Revision as of 13:16, 8 November 2008 editΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk | contribs)9,765 editsm →User:BalkanFever and User:Alex Makedon← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:28, 8 November 2008 edit undoAlex Makedon (talk | contribs)817 editsm →User:BalkanFever and User:Alex MakedonNext edit → | ||
Line 834: | Line 834: | ||
My few words on the matter: | My few words on the matter: | ||
*User ΚΕΚΡΩΨ |
*User ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has been stubbornly adding the Greek Language among the languages spoken in Macedonia in a total of 8 times up till now in the last few days. | ||
*Despite the fact that there is some pretty strong '''evidence''' that the language is '''not''' spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: '''European Council''' , '''United Nations''' , '''Britannica encyclopedia''' , '''BBC Educational''' , '''Eupedia''' , none of them mentiones the Greek language once in relation to the languages spoken in Macedonia. This has been backed up by many editors also. This user has continued to vandalize tha page. | *Despite the fact that there is some pretty strong '''evidence''' that the language is '''not''' spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: '''European Council''' , '''United Nations''' , '''Britannica encyclopedia''' , '''BBC Educational''' , '''Eupedia''' , none of them mentiones the Greek language once in relation to the languages spoken in Macedonia. This has been backed up by many editors also. This user has continued to vandalize tha page. | ||
*The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Whatever they ment is not clearly stated. | *The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Whatever they ment is not clearly stated. |
Revision as of 13:28, 8 November 2008
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- 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.
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)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
Disruptive school project?
I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.
If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.
I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about fixing the problem for good for the Win of all? A Wikiproject "School Projects" with good ways to proceed, sandboxes, curricula for secondary and college courses, and teacher guides? I mean, it would provide (a) a good frame in which school projects can be made good for the school and not disruptive, (b) encouragement for educators to perceive WP as a valuable resource and (c) training for future editors!
My training in education is minimal, but I'll give whatever help might be needed; I'm sure we can summon some enthusiasm and participation from educators for this. — Coren 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is such a project at Misplaced Pages:School and university projects, but it only works if instructors know about it and follow the suggestions. In this case, it looks like guidance about WP was lacking and students are unfamiliar with WP policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this is a course in media studies. Some of the hardest hit articles are Broadcasting. Social aspects of television, Telegraphy, Social determinism, and Technological determinism if anyone wants to do some clean-up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Might it be a good idea to leave a message on each of these students' talk pages asking them to get their instructor to look at WP:SUP? Better if he does that late than never. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hope jbmurray won't mind (especially as I don't think it's finished), but his essay at User:Jbmurray/Advice should be required reading for all educators who want to integrate Misplaced Pages into their teaching. EyeSerene 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Might it be a good idea to leave a message on each of these students' talk pages asking them to get their instructor to look at WP:SUP? Better if he does that late than never. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this is a course in media studies. Some of the hardest hit articles are Broadcasting. Social aspects of television, Telegraphy, Social determinism, and Technological determinism if anyone wants to do some clean-up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is such a project at Misplaced Pages:School and university projects, but it only works if instructors know about it and follow the suggestions. In this case, it looks like guidance about WP was lacking and students are unfamiliar with WP policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this project arguably even more disrruptive that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Global Economics from Marshall University, which was discussed at length on ANI in May. This one involves multiple inappropriate edits in multiple exisiting articles with intervening proper edits by others which makes reversion and clean-up very messy. Several of them edit war as well. At least the Marshall project had a central page and identified themselves so we could get in touch with them. This lot are all anonymous and there are now literally dozens of them. I've left messages on the talk pages of quite a few of them asking them to let their instructor know about this thread and Misplaced Pages:School and university projects. I don't know how effective it will be. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The exact same thing happened with what looks like the same university last year, with similar amounts of less than ideal editing: see here. The instructor was contacted last time, but it doesn't seem to have helped. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully they will see it and get in touch. If the disruption gets out of hand, I reluctantly suggest that the alternative is to start issuing temporary blocks until someone talks to us. I hate to paint Misplaced Pages as an unwelcoming place, but we can't forever be doing damage control for these school assignments. EyeSerene 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of what they've done seems to have been tidied up.The article Hacker ethic has been considerably expanded with, to my mind, too much detail and too many explanations and references. I think the previous version of 23 October is a better article, but rather than just revert, I have made a proposal to do so on the talk page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Identification
The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.
Looking at the history of internet activism reveals that this is a problem that has been extant for more than 1 year. Around October 2007, a whole load of users whose names all ended in "MAS 214" edited that article. There are are more at around the same time in the revision history of broadcasting. There are yet more at around the same time in the revision history of photography. There are so many, in fact, that I've had to refactor them out of this text and put them in a table. MAS 214 was another of Dr Meikle's courses.
It appears that Dr Meikle is anually setting xyr students a task of editing Misplaced Pages. You can even read the instructions that the students were given for choosing their account names at User:Wumas214. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It's just an assignment where we edit three wikipedia entries that are relevant to issues discussed in MAS229 (it could just be a few sentences per entry). All entries would be correct, as they are coming from sources approved by the MAS229 course (hopefully they have been cited as needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapleymas229 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm really uncomfortable listing all these accounts in a table on the main page of WP:ANI. Many of those names appear to consist of first and last names; putting them in a table listing the specific class they are taking at a specific university essentially "outs" people that may have an expectation of privacy here. I've removed the table; it may or may not be appropriate to put that table somewhere else, I'm not quite sure, but I request a discussion take place before it is re-added here. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- No trouble barneca, you're right to err on the side of caution. The table may be useful at some point, but it's probably best if it stays out of sight for now. The thought occurs that a discussion of privacy issues should have been part of these students' preparations for their assignment... EyeSerene 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I'm taking it that "G. Meikle" doesn't have a Misplaced Pages account? (Against rule one of my, yes, unfinished little essay.) Ugh. Will try to help out with this tomorrow; I'm simply too busy today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps no account, but one of his students did create an article for Graham Meikle. Perhaps if we delete it, we will get his attention. Just joking... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about an AfD? (Seriously - he doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF). JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- That (revised) table is really disheartening :( I think that unless we can get some productive communication going, we'll need to close this project down somehow while all those articles are reviewed. Perhaps first though we should allow some time for a response - Dr. Meikle, if you read this thread via Voceditenore's messages on your students' talk pages, could we please ask you to either post here or contact one of us via talk-page/email? EyeSerene 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Meikle alerting him to this discussion and the minor controversy around his students' editing. Avruch 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad I checked back here first - I just had that same thought and was looking up his email address. Thanks Avruch ;) EyeSerene 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone heard anything yet? Actually, looking at the first three articles, maybe Delicious carbuncle wasn't far off the mark. I'm not seeing anything there that meets WP:PROF... EyeSerene 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to find out who is now running this course. It must have some kind of instructor! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Failing that, I suggest an email to the head of department. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Update
I've heard back from Dr. Meikle. He no longer works for the university hosting this class (and has not for at least two years apparently). He cc'd my e-mail and his response to the course instructors for this year and last, so I will let you know when I hear from either of them. Avruch 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Meikle also requests the deletion of Graham Meikle. I'm willing to take the article to AfD in a day or two if the article does not get deleted as part of the resolution of the larger issue. Avruch 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, no issues here. I'm not sure how far we normally take subject requests for deletion when the subject is clearly notable, but I don't think that consideration applies here anyway. Btw JohnCD, I didn't see your earlier WP:PROF comment when I posted mine, so apologies for the unnecessary duplication (but we're obviously thinking on the same lines!) EyeSerene 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm good with an A7 deletion as well, but someone placed the tag earlier and it was removed shortly thereafter by a non-admin (I believe). I've posted a prod just in case you (barneca) decide not to delete it A7. Avruch 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not freaking out, but can we take this to AFD? Despite the subject's off-hand request, they do seem to be notable.I know this will seem pointy, but why don't we have a policy for subject-requested deletions? That's not a rhetorical question, but this isn't the thread for an answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing my request for AFD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a response is good news at least. If we can turn this around into a productive exercise, that would be great. However, I don't want to get too optimistic just yet. EyeSerene 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- He needs to get the University to fix its web site, then. Its 2008 course handbook (linked-to above) lists him explicitly as the staff contact for these courses, and he is still listed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Media staff listing (also linked-to above). Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- He noted that the university had not updated its website (which I can believe, looking at it). The signature on his e-mail states that he is a senior lecturer at the University of Stirling. Avruch 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- When people in the world at large are affected by actions resulting from one of its courses, it's not very helpful of Macquarie University to be publishing incorrect staff contact details. ☺ I've crossed off the relevant part of the table title. I've also asked for general editor assistance in the task of review. I'm sure, by the way, that I haven't listed all of the affected articles. I didn't find all of the accounts and what articles they had touched, and new students were still creating accounts yesterday. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- He noted that the university had not updated its website (which I can believe, looking at it). The signature on his e-mail states that he is a senior lecturer at the University of Stirling. Avruch 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a more general email address for the Media dept. at Macquarie University here. Probably worth a try. Their blurb says it's "Australia's Innovative University". Ahem... Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm engaged in an interesting e-mail conversation with Dr. Meikle, but I have not yet heard back from the current course instructor. Perhaps we have an Australian editor who can call? Avruch 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Storzandbickel
- Storzandbickel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing content without edit summary or discussion, despite three notices on hisTalk page: 1, 2, 3, 4. Radiopathy (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that he removed material that could violate WP:BLP or is at least rather controversial. Do you have sources for it? JodyB talk 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although edit summaries and responses to talk page comments would be nice, and would have prevented this misunderstanding, I agree with his removals of material for WP:BLP reasons. This wasn't vandalism, just an example of the complications that can arise when edit summaries aren't used. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is kind of mild in contrast to what you say here.Radiopathy (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The user continues to remove content (uncited or otherwize) in spite of being asked three times to provide edit summaries and has not responded to the templates nor to this discussion. Radiopathy (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident that username breaches our policies anyway, even if it is merely meant to hint that the user is a stoner. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Had to do a little Googling on that, I didn't get the reference at all. How out of touch does this make me, exactly? --barneca (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
When Storzandbickel was reported to AIV this morning, I declined to block because I thought this looked like a WP:BLP issue. Specifically, the deletions (, ) appeared to be remove un-sourced (and often poorly written) rumour that I was afraid could be viewed as being potentially libelous. However as BLP is not my forte, I suggested that the issue be brought here for review. Perhaps I am overly paranoid, but after getting burned once, I take BLP issues very seriously. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I added a tag to the disputed content, since it doesn't appear that it would be libelous if false. Hopefully this will satisfy the user, or else make it easier to justify a block. Radiopathy (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not good enough, apparently, as the user continues to vandalize the article. PLEASE BLOCK. Radiopathy (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the deletions in question appear to follow the official Misplaced Pages policy on Verifiability. Specifically,
“ | The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed ... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page | ” |
So long as the challenged sections remain un-cited to reliable, published sources, I do not see how these deletions can be accurately called vandalism. Factoring in the still un-resolved BLP concerns makes it extremely unlikely that any admin would be willing block the editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The key phrase here is, "...unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations." - emphasis added; the content in question does not appear to meet that criterion, therefore, the editor will provide a rationale for his removal of content, or his his edits will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Ragusino revert-warring
I've taken the liberty of bringing this back from the archive as it has received no admin attention. Thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I'll cut right to the chase: User:Ragusino has been stirring trouble for weeks now on several Dalmatia-related biographical articles on people or noble families from the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa , , . He has engaged in revert-warring to push his POV that's based primarily on the "fact" that he, as a supposed descendant of the noble Gondola family, possesses privilege to dictate (without any actual sources) that the articles in question must use exclusively the Italian mode of a family or person's name in the lead. In recognition of the dual culture of the Republic of Ragusa, these articles have been using both the Slavic and Italian names in the lead for a very long time. Now it would appear Ragusino has decided to try and achieve his goal by constant edit-warring, in the hope that his version will come out on top solely due to the relative obscurity of these articles. Frequently asked (by more than one editor) to try and restrain himself from reverting until discussions are finished, Ragusino did not feel the need to extensively discuss his edit-warmongering. I myself stopped reverting his POV-pushing and asked him to try and discuss with his version on top . As a consequence neither the User, or his associate User:Debona.michel (another supposed "descendant" of a noble family) found the talkpage to be of any interest after their version remained in place. In short, the nobility is restless and needs Admin attention. --DIREKTOR 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also Ragusino/Debona.michel has been removing Slavic names under the silly argument that they've not been used before the 19th century (where allegedly they were "invented" for the cause of reintegrating old nobility names into Pan-Slavic nationalist currents of the time), even though there are plenty of attestations of Bunić, Gundulić, Palmotić and other noble patronyms in works produced by 15th, 16th, 17th century writers (which can bee seen in e.g. Croatian Wikisource or facsimile editions of their works available in digitised Web editions).
- Also, Ragusino has been adding some Romance names as an alternative to Slavic names which I couldn't find anywhere (not in standard anotologies, nothing on the Web), which are presumbly his own "Italianicized" inventions, or which he copied from some old book which just lists it and does not mention whether it is a secondary Italianicization or those people actually used those names.
- Ragusino should either be forced to communicate and provide verifiable evidence to support his claims, or articles such as ] should be locked for further edit-warring to be prevented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Plus, I'd add to those concerns logging out and edit warring from your everchanging IP address. See Special:Contributions/190.21.73.216 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.13 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.150 and Special:Contributions/190.21.82.68 to name just a few.
Of additional, perhaps greater concern, is Ragusino's uploading of images with highly questionable licensing rationales. See, for example where he/she says its PD because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years, yet the family tree in question clearly has a latest date on it of 1956. There's with the same rationale. There's which was painted by Oreste da Molin (1856-1921) (see http://www.orestedamolin.org/opere/satira.php) with the same rationale. Same rationale for an obit notice of someone who died in 1930. There's , where the subject was born in 1893, same rationale. , same rationale. , clearly somebody's own photo with the digital camera details on the image page, same rationale. which has got www.crohis.com written on it, same rationale. Plus (no kidding) with the same rationale on a photo blatantly taken at 00:49, 17 October 2008. So a variety of images, some undoubtedly his own creations, others obviously not his own, with highly questionable use rationales. Moreover, the following images have got extremely dodgy rationales , . There are lots of these, so I'm afraid somebody needs to go through the list of all Ragusino's uploads. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- This is a diffuse and wide-ranging complaint. Consider opening a report about the image copyrights at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Editors at that noticeboard might advise you on how to nominate the bad images for deletion. The rest of your case seems to be one of long-term edit-warring. An WP:RFC on a particular article might be a way to get started on evidence for that. Find an article where you think the problem is especially blatant. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed. In fact today the edit warring has intensified, and as a result I have posted at 3RR/N. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Ragusino_reported_by_AlasdairGreen27_.28Result:_.29.
- I was unaware of this thread when I blocked pursuant to the report at WP:AN3. Either way Ragusino (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 31 hours. Tiptoety 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ragusino has chosen to pursue these edit wars while logged out in contravention of his block. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusino. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware of this thread when I blocked pursuant to the report at WP:AN3. Either way Ragusino (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 31 hours. Tiptoety 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Plus, I'd add to those concerns logging out and edit warring from your everchanging IP address. See Special:Contributions/190.21.73.216 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.13 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.150 and Special:Contributions/190.21.82.68 to name just a few.
User: Reqluce
Resolved – user warned and blocked, recurrence of behavior will lead to further blocks.--Crossmr (talk)An obvious britney hater who is putting every ounce of negatives info he can into Blackout but his comments on the revision summaris are very innapropriate, all can be seen here. I'm not for one minute suggesting that he can't put the negative info in the article but rather place it in the reception as negative. He's constantly removing info and insulting people on the history page as can be seen clearly. But really anyone with brains will know thatawards sections are for positive awards not 'Worst Album'. And, even more he accuses anyone of removing the info of vandalism as if he is a wiki veteran. I could revert his edits but he would no doubt edit war until blocked and would used sourced infor..removal is vandalism forever. Opinions would be much appreciated. thanks. Ogioh (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Leave Britney Alone? X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/Reqluce for a better picture. Warnings away! SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying he's needs a warning but going by the same Special:Contributions/Reqluce anyone would get a heavy impresion that Reqluce likes to think he owns a lot of articles. Ogioh (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, the edit summaries s/he has been using are not acceptable. So a civility reminder was needed. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying he's needs a warning but going by the same Special:Contributions/Reqluce anyone would get a heavy impresion that Reqluce likes to think he owns a lot of articles. Ogioh (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
All that is needed but its been going about wiki since my comp got rebooted, twinkles gone and i feel like a fish with wings. I don't know where to find those reminder templates now.Ogioh (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've warned Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If there's any recurrence, let me know (or post here) and a block is likely. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. They already received a final warning - removed here (check the edit summary for extra "irony"). Blocked 24 hours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Advice plz
I really feel I need some advice from more experienced admins now. Reqluce has blanked their Talk page here. Note the edit comment. WP:EVADE says that An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. I know this isn't block evasion, but this edit summary looks like a statement that the user will not stop using incivil and offensive edit summaries, and it is a continuation of blockable behaviour while blocked. On the other hand, users can be expected to want to "let off steam" when they are blocked, and are usually given a bit of leeway on their own Talk page. On the third hand, this isn't letting off steam, it's normal behaviour for this editor. It's hard to extend good faith to someone who posts an affronted/innocent query on your Talk page after they've received a final warning from another admin explaining the problem (and blanked it with an offensive summary).
My gut feeling is that I'm being trolled, so I need other admins' opinions. Reset the block? Ignore this? Protect the talk page? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are being trolled. Since there's nothing on his talk page now for him to remove, I'd just ignore it (DNFTT). But if he uses the same type of edit summary in article space upon block expiration, even once, just block indefinitely. Why waste our time with people like this? --barneca (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO's subpage: User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems
ChrisO (talk · contribs), an administrator who is heavily involved in some content disputes at Middle East-related articles, is maintaining a subpage in his userspace which seems to be violating the Misplaced Pages attack page policy, User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I attempted to remove the infringing sections, but he has simply kept putting them back, and has now used his admin tools to protect the page to prevent further "vandalism". He has now passed 3RR, is maintaining a policy-violating page in his userspace, is misusing his admin tools, and is accusing an admin trying to enforce policy, of performing vandalism. He also just threatened to block me. So if he's misusing his admin tools in this way, more admin eyes are definitely needed. --Elonka 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The block threat is extremely ill-advised. I'd like to see an explanation for the page, what he intends to use it for and how long he plans to keep it. The sort of thing that he should have explained on the page, probably. It doesn't need to be deleted or modified right now if it has an allowed purpose (prep for RfC, arb case, etc.). But its important to know. Avruch 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Given that User:Ariobarza is featured in most the entries in that table, and that Ariobarza was blocked for OR pushing, and got a warning immediately after his recent unblock, it's not unreasonable for ChrisO to keep track of articles that need fixing due to Ariobarza's actions. You could ask Chris to remove the editor's name so it won't look like a wall of shame, but keeping that list of problematic articles seems entirely reasonable. VG ☎ 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I apologise for the block threat - that was an error on my part, clearly. Put it down to momentary annoyance - ira brevis furor est.
- The page is the result of a survey of the contributions, principally, of Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Secthayrabe (talk · contribs). It was prompted by another editor's comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa, one of a series of AfDs on articles created by these two editors, several of which have been deleted as unsourced OR (I have nominated a couple for deletion myself). There are problems with a number of other related articles. The page exists as a set of notes on issues with some of the articles that I reviewed. It is absolutely not intended as an attack page, and I strongly reject any claim that it's meant for that purpose. I suggest that people have a look at the comments on User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I intend to go through the articles in more detail at the weekend to see whether they can be salvaged or need to be sent to AfD, but in the meantime it helps to focus discussion among involved editors. A couple of the articles listed have been sent to AfD by other editors whom I had invited to review these notes, and there are discussions ongoing about what to do with a couple of articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- What about when you protected the page twice, even as you were in a content dispute over it; was that just "an error on part" too? Jayjg 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- (added) The problems with Ariobarza's editing were the subject of earlier discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User:Ariobarza. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The page is the result of a survey of the contributions, principally, of Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Secthayrabe (talk · contribs). It was prompted by another editor's comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa, one of a series of AfDs on articles created by these two editors, several of which have been deleted as unsourced OR (I have nominated a couple for deletion myself). There are problems with a number of other related articles. The page exists as a set of notes on issues with some of the articles that I reviewed. It is absolutely not intended as an attack page, and I strongly reject any claim that it's meant for that purpose. I suggest that people have a look at the comments on User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I intend to go through the articles in more detail at the weekend to see whether they can be salvaged or need to be sent to AfD, but in the meantime it helps to focus discussion among involved editors. A couple of the articles listed have been sent to AfD by other editors whom I had invited to review these notes, and there are discussions ongoing about what to do with a couple of articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka's edits to that page appear to have been fairly ill-advised as well. Elonka, in your post here, you refer to rules over and over, yet I see nowhere you've indicated what the problem is. The page, at a casual glance, appears like an attempt to document actual problems that have occurred or are occurring. This doesn't make it an attack page. Why not just leave this alone? Friday (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The list of articles is not the problem. The issue involves personal attacks at other editors, such as referring to them as Iranian nationalists. Those were the sections I was trying to remove, and still feel should be removed, per WP:ATP and WP:NPA. --Elonka 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see no personal attack there at all. 1) The page does not actually call those users "Iranian nationalists" - it mentions that "Iranian nationalism" might be an issue, and then several sentences later mentions several users whose edits might be a problem. 2) How on earth is "Iranian nationalist" a personal attack? Karanacs (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't call editors Iranian nationalists. The page says "Iranian nationalism ... appears to be a common factor". That's not just my personal assessment of the situation. See for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar, as I noted on your talk page, you didn't remove or comment on that. And does 3RR really apply to user's subpages? And although it would be nice if we didn't have to, if we just ignore nationalism on Misplaced Pages that's going to hurt us in both the short and the long run. dougweller (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, 3RR doesn't apply to subpages in userspace. See the last bullet point in WP:3RR#Exceptions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar, as I noted on your talk page, you didn't remove or comment on that. And does 3RR really apply to user's subpages? And although it would be nice if we didn't have to, if we just ignore nationalism on Misplaced Pages that's going to hurt us in both the short and the long run. dougweller (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The list of articles is not the problem. The issue involves personal attacks at other editors, such as referring to them as Iranian nationalists. Those were the sections I was trying to remove, and still feel should be removed, per WP:ATP and WP:NPA. --Elonka 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Surely Elonka must be aware that other administrators are in agreement about these editors. User:JzG independently came to the same conclusion about the template for Kurdish literature created by one of these editors , etc. In view of this, it is quite hard to see why Elonka has adopted her present stance in this area, which seems to be outside her expertise. Might it be something personal? Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if anyone is doubting that Iranian nationalism is an issue here, I suggest you look at the user page of User:Babakexorramdin, one of the editors involved in these articles: "In the West I realised how large is the agression towards Iranian history and identity." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
To comment here, I was indirectly called an Iranian Nationalist by ChrisO or someone close to him. Yet I forgave him. I think the problem here as I have theorized that some users think Iranian history is fully covered, but neglected. I am niether for or against Iranian Nationalists, they have a right to celebrate their culture, but they are not entirely right, and neither is ChrisO in labeling people. I promised myself to edit Persian related articles from the way up, but because of disputes involving this admin, it has not helped me progress on other articles I want to edit, namely alternative history, animal related articles, and Roman-Greek military history. I do not want to see ChrisO be blocked for this, eventhough it was because of him as he made my ANI page, that I was blocked for two weeks. Because I agree with him that there is a lack of neutrality here, but he also needs to stop going back on his word.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- When I first saw this page yesterday, I was somewhat concerned by the "Editors of concern" section at the bottom. With this having been removed, I see nothing improper with ChrisO's page and consider it only a useful and suitable place for managing what appears to be widespread policy violations. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Quick question ... why does the phrase "editors of concern" cause you, erm ... concern? It's not a negative phrase, it generally merely identifies editors who may have input into a situation, not editors that someone would be "concerned" about. -t BMW c- 12:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Who thinks this list might be appropriate to add here? These are the real policy violations on purpose. (please click)Please read the message titled, "misconduct issues", it is note worthy, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Not that I can claim complete impartiality either, given the al-Durrah brouhaha this summer, but is any thought being given here to just why Elonka involved herself in this in the first place? That there is a rancorous history between these two administrations is patently obvious. Therefore, while there is no rule (that I am aware of anyways) that says that those with personal histories shouldn't act administratively against one another, one would imagine that an admin finding themselves confronted with such a situation would go to seek outside, uninvolved opinions instead of taking action themselves. Frankly, Elonka's actions seem to have been needlessly provocative. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad someone raised this issue. This seems to have come about as a result of Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), whose contributions at Battle of Opis have been problematic, complaining to Elonka on her talk page (User talk:Elonka#battle of Opis). Nepaheshgar seems to have coordinated this with Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), one of the parties in the al-Durrah brouhaha who was recently canvassed off-wiki to follow me to unrelated articles on ancient Mesopotamian history (see User talk:Tundrabuggy#Don't be intimidated). I raised the issue of Tundrabuggy's apparent wikistalking earlier, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy. I'm concerned that Elonka seems to be implicitly accepting a role of being the go-to person for any issues on which I'm involved, and I'm also concerned that Tundrabuggy seems to be playing a role in keeping the old al-Durrah feuds alive. I'm deeply frustrated that having gone to work on an unrelated area of Misplaced Pages - it's ancient history, an area in which I have academic qualifications, not "Middle East-related" as Elonka so misleadingly puts it - I'm seemingly being followed around by people involved in the al-Durrah dispute. I proposed to Elonka months ago that the two of us should mutually disengage. I did so; it's very disappointing that she hasn't reciprocated. I don't want to feud with anyone, least of all fellow administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What is provacative is ChrisO spends hours refutting what people say about Persian history, and to make things worse, he does not help research about it. He simply slaps deletion tags on articles, and convinces others that he/ she is right. I do not know why he spends a long time trying to create hostility, hindering the progress of articles, and contradicting what he preaches about neutrality, if you check the link of the message above, its clear I am not the first out of 5-6 that he has had disputes with, and appears he might have violated and broken some rules here and there.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- I'm not uninvolved per se, but my only involvement has been through the AfDs. Without continuing to the parsing of motives that this thread seems to have devolved into, can I ask what admin action is necessary? It appears none, as consensus seems to be that this page isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool used to track what ChrisO believes to be problematic edits and articles. Since it appears that no admin action is necessary or will be taken can we mark this as resolved? AniMate 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue. Also, I'm not seeing any consensus that the page "isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool..." Jayjg 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, it is a page in his user space, not the same thing as though it was in article space. And you also seem to have a long history of dispute with ChrisO. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Page protection in User space is for protection against vandalism, which ChrisO claimed it was, but which it clearly was not; please review WP:VANDAL. Also, please avoid Ad hominem arguments in the future. Thanks. Jayjg 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, it is a page in his user space, not the same thing as though it was in article space. And you also seem to have a long history of dispute with ChrisO. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue. Also, I'm not seeing any consensus that the page "isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool..." Jayjg 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If the page was only about Ariobarza's recent conduct, it would be fine IMO. But this is an attack page, meant to defame a variety of users (I see that I am apparently grouped together with all the other users who have been involved in a recent content dispute with ChrisO). This is part of his larger effort to paint a legitimate editing dispute as a policy issue. Chris has also canvassed dozens of editors to watchlist the page, essentially turning it into a vehicle for vote-stacking (), stalking, and defaming other users. Many of the people involved in this discussion were canvassed earlier as well (, , , , , , , , and a dozen more). Khoikhoi 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Folks. The page is one day old. We generally allow editors some leeway to assemble material for dispute resolution in their userspaces. This is presumably intended to form the possible nucleus of a request for comment or other means of dispute resolution. If the page hangs around and ChrisO does not pursue some formal means of dispute resolution in the next week or two, then yes, it should be deleted as we don't keep enemies lists lying around in userspace. But again: the page is one day old. Everyone take a deep breath. If there are issues of canvassing or votestacking involving ChrisO, then they should be pursued appropriately, but lumping them on to this already over-personalized and rambling thread isn't the way to go. MastCell 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, to clarify for the nth time:
- This is not an attack page. It's a personal review of a number of problematic articles, which I'm working through systematically to fix or send to AfD. It was created in response to Nickhh's suggestion for "a systematic look through all related articles" (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa).
- This is not an enemies list. Yes, a number of editors are listed (including myself, Cplakidas, Crusio and Dougweller, who I certainly don't regard as enemies) but this is simply to identify who the principal involved editors are. It doesn't imply wrongdoing of any sort.
- No votestacking has occurred. A number of articles by Ariobarza and Secthayrabe have already been sent to AfD and there will probably be more deletion nominations to come. I contacted the editors involved on both sides of the AfDs, posted friendly notices about the issues that I had found and requested their feedback. (See e.g. ).
- Deletion is not appropriate at this stage. This is a working page, intended for the use of myself and other editors, to work through these issues systematically, fix the problems that have been identified with these articles, track progress and add or remove articles as needed. That will certainly take longer than a week! Dispute resolution is only part of the picture; the page is being used as a collaborative tool, not as a platform for an RfC or some other form of DR. An RfC or two might end up being necessary but that's not the main purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, to clarify for the nth time:
- Just so everyone knows, I agree with you ChrisO, that the page should not be deleted. BUT, it should be updated, because some of the faults you say about certain articles, I have fixed them. If you do not update the page where you tell the viewer that I FIXED some of the issues about certain articles. Then you are being misleading to the viewer of the page. Respond on my page, and I will provide you with a list of FIXES that I made to the articles you have in question. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- It sure feels like an
attack page, blacklist, enemies listto me, as an "Editor to Watch." I have edited only one of these pages, that being the Battle of Opis, and I made a full four edits. I would appreciate contributors on this section to look at these four edits and asking themselves what exactly it is that makes my edits problematic? {Added balance & referenceput the disputed tag back on since there was not consensus to remove it scratched some vagueries . } If you see nothing wrong with the edits themselves, then ask yourselves why my name is/was on that list (that got circulated to how many editors and admins giving the impression that we were all 'problem editors'?) Oops! I see it has been expanded since I last looked at it. Other articles have been included for which I am supposedly a problem. Other presumably non-problematic editors have been added to help the appearance. The line shifts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)- As has been said before, TB had no prior interest/expertise in this topic and seems to have followed ChrisO there, with the encouragement of an unnamed administrator. Nepaheshgar recently left a message on TB's talk page in which he refers to writers condemned to Iranian nationalism by the "enlightened" unbiased euro-centeric hysterians(I mean historian) who are promoting Nabonidus.
- It sure feels like an
- Just so everyone knows, I agree with you ChrisO, that the page should not be deleted. BUT, it should be updated, because some of the faults you say about certain articles, I have fixed them. If you do not update the page where you tell the viewer that I FIXED some of the issues about certain articles. Then you are being misleading to the viewer of the page. Respond on my page, and I will provide you with a list of FIXES that I made to the articles you have in question. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- Perhaps Jehochman will at some stage elaborate on the precise terms of Arioborza's unblock (discussed in private emails). Was he not to have had a mentor? At some stage he was advised to develop articles in his user space, to learn how to source them properly and avoid the problems of original research, which is what this is all about. Currently he does not seem to be doing this and is proceeding as before (mistaking deletion discussions for speedy deletes, making this kind of tendentious comment , etc). Who is his mentor? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The person who was hopefully going to be his mentor turned him (or her, Tundrabuggy calls Ariobarza her) down. Jehochman unblocked because of good faith and emails.
- As for attack pages, again, how about the section misconduct issues on Talk:Battle of Opis and the one 'pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" at the discussion page of ChrisO's user page that some people are so upset about? These actions by User:Nepaheshgar are clearly using discussion pages to make personal attacks directed at a specific editor. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- As various editors have noted, Ariobarza remains clueless in providing sources. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- As for attack pages, again, how about the section misconduct issues on Talk:Battle of Opis and the one 'pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" at the discussion page of ChrisO's user page that some people are so upset about? These actions by User:Nepaheshgar are clearly using discussion pages to make personal attacks directed at a specific editor. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ariobarza seems to have worked on that article nine months ago, Mathsci. Let's not use that against them. Ariobarza, please do as we discussed: 1/ avoid conflicts; nothing good comes from arguing with other editors, 2/ create new content in your own userspace, 3/ seek help from friendly, experienced Wikipedians to make sure your work is up to standards, 4/ don't worry if anything gets deleted because I can provide a copy to you. Perhaps Khoikhoi would be willing to help as well. Jehochman 07:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jonathan, probably you missed this very recent diff, concerning sourcing for Siege of Doriskos. (Previous edits to the article seem irrelevant.) In line with the agreed conditions you have mentioned, somebody should explain again, possibly in private, wikipedia policy on WP:V, WP:RS, etc. I have no doubt that you have done this at length yourself. Let me point out again what Ariobarza did today for producing a source for the article: he/she made a search on google books for "siege" and "Dorisko" and found a whole bunch of entries. However a search for the single term "siege of Doriskos" on google books or scholar produces nothing at all. This seems to be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ariobarza seems to have worked on that article nine months ago, Mathsci. Let's not use that against them. Ariobarza, please do as we discussed: 1/ avoid conflicts; nothing good comes from arguing with other editors, 2/ create new content in your own userspace, 3/ seek help from friendly, experienced Wikipedians to make sure your work is up to standards, 4/ don't worry if anything gets deleted because I can provide a copy to you. Perhaps Khoikhoi would be willing to help as well. Jehochman 07:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(I fully understand what you say Jehochman, but I just want to make one last thing clear)
- Mathsci, if there are problems, just explain them with kindness and show that you want to help, rather than get somebody banned. Jehochman 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There was never a question of banning! To keep our discussions calm and friendly, I have replied to you and Ariobarza elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mathsci, if there are problems, just explain them with kindness and show that you want to help, rather than get somebody banned. Jehochman 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh please... Mathsci I advise you not to make this issue about me (nothing good comes from argueing with editors). Everything I said on this page is true and you know it (mainly the deeds of ChrisO, and how multiple users are thinking of making an ANI page for him, because of his conduct). Do you want me to talk about that harrasment matter you had?.. I think not. As for my mentor, I already got one, and I am editing in my drafts and sandboxes, so do not tell me what to do now. I have trouble editing, because I have to waist my time cleaning up the missess you people have created, what users are saying the AFD pages, which are illegimate POV tags. I am constantly working out issues with editors currently, making friends, and solving problems. So your the last person I want to worry about. I provided sources, I think your remaining clueless (you called me clueless), please go back to editing math articles. And do not find excuses to involve yourself here. This page is about ChrisO's recent article, and some of his edits. It is not a page to get me banned (Ariobarza has good faith). Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- With respect, the page concerns the poor/absent sourcing of a circle of related articles in ancient history. Do you accept now that nobody has so far been able to locate any sources for Siege of Doriskos, one of the articles listed on the subpage? Please don't turn this into a personal attack on ChrisO. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ariobarza, please don't discuss content disputes on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please go to WP:ADOPT and find somebody to help you learn about proper sources. Other editors, there is always a need for experienced mentors at WP:ADOPT. Please help. Jehochman 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to state my opinion: ChrisO's notes are ChrisO's notes, it is good for transparency that he chooses to keep them on-Wiki, and there should be a high bar on calling such notes out as "attack pages". No action needed. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Same. There are real problems on these pages - several of them have been created on the whim of individual editors, and then stuffed full of information that appears to have been more or less made up. WP needs more coordinated analysis of problem areas (which is what Chris' page involves), not less. The good articles will survive that, and should even be improved as a result. I agree that we need to be careful about it being seen as some sort of attack page, but equally where the same editors' names crop up again and again, that helps clarify what the problem is and where other problems might be found. When I last looked, Chris had removed the dedicated list of editors, and only kept fairly bland references to them within the article sections (which of course simply summarises info already available from the article history). If you edit here, what you do will be scrutinised, and rightly so. Each time I see it happening I'm becoming less surprised by the comments of those who seem more bothered by i) supposed form/process, ii) spotting even the merest hint of what might possibly be perceived as a slight personal attack, and iii) their own apparently personal issues with Chris, rather than the accuracy, quality and neutrality of content in Misplaced Pages. As most people surely know, there's an awful lot of cr#p on here and any effort to deal with that should be applauded. --Nickhh (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you find it funny that the same users (that are with ChrisO) pop up in the deletions pages saying things like Delete-per nom,sign. They never explain why it should be deleted, and when evidence is presented they still deleted (they make excuses like the information is not enough for a single article, it should be deleted, ignoring other articles and coming after Persian related articles, why?). Is this the new revionist strict in denial policy of these users. If this is the case, it should be stopped, or I THEORIZE other users might be compelled, on the opposing side, to make an ANI for some of them (do not worry, I will never make an ANI page for someone, I am not that evil) I have hope in good faith. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- The only impropriety I can see is what Avruch noted in confirmation of Elonka's remark re ChrisO's block-threat. That exasperated ira has now been apologized for, and the irate threat removed. The fact remains that two editors who appear to many to push fringe theories, have been supported by Elonka against ChrisO on two separate areas, on formal issues. Since Elonka and Chris0 have conflictual relations, it is not advisable for the former to intervene on secondary pages where ChrisO has issues of contention with one editor who followed him there, on an anonymous administrator's suggestion, and with another who doesn't, by all accounts, understand WP:RS, WP:SYNTH etc. Elonka is a formalist, ChrisO a content-editor. Successive interventions by Elonka here only reflect a structural tension in wiki between the application of etiquette protocols to ensure civil editing, and the application of protocols to ensure that quality sources inform content designed to produce articles that are written to the highest standards of specialist research. This battle cannot be waged endlessly between the two, and therefore neither should meddle in their disputes with third parties. For to do so, lends an air of persecution, vendetta, settling scores, etc., a suspicion that will only increase if this interaction persists, and lead to the usual partisan line-up, the same debates, and the same subtextual animosity. Since ChrisO moved on from the Mohammad al-Durrah article which was the origin of their clash, removing himself from the original site of their differences, and Elonka moved after him, as did Tundrabuggy to these Persian pages, it appears to me that this latter move was intrinsically and forseeably not conducive to the very neutrality and etiquette Elonka herself insists on as a priority. A completely neutral administrator or two, with no history of conflict with ChrisO, should be appealed to by those who disagree with his edits on the Persian pages, or his use of administrative tools there.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
comment This comment is to Doug Welter. Doug States:You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar. That is not true and please do not twist the statement. This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each otherup even it means twisting statement. I did not call ChrisO a liar. I said: "pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" which is stating an opinion on his opinion about me (his opinion is in violation of WP:ATP, specially when he started that page, he had targed 6-7 editors. Please note ChrisO even accused me of edit warring, which is a lie. I hardly edited those pages. If anyone was edit warring, it was ChrisO who is an admin and yet broke 3rr on that page. Possibly, I broke 1rr but not even 2rr. Stating an opinion on an opinion is fine in Misplaced Pages. Please read WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Personal Attacks are not fine, but that was comment on content. Of course ChrisO has constantly called anyone who disagrees with him as an "Iranian nationalist". For example I have listed some Iranian nationalists here starting from Plato, Herodotus, Xenophon and etc to modern Western scholars:. Trying to change the topic now will not work and change focus. How about this comment by ChrisO with regards to me: . Please note his threats and intidimation. The whole comment violates many rules of Misplaced Pages. " Carrot first before stick?" shows complete arrogance (due to administrator power) and WP:OWN mentality and I even believe that is how ChrisO feels about who disagree with him and are not fromt he same area. Or how about this: "could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback". This is a threat for permanent banning and it is intidimation. All this, due to a content dispute (and I hardly edit any of these articles before discussing them and I have never reverted in any of these articles or broken 3rr like ChrisO). As per the issue of the Kurdish literature template, I have no doubt it is related. Incidentally if I was an “Iranian nationalists”, I would not create a Kurdish literature template. I have already mentioned templates which include: and have existed for some years now. Why were those not put to deletion after two-three years? So what I have done is create a parallel Kurdish Literature template when I saw Urdu, Turkish, Persian and etc. templates that have existed for some years. If there is a Turkish literature template, Urdu literature template,..etc., why not Kurdish literature template. If I was an "Iranian nationalist", I would have just let there be a Persian literature template and then redirected Iranian Literature to Persian literature instead of making that page a dab page. As per ChrisO being knowledegable in the classics, when it comes to ancient Persia, I also have a knowledge of Old Persian language as well as have read many history books and articles. So that does not give an execuse to misue administrator power. ChrisO has abused his administrator power to intimidate other editors and has violated WP:ATPWP:NPAWP:3RR numerous times. When he disagrees with them, he labels them instead of concentrating on content and this leads to an atmosphere of intidimation(of course since he is an admin and he knows the other side knows he is an admin, this makes the threat credible). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since when is saying that someone has told a lie not the same as calling them a liar? You write " This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each otherup even it means twisting statement." Now what are you accusing me of? What does 'working behind the scenes' mean? You've called Chris a liar, you seem to have accused me of something, and you keep harping on Chris breaking 3RR which he admitted he had done -- it happens, and he was unblocked by the Admin who blocked him. As for things not being put to deletion when they should have been, there must be thousands upon thousands of articles, templates, etc which should be deleted but no one has noticed them or gotten around to doing something about them. As for attack pages, you have tried to turn at least two user pages into attack pages. dougweller (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are trying to change the subject. I commented on content and not the person which is common to Misplaced Pages rule. ChrisO had made the comment here: . He explicitly states: Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs). Very similar problems as with Ariobarza. Has edit-warred, pervasively pushes OR with regard to Battle of Opis in particular. . Now this is what I have called a pure lie. Now if you are connecting this to labeling ChrisO as liar, then that is your issue, but I have not called him a liar. Rather per wikipedia rules: WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor., I have commented on the content on his page and I called that sentence/label a lie. Because unlike ChrisO, I have not edit warred on the topic or broken 3rr. Neither unlike ChrisO, I have intidimated users and threatened to ban them or treat them as inferior animals(carrots or sticks comment) or have canvessed 40 users to my talkpage and then defamed 6-7 users: and then used my administrator power to lock the article which defames individuals. I hope that clears things up. As per the Kurdish Literature template, it was the tone of nominator which was the problem. Note the nominator said: This navbox appears to have been created by a tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. The template relies on a nationalistic definition. Most of the entries are not linked. . ChrisO then puts "per nom". The reason for deletion should be given without labeling the editor. And the template had no agenda. The template follows regular patterns in other Misplaced Pages templates that have existed for many years (Urdu, Turkish, Persian literature templates..) and there was no agenda by a tendentious editor following a nationalistic definition! Now if those other templates that have existed many years are inappropriate, then reason should be given rather than labeling editors as the nominator did. As per bias, I'll leave it to other editors.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You could have said ChrisO's statement was wrong, and that would have been ok. Saying it was a lie is calling him a liar, and to deny that is just ridiculous because it is a direct comment on the contributor. What he locked was his userpage, not an article, I am sure you know the difference. You are conflating all sorts of things in an attempt to do what looks like harassment of ChrisO, eg your continued mention of 3RR when you know it was once, he admitted he'd done it inadvertently, and the blocking Admin (Elonka in fact) unblocked him. I disagree that you haven't edit warred. I don't recall any ban threats (predictions maybe, but that is very different). And I don't see intimidation either, although ChrisO - and you and others -- have some very strong feelings on various issues which he, you and others have expressed. dougweller (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lets not get into semantics. If statement is wrong, then it is a lie. It could be an intentional or non-intentional lie, but it is a lie. One definition of lie in my dictionary is:an inaccurate or false statement. Now, if somethings falls under a label "editors of concern", the word "lie" is appropriate since it is an inaccurate satement! Per Misplaced Pages rules, you can make comments on content but not label editors. You brought this matter up, but as you noticed, it does not go against any Misplaced Pages rule since I am commenting on content. As per 3rr and ChrisO, it occured twice, not once. Breaking 3rr twice is edit warring, specially in the same topic. But one revert is not edit warring. So ChrisO has called my editing pattern for that article as "edit warring"(which is a lie: false/inaccurate satement) where-as he broke 3rr twice on the same article. He was blocked once, but then he did it again, I was about to file a report, but I withdrew (out of good faith). So I did not continue it. And it was right after he broke a 3rr before. As per me edit warring on battle of Opis, no I did not edit war. Predicting banning and then putting my name constantly next to a banned user, is intrepreted as a ban threat. Grouping different users and putting my name next to a banned user is an intidimation tactic. Also "Carrot and Stick" is intidimating comment as well as arrogant. I am sure you would not like such comments applied to you. There is no need for me to repeat myself and I think I was clear. If you disagree fine.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You could have said ChrisO's statement was wrong, and that would have been ok. Saying it was a lie is calling him a liar, and to deny that is just ridiculous because it is a direct comment on the contributor. What he locked was his userpage, not an article, I am sure you know the difference. You are conflating all sorts of things in an attempt to do what looks like harassment of ChrisO, eg your continued mention of 3RR when you know it was once, he admitted he'd done it inadvertently, and the blocking Admin (Elonka in fact) unblocked him. I disagree that you haven't edit warred. I don't recall any ban threats (predictions maybe, but that is very different). And I don't see intimidation either, although ChrisO - and you and others -- have some very strong feelings on various issues which he, you and others have expressed. dougweller (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that such pages as ChrisO's are highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, definitely not appropriate for an administrator to have (who is supposed to appear neutral as an administrator), reflects POV and possible SOAP problems, and violates many editorial ethical concerns. I think, at the very minimum, such pages should be immediately deleted and the user warned against creating such thing in the future. They are not compatible with consensus, civility, or any of Misplaced Pages's policies. Misplaced Pages is about working together, finding unity in which all people can be agreed upon, and not the place for one person who has "truth" to pass blank judgment on all others without actually getting into discussions, focusing on specific events, wording, phrasing, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly gentlemen, this is getting farcical beyond forebearance. I've lost my cool just having to waste an hour checking stuff. I've examined this editor because I note Jehochman now is expressing frustration at what he now perceives to be Chris0's irascible behaviour, and I take Jehochman's judgement seriously. This repeated requirement that etiquette prevail over quality, that minding your p's and q's with whoever is far more important than having specialized editors formally prepared in their subjects, is absurd. I can now see why Chris0 reacted as he did. One look at Nepaheshgar's page, and he'd have known, as I do now, that editing rationally with him is going to be extremely difficult, because that page is a compost heap of badly sourced, poorly translated or wrongly sourced material. Yet wiki requires one to be exquisitely polite, even if one's interlocutor is off the planet (to use an hyperbole, and not applicable to the present case, where we merely have someone who has no knowledge of what constitutes reliable sourcing).
- Nepaheshgar's page on classical sources bearing on Cyrus would tell anyone that editing with him is going to be tortuous, because that page is a crazy-quilt of irrelevancies that attest to his lack of grasp of many things, how to source, whom to source, how to distinguish old, dated sources from modern ones, how to discard a dud source from a reliable one, how to check if the source itself quotes the text correctly or merely paraphrases it, how to know who is an authority and who not etc.,etc. It is a nightmare.
- He quotes Plato's Laws 693D-698 for the following remark:-
Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community
- He quotes Plato's Laws 693D-698 for the following remark:-
- A glance will tell you this cannot be so, because Laws 693D-698 is not a ref to a passage, but refers to 7 long pages of the original Greek text (Burnet, Platonis Opera, Tome V, pp.102-109)
- So I've had to read the whole blasted section again, in Greek just to be sure, just to see what's going on, and am forced to conclude it is a paraphrase, deeply misleading at that, of a small section of Plato (giving an 'Athenian's perspective' not necessarily Plato's) by someone else, not a quote from Plato, namely Sect 694a-b. There however the Persians do not 'liberate themselves'. They lived a live combining a measure of liberty and slavery, etc.etc. It is a paraphrase not a quote, as Nepashegar would have it.
- He cites a 'poem' (actually a drama) by Aeschylus, for Greek attitudes to Cyrus, and the text given is
'Her brave hosts A Mede first led. The virtue of his son Fixed firm the empire, for his temperate soul Breathed Prudence. Cyrus next, by fortune graced, Adorned the throne, and blessed his graceful friends With peace: he to his mighty monarchy Joined Lydia, and the Phyrgians; to his power Ionia bent reluctant; but gods with victory his gentle virtues crowned
- He cites a 'poem' (actually a drama) by Aeschylus, for Greek attitudes to Cyrus, and the text given is
- Where's it come from. One looks at the source. Richard Simpson, Notes and extracts in illustration of A slight sketch of universal history. Oxford University, 1875
- Never heard of Simpson. No page number given. Outdated 19th century obscure sourcing again. The flowery verse resists any quick identification of their origin in the actual greek text. It is standard practice to quote recent translations, that are not 'poetic' but accurate, preferably with a modern secondary source, in this case, Edith Hall's, 'Aeschylus:Persians' Aris & Phillips, Warminster,, 1996. For the record, the verses alluded to are lines 765-773. The translation is inaccurate. The original stresses Ionian Greek resistance to Cyrus's use of force Secondly, the Chorus is singing as a Persian chorus to Darius. Aeschylus here is imagining what Persians would say of Cyrus, not what Greeks thought necessarily. Hall has also written an extensive and ground-breaking study, Inventing the Barbarian:Greek Self-Definitions through Tragedy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1989, which has a whole chapter (ch.2 pp.56-100) analysing the way Persia is depicted in classical Greek theatre. These are the kinds of sources to use if one cites a play like The Persians', not some vague unnotable book published 130 years ago.
- What on earth is the father of modern European racism, Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, who wrote his foundational tract on 'races' ('Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines')back in the 1850s, doing being cited here, as though the republication date 1971 indicated he was 'the late' Comte de Gobineau? Do we say, 'the late Karl Marx', 'the late Charles Dickens'. Obviously Nepaheshgar does not realize who Gobineau was, nor that his various books on Persia document his theory of races rather than the history of Persia, whose major documents were hardly yet in the purview of scholars, nor the ancient material since unearthed. His Histoire des Perses is defined by his most recent editor Jean Gaulmier, as 'ce livre bizarre' (Gobineau.Oeuvres,, vol.1 ed.Jean Gaulmier, Bibliothéque de la Pléiade, nrf, Paris, 1983 p.lvi)
- He quotes Max Von Mallowan. I didn't know that Agatha Christie's husband had a German title. After all his father was just an Austrian migrant to England, and the highest rank he got was a CBE. Still, he's okay, if rather dated.
- He quotes Will Durant, a widely read popularizer of good standing some 70 odd years ago. No direct knowledge of the area.
- He quotes Arthur Cotterell. Another popularizer, writing general middle brow books on everything from the Celts to China. No direct knowledge of the subject.
- Why is everyone frigging about with the rule book? Ask any editor with a background in ancient history, qualified at university level, and if he doesn't confirm one's impression that people who prepare material in this holus-bolus topsyv-turvy antiquarian medley way are not going to be easy to edit with, then I'll be a canadian monkey's uncle.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That page is a work in progress. But you are wrong. a) Cuyler young for example is an Achaemenid scholar. 2) I am about to add Richard Frye. 3) Max Mallowan Achaemenid scholar, wrote specific article on Cyrus the Great in a very prestigious book. How come you did not comment on those? 4) As per Plato, it is straight from an academic book without any deletions or additions and very recent: . So wrong again. Aeschylus here it is:. If you have a more recent translation that is fine. 5) Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau is quoted because he had racist statements against Iranians and typfies typical euro-centric scholars. So he could not be "Iranian nationalist". And the issue was that ChrisO was calling anyone that believes in such sources as an "Iranian nationalist" influenced by the "Shahs" propoganda. 6) Again it is a work in progress, but note I do not label or name any particular editor. And if it is a matter of specialization, I mentioned one person Kuhrt who has no papers in Akkadian studies and is considered a revisionist by some specialists, yet that source was given undo weight. 7) Max Mallowan, 'Cyrus the Great' in: Ilya Gershevitch (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, 1985 Cambridge, pages 392-419. Very specialized source from 1985 used by many academics and the topic is specific to Cyrus the Great where-as many of the articles listed by ChrisO are not specific to Cyrus the Great. For example Simon Sherwin and his book on the old testament is not devoted to Cyrus the Great. Or on battle of Opis, I was talking about very specialized sourced that is focused to the topic from a linguistic expert. 8) Again if you have content dispute, then get involved in the content dispute, try RFC and etc. Labeling people as "Iranian nationalists" and etc. and then defaming them on your userpage and canvessing 40 or so people to look at the defamation does not produce a conducive atmosphere in fixing these articles. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with Ottava Rima's 16:48 statement above, that the page at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems is troublesome. Ottava also brings up an excellent point, that especially as ChrisO is an administrator, it is important that he set a positive example of behavior in how he treats other editors. The page as it currently stands, reflects negatively on both ChrisO, and on Misplaced Pages. It might be best if ChrisO were to voluntarily remove anything from the page which makes comments about contributors as opposed to content. If he is unwilling to do this, then the page should be deleted. --Elonka 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, could you please clarify why you think this reflects negatively on ChrisO and on Misplaced Pages? How, for example, is this list different than the one at Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#List_of_articles_for_review? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because that list focuses on content and not the contributor. It's also worth pointing out that that particular contributor was the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and was completely banned from the topic area for a year. The problem with ChrisO's subpage is not the list of articles. Having a list of articles that need cleanup is absolutely okay. The problem with ChrisO's subpage, is that it is also being used to snipe at other contributors. If he removes the personal attacks, the page is fine. --Elonka 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the problems appear to be with contributors not adhering to Misplaced Pages policy, and ChrisO is attempting to get a handle on it with this collection of information on a sub-page. Obviously you two have a different approach to conflict resolution. But really, given your past history, wouldn't it be best if you recuse yourself from this matter and let other non-involved admins handle it? Tarc (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, despite the repeated accusations here, there is no past history. All of my actions regarding ChrisO (pro and con) have been as an administrator. But I have no bias one way or the other regarding the article content. See WP:UNINVOLVED. --Elonka 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- "No past history"; all my issues with ChrisO have been "as an administrator". Bullshit especial, by any definition. --Nickhh (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, despite the repeated accusations here, there is no past history. All of my actions regarding ChrisO (pro and con) have been as an administrator. But I have no bias one way or the other regarding the article content. See WP:UNINVOLVED. --Elonka 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the problems appear to be with contributors not adhering to Misplaced Pages policy, and ChrisO is attempting to get a handle on it with this collection of information on a sub-page. Obviously you two have a different approach to conflict resolution. But really, given your past history, wouldn't it be best if you recuse yourself from this matter and let other non-involved admins handle it? Tarc (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because that list focuses on content and not the contributor. It's also worth pointing out that that particular contributor was the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and was completely banned from the topic area for a year. The problem with ChrisO's subpage is not the list of articles. Having a list of articles that need cleanup is absolutely okay. The problem with ChrisO's subpage, is that it is also being used to snipe at other contributors. If he removes the personal attacks, the page is fine. --Elonka 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, could you please clarify why you think this reflects negatively on ChrisO and on Misplaced Pages? How, for example, is this list different than the one at Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#List_of_articles_for_review? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There's clearly a problem in this topic area; as Nishidani has indicated, part of the problem is that we have some editors who are quite enthusiastic about ancient Persian history, but who do not have a strong grasp of how to handle sources and how to do historical research. Their editing is reducing the quality of the encyclopedia. Since the problem isn't limited to one article, keeping a list of the problematic articles is a pretty good idea; hopefully, the existence of such a list will make it easier for more editors (not just ChrisO) to participate in the cleanup process. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, Elonka's ruling is that, in a sophomore class on ancient history full of polite bright enthusiasts, which however has one classicist, you need a third party to monitor the latter's attitude, because he may occasionally express impatience at the constant interruptions caused by kids who haven't yet learnt the languages, know nothing of the subject except what they grub up by googling randomly, as days, weeks and moneths 'which are the rags of time' flow by with nothing done, and no progress made. The guardian monitor must follow him or her from class to class. It reminds me of 1968, in its Red Guards (1966) aspect (this from a Marxist like myself). All those wild students crowding in, accusing their teachers of bad attitudes. It caused Theodor Adorno to have a heart attack, and Maruyama Masao to retire in ill-health, both doyens of their fields. None of the students knew anything, but they were experts in attitude. Chris, if this finangling over p's and q's persists, drop out, mate. Unless this pettifogging etiquette mania desists from its incapacity to thresh the wheat from the chaff, it ain't worth the candle to work here. I'm fucked if I can tolerate it. I'm going on strike. No need to ban me. I'll do it myself. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please mind civility and do not use inappropriate terms. Argue based on content.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And here is where you are precisely wrong, Nepaheshgar. This particular page is dedicated to the discussion of editor behaviour, not article content. Behaviour includes such things as properly quoting sources, providing reference sources on request, and determining consensus. Consensus amongst 6 of 8 editors that the moon is made of green cheese, based on children's storybooks, does not trump the other 2 editors who use peer-reviewed sources published by university presses. Content is discussed on article talk pages, in mediation, on WP:RSN, not here. We are focusing on behaviour here. Risker (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure if you have read everything here, since this is about behaviour. I did not concentrate on content but on actual mislabeling of editors and their defamation. Yes we need to dispute content, use RfC, follow WP:OR and WP:Synthesis and etc. But ChrisO has been having problems with 6 or so editors within one month and has used many labels for these editors and violate 3rr and etc. Again I think it is simply best to forget this whole episode and concentrate on content in articles. But it is very important not too label editors whom we disagree with and not use comments such as "carrots or stick" and etc. for them. Then the whole atmosphere is ruined. So let us follow civility rules and not label editors, but work on content and use RfC and etc. Threats and intidimation and etc. should be stopped. The main goal of editors in Misplaced Pages is to create an Encyclopedia that is reliable, so lets work on that goal rather than labeling editors or choosing sides/making groups. I have always tried to be civil and polite and I do not appreciate comments like "Carrots before sticks" or "has edit warred"(when I hardly edited that specific topic) and etc. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And here is where you are precisely wrong, Nepaheshgar. This particular page is dedicated to the discussion of editor behaviour, not article content. Behaviour includes such things as properly quoting sources, providing reference sources on request, and determining consensus. Consensus amongst 6 of 8 editors that the moon is made of green cheese, based on children's storybooks, does not trump the other 2 editors who use peer-reviewed sources published by university presses. Content is discussed on article talk pages, in mediation, on WP:RSN, not here. We are focusing on behaviour here. Risker (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please mind civility and do not use inappropriate terms. Argue based on content.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, Elonka's ruling is that, in a sophomore class on ancient history full of polite bright enthusiasts, which however has one classicist, you need a third party to monitor the latter's attitude, because he may occasionally express impatience at the constant interruptions caused by kids who haven't yet learnt the languages, know nothing of the subject except what they grub up by googling randomly, as days, weeks and moneths 'which are the rags of time' flow by with nothing done, and no progress made. The guardian monitor must follow him or her from class to class. It reminds me of 1968, in its Red Guards (1966) aspect (this from a Marxist like myself). All those wild students crowding in, accusing their teachers of bad attitudes. It caused Theodor Adorno to have a heart attack, and Maruyama Masao to retire in ill-health, both doyens of their fields. None of the students knew anything, but they were experts in attitude. Chris, if this finangling over p's and q's persists, drop out, mate. Unless this pettifogging etiquette mania desists from its incapacity to thresh the wheat from the chaff, it ain't worth the candle to work here. I'm fucked if I can tolerate it. I'm going on strike. No need to ban me. I'll do it myself. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You see Nepaheshgar, this is exactly what I mean. They do not talk about the problem BUT only make a "Black List" (ChrisO's page that lists users!) and include me and others like you that disagree with these I am not going to name users (7). They twist and turn around the subject, the prolong the struggle to get an advantage, which results in a poor soul getting block. THEIR hindering progress on Misplaced Pages with revionist policies, they have the power to fix it, but because they are selfish, they can not give a helping hand. You and I have made some grave mistakes too, which has enabled them to group together. Now they are utterly ignoring evidence of ChrisO's misconduct, that as I said long time ago was happening to me. I do not want to involve myself here, but I just want story to be clearer. Your turning Misplaced Pages into Politics. Even I am begining to think that I am turning into a squabling buerracrate. Its like when someone asks Bush to answer a question, and he begins to dance around the question, or he says Uh... Uh, um... Uh. I am really sad that this is happening to Misplaced Pages.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The main problem is that ChrisO mislabels people instead of concentraing on content and various labels in order to render input from other editors with diffing viewpoints as null. His "Carrots over stick" comments I believe shows arrogance and WP:OWN. Also by defaming people originally and then canvessing editors to look at the defamation, he has created a poor atmosphere. Also as an admin who broke 3rr twice on the same page, he accusses me of edit warring (I hardly edited the topic). Overall though, we can use his help for these articles, but I he should not abuse his admin privilidges to induce an atmosphere of intidimation. I think RfC and mediation when there is content dispute is the best way to go. Also scholars can differ in viewpoints and the main goal is to represent a variety of differing viewpoints based on weight. I myself have emphasized quoting specialists. So when I pointed out Wieshofer/Kuhrt are not specialists in Akkadian (and we found out that Wiesehofer did not make a translation even unlike what originally ChrisO said), I was ignored. So to cut it short, if ChrisO stops mislabeling/defaming editors, then these articles can be fixed keeping in mind pertaining wikipedia guidelines. The matter should not go beyond a content dispute.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You see Nepaheshgar, this is exactly what I mean. They do not talk about the problem BUT only make a "Black List" (ChrisO's page that lists users!) and include me and others like you that disagree with these I am not going to name users (7). They twist and turn around the subject, the prolong the struggle to get an advantage, which results in a poor soul getting block. THEIR hindering progress on Misplaced Pages with revionist policies, they have the power to fix it, but because they are selfish, they can not give a helping hand. You and I have made some grave mistakes too, which has enabled them to group together. Now they are utterly ignoring evidence of ChrisO's misconduct, that as I said long time ago was happening to me. I do not want to involve myself here, but I just want story to be clearer. Your turning Misplaced Pages into Politics. Even I am begining to think that I am turning into a squabling buerracrate. Its like when someone asks Bush to answer a question, and he begins to dance around the question, or he says Uh... Uh, um... Uh. I am really sad that this is happening to Misplaced Pages.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let me repost my previous unanswered question as a statement: the phrase "editors of concern" does not mean "editors who I am concerned about", it means "editors who have a stake/may have input". Basic business terminology, as related to "OPI" and "OPC"... -t BMW c- 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly right. Frankly, the way this is being misrepresented is making it obvious that some people are just seeking to find offence wherever they can. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- In light of the actual content of this incident, I'm inclined to colour this discussion simply one giant "tl;dr" thread. Some sanity: Chris—don't use your sysop tools inappropriately. Elonka—another user's userspace is that user's userspace; wading in and forcing your opinion on that page is inappropriate. If you think a page is indeed inappropriate, discuss it with that user (and if your reaction to that concept is "no way, he wouldn't listen," you probably have too much of a personal history to warrant being involved—in that case, leave it to somebody uninvolved). If that fails, MfD it. This ChrisO-Elonka quarrel is really not worth our time, however. AGK 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Amen. AGK for President. MastCell 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that you have to color this discussion as tl;dr. But it often it leads to bad things when people involved in a dispute do not fully read the dispute and make invalid conclusions on it, which may decide history. Thanks, this is a point to all users on this page, not just MfD, MfD is somewhat correct too, if I had to read this whole dispute here, I would get a headache too. Cheers.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
- My goodness. Surely the contributions to this thread from Ariobarza and Nepaheshgarwould make splendid material, and indeed might be a case in point, for Elonka's excellent essay called Misplaced Pages:Tag team. What do you think, Elonka? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ban request
May I request a page-ban for a single purpose account? TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) only edits chirporactic pages and consistently pushes to whitewash them. He is obstructionist, rude, condescending, and I cannot find a single contribution that actually has added content of note.
ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you proposing just a ban from the main Chiropractic page or a more general topic ban? It's not entirely clear to me that either one is warranted but in any case the scope of any restriction should be clear. I's probably suggest a general 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring and encourage use of talk pages as a better way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- He hasn't in the past few months edited more than just the Chiropractic page, but I think a general topic ban with an encouragement for him to branch out and see more of the encyclopedia would be good. He does not seem to be helping the situation at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AE perhaps? This here page is for WP:DRAMA. Jehochman 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- ? How is AE going to help? He's not subject to any arbitration cases that I'm aware of. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) appears to be a very infrequent editor, with only three edits to the Chiropractic article in the last month. Though he definitely appears to be a single-purpose account, I'm not sure that a ban would really do much, since he so rarely edits anyway. Also, there are already several admins actively watching the article, so starting another ANI or AE thread doesn't really seem necessary. ANI (and AE) are usually used to request the attention of administrators, when they don't seem to be paying attention to an area of dispute. Or in other words, if someone wishes to request a ban, it's probably best to just bring it up directly at Talk:Chiropractic, or to contact one of the admins that's already supervising the page. --Elonka 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I want someone to look specifically at this account. There is enough going on at Chiropractic to keep an army of administrators busy. We need more eyes on the matter, and this particular account has been a thorn in the side of all these proceedings forever. He hasn't made a single decent contribution ever. In fact, it looks like he's acting more-or-less like a meatpuppet. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) appears to be a very infrequent editor, with only three edits to the Chiropractic article in the last month. Though he definitely appears to be a single-purpose account, I'm not sure that a ban would really do much, since he so rarely edits anyway. Also, there are already several admins actively watching the article, so starting another ANI or AE thread doesn't really seem necessary. ANI (and AE) are usually used to request the attention of administrators, when they don't seem to be paying attention to an area of dispute. Or in other words, if someone wishes to request a ban, it's probably best to just bring it up directly at Talk:Chiropractic, or to contact one of the admins that's already supervising the page. --Elonka 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- ? How is AE going to help? He's not subject to any arbitration cases that I'm aware of. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- SA, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. To request sanctions, you must file a report at WP:AE, preferably utilizing diffs that show policy violations. I believe that case requires notification to users before they get sanctioned. Please check that carefully and adjust your request to reflect any notification requirements. Jehochman 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, I was a party in that case, and I don't know what the hell you are talking about. We can request sanctions at ANI for behavioral issues. There is nothing in that RfArb that says this is not allowed. I have warned this account multiple times (see the history of his user talk page). Your comments here are completely unclear and unhelpful. If you think AE is the place to go, please refactor it there yourself and stop bullying me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- SA, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. To request sanctions, you must file a report at WP:AE, preferably utilizing diffs that show policy violations. I believe that case requires notification to users before they get sanctioned. Please check that carefully and adjust your request to reflect any notification requirements. Jehochman 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:Pseudoscience enforcement}} TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) made a controversial edit by restoring an original research tag without a valid reason. TheDoctorIsIn should be notified about the sanctions. QuackGuru 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
A little protection needed on Religious affiliations of United States Presidents
Resolved – nothing crazy here, if it becomes an issue take it to WP:RFPP--Crossmr (talk)Given the outcome of the election we have already had two IPs add Barack Obama to Religious affiliations of United States Presidents. If we can get this semi-protected it would save a lot of reverts. Mangoe (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Two bits of vandalism (soon reverted) is NOT grounds for semi-protection. If we semi-protected everything it would save reverts, fortunately reverts are cheap. And isn't he a muslim anyway? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, he's a "secret muslim" who must practice a different kind of religion called "secret islam". "Secret Islam" works exactly like Christianity, except its practiced by people who have funny foreign sounding names... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Jennamaroney and BLP Orfeh
VRTS ticket # 2008102710000693 Warnings: (ignored and blanked). User:Jennamaroney repeatedly put back material that was unsourced/poorly sourced/with challenged sources, in violation of wp:v and wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-07t11:13z
- Warned. User:Jennamaroney seems have some conflict of interest and perhaps an unwillingness to understand and follow sundry Misplaced Pages policies. Much of the content she's trying to restore is promotionally worded along with being unreliably sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've protected the article. Jeandré du Toit (talk · contribs) is not without fault in this area, however. I see zero attepts on xyr part to explain either on the other editor's talk page or on the talk page of the article why information such as (for example) an assertion that this person has done voice-over work for a computer game, sourced to both the person's autobiography and xyr IMDB listing, is controversial information that is poorly sourced, and thus content that warrants removal under the BLP policy. I suspect that Jeandré du Toit is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by blanket reverting, rather than excising the material that (from reading the edit history) is actually the subject of the dispute and that warrants immediate removal under our policy, and restoring the neutral non-promotional wording about voiceover work from the 2006 version of the article.
Jeandré du Toit, I recommend not simply saying "OTRS" and giving no explanation whatsoever as to reliability and independence problems with sources. When OTRS volunteers have done this in the past, it has always ended in acrimony. The article is protected from your editing, too. You should take the issue to the talk page, as well, and provide explanations of why credits for voiceover work cannot be sourced to IMDB and the subject's autobiography, and why you are throwing that out along with the material (which I'm carefully not mentioning) that clearly is the subject of contention here. Edit, don't blanket revert. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Cooljuno411's signature,
Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per this edit, it is quite obvious the signature is still rather large. Isn't this against what is stated on the signature policy/guideline page? I also see that this happened once before, and as far as I can tell, the sig still seems to the be the same size, or was changed, then changed back. Is it possible to get it reduced again?— Dædαlus /Improve 13:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Request for block
Resolved – LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Requesting block on German submarine U-552. Persistent reversions by 75.181.153.57 (talk · contribs) Salmanazar (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I earlier blocked for 2 weeks, commenting that they need to create a consensus at the talkpage if they do not wish to have sourced content in the article. If they resume the edit war upon block expiry then issue a final warning and then take it to WP:AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk)
Investigation "threat" on AFD page
So there's an AFD for Real vmx going on; which, in itself, is rather "fun" for the antics of the article author. Despite a few people offering advice he has turned the whole thing into a soapbox saying anyone who votes to delete the page must be in the pay of the borg. That's fine; however he's now "threatening" an investigation by a professional journalist. Now I realise this is probably all nonsense and it's certainly not on a par with a legal threat; but it's probably crossed the line somewhere. --Blowdart | 14:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, hey, I'm a professional journalist! I don't see a legal threat, and I don't see any harm here, just someone a little overzealous. -t BMW c- 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I'm not saying it's a legal threat; or anything near as severe; and frankly I'm viewing it with amusement more than anything else; but I thought it might be worth flagging, just in case. (We won't hold you being a professional journalist against you *grin*) --Blowdart | 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've informed him of this thread. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The person has already been given numerous warnings to stop his disruptive editing. If a block is not warranted for such disruption, then I am inclined to initiate an WP:RFC/U on the user when I get the time to do so, as multiple editors have tried and failed to make good of the situation. The user has already been reported to WP:COIN as the user is the creator of the software. MuZemike (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be a clear consensus for deletion on that discussion; I'll close the discussion and delete the article in hopes that it'll be helpful in encouraging him to chill out a bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And possibly protect the article names just in case the creator is tempted to re-create? – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll hold unless something further develops that would warrant escalation to RFC. MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- From the contributions it's clear that 83.233.121.253 (talk · contribs) is the same editor. Neither the creator of Real vmx, Alexuspol (talk · contribs) nor the above IP have edited Misplaced Pages at all since the AfD was closed by FisherQueen at 15:31 UTC on 7 November. Except for creating a COI-affected article, and some nastiness during the AfD, there hasn't been the abuse needed to justify an WP:RFC/U. The WP:COIN item about this case has already been marked resolved due to the closure of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll hold unless something further develops that would warrant escalation to RFC. MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And possibly protect the article names just in case the creator is tempted to re-create? – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be a clear consensus for deletion on that discussion; I'll close the discussion and delete the article in hopes that it'll be helpful in encouraging him to chill out a bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The person has already been given numerous warnings to stop his disruptive editing. If a block is not warranted for such disruption, then I am inclined to initiate an WP:RFC/U on the user when I get the time to do so, as multiple editors have tried and failed to make good of the situation. The user has already been reported to WP:COIN as the user is the creator of the software. MuZemike (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Mahalios trying to impose layout change at List of Prime Ministers of Spain
I don't even know if this is the right place to report this, but since Nov 3, Mahalios (talk · contribs) and I have been involved in a sort-of reversion war at List of Prime Ministers of Spain. The main point is that he is trying to impose a big layout change in the tables, removing the PMs' pictures and timelines, and changing the alignment. I have repeatedly called on him to discuss this layout change, both on the article talk page and on his user talk page. All my requests and offers for a dialog were met with deafening silence and a new reversion. This contrasts with my behaviour: with each reversion I have worked into integrating the content changes from him and another IP user into the article, so that only the layout change would be put on hold until proper discussion took place. On the other hand, he has simply reverted to the same version over and over, without even bothering to write an edit summary - except the first one in which he argues that my previous revert, in which I scolded an IP user for the pretty much the same behaviour, was inappropriate. Summing it up, Mahalios' is not willing to collaborate and has a pretty slant and invicil attitude. I don't know the procedure for these kind of cases, but sicne he has not responded to my messages I doubt mediation would help. What can be done? Habbit (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Enlist other editors! Advice to do this is available at WP:Dispute resolution. Briefly put, your overall strategy should be to begin a discussion and obtain consensus as to what the article content should be. If this editor doesn't want to get involved in the discussion, they have no grounds to complain, and repeated reversion against consensus without discussion constitutes edit warring which is a form of disruptive editing. If the other editor persists in reverting against consensus, post warning messages on their user talk page (see WP:WARN) and if necessary report them here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- He has been asked for a discussion several times, and even politely warned. There was no response but the most absolute silence. By the way, I suspect that at least one of the following three users is a sockpuppet of the others, because all three follow the _exact_ same edit pattern: extremely wide changes, without a single edit summary, reverting (not stomping) others' changes on sight, etc - Onlyonetime (talk · contribs) Mahalios (talk · contribs) 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs). I don't know the procedure for this kind of cases, but I guess an admin might run CheckUser and, without telling us the actual links found, act on the result. Thanks for the advice, though - this madness is really wearing me out... I mean, if they want the PMs' portraits out, can't they just say it on the talk page? -__- Habbit (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Earlier today I indef blocked Onlyonetime as a sock, based on a checkuser report from July, where the abuse was proven but he was given only a short block. The nominator's statement from the checkuser case (3 months ago) shows the very same problem as was reported here by Habbit. Obstinate rearrangement of lists of prime ministers, heads of states and monarchs are usually involved, often involving additions and removals of content. It's been going on for six months. If people will take a look at the contribution history of Mahalios (talk · contribs) and 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs), I think a verdict is justified that they are vandal-only accounts. They never communicate on Talk. They are vandals in the sense that they have no intention whatever of following WP policy or seeking consensus. If that's an acceptable conclusion, we can proceed to give long blocks to both of them without going forward to a checkuser. (It is highly likely that everyone we're discussing here is actually a sock of the same guy). WP:SSP is also an option, but that is usually needed for more subtle cases. The badness and the obstinacy of all the edits suggests that a vandal classification is justified. Any article these guys have ever touched should be checked for remnants of vandalism. Both IPs involved in this case are from Belgrade, in case that rings any bells from other sock investigations. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He has been asked for a discussion several times, and even politely warned. There was no response but the most absolute silence. By the way, I suspect that at least one of the following three users is a sockpuppet of the others, because all three follow the _exact_ same edit pattern: extremely wide changes, without a single edit summary, reverting (not stomping) others' changes on sight, etc - Onlyonetime (talk · contribs) Mahalios (talk · contribs) 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs). I don't know the procedure for this kind of cases, but I guess an admin might run CheckUser and, without telling us the actual links found, act on the result. Thanks for the advice, though - this madness is really wearing me out... I mean, if they want the PMs' portraits out, can't they just say it on the talk page? -__- Habbit (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
85.73.211.84
Resolved – Zzapped by Spellcast. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)85.73.211.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Single purpose account. Defamatory personal attacks against Future Perfect at Sunrise. Dr.K. (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. That's Walnutjk (talk · contribs), has been in meltdown mode for a couple days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- This should give him some time to solidify. Dr.K. (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal Attack
Resolved – User warned; no template needed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Attack Apawk made personal attacks angainst Rtiztik can someone please leave a warning as I can't find the neccessary template. Thanks in advance, HairyPerry 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Em, there is no "necessary template". Just type a "please don't do that" note.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is: {{uw-npa}}. Dr.K. (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but templates are just a help, not a means unto themselves. If you can't find a template (or can't be bothered, or don't want to, or any other reason) a personal note does just as well - and often better. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Your points including WP:DTTR should be followed whenever possible. I just added it for the record. Dr.K. (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...and since it didn't necessarily require "immediate" action, WP:WQA would have been a good starting place :-) -t BMW c- 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Richardscrivan
Resolved – indef block--Crossmr (talk)Richardscrivan (talk · contribs)
This user's contributions seem to be a mix of vandalism and a good faith attempt to create an article on a scout troupe in Roscrea. He has received two final warnings. If a block is not appropriate, perhaps salting the target page Roscrea scout troop or userfying the article might put a stop to this. Admin input appreciated, the skomorokh 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm watching, let's see if it carries on after the flurry of CSD deletions and warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thanks Gwen. I'm not sure of the implications of this IP edit, but it suggests possible chan involvement. Regards, the skomorokh 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That IP edit (from 61.62.10.233, now blocked as an open proxy) is a spammer who vandalises pages apparently at random, probably finding them in recent changes. —Snigbrook 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that clarifies matters. Thank you, Snigbrook. the skomorokh 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, looked like happenstance to me, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that clarifies matters. Thank you, Snigbrook. the skomorokh 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked by Jauerback (talk · contribs); that's that then. the skomorokh 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior by User:Eye.earth
User:Eye.earth has been undertaking disruptive actions on List of centenarians, deleting most of what little information is already contained in the introduction referring in such ways as "cutting out the fat", despite the obvious agreement on the talk page that the introduction needs to be lengthened, per the requirements at the style guidelines for lists. Although they have been contacted several times on their talk page and asked to discuss their edits, they simply ignore the request and continue to push their own version after taking a break. Occasionally the edits are even more disruptive, such as this one which removed content and references with no explanation whatsoever. More information can be found at the user's talk page. This user needs to understand that if someone disagrees with your editing, you need to discuss it with them, not just keep reinserting in the hopes that the other user will give up. After this one, I contacted WP:WQA, in hopes that they might listen to a third opinion, but they ignored the advice and continued to remove the majority of the already too-small introduction. Since I am involved in the issue, it is not appropriate for me to take any course of action, but something needs to be done so that they understand that there needs to be discussion on this issue. Cheers, CP 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Warnings have been given in the past for edit-warring and ownership. Does not play well with others. Time for a wake-up call. -t BMW c- 15:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Left a post about this thread on their talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- So did I. I don't mean to come off as rude, I just want to acknowledge that I haven't forgotten my duties! Cheers, CP 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- This fella has been engaged in a lengthy campaign to spam unreliable AIDS-denialist material into BLP's (see Paul Gann and its history). We had this charming discussion, after which he's continued to occasionally pop up to reinsert the inappropriate material, presumably to see if anyone's still watching the page. Personally, I think he's got a lengthy record of being uncollaborative and disrespectful of the project's goals, and should probably be asked to spend his time elsewhere, but I recognize I'm biased by our previous unpleasant interactions. In any case, this is far from a new or unaddressed problem. MastCell 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- So did I. I don't mean to come off as rude, I just want to acknowledge that I haven't forgotten my duties! Cheers, CP 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Apawk
Resolved – Apawk is on his ninth life, and will be blocked on the next disruptive edit. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)This user is doing nothing but making personal attacks and adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages, need some advice please. HairyPerry 16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Final "knock it off or you will be blocked forever" warning given to Apawk. Helpful advice given to HairyPerry. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The User has been indef blocked. They claimed to be User:UnrealSpiritX, and have 200 other accounts. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Ed Poor is being used to transact the editor's Conservapedia business
Resolved – Consensus is clear that this isn't an issue at this timeThis was brought to my attention on the Help Desk. User:Ed Poor, one of our oldest editors but no stranger to controversy, is using his Misplaced Pages talk page for transacting business about edits, blocks, etc. at Conservapedia. Is it just me or is this grossly inappropriate, regardless of anybody's ideologies? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
em.. Hello, I should pitch in here since I originally raised this at the help desk trying to get a feel what to do. People can do what they like in their own time but I was surprised to see that someone was conducting business for a far-right site (which is my reading of the place - and I should point out my political perspective is formed by being from the UK - I know the terms might not mean the same in the US) here at wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uncle Ed "shouldn't" be doing this but so long as there aren't all that many threads having to do with it, I don't see many worries. Others may have other takes though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) My philosophy in situations like this is usually "if the person is spending most of the time here contributing postiviely to Misplaced Pages, I don't particularly care what things s/he is doing on the side". Unless there is a lot of evidence that I am missing, that philosophy applies here. I'd say drop it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- If people don't think it's a problem, then I guess it's not a problem which I find sorta surprising, but hey... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I looked on his talk page for the past several months and found two threads on his talk page, each with less than four messages. Am I willing to part with months of good encyclopedia contributions to save me from those two harmless threads? Definitely not. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- If people don't think it's a problem, then I guess it's not a problem which I find sorta surprising, but hey... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- For goodness sake. We have people doing all sorts of crap in userspace, if Ed wants to use some to help a fellow free-content site then that's fine. Anyone who calls it "far right" should get out more and meet a real neo-fascist. Conservopedia is light-hearted, and quite amusing in its self-aware ridiculousness. It's almost a parody of Fox News. Just because it doesn't share wikipedia's
liberal biasdoesn't mean it is evil.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- For goodness sake. We have people doing all sorts of crap in userspace, if Ed wants to use some to help a fellow free-content site then that's fine. Anyone who calls it "far right" should get out more and meet a real neo-fascist. Conservopedia is light-hearted, and quite amusing in its self-aware ridiculousness. It's almost a parody of Fox News. Just because it doesn't share wikipedia's
- We seem to be talking about roughly one CP thread per month. At that level, I think it is better to just ignore it. I'm sure lots of Wikipedians find something unwiki to talk about at that level. Though I would generally encourage Ed to move discussions back to CP when possible. Dragons flight (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm hardblocked (by Aschlafly personally…) so can't do it myself, but it would seem to me to be a courtesy if someone with a CP account were to notify Aschlafly (their equivalent of Jimbo) in case this is abusing any of their procedures (I don't think for one moment that it's breaching any of ours). Incidentally, I wouldn't call CP a "far-right site" - while some of their contributors may hold extreme opinions, the same could be said of WP. They just have a different opinion of what the NPOV "median" is. – iridescent 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, their "median" is far, far to the right of Misplaced Pages and society at large. So I guess you're both right! And I see no real problem with what Ed is doing here. Lankiveil 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure describing the talkpage as being used by Ed to "transact business" is accurate. People seem to ask him questions there or draw things to his attention - presumably because they see him active here but not there or are block on Conservapedia. Ed doesn't seem to respond to many of these posts (perhaps because he seems them as unrelated to Misplaced Pages?). It is not unusual for people to be contacted in this way. Angela seems to get fair number of posts relating to wikia and Fred Bauder has matters about Wikinfo drawn to his attention. I guess people just know they can get hold of them here. I don't think it represents a serious problem. If someone were here only to manage another website, it would be a problem. But, in the case of users who've made substantial contributions to the project, I don't think we need to worry ourselves overly about it. WJBscribe (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards -- possible compromised account?
Resolved – Nothing amiss. MBisanz 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)This account vandalized Nervous system today, apparently using Huggle. (diff). A look at the user's talk page shows other disturbing stuff, which I don't completely understand. looie496 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's just a huggle mistake by the looks of things. His other edits seem fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno. It was the "Worries" item at the bottom of his talk page before he cleared it () that "worried" me. looie496 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Appears to
have beenbe Huggling a little too fastyesterdaytoday. A quick review of their recent edits seems to show this was isolated, and POTW responded in quite reasonable fashion to the comments you link to above on his talk page. Is this resolved, or do you have lingering concerns? --barneca (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)- I've never used Huggle -- if somebody can explain to me how Huggling too fast can cause "V-Jay-Jay Is Good" to get inserted into an article, when it was not there in any previous version, my concerns will be resolved. looie496 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Huggle lets you revert not only the most recent vandalism, but also lets you go back through to any revision and revert to that with one click of a button. The version PoTW reverted to is identical to this rev (and a couple others as well) from 29 October: . It's possible that he was rolling through previous revisions and hit the red button on this one, which reverted back to the one containing vandalism. HG usually gives a more detailed edit summary in those cases (listing all users who had revisions that were reverted), but I think that's a tweakable parameter. Looks like just an errant mis-click on PoTW's part. Arakunem 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- By way of further clarity, the "Revert to this version" button is right next to the "Ok I'm done with this, take me to the next article so I can evaluate for vandalism there" button. So Huggling too fast, it would be easy to click the Revert button when you meant to move on to the next article's edits. Arakunem 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I understand. Clearly this editor would benefit from slowing down a bit, but I no longer have any other concerns. looie496 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- By way of further clarity, the "Revert to this version" button is right next to the "Ok I'm done with this, take me to the next article so I can evaluate for vandalism there" button. So Huggling too fast, it would be easy to click the Revert button when you meant to move on to the next article's edits. Arakunem 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Huggle lets you revert not only the most recent vandalism, but also lets you go back through to any revision and revert to that with one click of a button. The version PoTW reverted to is identical to this rev (and a couple others as well) from 29 October: . It's possible that he was rolling through previous revisions and hit the red button on this one, which reverted back to the one containing vandalism. HG usually gives a more detailed edit summary in those cases (listing all users who had revisions that were reverted), but I think that's a tweakable parameter. Looks like just an errant mis-click on PoTW's part. Arakunem 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've never used Huggle -- if somebody can explain to me how Huggling too fast can cause "V-Jay-Jay Is Good" to get inserted into an article, when it was not there in any previous version, my concerns will be resolved. looie496 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Appears to
- I dunno. It was the "Worries" item at the bottom of his talk page before he cleared it () that "worried" me. looie496 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Mac still needs discussion
Resolved – user blocked, review welcomed--Crossmr (talk)Mac's original thread was archived, but it still needs discussion or action. He made at least 2 3 4 copyright violations today (on his talk page), but has not responded to anything anyone has said to him (including EdJohnston's 2 requests that he respond here). NJGW (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- 24 hours for disruptive editing. See User talk:Mac#November 2008. Block can be lifted if he will join discussions. Other admins are welcome to undo or modify. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Michael Crichton Error
Resolved – can't see anything here that requires admin intervention--Crossmr (talk)The introduction paragraph of the article on Michael Crichton fails to mention one of his popular novels, which was later made into a movie, called Sphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Sphere_(novel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.125 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- He wrote a lot of novels. Not all have to be in the introductory paragraph. -t BMW c- 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Seal of Oklahoma
Resolved – nothing here requiring admin attention, possible browser issueThere is a major problem with this article, I do not know what happened or why. When I try to access the article, instead of it opening up, somehow it asks me if I want to save the article to my computer. This has never happened on any other article that I have ever accessed in Misplaced Pages. Has someone possibly vandalized it? 160.147.240.6 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- No issue for me -t BMW c- 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Something similar happened to me yesterday. I think it's the servers hiccuping or something. Seal of Oklahoma looks fine to me now; try purging the cache and looking again. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone knows there aren't seals in Oklahoma...sea lions maybe... --Smashville 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are. Usually around Easter and Christmas. Baseball Bugs 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone knows there aren't seals in Oklahoma...sea lions maybe... --Smashville 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Something similar happened to me yesterday. I think it's the servers hiccuping or something. Seal of Oklahoma looks fine to me now; try purging the cache and looking again. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"Wikistalking"
Resolved – Submitter of this complaint, User:Masonfamily has now been blocked 1 week by User:William M. Connolley at the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Oda Mari and John Smith's try to revert all of my edits without proper reason.
Yakiniku They try to delete sourced material.
I already talk with Oda Mari's talk page. Even he/she admit that Japan prohibit Meat eating cultre before meiji era. He/she says, Some people meat a eat before meiji era, However, it is still fact that Most Japanese did not eat a meat before meiji era.
Nice tag team play. But i can't understand Why they wikistalking me, and revert it. Check my edit.
Is it vandalisam or something? I don't think so.
Yamato period Discuss with John Smith's in discussion page.
But He did not prove any single source, but just reverting my edit withour proper reason!!! Masonfamily (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- So if I challenge your changes it's wikistalking, even if you're edit articles that I have an interest in? Sorry, I think that's nonsense logic. John Smith's (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Masonfamily has violated 3RR here, and generally shows a poor understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Limited English skills may be a contributing factor. looie496 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that wikihounding is now preferable to wikistalking, in order to avoid confusion of minor-midrange online annoyance with a real world felony. Durova 23:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- How aboutwikimomhe'sputtinghishandonmysideoftheseating? Or is that too hard to say? HalfShadow 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- A related case at WP:AN3 filed against the submitter of this report, Masonfamily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has led to a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- How aboutwikimomhe'sputtinghishandonmysideoftheseating? Or is that too hard to say? HalfShadow 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that wikihounding is now preferable to wikistalking, in order to avoid confusion of minor-midrange online annoyance with a real world felony. Durova 23:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Masonfamily has violated 3RR here, and generally shows a poor understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Limited English skills may be a contributing factor. looie496 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Problems with replaceable image Image:Albertfish-full.jpg
Today, I've been involved in some edits to this image and an associated article. The sequence of events:
- I removed the image from Albert Fish, replacing it with one (Image:Albert Fish 1903.JPG) further down in the article that was a free license image that provided the same information; his visual appearance. Both are mugshots, but one old enough to be PD while the image I am discussing here is not, having been published in 1934.
- I tagged Image:Albertfish-full.jpg as being replaceable and orphaned , as it was no longer on the article and it was clearly replaceable by the free content mugshot.
- User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use and orphaned tags from the image, claiming in the process that the image was PD by way of being published in the U.S. before 1923 (which is incorrect; the image was published in 1934). He then reinstated the image to the Albert Fish article. I reverted this obvious error, and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the reversion and informed him of the WP:NFCC policies I was removing the image under .
- I re-removed the image from the article as unneeded fair use , as we already know his visual appearance from the free license image at the top of the article.
- User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use tags and orphaned fair use tags from the image again, with no explanation as to why and did not reinstate the image to the article.
- I re-instated the orphaned and replaceable tags to the image and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the correct procedure to handle the warning tags .
- Following this, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) returned to editing without ever having responded to me. Much later, he made a minor edit to the image adding in "original" with respect to the source statement.
- Another editor User:Wildhartlivie has removed the replaceable image and orphaned fair use tags claiming "image can be and is used in article to illustrate subject prior to execution; fair use rationale is provided" and reinstated the image to the article
I've stopped editing on this image and article, as this is obviously devolving. There's a number of problems still extant here. The image is most definitely still orphaned, and User:Wildhartlivie was out of line for removing the orphaned and replaceable fair use tags. User:Wildhartlivie claims there is a fair use rationale provided, but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Misplaced Pages:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components.
In my opinion, the image should be deleted. We have a perfectly serviceable image for depiction purposes in the 1903 mugshot now at the top of the article, and the 1934 mugshot doesn't bring anything to the table that the 1903 shot doesn't, except that he's older, which has no bearing on the article. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC #1 in that it is clearly replaceable (and has been replaced) and #8 in that there's nothing about the image that having the image removed would cause detriment to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Lastly, though fixable, it fails #10c.
Would an administrator please step in? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- For one, it does illustrate his face in greater detail. While there is a clear silhouette in the first, the detail of his face is not that clear. Your statement of but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Misplaced Pages:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components. doesn't make any sense. if that is your big problem clean-up the rationale. Or don't make the statement. This sounds like a content dispute, you think it isn't fair use, others think it is. Take it to images for deletion. Fair use is full of personal opinion and we don't just delete on personal opinion around here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way but in blatant cases where fair use images are replaceable, we do delete, and this is a blatant case. So what if the image brings better detail? Is there some detail of his face that is important to the content of the article? Answer: No. This is a blatant case. And, with all due respect, I asked for an administrator to step in. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because the whole purpose of an image is to bring detail to an article. A PD image is relatively useless if it doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question. One could argue that the PD image doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question because of the age and size of the image. And with all due respect this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and if you don't like other people responding to your questions you might not want to ask them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The picture when he was older is more meaningful, as it's what he looked like just before he was a fried Fish. Baseball Bugs 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the free image per the non-free content policies. β 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you wait to see if your speedy deletion is approved before you hide it from public view?--Crossmr (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just list it for IFD and let everyone debate it for seven days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just listing the image for seven days is not the panacea that some here seem to think it is. There's a reason we don't send all CSD articles to AFD. That same reason applies to images. There's no point to putting something to IFD when it is blatantly a violation. There's been scads of debates on here before about whether to allow fair use when the fair use image is higher quality. Guess which side of that debate has routinely won? Hint; we're the 💕, not the 💕 except when non-free content is higher quality than the free content. There is nothing conveyed by the 1934 image that is not conveyed by the 1903 image. If there is, then please state it here and now. All I'm hearing so far is "It's better, therefore keep" or "This is what he looked like before he died". You can do better than that, can't you? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure there is. Clear detail of the individuals face. The earlier image is small, poor quality and washed out on one side. As the speedy deletion tag clearly states: illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information,. This does not adequately provide the same information as the poor quality of the photograph leaves the characteristics and details of the individuals face difficult to discern.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have an issue with the representation of this. In fact, I returned the image to the article, further down the page in the section that included discussion of Fish and his execution. I did not removed the tags yet leave it orphaned as User:Hammersoft stated. I removed the tags here, one of which stated Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. I then returned the image, with some other page edits which included repositioning the images here. The image was not orphaned. I have an issue with my name being brought up on this issue without having been approached in any way prior to, or notified when, it was posted. I stumbled upon this discussion, which does allege wrongdoing on my part, while checking another issue. There is obviously a difference of opinion regarding the use of this image. If the rationale or licensing had an issue, then there should be no reason why that cannot or should not be addressed. There is most definitely a difference between the image used in the infobox, which was taken 31 years prior to the events which make this person and the article notable. There is a great disparity in the appearance of the individual, and the image under discussion here illustrates the man at the time these acts were committed, following his arrest. It illustrates his appearance at the time of his execution, while the other depicts someone in a far different condition and place that relates to 1934 in no way. Why not stick an image of him in grade school? That is as much like the man who committed these crimes as the 1903 image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Confusing series of edits
I had the talkpage of User:Runteldat on my watchlist. Today, I noticed a series of edits to his userpage, including sockpuppet tags being added by User:JimWae and removed by User:Runteldat. The supposed "rationale" for the tags is a link to a nonexistent image page. I have no idea what's happening here; looking at his userpage it seems like JimWae is a pretty decent editor, but slapping block notices on a user talkpage without having the mop to back it up is pretty strange stuff, especially when it's explained by a cryptic reference to a nonexistent file. Any thoughts? Gladys J Cortez 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you try asking him? The file was deleted but frankly I can't figure it out from the history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I recopied a template which had previously been added (by a person I thought must have been an admin) & later removed by Runteldat. I thought an admin had already determined that Runteldat was blocked user:rollosmokes - which I strongly suspect is actually the case. I think a checkuser might be in order --JimWae (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I now see the template was originally added by Special:Contributions/Liradio - definitely not an admin. However, I am still quite certain Runteldat is Rollosmokes --JimWae (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:SSP (past the potted plant, second right and the orange door past the broken water cooler) with any evidence. I would comment that plastering an indef blocked template on someone with a clean block log is not the most appropriate of edits - and it should be the job of the replacing editor to make sure that it was justified... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, with the image now deleted, the evidence is restricted mostly to similarity in articles being edited. I have no "job" here, but if I can find the time, I might pursue this. Wouldn't a "check-user" be the quickest way to establish this? Is the function of WP:SSP to establish basis for using check-user? --JimWae (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- CU's are extremely experienced (and trusted) editors who have access to a few more tools than the rest, but the inhabitants of WP:SSP are knowledgable in recognising editing patterns and habits so generally a request goes there first - CU help is then only requested if the call is problematic. I had a quick look (I have been involved in the Rollosmokes blocks) and didn't see anything that couldn't also be generic US tv station interest editing - not that I do that stuff, so specifics do not mean too much to me. It is up to you, I guess. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Account recreated by vandal
Resolved – by Rdsmith4Is there some reason why User:Dbuckner is not being tagged for all the vandalism this account does? Editors are correcting the vandalism, but tagging the user account so I wondered. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a significant BLP issue involved here. This account, which appears to have been re-registered by vandals after it was renamed to something else, represents someones real name. It should be renamed again, and the tool to lock the Dbuckner name utilised to keep this from happening again. Avruch 23:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And done by Rdsmith4. Thanks for pointing it out. Avruch 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oughtn't we do something about that little naming loophole? I've seen former admin names get usurped by vandals and wreak mild havoc...couldn't we put a time frame before a no-longer-active user's name can be re-registered, or maybe set a "never reregister this name" field for admin names? This loophole just seems too dangerous for me. Gladys J Cortez 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think its a dated loophole - the rename function now has an option to create an account under the old name so it can't be taken again. Not sure of the details on how it works, but I'm pretty sure that is the net effect. There was a BN discussion about it recently if you want to check there. Avruch 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It happened to me the other week under both my old usernames. People should be warned to make accounts under their old names when they change name, to bagsy them. Sticky Parkin 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- They are. Such advice is included in the instructions on the rename pages, see under "Effects of a username change" where it says: "Be aware: Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and may potentially be recreated by a third party. This is true even if your old account pages have been redirected towards your new account. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself." Unfortunately it seems that not everyone reads those instructions. In this case however as I performed the rename following an email request, the fault is mine, as I did not inform the user of the risk of malicious recreation. WJBscribe (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It happened to me the other week under both my old usernames. People should be warned to make accounts under their old names when they change name, to bagsy them. Sticky Parkin 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think its a dated loophole - the rename function now has an option to create an account under the old name so it can't be taken again. Not sure of the details on how it works, but I'm pretty sure that is the net effect. There was a BN discussion about it recently if you want to check there. Avruch 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oughtn't we do something about that little naming loophole? I've seen former admin names get usurped by vandals and wreak mild havoc...couldn't we put a time frame before a no-longer-active user's name can be re-registered, or maybe set a "never reregister this name" field for admin names? This loophole just seems too dangerous for me. Gladys J Cortez 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit war in Mukuro Rokudo
User:Serpent132 has been editing the Mukuro Rokudo article, trimming the sections to minimun as it was a FAC. More important, he has been removing information from the lead mentioning it was repeated in other sections. I tried talking to him on his talk page sending info about deletion and reverting edits mentioning WP: Lead and other stuff. However, he has not stopped doing that and in this state is impossible for the article to be GA (is currently a GAC). Im requesting help here because I may also require to be blocked with these edits. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content dispute, which really isn't an administrator matter. However, the revert war is of concern, especially as neither editor has been participating at the talkpage. Both editors appear to be well past WP:3RR; however, neither was formally warned, so a block is probably not appropriate at this point. I've given 3RR cautions to both of them, and left a note on the talkpage that WP:DR procedures should be followed. Tintor2, I sympathize with your frustration, but just putting warning templates on someone's page is not really "talking to them". I recommend taking a deep breath and trying, at least once, some good faith communication. --Elonka 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Noah Cyrus
Resolved – protected blank page turned into protected redirect--Crossmr (talk)Something's wrong here. Why is this locked from becoming a redirect to Miley Cyrus when Noah cyrus freely exists? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to have been salted because people were continually creating articles there. While this was also protected . It might be prudent to turn Noah Cyrus into a protected redirect as well instead of a protected empty page.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- So can someone do this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. CIreland (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. CIreland (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- So can someone do this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Flyfellabeatz
Flyfellabeatz (talk · contribs) Has repeated added and restored non-notable articles such as Flyfella beatz and Da ProfreShionalz. -- Levine2112 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- As a former English teacher, I gotta tell you: reading those article names? Just made my brain crawl out my ears and run under the bookcase to hide. I tremble for what the English language will look like in 100 years--and I'm speaking as a rap FAN!!! Gladys J Cortez 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Spamming books on Mali and other African countries
Heads up. An editor is continuing to spam Kira Salak books into African country articles. Even though Salak is notable as a geographer, her expertise is not relevant to scholarly materials regarding countries, per notability. I have warned the user, but I think the person is socking as an IP. Any thoughts? miranda 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- issue a final warning to the account and IP. If they continue report to AIV.--Crossmr (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, bookspam. Occasionally done by publishers. Try to engage them in positive ways and encourage to actually use those sources to build articles (if the sources are relevant). Otherwise AIV. Durova 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:65.0.161.52
Resolved – Page protected for one month.Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)May I impose on someone to block the talk page for the duration of its block? There's a banned user who's continuing to be disruptive. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Tiptoety's block of user:Boodlesthecat
Tiptoety blocked Boodles for two weeks, claiming that he violated his self-imposed 1RR restriction. The "violation" at hand was the reinsertion of info removed by Poeticbent (talk · contribs) over an hour after removing an in-line tag placed by Piotrus (talk · contribs).
Assuming there was 1RR violation, the two week block is extreme. A tag removal followed an hour later by a reinsertion of content is not in the spirit of edit warring.
But more importantly, there was no 1RR violation. Some Background: There is this huge arbitration case going on in which a major part of the issues there are the alleged tag-teaming of Polish nationals who are trying to whitewash alleged Polish anti-semitism. This is not the place to rehash these issues. But what's important about this arbitration is that in the original self-imposed 1RR agreed to by Boodles - which is the basis for this block - the restrictions were limited to reverts of neutral editors. This is the relevant discussion at ANI:
But here's my predicament--given that Piotrus works in concert with others--is 1RR practical without having it apply to his team? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please see my message above: "1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him." - simply reverse it so that you are the first one to revert. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Since Piotrus has a number of IRC and IM "admirers", happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's versions I doubt that it would work, but we can try (edit conflict) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Who is this "neutral user X" of whom you write? It often feels like there are battle lines drawn at the articles related to Polish-Jewish history. It sometimes seems like Piotrus and other editors are engaged in tag-team editing, and it no doubt seems to him like Boodlesthecat and I do the same thing. I have a feeling that this is going to lead to edit-warring by proxy, but I suppose it's worth a try. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Any random user, a third party if you may. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ironically enough, it was Tiptoey that agreed to the "neutral editor" condition. The block of Boodles is based on the assumption that the second revert was a revert of a "neutral editor". However, this is clearly not the case. The condition was established for this very situation, a situation in which one of the alleged tag-teamers reverts to version that is in agreeance with the other tag-teamer. Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Poeticbent (talk · contribs) which were the two editors that were reverted by Boodles are accused of tag-teaming. Thus, per the above discussion, they were explicitly excluded from the 1RR restrictions imposed unto Boodles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Yes, there is a huge arbcom, but concerned mostly with other things. Boodlesthecat has edit warred and clearly broken (R1: ; R2: ) the 1RR restriction (which is why his unblock request has been declined three times today - and since when we allow a user to ask for an unblock three times within three hours anyway? what is it, unblock roulette? - and this is why Tip, who has designed the 1RR in the first place, enforced in the way he did), nobody else has done anything wrong (I have not reverted there, and Poeticbent is not close to 3RR and not under any restriction, and his involvement there, - as the creator of the article - is quite understandable, no conspiracy theories needed to explain it). Not surprisingly, the ArbCom member Kirill has proposed the following findings: Boodlesthecat banned as well as There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any of the off-wiki editing coordination that occurred in this case. I certainly resent the accusations of tag teaming / meatpuppetry; they are unprovable slander in any case, and not something I'd expect from another admin (some may want to brush up on AGF and similar policies, and concentrate on dealing with disruptive users, not defending them - and for who is a disruptive user here, just look at Boodlesthecat's block log). If Brewcrewer wants to look into some serious issues, why not check this BLP report, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is what I hoped would not happen here - a rehashing of the arbitration case. The only issue here is whether Boodles violated the 1RR restrictions. He did not.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The 1RR restriction aside, there was clearly edit warring going on beyond or right at the limit of normal policy. The edit warring was not sterile - there was talk page discussion - but none of the parties did the right thing and used self-restraint on the article while discussing to consensus on talk.
- Piotr and Poeticbent deserve slaps on the wrist and the usual "Please stop that and don't do it again". Boodles, with significant history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, could legitimately be blocked for it, though I would personally have treated all three equally in the name of fairness.
- I see no reason to overturn the block. A 1 RR restriction with some exceptions is not a license to edit-war the exceptions. It's a notification that someone has been edit warring more than usual and is discouraged from doing it much more if at all. Asking to overturn this on the technicality is missing the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- A technicality is the only basis for this block. If you look closely at the edit history of the article you will see that most of Boodles edits were accepted. The edit warring, although not acceptable, fell far short of the 3RR standard. The only way to get a block in was though the 1RR technicality. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He added a controversial para, removed a tag I added to it, and then restored the para after Poeticbent removed it. This is no technicality - this is pure edit warring to one's version, and his edits are far from "accepted" (nobody has reverted to his version).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He made plenty of other edits besides for the reinsertion of a paragraph (that was removed sans discussion). In any case, at most, he's only halfway toward a 3rr. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing his minor edits, and he is on 1RR restriction, so being halfway towards a 3RR... QED, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly! The 1RR restriction is inapplicable here because none of the editors involved were "neutral" as defined in the 1RR agreement. The only legit way to block him is through 3RR, which he does not meet in this case. It is most blatantly wrong to establish specific rules for people and then just block them anyway despite their abidance with the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be under a misconception - 3RR is not an entitlement that one may revert three times before there's a problem. 3RR is a bright line in the sand that you shall not go past this limit, and behavior short of 3RR may well constitute edit warring, which is the practice that we actually block for. People who edit war over and over again may be blocked for edit warring before they reach 3 reverts. Anyone who's been put under a 1RR restriction should know better and just avoid doing it.
- We gave the guy very strict and very specific rules regarding reverts. He abides by those very strict rules, and then we block him anyway. That is wrong under any moral standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Repeating myself, but... Edit warring is prohibited and 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times. See Misplaced Pages:3RR#Not an entitlement which specifically states:
- The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.
- The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
- Please don't reply in all-bold. It is condescending and thus uncivil. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The only part that's bold is the quote from policy, and only to distinguish it from my comment. This is used elsewhere. I had to include more of the policy as a quote, as essentially all of that policy section was directly relevant... The size of the bold block is therefore perhaps unfortunately unusually large. But I didn't use bold emphasis other than for typographical reasons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't reply in all-bold. It is condescending and thus uncivil. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- People who have previously been blocked for edit warring or 3RR violations, especially those under special restrictions such as a 1RR restriction, must not push the limit by edit warring. The behavior is not OK. Whether they specifically violate their additional restrictions or not, the behavior is prohibited. People should not do it on Misplaced Pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Repeating myself, but... Edit warring is prohibited and 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times. See Misplaced Pages:3RR#Not an entitlement which specifically states:
- We gave the guy very strict and very specific rules regarding reverts. He abides by those very strict rules, and then we block him anyway. That is wrong under any moral standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Side note: Piotr complained on my talk page that I incorrectly characterized his edits in my first comment above. On review, he's correct, he didn't participate in edit warring on the article. He only made one edit after the point that the edit warring began, and that was a harmless wikilink not involved in the back and forth others were doing. My apologies for the mischaracterization... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be under a misconception - 3RR is not an entitlement that one may revert three times before there's a problem. 3RR is a bright line in the sand that you shall not go past this limit, and behavior short of 3RR may well constitute edit warring, which is the practice that we actually block for. People who edit war over and over again may be blocked for edit warring before they reach 3 reverts. Anyone who's been put under a 1RR restriction should know better and just avoid doing it.
- If he is on 1RR, he can be blocked for it, otherwise we wouldn't bother issuing it in the first place. 1RR are simple creatures: if you revert more than once, you break them. Boody is not to revert on articles I edit more than 1RR (and vice versa), not counting tiny stylistical/MOS changes and other AGF exceptions - of which removing a tag and restoring a controversial para are not. It doesn't matter whom he reverts, or what (per WP:3RR. Revert is a revert - again, those are pretty simple creatures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He never reverted you more then once. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- So? He reverted somebody else, 1+1=2. Perhaps you are laboring under a miscomprehension: Boodlesthecat 1RR restriction is not limited to reverting me, I am the one who triggers it: as long as we are editing the same article, we are not to revert anybody more than once. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The "anybody" must be a neutral editor. I am sorry if I was no being clear enough, but the "neutral" aspect is the whole point. The "neutral" condition was established because of the concern (I have no opinion about its legitimacy) that since Polish editors are tag-teaming, a 1RR scheme would result in an unfair disadvantage to Boodles. The "neutral" condition was specificaly created for a situation like this - you add, Boodles reverts, an alleged tag-teamer adds, Boodles revets. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are mistaken (and consider for a moment that Tip who created this restriction reviewed this case and carried it out). The restriction was created to stop Boodlesthecat from edit warring (see his block record). The word neutral was used without much thought and not defined, and was clarifed below - in the fragment you cite - by Tip himnself as random, which fits the situation better (because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder). If admins involved in 1RR had to review and argue who is neutral and who is not, this would be unenforceable (hence it is never an issue on ANI/3RR). The 1RR restriction had and has nothing to do with any tag team accusations. ArbCom, although not done, indicates (via the proposed finding I cited above) that arbitrators have not found any evidence form Polish editors tag teaming, and I would ask you not to repeat such slanderous, bad faithed accusations. If you have proof that Poeticbent and I are part of a tag team, please present your evidence in the arbcom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I specifically stated earlier that I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations. But whether they are true or not, they were the basis of the "neutral editor condition" in the 1RR agreement - the basis for this block - so we have no choice but to deal with it. Please see the part of the previous ANI discussion that I copy and pasted above. From the discussion and subsequent agreement is it clear that the editors that are part of the tag-team accusations are not considered random and neutral for 1RR purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is putting an argument on its head. Let me illustrate the fallacy of your logic: 1) 1RR is designed to prevent edit warring 2) 1RR if applied globally to all reverts by a user prone to edit warring prevents edit warring 3) 1RR if applied to only reverts of one specific user is unlikely to prevent edit warring between the user prone to edit warring and other users. Again: the restriction means we are not supposed to revert anybody on affected articles more than once per day, there is no discussion of "but I thought he was tag teaming with him", which could excuse ALL reverts and make the 1RR restrictions completely pointless. Oh, and don't forget that for your argument to be valid you have to prove I was tag teaming with Poeticbent - and since you said yourself "I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations", what's the point of this discussion? Excuse me, but I am not a fan of wikilawyering over a tiny technicality, when the big picture is obvious (1RR was designed to stop an estabilished edit warrior and was implemented when 1RR was broken, case closed).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only those that are part of the tag-team accusations, which if I'm not mistaken is around 5 editors and includes Poeticbent , are considered non-neutral for purposes of the 1RR rule. But in response to your general point, I understand that, rules aside, there should never be a spirit of edit-warring. However, in this situation, where we are dealing with an editor who is under an extreme and strict 1RR standard, it is immoral and wrong to use the very strict rule which he agreed to abide by as the basis for his block when he never broke the rule. I am turning in for the night so I won't see any replies. Good night. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is putting an argument on its head. Let me illustrate the fallacy of your logic: 1) 1RR is designed to prevent edit warring 2) 1RR if applied globally to all reverts by a user prone to edit warring prevents edit warring 3) 1RR if applied to only reverts of one specific user is unlikely to prevent edit warring between the user prone to edit warring and other users. Again: the restriction means we are not supposed to revert anybody on affected articles more than once per day, there is no discussion of "but I thought he was tag teaming with him", which could excuse ALL reverts and make the 1RR restrictions completely pointless. Oh, and don't forget that for your argument to be valid you have to prove I was tag teaming with Poeticbent - and since you said yourself "I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations", what's the point of this discussion? Excuse me, but I am not a fan of wikilawyering over a tiny technicality, when the big picture is obvious (1RR was designed to stop an estabilished edit warrior and was implemented when 1RR was broken, case closed).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I specifically stated earlier that I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations. But whether they are true or not, they were the basis of the "neutral editor condition" in the 1RR agreement - the basis for this block - so we have no choice but to deal with it. Please see the part of the previous ANI discussion that I copy and pasted above. From the discussion and subsequent agreement is it clear that the editors that are part of the tag-team accusations are not considered random and neutral for 1RR purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are mistaken (and consider for a moment that Tip who created this restriction reviewed this case and carried it out). The restriction was created to stop Boodlesthecat from edit warring (see his block record). The word neutral was used without much thought and not defined, and was clarifed below - in the fragment you cite - by Tip himnself as random, which fits the situation better (because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder). If admins involved in 1RR had to review and argue who is neutral and who is not, this would be unenforceable (hence it is never an issue on ANI/3RR). The 1RR restriction had and has nothing to do with any tag team accusations. ArbCom, although not done, indicates (via the proposed finding I cited above) that arbitrators have not found any evidence form Polish editors tag teaming, and I would ask you not to repeat such slanderous, bad faithed accusations. If you have proof that Poeticbent and I are part of a tag team, please present your evidence in the arbcom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The "anybody" must be a neutral editor. I am sorry if I was no being clear enough, but the "neutral" aspect is the whole point. The "neutral" condition was established because of the concern (I have no opinion about its legitimacy) that since Polish editors are tag-teaming, a 1RR scheme would result in an unfair disadvantage to Boodles. The "neutral" condition was specificaly created for a situation like this - you add, Boodles reverts, an alleged tag-teamer adds, Boodles revets. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- So? He reverted somebody else, 1+1=2. Perhaps you are laboring under a miscomprehension: Boodlesthecat 1RR restriction is not limited to reverting me, I am the one who triggers it: as long as we are editing the same article, we are not to revert anybody more than once. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He never reverted you more then once. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly! The 1RR restriction is inapplicable here because none of the editors involved were "neutral" as defined in the 1RR agreement. The only legit way to block him is through 3RR, which he does not meet in this case. It is most blatantly wrong to establish specific rules for people and then just block them anyway despite their abidance with the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing his minor edits, and he is on 1RR restriction, so being halfway towards a 3RR... QED, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He made plenty of other edits besides for the reinsertion of a paragraph (that was removed sans discussion). In any case, at most, he's only halfway toward a 3rr. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He added a controversial para, removed a tag I added to it, and then restored the para after Poeticbent removed it. This is no technicality - this is pure edit warring to one's version, and his edits are far from "accepted" (nobody has reverted to his version).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- A technicality is the only basis for this block. If you look closely at the edit history of the article you will see that most of Boodles edits were accepted. The edit warring, although not acceptable, fell far short of the 3RR standard. The only way to get a block in was though the 1RR technicality. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Please review this case
I don't know what to do. There is a single-purpose account user who is active solely on cold fusion named User:Pcarbonn. We know that he is a partner in a company that is trying to sell thin-film technology to cold fusion researchers and is hoping to promote cold fusion here on Misplaced Pages. How do I know this? Well, for one, he says as much on his user page and here off-wiki. I've filed conflict-of-interest reports, but the board seems to think that we should refer it to administrator review. So I ask someone to review this case. Should User:Pcarbonn be as active as he is in trying to advance cold fusion here on Misplaced Pages? What should we do about it?
ScienceApologist (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is he doing some advertising, astroturfing or such? If not, COI in mind, experts are welcome to contribute on subjects of their interest (and expertise). If an expert contributes to a subject he is an expert on, it's not a problem as long as he adheres to NPOV, V and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He is definitely POV-pushing a pro-cold fusion viewpoint which, of course, is in his own best interest considering that his company would benefit if people began to take this idea seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I propose to block the account indefinetly as a single purpose account with a conflict of interests pushing a marginal theory. Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not objecting, not knowing enough about this case, but I will not support: POV pushing is allowed (per NPOV, editors are expected to have a POV). Moderating one's POV is of course recommended :) Is he being disruptive? Edit warring, harassing others...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, the history of cold fusion is extremely contentious. Most of the people who are not cold fusion advocates editing that page thinks he is problematic and should be removed. An example would be this comment by User:Kirk shanahan (someone whom Pcarbonn derides personally -- and falsely, I might add -- on his user page), an expert in cold fusion, who writes the following: . I should note that Shanahan has expressed that he has felt almost hounded off Misplaced Pages due to Pcarbonn's tendentious and disruptive gaming of Misplaced Pages conventions. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think blocking is a bit premature. There is some history that might stand to be reviewed first, I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would encourage people to please review the history. I have a very hard time getting anyone willing to do this. Lar, do you want to review it for us? I'm not a big fan of people asking for a "review" and then not being willing to do it themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is covered by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. WP:AE is the appropriate place to go. The way you get an administrator to review the history is if you post a list of policies violated with a few sample diffs. Jehochman 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Goddamn it, why can't we review it here? If I file a Pseudoscience claim, I am going to have to argue for proper jurisdiction over there since cold fusion is probably pathological science and not pseudoscience. I'm tired of being subjected to the bureaucratic runaround. I've been complaining about this for a long time and I just want someone to look over it carefully. There seem to be some outsiders here who are willing to do this. I've provided diffs here. Isn't that enough? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You already filed a report at WP:COIN. Could you link to that please. There are administrators who patrol that board. In what way is this not forum shopping? If you need more admins, post a request asking for help. Don't start a new discussion. Jehochman 06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the link. I was under the impression that the COIN result that YOU yourself wrote was that it wasn't a COI issue. I interpret that to mean that it should be brought up somewhere else. So if I'm forum shopping, it's because I'm following your instructions. (And now you're telling me to go to yet ANOTHER forum.) ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You already filed a report at WP:COIN. Could you link to that please. There are administrators who patrol that board. In what way is this not forum shopping? If you need more admins, post a request asking for help. Don't start a new discussion. Jehochman 06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Goddamn it, why can't we review it here? If I file a Pseudoscience claim, I am going to have to argue for proper jurisdiction over there since cold fusion is probably pathological science and not pseudoscience. I'm tired of being subjected to the bureaucratic runaround. I've been complaining about this for a long time and I just want someone to look over it carefully. There seem to be some outsiders here who are willing to do this. I've provided diffs here. Isn't that enough? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is covered by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. WP:AE is the appropriate place to go. The way you get an administrator to review the history is if you post a list of policies violated with a few sample diffs. Jehochman 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pcarbonn is certainly relevant. And the time-line on his userpage would seem to provide his version of the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- That timeline in his userpage is interesting. I found this line September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. to be particularly so. Somehow Pcarbonn feels it's acceptable for someone who's financially invested in a particular POV for an article, or an "expert" to edit it - but not this guy? After reviewing quite a few of Pcarbonn's contributions, he's clearly an SPA and one with a substantial conflict in editing as there is the possibility of real personal gain by inserting his POV in the article. Looking at the substance of the material he's added to the article, he does appear to strongly push a particular viewpoint and solely insert content favorable to that view. I'm pretty confused by the previous COI threads where editors said "well, as long as he plays by the rules" - since when is long term POV pushing directly related to one's own interests "playing by the rules"? I see no reason that Pcarbonn should be editing any article related to cold fusion. Shell 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, to expand, the "financial investment" is something which troubles me greatly but for some reason didn't fly on COI. I don't know why. I had another cold fusion advocate angrily retort that my evidence that he had a financial stake in cold fusion was basically made out of whole-cloth (User talk:ScienceApologist#COI evidence) and then decided to request that I stop editing cold fusion altogether (User talk:ScienceApologist#Request for a voluntary topic ban) since he didn't like the fact that I pointed out that the company in which Pcarbonn is involved makes products used in various cold fusion advocates' claims. Just another day in the life.... ScienceApologist (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- That timeline in his userpage is interesting. I found this line September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. to be particularly so. Somehow Pcarbonn feels it's acceptable for someone who's financially invested in a particular POV for an article, or an "expert" to edit it - but not this guy? After reviewing quite a few of Pcarbonn's contributions, he's clearly an SPA and one with a substantial conflict in editing as there is the possibility of real personal gain by inserting his POV in the article. Looking at the substance of the material he's added to the article, he does appear to strongly push a particular viewpoint and solely insert content favorable to that view. I'm pretty confused by the previous COI threads where editors said "well, as long as he plays by the rules" - since when is long term POV pushing directly related to one's own interests "playing by the rules"? I see no reason that Pcarbonn should be editing any article related to cold fusion. Shell 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So topic ban him. ~ L'Aquatique! 06:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The accusations of SA are baseless. I don't have any share in MEMS Instruments. MEMS Instruments has no interest in cold fusion, and SA has not provided any evidence to the contrary. In any case, SA has not demonstrated any wrong behavior of my part. I have always provided reliable sources in support of my edits, and I have written for the enemy. This is a content dispute, and several other editors have the same opinion as mine. Content dispute are not resolved by ejecting users, but by abiding to WP policies and mediation. These policies have worked in the past, and I have always respected them. I'm ready to go to mediation again if needed to resolve this content dispute. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- As for the accusation of Single purpose account, Sa must have not looked. I invented the To-do list mechanism, and I have written 2 user scripts recently . Pcarbonn (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- As for Shanahan, I objected about him writing 4 paragraphs about his own papers on cold fusion. I did not object to his contributing to other parts of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. Clear COI, POV editing, and an uncivil attitude. It'll also show whether he's an SPA or not. Verbal chat 10:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy and in any case doesn't indicate that SPA's aren't allowed. Pcarbonn does not edit tendentiously, but rather seeks consensus on the talk page and cites reliable sources. That SA happens to disagree with Pcarbonn's POV is not sufficient to disqualify him from editing the page. Ronnotel (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not votes for banning. Please stop. WP:AE is that way. As I said above, you have a perfectly good arbitration case that can be used to topic ban somebody who causes disruption. Starting a lengthy thread here just to get lots of attention is not being fair to the user at all. Even if they ultimately need to be banned, we should still treat them fairly. Whipping up a frenzy on ANI is not the way to do this. Jehochman 12:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, can you explain what difference it makes whether this shows up on AE or here? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AE is the place to get arbitration decisions enforced. What you are doing here is creating a big fuss for no reason. You're duplicating a discussion that was already held at WP:COIN. Please go to WP:AE with diffs in hand and make your request. That board is watched by administrators with the most experience in these matters. You'll get the most accurate result there with the least fuss. Why do you resist? Jehochman 13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, can you explain what difference it makes whether this shows up on AE or here? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:BalkanFever and User:Alex Makedon
A content dispute over whether to include Greek in the languages section of the "Republic of Macedonia" article has turned rather ugly. I have been called a "vandal" and "nationalist troll" and compared to Adolphos (Adolf Hitler) and Osama bin Laden by User:BalkanFever for attempting to restore Greek to the list of languages spoken in the country. The fact that Greek is spoken there is confirmed by numerous reputable sources. He and User:Alex Makedon, who has also described my edits as "pure Greek nationalistic propaganda", have tried to argue that the sources are ambiguous. They are not. User:Alex Makedon has also engaged in further insults and threats, apart from violating WP:CANVASS by spamming a plethora of like-minded users to support an AfD nomination he has instigated. Most seriously of all, he has used extremely offensive language against countries and ethnic groups other than his own, referring to Greece in particular as "Hellass", deliberately altering the endonym Hellas in order to render it a compound of hell and the fundamental orifice. After being asked to retract this inflammatory statement, he simply repeated it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Kekrops called me a ridiculous nationalist for citing the source, among other things. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Languages Section for his continuous incivility towards users who disagree with him, accusing everyone of trying to "expunge minorities" etc. He even directed his insults to an outside user (Luka Jačov). BalkanFever 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- And Kekrops is hardly innocent when it comes to offending people, continually putting the words Macedonia, Macedonian and Macedonians in scare quotes to assert that the country, ethnic group and language are not the "real" Macedonia/n/s. That's after his continual use of the offensive term "Skopjan" was taken to ANI a while back. More of his incivility: comparing Macedonia to Nazi Germany (funny how he gets hurt if I call him Hitler in retaliation) and accusing me of ethnic nationalism. And no, he wasn't restoring Greek to the list, he added it, probably to further his nationalist motives, but whatever. I don't have time for senseless bickering with him, so hopefully an admin can lay down the law. BalkanFever 09:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cool it guys. BalkanFever and Kekrops, I know you two are perennial sparring partners in all your national disputes, but at heart you love each other. So c'mon now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- All's fair in love... BalkanFever 09:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- To FP: No, I am not going to have a laugh over this spat like I usually do, nor I am not going to let the insults just go by this time. Being called a "nationalist troll" by BalkanFever is nothing new, but his insults have escalated to an altogether different level. Enough is enough. My father's family fought the Nazis during the occupation, and had their home bombed by the German Stukas, for which Germany still refuses compensation. Did his?
- To BF: No one is going to force me to call another people "Macedonians" when that is how I identify. My resistance towards your desire to impose your point of view on me cannot reasonably be construed as incivility. The equivalent would be for me to try to coerce you into using Macedonia only for the Greek region. I use the scare quotes because that's what they call themselves, but I don't have to agree with that self-identification, do I? The "ridiculous nationalist" comment was the result of extreme provocation, and was not directed towards you personally, as I didn't bother to check the edit history before posting it. But I stand by my view that seeking to expunge any references to the Greek and Bulgarian linguistic minorities, which incidentally have been restored by a non-ethnic partisan administrator, is an eminent example of ethnic nationalism. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they did fight against the Nazis. Happy now? BalkanFever 11:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The thing that riles me the most about all this is that if I really were a "nationalist troll", I would've certainly opposed the inclusion of "Macedonian" at Greece#Languages from the very outset. Naturally, I've done nothing of the sort. But when I dare to request the bare minimum of reciprocity, and am actually backed up by the sources, I'm an Adolphos. I mean, fuck me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I meant reciprocal behaviour, not content. That's what the sources are for. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
My few words on the matter:
- User ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has been stubbornly adding the Greek Language among the languages spoken in Macedonia in a total of 8 times up till now in the last few days.
- Despite the fact that there is some pretty strong evidence that the language is not spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: European Council , United Nations , Britannica encyclopedia , BBC Educational , Eupedia , none of them mentiones the Greek language once in relation to the languages spoken in Macedonia. This has been backed up by many editors also. This user has continued to vandalize tha page.
- The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Whatever they ment is not clearly stated.
- The user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has some bad reputation for using unproper language and racial personal attacks: "Fuck You", "Drop the dead donkey", "That's rather rich coming from a Slav".
- This user has heavily offended Republic of Macedonia refering to it as the nazi Griechenfrei republic just because we do not happen to agree on adding a language that is just ambiguously reported in a single cherry picked irellevant source, that he by some personal reason is insisting on.
- In the bottom line this admin board report he has made is just a WP:GAME to cover his disruptive editing and vandalizing.
I hope you do something about the user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ and his recent (and not so recent) disruptive behaviour. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I shan't bother replying to some of the more inane allegations, but the one about my being "alone" is a blatant lie, as a cursory glance at the edit history will confirm. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:BD2412
I would like to flag User:BD2412 for intentional bad flagging, as he has flagged one of my articles for deletion, an article I worked very hard on and has legit credentials. His deletion flag was inappropriately done and I would like his actions investigated by someone from ADMIN. He has also taken part in a similar discussion on the WikiQuotes. I believe he has a personal vendetta against the book and this is NO REASON to flag an article. This user only flags for credit and not the greater good of Misplaced Pages content. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melia Jansen (talk • contribs)
- If the book meet's Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion, its likely that the community will keep it. If not, its likely you'll understand why it fails the criteria by reading the "delete" comments. Either way if an editor feels that an article may meet the deletion guidelines, the correct thing to do is start a discussion. Nothing BD2412 did here is improper. If you've run into problems on several Wikimedia sites, that's probably a good indication that your material isn't appropriate for where you're trying to include it - that doesn't make it any less worthwhile, it just means that these might not be the best venues. If you want to read up on the criteria used to judge whether or not a book is ready for an article here, please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (books).Shell 06:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- One nomination, whether good or bad, doesn't immediately seem like an issue to "investigate" someone over. Your hard work is appreciated, and you are more than welcome to argue for the article's inclusion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The violin diary. If there is evidence to suggest that BD2412 has engaged in repeated bad faith behavior, I'm not seeing it here. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I have no vendetta against this book, nor do I even particularly care about it. I joined the deletion discussion on Wikiquote because I am an active administrator there, and frequently participate in those discussions. A due diligence investigation of the topic there led me to the Misplaced Pages entry, and an attempt to find further information about the book via Google and by searching online booksellers led me to conclude that the book is simply not encyclopedically notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It obviously is, as per the links that you yourself fixed and I commend you for that. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is up to the AfD discussion to determine, but the fact that some mentions of a book exist on the internet simply do not suffice make it notable, obviously or otherwise. bd2412 T 07:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
BD2412's edits seem reasonable to me. I have no strong opinion on the underlying topic, but a prod seems reasonable to challenge and obtain a consensus on the notability of the book. On the other hand Melia Jansen's edits seem remarkably uncivil. I don't find edits like this particularly helpful. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. This was clearly a candidate for deletion -- any self-published book is going to have to show very clearly that it meets our criteria for notability at WP:BK. Anything from Lulu.com (the url is blacklisted by the way) needs scrutiny - we seem to have well over 1000 articles with 'Lulu.com' in them. dougweller (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This page indicates that there are 346 pages linked to Lulu.com, not 1,000, and--though it's hard to tell for certain as there doesn't seem to be a way to filter the results--most of the links appear to be to AFD pages and talk pages. There are, admittedly, some suspect articles (such as this, this, this) and this, and even some suspect user pages (such as this, this this and this). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You've found links to the website, which is worrying as it is blacklisted in its 'pure vanilla' form of www.lulu.com. I did a Goold search using "lulu.com site:en.wikipedia.org" which finds every mention of lulu.com which is the publisher itself as opposed to its website. If the website is meant to be blacklisted, don't we have to do something to make sure every version is? dougweller (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This page indicates that there are 346 pages linked to Lulu.com, not 1,000, and--though it's hard to tell for certain as there doesn't seem to be a way to filter the results--most of the links appear to be to AFD pages and talk pages. There are, admittedly, some suspect articles (such as this, this, this) and this, and even some suspect user pages (such as this, this this and this). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Peter Frank VS. Peter Frank Anderson
Peter Frank is a well known Los Angeles Curator and Nationally recognized art critic. When I looked him up, recently, I found Peter Frank Anderson an Athlete in his spot. Should not Peter Frank Anderson be found under the listing of Peter Frank Anderson and Peter Frank the art critic be found under Peter Frank?
Please Take a look at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.168.45 (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The article Peter Frank begins "Peter Frank Andersen is a former Danish football player." There is a redirect Peter Frank Andersen to article Peter Frank. So it is true the article is misnamed. One of the external links mentions the full name "Peter Frank Andersen" while the other mentions just "Peter Frank", so it is possible fans knew him as just "Peter Frank", and the article misnaming came from there. Article and redirect were created same day by User:Latouffedisco.
- Checking the ever-reliable 8-ball and sorting the first 10 hits, we find (apparently) 4 different people:
- So we have some possibly large number of people all named with this (now obvious) common combination of first names.
- Notability of the more noted (at least Google-noted) art critic cannot be judged by me. The article and redirect should be reversed. Comments? Shenme (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and if all of these individuals are notable we should perhaps create a disambiguation page and create stubs with these references linked. They could be fleshed out later.--Crossmr (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the footballer to Peter Frank Andersen, and then made Peter Frank into a disambig page. I split off the art curator edits as page Peter Frank (USA art critic). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Greek Macedonia/Macedonia/FYROM userboxes
Hi. Here is a rather unfair decision concerning one of my userboxes. Of course since you care so much about justice I demand equal treatment concerning userboxes of
irredentist User:MacedonianBoy:
File:Hop2.jpg |
| This user supports independence of Pirin Macedonia and later unification with the Republic of Macedonia. This user supports the creation of a Neutral Welfare state of Aegean Macedonia, like the solution of the Macedonian Question. And as Macedonian he believes in the reunification of his land, but hopes that to be achived on cultural level and human right recognition by Greece and Bulgaria. |
The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was correct on the previous discussion in saying this would open the door to a whole bunch of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That said, the content of this userbox does look to be clearly inappropriate to my eyes. Lankiveil 11:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
- And the second one is way too big. o.o JuJube (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)