Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard videos and info

Track transition curve (Euler curve) has gained a new editor who is doing their working in MS Word format, then providing "code drops" as PDF files and screenshots-of-PDF files. The first code drop[32] pasted eight page-sized JPEG screenshots into the article. Attempts have been made to persuade the editor to contribute in Wiki/TeX-format and to keep draft material in a subpage (User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve) until it is of a suitable quality (and format) to consider for inclusion. The editor has been assisted with large amounts of TeX/Wikifying, some of which has been rendered superfluous by subsequent PDF-drops. The latest drop of File:Euler Spiral.pdf is five pages of mathematical working and was at the same time introduced on to the Main article in copy-and-paste text-only format[33].

The article in the past has benefited from very high quality and referenced contributions by Raph Levien (who has written specifically on the history of the curve). At present the core of the article has been swamped by the (probably prematurely added) code-drops. Gentle coaxing and provision of assistance appears to have had less impact than hoped. —Sladen (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments

Special:Contributions/213.198.225.221

Seems to be a pattern of anti-czech and generally unhelpful edits- probably worth keeping an eye on. Exxolon (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Wikipedia guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
- POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
- A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
- Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
- Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
- This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
- However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
- At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
- There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
- At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
- During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
- This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
- You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.

User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:

tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Given that these articles fall under the Troubles ArbCom ruling, this complaint should really be at Arbitration Enforcement. Black Kite 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~

This was already brought up at AE, and decided it had no substance. ENOUGH, Mooretwin. SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'd missed that. Yes, in that case, stop forum shopping please. I've struck my comment and will archive this. Black Kite 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Larry C. Johnson

There's a user editing the article purporting to be the subject of the article. Just a heads up. Lcjohnson (talk • contribs • email) is the user in question. Enigma^msg 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Crapyourpants

Hi. This idiot tried to out an admin with personal info. Needs speedy deletion ASAP and I've tagged it as such. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page FAIL.

User:The Rogue Penguin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are having an on-going issue, you might want to take it to WP:ANI, more eyeballs and that is where most of the incidents go. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 9, 2009 @ 02:21

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Advice on a user who doesn't follow Wikipedia policies

I've been having some long-standing problems with User:EuroHistoryTeacher relating to WP:V, WP:OR and generally what might be described as his attitude here. The problem is that he edits low traffic articles so there is not enough of a community to keep him in check. His modus operandi seems to be editing articles related to Spanish colonial history, and primarily making maps of the Spanish Empire. As the areas shaded as Spanish end up being on the generous side, I ask him for sources to show it is not original research. However, he feels he is above providing references when I challenge material because he has studied this at university.

I can provide many more examples, including other users' comments in a Wikiquette alert that I filed [50]. Countless times I have asked him to learn how to provide inline references, and in three months of editing, not once has he done so.

As someone who invests a lot of time and effort in trying to improve Wikipedia (not to mention money, given all the books I have purchased to help with editing articles in the colonial history space), I am seriously at the end of my tether here.

User:EuroHistoryTeacher seems to be POV pushing in questioning that an article on the German Army in World War II, with the Holocaust and all that, should mention any war crimes [51] and shows bad behavior or vandalism in posting a spurious "New message" notice [52]. He/she might become a useful contributor if the bad behavior were held in check, because he/she seems intelligent and articulate. This also holds the potential for considerable mischief. It is up to the user.My advice is to caution the user then to apply progressive discipline per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid the damage to Wikipedia which can result from unchecked POV pushing and vandalism/mischief. Edison (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for review and unblock of User:67.159.50.130

The IP User:67.159.50.130 has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy.[53] It was used only once in April of last year. I have email permission from Tomascastelazo, a talented Wikimedia Commons photographer, to disclose that it is his underlying IP address. He already has one FP on this site and several on the sister site, and I have been trying to set up a featured picture nomination here for him (English is not his native language). IPs can change and we rarely block any for such a long time. Please review. Durova^Charge! 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Diemazz