Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive453: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 124:
:::::A candidate for a good adopter, maybe? I sense another block on the horizon if the iffy image uploads keep coming, and I'm also a little uncomfortable with a user that young posting their age. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
An assesment/ possible change to a youngster revealing their age should be mentioned via email or at [[WP:OVERSIGHT]] in my humble opinion, because posting here just makes more people and even possible undesirables (no-one who posts here of course :):) ) aware of the person's age. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
:Good point. I probably should have asked hypothetically first (I really wasn't sure if it is worth action here, since he doesn't reveal anything that really compromises anonymity).
:Since the cats already out of the bag, I would mention that EyeSerene's idea of getting an adopter would be ''great'' -- assuming someone can get him to respond on his Talk page, of course. He so far has not edited any Talk or User talk pages, ever. But yes, mentoring would be good, as the vast majority of his edits are unconstructive, even though all but a few appeared to be in generally good faith. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 178:
{{resolved|User warned, not much else to do at this time. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)}}
First a little background; several years back, {{user5|Jonty303}} went on a spamming campaign for links to his site, losethegame.com (relating to [[The Game (mind game)]]). He also was caught creating confirmed hoax articles ([[The Pez]]) as well as a few nonsense articles. His site was blacklisted. Subsequently, he introduced a [http://www.google.com/search?q=MakeWikiLose.exe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a tool] on his site for the purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia with "lose the game" messages (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.23.17.252]). Since then, he's made several attempts to have his site unblacklisted via the talk page for The Game article. See edits of [[User:LoserNo1]] as wel as deleted edits of [[User:LosingTheGame]] and [[User: LosingTheGame2]]. Now it appears he's returned with a new account: {{user5|Rabidfoxes}}, creating an article about [[Jonty Haywood|himself]], as well as [[Talk:The_Game_(mind_game)#LoseTheGame.com|re-petitioning]] for inclusion of his site. I asked for [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]]'s opinion, as he'd been previously involved with a checkuser of [[User:LoserNo1]]; he found that the case for Rabidfoxes was "plausible" but not confirmed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Korn&diff=227243165&oldid=227241307] (which doesn't surprise me, as Jonty is now aware of the CheckUser tool). Is there enough circumstantial evidence here (single purpose account following pattern of older socks) to warrant action? <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<
:It is, at the very least, clear [[WP:VSCA|self promotion]]. I will warn the user to desist, and explain to him that the site will simply not be unblacklisted. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 496:
::::There's a difference between censorship and preventing disruption to the project. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Utter ridiculousness, IMO. Presumptive's point—that incorporating the ''exact'' article title into the lead sentence is awkward—is perfectly valid. Why is he/she being accused of being disruptive over trying (civilly and with discussion) to improve the prose of this article? [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 11:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Presumptive is quite a new editor who is being treated in this instance in violation of [[WP:BITE]] for good-faith edits, with threats of blocking etc being mad on her talk page, and being told of just for grammatically improving an article, and changing small bits with references added alongside them. People object to her use of simple rather than elaborate ref tags, but even I have difficulty using the long-winded style of references. Instead of telling her off for using a style of refs most people use, others could change the style of refs rather than intimidate her for editing an article. It seems like [[WP:OWN]]. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
::::::::Presumptive may be a new editor, but he/she is using tags like a pro, albeit incorrectly (IMHO). The RfC should probably proceed, but there's no [[WP:OR]], subtle or otherwise, involved in this dispute. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I'm not saying there's OR, but she may be right grammatically as she is on [[Talk:Murder of Eve Carson]]. LtPowers above can see what's happening. I don't know the subject enough to know if it's also OR or not OR, that is a content dispute in a way, and not a matter for WP:ANI. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
== Content Dispute / Edit Warring over the term "British Isles" ==
Line 521:
::::A glance at [[User:HighKing]] identifies the issue. From a [[Irish Republic]] perspective, the term would be rather galling. It is no doubt politically incorrect there.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
For explaination in case people on this board can't tell due to it not being explained at the start of the thread- the complainant who started the thread is [[User:Bardcom]] who has conveniently changed his name after his recent two blocks over his "British Isles" fixation and edit warring, and has previously been the subject of an RfC and listed for potential Arbcom or something. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
:"British Isles" does indeed seem to be uncontentious: [[Síle de Valera]] TD, ''in her official role of [[Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands]]'' uses it in the usual sense in [http://www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie/publications/release.asp?ID=256 this speech] in 2002. I'm sure other examples could be found easily. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 535:
::Ssssso... there's a POV warrior warring... and what? block him, be done. As mentioned on WP:BI, there's no other good term for the geographic archipelago. Use it, ignore the POV pushers, and get the encyclopedia written. They can suck it up or go to conservapedia, where I'm sure their intense nationalistic jingoism will fit in wonderfully. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::As Guy says- but it ''is'' used as a geographical term and how Bardcom describes the consensus at the start of the thread is misleading. The consensus as discussed even on [[User talk:Bardcom]] is not to not introduce it where it isn't already used- if so it would hardly ever be used as Bardcom is so mad for removing it. The consensus as I understand it as Tharky and Bardy agreed at one point near the bottom of Bardy's talk page, is that it's ok to use it in a geographical context at least, and probably in some other, historical perhaps, contexts- I don't know the fine details. Anyway, we're not here to discuss the content dispute, but dispite what Bardcom says, as ThuranX says, it's Bardcom that's acting against consensus, edit warring and so on, IMHO far more than the other participants- hence he's been blocked twice recently, been a subject of an RfC etc- two recent blocks of slightly increasing length unfortunately haven't deterred him for more than a couple of days. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
::::[[British Isles naming dispute]] points to [http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html this] official policy of the Irish government. For most purposes there are better ways to phrase it. Just use them.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 558:
* I expect someone will. Now sod off and stop fighting with TharkunColl. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::I hope William Connolley looks at it again.:):) He talks sense where The Artist Formerly Known as Bardcom is concerned. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
:::Ireland being an island of the British "mainland". That's interesting. Is it true the ''Times'' once had a headline, "Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off"? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 579:
With regard to [[Furry Dance]], [[Porteous family]], and [[Scottish Green Party]], no further discussion has taken place and I will assume that the editors accept the argument put forward. I am now going to change each article in line with the discussion, and I hope that if my edits are reverted, the good admins here will look to see if the reverts have included references to back their claims. Thank you. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::Erm, this whole thread proves not everyone agrees with that, and people have said so in this thread- different people, repeatedly. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
::::Said what exactly? That the edits don't need references? But as one of Tharkys buddies [[User:TharkunColl/Order of TharkunColl]] (Sticky = Merkinsmum), I guess it's not difficult to see which way you see the world. BTW, what did you do to "deserve" your membership? --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 601:
:Good block. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'd say that his comment is just as much a violation of [[WP:BLP]] as it is uncivil. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:Endorse block- no need to call people things like that (regardless of whether you think it's true) it's unconstructive and intimidating. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
::Endorse block - looking at the thread in which Chip made the original comment, it appears that someone mentioned his habit of citing himself wherever possible, and his response was to loose his temper. He was then warned, and his response was unhelpful. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 910:
::Which policy prohibits writing for profit (not saying I like the idea of people writing for profit on Wikipedia, just got a nagging feeling this may have come up before)? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::[[WP:NPOV]] would be the obvious one. A company being paid to write an article for another company is not likely to write in an unbiassed fashion. Not to mention the obvious [[WP:COI]]. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::What about [[WP:REWARD]], which pays users for improvements to articles etc? [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b
:::::That was what I was trying to remember. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
| |||