|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hilary T (talk · contribs) has created 16 stubs of the type Greece-Nepal relations since April 1, when the account went live. These stubs are controversial; many editors (like me) consider them in most cases content forks from, say Foreign relations of Nepal. The editor has been made aware of this, yet continues to create such stubs (it appears at an accelerating rate -- Mongolia-Vietnam relations Australia–Vietnam relations and Egypt-India relations all created today, while the editor also removed a prod from France–Nauru relations). The intervention i'm seeking is an admonishment to stop creating such stubs, until we got some kind of RFC/consensus building mechanism in place to determine the conditions under which bilateral relationships are considered encyclopedically notable and useful (i must admit some editors think all of this stuff is worth having, it is a matter of dispute). But for now the serial stub creation (most without inline citations or reliable sources) is becoming disruptive. Here's a discussion of this sort of issue from earlier this year involving Groubani (talk · contribs) which seemed to yield a very clear consensus that such serial stub creation was disruptive and should stop .Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am creating stubs on notable topics. They all have reliable sources, and the new ones even have inline citations. They also seem to have a reasonable survival rate at AFD. I'm fully aware that people like Bali ultimate don't like them, too bad. Hilary T (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- And can someone please tell Bali ultimate that my articles do have sources, since he won't listen to me. Hilary T (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- My two cents: ignoring the prior precedent, Hilary T, keep on creating them if you wish and people like Bali will keep on listing them for deletion. The smarter strategy for both of you (especially Hilary) is to wait on a few of the AFD nominations and see what sort of precedent we have (not all get deleted but clearly most aren't staying). I don't care either way but Hilary T is the one who is going to be wasting the most time at this. Spend more than a few minutes at each one and you may have a few saved. I say take the same attitude here we do with our most famous serial stub creator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only constructive solution here is for Bali (being the only one really concerned as I see it) to draft up WP:Notability (bi-lateral relations), defining what a bi-lateral article should contain to satisfy WP:NOTE, and then take it into the field and start quoting it at Afd, to force people to read it, and edit it if they disagree with it, or say in afd why they disagree with it. It's obvious this editor is not going to give up while consensus is in limbo, and he's not going to get banned simply because it is in limbo (although obviously, there is a line between working in a vacuum of consensus, and editting tendentiously). A good start to get underway would be to simply start the page, cut and paste all prior discussions onto the proposal's talk page, and then start to distill the arguments into proposal content for the main page. What I do know is arguing the toss every time at Afd or at AN/I is a pure waste of time. At the very least, a proposed guideline that becomes a train wreck is still a usefull archive record. At the very least Bali, it will save you repeating yourself at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ricky gives sage advice. Just keep creating and nominate as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mick, I don't think anyone is going to create a specific notability argument for bi-lateral relations, as it's just too specific. Let a few of the AFDs settle into place, and consensus will form (wasn't that how fiction, porn bios and other specific ones came about?). If anyone is really interested, I'd suggest a couple of user-space tables of all the various incarnation of bi-lateral relations, so that both sides can see what's red and what's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The advice above to continue this conflict does not make much sense to me if meant seriously. Hilary, though deletion processes can be unpredictable, there is no chance whatever that these articles will stand unless there is more material than just their mutual ambassadors--even when they have ambassadors, which is not the case for all of them. If you want to establish an actual precedent for articles like this, then work on strong ones and strong ones only. Once you have established these, then try some somewhat lesser ones and see the reaction. When creating, it pays to start at the top (and when deleting, at the bottom, which by and large Bali is in fact doing, appropriately. I saw a number of prods, & as I don't think the articles have a chance, I'm not going to deprod them.) DGG (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't do "mutual ambassadors" articles, that was someone else. Hilary T (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have been doing ones with similarly sparse material, such as a single visit of foreign ministers and nothing else--and where there are not even mutual embassies. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think what is more important that the presence or absence of embassies, especially when one of the countries is extremely poor, is the question of whether or not their relationship "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think you are confirming my suspicion that these articles are being deleted just because they short, and/or to punish that guy (and now me) for creating them. But because there is no policy that says you can delete articles for being short or in order to punish someone, I see all kinds of ridiculous distortions of your actual policies, like "sourced to newspaper articles = fails WP:News". Hilary T (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize that regardless of how you view notability, DGG's views (and the views of others) are more in line with general consensus and as such will probably survive over time? Unless your plan is to just create articles and argue the same points in AFD after AFD until you find yourself blocked or topic banned, I'd say try another tact. Some articles are surviving, others aren't. Again, try to figure out what is acceptable and work on those, leaving the more fringe ones for later. You should add in reference tags, and other minor details but generally I have no problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- If the general consensus is completely different from your written policies perhaps you should think about updating them. Hilary T (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- (od) Misplaced Pages:Starting an article specifies that articles should only be created if the notability of the topic can be verified through reliable sources. User:Hilary T is participating in the current AfD discussions of obscure bilateral relations stubs and is aware that the notability of these relationships needs to be demonstrated. As such, it seems to be disruptive for her to create further stubs with no real attempt to demonstrate WP:N is met at the time of their creation, even allowing for her newness. The most charitable interpretation of this behavior is that she's relying on other people to bring her articles up to the required minimum standard, which is fairly unhelpful behavior. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that. It's clear that some of his article are worth keeping (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations is going his way), so I'm not sure a blanket ban on creation is appropriate nor really is warning. He has a reasonable interpretation of notability that possibly could survive here and in my opinion, I don't see it as vandalism or even WP:POINTy-ness. I'm not saying he's new or not. I'm saying I think it's reasonable interpretation. Again, if we allow a certain user to create dozens of unsourced articles like Carl Eugen Keel and Albert von Keller, what's wrong with relations between nations? Both of which are on a case-by-case basis debatable. Look, if he was just creating completely moronic things like relationships between micronations or dead civilizations with literally nothing there, I'd have a different tune, but some of these are actually useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. While a lot of these articles simply have no way to expand, a blanket ban would harm some notable subjects. However, it would be better for everyone to devise a notability guideline, since WP:N tends to be too generic to allow for easy immediate evaluation of the new article. —Admiral Norton 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This comment from Hilary T is rather unsettling: "I'm going create as many articles he doesn't like as possible for as long as possible". Promising to go on a spree of creating non-notable articles just to spite another editor is not very constructive. - Biruitorul 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- They aren't non-notable. Hilary T (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the point. Creating articles simply out of spite is highly inappropriate and you'll see a complete block for that, not just a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I'm not prepared to just accept these edit summaries so you can go ahead and block me now. Hilary T (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Even more unsettling stuff from Hilary T: here, she turns her user page into an attack page, declaring herself "motivated by hate", while here she says, "I just want revenge now". Do we really want someone with those motivations going on an editing spree? - Biruitorul 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not thinking "spree", I'm thinking long-term here. Hilary T (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the interest of full disclosure, my input was requested. Anyway, here are my thoughts: The two diffs cited by Birutorul that mention the other editor are a bit unsettling as userspace should not be used to critique other editors. Concerning the main topic, I don't think creating the articles on relations is really a problem so long as they can cited through reliable sources. We are after all an encyclopedia/almanac and foreign relations are unquestionably an encyclopedic/almanacic topic and something people have an obvious and valid interest in. I can easily see someone thinking, "You know, I wonder if France ever had any significant foreign relations with (insert random country)" and coming here to find out. Many of these AfDs seem premature, i.e. not adequately taking into account WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and that may be a bigger concern. Best, --A Nobody 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying no such articles should be created, and in any case that doesn't require intervention on this board. What is troubling is that the user is promising to create articles just out of hatred for another user. That seems a little dangerous. - Biruitorul 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's a bit of a paradox, then, because I agree that if the motivation is to annoy aother user, then it is misplaced motivation, but if the articles themselves are worthwhile, then what? If someone started an article on (pick random president), because he hates that person and wants to annoy people, well, we wouldn't keep the article redlinked, because American presidents are encyclopedic topics, so it's a riddle here. The reason for creating the aricles is questionable, yet the articles themselves seem worthwhile. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good point, although the close proximity of these users (as opposed to, say, a user and a President) makes the bad blood between them more likely to have a corrosive effect. Regardless, it's a situation to be watched. - Biruitorul 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my view, regardless of the quality of a user's content, that sort of incivility should not be tolerated, and as such, I am removing it from his user page as an G10 attack page and am warning Hilary. I could care less about the dispute but this sort of conduct will not be tolerated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- How come you tolerate edit summaries like "burn with fire" anyhow? Hilary T (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because burn with fire is a view about an article, not a specific editor. Also, he isn't the first to use language like and honestly most people don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Most people don't care, do they? Perhaps your sample is disorted by the fact that almost everyone who does care just leaves. Hilary T (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Similar behavior
Didn't we have someone creating similar "X-Y Relations" articles last year? Anyone recall what the result of that drama was? — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- User:Groubani was banned and his sockpuppet User:Plumoyr has been inactive since February. He was annoying, but at least he didn't make threats of the sort Hilary T made just above (he didn't know English). - Biruitorul 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't make any threats, I just explained what I am doing and why. Hilary T (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- My response to the announcement of a plan of revenge was: "If you act on that basis, you will soon be blocked from contributing, and very rightly so. You may accept that, but it will also harm the possibility of anyone working on these articles, because such actions will taint them". I regard he attempts to introduce the articles in exactly the same way as I do the campaign to delete a large number of articles of the same time, some but not all of which ought to be deleted. We will lose some good articles, which is not unusual at Misplaced Pages, and also tie up Misplaced Pages process in our trying to sort it out with as little damage as possible. The temptation is of course for us to respond by deleting all the articles, just as we delete everything submitted by a banned user. If there is any way to turn her into a responsible contributor, I do not know, but certainly I would not proceed in the absence of further disruption. If there is, I suggest another checkuser. The first was declined Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumoyr/Archive
- as for the content issue, I suggest my usual remedy--combination articles until expanded. DGG (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the first IP check was Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WilyD/Archive. If you don't want to create disgruntled users, you could try not insulting them by calling them "meat puppet", not lying about their contributions to "help get them deleted", not ignoring everying they say in 9 different debates and lacking the decency to admit it, and not deleting good faith contributions with edit summaries like "kill it, burn it, then kill it again". Most sensible people would have left after first one, I'm just too ornery to be driven away. Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- You should take a look at the "combination articles" which exist at the moment. What does Foreign relations of Pakistan say about Pakistan's relationship with Japan? What does Foreign relations of Japan say about the same thing? Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, generally, I would say we should be looking for there to be enough information until it's necessary to split it and create a separate article. That's the way I think about articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- This might be part of the problem. People like you think "In general we should do this", and they vote that way, without actually responding to the specific objections that have been raised. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Editors who believe that bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable are going to use whatever tricks they can to get you banned Hilary. Certainly you've already seen specious sockpuppetting allegations, misrepresentation of the facts in your case, et cetera. Similar silliness has been flung at me. Here, you have to just take the high road. Create your articles, source them impeccably so no one can plauisbly argue they fail WP:N, make the cases at AFD when they're nominated regardless, and be nice. If you don't misbehave, there's nothing that'll get done to you, so be good. Don't worry that some editors want you banned, and don't give them fodder they need to see you banned. WilyD 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry WilyD, I don't have to take the high road, because Misplaced Pages's interests are not my priority any more. I know what they want will result in a broken encylopedia but I really don't care. Initially I started creating these articles because I saw you complaining ablout being flooded and I thought it was a good way to give him an incentive to slow down. However I didn't realize how much it hurts when people who don't even read your arguments, like BlueRavenSquadron, get your contributions deleted with that kind of thinking. BlueRavenSquadron is obviously about 10 years old so I hold Misplaced Pages responsible for this. Now I'm thinking "what will give Misplaced Pages an incentive not to allow this kind of thing?" and I'm thinking a vivid imagination combined with that nice "cite book" template someone taught me. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Depends on what you want, of course. If you want to get banned, sink to their level and beyond. If you want to create a bunch of useful, encyclopaedic articles and have them kept around, let them expose themselves. 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- What I want is to feel better about my relationship with Misplaced Pages. Getting banned is somewhat irrevelant to a strategy of creating fake articles, they would obviously all need different logins and IP's. Hilary T (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure I can speak to that. I write for the readership, and that I'm working in their interests, and some other accounts are working against their interests, I can't find solace in. I have to content myself with working for the readership, and benefitting it. If that's not enough, there may not be enough. WilyD 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've been trying to figure out the proportion of good Wikipedians, who follow the deletion policy, google for sources and try to improve articles, compared to the ones who lie to get articles deleted like Biruiturol, the one's who are driven by hatred and vote without having the decency to read what anyone else has said like BlueRavenSquadron, the ones using AFD as a instrument of punishment like The Hand That Feeds You, etc etc. I thought you were in a minority of one, frankly, but there do seem to be some other decent people here too and so it's possible this project has a viable future. On this basis, if I don't get banned I might not start my campaign of fake article writing. Hilary T (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whether or not we have these articles will not break Misplaced Pages. What will hurt Misplaced Pages a little is concentration upon issues of what should be separate articles instead of writing content. Those who think these articles important should try to write some more good ones one at a time. BTW, my idea of a combination article is : "foreign relations of Nepal with countries in the Americas;", with a paragraph for each, until someone writes more. DGG (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- DGG it's broken right now, try to pay attention to what I say. Hilary T (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have another question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? To punish me for creating it, no? Hilary T (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations, you would need to ask User:Juliancolton. And you can keep on playing the victim here if you want but the truth is, people have made suggestions as to how to proceed and you've instead reverted to the same arguments, which aren't in the majority. Does everyone who supports you at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations now punishing someone else? I would guess that Julian, upon review of the discussion, did not think that you and User:User:WilyD had the arguments that indicated consensus the best, but you can ask him. Now, if you would like, there is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you think the decision was improper or I would be willing to move a copy into your userspace until a suitable version is completed. There are options available and they don't include insult other users who have a different view than yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- What arguments have I reverted to? Hilary T (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- And I think I'd better repeat this question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? Hilary T (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:POINT comes to mind. And User:Juliancolton deleted the article so, as stated above, ask him. We didn't make that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you deleted it instead of merging it because I created it to make a point (the point at the time being that WilyD was already overwhelmed with deletion nominations), I interpret that as punishing me and I have no need to "play" the victim, I am one. Hilary T (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds rather backwards to me. It's hard to claim to be a victim when you intentionally set out to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, you are right. I deserved my punishment. So sorry. Hilary T (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
BlueRaven is still doing it, and I've decided it willl be too stressful to have any interaction with him, so I'm going to go with Plan B. Sorry Wily etc. Hilary T (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it doesn't make much difference now, but I have yet another grievance: You are closing debates like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Australia–Paraguay relations within 2 days, not even giving anyone a chance to look for sources. I can add false information and tell you immediately, and just make you run around looking for it, or I can add false information and tell you a month later, or never. Hilary T (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And can someone tell BlueSquadronRaven not to violate my right to attribution under the GDFL, as he did here Hilary T (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- What part of "speak to the specific administratior" don't you understand? There is no magic "we" deciding whether to keep, delete, or whatever out to get you. I don't even know what exactly you are mad at User:BlueSquadronRaven about. He voted to delete, like a number of others, and is actually adding details to Foreign relations of Australia. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this complaining from you. I'd like an outside view but I'm close to enforcing a break just for general disruption. If you want to start adding false information, see how long you last before we block you and move on. Oh, and tell him yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not planning on using this IP, dumbass. Hilary T (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had got as far as leaving a final warning onm Hilar y T's talk page to find that Fut Perf had beaten me to it with a 48 hour block. That works for me to. Endorse block. Will also archive this. Spartaz 08:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|}
Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.
 Resolved – Already posted at WP:AN
 Unresolved
- Subpaged to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody due to size issues and for proper recording to polls by MBisanz 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Administrative eyes requested: User:Eye.earth
I'd like to ask an outside admin to review the behavior of Eye.earth (talk · contribs). I see this account as a long-term, low-level case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, though I'm currently losing patience and, perhaps, perspective. Most of his contrib history consists of promoting AIDS denialism, often by inserting its claims into various biographies:
Most of his effort seems to be devoted to rewriting our article on zidovudine to reflect an AIDS-denialist perspective (e.g. ). Recently this has taken the form of lengthy edit-warring against several editors, keeping below 3RR and trying to force in an edit which everyone else agrees is redundant or misleading (). Straw that broke the camel's back is that I solicited outside feedback - at his request - and it universally agreed that his edit was redundant and/or misleading. Yet he continues to insert it.
He has edited other articles besides HIV/AIDS ones, but apparently has the same behavioral issues (see User Talk:Eye.earth). He was on WP:AN/I recently for the same kind of abusive editing at List of centenarians - see prior AN/I thread. I'm reasonably tired of dealing with him, but it's possible I've lost perspective. I would propose that he's reached the threshold for administrative action for continuous edit-warring against consensus, abuse of Misplaced Pages to advocate for a fringe agenda at the expense of core policy, and uncollaborative editing. I'd propose a temporary topic ban from HIV/AIDS topics, but it looks like his editing elsewhere is no more policy-compliant. I'd like to get some feedback. MastCell 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- This user was previously(link to diff where Gwen links to thread(which is now archived, and I will not try to find it)) the subject of another ANI thread, with roughly the subject matter: Disruptive editing. Please just block this user and be done with it, they've made it blantantly clear they don't plan to follow our rules here. WP:RBI.— Dædαlus 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 24 hours for persistent edit warring against consensus. Their last revert was to reintroduce unsourced material (including a fact tag) against the opinion of every other editor involved in the discussion. They'd been warned before, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to one page. Hopefully this short block will deter them from continually disrupting articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Smiley face murders - Legal threat/outing/COI/switching IP
Not resolved, more is needed unfortunately.
The Smiley face murders article has been plagued lately with an anon account trying to use the page to advance theories of someone called Mike Flaherty, with links to his blog, adding section to promote his theory (which has no mainstream coverage, just his blog), and even removing any mention that the majority view of the FBI/police/profilers is that there were no murders in the first place. This anon was finally blocked, but now a new anon IP account has started up the same thing, and the very first edit contains a legal threat and an attempt to out another user. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
New problem, an IP is outing another editor on the talk page here that I suspect should be oversighted and the IP dealt with. I'm not sure how this is handled so I brought it here for others more knowledgable in what the proper procedure is in this kind of matter. I didn't remove the resolved template because not sure if that would be a proper thing to do either. I hope I have this in the correct location, if not please feel free to move or correct. Thank you for your attentions/help, --CrohnieGal 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You would have been correct to remove the "Resolved" banner. There are two people trying desperately to get banned on the Smiley face murders talk page. I've left a warning but I'm a nobody so it might be more appropriate if an admin stepped in. They may very well have violated WP:OUTING already. Both have called the other by very specific names. (Whether they are correct or not I don't know). Padillah (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to find and isolate the Outings but they are litterealy strewn throughout the edit history of the talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The anon has now expressed feelings of immunity due to his "endless IPs". Padillah (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to all who have responded. I see Padillah has tried to help with this situation and I am in the same boat, unable to stop or remove the outing and poor behavior going on. The IP has already changed IP number so if someone who can would clean out the sock drawer that would be appreciated. Along with the outing, poor behavior we also have legal threats going on. I've never done a checkuser, oversight or any other request about problems I have seen. I always request politely the help of administrator to take the appropriate actions. At this point I believe indefinite blocks are in order for all involved. This can be seen at the talk page and apparently the article history though I think the article has been oversighted and I don't think that the problems have reocurred but I haven't checked again recently. Some of the problems are which is when I saw the problems esculating. Thanks for listening and taking time to tend to this. --CrohnieGal 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would consider blocking a range of ips and notifying the isp to be justifiable in this case. Do we know they are from the same isp? --neon white talk 14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The ones I've seen all whois to the same ISP in middle America. Keep in mind, all the dynamic IPs in the world won't get one by semi-protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- If they are all from the same isp a range block would likely be effective, not sure about reports to the isp as i am unfamiliar with US law and the responsibilities of isps. --neon white talk 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
More threats now, just FYI. --SB_Johnny | 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- SP'd my talk. Looks like he's persistent though. --SB_Johnny | 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"DreamGuy just added the libal again to the Smiley Face discussion page, Wiki needs to remove this, before legal action is taken. DreamGuy should also be banned. You have 30 minutes to remove this and ban DreamGuy or I will out you as well and spread your personal data all over the Internet." is pretty outrageous. Nothing I said could even remotely be described as libel, and demanding that I be banned or else he'll go around outing people shows all new levels of disregard for our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I highly recommend filing an abuse report on this one. It should be a priority to rid the project of this egregious person. --neon white talk 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"grapheus" is a well-known usenet troll who made an appearance at Phaistos Disc in 2006 and ended up permabanned over trying to cause real-life difficulties for another editor. This chap can be extremely tenacious, and is known to have pressed legal charges against other usenet users over flamewars.
He is now back with a vengeance and appears to have picked me as his new arch-nemesis.
He is using Luxembourg IPs, and the only way to keep him under the lid is issuing short rangeblocks to his provider.
I would be obliged if some admins could keep an eye on Phaistos Disc for the next couple of days and slap the IPs with blocks as they come in. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also making attacks off-Wiki, which is no surprise. and . Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sheesh, someone needs to get a life -- & to belabor the obvious I am not talking about Dab or Dougweller. -- llywrch (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Over the last few days, I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com. The response has been reflexive edit-warring to restore the previous text by a user or users with no interest in complying with our BLP or reliable source policies. Much of the material I've attempted to remove (and I'm not the first editor to try) is highly promotional, and either unsourced or sourced directly to the article subjects or their business associates. For example, the citation-required tags I added to unsourced claims of the article subject's supposed educational achievements were reverted away. With the explanation "People can contact the colleges to verify. No way to cite this." An essentially unsourced set of award claims was restored with the edit summary "awards are legit. Reguardless of source. You can verify with the institutions." There are also quite a few "references" where the source doesn't match the cited text, apparently inserted as promotional spam for businesses involved. The editor involved, who uses the name Tallulah13, but also apparently often edits this and related articles as an anonymous IP, has been called out by other editors for ignoring Misplaced Pages sourcing policies, but has done nothing to change her bahavior. (Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently , although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.) Today, the same sort of reverting began on the Jessicka article, accompanied by the addition of obviously unacceptable fair use images as illustrations and uncivil invective on my talk page from Xtian1313, who claims to be Jessicka's husband.
Can we get some intervention here before this nonsense gets completely out of hand? A Misplaced Pages article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I do NOT live in L.A. - so there goes that theory.
And while I did not create the Clint Catalyst article from the ground up, I have taken pride in helping to maintain it.
I believe that it serves as a valuable source of information. I never make edits for promotional reasons.
Honestly, I do not have time or energy for this edit-war nonsense anymore.
Who knew wikipedia could be full of so much drama.
I will continue to make edits as I see fit and you can continue to do whatever it is that you do...
Though I am sure there are much more constructive things you could be doing with your time.
Regards - Tallulah13 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't care if you live in LA, don't live in LA, care about the person, hate the person, whatever, the article in its current state is a mess of non-reliable sources and an unsourced mess. We have a very strict policy about the biographies of living people which requires reliable sources for everything. I will begin the process of cleaning it out and Tallulah if you continue to play ownership on it, you will find yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- That was beyond excessive and totally inappropriate on my part. Tallulah, if you are still reading this, there are general editing standards we follow for things like the nature of sources (WP:RS), and specifically for biographies of living people (WP:BLP). While it seems forceful to push this down on people, those have come about through years of discussion. Others are working on getting those articles more in line with general policy here. People should be more civil and willing to discuss things with you however. NeutralHomer is willing to if you (understandably) aren't interested in some of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Separate point: could an OTRS user verify the license for File:Secret-zine.jpg? It is cited pretty bizarrely in the article and even if it's a copyright violation, it really isn't needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nicely done....we have pushed another editor out over people who take the rules a little too seriously. How about next time you actually chat with the person, how even adopt them (the user was looking for an adopter) so you might teach them the rules you want them to follow instead of taking them to ANI off the bat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 00:05
- Related: #Jessicka edits x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good riddance to bad rubbish if they have left. This isn't a playground for those craving unearned attention. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not bad rubbish & I am most certainly not craving unearned attention{?}, for myself or anyone else. I am done with discussing this issue, but I thought your comment to be out of line and just wanted to let you know. To everyone else, thank you.Tallulah13 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."
My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com.
"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently , although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"
The episode was filmed in LA not Germany. You know what people say about assuming!
"A Misplaced Pages article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."
I have no idea what promoting business User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is talking about. The end of their ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what this user is alluding to- it's simply not true. I won't burden you with the back and forth here. I'll take this issue to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page.
Xtian1313 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Misplaced Pages these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Jessicka edits
RE: Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP
I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here: here: & here:
Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's wikipedia page. Removing links wasn't even User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit.
See here:
I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands.
I was alerted to a problem, so I am being bold and taking action.
My suggestions to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - I am asking that they try to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking that they try to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section. Then perhaps somebody with time may find the sorce.
If you they interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search .
If they are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.
As far as User:Tallulah13's talk page goes please reread what I wrote. and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up."
I do not know User:Tallulah13. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against wikipedia policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages.
As far as I know User:Tallulah13 has not made edits on Jessicka's page.
In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits on pages I have a COI with.
I am asking User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz nicely to please follow wikipedia policy. I am still familiarizing myself with wikipedia but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles.
I look forward to resolving this matter quickly,
Xtian1313 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at Talk:Jessicka, but I couldn't find the section where you and the other users are discussing your desired edits. Is it archived somewhere I don't see? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Related: #Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, Xtian, for the removal of uncited material, we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people which suggest removal immediately not a cite tag. There's a huge history of why that's done. While the material in question here wasn't necessarily negative, I hope you can imagine a situation where something unsourced and somewhat negative was kept there and people were warring to keep it there with fact tags, which is why policy goes somewhat extreme. Removing images that go against our non-free image policy also isn't necessarily out of the ordinary. I think Hullaballoo could do better to explain things that's a concern, but it doesn't seem like anyone is following that. If you want, we can continue this on the article talk page or even at your user page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Taking it to my user page. :)
Xtian1313 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This editor posted a personal attack at Talk:Dragon Ball attacking myself and other editors. I removed and warned. His response was that it wasn't a personal attack but another editor also agreed it was and reiterated the warning. Norse is now proceeding to harrass me off-wiki, leaving a comment on my YouTube profile of "Obnoxious cow." and leaving a long, ranty comment on my anime/manga review blog (and he makes no effort to hide it is him). I can provide the copies of emails to an admin offsite if desired. The comment on my blog includes his email address and IP address for confirmation, if needed. This is not his first time being incivil, though as far as I know it is his first time taking it off wiki. Administrative advice and action would be much appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you email links and email copies to me via my user email link? I'll investigate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sent. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Received and reviewed. Not the worst off wiki harrassment I have seen but not great behavior. Warning left on Norse Am Legend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) talk page. Hopefully this is the last we have to do about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently, he still thinks he is justified because "she's worse then I am." --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't twist and simplify my words. She's not "worse than I am", we're very different people with incomparable "issues". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I realize this diff has already been posted, but I feel the need to note a few particular sentences: Hell, maybe she's just secretly the most devoted and effective Internet troll ever not to mention: She deserved all two words of that amazing insult on her character I made. Someone please block this user, they have made it blatantly clear they don't care about our WP:NPA policy. Responding to a warning against insults with an insult? As I said above, there is no signs he's going to stop, or even sees what is wrong with his off-wiki-harassment.— Dædαlus 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I gotta agree. A block is the best way to go here, as it seems the user's behavior isn't going to change. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 05:33
- Final warning left. AGF that it will be taken as intended. If not, the rope's out as far as it should go, I think.
- I have no idea and no opinion on the wider question raised, of whether Collectonian needs to be looked at. Someone else may want to review. One example given was 6 months old and stale - if there's anything newer someone may want to follow up there. But even if there is, Norse Am Legend is responsible for his actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't intend on "continuing" anything. It's true I'm often disgruntled by the actions of my peers here, but being the intelligent and rational person that I am I just brush it off and go do something else. Really, other than my handful of small-time conflicts with Collectonian I'm an unobtrusive, constructive editor(a fact that seems to have been overlooked in favor of making me appear as a raging troll with NPA issues 100% of the time). Hell, I don't even hold any such immature, moral grudges against her as you might expect. She works hard and is fairly competent at what she does, the only issues I have with her are of her attitude used when socializing and cooperating with other users, and after seeing another all-too-familiar discussion involving her on an article's talk page I got a little too annoyed and flew off the handle a bit, something I don't intend on doing again since it really is just a pointless course of action. Now if you guys don't mind, I'd like to continue my "Wikignoming" in peace. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe some admin attention is needed at this AFD. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) is making some rather bad faith comments about other editors, particularly Collectonian (talk · contribs), Dandy Sephy (talk · contribs), and myself. I've already grown tired of dealing with his poor arguments and always advocating we ignore Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. But it doesn't help when he claims that we are out to destroy Misplaced Pages by deleting articles. As a result, nearly every AFD discussion he is involved in turns into a mess. See also his talk page where he rails against article deletion and the notability guidelines in blog-like fashion. --Farix (Talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_Transfer Someone please don't skim through that, but read everything they said, and my responses to that. Don't just take something out of context, and lead people into an incorrect assumption. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's his userpage that rails against article deletion in blog-like fashion. I think it's also relevant to note his recent proposal at the village pump. The proposal itself isn't a worry, but the wording is most disconcerting. ThemFromSpace 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- So you are saying I worded it wrong? How exactly? Those who don't want to see something on wikipedia, now have the ability to not notice it at all, without having to delete it. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I edit-conflicted trying to add the same WP:VPP link. It's a fair indication that his mind is pretty well set on the matter, so I suspect any effort to make him consider moderating his views will be wasted. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec x 2)Here's another diff that suggests people are on an organized campaign to destroy all coverage of fiction on Misplaced Pages- which of course is nonsense. I'm a bit concerned that Dream Focus seems to be provoking a "circle the wagons and fight the evil scary deletionists" battleground mentality, but I don't think they've done anything that requires urgent administrator intervention. What's an admin going to do except suggest to Dream Focus that they ought to tone down the exaggerated defensiveness and take note of WP:AGF- which anyone could do and probably should have before bringing this issue here. Reyk YO! 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I never said to "circle the wagons" once in my life. And some deletionists have already stated they don't want fiction articles, in these very AFD you are discussion. Do you deny that some people automatically say "Delete" to any episode article, character article, or article about context of a work of fiction, because they believe such things shouldn't exist? Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's been escalating over the last few months, and dispute Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) and Black Kite (talk · contribs) telling him to knock it off with the personal attacks and bad faith accusations, he still continues unabated and becomes more provocative. His recent behavior is board-lining on disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Out of context, once again. Sephiroth is friends with you guys, posting friendly chats on each other's user pages, and whatnot. Can an administrator other than him handle this? And I don't recall having a problem with Black Kite, other than my wording being misinterpreted on something on my user page, which I reworded, and he agreed was fine. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It should also be noted his AWB request where he originally stated that the reason he wanted AWB privileges was because he can WP:CANVASS editors who participated in AFD about later merger discussions.. --Farix (Talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Another horrible and obvious lie. As long as everyone in the AFD is contacted, it is not canvassing. Stop stating such blatant lies against me. Can you find one example where I've ever actually canvassed? If not, stop making that ridiculous claim every chance you get. And the fact that they gave me the tools after I specifically said what I would do with them, and discussed it, shows I have nothing to hide. Dream Focus 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It really wouldn't hurt that much if the AfD crew were more compromising and less robotic in their "This fails ____. Delete it." ways. Often times the nominations are debatable due to things like foreign-language sources no one can read or search for, so in order to cause less conflict you you could put forth other, more real-life relevant rationales and arguments to get your point across instead of simply stating that it (possibly) fails policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Quote for AfD in question "You are trying to delete an article that couldn't possibly hurt anyone" - Uh, I think Dream Focus needs some editors to talk to about valid reasons for deletion. Just because an article doesn't hurt anyone doesn't mean it don't hurt Misplaced Pages. In fact, an article that is most helpful to someone can very well damage Misplaced Pages in the worst possible way. Another quote "Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? ..." - Another thing that Dream Focus has backwards. Dream Focus is not helping the deletion discussion in any way, and is only hurting it even more given he has failed to show valid arguments in it. TheFarix, Collectonian and briefy me spoke about Dream Focus two months ago about forum shopping. I wouldn't generally consider myself an involved party, but may become one given this post. —Mythdon t/c 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was not forum shopping, I only posted at legitimate places I had to, in order to deal with them ignoring the consensus. Post links to exactly where I brought this up at, and name one which was not valid. Dream Focus 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I previously had a mediation-of-sorts between Dream Focus and Collectonian and along with Neon white (talk · contribs), Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs), and LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), a compromise was attempted but neither party would agree to it. See the discussion here; I ended up archiving it because it wasn't going anywhere. My observation then, which still stands now, is that Dream Focus had a fundamental misunderstanding of our deletion policy that gets carried into his editing and actions; his characterizing of editors !voting delete at AfDs as nothing more than editors destroying the project is something that he has consistently espouesd since joining Misplaced Pages. Several people have tried to converse with him concerning this view, but he's been adamantly set with viewing the situation as an intractable battlefield. I'm not sure any sort of compromise, mediation, or otherwise is going to work, and frankly, all I see if more disruption coming on the horizon. That he was granted AWB was particularly worrying considering that he openly stated all he was going to use it for was canvassing. I would advise some sort of restriction on his edits in the projectspace. He's more or less intractable at this point and only something concrete is going to stop his disruptive behavior. — sephiroth bcr 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You let her post things while I had my 24 hour ban for reverting the removing of Rescue tags 4 times, thinking it was allowed do to vandalism, then when I came back and posted my questions, you suddenly ended it abruptly before anyone could respond. I listed out all the claims someone made against me, and asked people based on the evidence, to examine each one. Dream Focus 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, unless the situation improves, some form of restriction should be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dream Focus has for a long time asserted that AfD is a vote, and that vote-counting should always count over weight of argument. More recently he has repeatedly mentioned that guidelines and policies regarding notability and similar topics should also be ignored. See his comment in this AfD - "We'll just wait for others to join in and state their views on it, and see what the consensus is, be it to follow those guidelines, or simply ignore them.". See his talk page for numerous conversations about this. Given the comments on the current AfD ("You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it.") I think we a getting to the point where this editor Doesn't Get It and as Phil said, it is probably time to look at a restriction, possibly a topic ban from AfD. This would cut the amount of disruption down whilst not limiting his abilities to improve articles which are at AfD. Black Kite 09:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- concur. If he's keen on expanding wikipedia, he can help "rescue" articles by improving them. But this harassment has got to stop. Suggest AfD discussion ban + strict canvassing ban. yandman 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! A group of people who always seem to be posting in the same spot, and saying the same thing, and who have all previous confrontations with me, are all the first group here to try to distort things and gang up on me. Great. Each time they state that something doesn't meet the notability guidelines, I mention that it doesn't have to, those are just guidelines/suggestions not policy. Then the same discussion goes on again. You automatically know certain people are going to say "keep" or "delete", if you see them making the same decisions in every AFD they participate in. That isn't bad faith, its detecting a clear and obvious pattern. Lets break down one current occassion after another, and deal with them in an orderly manner, shall we?
- If the majority of people say KEEP, NOT merge, for an article, and then after its over, someone merges it, then I believe everyone in the AFD should be contacted, and asked to participate in a merge discussion, to see if that is what they wanted. How many people believe that is fair? I've only done it once so far, however next time the situation comes up where that happens, I will contact everyone. That isn't canvassing. Read the definition on its wikipedia page. Dream Focus 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- If an AfD is closed Keep, and then someone merges the article, then fine (and you'd be justified in un-merging it as well). But apart from that, you're only proving that you're still labouring under the misapprehension that AfD is a vote. If you don't agree with the result of an AfD, take it to WP:DRV. Then everyone who commented in the AfD can have their say. You're not helping yourself by constantly attacking people in AfDs, and if it continues you will find yourself sanctioned for it. Black Kite 10:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- So if every single person says KEEP, you can still merge on your own, even though the closing editor says "KEEP", is that it? Without a merge discussion first, they can just be bold, and eliminate everything on the article page, nothing left but its history and a redirect, and no information other than a single sentence ever "merged" to the new location. Dream Focus 10:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. Yes, there's no reason why someone couldn't merge an article that had been Kept at AfD, but any editor would be completely justified in changing it back, and saying "look - the AfD said Keep - if you want to merge it,start a merge discussion". Black Kite 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you consider that bad faith on their part? They tried to delete it outright, but failed, so they delete it anyway, but call it a "merge" even though nothing is actually merged. The only difference between a delete and a merge in these cases, is that the article history is preserved, and there is a redirect there. And far less people will be around to notice the Merge discussion, unless someone contacts them all and tells them about it, which is what I plan on doing. Dream Focus 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all. You've been told several times now that a "keep" result does not prevent further editorial actions. The fact that you immediately assume and then accuses others of bad faith is part of the problem. Combine this with your attempts to turn AFDs and merger discussions into pitched battles over inclusionism and deletionism. --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- "They tried to delete it outright, but failed". Who are these sinister "theys"? Do you mean those who disagree with you? How did they "try to delete it"? By participating in a discussion? How did they "fail"? What do you think this is, the House of Commons? yandman 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Some editors have boldly state that it didn't matter if something was voted keep or not, they were still going to delete it, and attempt to do so the moment the AFD ends. Other times I see an editor having a fit arguing with everyone in certain discussions, and then when she fails to convince anyone else to delete something, tries her secret merge tactic. I'll find some case by case examples of this common tactic, if you want. Dream Focus 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Some examples of my claim, since some think I'm being paranoid or doubt my words. From the History of quanternions AFD, most everyone saying Keep, and one editor says:
- Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which is what he did, undoing efforts to restore it. That isn't an isolate incident either. The mentality of some deletionists is quite clear. There are many other examples, but I think I've proven my point, that these people exist, and things like this happen regularly. Dream Focus 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- This misrepresents the situation somewhat. A number of editors did indeed redirect History of quaternions to Quaternion#History as a temporary measure while the "History of" article was being rewritten. Redirects are normal editing practice, and at least anyone clicking on History of quaternions got a legible article to read. After the redirect had been repeatedly reverted, the article was replaced with the text from Quaternion#History - which had the same effect. User:C S was one of the editors who collaborated to rewrite the article.
- Incidentally, Dream Focus commented in the Afd "I say Keep, since there is enough valid information to warrant its own article" I asked him whether he would like to join in improving the article. He replied that he didn't "know a thing about quaternions. which seems to indicate that this was a political "keep" !vote on his behalf. pablohablo. 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ironically this report of alleged bad faith, is a bad faith report to ANI. I don't see anything bad faith about what Dream said. User:TheFarix made no effort to contact Dream first to resolve what he sees as a problem. User:TheFarix has no edit diffs in the AfD, but instead focuses on his user page. The same editors who relentlessly delete other editors contribitions are attacking Dream Focus here.
- i have asked Dream focus to delete his user page repeatedly. This is because editors who delete are using his user page as ammunition against him, and want nothing more than silence him. Again, I encourage Dream to delete his user page, using {{db-author}}.
- It gets really tiring to continue to defend editors who are wonderful at stopping the disruption caused by editors who delete. Unfortunately, these editors are too stubborn to apologize for their comments, and don't seem to realize that unfortunately, being passive agressive is the way editors thrive on wikipedia. Sadly, it is considered less disruptive to delete other editors contributions, ignoring WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, than it is being blunt. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see harassment, just debate. However, the arguments for keeping the article are not very strong, and the article totally unsatisfactory, so I just now !voted Weak Delete. But a time is needed for japanese-speaking eds. to comment. We need better merge discussions, but AN/I is not the place for them. As for a topic ban, I would advise him to concentrate his efforts on more likely articles, and learn that replying to everyone's opposite !votes at an AfD is not an effective tactic, but a ban is unnecessary--just argue the other side, and don't keep answering him. Baiting someone does not help, either. DGG (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Stating the obvious, but AfD comments should be about the article, as opposed to comments about other editors. Comments such as "You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it" are obviously unacceptable - describing this as 'debate' is somewhat euphemistic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- If his past discussions with other editors are any indication, his behavior is not going to improve with more warnings. You'll get better results by repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I love simultaneous threads about the behavior of inclusionists and deletionists on this board. It is very instructive. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge? —
Evil Inclusionist Cabal — Seriously, this does seem related, although I've not finished reading this thread. "It's like déjà vu all over again." Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) struck after reading Uncle G, below. Jack Merridew 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Extending comment; The commonality is the battleground mentality. I'm going to avoid the Inclusionist and Deletionist jokes, as best I can, per Uncle G's comment below. This, of course, won't erase the issue, but it may reduce the flames a bit. Battleground mode is a primary artifact of this of dispute. I'd like to say that I do believe that most are here for what they believe are the right reason; sure I may also believe that some are entirely wrongheaded in their beliefs and efforts, and some may feel about the same way about me. When I am critical, I comment on the deeds, the goals and effects. I don't swear at people and, in real life, generally only use words like 'fuck' as an intensifier, not as an attack. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that Dream Focus is acting in good faith. I also believe that Dream Focus is causing disruption because they cannot see that other contributors are also acting in good faith. Specifically, it is possible to improve Misplaced Pages by deleting articles; deletion does not necessarily equate to disruption or damage, and this concept extends beyond such trivially simple cases as attack pages and BLP vios. Dream Focus must accept that other editors - even those supporting deletion of articles - are trying to improve Misplaced Pages rather than harm it. If that happens, then I expect to see an end to the long-term stream of low-level personal attacks and accusations of bad faith from Dream Focus that are the cause, I think, of this dispute.
- As an aside, I hate to see the phrases "good faith" and "bad faith" being used as adjectives or adverbs in disputes. This can be ambiguous and lead to further dispute. Instead, be clear about who is trying to help, or harm, Misplaced Pages - or about who thinks that - as appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also believe that Dream Focus is acting in good faith, as can be seen by the number of times I've tried to engage him on his talkpage, including two long discussions about consensus and good faith. If I didn't believe that, the number of attacks on other editors at AfD and elsewhere would have seen him blocked by now. Unfortunately, as I said above, I'm seriously worried that DF doesn't understand the concept of AfD and how an encyclopedia can be improved by removing unencyclopedic content. His recent postings to the AfD mentioned above and to the Village Pump only underline that. I'll be quite clear about this; the next time that I see DF attacking another editor at AfD, I will block him, and I've posted a good faith comment at his talkpage referencing this one. Black Kite 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Ridiculous and baseless thread. People disagree with him and that is that. If making weak arguements was such a big deal, then those starting this thread would be starting threads on everyone who makes "disruptive" copy and paste WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments as well. This thread represents a rather disappointing effort to bully or stifle an opposing viewpoint. Instead of going after Dream Focus, an alternate solution would be to not needlessly nominate so many articles for deletion. Moreover, there are a number of comments in the above cited AfDs by the complainants that look far more baiting and escalatory than what Dream Focus even says. Regards, --A Nobody 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong. Copy and paste !votes such as "Keep - notable" and "Delete - not notable" are annoying, and can be disruptive, but are generally ignored by closing admins anyway. Disagreeing with people isn't disruptive. However, accusing people of trying to "destroy Misplaced Pages" because they've commented to delete an article crosses the boundary into WP:NPA. I've asked DF very politely on his talkpage to refrain from doing this - it's up to him whether he heeds my advice. Black Kite 19:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- And replies like this (the bottom reply) hardly deescalate things. Looking at such discussion as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/17 Sai Hajimete no H, it seems that those wanting to sanction him here are the ones aggressively going after and replying to him rather than just letting him make his argument and let it be. And it’s not as if he’s the only one arguing to keep or merge in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/9 O'clock Woman, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Akane-chan Overdrive, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yuria 100 Shiki, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vellian Crowler, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trash (manga), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Third Robotech War, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Second Robotech War, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saori Hayami, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/SDF-1_Macross, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rockin' Heaven, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Pan Syndrome (manga), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nagatachou Strawberry, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayu Sakai, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of catgirls, ], Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leorio, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kemonomimi, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Juliet Cesario, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hate to Love You, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hajime No Ippo: New Challenger, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GirlFriends (manga), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/First Robotech War, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CUTExGUY, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bari Haken In all of these, everything seems to be fine until the same couple of accounts decide to go after him. I see just as much if not more escalation and badgering by his critics than by him. And for whatever odd reason in most of these there’s the same half dozen or so accounts voting to delete in practical every one of them… Plus, it isn’t like he never argues to delete (see for example Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Gaupher Eels). Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if he votes Keep on every currently open AfD - as long as he doesn't attack anyone else while he's doing it. Yes, a secondary problem is that some of his Keep votes advocate ignoring the notability guidelines, but as I've said above, such comments will generally be ignored anyway. I'd just like him to cut out the incivility - that shouldn't be so difficult, surely? Black Kite 20:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Go after him? More like trying to inform him about the guidelines and then reason with him at first. That was before most of us came to the conclusion that it was completely hopeless. You're acting as if some of us are part of a cabal to silence him. But this isn't about us, it is about his repeated accusations of bad faith and constant personal attacks against editors he disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You disagree with him. I think he is more right than those who criticize him with regards to our guidelines. Our guidelines are interpreted subjectively. If it was merely a case of one interpretation is correct, then he would be all by himself, but he is not always alone on the keep sides of those discussions. None of us should assume that our take is the "right" take. And besides, I can to some degree understand where he is coming from, i.e. per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Looking at those discussions above that did not result in the article's deletion, perhaps greater effort should be made to merge first. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it may help if I make it clear, as one of the people who take generally inclusionist positions of fiction articles, that the course of arguing he is using is not likely to gain support. But i do agree with A nobody's characterization of the present thread. It does appear to be baiting a susceptible editor with whom one disagrees.DGG (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- User:TheFarix, who created the ANI did not consult Dream first, as per ANI: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." Ikip (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Given that both Black Kite and Sephiroth BCR, among others, have made similar attempts and failed, I would simply be wasting my breath. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ikip, why are you bringing this up? "it is advised that you take it up with them on their talk page" ie not mandatory. There has been a lot of "taking it up" with Dream Focus on many pages - Afds, his own user and talk pages, article talk pages etc. Farix informed Dream Focus of this thread, that's pretty much all that was necessary. Attempting to censure Farix for bringing this here is a distraction. pablohablo. 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I wrote above: I don't see anything bad faith about what Dream said. User:TheFarix made no effort to contact Dream first to resolve what he sees as a problem. User:TheFarix has no edit diffs in the AfD, but instead focuses on his user page. The same editors who relentlessly delete other editors contribitions are attacking Dream Focus here. Yes, as it is "advised" that editors contact someone first, to avoid the drama of ANI. Farix going straight to ANI makes it appear like he is not interested in resolving the percieved bad faith, but simply interested punishing and silencing Dream. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I too have noticed Dream Focus has been making accusations of some sort of conspiracy to delete all of Misplaced Pages, but in his defence this seems to be only recently. In 99% of the AFDs we've both been involved in his arguments are relevant and based in policy. I don't think any sort of punishment or restrictions are in order, I'd just recommend: 1) not making allusions to other user's intentions, even if you believe they are trying to erase Misplaced Pages 2) If you feel other editors need to know about a discussion, just ask an admin to do it for you, if it could be classed as canvassing he'll tell you, if it's legit he'll give you go ahead and no one can complain. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
We're beaten this into a pulp, and I think we're rather clear that his behavior is inappropriate. As Black Kite noted above, he can go !vote "keep" on every active AfD and I don't think many of us here would care that much. What is unacceptable is the continued onslaught of personal attacks and characterizing AfD as an intractable battleground environment. His inclusion philosophy is entirely irrelevant here; again, many of us could care less what his !vote is in AfDs. As such, I'd like to propose that 1) he's placed on a civility parole 2) he's explicitly banned from canvassing. Civility parole is enforceable by a warning and then a block, with successive blocks increasing in time. Same with the canvassing restriction. The behavior is simply out of hand. His beliefs are his own, but are not a license to attack others. He is more than welcome to participate in AfDs, merge discussions, and whatnot and express whatever opinion he wants so long as it is in a polite, constructive manner. — sephiroth bcr 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- If he would simply commit to not attacking editors and making weird demands (i.e. "prove that we shouldn't just ignore the notability standards") of editors who disagree with him, none of this would be a problem. I personally interpret notability more stringently thant lots of other editors -- take DGG for example. But while i frequently disagree with DGGs arguments, neither I nor (as far as I've ever seen) anyone else sees his involvement in such discussions as anything but appropriate and ultimately productive. I think an admin has told him already that further such attacks will yield blocks, and he's also been told several times about canvassing. So i think this new proposal is already in force.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he hasn't committed one way or another and shows no signs of letting up, so that's why I think something concrete needs to be done to address this. I know a few administrators have left warnings on his talk page, but this is probably better as something to point to and make the restrictions he's facing as clear as possible. People forget warnings left a month or two previously (including the admins that left them!), so having a clear-cut set of restrictions here makes it a bit simpler. — sephiroth bcr 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Who cares if "commits?" He's been warned. If he pursues the current course, he will be blocked without further warning.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer a long-term solution to this that addresses the core of the problem than going on a series of disjointed warnings. And as you said, if he's going to be blocked for continuing this behavior, why not make such a set of provisions set in stone and easy to access? — sephiroth bcr 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I think you are confusing friendly advice with criticism. The case is WP:Articles for deletion/Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture in which Dream asked me for advice. I asked him not to write "keep" in his message, which he admitted was a mistake, the title was clear: "How do I send a message to everyone from an AFD automatically". He contacted all editors in the AfD, not just the "keep" editors, which is totally within policy, and the exact same thing was actually done on one of the editors pages who were criticizing Dream (the editor was attemting to merge the article, not stop the merge, so this was probably the reason why that editor was not criticized). Once, again, trumped up policy violations, and when no policy violations exist, invented policy violations, while completly ignoring editors who support your point of view own behavior violations. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- A timed topic ban would probably be best here, if he goes back to editing and away form the crusading for, say, six months, hopefuly he will lose the perpetual sense of outrage. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- JzG, I find it painfully ironic and very hypocritical that you would suggest anyone go on Civility parole. Dream Focus's personal attacks are minor compared to your repeated personal attacks, I don't see Dream telling anyone to fuck off, or saying that someone has autism. How can seriously ask the community to ban Dream with a straight face? Again, as I have said before, the evidence against an editor is secondary, and alliances are everything. As a well connected admin, you can tell editors to fuck off and that they have autism with no risk of retribution, Dream, who has gone up against this loose alliance of deletionist editors, can have restrictions put on him for nothing. Ikip (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa ... since when is being on the Autism Spectrum a bad thing? Einstein was on the Spectrum. Bill Gates is on the Spectrum. The comment made reference to being overly focussed on a specific topic, which is classic Autism Spectrum behaviour. People on the Autism Spectrum are not "bad" or "evil" or even to be sneered at - they are people, albeit people with unique challenges. Without the creativity and focus of people on the Autism Spectrum, the world as we know it would be a much different place. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If this will eliminate Dream Focuse's bad faith accusations and personal attacks, I will be agreeable to Sephiroth BCR's proposal. --Farix (Talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. At first I thought this thread was about some snarkyness at a single AfD, but the evidence from many editors since then shows that Dream Focus's bad attitude is an ongoing, and probably escalating, problem. Dream Focus either doesn't understand or doesn't accept some of our basic principles like the general notability guideline, how consensus works here and that a "keep" result on an AfD doesn't prevent the article being edited in the future. And if people try to explain he doesn't listen, instead preferring to take it as an affront and lashing out with personal attacks in response. That battleground mentality has obviously caused a lot of disruption and grief for innocent editors whose only crime has been to not subscribe to Dream Focus's ideology of indiscriminate inclusion. It's got to stop, and warnings haven't worked. Maybe this will. Reyk YO! 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unless it applies both ways. I agree that no one should canvass and that no one should be incivil. As such, those being incivil and badgering of him should stop as well. People should be neither indiscriminately inclusionist nor deletionist. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't thin "badgering" is a correct interpretation. There is some reaction through frustation from editors to having the same non-arguments about notability, sources, verifiability brought up time and time again though. pablohablo. 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Everything does not need to apply both ways; this thread is about Dream Focus, not anyone else. If there is baiting or bad conduct, then that will be addressed when it comes up, but that is not the purpose of this thread. — sephiroth bcr 02:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea. More good faith could be applied here, as I think Dream Focus needs somebody to show him the ropes; perhaps a mentor? If he makes any uncivil remarks or canvassing he should be given the chance to take them back. If he refuses, then warnings and blocks would be appropriate. I really do believe Dream Focus is here to help make a better encyclopedia, as evidenced by his run for ArbCom last December, but I also believe that he'd benefit from someone pointing out when he's made some mistakes. ThemFromSpace 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem with this idea is that DreamFocus has shown, repeatedly, that he is unwilling to learn from his mistakes or from others. He has ignored the advice, warnings, and explanations from even his biggest supporters, so not sure how this will help if he continues to do so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You want Misplaced Pages's answer to Godwin's Law? You've got it:
The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.
It's an unfortunate fact that sometimes people focus so much on the principle of using/not using the deletion mechanism of the MediaWiki software, that they lose sight of the project itself. The wiki mechanism becomes the goal, instead of the encyclopaedia. I've seen this happen several times, and the progression is always the same: The shrieks of "You dirty -istas!" become progressively more shrill, and eventually the editor and the project part ways, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I try to encourage people to pull back from the brink on such occasions, but I've not had 100% success, although I'm happy to observe that at least one editor that appeared to be teetering on one occasion (a fair while ago) is still with us, and back to proving arguments wrong with sources (or the lack of them).The best that one can do, it seems, is to point out to an editor heading in this direction that this is a path that people have trod before, several times, over a period of more than half a decade now; and (as can be observed from the current status of all of those who have gone before) that it only leads to one eventual result — the same situation in which xe will find xyrself, sooner or later. I, personally, espouse no "-ist" philosophy other than "encyclopaedist". From what TenOfAllTrades wrote, one time that this came up at the Village Pump, and from long observation, it seems likely that this is true of the overwhelming majority of editors here. Those who repeatedly call other editors names do not understand this, but need to. To most of us, this really, truly, is not a battleground. We're not here to win some form of "moral victory" about one particular mechanism in some wiki software. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Sometimes people actively thwart that, by what they do (or, more commonly, don't do), and cause our processes to become derailed. We persuade such people, with rational discourse, that doing things in certain ways, and doing the necessary legwork, get the right result, and that we have learned from experience that not doing so does not. Berating other editors for being "dirty -istas" is, in fact, just another form of thwarting the writing of an encyclopaedia. It derails the process, too. So what should we do here? I've yet to find an approach better than trying to coax editors away from the edge, pointing to the several past examples and what has invariably happened. It's not universally successful, though. But: Those opining here about a battleground mentality might want to have a word with the editors who are actively reinforcing that very mentality, by suggesting courses of action to Dream Focus during the "recent" (as observed by Ryan4314 above) problematic period in terms of "ammunition", "foes", putting other editors "on the offensive", Achilles heels, and choosing one's "defeats". Have a closer look at User:Dream Focus and User talk:Dream Focus, observing the change in user page language in late January. Whether this is subtle pot stirring or not, at the very least it is transference of another editor's battleground mentality to Dream Focus, which has clearly not had positive consequences. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- While I concur with your comments concerning editors aggravating a battleground environment in AfD, it's straying a bit away from the point of the proposal. Yes, Dream Focus may have been pushed into this conflict, but it certainly isn't anyone's fault for him being completely against considering people who want to delete articles anything short of intractable enemies. I take it as him being far too impressionable and moving into this battlefield frame of mind, and compromise has been tried several times (once, as I noted with Ncmvocalist and LessHeard vanU, two superb mediators) but ultimately failed because he's not willing to accept any sort of voluntary restriction that brings him back from this battlefield mentality. As such, we're here with this concrete proposal, but it's not about inclusion philosophy at all: only his battlefield mentality is the target here. — sephiroth bcr 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- @Uncle G: Thank you (id:terima kasih). I've used the two Evil -'ista' Cabal terms more than a few times; I'm joking but same may be missing that. I like your suggestion of "encyclopædist" and think I'll start using that instead. There is a polarisation to this dispute that is unhealthy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Sephiroth, but the reason we are all here is because of the alleged personal attacks of Dream at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Body Transfer, where the biggest personal attack was by an editor who wanted to delete:
- "Keep your bad faith accusations of deletionists to yourself, it's pathetic and has no place here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)"
- You will have to remember that Dream Focus is in this mindset that he must save Misplaced Pages from "THE EVIL DELETIONIST CABAL". --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Editors supporting deletion have read this afd, and yet somehow miss these sentences (WHY?!), while zereoing in on Dream's comments. I don't see any of Dream's comments rising to the level of these two comments at all.
- This bogus, biased argument is simply being used as a springboard to silence an editor who saves articles. Ikip (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have become the self appointed enforcer for canvassing, the only problem is that all of your empty accusations when presented to ANI fall apart. Contacting everyone in a previous AFD is not canvassing, I would think with all the repeated empty accusations you would understand this. This is a key example of the non-existence evidence against Dream. Ikip (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal, but I'm very worried about what UncleG highlights. This editor definitely was incited into acting like this, it's pretty easy to see his attitude changing over the course of the last few months. And he's not the only editor who has become radicalised in this way recently. Hopefully this will send out the message that we don't want factions (remember the green e's?) and battleground mentality here. Please, Dream, if you want to improve Misplaced Pages, don't fight against your colleagues. yandman 08:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree As I wrote above, the evidence against Dream is nonexistent or minor. User:Sephiroth BCR argument is a typical argument: a group of like minded editors attacks another editor and says: this is not about his edit history of opposing us, this is because he is not (fill in the blank), it is completely disengious. This attempted sanction is about Dream's edit history of saving articles. It is no accident that the most prominent editors who delete are lining up here to sanction Dream. Ikip (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The "evidence"
User:TheFarix started this ANI based on the comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Body Transfer, an AfD which he began, and Dream Focus voted keep.
The absolutly worst comment in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Body Transfer is from User:Dandy Sephy to A nobody, and I quote:
- Keep your bad faith accusations of deletionists to yourself, it's pathetic and has no place here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Also:
- You will have to remember that Dream Focus is in this mindset that he must save Misplaced Pages from "THE EVIL DELETIONIST CABAL". --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Which can be considered a personal attack, when we are supposed to talk about the edits, not the editor.
In response to Anobody's comments:
- Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? And I'm not trying to convince the three deletionists who have posted here thus far, since we all know what you will say, just as you are aware of my view on things.
| After these two comments from Farix and Dandy, are the comments that Dream is being attacked for here, which are minor in comparison:
|
| "(DF's opinion of editors who have made vastly more constructive contributions then he has)." Wow. You make vastly more constructive contributions by deleting articles? That's not a contribution. You don't help the wikipedia by destroying parts of it. Anyway, back on topic, unless someone can speak Japanese, then finding out information about this, isn't going to be possible. Dream Focus 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You are here now. You are trying to delete an article that couldn't possibly hurt anyone, and which most would never even happen upon unless they were looking up information about it. You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it. And the Japanese sentence structure is so different than that of English speaking people, those translation tools are a chore to use, any site found not coherent enough to figure out what they are saying. Dream Focus 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Am I? point me to where I said delete. Good luck, I haven't "voted" due to having no opinion either way, so don't give me that rubbish. If you paid attention, you'll notice I've tried to keep several articles recently (a couple of them were heavily leaning towards delete before I stated the case and shockingly enough, actually improved the pages!) and even provided actual page improvements to pages I wasn't fussed about (such as reviews) . Just stick to the deletions, and not passing judgement on peoples motives. You aren't doing yourself any favors when you do and aren't in any position to question peoples motives anyway. AFD is not your soapbox for broadcasting your personal opinions on wikipedia's editors. As for the tools being a chore to use, don't complain when someone offers you a solution to help you achieve something you are moaning you can't do. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
|
But none of the editors who delete are calling for civility parole for Dandy. Why? Because he supports the deletion of articles.
If we are going to be fair and force everyone to follow the rules, I think a civility parole section should be opened for Dandy. Ikip (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. Post a link to these accusations, or stop making them. If they are so common, surely you can find some. And some editors, that is Sephiroth, Collectionian, and TheFarix, seem to gang up on me, and anyone else they disagree with every chance they get, often vote the same way and make the same arguments in AFD, and chat with each other on their talk pages regularly, they all knowing each other. I am interested in the opinions though of anyone other than those three, so please don't hesitate to chime in. And lets just base this on solid facts, not vicious innuendo. Post to where these edits have taken place at. Dream Focus 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commonly seen argument that I don't learn from
I say you can prove something is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, without a third party media review, the notability guidelines just suggestions, not policy. Sometimes others agree with me, and the article is saved, and sometimes not. No matter what the outcome, certain people complain nonstop, trying to argue over the same exact issue, the notability guidelines. Remember, consensus is that if enough people agree that high sales figures equal notability, then the article is kept such as here, and if the majority of people around at the time to participate in an AFD, say its not, then its deleted. Am I wrong to make the same case every time someone brings up the notability guideline/suggestions? That we can ignore them, if consensus is that sales figures or other factors make it notable? Dream Focus 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll make one last attempt at this. Please stop it with the "notability guidelines are just suggestions, not policy, so we can ignore them" line. Per WP:DEL#REASON (which is policy), then an article being unable to meet the notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. Yes, there are always exceptions, but if you carry on making the same incorrect comment over and over in AfDs etc, then eventually people are going to start ignoring everything you say, even when it's constructive. Black Kite 12:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Exceptions? Then we can ignore them sometimes? I've seen plenty of articles saved which didn't meet those guidelines at all, through consensus, people ignoring all rules. And if someone makes the case we should follow the suggested guidelines, then I have the right to inform them we can determine notability through things not on the list. Dream Focus 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Afd discussions are not a ballot, and as such do not depend on "the majority of people around at the time". You my have noticed that many people refere to "!votes" - this to emphasise that it isn't a vote. This particular Afd was interesting, as reflected in the closing admin's summary - but the article was kept on the basis of arguments (mainly DGG's I suspect) not on "the number of people who were around at the time who 'voted' keep". pablohablo. 12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen bestselling novels have their articles deleted as well. Depends on who is around at the time, and who the closing administrator is. Dream Focus 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dream Focus -- What you've just written makes no sense. Being a best seller (that is, notability established through sales figures) is generally accepted as establishing something as notable. And how do we know something is a best seller? Based on verifiable certification of that through reliable sources independent of the subject. I take the rest of your comment to mean "I have my own special guidelines that are at odds with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. We should ignore community established policy and guidelines in favor of my own, ill-definied and personal, standards of inclusion." If you don't see why making this kind of argument is disruptive and a little disresepctful.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't accepted on the notability guideline page, is it? And we've already discussed that elsewhere, no sense bringing it up here. Dream Focus 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Arson threat?
I'm not sure if this edit is intended as an arson threat or not. I checked the local newspaper and TV websites and couldn't find anything that states that the school caught on fire. єmarsee • Speak up! 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't really look like an arson threat, more of just some silly vandalism by a student. Might be good to check it out for a bit though. Matty (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I once plotted to burn down my high school using a lit cigarette, but they had a rule against smoking in the building. There's always some catch to any plan. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Bugs, please.....--Caspian blue 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
PoliticianTexas sock
Resolved – Blocked Keegan 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
AMenendez (talk · contribs) is another sock of community-banned serial-sockpuppeteer PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). Positive evidence includes:
- Strong interest and opinions about the placement of demographic data at New Mexico.
- Odd capitalizations appearing in infrequent edit summaries (Please see contribs of recent socks AndrewGirron (talk · contribs) orJWillems (talk · contribs) for more examples)
- Interest in the politics of Northern New Mexico, often manifested by the addition of local politician's parties, despite the non-partisan nature of many of New Mexico's municipal governments.
- Recent socks have also shown interest in New Mexico State University (see DianaRuiz (talk · contribs),), particularly its athletics, which is in line with typical behavior of editing articles about New Mexican high schools and sports, especially pages involving the New Mexico Activities Association
For more information refer to User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. –Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a history with this sockmaster, it seems to be the same sock of PT. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not to be trite, suspected sock puppets is that away. Proper place for investigation. Keegan 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're not being trite. Because he is a community-banned serial puppeteer, it is routine and in accordance with guidelines to bring it here first, I've been told. —Synchronism (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, bringing stuff like poltix socks here is fine. All that requires is a blocking admin with some familiarity w/ this serial sockpuppet to step in. There isn't actually so much doubt that we have to start a SPI. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Englishprince posing as admin, apparently getting passwords this way
Englishprince (talk · contribs) is posing as an admin and has been asking for and apparaently getting passwords from other new users. I am off to warn the people he has conned, but wanted to give a heads up. Should the compromised accounts be blocked? Ruhrfisch ><>° 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I have indef blocked Englishprince for now. Despite the more extensive list on Ep's talk page, he only asked for passwords on three accounts and only one was fooled: Daffodils333 (talk · contribs). Daffodils333 has been a vandalism only account, but claims to have had a change of heart. I would be fine with blocking it too, but would like to hear what others think fist. Ruhrfisch ><>° 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely. I'm wondering if it wasn't his sock, the "apology" sounding somewhat over the top. yandman 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think I agree with Yandman. Is it a coincidence that Daffodil vandalised Prince Philip, and EnglishPrince asked for passwords? I wonder if Daffodils333 'gave' his password out so that others would see that it had been done, and think it was OK? --GedUK 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it looked like quite a coincidence that most of the others on the list were indef blocked users from the past few months, and the one truly "duped" editor has such a strange history as well. I AGF'ed in my actions so far, but if people want to block daffodil as well and/or checkuser EnglishPrince to see if there is any connection with some of the other named editors, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the interim, again under AGF, I have fully suppressed the edits that revealed the purported password as a security measure. I too have some overall concerns here related to trolling. Risker (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to Fram and Risker. I already am watching Daffodil and had had the same sock suspiscions. I will indef block as a vandalsim only account at the next such edit. Ruhrfisch ><>° 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since Englishprince got lucky once, I would imagine they will be back to try again. -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As a Good Faith gesture, here's my password: ****** Does that show up properly? I can't tell. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- My password is hunter2. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, who knew that Bugs and I would have the exact same password!!! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- My password is the same as the combination on my luggage. MuZemike 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're all heretics. The One True Password is Ken sent me. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm using the frequency that I finally got Ken to divulge. Deor (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Over the last few days various some IP contributor(s) have been repeatedly removing a fairly well-sourced paragraph about this person's arrest, and sometimes posting a message, purportedly from the article's subject, telling us to stop adding gossip to the article . There's obvious BLP concerns, but there's also the potential of someone trying to excessively whitewash their own article of negative items. Would an admin mind taking a look at this, to see if any action is necessary? ~ mazca 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I removed that section as undue weight -- it was the only part of the article that was actually sourced. After the rest of it gets cleaned up, we can look at putting it back in appropriately.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- a paragraph about a misdemeanor of this sort would not be appropriate in the article in any case,. This is exactly the sort of situation WP:BLP is aimed at. DGG (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cleanup SarekOfVulcan, I had to rush off and this looked potentially dubious. Looks much better now - already had a different IP reappear twice to insert negative material again, though. Certainly worth watching. ~ mazca 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I started editing on this page after giving a 3O, and tried to defuse a situation. Basically, Studio34 has been harassing Julcal for adding spam links into this article awhile back. Julcal is most certainly a COI, and the article might be a coatrack. Either way, Julcal just blanked the page and has repeatedly claimed that Studio34 has been stalking her. I thought about escalating this through DR, but the problems seem to be rather heated. I'm not quite sure where to go from here. — HelloAnnyong 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- support banning Julcal as advertising only account. His activities extent to other articles, e.g. . in contrast, I see only 1 edit of Studio34 on the article, but similar good reversions of spam elsewhere. Her editing shows she is following a subject, not an editor. I notified Julcal and Studioi 34 of this discussion, as seems only fair. DGG (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interests. It only talks about MAV. I originally posted a support section at the bottom with a link to my forum (which has no indirect or direct link to my business) because the way I found my first MAV forum was through an external link on Misplaced Pages to Studio34's forum. Regarding the battling, Studio34 provoked me by accusing me of being a "known spammer." And as HelloAnnyong says, he keeps harassing me.--Julcal (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal
- Quick note: unless you are refereing to something else I don't see, it's not "your page". It's an article on Misplaced Pages and that is a direct violation of WP:OWN. Padillah (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the COI here either. It might have been there in the first revisions, but as of right now it's nothing more than an artice about a medical condition. I don't know if only admins have a vote here, but I don't see a reason for a ban. -- Aeluwas (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As best as I can tell, the COI exists because Julcal is somehow involved with the subject of the article by being the host of a forum aimed at selling products for the disease. — HelloAnnyong 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The forum is not for selling any product. It is a support forum for sufferers of MAV. Have you seen the forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but as long as the article remains encyclopaedic, I don't see the problem. It's a very real disease, and it ought to have an article (Ménière's disease is far less prevalent than MAV yet has had an article for a long time). Julcal created the page to fill that void, and while there was a COI at the start, there isn't now. -- Aeluwas (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem doesn't exist with the article, but the link that was added to the article by the user. It was certainly an advertisement for his forum. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that I broke a rule, unknowingly, by adding an external link to a forum. But the forum has nothing to do with selling a product. It's simply a support forum for MAV sufferers and does not link directly nor indirectly to any product. I found my first MAV forum through an external link on Misplaced Pages. The link was removed in less than 24 hours of publication. Regarding the battling, as HelloAnnyong points out in her opening statement, Studio34 "keeps harassing me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- His statement, than you. And I only wrote that because you repeatedly wrote it. Can you give us some information on how you feel as if you're being stalked? — HelloAnnyong 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can. "S" Googles me to death, (I know that because he posts on his own forum all of the places I have an internet presence.) He watches my forum closely, follows the links I post to my members where they can find more information on MAV and related disorders. (This article being one of them). I have an internet presence on many sites where you can post comments. (I'd rather not point them out by name, so as not to give him more info) Whenever "S" can find me, he degrades me, I have to watch very closely just to delete his posts. You're probably wondering how I know it's him. He only has "one joke."--Julcal (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the comments above about COI and disruptive editing a
nd think that a block is certainly in order. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have taken another look through the history, and i do not feel the amount of advertising warrant an actual ban, just a clear warning. The link to the user's commercial site for a remedy against this syndrome was extremely indirect. But I note that the forum linked to seemed inappropriate, as it is quite small and not a major resource. I do hope there's something better. DGG (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As things have settled down I don't think a block seems to be warranted at this point. I'll post a formal warning on Julcal's talk page and that should do it. Shall we call it settled at this point? Icestorm815 • Talk 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at my forum! It's only been live for a week. I have 9 members already so that's not too bad. I also have a lot of knowlege about the condition and a lot to give to people. The forum will grow. Thanks again for looking at it! --Julcal (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal
- that illustrates the rationale for our rule about not using Misplaced Pages for promotion. We link top what is a significant resource, not to what someone hopes will become one. DGG (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I expected you would say that and I understand completely. An unfortunate misunderstanding of rules. As I said, I found my first MAV forum, Studio34's forum, through an external link on Misplaced Pages. It's hard, the first time doing an article, at age 55, to retain all the rules in my head. I wrote the page to fill a void. There are articles on virtually all the other dizzy illnesses, but none on MAV. Whether or not I will be allowed to be involved in it, I will be feel good about putting it out there. I hope it turns out to be a great article someday. MAV sufferers need it - badly. This is a wicked illness.--Julcal (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal
- My only problem with Julcal was an external link she had inserted into the Migraine Associated Vertigo (MAV), the BPPV, and the Meniere's article. In all cases the link pointed to her forum. She is involved in an MLM company called Enzacta selling an expensive bogus product she claims cures dizziness with numerous links pointing to the sales site from the forum. It is a conflict of interest and it's spam. I simply left a comment in the discussion over at the MAV article asking members to keep a watch for any newly inserted outbound links to her sites. Apparently my editing out the links and changing her "support" title to "migraine link" in two of the articles constitutes "cyberstalking" in her eyes. This is absurd. The above comments about "Googling her to death" etc are complete nonsense.studio34 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- on the forum, http://mav-forum.com/, there's the text: "This is a link to a Wiki article I wrote on MAV. " You may say what you please outside Misplaced Pages, of course, but it does give a false impression. I've removed the resolved label on this section, because there are continuing copyright concerns: much of the text of the article is a copy of that. DGG (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is there enough justification to ban Julcal for that? This article probably shouldn't be deleted since it is an actual disease; it just needs to be heavily rewritten. — HelloAnnyong 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the article should definitely remain; it is a real and disabling illness. Is there justification for banning Julcal? I believe so. Although she states "I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interest" and "The forum is not for selling any product", she clearly states the following on the Migraine-associated Migraine discussion board: "I actually don't mind the free advertising. My website is great and it's a great product." Does anyone need any more evidence than that?studio34 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Help please in dealing with childish, disruptive behavior by Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
As many of you know, there has been an ArbCom proceeding on date linking and date autoformatting here at Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll.
Throughout the course of this, I and the other members of our group have maintained a page in my userspace here at User:Greg_L/Delinking links. I’ve had to provide a historical link because here is what the article looks like now: User:Greg_L/Delinking links
User:Tennis expert started doing malicious edits on my personal userspace page (see Revision history).
As you can see, my Wikifriends (other editors who are members of a team on de-linking), reverted him numerous times. Tennis Expert editwarred with them and ignored them. All this occurred when I wasn’t aware of it. Finally members who were trying to restore the page to the way we wanted e-mailed me to alert me that this was occurring on my own userspace subpage.
I informed Tennis expert here on his talk page that his edits were not welcome in my userspace. His response was as follows: OK. I will pursue rapid deletion of your biased subpage.
And he carried through with his petty threat here: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg L/Delinking links. As you can see, many editors have patiently started jumping through the hoops to do a good-faith effort at opposing this disruption. It is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and we shouldn’t have had to do this since what Tennis expert did was not in good faith.
This subpage in my userspace is a list of links pertaining to date linking and autoformatting. There were so many relevant sites that we couldn’t keep them all straight in our heads. So I started this page and my friends on our team added to it. It has been a valuable resource. It is not supposed to be “unbiased” or “biased” or whatever Tennis expert desires. It is a resource we have and continue to use.
Tennis expert’s move is just mean-spirited disruption. I ask that he be blocked for this move. He knows full well what he is doing. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've snowballed the MfD and warned TE, please let me or any admin know if he does something like this again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Gwen. I think a trout would achieve more than a block at this, um, point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Gwen. You and I both know that what TE did was malicious and intentional and he knew better. Please take a look at all the time wasted by good-faith editors trying to deal with this disruption. This stunt was pure, unadulterated, purposeful disruption. Tennis expert deserves much more than a warning for this. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I came so close to blocking him for 12-24 hours. I've banned him from your user space (until you say it's ok for him to edit there, if ever) owing to the disruption, he's now been warned, let us know if he tries to game things again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it looked like a handy page of links, until you get to the bottom sections, when it starts to resemble an open ended evidence gathering exercise against multiple users, which I am quite sure violates WP:USER. As for Greg now giving the impression he has taken the collation of that sekrit info off site, for the purposes of coordination and collaboration with a select group of users, I am quite sure that sort of thing is not looked on favourably at all. Anyway, now it is speedy closed and moved off site, there is no good reason for the user page to remain in its current state (except of course ironically as a revision history for any action TE might want to take over this quite blatant baiting of another user). MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn’t moved off of Misplaced Pages. The site is a pure resource that is a writing aid for the benefit of editors who have a common objective. It is in my userspace. I moved it to another location in Misplaced Pages userspace where TE can’t find it but where it is still in my userspace. Without going into details, everything I’ve done is in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. It is unfortunate that TE’s stunt required this. It’s the first time I had to resort to it. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Had TE thought strategically, his group would have created their own page with similar links to facilitate their efforts in promoting date linking and autoformatting. I doubt it would have helped, since the community was dead-set against both practices. But the efforts of the pro-linking crowd would have been better coordinated. Better yet, TE (or “they”) could have simply used my page as a resource for them to use rather than duplicate it. As far as I know, it would have been in accordance for TE to have done a wholesale copy of my entire page and modified it in his userspace as he saw fit to better serve their objectives. Or he could have transcluded my page into his userspace to serve as a resource. I put it right out in the open in my userspace and all those on our team edited it while still logged in. The page was easy to discover and was available for all to use equally once discovered. Instead, TE saw fit to simply vandalize it. That was tantamount to spray painting graffiti on a store font. Now the page is history. Greg L (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or you could drop the whole battleground mentality and making a fuss about 'your pages' (they aren't yours, you are just given the privelage of using them for activities that benefit the pedia, which hopefully dovetail with the interests of you and your 'wikifriends'). I personaly cannot see what justification there is for maintaining 'handy links' to multiple other users block logs. Are you actually saying these are hard to find? Open ended evidence collection is a violation of WP:USER, period. Talking in terms of off site coordination against other users is definitely a violation. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Quoting you: Or you could drop the whole battleground mentality. Look who’s talking? I’m done here with you. Try looking at the MfD results. Are you seeing a pattern where anyone went to Tennis expert’s defense for this stunt? I’m sure plenty of people can Wikilawyer until the cows come home as to how some of the links on that (now hidden) page were offensive to someone. Get over it. The site was a very valuable resource used in the promotion of new policies that have now been adopted through consensus by the community. All this effort was necessary because a certain few editors insisted it on having their way and Wikilawyered about how prior RfCs (which were landslides) were flawed and weren’t a true measure of the community’s views.
And I don’t need you to remind me that no one “owns” their pages. Who do you think you’re talking to? Do you think I just fell of a turnip truck? You don’t own your page either. And you and I both know there are certain permitted practices depending on whether content is in userspace or articlespace. Very different policies and practices. I will no longer respond to you. It’s over. It’s all over. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Greg chose to say at the MfD, "P.S. Tennis Expert: I’ve created a duplicate page in a place you will never, ever find. Only my Wikifriends know where to look for it. And they have all been instructed to not edit it unless logged out. It is unfortunate we have to go to these lengths to circumvent your vandalism and disruption to Misplaced Pages. I’ll be addressing this soon. I suggest you show some contrition at this point and apologize for being a pain in the ass and wasting other editor’s good-faith time trying to deal with your childishness. And, for the record: YOU do not have permission to edit in my userspace. Only my Wikifriends have such privileges and you ain’t one of my Wikifriends. Comprender? " I do not find this helpful, especially the point on advising editing by what amount to special purpose socks. DGG (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thank you very much. That is most helpful. Thanks for your help to make Misplaced Pages a better, less stressful, less vandalized place. Keep up the good work, Kbdank71. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Greg L asked me to delete both pages, which I have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- TE didn’t even get blocked for his purposeful disruption. So I utterly reject your kooky notion of what you thin isn’t “helpful.” It’s pretty unfortunate that I had to do this, but it is entirely TE’s making. He couldn’t leave it alone where it was available to all. So it’s in a place where he can’t vandalize it anymore. Simple as that. Since he hasn’t been blocked, I trust him as far as I can drool. And I am busy in real life working on a medical implant. I’ve already wasted enough time this morning on this horsecrap. I won’t leave myself vulnerable to one more spec of this crap. As for “socks” I suggest you know what you are talking about before you make a fallacious accusation. I don’t use separate accounts for sock puppetry purposes. I use the other account for writing lengthy posts where I can make lots and lots of saves and not have it fill up my Greg L account with a ridiculous amount of history. I will no longer respond to you either. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I understood it, unless you have a genuine fear of TE harassing or outing you, there is no excuse for using alternate accounts like Rimisherim to segregate edits. And if you are using said account merely for administrative convenvience, it requires identification with your main account, so that posts like this are not confusing to others. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest, now that Greg has recreated the page at the same title, that it instead be undeleted properly, because the ANI discussion above and Mfd, and any talk page discussions, now make no sense to any observer, as it all refers to deleted page revisions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
All of you have just witnessed a small sample of the vicious back-&-forth that has come to characterize the discussion around Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. It has gotten to the point where one can only conclude that Ryan Postlethwaite has the patience of a saint, & wonder why we can't simply lock all of the participants in a room where they can kill each other & leave the rest of us alone to write an encyclopedia. (And if I'm included as one of the participants, I'll galdly submit to a lengthy ban just to purge this poisonous interaction from Misplaced Pages.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- we would have the typical dilemma, of needing to bury the bodies. But it appears that some aspects of the poll may be decisive. Those who do not accept the outcome, whatever it may be, then your suggestion might be worth the messy cleanup. DGG (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Long-term vandalism by User:Annoyingbeast. Too difficult for me to correct it all. Suggest perma-ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done Blocked for vandalism only account. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser help, please
Resolved – thanks Nishkid64
Could a CU contact me via email concerning , please? Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
User has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and block-evasion including CU-confirmed puppetry (see here and here). Makes some good edits but at a cost of lots of cleanup and abusive/bad-faith/mistakes we have to clean up (and which he does not accept as problematic). Has lately engaged in username-hopping, maybe to avoid scrutiny--dunno as he has refused to discuss. Numerous attempts at discussion by several involved and uninvolved editors and admins has failed, as he blanks all talk-page warnings (okay) but usually his only response is to treat any suggestion or complaint as an incivil attack on him, while continuing the problematic behavior. Lately filed WP:ANI against one of his perceived attackers. When that didn't seem to be going his way, he gave up and claimed (as often) that the system is broken rather than that he might not be correct. Has now said he will retire. However, said he will return to edit his talk-page. His edits lately there are merely to attack myself and others with whom he's had disagreements while specifically stating that we are not to respond there or we will be blocked/etc.. Seems like long-term block with no-edit-talkpage is in order...WP is not a soapbox, especially if he's not planning to edit articles. I'd tell him about this discussion here about him, but he told me not to. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- User apparently retired. –Juliancolton | 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...again. He retired earlier that day also but plans possible future return (he will vanish until he returns?) and maybe continue talk-page edits even while retired. I was happy to let him just go away and I don't care if he wants the last civil word, but he can't seem to do either of those. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- (editconflict)I've seen this happen before, some users put up the retired tag just to get away from any sanctions that might be imposed by the community. As far as I've seen, his behavior before that retired tag is unacceptable, so here is a proposal:
Proposal
My proposal, which has two reasons which can be used while being separate of each other, also have the same end result, that this account be indef blocked. Aren't retired accounts usually indef blocked to prevent possible compromise? If not that, this user has shown he doesn't care about our civility and no personal attack policies, and if he is indeed just using this retired tag as a way to escape any sanction, this block will prevent any further possible disruption if he is indeed just using it as a way to get out of trouble, so to speak. All that aside, if not an indef block, I honestly don't know what, but he does need to be warned, that if he does come back, and continue the same behavior, the time he was away will not matter, and he would be treated the same as if he was still here. Maybe a 72 hour block, less or more, that depends on what you, the community, has to say.— Dædαlus 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- He's been busy since his supposed retirement (confirmed via Checkuser-I). I'm not familiar with this user, but anyone with this type of troublesome sock activity needs to be indefinitely blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Nishkid; the socking merits blocking. No, retired users are not generally indeffed and, quite honestly, Misplaced Pages retirement frequently isn't. Now, in invoking one's Right to vanish, one may request an indef, but that's a different matter. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Only users in good standing can RTV. I would think socking would qualify as loss of good standing. Hersfold 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a slew of very bizarre new user names showing up on the log, including this one. Lots of non-Camel Case names like User:Light my fire, light my fire, etc. There's at least one other reference to "Richard Cullen." I've seen this before, but I don't know who the sock master is. Any objections to my blocking any suspect names? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, I say let them start screwing around before we act. Might be something silly like a bunch of kids in school coming up with names. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I don't really see anything bizarre about the username Light my fire, light my fire :S C.U.T.K.D 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Improperly formed AfD
Resolved
A relatively new user started what appears to be a good faith, but ad hoc Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanley Armour Dunham without any proper notifications or listings other than the tag on the article page. Can someone straighten this out and let him know how to proceed? Thanks. Tvoz/talk 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what admin action you'd like. Seems like anyone can drop the user a friendly note with helpful advice.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Already done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Ricky. Since I disagree with the nominator on the matter I thought it was better for someone uninvolved to fix it. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: vulgar, nasty, and obscene language
Resolved – Vandalism has since been reverted. Nothing much to be done. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.118.154.35 (talk) at 01:47, 15 January 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:47, 15 January 2009 by 24.118.154.35 (talk)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| think of the children Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
My vAGINA IS NICE AS FUCK!!!!!!!!! FUCK MY CLIT BITCH. KESHONS A PUNK AND SUCKS MY DICK!! YEAH YOUNG JEEZY!!! WELL I WAS WALKING 2DAY AND KESHON CAME UP AND SUCKED MY DICK SO HARD CUM ALL OVER HIS MOUTH IT WAS HOT!!
i HAVE A 25 MILLION INCH COCK SO CALL ME YOU KNOW MY NUMBER 1-800-FUCK-ME-HARD
LICK DICK SICK IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!?!>!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Informant"
|
This material that is posted here is very vulgar and obscene and i find very offensive and this should be looked into. There are children who come on this site to look things up for school and they shouldnt have to see this kind of nasty language posted. i think this person should be blocked and not allowed back on wikepedia.com for this purpose of the vulgar and nasty language. I cant even come on here to do research because of the nastiness that i just saw and i sure wouldnt want my children seeing this kind of stuff.
Thanks
Alysah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysah (talk • contribs)
- Though Misplaced Pages is not censored, what you encountered was vandalism. That particular bit of vandalism was removed within a minute of its going up, so I'm not exactly sure why you're seeing this. --Dynaflow babble 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- That version is 3 months old and has been fixed many times over. How did you even find it? It also was by an anonymous IP user, not an identifiable person. Encountering material like that is a risk you run in any open forum anywhere. As long as we want to keep Misplaced Pages open, there is nothing we can do about this. You have to weight the benefit you gain from any form of research versus the risks to encounter unpleasant material. That's a personal decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone else find it odd that a brand new user's (Alysah (talk · contribs) first
troll edit was to post this here?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx3)Very odd. The style - upright clean-living and outraged mom who doesn't know WP very well protecting her children - is all too reminiscent of one of the avatars of a certain sockpuppeteer, recently banned for 18 months (with their IP blocked for 6). As that IP is blocked there's no point in a CU, though. Tonywalton 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really. (Wait, now that I think about it)... It's a valid concern, and there isn't much discussion of readers going through the history, anywho.
← A quick digression, for Alysah: if the flagged revisions feature is implemented, it will be entirely unlikely for readers to see vandalism on the current revision (the current revision is the page you see). Going through any page's history will yield this kind of behavior from vandals, however. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- This brand new user with not a single edit to their credit was so offended that they figured out where the highest traffic place on Misplaced Pages was, made a beeline for it and reproduced the offending material in full -- then didn't stick around 5 minutes to see how it was handled. I'm reminded of the old lady who complains the couple across the alley are engaging in "lewd" acts, for all the world to see in front of their window. She calls the cops. They come into her home and look out the window -- and see nothing. "You can't see them from here, they say. "Well, you can if you push that chest over by the window and stand on top of it, she says.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I lol'd. I just feel obliged to tell you that. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Ta.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter target my quacking friend? (school holidays continued...)
Resolved – Blocked, Tiptoety 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I reported a loud quacking noise here a few days ago. Alas, Scottish schools insist on longish holidays, and my quacking friend has returned as Breakinguptheboy (talk · contribs). The MO is the same: create or recreate articles on the minutiae of Scottish music (this time around focussing on Goodbye Mr. Mackenzie) and undo past reversions of other Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) socks.
So, my plea is much as before: could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter deal with Breakinguptheboy as humanely as possible?
Thanks! This flag once was reddeeds 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done Tiptoety 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Blimey, that was fast! Many thanks, This flag once was reddeeds 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IP comments at Dreamhost
There have been problems on the Dreamhost page for several days now, although it seems to be being worked out on the talk page, which is good to see. However, in the last few days, IP 194.144.90.118 (talk · contribs) has popped up to seemingly disrupt. He has added his personal story of deciding not to use Dreamhost because of what he read on the wikipedia talk page. He's been reverted several times as per WP:SOAPBOX by several editors including me, but he has readded the material every time . He's now also calling anyone who disagrees with him as Dreamhost employees and attacking the company on the page.
I hate to see this subject get caught up again, as it had seemed to cool down on the talk page into a discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with the IP? I've tried to discuss it with the IP on his talk page, but all I got was "I will not be denied my right to have my say." That doesn't sound too productive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Upon further review, this IP appears to leave no signature on his talk page comments. I didn't even know that was possible. It makes his edits and responses hard to track. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There's alot of things that you don't know, for example that wikipedia ads those ip signatures on its own. Please do not make untruthfull remarks, only one of my remarks has been reverted a remark on a talk page and the only one to revert my edit has been you.
It is also untrue that I am attacking that company or any other company for that matter. It is strange that this fellow would hate to see this subject tackled and that he'd prefer to see it in a frozen state when the article in question is clearly extremely biased and the discussions are not leading anywhere. I suggest that the poor fellow find something more productive to spend his time on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your Dreamhost opinion has been reverted by me, and also here by The SerialComma. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- As to the anon's comment "I will not be denied my right to have my say.", you do not have any such rights here on Misplaced Pages. Also, Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss or post your opinions on any subject. Misplaced Pages talk pages should be used only to discuss edits to the article, and for nothing else. If there is anything you want to add to the article, you may do so with suitable reliable sources to back up those claims. But please don't post your opinions on the article talk page. Chamal 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Would someone please remind me what I'm doing wrong in editing lately? Don't hold back; let me know exactly what I've been doing wrong. Besides getting involved in the wrong side of discussions with Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and doxTxob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and mistakenly starting a discussion about featured list status for National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), what the hell else am I doing so wrong around here?
Is it even useful for me to be contributing to this stupid encyclopedia any more? Does anyone even care about a bunch of useless historic buildings? DoxTxob (talk · contribs) doesn't think so. In fact, Doxtxob was quite glad that I lost admin status in January and is still seeking further punishment against me. I'm not sure even what else he's hoping to have done, unless he wants to see me blocked and/or banned. (See this discussion.) --Elkman 05:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean! (I love that title.) --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's got to the point where you're questioning the validity of the subjects you're interested in then you need to take a break. Go watch some bad movies, listen to some decent music, eat something not entirely low in fat/salt/sugar/taste and/or go for a walk, preferably with a personal music player to keep you in rhythm. You will be extremely hard pushed to find any subject which is suitable for Misplaced Pages that nobody is interested in. So it might not be flavour of the month, so what, this isn't an intellectual popularity contest. Sharing your interests with others should be a pleasant experience, until it is again take some time off. Someoneanother 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Elkman, chances are quite good that you have done nothing wrong. Except maybe caring too much in a place where doing that will get you nothing but WikiBurnout & heartburn. (I suspect the first person to encounter WikiBurnout is Larry Sanger, & his latest actions are proof that he still hasn't recovered from it. But wouldn't be the last.) Follow Someone another's advice -- take a break from this infuriating hobby. It's not worth the aggravation -- or the heartburn. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Chill man. If you're telling the truth and you genuinely think you've done nothing wrong, you probably haven't done anything wrong. If those users are deliberately stirring up trouble, they'll be seen to in due course... C.U.T.K.D 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just relax and spend a few days looking at what real life is like (if that helps). The worst will soon be over. A very small number of people are panicking because an editor who tends to agree with global consensus more often than with their local consensus is running for adminship. But Orlady's RfA has only 3 hours left. If the situation doesn't improve afterwards, we will need a few user RfCs. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This ANI thread was moved from the archive as the case has not been resolved yet.
There has been a long-term pattern of abuse in relation to the said talk page. Various IP accounts have been adding nonsense to the talk page and deleting legitimate notices.
A list of the IP accounts involved other than 24.129.79.213 itself can be found here .
I believe other unlisted sockpuppets have also vandalised Talk:Satan more recently.
Block evasion has also occurred. Alpha77a (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen some dumb things, but persistent repetitive vandalism of an IP talk page must be about the dumbest. Looie496 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
MBisanz removing rollback facility for inactive users
I don't like the idea of admins removing facilities for a particular user if users happen to be inactive... it is not like they have "abused" that particular tool. I don't think there has been any discussion about this... we don't remove admin rights for a user if they are inactive, so what is different here? OK, they could request it once/if they come back, but it just seems to create more unneeded hassle. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not especially bad, and the rights can be restored without an issue if the user returns. I've removed the accountcreator flag from various users myself when it hasn't been used, as an account with that flag is particularly troublesome if compromised. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it have been better to have asked him first? --GedUK 12:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal threats from IP - 71.193.118.38
This IP user has posted personal threats on my user talk page: <quote>Go ahead and block me you fucking disrespectful prick.....You will be blocking Wiki editing for the entire campus of Western Michigan University, but go right ahead you stupid fuck. Besides, I can always run a proxy scramble and get around your "ban", so FUCK YOU. Why don't you just let the edit stand, as it is correct and useful knowledge for people. This asshole Russ Hamilton fucked me and many others out of MILLIONS of dollars, and it needs to be noted that he cheated on UltimateBet. As for the "considerable weight in silver" that he won, this was a direct quote from the TV program '60 minutes'. You do know about this American show, right, you pathetic Euro Fucktard ? Keep fucking with me and not only will I keep restoring the truth, but I may just feel compelled to hunt you down and put my fist down your ignorant fucking skull.</quote>
What am I supposed to do? He's already been blocked for a couple of days, but isn't this sufficient for a permanent ban, or if possible, contacting this university, if the IP really does belong to that, to track the user? Regards, Thrane (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's just coming from one IP then it looks like a classic case of WP:RBI to me, just ask for the block to be extended. As for the actual threats themselves, I know it's easy for me not being the target, but trust me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. C.U.T.K.D 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
|
