Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356
357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366
Incidents (archives, search)
1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160
1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478
479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332
333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
Community sanction archives (search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts

[edit]

User:Jonathan ryan indef blocked

[edit]

This user has been indefinitely blocked for persistent image copyright violations, despite numerous warnings on his talk page over many months asking him to stop. One place that he's been taking images is airliners.net where their material clearly states their images are copyrighted and who the photographer is (usually different people for multiple images). Nonetheless, Jonathan says he's the author of all the images. Most recently, he is strongly suspected of using sock puppets. I have spent the past hour going through his contributions and deleting his recent copyright violations, and spent substantial time back in October doing the same. He has exhausted my (and I think community patience) with his persistent blatant violations of copyright policies. I think this is a pretty clearcut case, but want to note it here in case anyone disagrees with the block. --Aude (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone purposely violating copyrights like that must not be tolerated. I support this. Mangojuicetalk 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See his talk page which is filled with numerous warnings about image copyright violations, which started out as good faith, polite messages [15] [16] explaining what is allowed and not (e.g. taking images from other websites), and other warnings [17]. To see behavior continuing is problematic for Wikipedia. His contributions (vanity issues) to terrorism-related articles are a bit disturbing too [18], but likely false. --Aude (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block this user. Geo. Talk to me 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are many violations and the user has been warned, this user should immediately be banned, but not on "community" grounds. And, if you want to put this here, please provide links to evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Whether this user is blocked or not, his page displays every hijacker from the September 11 WTC attacks. I would like to move it so people don't see it unexpectedly. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Ban Request on User:Classicjupiter2 and associated sockpuppets

[edit]


Are we supposed to be checking this page periodically?

[edit]

Gordon told me about the ban discussion going on here. How would one normally find out about it? Martin | talkcontribs 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're under discussion, here, I should hope you'd either know or quickly be informed. :p Unless you were asking whether you need to check this page to have a "full career" as a "proper" Wikipedian -- for that, my answer would be absolutely not. Anybody is welcome to watch and comment, if they're interested, but it is by no means a requirement. It's similar to the village pump, in that regard -- you never even really need to look at it, but sooner or later a lot of the people who stick around awhile get to glance at it now and then. Entirely your call, in my mind; the community has room for contributors in all sorts of areas. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend glancing at this page just like you would AN or AN/I. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are under discussion here and are not informed, I would say that the discussion is invalid. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's actaully referring to the Gordon Watts situation above. The best way would be to add this page to your watchlist.--Isotope23 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it necessarily invalidates a discussion, but it sure shows a lack of good-faith if you don't inform someone your having a "community" discussion about them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User abusing marking edits as minor?

[edit]

User:Darkson has been making quite a number of major edits, removing text, inserting new text, etc. to many articles while marking his edits as minor. What is the best way to deal with this? Shrumster 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first step would be to raise your concern directly with him. I don't see any comments on his talk page; have you pointed out the issue to him anywhere else? Newyorkbrad 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then if it's serious abuse and it continues after discussion WP:ANI would be the board where you'd report the problem. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've informed the guy. Seems like a decent user making edits in good faith. Shrumster 13:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template:Minor. --Quiddity 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I believe the categories fail to meet a set of conventions in a nutshell. Comments? --Cat out 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I'm being dense, but what does, "a set of conventions in a nutshell" mean? —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in the linked debate, the current categorization schemes we use on Wikipedia always focuses on political borders. Weather it is a country or a province or some other political sub-division of defined borders. Kurdistan supposed to be a mere geographic region like Europe or Middle East yet we categorize it in a manner parallel to how we categorize countries. See: #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan
Another important convention (WP:NOR, WP:V) is also an issue. This map of Kurdistan has its set of borders, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters' map of Kurdistan has a different set of borders. The point is there is no agreement on what the borders are supposed to be.
--Cat out 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. WLU (talk · contribs) and Mystar (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with each other or commenting on each other, directly or indirectly, on any Wikipedia page, and may be blocked for up to one week for each violation. For the purpose of this remedy, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Posting of Thesis/Term Paper

[edit]

Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate board but I just recently stumbled upon this article - History of Isabela Province. Checking the history, it seems that the whole thing was put in in one go, and it raised my suspicions. Regarding the formatting and everything, it appears to be some term paper or something of the sort. Could you guys check it over? Oh, and what's our official WP policy on posting possibly-unpublished term papers like this? W:NOR? Shrumster 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a strangely formatted article shows up in one big chunk like this, I tend to worry that it's been copied from another source--in other words, it's a copyright violation. If you do a google search for sentences from the article, you'll find that at least some of the text is copied from other sources (or possibly has been copied by them). The whole article seems to be on www.molinu.org, which I can't reach, but a Google cache is here: [19]. That might be a mirror of the WP article, though, I can't tell what molinu.org is. Have you tried talking to the user who created the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
molinu.org looks like a mirror. It has a link at the bottom of the article to the "full article", which links to Wikipedia. —Centrxtalk • 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it. This shows that some part of the article was a copy-paste job. Although I can't find the rest, because the bulk of one section is plagiarism, the rest might as well be.—Ryūlóng () 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article candidates

[edit]

Wikipedia:Good article candidates currently has a large backlog that needs involvement from members of all WikiProjects to assist in clearing the nominations that pertain to their topic. Each project's members are better at assessing articles according to the guidelines of their projects. Please assist in passing and failing articles according to the GA criteria. There are instructions on the candidates page if you are new to the task. By helping to remove the backlog, we can continue to improve the quality of our articles within Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User removing context

[edit]

Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing context, like the country from Jacksonville Skyway, and claiming that "Wikipedia norm" is to not include it. Please assist. I posted this on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) yesterday but it had no response. --NE2 13:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding unnecessary information where it is not customary to do so. Very few articles, unless they are about placenames (cities, counties, census areas) themselves, include the country if they include the U.S. state or Canadian province. The Wikipedia norm is, in fact, not to include it. Referring to my edits as vandalism is silly and false. dcandeto 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say your edits are vandalism? As I said on Talk:Jacksonville Skyway:
It's a standard on Wikipedia. Not everyone lives in the U.S. If it's "especially abnormal for names of places in the United States", it's only because U.S. editors assume everyone knows the names of all 50 states.
Please desist. --NE2 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you used the {{vandal}} template. It is absolutely not standard to include the country name if the U.S. state or Canadian province is included. It may not be standard to exclude it, but it's not standard to include it. dcandeto 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
template:vandal is something I've seen used in many cases to give a convenient set of links, and was not meant to imply that you are a vandal. It certainly is standard to include context; see Wikipedia:Lead section#Establish context. --NE2 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article basically says that the proper amount of context is the proper amount of context. It's really vague. dcandeto 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NE2: try using {{User6}} instead, it gives a lot of good info links and doesn't carry the connotation of "Vandal", or if you want to use {{vandal}} try "subst'ing" it, so it just has the links. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, heck, {{userlinks}}, which is what Template:Vandal redirects to anyway. —Cryptic 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I use the {{user}} template, who needs all those extraneous links anyway? As for the inclusion or non-inclusion of countries, I think the both of you should just plain stop. It's really a meaningless argument because the country name should be in the linked to town article anyway. Contrariwise, it certainly doesn't hurt or damage the article in question to put in the country's name. So, in other words, you're both right and you're both wrong. My advice is to step away from the keyboard for a few hours and see the outside world, you'll feel much better for it. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've asked after similar cases at the Village Pump and have had only a couple of responses, so I figured I'd bring up the question here this time.

Yesterday Dsp13 (talk · contribs) inserted external links into more than a hundred articles to a site called WorldCat. WorldCat is arguably a useful, non-commercial reference site on various people, however its addition to so many articles tripped off some editors' spam alarms. Dsp13 tried to propose the site as the focus of a Wikiproject, but that seems to have since been deleted.

:That project proposal seems to be back now. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own feelings are these. While sites such as these can indeed be useful references, simply slapping up a link without adding anything material to the article bothers me. If I want to find a reference for adding to the article, I can find the link quite easily using Google, it doesn't need to be clogging up the External links section waiting for someone to use it.

I've heard the opinion in other cases that as long as it's a useful link, it should stay. In other cases I've seen all the links labeled as spam and deleted. I'd really like to see if there's a consensus on this issue so I, and others, will know how to react to these incidents. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already put my own views at Talk:Igor_Stravinsky. To summarise them:
  • it would probably be possible for dozens of links to sites to be added to articles on the basis that although they don't support material in the article, they are of indirect use to someone researching the subject. As each one was added, however, it would become progressively more difficult to deny the case for the next. The end result will be a web directory tacked on to the end of the article. That, as I understand it, is the reasoning behind WP:EL, which aims to keep external links to a minimum.
  • anyone requiring a listing such as for example library holdings of books on a particular subject will by definition be sufficiently highly motivated to find it anyway.
Just my 2p worth. Stephen Burnett 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with situations nearly identical to this one. The person adding the links may (or may not) be well intentioned but such links almost always are to be avoided. Links are to be kept to the minimum necessary, and should be carefully evaluated regarding their value to the article. Rapid-fire link insertion by someone with no prior history on the article isn't consistent with that. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, every possible book in a US library will warrant such a link--its the equivalent of a link to the ImDB article for each film, or to PubMed for every disease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talkcontribs) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've tried to explain my intentions in adding these links at User_talk:Dsp13#Worldcat spam, Talk:Igor Stravinsky, and at the project proposal. Here's my bloated tuppence. My general motivation was to facilitate cross-fertilization between Wikipedia (with over 200,000 biographies) and librarian's records about people (the Library of Congress Name Authority File has millions of person entries, each given a brief MARC description). First, from a reader's point of view, it seems desirable to have an easy way to pass from Wikipedia biographical articles to library holding by/about the individual. Second, from a 'semantic web' point of view, it seems desirable to connect what are in effect the two main publicly accessible anglophone authority files. They don't yet connect very well. As Jakob Voss has put it at Wikimetrics, there are cultural difficulties in encounters between 'semantic web people', 'library people' and 'Wikipedia people': 'they don’t talk to each other or don’t know each other or don’t understand each other'. (WorldCat Identities' links to Wikipedia raised some librarian eyebrows!)
Now, de:wikipedia are ahead of en:wikipedia in this regard: they’ve added over 20,000 external links between biographical entries and the German National Library. (Here's an example.) Why shouldn’t en:wikipedia do something similar? Previously, a technical problem was that the Library of Congress didn’t made it easy to move from their authority file to library holdings: WorldCat Identities, which uses the LC authority file as a backbone (though WorldCat is a union catalog, many member libraries use the LC authority files in cataloging) now makes something like this possible. Of course, different traditions in editorial culture may mean that what de: finds appropriate may never be felt appropriate in en:. Sorry for my own clumsy naivete in adding external links: I appreciate the concerns which editors (especially of major pages) have expressed about external link multiplication. I wonder, in the spirit of considering the experience of others, to know how de: justified their external links.
Shimgray has acutely identified serious problems with WorldCat Identities as it stands: although it’s a beta project, likely to improve, some of these issues may be unavoidable in union catalogs. So I'm also totally persuadable that adding a load of external links to WorldCat Identities is not the best thing to do. How, then, best to cross the divide between wikipedia and libraries as major repositories of biographical information? Dsp13 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39

[edit]

I am proposing to have Buzzards39 indefinitely blocked for the following reasons:

  • Buzzards39 is disclosing identities of user names and locations which is considered harassment in Incident 1,Incident 2, "The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002" and "This guy is from Arlington TX. The same city and state I am live in today".
  • Buzzards39 is a Farmers Insurance Agent, " I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.", yet he continues to edit Farmers_Insurance_Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all sections of it including criticism. He delete criticism and tries to justify it with excuses. I warned him about this but he continues to delete and justify criticism of Farmers Insurance.
  • Buzzards39 is Single purpose account which his sole purpose is to keep others from writing negative information about Farmers Insurance, yet at the same time writes positive information about it conribs. He has been warned about editing a single article,"Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too."
  • Lastly he is rude to me then he goes to an administrator and acts like a lost puppy who is a victim.
  • Disclosure: I am responsible for most/all of information that is critical of farmers Insurance. Router 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the alleged harrasment, I plead "rookie mistake", since the personal info that the honorable Mr. Router refers occured literally on my first or second discussion edit. If it is a big deal, then by all means, remove it. As to my edits, I can only say that I have tried to: 1. Stay within the lines on NPOV, going so far as to solicit admin review of edits that I have made, and 2. Striven for full disclosure as to any possible COI so that Wikipedians may see my work and comments and draw their own conclusions. My humble submission is that Mr. Router has not been quite so transparent about his reasons for interest. When information has been properly sourced, I have left it alone. But I am unrepentant for removing or altering content that is false or misleading, including my latest revisions. I would not want to revoke Routers right to good faith editing, I wish he would accord me the same privelege. Buzzards39 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see no reason to support a block, let alone anything like a ban. In fact, Router should learn that on Wikipedia we don't divide articles up into sections depending on the editors' points of view: that's a recipe for disaster in terms of WP:NPOV. This is an editing dispute, and I have seen inappropriate contributions from both sides, but with a little more attention to the article from the community, and some education about Wikipedia, everything should work out fine. Mangojuicetalk 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Durova. This is way too sudden and not a productive means to settle your dispute. As suggested above, there are options at WP:DR to help resolve issues like this. A community ban is not something to place on such an unelevated situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As others have pointed out, you've got to make some good-faith efforts at dispute resolution before even considering a community ban. I'm starting to wonder if this page's header should provide firmer guidance about when community ban discussions are appropriate. We could take the wording from Sandstein's post above: "This page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks." --Akhilleus (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, Akhilleus, and I've been requesting that from the techies. Should link to WP:DE and outline appropriate circumstances and actions (involved parties don't decide on bans). DurovaCharge! 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard needs some attention

[edit]

The biographies noticeboard is backlogged at 184 reports, some of which haven't seen action since December last year. It would be good if some experienced editors went that way. Thanks. MER-C 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though many requests just haven't been closed as they should have been. I just closed the two oldest entries easily. Grandmasterka 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste move

[edit]

Hi, is there a certain procedure, if a user continues to make a copy and paste move (see [20]) although he was pointed out to not to do this (see User_talk:Lawsonrob? Does this come perhaps under vandalism or disruptive edits? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I think you should revert it and give a more stern warning. If he keeps doing it, maybe post something to WP:AN/I rather than here. Leebo86 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BLP review requested

[edit]

Seeking community guidance for my actions at Jesse Lee Peterson: that is, this edit and this edit. My reasons for acting in this manner are given in the edit summary. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be completely in the right: unsourced accusations of hate speech on biography pages should be removed on sight. –Henning Makholm 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, only the first of the two diff links in Moreschi's request were present when I wrote my reply above. –Henning Makholm 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just added the second. More of the same, IMO. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced or poorly sourced biased or potentially controversial information must be eradicated without prejudice :) You done good, Moreschi. Bastiqe demandez 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked reliable source material in my comments on the talk page, but I'll wait to edit the article. I'm not going to add fuel to what appears to be a somewhat breathless edit war on this article.-Robotam 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]