, they should be removed entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The problem is we provide fairly detailed notes about where and when the eclipse can be seen. This suggests that 'people should see it'. If we totally ignore the question of how to see it safety, I think this is an error of omission. Wanderer57 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That is why external links were invented. It is a place to put relevant information that might not otherwise belong in the article. An official page from a science organization or something with instructions on viewing the eclipse can be listed there, and people would be unable to tamper with it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The edits seem to be slowing now, but let's not take a cavalier attitude, eh? If you see a report on AN/I and think it's no big deal, try not to reply. A soft protect would have been warranted for an ongoing event. We guarantee constant diligence to our articles, not perfection, but that means whipping out the protect button sometimes. Geogre (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There's so much hand-wringing here over fears that somebody might file a copyright violation suit against[REDACTED] over a postage-stamp sized image. A more realistic possibility is a suit saying "wikipedia said to do such-and-such and my child was blinded". That kind of publicity[REDACTED] does not need. There should be no hesitation in acting to prevent such a possibility. Baseball Bugs14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and I was trying to admonish the initial responders. As for the violation of NOT, it's not really the issue. There are vast numbers of little how-to's running about our articles, and they should all be gone, but the outrage is the bad editing -- someone doing a bad edit by putting in a good how-to or doing a bad edit by putting in a bad how-to -- and so a soft protect would have been warranted. Saying, "tough luck, kid" is improper. Geogre (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
They should be removed on sight. Bad editing over a section that isn't there is less of an issue over someone vandalizing content that should be there. These vandals were obviously getting a kick out of potentially giving readers bad instructions, that doesn't happen if policy is followed and the instructions are removed. The most they can do if policy is followed is remove the link to the 3rd party instructions--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Would it be contrary to policy for the article to warn readers that for safety reasons they should not try to observe an eclipse? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As a flat out warning yes. As a more descriptive and encyclopedic description of what happens when you view an eclipse, no. You can describe the medical ramifications of what happens to the retina when you look at an eclipse, but you shouldn't just say "Don't stare at an eclipse". We shouldn't be telling the reader what to do ever.--Crossmr (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That, too, would be a how-to. It's enough, if really desired, to say, "Many authorities offer tips on eclipse viewing" and then having no link. Getting link substitution/vandalism is just as bad as anything else. A soft protect would have been called for in the case of an ongoing event and malicious IP editors. Geogre (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Misplaced Pages needs standards and policies. I think however that in this instance the policy creates a bed result. Here is why.
If the eclipse article was "merely" an encyclopedia article, the case would be somewhat different. But this article was referred to on the Main Page as an 'in the news' item. Through this means, it is being brought to the attention of many people, some of whom may know nothing about eclipses. They are told the eclipse "is visible". If they went to the article, they were told it "will be visible" and where and when it will be visible. IMO, this is suggesting that people look at it.
I originally posted this on WP:AIV, but I realised that was the wrong forum after realising this was a more complicated situation, and I was advised to bring it here by Redvers. My report on AIV was as follows:
This seems to be an ongoing dispute with Hillman (talk·contribs), who is also outing this user on the same page. This is probably therefore the wrong forum, but I don't know how to deal with this. Verbalchat 12:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This also spilled over onto Talk:Asymmetry. Apparently CH has now stopped editing, so I have redacted his comments to remove the outings, but I have no idea how this, and the "anon" IP, should be dealt with properly, so I've brought it here. Thanks. Verbalchat12:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a lie. I did not repeat vandalism, I reposted a reply without a personal attack. In other words, I removed PA sentence and have reposted a valid reply. So one warning by Verbal was perfectly enough to me. Verbal, please stop removing valid replies from Article Talk pages. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
see here for the background. Basically, what is going on here is that Lazar Kovacevic is abusing[REDACTED] to promote his fringe science theories. Chris Hillman, a mathematical physicist and ex-Misplaced Pages editor, then comes here and objects to that. Kovacevic then defends himself against Hillman by arguing that Hillman has violated some wiki rules.
Since Misplaced Pages's primary goal is to produce a reliable encyclopedia and the rules are merely a tool to achieve this goal, one should always ignore a rule if upholding that rule would potentially cause damage to articles. In this case, we can ignore the issue of whether, according to the wiki rules, Lazar Kovacevic has the right to remain anonymous. What matters is that the editors of all the articles that Kovacevic is involved in are warned. They don't all contain pseudoscience, but it is a good thing that editors are on their guards, because theiy may not be aware of the other articles written by Kovacevic. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite impressive rationalization for harassment. Could you Count Iblis tell us who you are in real life, and what academic papers did you published (as I see you are physicist and have published in academic journals), just so that other Wikipeida editors would be aware of any potential COI, and hidden agendas you might have. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You've got the logic reversed. Suppose someone in real life knows about my work and he sees that many wiki articles have appeared about my work. If my work is considered to be very fringe, then it would be a good thing if that person would notify the wiki community about what is going on. Also, if some wiki editor notices that some other editor is writing new wiki artices on fringe topics, bsed on articles authored by the same people, then that is cause for concern as well. Count Iblis (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the personal attack against Hillman the anon created at Talk:Intermittency. For what it's worth, IMHO, whether the editors Hillman has a dispute with are the real-life authors of the pseudoscientific papers is irrelevant, as long as it's left clear that the editors represent the authors' views. (It's difficult to write without repeating the "outing", but it's not really necessary.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It probably should also be pointed out that one of the editors being "outed" is using his real name. The only "outing" being done is matching User:FirstName LastName to the author FirstName MI. LastName, which seems rather difficult to report as being against Misplaced Pages rules. — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed something. Which exact sentence was a personal attack. I will remove it, but would like to leave the other part of reply there without being completely censored. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I misspoke slightly. It's part personal attack, part comment on the off-Wiki activity of a (former) Wikipedian as relevance to his motives here, and entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. (Oh, yes, SA's conduct on the "Process" AfD, although not exemplarly, is not at all as you described, so it's an attack on him, as well.) Your comments that the "Bios" and "Process" articles may have met the notability criteria at the time (which, FWIW, I doubt) are also irrelevant to the question of whether the other two articles contaminated with the pseudoscience of Bios theory should be decontaminated. (See, entirely commenting on the articles and edits. No personalities involved.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. First, articles contaminated with the pseudoscience of Bios theory is quite ridiculous, if you pay close attention to articles edit histories (apart from 3 edits by Sabelli, which BTW he didn't even try to hide -- so no hidden agenda there).
In particular: :CH (talk - contributions), , seems to take upon supporters of ideas he disagrees with quite emotionally, and is actually going after people accusing them on public websites . Also, visitors should note that User:Hillman violated one of the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages -- one that prohibits harassment, which this posting of real life names, on a totally irrelevant page, represents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
However, as for it being unrelated, that's a matter of opinion. If (and I haven't checked through the edit logs in detail) the editors whom Hillman believes are the real pseudoscientists involved added "relevant" data about the pseudoscience to asymmetry, it should be noted, if only to note that they were actively editing the deleted articles. — Arthur Rubin(talk)01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There's an edit-war between User:LOGANA and User:Troy 07. Troy reverted four times, while Logana reverted five times.
Also, one of Logana's edit summaries is classic: "CRAZY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WRITE ARTICLES". That should be an official policy! ☯Zenwhat (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I just noticed. Troy is an admin and indef-blocked Logana for being a "vandalism-only" account. An unblock is clearly in order and Troy should not have violated the 3RR. The person edit-war'd and the all-caps is annoying, but that isn't blatant vandalism. I agree with their revision and ScienceApologist's. I'd revert the article to Troy's version too, but then I don't want to be indef-blocked for dubious charges of vandalism either. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're not paying attention. Troy didn't indefblock, it was User:Rodhullandemu. And I do object to the block reason, but not to the block, itself. Troy should probably be blocked for 3RR if there's any likelyhood that others will restore SA version. I'm forced to agree that LOGANA's comments on the talk page certainly looked like vandalism, but he could just be mad (i.e., angry, not crazy). — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am endorsing the block, but not for the reason as well. LOGANA (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) is a single purpose account created 23:25 31 July 2008 only hours after SA had completed the page moves without consensus or discussion. This is not implying that one is a sock for the other. All talk page comments are peppered with personal attacks and gross incivility, not to mention the crap in the edit summaries. He also edit warred on the talk page. A better block rationale would have been, "Gross incivility, personal attacks, edit warring" although given that this was a SPA, "vandalism" edges close.
Disclosure: Twenty years ago, when in a position to do so, I voted against supporting fluoridation of water in York, however, that was the last thing on my mind when this matter arose, and that connection has only just occurred to me. I was watching New Users, as I normally do at 3:00 a.m. or so, and I flipped my cursor over User:LOGANA's contribs and saw a number to this article. As is my normal practice, I took a closer look and found this farrago in progress. I saw wholesale removal of sourced content, and good-faith reversions and warnings from User:Troy07, and that's without those from ClueBot. In the normal course of events, the removal warnings would have escalated to a 4im; but there wasn't time for that. I take the view that any rational editor, having been notified that his edits were questioned, would have taken the time to find out why and participate in a debate. But I didn't perceive we had a rational editor, we had a shouting WP:SPA. Hence my block to minimise further damage to the article. Maybe wrong reason, but the right thing to do. Having just checked the article history, I note that immediately before User:LOGANA appeared, an IP was making the same edits and being reverted by ClueBot. Go figure. Taking into account personal attacks, I do not apologise for the block. --Rodhullandemu17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not an Admin also but I think it was a "vandalism-only" account and support the block and reason. They removed a large amount of content that was sourced not once but five times and didn't use the talk page and was uncivil. Bidgee (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note here; the water fluoridation controversy/opposition/conspiracy article has been used for years to advance a fringe agenda and for much of that time has been on the margins of POV-forking. More eyes would be good. This is yet another article where it's a burned-out ScienceApologist versus a tenacious group of POV-pushers who I think scent victory thanks to the fact that SA has had so little backup for so long. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Guy, you make a good point. Have you seen what I organized at Robert F. Kennedy assassination? That article was overrun by fringe theorists. The strategy was to bring in a highly competent and civil editor, in this case User:Fritzpoll who came to me for admin coaching. Fritzpoll rewrote the article top to bottom. The article qualified as a good article and is now listed at featured article review. The fringy POV pushing has stopped; it had to stop, because the article is in such good shape, there is no room for BS, and there are now lots of editors watching it.
I suggest a plan:
Let's make a list of important articles that have been overrun by fringe views and POV pushing.
Recruit admin hopefuls (as Fritzpoll was), or other experienced editors, to fix the bad articles one by one.
Bring them up to WP:GA or WP:FA status. Establishing a quality standard and bringing in more eyes to review helps prevent regression.
Great idea: what we need generally is a WP:BASKETCASE rehabilitation project for articles, and I'd buy into that, subject to finding the right editors to manage articles without owning them. --Rodhullandemu00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely endorse this approach. Get the good editors involved, let the admins go back to enforcing good editing practice and end the madness of POV-pushers claiming that an admin is "involved" as soon as they start reverting nonsensical additions to the article. You need to find the right editor first, though. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I may try to organize a project. Meanwhile, keep eyes open for experienced editors who are not yet administrators. Such folks are ideal for overhauling "bad articles". Those who succeed can be nominated at WP:RFA. This strategy has two benefits: 1/ the improvement of poor articles, and 2/ the recruitment of new administrators with troll-management skills. Jehochman11:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Soapboxing on Talk:Zakir Naik and general incivility from Agnistus
There's also been a lot of off-topic comments posted on Talk:Zakir Naik about Islam and Muslims in general (See: Talk:Zakir_Naik#Regarding_Islam and ). Every time I attempt to remove these needless comments, they are resisted. This was raised on AN/I quite recently among a number of other complaints by User:Elazeez. At that time, I had opted to try and step in to resolve the issue of soapboxing, personal comments, and assumptions of bad faith re: accusations of vandalism and censorship in a content dispute.
But along with the soapboxing, Agnistus continues with the incivility and the bad faith. He was previously blocked for incivility and personal attacks on this same page following a discussion on AN/I. He momentarily changed for the better, but has since relapsed back into his old ways. It has now reached a point where I feel intervention is necessary. Regards, ITAQALLAH21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been mass removal of sourced content that affected not only the readability, but the actual information available in the article. The above user has cited (incorrectly, in my view) WP:UNDUE repeatedly, even though the sourced information was regarding the Islamic beliefs of a Muslim scholar. He's removed talkpage comments of another user (Agnistus, if memory serves), and insisted that his version was preferable, continually reverting out the content, without anything resembling a consensus to remove it. I'm tired of dealing with the issue, so this will be my only reply here, but it's the ones who are removing the content who are the problem, not the ones trying to keep it in the article. S.DeanJameson21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: this is a content dispute, and doesn't really belong here, except for the problem with the OP of this thread removing other people's talkpage comments. S.DeanJameson21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't raised the content dispute here, as we are undergoing dispute resolution for that. I have raised the issue of soapboxing which is being continually restored, as well as the issue of incivility and bad faith. ITAQALLAH22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
S._Dean_Jameson: I agree the content dispute doesn't belong here (nor is Itaqallah trying to bring it up here). But are you prepared to tolerate statements like "On the contrary, Muhammed was a mass-murderer" by Agnistus? Will we accuse Jews of slaughtering Christian children next? Such statements do not belong in wikipedia. People making statements of hate have previously been blocked.Bless sins (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that mass copying talk page discussions into article talk pages is WP:SOAPboxing and should be reverted. (Even more so if the other party asked for the discussion not to be distributed.) Also, discussions should focus on the article's topic.
However, please do not engage in the pot calling the kettle black. If Agnistus had some "niceties" to say about Islam (and the above quote actually is a valid opinion given the facts) note that his opponent in this discussion was just as bad. Str197716:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had notified both parties that this sort of discussion doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. But it isn't Elazeez who is advocating it remain on the talk page, nor is he the one reinserting it. ITAQALLAH18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. That was your point. However, BS raised another point (that Agnistus was mean on Muhammad) and I reacted to that (that Agnistus' opponent was just as mean on others on a much flimsier basis). Str197720:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Agustinus’ work is constantly reverted for being WP:POINT; WP:RS,WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:OR. Or for “editing without consensus”. I can imagine that his patience and his temper are tested heavily, which shows in his comments on talk-pages. Anyway, I think we can solve a lot of problems if more users look at the Zakir Naik- article. When EVERONE says that Itaqallah is right there, or that EVERONE says that Agustinus is right, then we can save a lot anger.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I may have a look. From a first glance I can say that there is too much blanket reverting without regard to inbetween changes. Str197720:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Possible legal threats
It's a bit unclear due to the editor's imprecise English, but do these edits constitute legal threats by User Dralansun? Edward321 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.
Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.
Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse another administrator's actions at WP:UAA. I also see that there was another similar issue some months ago with respect to him adding a now deleted template to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.
This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan Postlethwaite00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at WP:UAA where Calton shotgun reports usernames that match a person, band or company that has created an article, whether blatantly advertising or not. Regardless, it's the not the mass reporting that bothers me (although it does peeve abit), but it's the sheer unwillingness to listen when approached. I have major concerns with users who breach WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89(T / )01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd like to see Calton steer clear of UAA for a while, or at least approach it more gingerly. Wisdom89(T / )01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin 5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.
Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuice01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89(T / )02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.
One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89(T / )02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate[REDACTED] bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Misplaced Pages -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged User:Losplad as spam. He tagged it with {{spam}} once, and OwenX (talk·contribs) decline the request. He tagged it a second time, and VirtualSteve (talk·contribs) decline it. Calton tagged it a third time, and I declined it. After OwenX, VirtualSteve and I all explained the issue to him (and why were declining the request), the issue seemed resolved. Then, two weeks later, Calton tagged the page a fourth time and came up lucky; Kylu (talk·contribs) deleted it. His behavior is nothing new, and it's just as unacceptable now as it was then. - auburnpilottalk04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoety05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one. WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89(T / )05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Misplaced Pages, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoety05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89(T / )05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Misplaced Pages, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuice05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Misplaced Pages. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others. Sandstein 07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Misplaced Pages in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoety13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Misplaced Pages. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?
Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Misplaced Pages and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Misplaced Pages. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect. RxS (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." . The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" . You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Misplaced Pages nobility.
(Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).
Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{usernameblock}} notice. No need to pile it onto their talk page. In other words: it was under control. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" . No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:
In the very early days of Misplaced Pages, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Misplaced Pages can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.
That's policy: Misplaced Pages:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Misplaced Pages", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).
That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –xeno (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at WP:CHU. The intent of my talks were to show the user the same common courtesy and respect that they showed us by asking (politely, might I add) if their "spam" (so-called) could be included in the encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.
Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What I do
Given the vague and entirely fact-free claims above -- especially by Ryan ("I am the law") Postlethwaite, who's never lowered himself to give the slightest explanation of whatever the hell I'm supposed to be doing wrong -- and the obvious kneejerk "support the admins" responses that followed, let me explain EXACTLY what I do. Feel free to tell me where the horrible crimes are.
2) When (not if) I find obvious candidates, like this...
05:46, August 2, 2008 User:Uniproma (hist) Uniproma (talk | contribs) (← Created page with 'Uniproma is a value-creating bridge between China and the rest of the world. Since its founding, Uniproma has been striving to add value to a global supply chain, ...')
a) User name is a company, organization, band, or product: check.
b) Text of created page is advert for said company, organization, band, or product: check.
3) I right-click it to open the page onto a new tab in Edit mode.
4) I continue until I have several tabs at once. This, sadly, almost always takes just a few minutes.
6) I go to each talk page. Some fraction of the time (10 or 15 percent) there's already CSD warnings regarding spam addede in article space. I add the {{Spam-warn-userpage}} template, which I wrote myself and which reads:
A tag has been placed on on your user page, Uniproma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Misplaced Pages to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.
If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
7) I go to WP:UAA with the names I've gathered and list them there, where 99% of the time -- at least until User:Shereth's recent peculiar and essentially unilateral rewrite of actual policy and practice -- actual (and multiple) admins delete the pages and indef-block those I list.
Now, begging your pardon and in the interest of eliminating the vague handwaving, kneejerk agreements, and general chest-puffing -- will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in that process are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities? --Calton | Talk14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, as I mentioned earlier, you have unfathomably excellent skills at rooting out the spam userpages, promotional usernames/edits/accounts etc., and any other accounts that are relevant and fall under the username policy and thus able to be reported to the UAA noticeboard. I've worked with you on occasions before (at least I think I have) and found your efforts to sift through the newuser log highly admirable, and I've consequently become more involved through the process due to the straight-forwardness of the reports absent few. However, commenting on Xenocidic or Ryan Postlethwaite in a less-than-constructive manner (whether they are right or wrong) is not conducive to finding a resolve to this. Rudget14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You just don't get it do you? The issue is not WHAT you are doing but HOW you do it. Enforcing our policies on spam is good. Behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner while doing it is NOT. Exxolon (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, thanks for the link to the spam search list. I think that rather than arguing the toss here we might all be more productively employed clicking some of those links. "Our services" include nuking spam. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to dismiss Calton's contributions to spam-fighting, and in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a tag, block, tag combo is just what the doctor ordered for some spammers. This particular case was different (because the user was kind enough to ask, I felt I could take the time to explain it to him without templates), and all I really want to hear from him is, "OK, maybe I don't need to template a user while another user is discussing that same situation. I won't do it again." or something along those lines. No topic ban. No RFC. Just a simple head nod and a "I'll take this into consideration for the future". –xeno (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Calton, I don't think anybody here objects to your commendable efforts to fight spam and other disruption; quite on the contrary. What we object to is the way in which you go about it and the way you interact with other editors. This is, after all, a collaborative project; tact and civility are not optional for any of us. I've not examined your contributions in this matter thoroughly, but the uncollegial and heated statements that you have made in this discussion lead me to believe that Xenocidic was justified to bring the matter up here. Whether the appropriate outcome of this discussion is a topic ban, a different sanction or no sanction at all is certainly open to discussion, but that outcome depends on you above all. Sandstein 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
My fundamental concern is the same as User:Wisdom89. While it can be a little frustrating at times, there isn't really any issue with Calton's occasional reporting of large blocs of users. I also really don't care that he wants to butt heads with administrators, and he is absolutely correct when he says that admins are editors and should not be treated as being special. I do have some problem with what appears to be habitual opinion-shopping by re-adding reports until he gets the desired result. Calton needs to understand that his interpretation of what is and is not a blockable offense is just that - his interpretation. (This is where I expect him to call in to question my eccentric reading of WP:U, but I still challenge anyone to show me where the policy states that a user with a company name as a user name must be blocked on sight.) In any event, it's the WP:BITE issues that I have the biggest concern with. I am not really keen on the notion of imposing a topic ban on Calton, but it needs to be understood that blocking is an extremely sensitive issue and prone to evoking strong emotion and opinion. Making the reports to UAA is one thing, but continuing to push his cases until they get blocked isn't the solution. He accuses myself (and by extension other editors) of making unilateral decisions when removing a case sans discussion, but isn't that how 95% of the blocks proceed - unilaterally and without discussion? If a problem persists then I see no harm in re-adding a report, but doing it just so that a block can be issued comes across as malevolent. All I would really like is for Calton to see that his crusade against spam is not the most important thing possible, be willing to accept that his judgment of what should be blocked is not the end-all, and that sometimes blocking a potentially spammy username is not the most expedient solution to an issue. Shereth16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Resolved}} Obviously disruptive user. User given single/final warning. Further disruption in the absence of any indication that (s)he intends to work productively on Misplaced Pages should be met with an indefinite block. Vassyana (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have disabled (and moved down) the "resolved" tag above because of continued disruptive conduct, coupled with the addition of external links that fail WP:EL and/or WP:COI: , . I have previously removed these links and could be considered involved; could another administrator please take appropriate action against both accounts of Robert Steele? Sandstein 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Both accounts should really be blocked indefinitely unless the user indicates in some fashion that they will cease the incivility and disruption and work productively on-wiki. Vassyana (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Dianablee2 (talk·contribs) posted to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gene Bruno several phone numbers of people claimed to be able to attest to the notability of the subject. The irrelevance was pointed out to the user, but I wonder if we really want these numbers showing up in searches. One of them appears to belong to someone else (right field but wrong person) and one of them does not have a web presence except that page. I removed those since there is no indication that those people want their phone number posted here. A third is a toll free number to an acupuncture organization, and the last is publicly connected to the person's professional identity. Do these need to be oversighted or courtesy-blanked? Currently the AfD is not on the first page of Ghits for the subject's name, though the article is. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Selective and partisan policy enforcement by Will Beback
Will Beback (talk·contribs·logs) has a history of turning a blind eye to policy violations by editors who share his POV, while being quick to take action against editors who don't. I have seen this in connection with the LaRouche articles, where Will seems to have a strong personal interest. Recently he chided User:Polly Hedra() for this edit which he called a personal attack and deleted, while finding nothing untoward about this edit and this one by User:Cberlet, Polly's antagonist. Another admin stepped in and gave Cberlet a 24 hour block for incivility, which was the subject of a discussion on this board. Will lobbied for a similar block against Polly Hedra, but found little support. In fact, one other editor specifically commented at ANI on the partisan nature of Will's interventions.
Two days ago I removed a link that User:Dking posted to his personal, selfpublished website. Dking has a history of violations of WP:LINKSPAM (cleanup by COI noteboard team member ... Dking coming around again to re-add the spam:.) Dking responded by accusing me of "censorship" and branded me a "Follower of LaRouche." I replied by saying "I am no more a 'follower of LaRouche' than I am a 'follower of Robert Mugabe,' even though I have worked hard to keep POV-pushers from using both biographical articles as a soapbox against those subjects. Secondly, if I were a 'follower of LaRouche,' it would still be a violation of WP:NPA to use that as a debating tactic: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." I am emphasizing this here, because I anticipate a similar argument from Will in his response to his notice. I also posted the examples above of Dking's Linkspam violations. In response, Dking deleted the examples and reiterated his personal attack. When I re-added the examples,, I received a warning on my talk page from Will, threatening me with sanctions for "taunting." I looked at Dking's talk page for similar warnings and found none. Will then "prematurely archived" the talk page, supposedly to "foster peace," but more likely to protect Dking's conduct from scrutiny, as was the case with Will's out-of-process closing of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Three things: first, can you tell us what the CoI noticeboard's consensus was on Dking's website? And second, could you back up the statement that Will has a "strong personal interest", or withdraw it? Third, where did Will use admin tools in this dispute? Thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
See
Let's put it this way, I have never seen a LaRouche-related dispute where Will did not weigh in in support of Cberlet and Dking, going back to the LaRouche II ArbCom case where he was a party.
In this instance, Will threatened me with sanctions, while making no equivalent threat to Dking, who actually did make a personal attack, twice. I have seen Will ban editors in the past whom he deemed to be "LaRouche editors," on what I considered to be extremely flimsy evidence. While he has not formally designated me a "LaRouche editor," I take the threat of sanctions seriously; it's not a use of the tools per se, but it does represent an abuse of the office if it is used to intimidate, particularly to gain ground in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The posting from Marvin Diode which I think was out of line was this, in which he said, referring to the prohibition on spam, "In some cases, it may be just to boost a faded reputation for egotistical purposes." That was a clear dig at Dennis King/Dking. I complained about it on the talk page but didn't get a satisfactory response. I warned Marvin Diode on his talk page that taunting is a form a personal attack and will not be tolerated. Meanwhile Dking and Marvin Diode were bickering and refactoring each others comments on the talk page. I decided the best thing would be to "prematurely" archive the discussion in order to end what apppeard to me to be a pointless and contentious debate. I didn't sanction anyone (though I warned that sanctions may happen if behavior doesn't change) nor did I use any admin tools. ·:· Will Beback·:·08:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You warned me, you didn't seem to think Dking required a warning. This is what I mean by "selective enforcement." If it weren't such a consistent pattern, I wouldn't bring it up. Note also that Dking made the claim that since he doesn't directly harvest income from his website, it couldn't possibly be a violation of WP:LINKSPAM to post links to it all over the project. This is a misreading of the LINKSPAM policy, which was the point of my comment. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Generic rouge admin abuse complaint, the complainant moves one step closer to a topic ban per the multiple arbitrations on LaRouche and the tendentious editors clustered around that topic. A bit more investigation shows a long-term pattern of activism against Dennis King by Marvin Diode, who has been trying for a long time to get all links to King's websites off the project. While agreeing that they are, on the surface, not reliable sources, he has shown considerable evidence of a deeply vested external agenda against King, and his determination to remove "unreliable" sources appears to apply only to those sources which are critical of LaRouche. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is only one Dennis King website at issue here, and it is a personal website/blog. Removing links to it should be non-controversial, particularly when the owner of the personal site has very aggressively added and re-added it in defiance of policy. You make a dazzling leap of logic by insinuating that, by calling attention to the excesses of an unusually tendentious editor, I am pursuing a secret agenda of shielding LaRouche from criticism. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is only one Marvin Diode at issue here, and it appears to be a participant on one side in a long-standing dispute, bringing said dispute to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
...and only his side ought to be sanctioned for it, while participants on the other side of the dispute are fine and dandy? "Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" really needs to be applied; I guess I ought to write an essay at WP:SAUCE if none exists already. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Uneven sanctions are not by themselves evidence of bias. It is neither "selective" nor "partisan" for an administrator to sanction a single side in a dispute. Assuming the administrator is acting in good faith, it is a simple exercise of discretion. The administrator may simply have found that one person's behavior rises to the level where it needs administrative intervention while the other's does not. Moreover, even if both side's behavior is sanctionable there is no administrative abuse in sanctioning only one side - not unless the administrator truly does have a conflict of interest or is using sanctions to further a position on content. It could be a simple oversight. It could even be appropriate. It takes two to fight, usually, so removing one may well have the desired effect of ending the fight. Moreover, as controversial as LaRouche is, it's hard to equate the frustration of people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia with the frustration of people trying to avoid promoting his views. Reviewing the diffs, even though both sides became uncivil out of frustration, Poly Hedra's accusations were direct and personal, whereas Cberlet was expressing generalized disapproval of a group of editors for pushing content bias. It's not obvious who deserved sanctions and who didn't but that's a moot issue at this point, and there's certainly nothing that shows any abuse here. In short, Guy's right.Wikidemo (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
But Marvin Diode is not a Larouchian, but has been unfairly labeled as one, which is a dirty tactic used by some in this fight, which is not simply a case of "Larouchians vs. Mainstream" as it's sometimes portrayed. Anybody who objects to the actions of some of the "anti-Larouche" people seems to get automatically fastened with a political label that might not have any resemblance to their actual position. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Dtobias, have you reviewed Marvin Diode's contribution history? While we can't say if he is a "LaRouchian" or not, all of his edits are either to LaRouche-related articles or, if to other topics, they promote the LaRouche POV. His attacks against Cberlet and Dking are consistent with the decades-long conflict between them and the LaRouche movement. While Marvin Diode may claim to not be a follower of LaRouche, and may choose to be offended if called that, the reality is that he gives the appearance of being a LaRouche follower by his actions and words on Misplaced Pages. People can follow any religion or philosophy they like, but when they push a POV or use Misplaced Pages as a battleground then it's a problem. Misplaced Pages's problem with accounts that push the LaRouche POV goes back at least four years and includes three ArbCom cases and numerous sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback·:·20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a standard tactic I've seen Will employ time and again. "Have you reviewed Joe Editor's contribution history? He edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche." The trick here, as anyone with a slight familiarity with LaRouche knows, is that LaRouche has expressed an opinion on virtually every topic covered on Misplaced Pages, with the possible exception of the Pokemon characters. If you were to review Will Beback's contribution history, you will find -- shocking as it may seem -- that he edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche. As far as my edits "promoting LaRouche POV," that's a con job. This goes back to the argument that I anticipated in my initial statement: since LaRouche is a uniquely evil person, anyone who interferes with the use of Misplaced Pages to denounce him may be treated in flagrant disregard for Misplaced Pages policy. Which I guess is what Dan T. already said. In response to Wikidemo, yes, I am alleging that Will is using sanctions to further a position on content. I disagree in the strongest terms with Wikidemo's characterization of these disputes as "people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia vs. people trying to avoid promoting his views." I got involved in the first place because I saw a small group of individuals trying to use the encyclopedia as an attack platform against LaRouche, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAP and Lord knows how many other policies. And if someone steps in and says "but what about Misplaced Pages policy," they are immediately charged with "promoting LaRouche." Again, compare my edits at Robert Mugabe. Would you care to argue that I am "giving the appearance of being a Mugabe follower"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure which sanctions I've applied that Marvin Diode is complaining about. I've never blocked him. All I did was issue some warnings not to post personal attacks. As for Mugabe, Lyndon LaRouche is a strong supporter. LaRouche is anti-British, anti-colonialism, and anti-George Soros, all of which are involved. Marvin Diode has been editing to provide the pro-Mugabe POV favored by LaRouche. However that doesn't mean he's a follower of Mugabe. All that matters to Misplaced Pages is that POVs, whatever they are, aren't pushed behind their proper weight, and that editors are civil towards each other. I think that this editor has problems with both, as have a string of similar accounts going back some years. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. So, let's suppose hypothetically that author Kitty Kelley were to start a Misplaced Pages account called Kkelley and post links all over Misplaced Pages to a site promoting her book, The Family, which is said to be "filled with lurid allegations." If one or more editors were to object, do you suppose that they would be labeled "followers of George W. Bush" and that the conversation would immediately turn to speculation about these supposed "George Bush supporters," ignoring the obvious inappropriate behavior by the hypothetical Ms. Kelley? --Terrawatt (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where the CU case says he's a sock. But he is trolling and being disruptive, so I blocked him for two weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's near the bottom, where Thatcher says all the the Opal Telecom (now known as TalkTalk) IPs - with IPs beginning in 78, 84 and 89- are socks, in a case relating to Maltese-related articles such as Sicani.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There are also other socks beginning in 78 and 89 (not online right now) that have been disrupting the mediation case.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Lots of disruption and block evasion. Most of the socks are blocked and the IPs softblocked now, and given the history of block evasion I have semiprotected the mediation cabal case page for a month, though if anyone wants to undo that they are free to do so. I don't think there's much likelihood of new and unregistered users actually helping in that case right now, and pretty good evidence that the opposite is likely. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Irish League Football
Resolved – I've done the necessary pagemoves and discussed the matter with both editors. Mooretwin was making good-faith edits here - Alison17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A new user who seems to be learning the ropes seems t have had some trouble with the IFA pages, This edit on my talk page highlights the problem. I'm not great follower of IFA football but a simple google search verifies that Mooretwin's claim is indeed accurate. I tried to be bold and move the pages but it seems the move over redirect is only available to admins now (that new rule seems to me, like another horse designed by a committee on wikipedia). Could an admin do the redirects please? I think that the unavailability of the move function seems to have caused Mooretwin's C&P move, and frankly to a new user unfamiliar with the ins and outs of policy, who could blame him?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone edit this to add 'withdrawn' as a possible AFD result? The template is protected for some reason so I can't do it myself. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the Tony Snow entry there is a line about him being the cheif speech/lie-writer for GHWBush. Surely that is not an official title huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.131.226 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Aoso0ck (talk·contribs) is removing references and text from articles such as Licensure and General practitioner. I've already blocked them for edit warring, and they seem to have moved back to 2RR, but have continued to edit without any discussion. Looking at the edits, I'm not sure if this is simply vandalism. What do people think is the best course of action? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I came to his talkpage to issue a warning regarding their actions on Parliament; I think WP:AGF is reaching an end here as they've now graduated to inserting misinformation. ("Provinces" of Britain?) – iridescent16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. He declines to talk or engage in any meaningful dialogue but just keeps doing weird edits. I think the time for another block is fast apporoaching. He has been asked by several folks to stop but he just carries on. 3 day block? Peter morrell16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully they will explain what they are thinking, but if they just carry on making controversial edits without discussion I don't think we have much option. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Long Term IP Vandalism
For over a month now, I've been dealing with this persistent vandal who keeps adding bogus info into certain film/TV related articles. He/she seems to use two IP ranges, 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, which are both registered to HughesNet. See my last 100 contributions for evidence, which shows a bunch of reverts to this guy's edits.
This person seems to strike once a day, usually between 12pm - 5pm UK time. We have blocked some of the single IPs, but only when he was currently active, as it stopped him from editing that day, and he switches to a new IP the next day. Warnings don't seem to be effective on him either.
Anyway, as I've said above, I've been chasing this guy for more than a month now, and I'm getting tired of it. This has been going on for too long now, and we're also starting to miss a few edits of his. I would like to request action been taking against this guy, preferably a 1 week - 1 month+ range block on 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, with both anonymous users only and account creation enabled, seeing he hasn't created any accounts, and it won't hurt the legitimate users that much. We could also send an abuse report about him to HughesNet, but I don't think that would be as effective as a range block. --AAA! (AAAA) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is MascotGuy, especially since the edits don't seem related (unless you can show me a diff from a confirmed MG sock and compare it to one of the IPs' edits), and the IP vandal usually targets the same articles (such as Jake T. AustinWinx Club, and List of Power Rangers villains, to name a few). No recent MG socks I've seen targeted those articles, and the IP vandal hasn't targeted any articles that any of the recent MG socks have targeted. I always thought of him to be related to this old vandal. However, I could be wrong about this. --AAA! (AAAA) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi (talk·contribs) and 203.165.124.61 (talk·contribs) resumes stalking me as one of his long-time disruptive habits. The user has a long history of harassment and stalking of me. At this time, Sennen goroshi is gaming the system with his ISP as if his account and ISP are unrelated. Besides, the user also deceives people as blanking properly cited information from academic sources as leaving nasty edit summaries like "uncited BS removal". "crappy unreliable POV sources removed. use a credible source next time" to Nanking Massacre and "rvv" to Category:Comfort women. Although these lies were discovered quickly, the user did not retract this behavior and continues today. I gave him formal warnings without not knowing the identity because his edits on Nanking Massacre looked like a typical vandalism, so reported to WP:AIV, and the user gave a contradictory lecture at my talk page. I recognized him per his usual pattern of gaming the WP:Civility policy and indeed the anon is Sennen goroshi. On the other hand, admin User:Tanner-Christopher spot his reverting campaign, so gave him a formal warning for his disruptive behaviors and blind reverts. However, he rather visited him as ridiculing 3RR policy like this
The user also wikistaling me today and reverts whatever I edit today which look like he wants to drag me into edit warring and block for 3RR. That scheme was successful once, so I would not deceive it any more. I have enough of this user's disruptive wiki-stalking, harassment, and incivility and so forth. I think this time he should get more that warning because whenever the user is summoned to here for his disruption, he pledges vain promises not to do such things in a disguised politeness in front of admins.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Stalking? I think not, we both have an interest in articles relating to Japan and Korea (although perhaps different viewpoints on the two nations) - I can edit any article relating to Japan in WW2, war-crimes, Takeshima, or Japanese/Korean food, and I will be more than likely to find you editing the same article. You might not agree with my edits, but they are certainly not intentionally disruptive - they are a mere content dispute. When I was accused of breaking the 3RR, I was rather amused that an admin would count my self reverts towards 3RR and my comments reflected that. Please stop dragging all your content disputes into ANI. By the way, don't make assumptions about my IP, this is my one and only IP. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute, but your disruptive long-time wikistaling, harassment and so forth. Your wikistaling not only me but also several individual, so you have been summoned for that. This needs to be stopped by administrator's intervention.-Caspian blue (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am shocked !!! according to yahoo finance LMAMF means something totally different http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LMAMF.X - but then again who would use yahoo finance as a source when you have the ultra reliable urban dictionary at hand?
By the way, why did you get the IDs of people from my talk page, that I have had disputes with and ask them to input on this issue? That is clearly canvassing. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue we really need to see some actual evidence of wrongdoing. Evidence of stalking would be him editing a page after you edit, preferably several pages. Evidence of revert warring would be diffs showing us the reverts. He states that some of them were self reverts and he is right in that if he reverts himself then obviously this isn't warring. Theresa Knott | The otter sank17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I would provide enough evidence of his wikistalking and harassement. This report was made in hurry. I previously filed reports on him for his behaviros and death threat, but mine were too lengthy for admins to look into them. You also seem to miss his tendency of lying and such disruptive comment. That slurs are, I think, enough for an immediate block per Wiki policy--Caspian blue (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see anything that warrants an immediate block. He has a tendency to troll, rise above that. It's not easy for an outsider to spot lying unless you give us evidence that contradicts what he is saying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, one last message before I go to sleep. I did not make a death threat, I did not call anyone "lonely mice" (that is beyond absurd) and all of this stems from our different perspectives on shared interests and content disputes that we both seem to have. However I am sure that a part of the blame can lay at my feet, I am sure that I could be a little warmer in my attitude and that using a little more tact in my interactions with fellow editors would be welcomed. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the first one. He removed "Pregnant women were often the target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the belly, sometimes after rape." (emphasis mine). The source gives one example of this happening. So assuming good faith, I wouldn't call that one exactly a lie. Theresa Knott | The otter sank18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Look if our article states it happened often but the source states it happened at least once then the claim that it happened often is uncited. I don't agree with the wholesale removal of the section and would have edited it rather than remove it but that doesn't mean he was lying when he stated it was uncited. Now do you have any evidence of stalking or revert warring? Theresa Knott | The otter sank18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sennen gorosh had not edited Japan-Korea related articles since his attempt at Liancourt Rocks to block Korean editor with his deceptive edit summary. So this is clear sign of his resuming wikistalking again.
--Caspian blue (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
These two past reports on him would be good answers for his long-time wikistaking and harassment to me. this insulting comment would be a definitive definiton telling his past conduct to me.
See the trouble is I clicked on the last one on that list first. And what do i see? An edit war between the two of you in which you appeared to follow him to the article see the page history Did you really think I wouldn't check that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, you did not carefully check on the history of kimchi. You defend his lying and then falsely accuse me that I followed him? Nope. I'm very disappoint at your condoning his disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right I didn't go back far enough. I apologise for that. In future if you need to show someone is following you then show your edit followed by their first edit. Not the last one after a long edit war. Theresa Knott | The otter sank19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I usually represent all details and evidence, but doing such takes a lot of time and admins say like "Oh, it past 3 days, or weeks, so it is stale. We assume WP:AGF that he would not do that". Or they say like my writing is too lengthy to read, so I try to be as succinct as possible at this time.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Caspian Blue, you need to nail in the evidence as clearly as possible. Administrators are not willing to help, it is hard for me to follow too. I think sennen goroshi is wikistalking too, but you need to make it clear. If the administrator decide that he is not wikistalking, ask another administrator to warn him because it is obvious that he is not here to contribute in the best intentions. Good friend100 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The language in the article is defamatory and violates WP:HARM
The claims in the article are not susbtantiated and violate WP:SUBSTANTIATE
The article is false and misleading information about a living person, violating WP:BLP
Published material (in defense and apologetic) of Jetsunma from an association she maintains control over is allowed in the article, because of WP:QS, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB and because it avoids WP:PEACOCK
Even though Jetsunma is a public figure or at least there's no serious question about it (I emailed Mike Godwin to be sure and he said she obviously is), we should still be cautious and apply WP:NPF to the article, in order to avoid a libel case. Let me state that again: Even though Jetsunma is a public figure, we should still apply WP:NPF to the article.
Also (this one is especially good!), Mike Godwin's opinion that Jetsunma is a public figure shouldn't apply, because he has a WP:COI!
Jetsunma isn't found in the NNDB and therefore, Mike is wrong.
Twice now, she copied and pasted large sections of text from policy pages into the talkpage. The second time she did it, I removed it all and told her not to do it again, that it was disruptive and simply mentioning the dozens of policies she invokes is enough.
Now, do I really have to deal with this? This user has been working at this article for like over six months now, in every case scrambling for an argument to justify adding misleading content or removing information. Now, in the past there was a sockpuppet named User:Curious Blue who we should be weary of and Longchenpa is biased to be sure (and so am I, I suppose), but this kind of behavior seems pretty ridiculous, really way far beyond the scope of mere "unreasonable". When a user is actually suggesting that Mike Godwin has a COI in his legal opinion about something, are we expected to actually debate with such a person?! ☯Zenwhat (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
User Mosedschurte seems to be edit warring about People's Temple content on Harvey Milk
Mosedschurte (talk·contribs) has been continuously adding and reverting to re-add an entire section on the Jim Jones cult People's Temple and now has expanded to simply revert this material as well as the controversy section on "The outing of Sipple" (Oliver Sipple). An RfC was started to try to end the edit warring and consensus has been that the previous content about the People's Temple was appropriate whereas the entire section was undue. I also expressed that it was bordering on WP:FRINGE. The other issue that came up was that another section, "The outing of Sipple", although well-referenced, is also undue. Complicating things is the proliferation of SPAs. I moved both problematic sections to the talk page and now Mosedschurte is calling me a vandal and reverting. Am I misreading things here? There seems little evidence that the People's Temple incidents were anything more than Milk doing his political duties of getting elected and staying in office. Mosedschurte has also ensured this content is placed in other articles already so I see no reason to inflate in this one. Would appreciate fresh perspective on this. Banjeboi22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Benji, you might want to say that this is happening in Harvey Milk. A major problem here is that Milk's article is not at all comprehensive, unfortunately. I hope to fix part of this by expanding the article soon to give weight to the rest of Milk's political career. However, as the article stands now, information about the People's Temple is grossly WP:Undue in the overall political influence Milk had. Had all the time in the world to write all the information possible, it might clear up a lot of these issues... That's what I get for living in a linear dimension. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol! added link to section title, sorry! Yes if this were expanded exponentially these sections, in a trimmed form, could serve to add to the article. Likely not as stand-alone sections though. And WP:UNDUE pretty much goes by what the article currently is although even and expanded article wouldn't include much more about the People's Temple which seems to be this user's specialty. It's already in other articles and i don't object to that. Banjeboi22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There area a number of inaccuracies and omissions here, as anyone can see by viewing the editing history of the article Harvey Milk:
(1) Months ago, a tiny section was added to the Harvey Milk article that was entirely sourced and stated in NPOV terms. It merely shortly described Milk's well known support for Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple which was not mentioned in the article. More importantly, it very briefly described Milk's opposition to those calling for a federal investigation of Jonestown through a letter from Milk to President Carter calling those attempting to extricate their relatives "liars," which had received considerable media scrutiny.
(2) Milk's campaign is not only now well-known and public, but in the days after the tragedy killing nearly 1,000 mostly Bay Area citizens, it had already come under considerable press scrutiny just before his death.
(3) In response to concerns from Benjiboi, the section was pared down even further.
(4) The assertion by Benjiboi that "Milk doing his political duties of getting elected and staying in office" is entirely unsourced, somewhat odd, likely factually incorrect (not that that particularly matters) and irrelevant to the issue of presenting encyclopedic NPOV content.
(5) Benjiboi then started a Request for Comment on the section.
(6) In response to Benjiboi's Rfc, not surprisingly, no consensus developed to delete it. In fact, if anything, most weighed in to keep it. Which makes sense given the extreme gravity of the events and the tiny size of the section.
(7) Today, Bejiboi then began deleting every word of the entire Peoples Temple section in the Harvey Milk article.
(8) Note that the section as it stands mentioned only one of Milk's many letters supporting Jones against investigation and only briefly states that Milk made many supporting statements about the Temple and Jones without even elaborating, lest that be viewed as giving it "undue weight."
(9) In fact, much of the section as it now stands has either been added by Benjiboi or added to address concerns of Benjiboi. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I have not been contributing to that section and feel the material presented further up in the article is sufficient. SPA votes, as far as I'm aware, don't count. The section still violates WP:UNDUE, and IMHO, borders on WP:FRINGE. We haven't yet started discussing the sources but they too are borderline acceptable per reliable sourcing policies. Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. And Milk was a city supervisor while the City's mayor George Moscone and more prominent politicians at the time did the very same things or more, so again, nothing too notable that isn't already covered in the article. Banjeboi22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding: "Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. "
The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner are three that come to mind.
Not only that, the section doesn't just describe Milk's endorsement. In the middle of the controvery, after Jones fled to Guyana with 1,000 followers, Milk actually opposed the investigation of Jones, writing none other than President Jimmy Carter that those wishing their relatives would be extricated were spouting "bold-faced lies."
Frankly, in order to address your concerns of "undue weight" -- odd considering the section about the 900+ deaths at Jonesotown literally follows text in the Milk article about a pooper scooper law -- I didn't even include the press accounts of Milk's letters to the government of Guyana directly on the issue, or gushing statements Milk made personally about Jim Jones. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have again removed this section and the Sipple one as well as the RfC has not supported their inclusion. You mention "The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner" but I notice none of those are used as citations. Perhaps those citations could be presented for other editors to also verify what they say about this and what weight they put on this in the context of Milk's life. Of all the biographies and overviews of Milk's life this information is rarely mentioned, if at all, and has usually been presented as San Francisco was still reeling from the Jonestown massacre when the Moscone/Milk assassinations occurred. Banjeboi05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You are now 1 revert away from violating the 3 Revert Rule by exceeding the 3 reverts on the Milk article in 24 hours.
This violation is particularly egregious here, where you specifically requested an Rfc for deletion or modification of a sourced NPOV section, no consensus was reached to delete the section and, rather, most appeared specifically not NOT want to delete the section.
That you are now oddly claiming this failure to reach consensus to delete (and, in fact, most said not to) as somehow justifying unilaterally deleting whole sections of the article is not only incorrect and contrary to Misplaced Pages editing rules, but frankly bizarre. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
An even further edited down section that before has now been placed in the article.
The fact remains that complaints about "undue weight" in this context have not only been addressed repeatedly, but at this point appear to be non-good faith justifications to repeatedly delete a sourced NPOV section of the article an editor does not like. City Supervisor Milk actively supported one of the most notorious figures in United States history, including making gushing statements about him. He then actually opposed investigations of Jonestown, writing none other than United States President Jimmy Carter that those attempting to extrictate their relatives were spouting "bold-faced lies."
No one is saying that this should dominate the article on City Supervisor Milk, though I'm sure some Jonestown victims relatives would disagree. Rather, it is a tiny section stashed away in the middle of the article.
Thus, virtually there is really not a good faith argument to be made that this tiny section carries "undue weight" in the article (rather, if anything, the argument might be that it does not elaborate enough).
This is why you received no consensus on your Rfc to delete the article.
Please stop unilaterally deleting this small sourced NPOV section in its entirety. At this point, especially after the Rfc, these edits are clearly not made in good faith and are contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages article editing. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if someone could help me try to get through to this editor. He or she is adding American Film Institute ranking information to film articles, but is sometimes doing so in ways that are detrimental to the articles. At first they were inserting the information as a main-level section, but I seem to have gotten them to put it in as a sub-section in an appropriate place. Now they're wikilinking "American Film Institute" in the section header, which I'm told is not a good idea because it fouls up screen readers. Worse, in several instances (the most recent of which I've listed on their talk page) in removing previous AFI information that was cited, they are not moving the citation into their new format. I've tried to talk to this editor, and others have also left messages about other problems with their editing, but they have not responded to any message that has been left.
I'd hate to have an editor blocked who appears to be capable and interested in adding good information, but I'm following this person around cleaning up their messes, and I'm starting to feel a bit like the guy at the circus who follows the elephants. (What? And give up show business?) If they would talk, at least I would know that they're getting the message, but so far, no luck. Maybe someone else would achieve better results. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment; if someone won't talk, they shouldn't edit. I'm strongly tempted to block them to get their attention; with an unblock as soon as they start talking. Any reason not to? That talk page shows a lot of patience on your part; I can't think of another solution, and others have tried. --barneca (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of talk about civility here, but ignoring someone's questions, refusing to answer, is every bit is uncivil, and maybe worse because you have no idea what's going on in their heads. There's another old story about taking a very smart mule and whacking it over the head with a 2-by-4 because you have to get its attention first. Block it for an appropriate interval, and maybe then you'll get a response. If he simply waits out the block and does it again, double the block time. Keep doubling it until that 2-by-4 finally sinks in. Baseball Bugs03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for a month (I don't want to start small, and have them decide to wait out the block), but I'll unblock as soon as they begin talking. IP address looks pretty static, but it could be that they can change IP address if necessary. If a new IP address starts up where this one left off, point an admin to this thread and I suppose we'll keep blocking until they decide to talk. Hope this is the nudge they need. Good luck. --barneca (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I originally posted this on Peter Symonds ] talk page (the original admin who removed McJeff's rollback), but he is probably too busy to deal with this messiness and hasn't responded, so I've decided to post this here and make note on his page. On July 28, McJeff's rollback was removed for misuse in examples such as and . McJeff had the tool reinstated a day later after he expressed that he understood how rollback should be used only in blatant cases of vandalism. Then, McJeff started misusing rollback again. I don't believe that he grasps how it should be properly used only in cases of blatant vandalism, based on these diffs and his curious interpretation of 'blatant vandalism': ]
]. Furthermore, he continues to warn users for vandalism when it is not actually vandalism such as ] and ], which are in reference to editors trying to add the 'controversy' section back to the Tucker Max article, which is currently in RfC in regards to whether the section should be there. since the controversy section is in RfC, i don't think it's appropriate to warn users of 'vandalism' for adding the section, as it's properly sourced and NPOV. An editor who's using rollback should know what vandalism actually is. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, a glance alone is needed to see him abusing Rollback in content disputes. removal of tool should be substantial, maybe 6 months? ThuranX (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies to both McJeff and Theserialcomma for not responding sooner - I was aware of the thread, but it was mid-discussion when I last checked it. Rollback has been removed from McJeff's account once again. Despite agreeing not to use it content disputes on Tucker Max, he has done, and rolled back the same edits I'd asked him not to use rollback for. I will post a full explanation of my actions on his talk page later on. For reference, here is the thread on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PeterSymonds#recurring_rollback_misuse. PeterSymonds(talk)02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What? This is - pardon the language - fucking pathetic. Once again, the tenditious and obnoxious (theserialcomma) are manipulating the rules at the expense of those that are honestly trying to improve Misplaced Pages (me). I explained very clearly on PeterSymond's page why my use of rollback was completely justified, and the fact that Theserialcomma has been engaged in long term harassment against me. I submit that my rollback rights be reinstated immediately and Theserialcomma be punished for the personal annoyance he is putting me through. McJeff (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what offenses the other party/s may committed, your use of rollback is inappropriate. It's for blatant vandalism, not wishy washy content disputes or edit wars. Wisdom89(T / )02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There was one inappropriate use. ONE. And I apologized for that one and agreed not to use it in that fashion ever again. Adding a section to an article that is in blatant violation of WP:BLP and against consensus is definitely blatant vandalism. Do not listen to what Theserialcomma says about there is "no consensus" - the consensus is unanimously against him, and he continues to file RfC's every time he doesn't get his way. McJeff (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Good faith additions/removals or even breaching of NPOV are not vandalism any way you slice it. A rollbacker should be able to identify the subtleties of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Difs 128-131 suggest you do not have that insight yet. Wisdom89(T / )02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Bill.matthews is not a good faith account - he is a revert account with a few AfD-related contributions, as you can see from his contribution history. I can tell the difference between good faith addition/removal, and diff 128 was not good faith. Diff 129 was an editor who has been repeatedly warned and had several short-term blocks for his without-consensus changing of professional wrestling movesets. Yes, those were both appropriate uses of Rollback. McJeff (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is the topic on PeterSymonds' talk page. Please note the fact that I debunked every single one of Theserialcomma's accusations against me and proved he was disrupting[REDACTED] to push his points of view. Again, the fact that I'm being disciplined and he is not is completely disgusting. McJeff (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(And again) That's not vandalism. That's a content dispute. I can't be more clear than that, and others have reiterated the same statement. Your rollback privileges were removed for this; you fail to see the difference between vandalism and content disputes. For instance, this is not vandalism, yet it was rollbacked as such. There are many more instances of this, if you want me to dig them up. seicer | talk | contribs03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an essay somewhere along the lines of "When six people are telling you you did something wrong, and zero people are agreeing with you, there's a really, really, really good chance that you've actually done something wrong"? --barneca (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The essay would be wrong. I'm still not seeing where the rollback page says "User may not use rollback to rollback known tenditious editors inserting blatant policy violations into the encyclopedia". McJeff (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Rollback doesn't get removed for one mistake. You've been shown to have misused it since getting it back, multiple editors agree on that point. You need to accept there are other ways to hand a content dispute. Further, it IS a content dispute; TSC is NOT the only person who feels the Tucker Max article should have a criticism/controversy section. I suggest you take a few days off that entire article as well. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If multiple editors think I misused it, multiple editors are wrong. Once again, Misplaced Pages promotes the interests of the tenditious and obnoxious (theserialcomma) at the expense of the good editors trying to improve the encyclopedia (me). McJeff (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
One, this thread is over. Two, you're heading well into personal attack territory. Multiple editors looked and saw you use rollback on a content dispute after recovering the privilege and agreeing to use it responsibly. That's the facts. We all realize you want to protect Tucker Max's article from things you don't think belong, but you aren't going about it the right way. Please stop arguing tendentiously and disruptively, find some new pages to work on, nad get back to building the project. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Multiple editors should be refactored to multiple administrators. While you have a vested interest in Tucker Max, you need to realize that this discussion is in regards to a content dispute, not vandalism. If you have an issue with how rollback rights are removed, I suggest you take it up elsewhere, because your rollback rights will not be re-instated.. seicer | talk | contribs05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing Edit War at Greenwich Village between these 2 users:User:Mynameisstanley and User:Mafia Expert over whether or not Vincent Gigante lived in the village. I've reverted the last edit here: and I left a notice on the talk page here:. Both editors have violated WP:3RR already and there is no end in sight. Administrative supervision is required. Modernist (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please remove from Gigante from "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day"
First, it category is "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day"
Gigante went to prison in 1997 and died there.
Second, Gigante did not live in Greenwich Village.
His lawyers claimed he lived there and that he was insane.
Gigante later admitted in court that the whole thing was a scam.
Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Thanks for your comments. Before changing the article again, wait for other comments that might reflect a differing point of view. For what it's worth IMHO I don't agree with you. However please let others voice their views...Modernist (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave the user a note. I've deleted Spinner145's userpage, so that's now admin only. I don't think a block is merited at this time, as while it was a bit WP:POINTy, I think Alex was trying to communicate, however not in the most polite manner. Hersfold05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
DYK topic banned User:Wilhelmina Will asked if she can have someone else nominate an article for her.. She was told, "Yes, you can,
" by User:Abd who is also, apparently, advising her to do it via e-mail so she doesn't get caught. "Be careful." He is also, apparently, advising her that she can "create" sources for her articles. See User:Abd's talk page and talk page history and User:Wilhelmina Will's contribution history for the exchange.
A community topic ban was a small step, it seemed appropriate for the situation. However, the user is clear that she will not respect the ban, and is actively seeking and being advised on how to get around it.
The articles she has written, that she submitted to DYK with the full knowledge she did not understand the material she was using to write the articles, but simply hoped someone would correct the crap, still need corrected. There are some 30 of these articles, so she says, 3-4 of which have been partially corrected, all of which probably contain unusable crap.
Essentially, from the link above, this was her plan with the 30 articles:
"I am not afraid or humiliated to admit that I don't really understand the terms used in paleontological journals, which are the only sources I can find over the internet, most of the time, but I thought that the article could at least be left the way it was until it became a DYK article, and then the corrections could be made. I would even have helped, the best I could, to fix it up."
She used sources she admits she did not understand--it was clear she did not understand the sources or what she was writing from the articles she wrote and how she used the sources, as every line from a paleontological journal that she included, except for one, was wrong, when I checked a couple of her articles. This was about 20-30 lines of misinformation deliberately given to Misplaced Pages's readers. And another 30 articles at least sitting on Misplaced Pages just waiting for someone to correct them because Wilhelmina Will won't because she can't.
At this point, it is clear that this user, Wilhelmina Will, has no respect for Misplaced Pages policy or Misplaced Pages articles. She is here to submit content that will get her "Misplaced Pages awards," under any circumstances. I ask that she no longer be rewarded for crapping up Misplaced Pages. Also, if she cannot be trusted to even understand the conditions of her topic ban, there's no point in allowing her to continue to edit as badly as she has edited.
unlikely.--chaser - t 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Fully protected Due to more wholesale reverts, including that of one administrator, I have protected the page for two weeks. Take it to the talk page and find a compromise. seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Resolved – non-public information redacted & oversighted - Alison 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Done - Alison 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Unresolved – Both users instructed to leave one another alone
