Hm, while I agree they were created for the malicious purposes, I would hate to delete a perfectly good article that could do with merging and redirecting. Before I start deleting them, I would like to see some consensus to support their deletion. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk04:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am directed to notice this conversation here by an edit to my Talk page from an IP editor who I presume is either the same as SHH2009 or a separate observer with similar interests, likely also identified as being associated with Jvolkblum.
Per my involvement with all of the pages that Wknight94 refers to, which I myself tagged and thereby linked to a new article for orderly discussion, I request that you do not delete them. I am prepared to deal with the matter. I don't want to overstate the value of having information about the neighborhoods of New Rochelle in the wikipedia, but I think it is a legitimate topic and some coverage is warranted. Please allow me to deal with it. doncram (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bother blocking? S/he could continue contributing "perfectly good articles" using one account instead of bouncing to hundreds of others as s/he has done until now. If you're only going to follow half of WP:BAN, all you're accomplishing is obscuring the source of the contributions and confusing the situation further. Not to mention encouraging Jvolkblum to continue the wave of sockpuppetry that got him/her banned in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[In response to Wknight] In all fairness, if we can detect that user X is a sock of banned user Y, it's only reasonable to ban user X also; but as long as we know that there's nothing wrong with the articles per se, why delete? Why shouldn't Homestead Park, to take a random example of articles by SHH2009, be treated any differently from the way it would be treated if I'd created it? The purpose of blocking and banning, as I see it, is to ensure that problematic people don't continue to cause problems. While I support merging the New Rochelle neighborhood articles, including Homestead Park, I don't think that we can find their existence hurtful to the encyclopedia, but rather at least marginally helpful. Remember that we should break any rule that interferes with improving the encyclopedia, and I really don't see how the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting these articles. [to Tiptoety] Having heard vaguely of this user and of his socks, I know it's a tricky situation, but not having been involved, I'll not pass judgement in any way on wide-ranging courses of action. In this case, however, I believe that I know enough to say that I agree with your action. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughtful response but it still doesn't answer my question. Why bother blocking at all then? Keeping the content around is only going to encourage the person to create more and more socks (he is in the hundreds by now). If you support his contributions, then blocking the socks is just an inconvenience - to him and to the rest of us. He has a history of violating copyright so his contributions need to be watched very closely. That is made all the more difficult by forcing him to obscure his identities. We need to pick one method or the other: block and delete - and seriously enforce the ban - or do neither. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wknight94 and Orlady, the two editors most involved in prosecuting the Jvolkblum case, have made repeated errors in misidentifying new editors in the New Rochelle area as being the dread Jvolkblum. This was proven recently for just one new editor, but I believe that others have been caught up in W and O's accusations, too, and many then respond by creating new accounts and appearing to be ban-evading in bad ways (although they never were banned, the ban on Jvolkblum does not apply to them and there is no reason they should understand that it does). I think it is quite possible that the original Jvolkblum, the only person banned, is no longer even active in wikipedia. The all-out block and delete tactics applied against others have caused a huge amount of frustration out there, and I think pursuing such tactics leads to more technically illegal behavior rather than less. doncram (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Input
Hi. First of all, no hard-feelings about anything. But in regard to your comments here, while I respect your dislike for my edits you deem "reverts", I wonder what was the problem with this few specific edits:
[1] - Recovering a broken reference from history tagging a passage as original research.
[2] - Tagging as pov the qualification of a book as having a "glossy cover" (after a civildiscussion, I was explained that it was an unqualified direct quotation from the source, and it was agreed that the text should be changed to reflect that (i.e.: my concern was valid)).
[3] - Changing the word perceived as povvy after talk page discussion.
I'm asking that in the spirit of trying to avoid further misbehaving, and not to scrutinize your attitudes, and I hope you to take these questions with an open heart. Yours truly, --Damiens.rf05:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Damiens.rf. Let me also start by saying that there are no hard-feelings on my part either and I am fully aware that editors have the ability to improve, correct, and learn from their mistakes even if that means a block must be issued to accomplish that, and I truly hope this is the case with you. I would also like to note, that while I blocked you, I feel that your edits are intelligent and have the best interests of the project in mind I just wish you would have gone about them in a more constructive way.
As for the diffs you provided, I know there was some reason I put them in my comment at Talk:Intelligent_design, but after looking over them again I do not see the issue. In regards to this which when reverted was changed to this, I think there was a earlier revert of the same type of template addition which you in turn re-added (can't seem to find it though, page history is a mess). So because I am totally unable to provide you with a good reason for adding bringing up those diffs, I will apologize for having added them. Anyways, I hope you take this as a learning experience and move more towards the talk page and less towards the article. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiptoety. What do you think of this? Would you have an opinion on whether there is currently a consensus to keep the images on the article. It's a mess I know but I feel this has festered for too long. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...overall it looks good. I think the main ideas and topics of disagreement are well said. Just as a reminder though, Wikipedia is based upon consensus not a vote. As such, other than simply for clarification purposes I see no real need to provide a list of supporters and opposers as simply having more users in one group than the other does not mean there is consensus in support of it. Also, I hope that this page will simply be used for "information only" purposes and a place to brainstorm ways of solving the dispute instead of simply being a place to continue it. But, like I said before all and all it looks good. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is just intended as a summary headcount of who has said what in the rather convoluted discussions there have been. Its primary purpose is to demonstrate (without the disruption of having a straw poll) that the consensus claimed by the proponents of the images is illusory. I'm aware that consensus is not a headcount of course; but sometimes a headcount can demonstrate the lack of a consensus. I would argue that in the absence of a consensus these images should probably not be used. Any opinions on where we should best go next with this? I respect your opinion and would be grateful for your advice. --John (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest John, I am seeing that the only real way to resolve this most recent issue is through a RfAr. That said, other means should be attempted first and I really recommend opening a RfC that deals specifically with the images and hope that some uninvolved voices pipe up to attempt to create some form of consensus. That said, the whole ID dispute has been long running and I fear a RfC will do little to put out the flames...but if we are to follow our dispute resolution process that is the next step. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It's been ongoing for almost a year now. Most image use problems (that I've seen) are solved much more quickly, but I guess this is a highly charged area. See inter aliahere. Oh well. Another few days won't hurt I guess. --John (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring report result
Hi, I reported PeeJay2k3 for breaking the 3 Revert Rule (article - Adem Ljajic) and you passed the decision. You said that as the page had been protected, you were not going to block him. I just wanted to tell you that the only reason the page had been protected was because he had it protected displaying the incorrect information he had been continually reverting to. The page was not protected as a method to stop him from reverting the article. - Matty4123(T•C•A)20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the lack of a block if PeeJay was a new editor, or even an established editor with no prior block history - however he is an established editor with prior 3RR blocks - based on my prior dealings with this editor he seems to think that his content takes priority over any rules that wikipedia has. I politely suggest that you take another look at his previous edits/block history and consider blocking him - his edits are good faith, but his actions are disruptive. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact reason why there has been a bit of a "dispute" on that article. He seems to think that his information must always be right. He can not accept when someone finds something to the contrary, even if there are many reliable sources. - Matty4123(T•C•A)15:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the definition of a dispute, and is the most common form. As such, we must take the appropriate steps in dealing with those disputes and that involves letting both sides have the ability to voice their opinions on the matter and engage in civil discussions. While I do feel blocking would have dealt with the conduct issues it would not have resolved the dispute. Seeing as another administrator has protected the page, that allows for a conversation to take place and I encourage you to start (or jump into) one. Also, blocking now would be completely punitive. The user has not edit warred over the article for close to 14 hours, if you still feel a block is needed take to WP:AN/I but like I said before I will not be blocking. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk17:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user is requesting unblocking; he had been edit-warring at Bobby Abreu. He says the dispute had been over for a while when he was blocked; I checked and indeed, he had self-reverted his last revert. I'm thinking unblocking would be reasonable here. Mangojuicetalk15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It was never my intention to participate in edit wars here in WP. However unreasonable behavior of some editors pushed me to do so, even though I know that I could just wait for some other editors to do the reverts. I contacted you because you warned me over the edit wars in articles related to Eastern Europe, and because of that Biophys kept complaining about me to you. It is pity that these articles became a battleground, and it has always been my intention to smooth the edged and bring neutral way to describe what is going on and try to establish a mutual consensus. If I and you had time I could demonstrate that even though I participated in edit wars over 2008 South Ossetia War most of my edits remain in the current version, and most of the edits which I kept deleting do not. (Igny (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
As I am not the person (or people) that wrote the injunction I can not speak to its intended meaning, instead you will need to contact a active Arbitrator who is working the case. My only role is to enforce the injunction and seeing as Kendrick7 has since ceased, I see no need to take any action. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did not seek for any enforcement, I only wanted a clarification. Even though Kendrick7 has since stopped, I will ask the arbitrator who wrote it for clarification for future reference (for however long this case is open). Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted edit hisory?
Hi, I still feel an obligation to make a couple of neutral comments in SemBubenny case, but I could not look through his edit history. It seems to jump from 2005 to 2009. Please see here, close to the bottom. I also could not find anything at talk page of User:Mikkalai (his previous name). Can this still be found somewhere? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, the page history's are sure messed up. For the most part, all of his old talk page histroy can be found here. This may be another topic you may want to bring up at the Arbitration case. To the best of my knowledge, talk pages should not be deleted especially to remove a pages history (with a few mitigated circumstances of course.) Tiptoetytalk04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should ask Mikkalai first and see if he is willing, I am not interested in a wheel war and proper edict would say to contact the deleting administrator first. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked, but he did not respond, although he is currently active. Of course, one could file a motion in his ArbCom case to restore the talk page...Biophys (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apparently there's a new page and my new addition seems to be appearing (though my template does not seem to be subst:ing). Anyway, here's my diffs in case I've done anything wrong start, headings. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator, Jclemens(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), deleted some of Ohconfucius (talk·contribs)' talk page archives at his request. Ohconfucius uses page moves to perform archives, so this deletion was destructive and not appropriate per WP:UP. Ohconfucius is also a party to the Date delinking case, and so his talk page (and the associated history) is relevant to those participating in this arbitration. The deleting admin has refused to reverse his actions, but has indicated he would not object if another administrator undid his deletion. The affected pages are:
Oh right. I forget you are unable to see deleted contribs. Sorry about that, after almost a year of having the the tools I forget what it is like to not have them (but you will have them soon). Cheers, Tiptoetytalk03:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I see. Deletionpedia is sometimes helpful in similar situations for the tool-less, but wasn't in this case. And well, yes, I guess I will have, from the looks of it; FWIW, I mentioned you in Q3 in that RfA, not sure if you noticed. Cheers, Amalthea10:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Way ahead of you Avi. I was the one who brought the user to the attention of Versageek. ;-) Anyways, thanks for following up with me. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety, you could be at risk of being led down a blind alley. It might be an idea first off to ask what the OP had in mind for you to do after you have "referred" to the discussion in question. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) [addendum: In case I'm accused of stalking, I have your page on my watchlist. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ][reply]
No, I don't think so. Before I would have taken any action I would have reviewed all the evidence for myself. As for the reason this thread was started, I can surly speculate but no one really knows the true motive, and honestly, does it matter? Either way, Arbcom has determined that you did not violate the injunction so really my part here is done. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't mean to patronise. During the last two days, at DRV, I was surprised by experienced admins who take opening statements at face value, without looking deeper into requests before replying, so I thought I had better 'be safe than sorry'. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Etiquette
It really isn't a good practice to overrule an administrative decision under active discussion where there's no pressing need and no clear consensus. It's not quite the letter of WP:WHEELWAR, but it reflects very badly. WilyD20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like any other admin decision, it should be possible to discuss it and overturn it if it was made badly. But the one needs to come before the other. WilyD20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
