US veteran (talk·contribs) made a threat in the edit summary of this edit when removing cited material. From what I can see, the section is adequately sourced, although others should review and confirm. This article has a history of new editors edit warring over attempts to remove the criticism section, although it had been quiet for several months - only becoming active again within the past week. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of notifying him if he is blocked XD. OutlawSpark (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
He can still respond on his talk page, which he is allowed to edit even if blocked. --Jayron32 21:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"You must notify any user that you discuss" - plus he was blocked after I notified him...GiantSnowman 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Would some willing admin with time on hand take a look at this. It's a mess, I now but as I still at least try to assume good faith in the editor (don't know why by now to be honest), s/he just doesn't listen to ANY good faith advise given by several editors (mostly given at the article's talk page). It really could help a lot if someone uninvolved could step in. BTW, this is the very first post I've started here in my whole wiki-life and I wish it wouldn't have come to this. Also, I'm not looking for some immediate block or other similar actions against the editor, What I'm seeking is a strong, trustable (to the editor) admin with a soft but determined hand and politeness, able to approach the editor in question with all kindness and as much politeness as possible so s/he might listening. this issue is beyond a simple content dispute which can be worked out as there is plenty of time on hand to do so and no serious edit warring was going on either. It's simply just about the editors approach by not adhering to the very basic guidelines and policies of WP. Please see the editors and the article's talk page history for context. Thanks for listening. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is all very vague. Can you possibly give some specifics with some diffs? AniMate 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, AniMate. It's vague and I posted it this way on porpoise since I don't want to make a big deal out of it. What I'm trying is to prevent that it becomes a "big deal" and therefore was and are still just looking for at least one uninvolved admin to take a look at it and keep his/her eye on it so it doesn't become one more unneeded and useless dramathread (which I'm not a fan of). If I start posting diffs I'm almost certain this thread will just end up in such (drama). AniMate, if you don't want to waste your time on this that would be absolutely fine with me. If I would be an admin I would think twice before getting involved here but there is the possibility that one or more (admins) would "waste" they're time in part on this issue. If I'm proven wrong and there is no improvement within reasonable time I might post diffs and else. Till then there is still hope from my side that it won't be needed. Thanks for responding anyways. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Magnificent Clean-keeper keeps ignoring the real issue--hurling insults.
The issue here is that I posted a quote from the NPOV policy and was met with a personal insult. I was called "rude" and "arrogant" by an editor named Rturus for posting an excerpt from NPOV policy rather than linking to the article on NPOV policy. Clearly, such a personal insult was not deserved for such a minor stylistic issue. The editor then sent me a message with anti-American comments, including remarks about the U.S. being seen as a "bully" and "arrogant" and Wikipedia becoming too "USA-slanted". Then he again posted personal insults, two more times, such as calling me "rude, manipulative and disingenuous." Magnificant Cleaner appeared to be encouraging him by critcising me for technical failings, while ignoring the real issue of the personal insults. There have been numerous anti-American insults posted in the discussion page. Some are gone, some are still there. The point is that there should not be insults included in a discussion page. Some of the insults about the U.S. have been horrible. I believe that underlying the insults that Rturus has directed at me is his anti-American bias. While Magnificent Cleaner wants to couch this as a dispute over my lack of following formal rules, the fact is that I do not know what all of the rules are. Most importantly, that is a totally separate issue from the issue of hurling insults when you don't agree with an editor or when you don't like someone's country. Magnificent Cleaner seems to be condoning the use of personal insults on a talk page by intentionally ignoring that crucual issue while trying to shift the focus to minor tecnhical violations on editing. That all this is going on in the context of a discussion page where other anti-American comments once appeared and keep popping up is not productive to the production of a good article. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like you guys might want to file an WP:RfC to get more eyes on the article. Since no one has provided a single diff, there really isn't an incident for us to deal with. If there are specific concerns about the treatment of those still living that were involved in the trial or murder, probably WP:BLPN would be better. Neutral point of view problems? WP:NPOVN. Reliable sourcing problems? WP:RSN. If there is a specific incident you would like administrative assistance with, this is the right board. I personally recommend a content RfC. AniMate 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An RFC? No, sorry but this is, again, something I would like to prevent as it is not needed at all. Please, AniMate, I like you a lot but I am just looking out for an admin who is willing to place his eye on this article and it's talkpage before it gets out of hand. If that won't happen there is a good chance we end up here again with "real" drama and "tears to flow". I just think ANI should also be a venue for preventable complications but if you think different let's just close this thread for now and if needed I or someone else will open it up again when it becomes a "diva's" issue. Believe me I know first hand what that means in case you don't and it's not funny, (it torned my family apart). Sorry for my last personal input which was drama itself. :O Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd observe that, although opinions are strongly held and (IMO) there's really problematic bias issues in the article, conduct (with some exceptions) has not been too bad, all things considered. I have not actually noticed any edit-warring, for example. So, from that point-of-view you are right, AniMate, there is no incident and no reason to get involved.
Posting on NPOV may seem logical.
However, there's a key probem, in that it is not entirely clear how the article should be constructed. I have my own, very clear, view, but I suspect the article may be unprecedented in a number of respects. Should it be about a murder and subsequent trial? Should it be about the media depiction of those things (the issue here being that many feel that coverage has been distorted and should not be a guide to how weight should be applied in the article)? Is it really an article about Amanda Knox? If it is, is this appropriate?
Because of the nature of these questions, my view is that we are on quite novel terriotry and existing guidelines may be of little help. It is possible that we are flying blind.
So, in my view, it may be helpful for an experienced admin to just take a look, not with a view to any action, but maybe just to advise, acknowledging that this is beyond the call of duty.
Lastly, I don't agree with PilgrimRose's tendentious editing. However, I have not personally seen anything to suggest a serious, actionable problem with this particular editor. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The latter was my intend and I made that clear. Although it needs an admin who is willing to give some of his/her time up and keep an eye on it. That is ALL the involvement I was looking for and I do think I was pretty clear in what I tried to achieve. If not I apologize for the distraction I might have caused.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, MCP, I'm certainly not having a go at you - apologies if it might have sounded like that. It feels to me like the article should have some sort of action taken, but it is not clear what, IMO. Perhaps you could say that the correct noticeboard has not yet been set up. That's not your fault. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"the correct noticeboard has not yet been set up." Indeed and my try here went on deaf ears. So I guess this is the first and last time I'll start a thread here since I HATE drama. Guess you get my point. Thanks for your thoughtfull remark. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I really am beginning to regret ever having tried to defend Wikipedia's NPOV policy in the subject article. PilgrimRose has reacted to every comment, correction and objection by anyone in a knee-jerk reaction of thinking s/he is being insulted, attacked and bullied. I strenuously object to PilgrimRose trying to paint me in a very unfavourable light by misquoting and misrepresenting my remarks and actions. I willingly submit (and encourage) users to read my personal message to RilgrimRose - which I have copied onto my talk page - and my remarks on the Kercher Murder talk page. I fully affirm that I referred to some of PilgrimRose's actions as arrogant, rude, manipulative and disingenuous. However those are not intended as personal insults but factual descriptions of the exhibited behaviour, and have also been echoed in other user's criticisms of PilgrmRose's actions. PilgrimRose also fails to acknowledge that I freely apologised to them for any offence which they had felt over my remarks which were not intended as a personal insult.
The general consensus of opinion (I believe) on the talk page is that PilgrimRose is not exhibiting a NPOV but is rather seeking to mount a campaign designed to paint the trial of Amanda Knox as a miscarriage of justice. Any remarks made to PilgrimRose asking for a more NPOV approach are being interpreted by PilgrimRose as personal attacks. I have clearly stated that I hold no views on the issue and am only seeking to maintain a NPOV, although I did infer in my personal message that I "viewed the trial with misgivings and apprehension". Nobody (least of all me) wants to see a miscarriage of justice but Wikipedia is not a place to campaign.
There has been blatant defamation of me by PilgrimRose in making unfounded allegations of an anti-American bias on my part by misquoting my information to them that: "On the subject of how the USA is perceived in Europe, you might like to have a look at the editorial pages of various news agencies over here. Many people feel that the USA has an arrogant and bullying approach to other countries. There has often been much disquiet about various activities and policies of the USA government and major corporations." I can only assume that their intention was to try to discredit me and garner support for their stance and actions. I have made no insults about the USA and PilgrimRose needs to retract the allegations.
I have at no time "bullied" PilgrimRose, nor have I sought to have them not participate. The hysterical response of PilgrimRose to all criticism and advice seems to me indicative of someone on a crusade. rturus (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
By posting insults and exaggerated complaints against another editor, that does indeed constitute a type of bullying. Editors are here to enjoy the experience of writing about an interesting topic. They should not have to put up with being insulted over and over by someone who does not agree with her views or holds unfavorable views of her country. Rturus says he apologized yet again hurls insults at me by again calling me "arrogant, rude, manipulative and disingenuous". His apology is phoney since he keeps defending and reaffirming his insults. Now he calls me "hysterical" for being offended by him. His tactics are obvious--make the situation as unpleasant as possible so that an editor whose views he does not agree with will go away. This is exactly the type of bullying tactic that has caused the vast majority of editors to quit Wikipedia, and should not be tolerated. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's it, I have had enough of this treatment.
Your method of editing was arrogant and rude, in that you posted (and lectured) at the top of the talk page and deleted other user's comments (mine included)- that is not to say that you are an arrogant and rude person - can you not see the difference? Perhaps you can suggest synonyms for those descriptions that you would not take as an insult? Again you ignore the fact that I apologised if my use of the words caused offence - do you just not see things that you don't want to see?
Your later editing was manipulative and disingenuous because you misquoted and misrepresented me on the Kercher talk page, using information that I had placed on your own talk page (in good faith and in a friendly spirit) without having the courtesy to reply to me personally. I am not the only editor that you have abused and reacted to, others have also remarked that your editing has been rude and disingenuous. The fact is that you are determined to press your agenda at whatever cost, insulting and disabusing me and other editors. You even launched a vicious attack on me on this page (repeating your deliberate misrepresentation of my words) without even the courtesy of informing me of your posting. I repeat that I was not making a personal attack on you, my original remarks were referring to the editing behaviours that I and others have objected to. It is obvious now that you are being disingenuous and manipulative because I have several times drawn your attention to the fact that you have misquoted me and yet you still persist in doing so. You again insist that I hold "unfavorable views" of your country when I have given you ample responses to the contrary. Do you think that trying to appeal to some sort of "McCarthyism" will garner you some sympathy from others? I will not resort to personal attacks on your character, that is something that you do to me, I am far too much of a gentleman to do such a thing.
It is my belief that you are using your attacks on me as an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that many editors have remarked on your frequent POV postings and obvious bias on the Kercher page. I also presume that you think that I will be cowed by your personal attacks and refrain from making NPOV suggestions in case people think I am bullying. I demand that you apologise with a full retraction here and on the Kercher talk page for your continued misrepresentation of me and I am formally asking that your continued behaviour towards me be reviewed by an admin. I also am happy to have my remarks reviewed also and if any further apology over any words I have used is required I will happily comply or accept any other justified sanctions rturus (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you want to "formally" ask for a review of someone's behavior, this isn't the place - WP:RFC is closer to what you're looking for, though still not "formal"... Tan | 39 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Rturus, I am asking that you leave me alone and stop with this cyberbullying. I want nothing to do with you. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually Tan I think I didn't mean formal review in the sense of RFC yet, I really meant that I would like an admin to comment here on PilgrimRose's uncivil behaviour as in "2.(d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." Also to be honest I retract the "demand" about an apology and rather say "request".
PilgrimRose It is you that raised this here and I am not bullying I am asking you to correct your misrepresentation of me and apologise for doing so - see your talk page. rturus (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI - I have made a further reconciliatory move by striking out my original words that PilgrimRose seemed to find insulting and providing more moderate language. I await a response. rturus (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I would deffinetley strike out my "ditto comment" if it still would be where I put it in context. Neither I nor another involved editor "moved it" besides Pilgrim and I didn't move it back since Pilgrim reversed one of my edits before w/o any editsummary which I only made to adhere to talkpage guidelines (Pilgrim seems not to be aware of), thus I could've have reversed it and mark it as vandalism but, I didn't chose to do so as I still assumed good faith. I gave him the doubt of an honest mistake the first time, yet he chose to repeat it and therefore made clear that there was no honest mistake from his side. But anyways, if Pilgrim is willing to move it back to where it used to be or verbally acknowledge to agree to move my "comment of agreement with another editor" (who already retracted his remarks) back to where it was to respect the timeline I will certainly do what I said above in my very first sentence of this post. No I have to take my right to pass out again....Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shock and awe mass deletion nominations of Greek Historical images by Damiens.rf[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There is already another thread on this page dealing with this matter [4]. Let's keep it all in one place. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Damiens.rf(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) is mass nominating for deletion Historical images from modern Greek History articles and spamming my talk page with mass deletion messages thus introducing shock and awe methods and stifling intelligent debate through this onslaught. Somebody please stop this user. Thanks. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Also this user has refused to stop spamming my talpage with mass deletion messages. Please do something about it. Thank you. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How do I disable the automatic user notifying feature of the script that nominates images for deletion? --Damiens.rf 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't know what script you use. In Twinkle, there is a checkbox at the top of the deletion dialog that you need to uncheck. I'd certainly recommend using some such feature to avoid mass notifications. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Future for your logical answer. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
He seems to be following the fair-use policy. Do you have a specific complaint, other than not liking that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent question. His comments on the deletion pages are also spurrious and unhistorical. Dr.K.πraxisλogos
Dr.K., he is simply nominating the files for deletion (with valid reasons AFAIK). He is not being disruptive. If you don't like the messages, simply remove them. Damiens.rf, when you are tagging the file using twinkle, there'll be a checkbox saying "notify if possible" - uncheck that to not issue a message. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I will try that for Dr.K images. --Damiens.rf 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are mass-nominating a group of images by the same uploader, it's best IMO to leave one message by hand that tells them which images you nominated, rather than dozens of messages that overwhelm their talk page or no message at all. Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Tim. I would call my experience bombardment by robotic software. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that these are mass deletion nominations, not mass deletions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Noted and corrected Sarek. Thank you. It was the shell-shock. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything seems fine here, the images are being nominated, and you can feel free to go and state why you think they should be kept. All the nominations seem reasonable to me. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything is not fine when you use software as a weapon to mass nominate images for deletion. Am I supposed to participate in mass discussions? Where is the intelligence in that? Dr.K.πraxisλogos 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh-oh, first it was Puerto Rico, now it's Greece (see a bit further up on this page.) I know it can be stressful, but Damiens.rf follows this programme of non-free image cleanup, and it often involves him coming across whole groups of images with similar situations. His view of the non-free content rules is usually reasonable, though a bit on the strict side. Let me know if there are any problematic cases you'd like a review of. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Future. I really appreciate your kind offer. Take care. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'm doing more "mass deletions" than you did "mass upload of non-free content". --Damiens.rf 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded these images over a period of many months in a gradual and evolutionary way. You use robotic tools to undo this work in mere seconds and then you dump the output on humans. I think there is a clear difference. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Being notified of a deletion discussion is not spam - it's a nicety...in fact, if someone nom'd an image that I had uploaded and didn't tell me, I'd be pissed off. On the other hand, a dozen nomination messages is a bit much - as already stated, one succinct message listing all of them make far more sense. I would ask Dr K ... would you rather not be notified? (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a nicety if they don't dump on your talk page multiple messages in a very short period of time using automated tools. I thought you'd catch the nuance of this but I guess you didn't.Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure if you read my entire post, you'll note that I did, indeed, catch it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies and my retraction of my previous comments. I am still in fast mode trying to reply to everything. That's what you get when you have to reply to multiple sections and fight the robots on the side :) Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody's telling you to participate in the discussions; you can do whatever you like there. There is nothing wrong with Damiens.rf's use of the tool, and he has valid reasons for nominating those files for deletion. If your problem is the messages you received, that issue has been settled (see above comments from him) and you can remove them if you wish. I don't think there's anything more here that requires administrator intervention at this time, so shall we just drop it please? ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Your answer does not fully address the complexities of the issues involved. I would like to defend the use of these images on Wikipedia because I believe they are invaluable historical documents. But I cannot under the circumstances because automated tools have been deployed rendering participation in image discussions a robotic and labour intensive task. It is stifling the debate by using software as a weapon against human editors. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about his aggressive actions are also being discussed here. --Jmundo (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In that case, this thread should be closed and discussion centralized at the previous thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– fundamentally flawed report, no admin action needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This inexperienced user is nominating articles for deletion so nonstop that you can't go a millisecond without bumping into his user name. Now nominating because it's blatantly created by a random spambot or user looking to advertise is good but I feel this needs to be checked. OutlawSpark (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh... what? Carlossuarez46 is not a) inexperienced, b) nominating nonstop, c) random or a bot. Carlossuarez46 started 15 AfDs so far today, which is hardly "a millisecond". Do you have a specific complaint or just making wild claims without backing things up? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Gogo Dodo about Carlossuarez46. They are an sysop, with 142829 edits since: 2003-09-21. OutlawSpark by comparison is not a sysop, with 10 edits since: 2009-12-08. What is the problem, OutlawSpark? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OutlawSpark didn't even bother to ask me about this spurious and blatantly false accusation, failed to WP:AGF, and well the rest of OS's post speaks for itself. Dramamongering... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How an admittedly "new" user found his/her way here is more than interesting, perhaps a sock investigation of OS is called for? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Right after accusing someone of failing to AGF? Really? This is the post you want to go with? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't really that hard to find this page if you lurk all the time. OutlawSpark (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Besides, a good sock would know that we're not dumb enough to think Carlos is new. However, the Plaxico effect can strike anywhere (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]
I am requesting an administrator use Digwuren discretionary sanctions to counsel User:Termer in relation to their disruptive conduct at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Mass killings under Communism has had a disrupted life as it falls under the heading of a number of strongly felt Eastern European experiences. The article has been moved, had no consensus at multiple AFDs. Recently, the article has settled down due to an agreement to use academic sources dealing with the article.
Termer has been disrupting this relatively settled editing pattern on a difficult article by:
mischaracterising and misrepresenting sources, particularly on talk
mischaracterising and misrepresenting consensus decisions made by the article editors
misreading, or acting as if misreading, comments posted by other editors
The depth and rapidity of Termer's responses, on an easily disrupted article, are causing disruptions of the article's editorial process.
I request that the first stage of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions be applied: warning and counselling regarding the conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess I come from the other side of the trenches on this, having defended the article in the past, but I wholeheartedly concur with regards to Termer's conduct - whether it is intentional or not, it is certainly very disruptive to the editing of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think maybe Termer should have a chance to explain himself. His talkpage comments are getting in the way, but this may be partly because other users (me included) are confused as to what he is about. On the other hand, Digwuren sanctions, as far as I understand them, look as if they could help without harming in this case. I wish I had known about them in previous cases (do they only apply for articles relevant to Eastern Europe?). What is EEML, btw?--FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The core of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions is, "12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I would classify this request as an article relating to Eastern Europe, that warning has been given, the conduct is repeated rather than serious, and the conduct violation relates to disruption which goes against the purpose of Wikipedia (through misrepresentation of sources meanings) and normal editorial process (misrepresentation of editorial consensus on the article). In this case there is an excellent opportunity for counselling to effect a change in the conduct. There may be other standing sanctions, or discretionary sanctions out there. See Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctionsFifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Invoking comparison of users to the EEML must be the new wiki-Godwin's law of reductio ad EEML. The claim by The Four Deuces that "this article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML" is laughable, if you look at who has contributed to the article. --Martin (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There is some merit to that objection, but it doesn't really affect the question of sanctions against Termer.--Anderssl (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
To be fair you haven't explained what your view is of what the consensus was that led to the renaming of the article or adequately articulated your view of what the sources say, imho. This is a content dispute, bringing this to ANI rather than getting a third opinion or mediation seems to me to be a bad faithed approach. --Martin (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Move discussion, Summary of article direction, Discussion leading to the summary of article direction. Termer was an active participant in these discussions. Now that the material investigated as a result of the consensus does not substantiate his position, he has taken to disruption. The content discussion is ongoing, and has been conducted politely. Termer visits ongoing content discussions and disrupts them by mischaracterising external sources (lying baldly about what they say, and reactive abusively when caught in the lie by extensive quotation) and past agreements. The disruption is the issue: Termer's conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Could editors please discuss EEML elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree and request that The Four Deuces strike his original comment that invoked the reductio ad EEML argument. --Martin (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Martin, but I do not understand what you are saying about the reductio. The Digwuren Discretionary sanctions apply to "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Evidence in EEML shows that this article qualifies. Do you agree that this article relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've read this thread but since there has been absolutely no evidence given to support any of the allegations. and since I've been labeled with worse tags than a "liar" on wikipedia before, I really don't see any reasons at the moment to react to those allegations here. In case any evidence are going to given in here later on that would clearly show my mistakes in this situation, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs would be nice. That's all I can say. I see some sections on the talk page that look completely irrelevant but people need to learn to enforce WP:TALK and not get involved (or just collapse or archive the sections). Honestly, what did people expect when they engaged this silliness]? While not the best conduct, it's a bit fast to immediately demand sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of these arguments are essentially repeats of the AFD discussion. As such, they are irrelevant to the article itself. People can dispute the AFD debate at DRV or somewhere else in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Any disruptive conduct does not appear limited to the one editor, to be sure. If Digwuren applies, it should apply to the others who appear to be engaged in contentious conduct. It should also be noted who nominated the article for deletion, etc. as that may have a bearing on the discussion. Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you should uncollapse those sections Ricky. Yes, it may be going over ground that's already been gone over, but users are entitled to do that if they want, even if you think it is a waste of time. Discussing the title of the article, whatever the merits and demerits of engaging in that, cannot reasonably be said to be irrelevant or inappropriate on the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not that the topic is a waste of time so much as the discussion has long gone beyond being fruitful. I really don't think whether Theodore Kaczynski is a Eastern European serial killer has any bearing anymore. If there's an actual dispute about the title, that's fine, but a dispute about "why aren't these articles around, why is this article not deleted" is doing the AFD debate, round 2, with no end in sight. If someone wants to uncollapse them, go ahead but if the section goes off again, I'm just pulling it straight into the archive. And honestly, I'd probably vote to delete it in the AFD since I cannot figure how this is not just a random essay with people just pulling quotes without a single bit of thought behind it. But consensus is consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There were indeed some problems keeping the discussion on-topic, but neither of the sections you collapsed were supposed to be about Eastern European serial killers etc. Would it not be better to warn about arguing over off-topic matters? --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel like reading that whole thing and trying to figure who at which point went off-topic. Frankly, I think the original IP's comment was irrelevant, but that's just me. If someone else feels like taking on a different tack (as I've instead spent time actually, you know, editing the article), fine with me. I really don't care. If someone is serious, they can start a new topic if they wish, but I don't know how anyone can seriously have a discussion about the scope of the article without first a discussion of the sources in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll contribute diffs for the part I have reacted to, but that came at the end of a long discussion so someone else should document the previous parts. I initially came in to support Termer against arguments that I thought were irrelevant: [6] and [7]. I then reacted to this confused comment from Termer, asking him to slow down and make sure he had understood other people's comments correctly before responding (as the misunderstandings were flourishing and continuously derailing the discussion). He responded by altering the grammar of my comment to change the meaning of the statement, and then arguing against this new version. I find that particularly unsettling given that the very topic of the discussion at this point was his continued misrepresentations and misunderstandings/misinterpretations. After this ANI discussion started, Termer has admitted to pursuing at length points he knew to be irrelevant, indicating that at least part of the disruption is intentional. --Anderssl (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
By diff then if we must Termer claims to edit on the basis of reliable sources this is after he engaged in deliberate mischaracterisation by selective quotation the lie can be seen here. Yes, we can expect blow in editors who feel strongly about their pro- or more typically anti-Soviet education to spout lies and garbage when they discover this article. Termer, who is a party to the current consensuses by forming them, has not repudiated them, and claims to abide by them, is introducing deceptive and misleading article sources to the end of mischaracterising the sources. This is a conduct issue as we rely on editors to adequately and correctly draw out the nature of sources. This is a conduct issue because the effect of Termer's mischaracterisation and deception is to cause the drama llama to come to town, especially as he is unwilling to accept any measure of fault in his characterisations (as demonstrated up thread). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The conduct has extended to badly misrepresenting the statements of other editors as here. I would greatly appreciate administrator attention to the issue of the continuous misrepresentation and disruption attendant. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You are now iterating your first comments in bringing the matter to this board. The fault, dear Brutus, appears likely to be on more than one side. Collect (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Your comments at [8] do not appear helpful, nor does your edit at the article where you removed a substantial portion of the entire article with a single bold edit. Collect (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, the topic of this thread is not the repeating of previous points, but misrepresentations and misinterpretations that go so far they cross the limit to disruptive conduct. If you have other things you would like to discuss, such as Fifelfoo's editing of the article, start a new section for it. --Anderssl (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, perhaps it could be considered in the future, in case anybody likes to accuse anybody of lying and 'misrepresentations' etc, how about presenting evidence so that first comes what is an alleged 'lie' and 'misrepresentation' etc and then right next to it would be nice to have an explanation: what exactly would be the 'truth' and 'correct representation' all about in your opinion. So far unfortunately I really am not getting it what exactly are you talking about and why do you paste random diffs from the talk page to this notice board.--Termer (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You claim that this is a source is characterising as specifically communist a causal structure for mass killing, "An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings." [Weyland & Tago] Within a few pages (your lack of page citation with your quote prevents me from specifying), the authors actually outline their theoretical approach, "Additionally, we create military regime and communist regime variables. Mostly, both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes, but we consider it is very important to set such variables to separate different types of autocratic countries. Military regime and communist regimes, in theory, create very different conditions vis-à-vis initiation of mass murder. A military regime, by its definition, is more likely to have stronger armed forces and a lower threshold for using them (Wayman, 1975). Any regime has policies that affect society, and the regime, if it wishes to carry out these policies, needs to find a way to get its way and impose its acts on society." [Wayman and Tago 14]
This is a deceptive practice, to claim that sources say what they do not. To be specific, "both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes" indicates that Weyland & Tago are not theorising a specifically communist cause for the mass killings they deal with. The fact that you claim to be presenting excellent sources for discussion, but the sources in no way say what you claim, has disrupted the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea Fifelfoo why do you bring your opinions about the article to this notice board.--Termer (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We rely on you Termer not to lie about the content, character, and opinion of sources. Your consistent habit of cherry picking without reading goes back to the introduction of Valentino to the article, and has continued. This isn't about the content of what your sources say as you can see from the editing we've done together. This is about your conduct in misrepresenting what sources say and the disruption you cause as a result. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Termer, for continuing to prove our points. Our diffs are not random. In my last two ones, I showed my comment were I claimed that you were giving a "a misrepresentation of the consensus that led to the name change". You responded (quoting from the start of your comment): "misrepresentation of the consensus led to the name change? Sorry Anderssl that just didn't make any sense to me. Such requested name changes can only happen according to consensus, please see the relevant discussion" etc etc. If this still isn't clear to you, look for the missing "that" in your quotation from my comment, and ask someone who is good at grammer why that changes the meaning of the sentence 180 degrees. And then ask yourself: "Why did it take 4 days and 40 posts back and forth just to get me to comprehend this little misunderstanding?" Such things happen sometimes, but the thing is that with you it seems to happen so often that people are wondering whether 1) your mastery of grammar is insufficient to give any meaningful contribution to this discussion or 2) you are just being disingenuous. Either way, this just isn't working. --Anderssl (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I can clearly see my mistake now. I shouldn't have ever responded to this thread here. Happy editing to both of you!--Termer (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but I really don't see that there is any call for action here. This is not at all wp-related and, barring suicide/legal (or illegal) threats, this sort of teenage angst isn't really the sort of stuff for AN/I. --Xdamrtalk 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make WP:THERAPY more prevalent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And seriously, if I were at work and some teenage girl were sobbing on the sidewalk and crying "someone help me" I wouldn't ignore her because it Was Not My Job. We're just trying to point her to help; Not Therapy can be over-applied. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Few people would ignore the girl (one would hope). That doesn't mean that, absent a crime, phoning up the emergency services is necessarily the first course of action... --Xdamrtalk 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see [9]. I'm unsure as to whether any further action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In theory it should be taken seriously, i.e. find out where that IP is and inform local authorities. raseaCtalk to me 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is local to Auburn, Alabama the 24hr police non-emergency number is 501-3100. raseaCtalk to me 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've notified and am currently waiting on a response from the Administrator who recently blocked the IP for standard vandalism. Notified of both the diff and this thread. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Better to assume that they're all real rather than they're all fake. Or should we let someone sue Wikipedia because we all ignored their child's suicide warning? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is the only documented Wikipedia guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." Though RTTOS is an essay and not an approved Wikipedia guideline or policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Wikipedia is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What the hell is going on? I heard the name Auburn mentioned in this thread. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. raseaCtalk to me 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
All suicide threats need to be reported.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is absolutely, absolutely not true. I have to step in here and in the strongest possible terms tell you that you are factually wrong. I have worked as a counsellor for years with those who have attempted suicide. It is remarkably common for potential suicides to do just what you're saying they don't do. In fact, I would suggest that well over half of suicide attempts are predated by calls for help exactly like this. Unfortunately, TV and the mass media have convinced people beyond dissuasion that people who actually kill themselves don't ask for help. This has actually prevented friends and family from noticing calls for help or taking them seriously until it's too late. Please, please, please: don't fall into the "the mass media is right about everything, people are crazy and just looking for attention" trap. Suicides do this all the time. All the time. --NellieBly (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd also add that the majority of suicides do not leave suicide notes. Another thing people have picked up from TV and movies that doesn't reflect real life, to the point that survivors don't believe that a suicide actually killed himself if he didn't leave a note. TV is entertainment and doesn't reflect real life. --NellieBly (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, I was about to reply in the same way (having some experience in the matter) but I assumed that GoodDay was making a joke (a suicide can't tell people of their intentions afterward because they're dead). Many suicides are really calls for help, even our article states as much, and often attempts aren't meant to actually succeed but to draw attention to the problems of the person. That doesn't mean that the person doesn't need help, if they're desperate enough to act out in that way then they have some serious problems that probably should get attention. -- Atama頭 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct, as far as it goes; in my experience, those who are determined to top themselves will usually manage to do so, and do so either extremely dramatically (e.g. by leaping in front of a train) or very quietly (e.g. by OD'ing)- in neither case will they advertise the fact beforehand. But there is another case; the "cry for help" from those who may be desperate but not terminally so, and these are the people that tend to advertise beforehand in the hope that they might receive assistance. I realise we should not be in that business ourselves, and should resist false positives, but there is a humanitarian case for reporting them, per Jeanne Boleyn and others above. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
People are actually taking this ridiculous vandalism seriously?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You always take these things seriously, no matter how silly they may appear. It's just not something that we, as uninvolved volunteers, are in a position to make a judgement call on. The cost of doing nothing on the off chance they were serious is nothing compared to the cost of being wrong when they aren't. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Usually a suicide threat that doesn't include any reason at all is either a joke or one of the very rare occasions of a real intent. That doesn't mean we should just disregard them by ignorance but rather forward any information posted on Wiki to the local authorities as far as it is possible. It would be the right thing to do as it really isn't much "effort" to potentially prevent one in a thousand (or so) going this way. Generally spoken, editors especially admins who have more tools available should keep this in mind for future reference.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
So it was decided that threats of suicide should be reported to the police. But did anyone actually call the police? ~~ Dr Dec(Talk) ~~ 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a dangerous precedent. Process from edit > Admin > CU > police > ISP > police at best probably an hour. That's assuming it's a 100% straight desktop with an ISP that hands out info on the spot. Wow, good lord. I sound heartless. The CU presumably contacting authorities would be in a damn odd spot given suicide is more taboo than bomb plots to talk about enough of the time. Truth be told, without experience in direct therapy/group sessions or personal musings, it's damn hard to fit one's head around. :My actual biggest concern? Abuse/vandals/hoaxes. A bomb threat hoax still can result in a massive world of law enforcement hurt for the poster regardless of hoax nature, when/where they did it, etc. Suicide issues where acting on anything would have to be instantaneous? ...Do we want law enforcement globally lining up outside our virtual door after countless reports from proxies, dynamic IPs, personal jokes using a friend's PC, and any level of puppetry? No. Wikipedia doesn't have a full-time staff to handle this stuff. Actually, we just don't have any staff at all. We already list a number of important resources on the matter to the point that it's a cool enough place for overlinking. It'd be really easy to go on with the "reasons why not" bit and how this could never work until Wikipedia comes in a small neutral implant, but I'd expect myself hacked and my rotten soul sucked away through my monitor. ....... Someone has say some things, though. ♪daTheisen(talk) 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: Any editor found deliberately mocking someone or making light of any live situation in these matters is subject to a 100% ban without notice, escalated from admin > bureaucrat > arb with times of 24hr block, indef block, and ban after an evaluation of absolutely anything less than 100% AGF confirmed. This makes a generic chain of permissions set and keeps it somewhat balanced. "Live" being important, since we don't want to infringe on the rights of users to laugh at suicide in their spare time on one another's talk pages. Seriously. ♪daTheisen(talk) 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin attention is needed at this AfD. An SPA user User:Laura.grimblay and a bunch of SPA IPs keep throwing bizarre and outlandish accusations against all the delete !voters, accusing them of being "scamsters", "blackmailers", "hackers" and of using "fake accounts" and to be secretely representing some company in India. Similar accusations have been inserted in the article Manu Shanker Mishra itself. There is now also a borderline legal threat[10]. This stuff goes well beyond WP:NPA and the entire AfD has become something of a spectacle. Although the AfD is only 2 days old, I think it is ripe for an early close based on pretty clear consensus, and I think some administrative action needs to be taken regarding User:Laura.grimblay and the SPA IPs. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the above requests. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
Laura.grimblay (talk·contribs) needs to be blocked for making legal threats, and wild allegations of fraud, hacking etc against both reallife persons and wikipedia editors (see [11], [12], [13], [14]). Various other comments made by IPs (probable socks/meatpuppets) are also borderline NLT and BLP violations (eg, [15], [16], [17]). I am not blocking the accounts since I commented at the AFD, but some uninvolved admin needs to take a look and perhaps refactor some of the BLP violations. PS If no uninvolved admin is available to review the situation, I plan to place the blocks myself in another hour or so, in which case I'll add a note here. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Fought my way through it. Laura uses this as a forum to settle some legal dispute. She should take it elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've left a blunt warning on User talk:Laura.grimblay - if she continues to make wild accusations, she should be blocked for disruption. IPs fall into that too, as I'm fairly sure there's some socking going on there. Tony Fox(arf!) 06:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll ping you know if there are any more legal threats or BLP violations. Abecedare (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, even after the range block on his IP, he is still at it... I'm asking if it would be possible to rangeblock Rcool35's IP's using the following ranges.
That is blocking a total of 13 separate /16 ranges. Unless you can narrow it down there is no any administrator would block 851,968 IP addresses for one problem user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. That range is way too big to block. They cover physical addresses, at the very least, from Texas to Chicago. Try narrowing it down more. In the meantime, whackamole may be your best solution. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I can do that
76.193.100.00/76.193.255.255
76.197.100.00/76.197.255.255
99.140.100.00/99.140.255.255
99.147.100.00/99.147.255.255
He seems to be using the range of those IP's only, it will cover his whole range. Now can it be done? Taylor Karras (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's much less. Only 4 /16s which is only 262,144 IP addresses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if we don't rangeblock schools, with maybe 1000 IPs, I can't see us rangeblocking 262k. Even if you can narrow it down to IPs that geolocate to a particular city, those IPs belong to AT&T. You'd be blocking every AT&T user from that city, and I don't see that going over well. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes there's not much you can do. In extreme cases, the Foundation's lawyers could seek a subpoena and injunction prohibiting this person from editing, but it would take a lot more than run of the mill vandalism to rise to that level. I'm speculating here but I think it would have to be at the inserting-viruses or making-credible-death-threats level before they would go that far. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I just want to see it it's possible. This is my last attempt so.
76.193.170.00/76.193.255.255
76.197.170.00/76.197.255.255
99.140.180.00/99.140.230.255
99.147.180.00/99.147.230.255
This should cover about most of his IP's, if not then it doesn't hurt to say that I've tried. Taylor Karras (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
– IP blocked for a month (would indef, but it's an IP.. even static... whatever), talk page access revoked. I have NO idea why this got to the point it did; a block should have happened a long time ago. Clear legal threat. Tan | 39 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
– Block lifted after polite unblock request. Users are reminded to use good judgment and not be a WP:DICK when dealing with IP users. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
99.236.221.124(talk·contribs·WHOIS) seems to believe that the shared IP template is providing personal identifying information about the user, and is removing it. In itself, this is a minor issue. But, due to their perception of it being personal information, they made legal threats:
And I'm going to keep deleting it because I've done nothing wrong and I don't want it on my page. If you don't like that, feel free to ban me, in which case I will feel free to contact my lawyer about weather or not this is infringing on Canadian electronic privacy laws, and I'm pretty sure it does.
And then goes on to point out wording of the law with which they are concerned. I replied, and placed a warning about legal threats on their talk page ... but due to the legal threat, wanted to also post it here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it really "their" page? It's a talk page for a shared IP. Seems like it ought to stay if it's meant to communicate with multiple editors. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
IP is not shared, it is static and assigned to this router only 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An IP assigned to a router is, by definition, shared. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If I wanted to sue someone I wouldn't warn them beforehand, this was simply asking my lawyer if it is okay for you guys to do this. You are too easily threatened 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The statement was clearly meant to intimidate in order to get your desired outcome. This is one of the reasons for Wikipedia's policy which is documented at Wikipedia:No legal threats. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It is "clearly meant to intimidate" only in your mind, not through any of my intentions. My desired outcome is respect of my privacy in accordance with the law, so far, you seem to disagree. Do you even have any idea what lengths I would have to go to to pursue litigation against you (who I don't even know) or wikipedia? I said I would ask my lawyer for clarification, which I do a lot of. If you feel threatened by a passive action such as that, it is your problem and not mine. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I left a comment at your talk page and will copy it here so discussion can remain in one place: Why not just create a named acount so that your IP address is concealed entirely? That way, only administrators will be able to see it. Using an account instead of editing via IP is far more private. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the {{ISP}} template which you continue to remove does not contain a map, address, or any identifying information beyond listing your IP (already shown on page), and your ISP (who actually owns the IP address). Additionally, the ISP's name can already be seen by clicking the "whois" link which is available at the bottom of any IP's talk page within the box which begins with the text "This is the discussion page for an IP user ...". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Tan blocked them for the legal threats. Should the IP template be readded? I was going to do it but don't want to step on anyone's toes. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I readded the template. If any admins feel I shouldn't have done so, please let me know and I will revert posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
99.236: In addition to WHOIS information, ip2location is available at the bottom of every IP editor's talk page. If you don't wish this information to be made public, you need to register an account. As an aside, legal threats (which this most definitely was) never go over well on Wikipedia. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I need something explained to me. Out of the blue today, for no reason I can tell, this was left on the IP's talk page. If you look down at the bottom of the page, the editor who left the note says he does not think the IP is shared. So,
Why was an apparently incorrect shared IP botice left on the talk page
Why (besides the simplistic "it's policy" reason) are we so excited about leaving the template up
Isn't it clear from the IP's comments above that this wasn't intended as a threat? Plus, aren't we all smart enough to realize even if it was, it's completely unrealistic?
Why is NeutralHomer everyone re-adding the template, repeating the exact same ridiculous behavior that ultimately caused him to "retire" so much drama a couple of months ago?
If you can't think of a good reason to do something besides "it's policy", the don't do it. You're treating an apparently good faith editor like dirt, and it is wrong. :Any chance we could all step back from the brink, leave the guy alone, unblock him, and find something remotely more productive to do? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, don't make this about me, it isn't...and as you rightly stated in your post the reason the template was readded again is...hey, it's policy, you said it yourself. The reason the anon was blocked, he made a clear legal threat. Edit warring and legal threats equal what, a block. Not about me, never was, it was about an anon user not following the rules. Now, I ask you strike your comment about me and move on. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
So, the reason for re-adding the template, besides "it's policy", is... --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No "besides", it's policy, plain and simple. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Then talk to Godwin and change WP:LEGAL. This is as clear as policy gets. Its a little odd that you pick this behavior to defend. The IP is trying to prove a point and is on a crusade, and happened to make a legal threat in the process - full stop. Bye bye, until it's retracted. It wasn't retracted. Behavior continue, talk page locked. If the IP wants to fully back the hell off his soap box and email someone about it, that's his prerogative. Maybe when you're an admin, Floquenbeam, you can pick and choose which policies you care to look the other way on, but this one isn't one that I do. Tan | 39 04:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a good block to me, Tan. The user made a clear and unambiguous legal threat, has had the opportunity to recind it, and has not. If he is serious about sueing, he can have his lawyer contact our lawyer and they can hash it out off-wiki. The threat is clear and meant to intimidate. I see nothing worth all this hoopla over. --Jayron32 04:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone, then, at least explain the insistence on the template? I can understand the legal threat block, even if I think it unnecessary in this case, but I really want to understand why, every month or so, we throw an unnecessary shared IP template on a talk page, edit war with the owner of the non-shared IP over the template until he snaps, and then block him. Anything at all besides "it's policy"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Because it's necessary for communicating with multiple users. This is all explained in the blanking policy. How does anyone know the IP isn't really shared? Maybe the person just leaves their router on all the time or something. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am with you on that one, Floquenbeam. Too often, we are concerned with poking the bear. Note that poked bears still must be dealt with, you cannot have an angry bear roaming the campground unattended, so the block was good. But we should exercise some caution in forcing such issues. Could this have been avoided. Yes. Was this still a good block? Yes. These are not mutually exlcusive ideas. --Jayron32 04:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As much as I want to say it, I will say the it is probably because of the migrating patterns of the South American IT'S POLICY! There is no reason. Policy is the end-all-be-all reason. There is no other reason you need to know or think about. What is a rule or policy makes any other reason moot and unnecessary for discussion. Dude, why is "it's policy" so hard for you to understand and comprehend? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, not to fan flames, but I see what Floquenbeam is getting at. I blocked for the legal threat and continued behavior (and non-retraction) afterwards. I did not block for edit warring or any such thing. Legitimate question - was policy being "broken" by the IP's removal of any identifying template at the top? Tan | 39 04:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Asking a question or two is hardly "defending" an editor; please try to AFG when replying to Floquenbeam. Some of you have been very short, not to say hostile, in your responses to her Flo. Perhaps its time for a cup of tea? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 04:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ya know, you are right. I am just irked by the continued asking for a reason and annoyed that "it's policy" isn't good enough (always works for me). I will be less "short" in my responses. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, the questions might not have been defending, but "You're treating an apparently good faith editor like dirt, and it is wrong" sure looks like defending to me. Jussayin'. Tan | 39 04:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, per Flo's user page reference to "Mrs. Floquenbeam", I always assumed he was male. I suppose it could be a same-sex marriage, but occam's razor and all that.
Floquenbeam ... As I mentioned at the top, in itself, re-adding the shared IP header is a minor issue. One I likely would have dropped if not for the legal threat. A bit more history ... I followed a posting to the talk page, saw the removal of the IP header, and reverted per WP:BLANKING, then switched it from {{whois}} over to {{ISP}}, (ironically, changed the header because I find the ISP template wording to be bit less bite-ish). When the IP again removed it, they made the legal threat - which then resulted in my starting the discussion here. Their intent in following through on the threat is not the point - the fact that a relatively lengthy post of legal intimidation was used was the point.
Tan ... I do have a question on the need to retract the legal threat. Obviously, I agree that it was a threat because I started this thread at ANI ... but looking over the history I noticed that the IP was never told that was a requirement to de-escallate. The IP did post a few times that he never intended to follow-through, which isn't quite the same thing. But they were never provided guidance either. For that one reason, I would support re-allowing their access to their own talk page - provided at the same time they were given guidance on how to retract the legal threat. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree; done. Tan | 39 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted to the IP's talk page, with guidance on retracting the legal threat. Hopefully my wording was clear enough - if others feel that clarification is needed to the IP, please add it there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just can't deal with the edit conflicts, especially when I'm trying to respond to several different comments, so I'll dump it all here:
NH, I've retracted a bit of that, you had a point
Tan, I'm not defending the legal threat so much as defending expressing understanding at the events leading up to it; the IP feeling ganged up on for no good reason, until he snapped.
The annoying part is this same thing happens once or twice a month.
I'm a he. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
One more that got lost in e/c #454:
These templates are not necessary to communicate with shared IP addresses. The vast majority of IP talk pages that are shared don't have these templates, and we manage just fine. I'm hard pressed to think of a reason for them, other than to try to intimidate any users with a "we know who you are" message. For sites with lots of vandalism from apparently different people, this is a useful thing. For an IP that doesn't appear to be shared, with a non-vandal editor, not so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I agree that these types of templates are mainly useful where it's demonstrated that multiple users are in fact accessing from the same IP address as the {{sharedIP}} tag provides verbage that clarifies for others as well as the new users of the IP that warnings seen on the page may be related to other (past) users of the IP address (schools being the most common, but others exist). My reason for bringing the issue here was the legal threat - as I mentioned above, had that threat not existed I likely would have dropped the issue of the IP header after the IP reverted my initial restore of the tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this IP editor does have an account [18]. As for why they're not using it, your guess is as good as mine. And they don't seem to be very new... if their IP is really static they have edits going back to last March. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry people, but I really find it hard to understand why this was let to escalate in this ridiculous fashion. The IP ought to never have been pestered with reinstating that useless and ugly template. And the "legal threat" was of a kind that a person intending not to be a WP:DICK could just have intelligently overlooked. Even after that point, the natural and un-Dickish response to the IP would have been: "okay, sorry for the trouble, out with the ugly template, but please just remember not to mention lawyers around here the next time". – Note that I have removed the template now, and strongly advise anybody against reinstating it. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. That said, there are many ways to express concerns about infringing privacy laws that can achieve a satisfactory result (that is, in ways that reasonably do not violate the letter or spirit of NLT). Accordingly, I appreciate Tan's first block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just as a matter of clarification, what was the justification for the tag in the first place? (before any of the arguments started). I know that there was a history of edits from that IP, but was there anything to suggest they were not the same editor, or that the registered editor simply wasn't logging in? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea; you'd have to ask the person who added it. In fact, somebody who added a welcome template was first adding a {{whois}} template together with a message saying it was not a shared IP [19]; then, after the user objected against the "whois", and people had started edit-warring it back in, somebody else exchanged it against a {{ISP}} template on the way. And after they had replaced the "non-shared" tag with the "shared IP" tag, that user began to cite a rule from WP:BLANKING which said that IP users were supposedly not allowed to remove shared IP tags from their page. None of all this was pretty to watch – the more I look at the history, the more I find the IP had good reasons to be upset. Anyway, they have now posted a polite unblock message distancing themselves from the NLT issue, and I have unblocked as a matter of routine, so I hope we can now treat this as resolved at last. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(<-)There is a thread of discussion, now closed, at my talk page on this topic that anyone may read. I wanted to respond here to the question asked regarding the application of the whois template to this poor IP editor. I also want to offer an apology, which I'll replicate on the IP editor's talk page.
From my contributions, I hope you will see that I do interact with IP users quite a bit (I have over 2,500 pages on my watchlist). Over time, I have tried to refine my approach to balance welcoming with notice of issues that may have been raised by their recent edits. The vast majority of such IP users do appear to be new contributors (at least in terms of their contributions from that IP).
I have seen that some IP talk pages are mislabelled as being shared IPs, less frequently, shared IPs are mislabelled (in particularly, sharedIPEDUs are not infreqently missed as being such)
Sometimes, IP users, despite good faith efforts to inform and educate, end up being blocked. Appropriate notification and blocking should include an understanding of the IP type involved. I've thus made it a habit to routinely use network lookup tools (which I use off-wiki in the Information Security field) to make this determination, and document on the talk page, both for my own use, should I have a need for subsequent interaction with the IP editor, as well as for the edification of other editors who look at that IP editor's talk page.
Template:Whois states "This template can be transcluded onto the user talk page of any IP address", but "Please do not use this template on the talk pages of evidently good-faith constructive IP users, since its wording could be misunderstood as implying the IP's edits are problematic".
Apology #2 I should have provided notice to the editors who were restoring the template, and then adding and restoring the sharedIP templates, that (a) the IP was not shared, as I originally noted, and (b) there was no policy reason to restore the IP information for a non-shared IP.
In my own defense, I had believed that notices to these other editors could increase, not defuse, the situation. In addition, as my contribution log will show, I was offline for a number of hours after I last posted on this topic to my talk page (I can't always multitask with wiki and non-wiki things). When I returned and saw the sturm und drang, it seems that the ANI thread had wound down, so I replied matter of factly to the couple of posts on my talk page, and hoped that my own original recommendations would be sufficient.
I have decided to not use the Whois template again, except in the case of a shared IP being unambiguously used as a source of vandalism (e.g., including blatant vandalism, or repeat vandals, or IPs used for vandalism category), and have substitituted a hopefully more welcoming invitation to sign up for an account to place at the bottom of a talk page, as appropriate.
I sincerely hope this issue is resolved, and wish the IP editor and all involved well and happy editing. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, 4wajzkd02, for this graceful gesture, and let me in turn apologise if I came across to you as curt or accusatory on your talkpage (as you apparently felt), which wasn't my intention. I should have noted your friendly efforts at de-escalation more clearly in what I said over there. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I also apologised on 4wajzkd02's talk page, and would like to do so here and on the IPs talk page, about my misunderstanding of the template's usage. I, personally, also had not looked at the IP's contribution log and had assumed that it had been put there for a reason. Next time, I shall be more thorough as, though I only account for two of the edits, I was the one who kicked this all off and I would like to sincerely apologise for that. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I also wanted to comment that I've apologized on the IP's talk page for my part in this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A single purpose account and an IP are fighting it out @ Press TV. No idea about the subject-matter, somebody with better nerves take a look at it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. The SPA was newly registered so neither will have access to the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Uninvolved Admin Requested: User:Damiens.rf multiple JPG deletions and related matters[edit]
Please bear on the length: this matter involves the deletion of many images, associated with the work of many wikipedia editors, and multiple violations of multiple wikipedia policies. Thank You !!!
1. User User:Damiens.rf failed to follow civility protocol, failed to first contact the user(s) in question for dialogue before engaging in marking such large number of JPGs for deletion, thus unnecessarily precipitating an offesive/defensive, warring environment.
2. The amount of time the user allotted to resolve the alleged problems (7 days http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) for all the JPGs in question is unreasonable, it is not sufficient given the large number of JPGs the user marked for deletion in one lump batch.
4. The user's rebuttals to the lengthy responses of editors who attempted to address the alleged problems would seem to indicate user is not really intent on resolving the alleged problems user is alleging, but to simply run a show of sorts where user is not part of a team but some sort of an aristocratic patriach intent only on finding fault with others and putting them to do the actual work. See, for example, "try to discover what happened to the newspapers archive, or actually, to the archives copyright!" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG. On another occassion, which I just can't put my finger on right now, user Damiens.rf was directing an editor involved in one of the PR-related images to go to his relatives (that editor's relatives) to get the necessary copyright information. (this is how I vaguely remember Damiens.rf's rebuttal went). And, I am afraid I am not the only editor with this view (see, for example, Jmundo's "If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article, so fix it!. Maybe other editors from WP:PUR are busy trying to save the images you nominated for deletion." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG)
9. The user's overall intentions (note -- not necessarily as evidence but as an example to be taken with the rest of user's all other actions -- note the user's use of double quotes around "vote" in "I would "vote" to keep it" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) would appear to be un-democratic. That is, that regardless of the input, effort, and even correctness of the other editors responding, the user has already premeditated the files will be deleted (This is called "malice" in some places).
11. The user's overall who-cares? attitude (see, for example, "Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring) is overall nonproductive, in so far as this batch delete project the user has undertaken.
The user's behavior of not showing consideration to the editors involved is clearly unwelcomed (given the negative feedback user has gotten from everyone (5-7 users) that has reacted to user's style just in the PR project) and, to myself, counterproductive, and I believe counterproductive to probably other editors as well (see for Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caribbean_H.Q.#Just_a_thought).
I don't doubt that something good can come out of all of this: sharper abuse management skills, a renewed review of wikipedia behavioral policies, more detail written into some articles, etc. If improvement is what the user seeks, there is no doubt there will always be room for more improvement - even after user gets done with this exercise. However, the user's methods violate wikipedia's community behavioral policies. The problem here is that the user's behaviour is resulting in more damage than good: edit warring, name-calling, threats, undue scrutiny of seemingly no-randomly selected images, in short, an athmosphere of distrust and low morale. The problem is that while a few of this user's comments might be helpful, overwhemingly they are not, and, even if they were all helpful, they come tainted with the indignant mark of that user's aggressive behaviour. The user has at this point damaged beyond repair his/her ability to operate civily in this Project.
I petition that the user be banned from further work in PR images in question and in any other PR-related images in wikipedia.
I petition that, at least while this matter is resolved, that all PR-related images user has tagged as nominated for deletion be hereby postponed beyond the 12/14/09 deadline. Thanks.
I petition that a different, neutral, less intransigent editor or administrator with greater ability to get others to work in a collaborative environment be asked to review all the images in question and determine if, in effect, there is any problem with them, for follow up.
Regards Mercy11 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really inclined to read through this wall of text and diffs (short messages are usually preferable), but making assumptions about an editor's personal life is unacceptable; please redact these statements. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I gave it a quick read through. Damiens.rf has a history of nominating huge numbers of images for deletion at the same time, usually uploaded by the same user. Having to scramble through huge numbers of your contributions can be demoralizing and a huge time suck. Personally, I'd like to see him restricted in someway in regards to the number of uploads he can nominate for deletion in a 24 or 48 hour period. Also, he certainly doesn't do much to inspire a collegial environment around here, though that should be addressed at WP:WQA most likely.AniMate 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec with AniMate) Damiens.rf specialises in non-free image cleanup. This work is often bound to get affected users angry, but that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Damiens has a lot of expertise and experience in this, and the huge majority of his nominations are soundly argued and usually find the consensus of well-informed image administrators. Yes, he can be brusque at times, but this seems to be a minor issue in the present case. So, in short: no, forget it. He will not be "banned" from doing this job, and the images he nominated will be reviewed in the normal way like all others. Mercy: your whole approach of making this a "Puerto Rico" topic-related issue, as if that country as a topic area needed some special protection from an "attack", shows you have gotten something fundamentally wrong here. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Minor now... sorry but I'm starting to see a trend with some of the users who get involved in this particular bit of work on wikipedia, this may need a much larger looking at by the community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Future Perfect: As you have addressed me directly, I hereby respond to your statement. You seem to have missed a major point altogether: I have singled out PR in my discussion based not, as you claim, on a belief PR deserves some special protection from an attack, but because that country is the home-base wikiproject (WP:PUR) for an article I had substantially worked on (Ponce Massacre) and which contains an image (Ponce Massacre.jpg)) that was NfD'd by Damiens.rf.
What is at the core of this whole discussion is, When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they forget about the human element of a collaborative work. Whether to-be-banned or not to be, is a secondary matter that can be handled as a second phase. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I agree with both AniMate and Future Perfect, at least in part. As Future Perfect points out, User:Damiens.rf has accumulated a lot of expertise and experience in dealing with non-free images, and has provided much useful service by identifying problems with images. At the same time, I share AniMate's perception that Damiens.rf's nominations of images for deletion tend to have demoralizing effects on other users, the vast majority of whom are utterly befuddled by the rules on images. It appears to me that Damiens.rf intimidates other users with his(?) superior knowledge of image copyrights and fair-use justifications. I doubt that this intimidation is intentional -- it's just something that has happened. I'd like to ask Damiens.rf to take pity on other users who lack his thoroughgoing knowledge (i.e., most of the rest of us) by making a couple of changes to his modus operandi:
Instead of telling other users that their "fair use" justifications are incomplete or incorrectly formatted, assist them by revising their justifications (if they appear to have merit) or explaining to them what the problems are.
When dealing with an apparently non-free image that has been in use in Wikipedia for more than about 6 months, refrain from nominating the image for deletion until after contacting (on user talk pages) all currently active registered users who appear to have an interest in the image (i.e., the uploader, people who have edited the image page, and people who have made substantial edits to articles that use the image) to identify and explain the problem, listen to the other users' points of view, and advise on resolving the situation (if possible).
I could hardly agree less. We have a big problem here, but it has nothing to do with Damiens.rf. The problem here is these other users, the ones you're wasting your sympathy on. Anyone who is "demoralised" by the removal of non-free content is entirely missing the point of what we're trying to do here. If editors feel that they are being made to jump through hoops to justify the use of non-free content, that's right and proper. Those who seek to retain it should work hard to justify every single piece of non-free content.
We should be ruthless, relentless and remorseless in removing non-free content. This is a free encyclopedia. Every time we add something to it that's not free and not absolutely necessary for our readers' understanding we can chalk that up as a failure. Every time we remove something that's not free and replace it with something that is, whether that's better-written text or some other sort of content, that counts as a success. Here endeth the lesson. Angus McLellan(Talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"We should be ruthless". Really? Are we in a collaborative project or a game? No wonder editors are leaving Wikipedia. You can enforce policy and be civil about it. I don't understand why he can't engage the uploader or the project before mass nominating similar images. --Jmundo (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You may be confusing ruthlessness and rudeness but I'm not. There are many thousands of non-free images on Wikipedia which do not meet the EDP. Deleting these is doing the Right Thing. And will ruthlessly deleting them upset people? Yes it probably will but we can't not delete such images just because someone might leave in a huff. We should try to avoid making things worse by being rude or aggressive but that cuts both ways. Experienced editors whose non-free images are sent to FFD shouldn't overreact either. It's not a personal attack any more than nominating "their" category or template would be. Angus McLellan(Talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is why sometimes I whish WP:DRAMA still redirected here ;). I'll try to be brief but will fail.
1) Damiens specializes in a generally thankless, but important job. I agree with the comments that ask that we keep this is mind.
2) I have also tried to approach the matters with him in a civil and honest manner, including my unease at assuming good faith in this case. I have done some what in the deletion discussions, but mostly in his talk page. He has been generally civil, except one instance of borderline dickery - the usual trick of "am calling your actions 'imbecile' not you" etc.
3) However, the issue here is how he approaches this work. The massive nature doesn't allow - in spite of his denial - for a real nuanced approach to the fair use criteria. Damiens seems to use a general criteria that is his interpretation of global consensus. However, fair use doctrine is by definition a case-by-case one by which other than defining what it is *not*, everything else is open to reasonable interpretation. My discussion with him on his talk page illustrates this point, for example, he claims one image lacks any intrinsic
4) I think AniMate's comments mostly approach my experience. The problem is not the activity per-se, but the approach to this activity. Basically, in this particular case, he is targeting a series of articles actively maintained and curated by an active Wikiproject made up of a fair number of veteran editors and administrators. Rather than this meaning any special status, it means that common sense tells you that you should approach the matter differently. In fact, Tony the Marine deleted or changed the criteria for a number of images when Damiens' rationale proved to be unquestionable. Damiens, in other words, in failing to assume good faith.
5) Ultimately, the community except in speedy deletion cases, always prefers that people talk things out before going to third parties. It seems damiens sees this common sense community approach unapealing, and prefers a strict, policy based approach. I understand this is a debate with camps etc, so I am not arguing that he is doing something inherently wrong. I am saying that in my opinion, this is a highly unproductive way to proceed, that ends up in AN/I instead of fixing the article space and its images.
I think Damiens is well intentioned, but perhaps should trust the community to be able to learn the intricacies of fair use doctrine, and that it too shares his concern about minimizing the use of fair use images. However, he also shoudl have a little bit of patience:There is no deadline. --Cerejota (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I will say this again, the problem is not nominating the images. The issue is the way that said action was done. The user was highly sarcastic in his approach to edits trying to fix the issues that he claims, calling the contributions either "jokes" or "idiotic [edits]". Mass nominating at once doesn't help either, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, in order to fix things we need to collaborate. By mass nominating dozens of pictures at once he is creating a massive backlog for a project, he can't really expect to have the issues resolved as fast as he is nominating, seeing that he seems to have limitless time to do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I have been discussed here, I think that it is only fair that I express myself. This discussion is not about the removal of non-free images. Those that do not meet Wikipedia policy must be removed. Damiens' expertise is images and he is a good editor. I have had the pleasure of interacting with him over a year ago. I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that there some who have misunderstood what is really being discussed here and have missed the point of the issues involved, which are the mass nomination of one editors upload and the name calling which went on during the process.
1. I believe that mass nomination of an editors uploads is a unproductive stressing situation for the uploader and in some cases may give the impression that the nominator has agenda. It should have been handled in different manner. If the situation involves numerous images, the nominator could point out the situation to the uploader by a simple discussion, giving the uploader the opportunity to fix or find a solution to the situation. If that doesn't work then nominate. There are some nominations made by Damiens which I do not agree with, especially those which I consider historically significant, however I realized that others were within reason and I deleted them. I have to add that even though in some cases we did not see eye to eye, Damiens has began to discuss some of the images in my talk page with reasonable logic and as such I have deleted or replaced some of the images. Damiens has also helped in some of the image formats.
2. I found the name calling on Damiens part rude and offensive. It was uncalled for and as a result tensions rose. There is no need for such actions during the process. Discussions should be carried out without any name callings or offenses Even though I am an administrator, I am not a know it all. I have dedicated myself to the creation of historical and military related Puerto Rican articles and therefore I have kept updated in regard to changes in image policy. But, I am not an "imbecile." However, I also sinned by warning Damiens with a "block" for his conduct during the process, when I should have discussed the issue in ANI. The bottom line is that discussions should be carried out in a civil manner without what any words which any of the parties may consider offensive. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree w/comments by Mercy, AniMate, Crossmr, and Jmundo. I've looked at the diffs, and believe if people looked at them carefully they would reach the same conclusion. This isn't just a matter of someone civilly doing a good job. It completely uncivil. And unacceptable. The loading up on individual editors, when coupled with the incivility, does much to suggest that the presumption of AFG may well be rebutted by the behavior. There's not deadline here on wikipedia, as has been pointed out. Damiens should slow down and be civil. If we had to choose between "uncivil good work", and no contributions at all from his, I would go for the latter. I would hope, however, that with input from the community he can become a civil, helpful contributor. I should note, btw, that I've found his recent AfD judgment to be markedly poor here, which reflected a complete failure to do a wp:before nom review for sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but this whole meme about "it's bad to nominate multiple images by the same uploader" just needs to be rejected. This has come up repeatedly, including Arbcom proceedings and RfCs, and the result is always the same: it's just not a reasonable demand. If an image reviewer comes across a whole group of images of a similar kind uploaded under similar conditions for similar articles by the same editor or small group of editors, of course the natural reaction is to try and deal with them all in one go. How else would one be able to go about it efficiently? Do people really think it would be a reasonable and efficient way of dealing with problematic images if you were obliged to just randomly pick one here and one there? And what good would it do to just "slow it down", as some have demanded? It would cause the same pain, and only spread out the pain over a longer period. Seriously, as long as the main objection against Damiens' work seems to be the fact of the batch nature of his nominations, I can't see any merit in them. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but just because its a thankless job, or really hard, or whatever the excuse du jour is, doesn't mean they get a pass on civility, plain and simple. There are zero exceptions built into the policy that say "If you had a bad day..." "if you made 10 good contributions today.." "If you think what you're doing is for the good of mankind.." etc. I'll also re-raise the point that I feel there seems to be a trend with some users, this particular field of work and civility. As mercy pointed out I'd rather have someone who can be civil and only work at 50% of the speed than someone who works twice as fast but pushes you out of the way to get there.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To stay on track, the core issue here, as in my submission, is: When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Said differently, What constitutes a good editor, one that has expertise in some area, or one that has expertise in some area and can behave civilly? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they start to believe that also earns them the right to be ruthless, relentless and remorseless with other editors. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you really expect us to pick "civil but not so good"? If this was just about incivility, you wouldn't have needed such a huge wall of text to say it. No, the core of this thread is non-free images being deleted, and rivers being cried over it.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The core discussion is neither what Mercy says, or Atlan says: its about Damiens, using policy as his weapon, ignores other equally valid policy. Not being civil and not being collaborative is as against policy (not to mention harmful and as unproductive) as including non-free images with sketchy criteria.
That said, the only policy I really care about is that we are writing an encyclopedia.
I am troubled by comments such as Atlan's that seem to ignore the purpose we are here for, which is to write an encyclopedia, not enforce policies. Damiens work is needed, but it is not more important than advancing the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Justifying his behavior only serves to reinforce is mistaken belief that the way he is doing thing is productive. --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not the deletion of images based on policy, but Damiens' aggressive tactics and lack of communication. He mass nominate images here and then goes to Commons where he doesn't notify the uploader. BTW, it was a simple request and he withdrew the nomination (1). When does it becomes pointy? --Jmundo (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, I was merely answering the choice Mercy stated, which had poor conduct versus less good editing. It's a stupid choice. We shouldn't have to substitute Damiens' effectiveness simply to get him to act civilly. There's certainly a better way to do that, and I'm sure bitching about his (sound) image nominations for deletion is not going to make him any more forthcoming. You seem to believe uploading non-free content is "building the encyclopedia" and nominating said content for deletion is "enforcing policy" and somehow a bad thing. That's completely understating the importance of our non-free image policies and those that have the thankless job of enforcing them, like Damiens. Jmundo, if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated. It's not Damiens' responsibility to give the uploaders ample time to address each nomination. It's not even his responsibility to notify the uploaders.--Atlan (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We are not the only ones "bitching" (Sure, let's talk about civility!), it seems now that he has move to mass nominate Greek historical images as a new discussion was open below. --Jmundo (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not disruptive or aggressive to mass nominate images, when they're sound nominations. Get over it. The uploaders should spend more time properly uploading images and less time running to the drama boards complaining about their precious work being tagged. The only real issue is Damiens' sometimes brusque approach, which can set people off that are already annoyed by their images being nominated. That doesn't need admin attention. --Atlan (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right. it is not like that situation didn't cause months and years of drama before.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How about this as an easy fix so at least people are on equal footing, while the patrolling editor can mostly continue behaviors:
For images seen as largely from the same contributor, notify coming actions on his/her talk page.
Turn off notifiy in Twinkle or whatever is being used.
Keep a full list of everything a template is added to and post that to the user's talk page as well.
...Not so hard, is it? I would say it could be possible to nominate the list as a whole like occasionally happens with WP:GARAGE matters, but each image needs to be evaluated differently in some way and don't automatically group as precisely the same things. Really though, problems with those 3 steps? I have no doubts the patrolling is in good faith overall, but in respect to users who put a lot of time into things I can't see why a little politeness wouldn't be good. If this were articles being marked it would be welcomed for the nominator to help improve the article, which is a level of courtesy far higher than even the proposed above, so it doesn't seem like all that much. ♪daTheisen(talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Condensing notifications into one has been brought up before. Would it be possible for the scripts to autodetect previous warnings and replace them with a new warning that included a list of all effected articles?--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It may not have been brought up "here" but it has DEFINITELY been brought up; I know because I brought it up, back in the days of the Betacommand hoo-raws. I am certain SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE in this project has the technical expertise to write a bot, a script, a something, that can condense a series of pending deletions, sort them by user, and then post the LIST of items to be deleted on each affected user's talkpage, without evoking the recurring cries of "notice-bombing", without leaving room for operator incivility either real or imagined, and without anyone, on any side of this misery, being given any reason for driving out any sort of WAAAAHHH-mbulance whatsoever. Regrettably, I am not the person with that technical expertise; if that person were to come forward, I would expect he/she/it/they to find the Nobel Peace Prize in next year's e-mail somewhere. Or at least a nomination for sainthood.GJC 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
AGAIN, to stay on track, this issue here is
“
When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick?
”
— Mercy11
Second guessing me on this has lead to a distraction that, though among the valid "related issues", is best dealt via a separate thread so as not to fall off track again. Categorizing my statement above as "stupid" just shows how irrational behavior can quickly take over what is a discussion about civility and, in itself, shows the first sign of uncivility -- name-calling. I invite Atlan, who specifically refered to me by name earlier, to re-read my submission and note that civility is not only inherent in the title of my submission, but it's there throughout virtually all the bullets of my submission from bullet#1 to the last bullet#11. Please don't second guess me on my own submission.
Mass deletions were dealt with in bullet #2 alone. Is the subject of mass deletions important? -- yes, but in the sense that it provides a stronger case to the lack of civility, and in the sense that it adds the element of lack of good faith, both undesirable community behaviors (read uncivility again).
The problem is not in nominating the images, and the problem is not in mass-nominating the images, the problem is uncivility, bad faith, failure to seek consensus, unreasonableness of expectations, edit-warring, name-calling, uncivility, uncivility, uncivility. And this is why rivers are being cried over it both by those of us affected by the uncivility AND by those other insightful editors able to see the bigger picture of the consequences of letting this sort of behavior go unnoticed. Is Damiens above wikipedia policy? I do not share in the belief of some commentators here who support that. Obviously, editors don't just behave uncivilly for no reason at all; there is always a backdrop for such behavior, and this is why I mentioned multiple JPG deletions in the title of my submission: multiple JPG deletions is the backdrop for the uncivility. However, such backdrop (as noble as the underlying cause may be(read: attempt to follow copyright law)) doesn't justify the edit-warring, name-calling, and uncivil behavior, does it? Wikipedia has mechanisms to deal with questionable images -- and uncivility, edit warring, and name-calling are not part of that mechanism, or are they?
One word on the distracting issue of mass nomination: It is poor logic to say that "if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated". This ignores the significant fact that these so-called "mass uploads" (unlike the mass nominations) did not occur at the same time (nor in so far as I can tell, with malice or bad faith). Compare that with the mass delete nominations which were done on the same day and hour (minute?).
Mercy11 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is correct. I replied to a similar accusation yesterday in the now closed thread which I initiated. Accusing someone with "Mass uploading" when the uploading occured during a long time interval is wrong. Furthermore such uploading, done over a long time period, is within the range of human capabilities. Now compare this action to a machine assisted onslaught during which the human operator is flooded with warnings over a period of minutes. The robot-assisted operation undoes the months-long work of a human in mere seconds. This is the recipe for the extinction of human effort in Wikipedia, including reasoned discourse. For it is almost impossible for a human to keep up with the rain of robot-assisted ffds and try to defend all of them. If this were the Terminator series of films this would be the "Rise of the Machines" segment. Except it is happening in Wikipedia and it is unleashed upon us. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My two Cents Really, that block of text could be summed up in a paragraph or two. No need for the full brief, most people in ANI know what to look for anyways. I have noticed that the user in question has targeted images relating to Puerto Rico in large numbers, however I have not seen enough of him to know if he is just going topic by topic or has an axe to grind. Regardless, he tends to be right about 60% of the time. That's not high enough for my tastes. He needs to slow down, but not stop. Nuclear Lunch DetectedHungry? 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just filed a WP:CCI on this contributor, whom I placed under a 24 hour copyright block earlier today. Corensearchbot tagged several of the contributor's articles within recent weeks, and I confirmed that the contributor was aware of copyright policy. The block was intended to prevent future vios, by reinforcing the need for familiarity with copyright policy. Further investigation suggests a much larger problem, and particularly concerning to me is the contributor's evident unwillingness or inability to recognize the issue. With respect to recent violations, he suggested that he was unaware that material could not be temporarily placed on Wikipedia while being constructed that was copied from other sources, but I have found a number of violations that are clearly not under construction. For an obvious example, see History of quantum gravity. I've also realized that he had a rash of articles G12ed in March of this year (see [20]).
I have seen more than a few copyright infringers stop, once they realize what they're doing wrong. I just don't see how that can happen here, though, if he does not seem to recognize what he's done wrong and if he thinks that efforts to stop him from doing it are part of some campaign against him.
Since he's evidently concerned that my POV is not neutral, I would appreciate assistance determining if an indef block is warranted and, if so, application by someone whom he may recognize as uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ummm... are you going to release a Cliff's Notes version of this novel?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Fun read. Given at this point a number of other admins have looked it over on the user's talk page, the history of these problems, refuse to admit to any wrongdoings (ever), and simply blanking one's own talk page presumably when they get sick of reading unfortunate truths, I think that all qualifies as ongoing disruption. They were offered plenty of chances to make a case with diffs in a logical, well-formatted post... seemed to not be up to it. ♪daTheisen(talk) 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we let the current block run it's course, and indef block if he persists once it is over. Copyright violations can't be ignored as they expose the Foundation to legal risk, and if this user is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that, then they need to be shown the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with that is it requires somebody to keep an eye on him. :/ His response to the latest communications was familiar. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
User still has own talkpage rights... Normal process can be completed at some point, a month maybe? Do note he doesn't even seem to be disputing the process, just why his actions were justified. Actually, user should specifically be reminded they're being left talk page rights as a courtesy. *Shrugs* ... I guess the concern about watching the page would be valid, technically. Even if low risk it is the reason it gets taken away. ♪daTheisen(talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I support an extension of the copyright block to indef:
User was told about the copyright rules a long time ago (March 2009)
He continues to deny that there is any problem. He hints that others are persecuting him.
Instead of joining in a real discussion, he just deletes all the reports and comments off his Talk page
If he gave any hint of being willing to cooperate, it would be reason enough to lift the block. There is no such hint.
Dougweller and Beeblebrox have already declined his unblock requests due to the noncooperation
Under these conditions, we can have no confidence that he won't go back to the behavior noted at WP:CCI as soon as the block expires. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As a side remark, most of User:Henry Delforn's edits in mathematics and mathematical physics have been problematic, the principal reason being that he does not seem to be knowledgeable about the articles that he creates. He makes no attempt to give precise definitions or locate proper sources. A series of articles that he created, often with misleading titles, have been appearing recently at AfD. Some can be salvaged, but it is often easier to create the new articles from scratch with a more appropriate title. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As a block is intended to be preventative and not punitive, and since this editor has (perforce) not edited since he was blocked, it does not seem appropriate to me to lengthen his block at this time. The fact that he has blanked most of his talk page since his block is not truly relevant. It would, however, be wholly reasonable, if he again violates copyright on conclusion of his block, to recognise that he has no prospect of reforming his behaviour and block him indefinitely thereafter. He will need warning of this, which I propose to do now. He has blanked his talk page, which I see as irrelevant to the main issue. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, my proposed purpose is not punitive, but preventive: I'm not interested in punishing him for the copyvios he's already placed, but stopping him from doing it anymore. :) The "next offense" suggestion would be fine with me, but, again, I believe we need somebody to keep an eye on him. I'm rather too busy with the daily load at WP:CP and the astronomical backlog at WP:CCI to monitor potential reoffenders. Would you or somebody else be willing to check in? While it's possible that Corensearchbot will detect issues for us, it is also (sadly) possible that it will not. There are about 340 articles to which he has already contributed that are already going to need scanning. I would hope to avoid arriving several months now to 340 more. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
His block has expired, what he does next will be telling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
– Both Christodoulidesd and OutlawSpark blocked as obvious socks Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I need someone to check it out. OutlawSpark (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Which AFD? What's the problem? What would you like done about it? Got any Diffs? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
QUACK! Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Something isn't quite right here. Really odd that Outlaw would have his/her 7th, 10th and 11th edits reporting someone on ANI, using terms like spambot. Outlaw, do you want to tell us who you're a sock of? Toddst1 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Freshly back from block, personal attacks and disruption at talk:Proton therapy ([21], [22]), weird unpleasantness at my talk page ([23] (copy of my warning to the editor), [24]). Notified the editor of this thread. - Sinneed 02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, but I got a big kick out that "weird unpleasantness" on your talk page. It always amuses me when wannabe-administrators put "warnings" on other editor's pages.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you believe that only admins can issue warnings? Please point to any Wikipedia policy which supports this view. Woogee (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You can just ignore that ip, he's been blocked for disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Now to the matter at hand: This is a civility matter, and unrelated to the previous blocks, which were related to WP:SOCK. I suggest you take this to WP:WQA, this is not serious enough to require admin action. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all I am not user:PIO neither my logged nicknames or IPs but in every case action of user:AlasdairGreen27 in article pallone is vandalism because version before suspected socks is this but not this disaster or stub! removing valid contribution of PIO who was banned by an Italian admin after these edits but for other reasons not pertinent this article regarding some Italian famous sports. I can develop this article because I have books and sources but I request your action against vandalism of AlasdairGreen27 who is notorious in Italwiki for his battle in meatpuppetry with user:DIREKTOR against all Italian and Serb editors in several articles of European history and this point I will report to you in future. Actions of admins user:Spellcast and user:MuZemike against my logged nicknames are nonsense. If you want, I can develop a lot of articles but I request unblock at least of account user:Vastaso. Last personal attack: read here—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.195.151 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 December 2009
While I can't speak to the other issues, the supposed last personal attack was made by an account created for the sole purpose of impersonating AlasdairGreen27 (talk·contribs). I've blocked 72neerGriadsalA (talk·contribs) and deleted the user/talk pages that were created to mimic AlasdairGreen27's. Unless a checkuser is done to determine they are the same person, I see no reason to take any action against AlasdairGreen27. --auburnpilottalk 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, this seems familiar. 'Bout a month ago an editor showed up on Wikipedia with his name a complete reversal of MickMacNee's name, trying to get Mick in trouble. Any connections? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia might have a mirror-bandit on the loose. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
To IP 151.95.xxx.xxx: If possible, would you stay with one IP account? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are German Brazilian and White Brazilian. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans.
Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, User:Off2riorob reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment "[...] reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on:
I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.
So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old.
Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary.
As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits.
At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely asked about this.
Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits.
So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I might add that User:Lecen has politely chided me for indulgence toward Off2riorob's reversion and demands. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Lecen here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary's full protection of White Brazilian is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from Brazil, and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits.
As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words.
So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with User talk:Ninguém about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse.
The article's lead reads,
White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.
The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states,
The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.
So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?!
This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ninguém removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. Opinoso (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
A degree of discussion has broken out on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits here and here seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You're more or less repeating your earlier question, which I repeated above to see what others thought. I didn't say that I had no involvement; I'm disinterested but not uninvolved, as recent edits demonstrate. I froze the article. When time permits, I try to work out where the disagreement lies. This combination may or may not be proper. I asked here about it. So far just one admin has responded, and as he seemed to think it was OK, I continued. I'd be happy if he and others volunteered to look at the article and keep looking at it; I'd then happily leave. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes its the same question that I felt the need to repeat after your two discussion edits to the talkpage, it is confusing when you appear to be involved and also taking administrator actions on the article. I took from the comment from Ed that your actions were fine, but he also seemed to suggest that you get to one side of the fence regarding the article..either an editor or an admin, in the situation I think it is unwise to act as both there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This comment of yours here overlapped this further question of mine there. ¶ As you have said, I haven't edited the article for a long time, if ever. I've no desire to edit it. I don't care whether it concludes that ten or ninety percent of Brazilians are "white", or how it describes these "white" people. I do care that whatever it says is well-informed and well-reasoned, and I am willing to ask questions in order to clear up what appear to be contradictions or to find just what an objection consists of. I'd be much happier if others volunteered to do this work instead. And that's one reason why I asked here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
ec.I am not finding this easy, admin Hoary has now gone off involving himself again in the content discussion asking editors if they mind if he asks questions , under the circumstances I would find it excessive if he was to take any more administrator actions on the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And in the last few minutes I've made other edits to the talk page besides that. Well, I understand what you are saying here. My administrative action on the article so far has been protection; tempted though I occasionally am to take the further administrative action of deleting it, I agree that this would be excessive and intend to resist the temptation. Have my edits to the talk page been improper? Let's see what others here think; and again, I hope that the unbiased among them will dive in to this group of articles and stay there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want it, but I am seeing that it's necessary a few coments of mine in here:
I stil do not know what is the issue in the article White Brazilian. Neither Off2riorob nor Opinoso has come with good reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. And when I say that, I mean that none of them brought sources that goes against Ninguém's edit. That is, "according to editor X, he says Y, while what you wrote means Z." All I saw was "I did not like your changes and for that reason I am reverting them and sorry, but I can't discuss with you why I did that because I am too busy in real life." That's the best way to keep the article locked and with the discussion with no end, which means that what they want is an article that can/will not be changed. If no one can change anything in the article unless he/she asks for permission from other editors (that is, according to both Opinoso and Off2riorob, it is needed a "consensus"), that is nothing more than ownership of an article.
So far Hoary has not done anything, I repeat, anything that could make anyone, I repeat, anyone, complain about his actions. He blocked the article because he feared that it would take to an edit war probably due to past disagreements in it that he witnessed by himself. And that was a correct action of his. Then, he pointed out what were Ninguém's edits and asked everyone to make comments about it. As a far as I know, trying to settle a dispute by bringing both parties to reason can not be considered a fault, and that was what Hoary tried to do. Off2riorob's insinuations, and that's what they are, insinuations of possible bad faith from Hoary as possibly taking sides is not only a huge mistake but also unfair.
Off2riorob complained that Hoary was one of the people who Ninguém asked for help to deal with matter, implying that Hoary was someone that Ninguém could be sure that would take his side. Untrue. Hoary is the administrator who has been dealing with issues related to such article for quite sometime and if he got involved in it it was to do his job as an administrator and also because he, more than any other administrator, already knows very well what it's being discussed.
Again, neither Opinoso nor Off2riorob has brought sources to oppose Ninguém's edits. Off2riorob has reverted good faith edits done by Ninguém without waiting for other editor's opinions in the talk page. And he reverted every single thing Ninguém did to a previous version that he considered "stable". To me, that is nothing more than ownership, again.
What should be done, then? First of all, Off2riorob should apologize to Hoary for the insinuations he did because wanting or not, they will harm his credibility not only among editors but also among his peers if they are not taken back.
Second of all, the article must be unblocked, reverted to the last Ninguém's edit and once both Off2riorob and Opinoso has time to discuss and have REAL reasons to oppose a change, they may ask for changes in the talk page and wait for other editors' opinions. Those are my thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your kind words about me, but it is indeed odd for an admin to protect a page and then to comment on aspects of content that may or may not have provoked the edit war. It's even odder when the protection was preemptive. And I'm not sure that Off2riorob has been insinuating anything. Certainly I'm not after any apology from anyone. I appreciate your amicable intentions, but let's avoid blowing this up further or making it more personal than it needs to be. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine. So here are my points:
Off2riorob was the one who started all this discussion.
So, he should bring reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edits.
Those reasons can not be his personal opinions. They must be something like "author X says Y while what Ninguém wrote says Z". Simple like that.
If he does not bring sources, reliable sources to where and why Ninguém's edits are wrong, the article must be unlocked and what Off2riorob reverted. Is that fair enough? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. Off2riorob keeps saying that he wants to discuss the article, but is not able to point to any specifical disagreement. Also seems to be unable to understand either the article as it is, or the version he reverted; indeed, seems to confuse them, and attribute to one the merits or demerits of the other. Opinoso wants to discuss soccer player Ronaldo's race.
There is no reason for protection, I think. The reverted version should be restored, as it is uncomparably better than the protected one. Attempts to edit war at the article in order to restore the unsourced and distorted version should be watched for. Ninguém (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is clearly in need of current protection, some kind of discussion about the article needs to be established before unprotecting, there are still two editors that totally object to the rewrite that was occurring by user ninguen, I have tried to discuss the article but this is the position that is being expounded Ninguen and the other involved editors, they support the rewrite and want to enforce consensus on the rewrite when there is not a clear consensus to support one. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There are no clear objection to what was written. If you can expose any, I am willing to discuss it, but up to now you haven't. Ninguém (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss content disputes, I have made a fair few good faith attempts to move forward with the discussion on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't deny they have been made in good faith, but they fail to clarify what you disagree with in the reverted version. Ninguém (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, there is plenty of reason for protection. I believe that the version that's protected (below, "VP") is inferior to the version as edited by Ninguém (below, "NV"). My reason for saying this is that problems with VP have been clearly described, and NV is the result of incremental changes that are described in summaries and seem to be improvements. But it's not incomparably better; comparisons can be made by editors who are openminded and levelheaded.
However, as I'm not able to read Portuguese and have limited reserves of time and energy, I must concede that I can't guarantee that NV doesn't have faults. Indeed, it probably does have faults: most good revisions do. These faults can be discussed rationally in due time.
So there's nothing inconsistent in claiming that the wrong version is protected while conceding that the alternative needs improvement. And it's normal in Wikipedia for the wrong version to be the protected one. This does not mean that the article is doomed to remain inferior after protection is lifted.
If protection were lifted today, I've no reason to think there wouldn't be a straightforward edit war between VP and NV (or minor revisions thereof), leading to blocks, accusations of tag teaming or even "sockpuppeteering", miscellaneous other drama, and speedy reprotection (very likely of VP). But in the end I'm just one editor. If there appears to be general agreement among the disagreeing factions that they want the article to be unprotected ("Give us enough rope; we want to hang ourselves"), I'll unprotect it.
And of course if another administrator volunteers to oversee this mess, I'll happily bow out. Which was my point in starting this section of WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, but then we need some way to make discussion actually happen. Generalities about "the article should explain what is a White Brazilian" don't help, if it cannot be pointed what is lacking in the explanations given by each version. Diatribes on how Ronaldo is so wrong in self-classifying as "White" are even less useful. And up to now these are the only things we have. Ninguém (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, I would think it as a disaster if you quit moderating the article. Up to now, you have been the only admin that made a serious effort to understand the ongoing disputes. But there seems to be some strange idea that to moderate an article someone should be "uninvolved". This is evidently impossible; without making actual decisions, it is impossible to maintain order in an article. And without understanding what is going on it is impossible to make actual decisions. Ninguém (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As I have passed by these disputes with only minimal involvement, but seen the scale of the task, I can only applaud Hoary for handling them, Hoary is to modest, even if a perfect job has not been done it is far better than not having an admin with a watching brief there at all, which would have lead to 3RR, blocks, bans, socks and arbs. RichFarmbrough, 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for your appreciative words, but I'm hardly handling these pages. My attention to any one isn't close and generally comes with a complete lack of attention to any of the others. Off2riorob is within his rights in asking of me "could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here [or] as an editor in the way of dispute resolution"; the answer "a bit of both" probably breaks some guideline and is potentially if not actually problematic. So I hope that
One or (better) more experienced, disinterested editors will attend to the dispute, leaving me to administer; or
One or more admins will announce that they'll handle the administrative side, unprotecting the article when it seems appropriate, issuing block warnings and blocks when justified, etc, leaving me to argue with all eight cylinders (and of course render myself less popular and more blockable); or (best)
Both the above so I can take a little break from Brazilian affairs.
Of course people tend not to want to dive into such imbroglios (other than for the wrong reasons, of course). I'd point out that although there's a great amount of irritation and frustration on display, all of the more active participants seem concerned to improve the article, and although there are apparent non sequiturs, naivity and tantrums from time to time, there's little or none of the shrillness or noxious racism for which articles on "racial"/ethnic (non-) matters elsewhere in the world are notorious. So you shouldn't be scared. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary asked me to help; I cannot help as extensively as he wishes, but i support continuing the present protection of the article, which is the only immediate question for AN/I. My reason is pragmatic: the dispute involves the structure of the article, not just the wording; in such cases it is essential to have a stable version to avoid confusing the discussion. I have made some further comments about the lede at the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the continued protection of the article. If Hoary wants another admin to take over the admin duties on this article, I'm willing to do so. The very topic of this article, White Brazilian, fills me with dread because WP usually has trouble with contentious topics that involve national, racial, or genetic issues. Since this article has all three, it's a triple whammy. I caution Hoary that my inclination would likely be to keep the full protection in place for a long time, until a clear consensus emerges on the talk page. If other editors at ANI don't agree that a long protection is wise then I'd withdraw my offer in favor of someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I still don't know where to begin with. Editor Off2Riobob was the one who began all this discussion. With the exception of his complain that the lead is larger than it should, I have no idea what is the problem after all. I have requested him several (several, several and several) times what is wrong with editor Ninguém's edits and according to which authors they are wrong. Unfortunately, he hasn't bothered to answer me so far. You all want a consensus? Well, how are we going to find one if the editor that started all this hasn't told what is wrong, yet? --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If an objection really is unclear, the person who made it fails to answer requests to clarify it within a reasonable time, and nobody else clarifies it, then surely the objection can be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I appreciate your offer to administer, but I have to say that I'm unhappy with quite so much stress on protecting the article for a long time. Protect it until "consensus" (in the WP sense) emerges, yes of course; but if it looks as if it will remain protected "for ever" (for a longish time), then chances are high that at least one bellicose editor will move the war elsewhere. And there are plenty of potential battlegrounds: the article on each of the other "colors" (ugh) of Brazilians, the article on each hyphenated Brazilian, etc. I'd rather phrase the administrative talk in such a way as to encourage uninterrupted work towards an agreement. (Not that I can claim to have been, or to be, much good at such encouragement myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If I say that I'd like somebody else to take over the job of wielding the cluebat janitorial mop over these issues, I can hardly demand that they do so in the way that I happen to think is best: after all, I'm after a replacement, not an executive assistant. So I hand the job over to EdJohnston and wish him (you) the best.
I now consider myself freer to suggest what I think are improvements to the article. (Perhaps I too will need to be cluebatted from time to time.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
For how long is this sentence, White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants, unsourced and absurd, be protected? Ninguém (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone needs to take a look at Patrickjdwise user page. It looks like they copy and past Nip/Tuck and Prison Break and Smallville articles to their user space. --Zink Dawg -- 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this user intended to work on these articles in their userspace. Unless non-free images are being used in their userspace, there is nothing wrong here. What policies do you think are being violated? (It's a slow day at the help desk today) Intelligentsium 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, It looks like they copy and past Angel to their talk page. --Zink Dawg -- 04:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed all the fair-use images, as you can't have those in your userspace. Other than that, if he doesn't put the images back, I have no other problems with his user page. @Kate(parlez) 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Why can't those images be in the user space, but are OK for the rest of wikipedia?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Because they are copyrighted and thus incompatible with the GFDL/CC 3. A perusal of WP:Fairuse should answer any further queries you have on the subject. @Kate(parlez) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And you cannot have categories either, I've removed those. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Read, WP:UP#COPIES. User space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of copies of articles. In other words. Private copies of articles that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be deletion.--Zink Dawg -- 04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Long-term archival? He created his page on December 7th.. last time I checked that was four days ago. @Kate(parlez) 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for bring it up. I thought it was wrong. I guess its ok to have articles on your user page and talk page.--Zink Dawg -- 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If you still think there is a problem, the place to go with this is WP:MfD. LadyofShalott 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it accidental or deliberate that the talk page has been left at 70k but without content shown?
For these articles, I'd wonder why they'd be copying things at all since there's zero chance of future deletions. Only other things I can theorize would be dubious editing, but since it's on the user's page and not hidden farther in userspace that doesn't feel right. Well... they might be creating some sort of "alternate reality" for the article to see what its future would be if only they changed it. That doesn't explain the articles pasted onto user's talk page, though. Perhaps a 400k user page would have looked like overkill. All old versions are already saved on the server and edits are open to all, so just holding old versions seems silly. Copyrighted images and categories left on the article does give some creed to concerns, since any read of policies on use of userspace would make these things clear, but still doesn't give any explanation and were well removed. Has it been suggested that the user create articles within userspace to keep each one? So long as they make some changes in a sandbox-type style I think they're permissible there. ♪daTheisen(talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Massive emptying of "People from" categories[edit]
Resolved
– I's werkin' onit. I hope DuncanHill thinks a bit better of us admins next time.
See Special:Contributions/89.241.115.228. IP editor is emptying "People from" categories, without going through CFD first. I have told him on his talk page to stop, but he's done masses already so he needs mass reversion. I saw something like this about a week ago, can't remember if it was the same IP address though. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You need to notify the IP. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Both now notified. Forgot that admins were incapable of helping out by fixing things that non-admins had forgotten to do. DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
IP seems to have stopped upon notice of this discussion. And, hey, in our defense, us admins are really busy, important, people with lots of things on our minds. Particularly when we're in the admin lounge. Then, pretty much the only thing on my mind is Gigi, one of the waitresses, wearing her French maid costume. Particuarly when one of us stupidly drops something and she has to pick it up. But it is a good idea for everyone to do things up front, because us disgustingly important admins don't always think to check on such things ourselves once messages are posted here. We probably should have someone go through and revert the category removal though. Anyone up for it? John Carter (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure it needs reversion in every case - he's emptying categories for villages in England, most of which have only one or two members, and proposing merging them to slightly larger administrative areas. What's the smallest area one should have a category for??Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
He's emptying categories before any merge discussion. To John, I'll apologize for my bad temper. I was distracted from informing the IPs by a call from my mother, and given that oversighters have decided it's OK for them to make personal attacks on her I have no patience at all with unhelpful behaviour or attitudes from people in positions of power here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And I had no way of knowing that. I was busy too, and since you aren't new, and there were two IPs to notify, I thought I'd just remind you. I didn't expect you to make a big deal of it. I don't know how this has something to do with me being an Admin as well as an editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an old ongoing wardiscussion about how specific categories should be as well as how many articles should be required for one to exist. Particularly in cases which these appear to be, dealing with categories for small areas with few articles, it could be argued that he wss being bold before proposing them for deletion. And, of course, there is the separate question as to whether anyone agreed to these categories existing in the first place. My own personal view is that, with few exceptions, we should have at least three biography articles in a category for it to be really useful. I Know I personally wouldn't object to refilling any such categories. Otherwise, maybe the easiest way to go would be to leave messages on the talk pages of the most directly relevant WikiProject and let the individuals involved there decide what to do with the categories. Anyway, 'xcuseme. Looks like I dropped something again. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My sympathies are with DuncanHill on this, in that the IP is unilaterally edit warring to remove articles from categories, then deleting all the info on the category page with the edit summary Suggest merging of category into xxxx due to lack of articles. In the case that drew this to my attention the category seemed valid and potentially useful, but without checking all the IP's article edits appears to have only had one article: I'm not an enthusiast or expert on categories, but guess someone who is should be deciding what to do about the IP's edits. Alternatively, we just let the IP decide, in a rather disruptive way. . . dave souza, talk 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Awright, awright alredy. I's goin' threw de IP's edits and changen the changes in categor...thingy. I wan' a ginentonic wen I get back. John Carter (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
– blocked and referred elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Administrators,
I would like to announce that it is yet again the intention of several of my clients to seek an undisclosed sum in damages against the Wikimedia Foundation. I would be happy to forward a list of specific editors who have failed in their duty to prevent the spread of libel and misinformation about my clients, against whom legal proceedings are to be commenced. I have been instructed to watch this page and await responses from any persons wishing to discuss this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Mr L Phillips QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.102.186 (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors and administrators do not handle legal matters. For that, contact this guy. In the meantime, you've been blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was willing to AGF the first time, but this seems obvious. After being directed to legal, he comes back here? Troll.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You would think that a Canadian lawyer would know that both Canadian and American laws prohibit suing a website for content its users post. If I were his clients, I'd be asking for my retainer fee back. Perhaps, Mr. Phillips, you'd like to acquaint yourself with modern communication law. You seem as if you could use a refresher course. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Why say "Canadian"? Both IPs geolocate to London, England. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I mistook "QC" to be the abbreviation for "Quebec". I realize that makes no sense whatsoever. It's day 3 of 7 of Nothing But Finals and my spare brain power is severely limitted. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No QC, is for Queen's Counsel, found within the Commonwealth, which of course includes Canada. NJA(t/c) 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Curiously, a quick google search shows one L Phillips, living in QC. --Jac16888Talk 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as the ips other edits were all vandalism, including posting a "notice of intent to wikistalk" on my talk page, this is obviously a block-on-sight troll only here for disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Silverije (talk·contribs) continually vandalises the articles about Hungarian kings. He vandalised first the article of Ferdinand I Holy Roman Emperor, then Louis II of Hungary, Maximilian II, Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor and Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor. He wrote everywhere "King of Hungary and Croatia", although there are sources everyehere which prove that they were only Kings of Hungary. Silverije doesn't care about it, and once he simply deleted the source which proved that he faslified the article. Anyway Silverije is not the only Croatian editor, who always vandalises these articles with a nationalistic Croatian POV. Toroko (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it WP:VAN, but it is typical Balkan nationalist POV pushing/disruption, however the editor is now discussing on at least one talk page. Informed of Balkan warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember this Hungarian-Croatian kingdom stuff used to be a playground of some sockishness a while ago. Haven't looked into it yet, but it might be worth taking a bit of a look at the backgrounds of the present parties. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
These guys come up every few weeks or so and rotate on the same edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Block requested for Cathar11 - Persistently pushes personal views in an article[edit]
Cathar11 (talk·contribs) adds personal analysis based on sources which do not mention the topic at all. He picks some off-topic sources about Honduras and attempts to link them to the crisis in Honduras.
I note that none of his sources talks about the crisis.
Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article.
User:Alb28 deleted en masse external links the links he quoted must be part of them. He also deleted links to BBC Photos etc.see dif[26]
This is what he is calling WP:OR see [27] which was discussed on the talk page[28] and in the archive[29] and in other places in the archive and is backed by another editor as relevant. This is a new editor/sockpuppet which has engaged in a whirlwind of edits (130 most since the 7/12/2009) since he started on 11/29/2009 including BLP attacks, raising me twice here etc. While trying to believe in his good faith it appears he has a severe POV problem and an agenda. See Alb28 on ANI [30] instead of responding to this as a wiki lawyering attack and all from a "new" userCathar11 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I don't see anything wrong with removing many of those external links. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I didnt delete external links I restored themCathar11 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see the subsection below for a defense of Cathar11 and my thoughts on the situation... Moogwrench (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A measured defense of Cathar11 and my thoughts on the situation[edit]
Look, I have had my differences of opinion with Cathar11 in the past (an example, for full disclosure). Goodness knows that the Honduras coup related articles generate a considerable load of controversy and diverse POVs. However, I can testify to the basic fairness and fidelity of Cathar11 to the principles of Wikipedia. As to the specific accusations against Cathar11 by Alb28, let me address them in a point by point basis:
I note that none of his sources talks about the crisis.
A very general accusation which is patently untrue. I can choose one of several edits whose sources are intimately tied to the situation in Honduras, such as this recent one adding content regarding a meeting between Lobo and Zelaya.
Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article.
OK, look if you are going to level an accusation, you ought to be a tad more specific than that, and provide a diff that shows a clear example of what you are talking about.
Barely two days have passed, not all comments receive an immediate reply (we do have lives in between editing WP), and edit summaries are also considered part of the discussion per Wikipedia:Discussion#Focus_on_content. Meanwhile, other editors such as I have engaged in reply to those comments as can be seen on the talk page.
Well, as I have explained in talk to this editor, this content is the result of continued discussion archived from the talk page. For this reason it has been restored by Cathar11, as they indicated in this summary. I helpfully explained to the editor (in the above diff) that as a new editor to a set of articles, he/ would do well to reopen discussion on consensus content, rather than threaten older editors.
I kindly notify that he should participate in the talk page and remind him of no synthesis policy on his talk page (now deleted by him).
Users have control over the content of their talk pages, and again, the discussion is not between just him and Cathar11, but the community. Whether or not the edits constitute synthesis or indiscriminate information is a consensus, not unilateral, decision.
As I have indicated above, other editors and Cathar11 have participated in the discussion, both through edit summaries and regular contributions to the talk page. I would note that Cathar11 placed a comment regarding this content on the talk page on December 8th with this edit, 2 days before Alb28's above referenced thread--a comment, which as one can note from the talk page, Alb28 never responded to. So I find this continued harping on Cathar11 for not responding to Alb28's edit and supposed "no participation in the discussion" a tad hypocritical and in poor form.
Now Alb28, despite being a new user, is hardly a new editor, as is reasonable to assume based on his very first edit, a massive, multi-paragraph POV edit to a controversial BLP: Manuel Zelaya. His edits have raised the concern of multiple editors (see AN/I and BLP/N), and though we all are admonished to assume good faith (a behavioral guideline), we also have an obligation to make sure that articles, especially BLPs, are appropriately sourced (WP policy, an overriding concern). Numerous edits by this user have employed opinion pieces, blogs, and self-published sources to support controversial edits to BLPs, such as this one which utilizes the blog/ezine HondurasThisWeek.com to talk about Zelaya's nephew Chimirri (see About page for information on lack of editorial oversight) or have been completely unsourced or failed verification, such as that same edit which added information on "Los Horcones massacre" by Zelaya's father, which relies on one completely unclear source (Robert Gregory Williams) and one source that does not mention the event at all (www.cidob.org).
Add to that edits like this edit (reverted by Cathar11), which is a wholesale deletion of external links, some of which are valuable image, video, and analysis links--all acceptable under WP:External links. In any event, their acceptability is a consensus issue, and I would note that he has been reverted by others besides Cathar11 on this issue.
Alb28's suggestion of block of Cathar11, for what is essentially a content dispute, would be completely inappropriate. I would urge everyone to work together in the spirit of consensus, and try to find common ground on edits while still upholding the policies of WP regarding verifiability and Biographies of Living Persons. Moogwrench (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked after admitting to get records changed[edit]
Supercopone removed information from University of Atlanta, stating it was not cited (example: diff. This removes also the information "The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991 ...".
After the block, Mistro12 pointed me to the document, which moved. strangely, the document does not contain the information which was there half a year ago. However, it still contains 'The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991', but on a different page.
Seen that the article has been suffering of promotional edits for a long time, I have blocked both editors, but I'd like to hear a second opinion on this. --Dirk BeetstraTC 19:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Note1: Supercopone is requesting unblock. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Supercopone is a "sleeper" account that was created in February, a month before Mistro12 began his activities, but did not actually start editing until December 5, a week before Mistro12 popped up again after a 7-month hiatus. It's worth pointing out that Beetstra actually unblocked Mistro12 last spring after another admin had blocked him. Those two users appear to be either socks or agents of the guy who runs the school, and is/are desparate to suppress any connection with its predecessor school. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Note2: The fact of the namechange to University of Atlanta as was in the DETC document is corroborated by several blogs and forums on internet (but they are not a reliable source for this information). This looks like a situation where someone is very busy 'cleaning' the past of something they don't like. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I should expand on this, indeed. Mistro12 has, via email, confirmed he is not part of the school itself, though has been working with them. His identity has been established as not being the other editors in the sock investigation, and I unblocked on that. However, it appears to be meatpuppetry in stead of sockpuppetry now, which is more a rationale for my re-block of the account. Also note that Supercopone did not edit all day, but appeared soon after I blocked him. Coincidence? --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the DETC should be notified, to find out how that guy was able to persuade them to change the information. You might also want to capture a "before" on it and post it somewhere here so that it can be verified before he calls them on Monday.
As I recall from last spring, Amithani and his puppets basically wanted the article to either be the way he wanted, or to be deleted. He lost that argument, and is apparently now engaged in subterfuge of some kind, as you noted. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Having followed the University of Atlanta situation for some time, I concur with Beetstra's diagnosis of meatpuppetry involving Mistro12 and Supercopone. I don't think these are the same person, but they are both WP:SPA accounts and they are definitely working together.
As for DETC, the University of Atlanta saga (wherein the DETC accredited this school at a time when the only other known evidence of the UofA's existence was the UofA website -- and posts on some online forums) and a few other recent accreditations had already raised red flags about its integrity and credibility as an accreditation organization (notwithstanding its recognition by CHEA and the US Department of Education). However, the evidence that DETC changed the text of its fall 2008 newsletter (after the fact) at the request of UofA leads me to think that I should be contacting CHEA, the US Department of Education, and my Congressmen about DETC. For Wikipedia, I have doubts about whether DETC should be treated as a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Also User:Mistro12, but via a not-enabled unblock template. I will recuse from the unblock decision and not take any further administrative decisions regarding the editors who are involved in U of A, though I still have many questions, and am still looking for more data on the U of A / Barrington. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
– [32]Checkuser confirms they are all socks of Captaincold. Looks like NuclearWarfare got 'em. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Waltermelon (talk·contribs) is most certainly the same user as Meatwood (talk·contribs), Meatwod (talk·contribs), Afstuv (talk·contribs) and I think one more I don't remember. The editor has the habit of making a series of iffy edits (e.g. sloppy articles for non-notable episodes and characters), having those pieces turned into redirects, and then creating a new account to undo the redirects and then create more iffy content. Requests from multiple editors across his several talk pages asking him to abide by WP:RS and WP:GNG go unheeded. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, vote-stacked or anything -- but, this looks to me a violation of the spirit of editing under multiple accounts. Second pair of eyes, anyone? --EEMIV (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
– for the moment anyway, socks are blocked, page has been deleted
It is a abousoutley disgraceful not only to User Mcjakeqcool's memory but also to Wikipedia and the worldwide web as a whole that Samou4-memorial-point has been blocked. For goodness sake this is just plain wrong we are talking about someone's life here and did any of you even know User Mcjakeqcool?! He was such a kind, caring, outgoing, bubly, outspoken & arrogant individual. 86.136.168.187 (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's no more disgraceful than it would be to remove from private property a memorial that was placed without the permission of the property owner. It's possible to be completely sympathetic regarding a person's death, and at the same time remember that Wikipedia is not a host for memorial webpages. There are plenty of websites that exist to set up memorials, and you are always free to set up your own. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Was there actually a confirmed death here? While I wasn't paying attention, this matter jumped from repeated socking to a memorial. Dayewalker (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No there hasn't been a confirmed death as far as I can see. And I don't want to be rude if there really has been, but looking at the Mcjakeqcool account and this IP, they share the same unusual writing style and edit summary usage. Mr Mcjakeqcool was blocked indefinitely last month for disruptive editing and then reblocked for sockpuppetry and several IPs were subsequently blocked accused of being Mcjakeqcool socking around the block, including 86.21.66.162 (talk·contribs) and 86.136.78.170 (talk·contribs), which is from the same ISP as the one this guy's using now. Also 86.21.66.162 (talk·contribs) was blocked twice in November as a Mcjakqcool sock and it was reblocked again today as Mcjakqcool after this ANI [33] There's been a lot of really strange editing and socking and disruption going on around this Mcjakeqcool account and I really think this is just more of it. Sarah 09:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the "death" of the userid Mcjakeqcool and his sockpuppets is not worth a memorial. I have no doubt that the person behind them is very much alive and well. If I'm wrong, then it's not my intent to be insensitive, however, this smells like a very middle-school ploy, and the writing styles are very telling. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the userpage as not only an unsourced death listing (BLP vio), but entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia user pages per WP:UP#NOT. — CactusWriter |needles 12:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Banned editor continuing to come back to Wikipedia partly to harass[edit]
User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain.
Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by editor Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page (which administrator LessHeard vanU happened to be involved in). I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Wikipedia.
What should I do about this person in regards to Wikipedia? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Wikipedia. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."
Also, I state that Ravin in Orbit's user page should note that he is banned, and MiszaBot should be taken away from archiving his talk page. If I had not looked at his edit contributions some minutes ago, I would not have known that he asked to be unblocked earlier this year. I am unsure about whether to alert him to this discussion through his talk page, though, since he is banned. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a banned user is probably the exception to the "users must be informed rule." Will look this over and check back in a few. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Declined new unblock request, blocked latest ip sock, tagged user page as indef blocked. I couldn't find a banning discussion, if you could find it and link it here we can change the tag to indicate that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This link shows the day he was banned, with the reason why. The discussion before it also shows why he was banned. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That shows a block, no mention of a ban. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't an indefinite block the same thing as a ban?
I did not get a chance to read that latest vile accusation, but I want to. Would it be okay for me to request a copy of it for record, through email? Flyer22 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:BANNED: "Banning is different from blocking; a block is a technical measure to disable editing by a specific account or IP address, and is a restriction which may be temporary or indefinite. Banning is a social construct, and blocks may be used to enforce them. There are also different kinds of bans: Some are temporary or focused on a specific article or topic. However, in the context of this page, 'banned user' means someone who has been banned from the entire site." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. I remember reading that when I was a very new editor here. In the case of Raven in Orbit, it is clear that I was using the word "banned" in the way that we commonly use it to refer to indefinitely blocked editors. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I was the admin who blocked him a year ago. To me, he is no different than the people in the Eastern European editing area who simply make accusations and name-call anyone who they disagree with. I do not understand the desire to engage him via some sort of discussion about the technical terms; it isn't relevant and it isn't important. For a not-so-out-there parallel, if he were into US politics articles and screaming that everyone against him is a member of Democratic party, nobody would find it productive to debate whether certain policies were those of the Democratic or the Green's or historically of the Republican's. It's just pointless. It is policy here that we discuss the content of edits, not their contributors. Period. If he has an issue, there was mechanism, and name-calling is not one of them. Nevertheless, as noted in policy, I could only block (not formally ban) and it was intended only to be until he learned to grow up and assume good faith. Most editors give up and are willing to do so. He however seems to have disagreed with that, and so remains blocked. The block evasion through IP addresses to continue to harass is unfortunate and the fact that we are now at oversighted edits is telling. So, to formalize, I would like to suggest that he formally be banned. This will only be helpful in the ability to revert his edits on-site and immediately block his IP addresses. This may exacerbate him, but honestly I do not care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No change from a year ago, still making vile personal accusations with no sign of letup. I like to see the best in people, but I can't find hope for his peaceful and productive involvement here. Regretfully, support ban. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose There is a point at which bans appear to be solely punitive and not an attempt at anything else. The person should be barred from the pedophilia articles, certainly. Using a ban on what is basically Jell-o should the person edit in other areas proves little. By having him use his named account, we can, in fact, keep better tabs on him than by forcing him to keep using IPs which are difficult if not impossible to keep tabs on. Since he has made apparently useful edits on Swedish topics (noting the lists of articles he has edited), there is no evidence of any vandalism etc. Collect (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Ricky81682, I was thinking of alerting you to this matter, since you are the one who indefinitely blocked Raven in Orbit, but I eventually decided against it due to seeing others taking care of the matter. I am glad that you have weighed in, though. I initially had the desire to engage Raven in Orbit via some sort of discussion (back in 2008) about the technical terms, because it was important in order to get him to stop disrupting the Ephebophilia article. Other editors experienced in these fields engaged him as well. Back then, he insisted that we had no right to distinguish pedophilia from ephebophilia because the general public misuses the term pedophile. Even when presented with reliable sources, such as the fact that pedophilia is defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children, he basically insisted that the definitions need to state that pedophilia does not include clearly pubescent or post-pubescent adolescents. Simply put, he was twisting things left and right and being coy. I recently had the desire to again explain to him the difference so that he could see the error in his ways, such as disrupting the Ephebophilia article, calling me and others pedophiles, his other defamatory accusations toward me...and so that others could readily see these errors. Plenty of editors have been blocked or banned for being pedophile-pushers, and I have helped with that in some cases. Whether one is a pedophile-pusher has mattered to Wikipedia in the past, and I take being called a pedophile very seriously. I am not sure whether your or Collect's way is the best route to go. But if Raven in Orbit continues to harass me, I would go for him being banned. I do state to Collect, though, that since Raven in Orbit has been indefinitely blocked, we are already forcing him to use IP addresses (as he apparently has no intention of not editing Wikipedia). Unless you feel that he may be able to be unblocked in good conscience one day, most of his edits will be via IP addresses or an official sockpuppet account. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
– Edits reviewed and reverted where change was inappropriate. Normal editing can resolve any differing views about preferred terms in each instance. . dave souza, talk 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This user has edited several articles changing "valley" to "glen" [35], [36], [37], etc. In fact, this is the extent (with a few wikilinks dropped) of their contributions. I have attempted to contact the user but have received no response. Is reverting in this instance a content dispute? I'm in the market for some advice. Thanks Tiderolls 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My read is that all glens are valleys, but not all valleys are glens, but in any event the word "valley" is in more ubiquitous use and is unambiguous. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The IP is correct in its usage of glen in every instance. The translation is not 'lost valley' it is 'hidden glen', for example. In Scotland, glen is the correct word for this type of valley. Articles about Scotland should I think by preference use what few characteristic words of Scots English exist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In at least two of the articles the IP is referring to the well known "lost valley" which is not known as the "lost glen" but is sometimes referred to as the "hidden valley".[38][39][40][41] Perhaps the IP doesn't like the common name of that specific place, but that's what Coire Gabhail is usually called by Scottish walkers and climbers. Not as simple as the IP seems to think. . dave souza, talk 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You'll notice that the words 'glen' and 'valley' are used interchangeably on the scottish sites.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Showing that Scottish sources arenae very bothered about strictly using one term or the other, but you'll also note that the name used for Coire Gabhail is consistently the Lost Valley, and "Lost Glen" doesn't appear. Doubtless there will be some exception, but having climbed it [a few years ago] and been in Coe earlier this year, that's what it's consistently called. Wikipedia reflects the usage of sources, and doesn't try to change what people call something to what some editors think it should be called. Other glens or valleys may vary. . . dave souza, talk 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) [clarification] added 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My advice is to treat each edit on its merits, but the safe presumption is that the IP has been blindly making unnecessary and sometimes incorrect changes, so reversion when in doubt is reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If we had an article on Coire Gabhail there might be less reason to argue about the name. Did you know that the burn out of it is "is blocked by the largest single rockfall debris cone in Great Britain" [to quote Gregory, Fluvial geomorphology of Great Britain]. So there might even be a DYK in it. Angus McLellan(Talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! Should be plenty of sources, and a romantic story about the Macdonalds! Have gone over the various edits, a few were equally valid or were improvements, but in many cases the outcome was less clear or useful, especially as we can't assume that every English speaker knows that glens and straths are valleys. A few were blatantly incorrect, one being Kirknewton, Northumberland where Glendale is clearly a dale rather than a glen, and of course we have a few dales and at least one vale in Scotland. No one size fits all. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The sysopUser:Gwen Gale is making deletions of content she does not feel are socially important. That is not her job. Apparently if she has never heard of something she feels free to delete its page. This is inappropriate behavior and she needs to be censured and informed that it is not her place to decide if another country's culture is important enough to include. Her powers need to be curtailed before she completely deletes the entire wiki simply because she's in a bad mood and/or has never heard of a thing. At the very least her deletions need to be reviewed by a multicultural board before being allowed to go through as she is clearly out of control. In fact I would suggest suspending her privileges for at least three months to give her time to think about her abusive, bigoted behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.24.203 (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you either post some diffs or retract the accusation. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking over things, the IP apparently thinks Gwen deleted an article on a podcast. The fact that we never had an article on the podcast (at least spelled the way the IP has written) and that Gwen hasn't deleted an article since early November make me think our anonymous friend might be a little confused. AniMate 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's all Gwen's fault! Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd seen that days ago (at Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_response/Consensus) and did think of putting it either on that project page itself, or here, but then, I'd already answered on my talk page and thought it wouldn't be helpful or fair to draw attention on the IP, who only seems to have had some misunderstandings. As an aside, I'm beginning to think the ibanner at the top of my talk page about page deletions stirs up as much muddle as anything else, with folks who don't know much about en.Wikipedia stumbling upon it and thinking I'm the one who deletes pages from this website. I may take it down. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]
This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the final day to vote in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. The voting period opened at 00:01 on UTC 1 December 2009 and will close at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009 as initially planned. Updated 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballot, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.
User:Muzakaj deliberately removed sourced and all other material that is not in his POV. Also, he acts in destructive manner, and he may be disruptive user.
He was informed about few of his disputed edits ([42]), but he deleted notes with mocking words. ([43])
In Hasan Prishtina article he deleted Vučitrn article real name without explanation, and on second revert, he wrote ("man the town has 1 official name "Vushtrri" in the ROK") (ROK is Republic of Kosovo)([[44]]), where i understand that he is not informed about WP:NC regarding Kosovo. I wrote to him ([45]) in order to explain Kosovo disputed status, and NPOV, but he called for some older edit ([46]), by User:Number 57, and later, he say to me "Step back". He wants to fight, it looks like that... ([47])
Later, User:Ptolion was involved, and he and i agreed here (Template_talk:Kosovan_elections) that user:Muzakaj edit should be removed. He undo it again, and leave message full of hate here ([48])
Also, he returns Kosovo CoA after adminUser:Dbachmann removed it per talk page. ([49])
This user is not here to contribute in good and friendly manner, he don't know the meaning of NPOV, he never explains his text removal edits, so i am asking for help. I will stop reverting his edits, as all that i said or explain are in vain. Also, he have a little more then 100 edits, and he is deep into Wikipedia rules, so he can quote them ([50]), with comment ("The source is fine, your problem is that you don't like it"). By that, he looks quite similar with few indefs that i already meet here before...
I don't know the meaning of the NPOV but you're the one reverting others all the time, including admins. And I can copy rules from links you post. That is so hard...or not. Where did you see the hate? I guess discussion is pointless with you.I have created many articles in the Albanian wikipedia, as ip editor and as Muzakaj, so spare me the wikilawyering, I know how wiki works much better than you.--Muzakaj (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You really think LOL was to mock you or are you just trying to "earn" a block for me?Grow up.--Muzakaj (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't post WP:RS. You apparently know it from before. Tadija (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ptolion did. Really..your investigative talents are huge. I guess they're a bit blind, and they can't see Ptolion's link. And in case you didn't check my Albanian wikipedia account, I have much more experience than you.--Muzakaj (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The root of this problem is that there is no binding consensus/mediation outcome/whatever that one can point to and say "that's how we do this on wiki, stop reverting". The trouble is, the issue is so controversial that the list of people to participate in mediation would be huge, which would make it very hard. This set of incidents is just a small part of the problem.--Ptolion (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That why i was asking to rewrite WP:MOSKOS and to have it in use. That will be blessing! But no matter on that, if there is no civic understanding, than it is pointless to collaborate together. Tadija (talk)
Discussion with you can be productive Ptolion. But Tadi here just wants to get his " srpski nationalist view". No point to talk to him. --Muzakaj (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Finally you understood it Tadija. Now do you actually care enough to rejoin the discussion?--Muzakaj (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
O, please. "Then I'll happily remove all srpski names out of Kosovo articles." This is by you. I tried to talk to you, but you delete it! All best to you, Muzakaj. Tadija (talk)
No you didn't, you reverted me, and put irrelevant templates on my talkpage. That's hardly discussion. With Ptolion we reached an agreement and ended the flag's case. All best to you, too Tadija.--Muzakaj (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Muzakaj is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
What should I do in case of this? Btilm 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
His message may have been a bit abrupt but I think one can forgive Kangolcone for being slightly annoyed. Although not exactly a prodigious contributor he has been here for over three years at least and to see a templated message talking of something which he thought was helpful to people wishing to cite sources more accurately in encyclopaedia articles as if it were a random editing test, would have been vexing to him. It might have been better, bearing in mind WP:DTTR, to have explained in more detail why you thought Template:Cite list wasn't helpful to the encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of fairness to Btilm, have you looked at what was tagged with CSD? It consists of nothing more than a single URL; not exactly what I expected to find in something labelled "Template:Cite list". Maybe the template note did not make the impression Btilm wanted to leave -- I would have left a note to the effect of "This template makes no sense, & for that reason I have nominated it for CSD" -- but anyone, no matter what their experience level (or membership status in the TINC seket cabal), who created a template like that would provoke at least one "WTF???" -- llywrch (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Or he could have tried "Can I help you with this?" Oh, I forgot, admins don't do helping. DuncanHill (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
AGF much? Toddst1 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As much as I can bring mself to in the face of experience. DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, no one mentioned anything concerning admins here. Your comment simply makes no sense -- unless it is simply to find an opportunity to kvetch about your obsession. -- llywrch (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is because when he failed to notify two IP addresses that he'd started a discussion about them (because he got sidetracked, fair enough, that happens), I reminded him about it (because I was in the middle of something, didn't feel I had the time, knew he was an experienced user, didn't know he had a good reason for not notifying them), and he got all shirty about my reminding him and not doing it for him. Earlier I had noticed someone else hadn't made a notification and I did it for them, but who notices when Admins do something like that? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Doug, I've had to deal with one oversighter libelling my mother, and one of his colleagues not bothering to answer my email to her disagreeing with her decision not to remove the comment. I've had bad blocks, and I've had admins lying both to me and about me on Wikipedia - and don't get me started on two arbs who went bck on their word to me. I try not to use this page anymore, or to have any interactions with admins if possibly avoidable, but in the IP category case I had neither the time or the inclination to sort out the problem without assistance. For my request for help and extra eyes to be met with such a blunt response just served to confirm my suspicions about the unhelpful attitude of admins in general. Then we get this thread, where speedying seems to be considered to be preferable to an offer of help, so I vented here too. I'm sure now you meant your comment helpfully, but it didn't come across that way in the context of the behaviour of many of your admin colleagues. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I hope 'many' is actually a small minority, and am pretty sure it is. I'm probably not the only one who wishes he could do a lot more than he does do (and feels guilty for not doing more content building - I just found a box full of journal articles I really should be using to build up some articles, but will I ever have time?). I also know that my writing is usually terse (maybe I should say succinct). Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've notified the editor in question of this discussion. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
LoadMeUp101 (talk·contribs) appears to be the same person as indef-blocked user Sugarlover101 (talk·contribs). Based on User:LoadMeUp101's talk page, it appears an autoblock was applied to the IP address, and the unblock was denied because they were determined to be the same user. But User:LoadMeUp101 continues to edit. LoadMeUp101's recent edits have not been problematic (at least as far as I can tell; apparently Sugarlover's infraction was including copyrighted content, and it's possible LoadMeUp is still doing that.), but it still appears to be an indef-blocked user evading that block.
I appreciate any clarification of this issue. It appears to me that either LoadMeUp101 should be indef blocked like Sugarlover101, or LoadMeUp101 should be officially granted license to edit freely. PowersT 13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Besides the IP "coincidence", I think there can be little doubt that we have a block-evading sock here. A comparison of edit histories shows the same interests: lacrosse, Matthew Good band. I'm going to indef block with instructions to appeal at the first account if he wishes to resume constructive editing. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Moonridengirl - & wholeheartedly agree with the block based on the evidence. Skier Dude (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This user has created the abovenamed article, and re-created despite deletion decisions. The content that gets put up is unreferenced, non-notable etc etc etc. The user may also, given that their username is allegedly that of this non-notable film's creator, have a COI. It is hard to know where to start. This article had yet another deletion proposal that has just been actioned by User:Fences and windows. I wanted to suggest that the user be blocked as well as the article being SALTED, but would appreciate an experienced admin looking over the various aspects of this. See:
I hope that nobody minds me adding my comments to this, but I'm doing so as this user contacted me before looking for advice on this article. He seemed genuinely unsure as to why it was being nominated for deletion. I've no idea as to why he contacted me as I don't remember nominating any article of this name for deletion before. Anyway I explained to him that it seems to be that the article was deleted before and we are having a problem verifying why the film is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. I have told him that it may be that the film is simply not notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. He seems to be understanding this now. I have also now pointed him in the direction of some admins to see if they can userfy the page instead? --5 albert square (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Page has only been deleted twice (it's been deleted under other titles as well), so I think WP:SALT and WP:BLOCK are both a little premature. As it looks like he is getting some mentoring now, we should WP:AGF and let him go about his business. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
<shrugs> OK. One can but hope... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Ed Poor(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has never been banned or restricted from Unification Church topics. He has been engaging in low-level warfare on these articles for years, and has recently been smearing and needling User:Cirt who has been attempting to get Ed to conform to the rules. I won't paste difs here at this point under the presumption that enough old-timers exist to know what I'm talking about - but will begin pasting them if necessary. I suggest that enough is enough. Ed spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia these days anyway. I don't remember the last time he made a truly helpful contribution to this site. I bring this here to gauge community feelings about a topic ban on all Unification church related articles. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ed Poor 2: A case involving Ed Poor. POV pushing and disruption. Ed Poor was party to two prior cases; the first was closed after Poor resigned his status as a bureaucrat, and the second resulted in his desysopping.
Oppose. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. The Cunctator 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Does not follow Wikipedia policies for stating credible sources for articles such as Demographics_of_terrorism. --Rebroad 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. Ruy Lopez 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above. Exploding Boy 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. 172 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --Axon 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Opppose due to POV-related issues. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I were in violation of site policy, Cirt would provide evidence. Rather, he makes up his own interpretations of the rules. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against the rules, but Cirt just did it here. Announcing what side I'm on doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, as long as I can write neutrally. Give one example of me POV-pushing (rather than telling both sides where there are conflicting accounts), and I'll refrain from such edits in the future. Otherwise, ask Cirt to stop harassing me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the defense you used in the ArbCom case where you got banned from ever editing Intelligent design articles, isn't it, Ed? Do you really think everyone here is that stupid? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm the only stupid one here if it's stupid to think that demanding evidence (rather than votes) would stop me from suffering an unwarranted ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This in an example of the sort of personal attack that KillerChihuahua and others have been making against me in recent months. First of all, it's not relevant what I do on other websites but it's false that I'm "rewriting the bible" at Conservapedia or anywhere. Apparently KC is trying to destroy my credibility for some reason known only to her. Please encourage her to stop this.
I have not smeared or needled Cirt, and IIRC correctly making an accusation like that without evidence is in itself a personal attack.
The reason I've never been banned from topics relating to the Unification Church is that I am unusually gifted at writing neutrally about it, despite my affiliation. Barring evidence that I am violated WP:NPOV with my edits, I suggest that KC and the others who are harassing me are (perhaps unconsciously) trying to get their own biased views enshrined in articles and to censor alternative views.
All I do is add information which I believe is true; I'm always willing to dig up online or dead tree sources to back up anything I add to an article. Hardly anything I write on other topics is reverted, despite KC's needling crack above; I suggest an official warning is in order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We're just tired of your bullshit, Ed. I think Cirt's tired of cleaning up after you. I pretty much gave up years ago. If we have to I guess we can go for Ed Poor AbrCom 3, but that's an awful lot of work. It isn't like it isn't well known that you mostly edit to push the UC POV. You've even admitted in, somewhere in the past. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you had any evidence of me POV-pushing, you'd supply a diff. Should be easy to find in my 30,000-plus edits if cleaning up after it is making people tired.
All I do is add balancing information to biased articles. Last time I checked, this was considered to enhance neutrality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Support a topic ban from Unification Church topics. Frankly I'm surprised this is the only action being taken against this editor. Crafty (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to suggest stronger measures, I would support that. As seen in the (now collapsed) 2004 ArbCom opposes, he's been a POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot since before I was even registered here. I would support up to and including a full site ban. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that the topic ban is in effect, let's see how he does. Breach it and be damned for all time - that sorta thing. Crafty (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Support topic ban from any article relating to Category:Unification Church and True Family, broadly construed. Long overdue. I am not familiar enough with edits in other areas to comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Remedies 1.1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans. I'm arguably involved enough in anything Ed-related, and Cirt is involved. Any uninvolved admin may ban him from Unification Church related articles and log it with no further steps necessary or indicated. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer Crafty's phrasing of "any article relating to Category:Unification Church and True Family, broadly construed" or else I'm concerned he'll just weasel his way around the edges. thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The diffs provided hardly justify any action. If they're the worst, they praise with faint damns. The rest seems quite ancient history. Absolutely everyone has a POV. Neutrality is a goal, not something anyone can perfectly practice, and COI is not a reason for excluding competent editors.John Z (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note I said "I won't paste difs here at this point" and by the time you objected that no difs had been posted, Ed had already been topic banned. He wasn't banned for any difs posted in this section, but for an overall history / continuing behavior. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not object that no diffs were posted and did notice you said you would not post diffs immediately. I was referring to the diffs Cirt had posted. I was opposing a topic ban which seems to me to have very little basis. The burden is on those desiring a ban to prove their case.John Z (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. I encountered Ed at WP:FTN, where this left me deeply unimpressed. Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Support - Kafziel's entry of the new topic ban of Ed Poor from both articles and talk pages related to Category:Unification Church. I'm aware of Cirt being a patient and methodical editor on contentious topics so I find Ed Poor's response to Cirt's well-sourced comment above to be very disappointing. COI situations are often negotiated and can arrive at a good outcome, but Ed's approach is going nowhere fast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment As a long-time member of Wikipedia, I have a fair amount of respect & automatically extend good faith to three of the parties in this dispute -- Uncle Ed, KillerChihuhua, & Cirt. However, the diffs provided above don't support the accusations, & I wonder if this is a case where the actual conflict is due more to the parties reading intent into the edits where none is intended; Uncle Ed has never made a secret of his membership to the Unification Church. If I'm wrong, please supply more diffs. And even if Uncle Ed is not making edits to the detriment of Wikipedia, perhaps he could show some of that peace-making skills we long-time Wikipedians remember him best for & voluntarily stay away from Unification Church-related articles in order to promote harmony here. (This is the primary reason I stay away from articles relating to US politics.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, per WP:COI Ed should avoid editing any article related to this organization. The unfortunate fact that he has continued to edit these articles makes a topic ban the next logical step. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, clearly closely invoved in continued editing UC related article and pushing UC viewpoint as recently as 10 December, contrary to WP:COI guidance. . . dave souza, talk 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose COI is too often misused as an argument. As long as Ed does not make improper edits, COI is not really an issue, any more than having us declare that Jews can not edit Judaism etc. COI is far too often used by opponents of groups to discourage group members from making any edits, which is not the intent of WP:COI. The issue of "conservapedia" is quite irrelevant, and should not be here at all. Nor are comments from 2004 now utile. Any sanction should apply at most to Unification Church, narrowly construed. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
To see a recent example of improper COI edits, see his recent edit warring in a Unification Church article diff, diff, and diff. There also seems to be a lot of recent move warring in UC topics in Ed's move log. The more I look at this the worse it becomes. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between Judaism, which has existed for some thousands of years, and the Unification Church, which has existed for less than 50 years. Ed Poor has been a member of the church for the majority of its history, has met many of the key founders, and has been employed by the church or other Moon businesses. A better analogy would be to early Christians or even apostles editing an article on their religion, had there been a Wikipedia in 75 AD. Members of relatively small new religions are generally much closer to the founders of those groups than are members of large established religions. (While many profess to have a personal relationship to Jesus, few would claim to have met him personally.) Another difference is that established religions usually have developed internal scholarship and mature criticism from external sources, while new religions are often still in an initial growth phase during which internal differences are ignored or undeveloped, making NPOV more difficult. The COI issues are not the same between old and new religions. Will Bebacktalk 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree with this position, a fundamentalist of any religion living or dead is no better or worse than the other. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who has been a member of a religion for more than half of that religion's history is a de facto fundamentalist. Fundamentalists of established religions are also a problem. But let's not get into an extended discussion of that here. Will Bebacktalk 02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or are these IPs who edit war to remove the SharedIP template from their talk page suddenly popping up left and right? Does anyone know of any organized online privacy campaigns or anything like that? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Solution to the problem. If it is a shared ID, grab a post-it note and write this down: "In two days, restore the repeatvandal and whois tag to 66.177.73.86" If its shared, the person who removed it won't be using this IP ever again. If it is static or semi-static, then you'll get the same behavior. Either way, this isn't a pressing issue RIGHT NOW. The best way to deal with this, if its important, is to let them win for now, and then just take care of it when it won't generate a silly edit war. --Jayron32 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, it is not shared. The host name is c-66-177-73-86.hsd1.fl.comcast.net. By the naming convention used by Comcast, the "c" indicates Customer-premises equipment, e.g., their cable modem. It may or may not be static, but, the policy issues are (a) the "shared" IP templates should not be used, (b) one could use Template:Whois, (c) per WP:CMT, while shared IP templates are on the list of things that IP editors should not remove from their talk pages, non-shared IP templates (like whois) are not so listed, so can be removed.
P.S. I did explain the non-shared nature of such host names to the editor who erroneously added this shared template here and to other non-shared IPs, but I did not succeed in convincing that editor. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Then it sounds like those templates should be removed, except maybe for the one about repeated vandalism, although it's not exactly vandalism, it's more like disruption. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. As for Template:repeatvandal, my understanding is that it generally applies to those "repeatedly blocked", so I left it. 'Tis easy to remove, o' course. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like the best solution. Considering all the hullabaloo about these whois, sharedip and such templates, I wonder why we still have them? Do they actually serve any useful purpose? In reality, they don't do much except display the IP address and a message to users or to people going there to warn about vandalism. The IP address can always be checked and traced using the toolbar at the bottom. Maybe we should just stop adding the templates altogether? (repeatvandal, on the other hand, is a useful template). <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
They probably make sense for shared IP's, as someone might stumble into it and wonder how come it's blocked when he didn't do anything. For static IP's, I'm not so sure there's a point. He knows what his IP is, and the curious can always go to the contrib page and check the whois, geolocate, etc. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(<-)The only benefit I can see for the non-shared templates is (in theory) to prevent editors from marking the IP erroneously as shared. Sadly, this hasn't prevented misapplication of the shared templates.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out a policy change regarding Whois templates only. If an IP does remove the template after it's been added, don't revert the edit. It is no longer an exemption to the 3RR rule, See Template:Whois and it's been reflected in WP:BLANKING. Momo sanGespräch 04:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Roman Polanski article again. Editor refuses to stop inserting information to whitewash case[edit]
Resolved
– This thread has shifted from questioning the actions of a particular editor to requesting "a ruling" on content issues. As far as ANI goes, there is no issue here, and no administrator intervention is required. Equazcion(talk) 20:37, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This yet again. This was brought up before [55]. You have an editor, Proofreader77, who argues nonstop, filling up a talk page, bringing up the same things constantly, and refusing to follow consensus. See the talk page here [56] for him once again trying to edit the article to mention how old other people said they thought the victim looked. As I and others have pointed out a month ago, and several times already, Roman Polanski already said he understood she was 13, this in the Wanted and Desired documentary even, there no doubt whatsoever about this. To mention that she looked older has no place in the article, and continuously trying to re-add it for months now, and filling up one talk page after another arguing about it, is nothing less than an attempt to try to make his crime seem less severe. Can someone please block this disruptive editor from the article? Please look through the archives[57], he filling up one page after another with the same arguments time and again. DreamFocus 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI is the proper forum for incidents like this (asking for a block). On the other hand, Proofreader77 is pushing for this version of the article in the last link of his first post in this thread. The contentious sentence "On March 11, 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old (two weeks prior to her fourteenth birthday and described by the the police investigator as "looking between 16 and 18") Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.[43][52]" seems blatant POV pushing to me, because neither of the sourcescited documents the quoted statement (of the investigator, i.e. "looking between 16 and 18"). It's reasonable to propose a topic ban of Proofreader77 from that article and the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case given his long term disruption that violates WP:V, and has a tint of pro-pedophilia advocacy.Pcapping 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd be very, very careful about saying an editor is "pro-pedophilia". That's a pretty serious charge. It is quite possible to be a Polanski supporter and not be pro-pedophile. In any case, pedophilia is the wrong word here. The actual term is hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia, as pedophilia refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents, despite its more common denotations. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, struck that. I'm not an expert on deviant sexual behavior. Pcapping 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am... err, ah... not, either. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Above is misleading allegations/aspersions including falsehood (slander)
Strike slander immediately / wrap this slanderous topic up (Complex matter of contentious article and behaviors of specific participants to be addressed in due course with an accurate topic header in the appropriate venue)
The only online source that contains that quote is from LA Times of Sep 20, 1977, and was not cited in the wiki article version you appeared to endorse. Further, the actual quote is: One of the detectives in the case described the girl as "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old [...] You've obviously {{cherrypicked}} the part that didn't suit your purpose (acting as though she were 13 or 14 years). Further, including that quote from a 1977-source that was apparently never considered worthy of reproduction in any other report since then is ridiculously WP:UNDUE, not to mention that it failed WP:V since you didn't cite the source. The fact that you first added that statement, and then removed it is a strange WP:POINT illustration, especially since you later seem to endorse the version because you did not put counterbalanced in quotes in the actual text of your talk page message, although you did put it in quotes in the edit summary. So no reasonable person reading the talk page could tell that you do not fully endorse that ridiculously POV version, unless one looked at the edit history of both the article and the talk page! Playing strange, duplicitous WP:GAMEs isn't going to convince anyone of your good faith, so don't expect any apologies from me. Pcapping 09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Futher, reading this tl;dr thread makes it ridiculously obvious that you have been POV pushing for including the "looking 16 to 18" titbid in October, and you were also dismmisive of Polanski's under oath statement that he knew her to be 13. Your behavior there meets my definition of POV pushing: dismissive of the mainstream view, and giving equal WP:VALIDity to cherry-picked details. The fact that you switched to a passive aggressive stance after you couldn't get your POV through back in October, and continue to disrupt that article two months later is sufficient evidence for me that you need to be topic banned from it. if you're WP:POINTy enough people can take your illustrations for more serious disruption. (changed after reading answers to the two questions below) Pcapping 13:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Short questions for the alleged outlaw Proofreader77 (and his 100-word-max replies)
To all who gather in this saloon today/tonight, grab a beer and listen up: As all Wikipedia cowfolk now, ANI is often wielded like a pair of sixguns in *content disputes* — and yep, that's jest what we got right here, friends. Bullshit, and even outright lies, often ride in with such improper topics. But if we must turn our Christmastime fellowship into a barfight, let's not continue WP:TLDR. Now that I've presented my initial rebuttal, I will return to my "editing restriction" of 100 words per message. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to do the same. :-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Question #1: Could you elaborate on what you meant by "counterbalancing illustration"? I'm a little confused about what you were trying to illustrate. Are you saying the current version of the summary needs more balancing? The reason I ask is that if you don't see a problem with the current summary, and don't actually plan to add the stuff in your "illustration", then there's really no problem here and Dream's concerns are just misunderstandings. Equazcion(talk) 11:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Equazcion (appreciate question+length:). No, there's no intent to leave (let's call it) Polanski-defense-POV information in as "counterbalance" to Polanski-prosecution-POV (to achieve NPOV). That diff was to illustrate to those wishing to insert preferred Geimer quote (from decades later) into 1977 events paragraph (between grand jury testimony, and charges selected) what happens if you try to achieve NPOV with dueling information. That shouldn't happen in the summary topic in the bio (perhaps in Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). The "counterbalancing illustration" was a response to arguments quotes couldn't be excluded if sourced. You've seen my last version. That's good. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. You could have just stated it on the article's talk page instead of being WP:POINTy about it. It certainly gave me the wrong impression, especially since you previously attempted to introduce that full quote "for real". Pcapping 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"Purpose of this Wikipedia entry. (Claims of two sides, deleting content, mission of a BLP, asserting bad faith, unpleasant nature of the facts)
That long (and rhetorical) title was followed by an initiating comment of 606 words presenting, yes, the POV of initiator. While rhetorical sonnets may seem odd, full analytic reply was not appropriate or a good idea. Almost responded, WP:TLDR, but instead invested time to respond POV with POV of Geimer's attorney's oral arguments (with links) from 10 December Appeals Court hearing. A rhetorical choice chosen for that circumstance. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, everyone is soapboxing to a certain extent in that thread now, but as a skilled editor, you should try to improve the signal to noise ratio. Pcapping 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(note)
(offline/back@20:00) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying the issue (plus a response to it)[edit]
Based on Proofreader's answers above, I just want to clarify this issue, because Proofreader is frankly (no offense) not making his intentions completely clear.
The edit that sparked this incident report was Proofreader's attempt to make a point, and he immediately reverted himself. The idea was just to have a diff to link to and show everyone in discussions. The point he was trying to make with it was that that the section in question, which is just a summary of the sexual assault article, would get messy and long if evidence that the victim "looked 13" and "didn't look 13" were both added (possibly in addition to other contentious issues). He's trying to say that such things should be kept out of the summary altogether. He's not looking to add them. The original poster here seems to have been confused about this. Equazcion(talk) 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
The above having been said, if you're (Proofreader) going to use direct article edits to make your point, it's your responsibility to make sure no one gets confused about why you're doing it. Making a point by editing the article and then immediately reverting your own edit could prove to be a disruption, which would violate WP:POINT. This ANI report could be viewed as such a disruption. I understand what you were trying to do, and frankly I'm not sure there was any better way to do it. Nevertheless, I'd take great care in doing so in the future. Make sure to say explicitly what you're NOT planning on doing with the article. It might have allayed fears, for example, if you had said something like: "I am NOT advocating the insertion of any of the edits in my illustration. This is only an example of what COULD happen to the section if these kinds of edits are allowed to remain."
As for the "sonnet": I think that response was in poor taste, and more of a violation of WP:SOAP than the original post to that section. You say you didn't want to invest the time to respond to something so general and dubious (that's how I saw it anyway), and I agree with you there; it was not worth responding to. However that doesn't mean a cheeky retort is warranted instead. If you don't want to respond thoughtfully to someone, I would refrain from posting any other type of response in its place. Equazcion(talk) 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the main article should ever be used just to create diffs showing "this how a really POV version could look like by cherrypicking a source". Especially after the attempt to introduce (a superset) of the contentious information (for real) resulted in a whole archive page that debated just that issue. Add some sonnets to that, and you get more than enough soap bubbles to fill an AN/I thread. I have to stop here before my posts become equally cryptic and soapy. Pcapping 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
On whether or not article edits should ever be used that way, I have no answer. They certainly shouldn't be used that way in common practice, but like I said, I'm not sure how else the point would've been better made. However, the purpose of the diff wasn't to show "a really POV version". It was to show a version where NPOV were observed by putting in equal amounts of contentious material from each side; which Proofreader is (rightfully) against. Equazcion(talk) 14:00, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that the contentious version is NPOV. See my comment above about (1) lack of verifiability -- wrong sources were cited (2) cherrypicking the source from "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old" to just "looking between 16 and 18 years old". Furthermore, the 2nd paragraph is obviously meant to discredit Geimer as much as possible: except for one sentence, the paragraph pushes the idea that she doesn't remember what happened, she's just a repeating a story, the real culprit was the media, and that she doesn't want him to go to jail. Completely ignored is the fact that forensic evidence was damning, and the issue was statutory rape, so her recollection wasn't terribly relevant. The whole point of that 2nd paragraph is to make the reader commiserate with Polanski (a confused teenager is accusing him, but changes her mind later). After the reader is emotionally primed, he gets to read about Polanski's ordeal with the justice system, and endorse his flight. He evaded punishment (then) that he doesn't really deserve (now)! Together with the cherrypicking of sources mostly favorable to Polanski, this excellent narrative structure is aimed at manipulating the reader to accept the Wikipedia editor's POV. Pcapping 14:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you think of that temporary version, it doesn't matter. It was reverted by the author. So the temporary version "wasn't NPOV". And? So what? It was a temporary version. It's not there anymore and no one wants to put it back that way. You're arguing about nothing. Equazcion(talk) 20:27, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
There are two opposing strong stances there at Polanski, has been since the arrest, you could say that one side exists to balance the other, there is constant content creep of single words day by day to attempt to change the expression of the content, Proof is one one side and other editor is on the other side, personally I prefer it if the article was stable after the quite encyclopedic rewrite that Benjiboi did, but they keep at it...I would be wrong to restrict one side and not the other from the article as without proofreaders resistance you would soon see the article swing to reflect the Polanski is a perverted child rapist, kiddie fiddler who should be hung by his balls until dead brigade. I think Proofreader actually doing a good job there, if you restrict his access to editing there you also should restrict his opposite editor, User:Tombaker321 have a look at his edit history he only edits the Polanski article . Just have a look at the recent edit history at Polanski of the constant to and fro-ing between these two editors, as I said IMO it would be unfair and unwise to restrict one side and not the other. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a new editor and joined shortly after Polanski's arrest. I am going to apologize now for not presenting this commentary with diffs, which I will add later, but as I am unskilled with the software, this will take time. This thread seems to require a more immediate response.
I had read the article months earlier; at that time it was possible to understand the material which recently,(through the efforts of a few editors who are inflamed by the crime), has been rendered nearly incomprehensible. In the meantime, it is sporadically a popular search from Google, and as such, has not enhanced WP's reputation in its current form. I will address only the most recent issues.
From the time of the arrest, both Geimer and Polanski were maligned. Geimer had pleaded that the media and the judiciary halt. In the intervening months, this has been brought up dozens of times in Polanski Talk. There have been arguments from those whose POV-edits are unquestionably retaliatory towards Polanski, and include details which are unsupported and unsubstantiated. An entire thread about Quaaludes, which included alterations to that article which were then reflected in the Polanski article occurred in the past week with the intention of showing that Geimer was so drugged that she was unable to scream, and that her anus was relaxed so that penetration could easily occur. None of this is supported by testimony or secondary documents. Further, although it occurred in Talk, it violates the BLP injunction to do no harm.
A great deal of original research has resulted in arguments that the Vogue Hommes assignment was a ruse to get Geimer on the casting couch, because "The casting interview, film test, photography session that turns into naked photography, have long been cliche's of Hollywood, as a means of having sex with women, under the premise of future fame." For the purposes of WP (as I understand it, although a novice), the plethora of secondary sources should be the final word. It has been widely reported that he was on assignment, although the VH editorial staff did deny it. This information was gleaned from Polanski's biography. (Although the article incorrectly states that it was for Vogue and not VH, and this itself has been a bouncing edit, sometimes with both V and VH being the employer at the same time. While under the same publishing umbrella, clearly different magazines with different audiences.) What has complicated this article further has been the documented malfeasance, cultural stereotyping and missteps, Polanski's uncanny ability to put his foot in his mouth, and the passage of time.
Further, I have read most of the talk page edits since August, and there is no basis for claiming that Proofreader77 is pro-pedophilia, has any interest in besmirching the victim, or is a closeted fan of Polanski's. His only concern, stated repeatedly, is that there be balance; where the fulcrum is has been determined by those who wish to hang the director prior to conclusion of this newest round of judicial proceedings. There has been little dialogue from the other side, just a continual hammering away about the fiction which is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf, which is to simplify a complex case which is less about the actual crime and more about what happened afterwards, and to discount the adult Geimer who tells us herself that we do not know what we are talking about(Wanted and Desired).
It is possible not to negate the seriousness of the assault while being fair to both victim and and perpetrator. This concept has been lost in a take-no-prisoners atmosphere. The refusal to discuss, but to repeat endlessly the "facts of the case," has resulted in exasperation, and most editors have fled the article, including some notable admins who have said that they are sick of it. Proofreader77's talk and article edits are a reply to that intransigence. His use of sonnetized rhetoric is, I believe, a valid and valuable method, and to refer to it as disruptive because it is different from what is normally done is--in my opinion--intellectual prejudice and does not meet the standards of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." While striving for a civil community, we do not criticize those who fail at correctly using the simplest homophones, nor make fun of those whose syntax errors result in misunderstandings; thus we should not belittle those whose rhetorical gifts lie at the other end of the spectrum. To remove Proofreader77 from Polanski would be a disservice to the greater community of WP users. I urge you to withdraw this from consideration. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How old the victim looked should not be discussed CONSTANTLY, brought up time and again. Please take time to look over the long ongoing debate about that in the archives. [58] It is now being discussed yet again. The talk page is for discussing what should be in the article, some of the information previously put in there, but removed, and then debated repeatedly for awhile now. Can we get a ruling that since the director already stated he understood she was 13, that there is no possible reason to discuss how old others were quoted as saying they thought she looked? Other things keep coming up as well, which should not have to be discussed continuously. The rape victim previously had sex with her boyfriend(whether a rape victim was a virgin or not shouldn't be mentioned at all), its legal in some nations for a 13 year old to have sex(nothing to do with America), she had had alcohol previously, she had used the sedative drug previously, or how old someone other than the director thought she looked, should not be mentioned again. Bringing these things up constantly, and trying to get them in the article, is an attempt to make the crimes of Polanski sound less severe, and to do victim blaming or slandering of the victim. One talk page after another has been archived, in a very short period of time, filled up by two editors who keep mentioning these irrelevant things. DreamFocus 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I would normally agree with this, but the accounts of this case, even in such sources as the NYT , do discuss these. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we add in every single thing the newspapers discuss? Does the information have any possible reason to be in there? Should we spend three months filling up one talk page after another(check archives, I'm not exaggerating) with the same argument? DreamFocus 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well let's face it that's your speciality. Windhover75 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Windhover75 has made only one edit ever [59] which is this one. Someone is clearly using a sockpuppet. Can someone check this one please? Its rather uncivil. DreamFocus 19:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You seem to still be missing the point. Proofreader included this info in a version that was intended to be an example of what not to do. So he basically agrees with you. Is there some reason you're still stuck on this? Equazcion(talk) 19:55, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
If you're looking for a general ruling on content that has nothing to do with the actions of a particular editor, ANI is not the place for that. I'm not sure that there is any place where you can get such a "ruling". The matter as far as ANI goes appears to be settled. Equazcion(talk) 20:34, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Sonnetized (exec) summary :-) (with full diffs)[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proofreader77, ridiculing editors that tried in good faith to deal with your disruption is going to earn you much needed points. Especially after you've been told by more than one editor to cut the sonnet bullcrap (to use a word you've kindly introduced above). Pcapping 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:TALK means you have to stay on topic, the article itself. The fastest way to get ignored is through rants about "those controlling the Global Warming articles." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said, its a duplicate and WP:SOAP applies. For bonus points, User:Brittainia is now blocked per WP:WAZZOCK (I paraphrase). The t:GW page gets long enough with genuine questions; we don't need SOAP on the page too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, editors who aggressively "own" their talk pages may act the same way in articles in which they edit. (WP:OWN). Suggest, keeping the talk on your page when faced with such ignorance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
– I think we're finished. You may fire when ready... HalfShadow 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Repeatedly reverting true and sourced information claiming it is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Those sentences were true and later modified to be attributed to reputable sources. Once incident of vandalism (Scum) doesn't make the other edits vandalism. The previous edit to the user page was vandalism and the user didn't increment the counter.
The information I added to Begging and Internet begging was TRUE and SOURCED. PERIOD. Some "encyclopedia" you people run. You don't care about what's true, all you care about is controlling your little world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please explain this edit [62]. Was it just trolling? Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said in my other comment, the validity of a previous edit should have no bearing on a 100% true and fully sourced legitimate contribution made later. That one edit was made out of frustration at seeing your annoying donation banner for the 7,000th time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
All three of the above difs are blatant vandalism, and none are sourced. Also, refering to Wikipedia as "your" site demonstrates, not a desire to be part of the community, but rather a desire to come here and get your POV across. That's neither welcome nor appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody just mark it as resolved and block in case of further vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That's nice, isn't it? Being able to silence all dissent. Shows how much you care about neutrality and accuracy.
Clearly you need to check your facts. One of the reverters complained about not having sources and I fixed that with this edit, which is 100% true and referenced to TWO SEPARATE SOURCES. How exactly is that vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You could vandalize with a reliable source, for example if you ignore WP:NPOV. If you cited some article saying there was corruption in the White House, or that the Queen is a drug dealer, adding White House as primary example for corruption, or the Queen as primary example for drug dealing, could be seen as an intent to deface the Encyclopedia and hence vandalism. Sources are no shield against policy violation. Crum375 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You've conveniently ignored the fact that the information I added is completely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It depends on the context. If the intent is vandalism/trolling, the sources are irrelevant. Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it wasn't. The only edit of mine that was vandalism is the Scum one. There is nothing you can point to in my most recent edit to Begging that isn't neutral or supported by the facts and sources. Wikipedia's engages in internet begging, it's as simple as that. If you want to call it something else be my guest, but as long as the section and article are called "internet begging", Wikipedia warrants a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. The citation to Ars Technica does not mention the word begging and The Register article only uses it once in the headline. If you continue contributing here in this way, you do run the risk of being blocked for disruption. Charities "appeal" for money, they do not "beg". If you had a registered account, you could hide the banners. Mathsci (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The above remark by you is just WP:TROLLing. Please stop - you are just writing nonsense. Mathsci (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) No, "truth" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. We are here to present reliably sourced information in a neutral fashion. Please read up on our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR, before criticizing. Crum375 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
And that's exactly what I was doing with the most recent edit. It was definitely sourced, so if you want to say it wasn't neutral the only thing that could be seen as such is the article title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Man... you know full well that there's a difference between "begging" and a "fundraiser". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to rename the article to "unsolicited requests for financial donations" that would certainly be more neutral, but that type of activity is commonly accepted as being called begging. A reputable source has said that what Wikipedia is doing is begging ([63]), and it fully meets almost any definition for begging not specifically designed to exclude Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If you had a source which described the concept of "internet begging" generically, and used Wikipedia as a main example for it, it would be acceptable to use WP as an example. Otherwise, it is WP:SYN at best, and vandalism at worst, esp. when coupled with your Scum edit, since vandalism is judged by intent. Crum375 (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Mr. IP With Twenty-Nine Edits seems to know so much about how this place works suggests to me that he's someone's sock. HalfShadow 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Rollingeyez (talk·contribs) appears to be here only to make a point. I've stopped short of blocking, but I suspect this is not this editor's first time here. Does anyone recognize this pattern? Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not recognize the pattern myself, but I'd agree there seems to be an agenda there. That said, I'm inclined to think s/he has a point: how does a list section titled "examples" in Tyranny of the majority not constitute WP:OR and a POV, unless sources are given to justify the inclusion of the examples? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point Moonriddengirl we may need to unlock the article so the so called examples can be removed.
Emergency assistance in BLP violation on the main page[edit]
Resolved
– This is off the Main page now in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident is on the main page as the featured article. According to the article, Brown was not convicted of assault. He was convicted on attempted assault. The title should be changed/moved to possibly "Micheal Brown Okinawa attempted assault incident".
This is time pressing because it is on the main page. Otherwise, a slow and careful discussion could take place. This is a possible BLP violation against Mr. Brown. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the issue here. The court found that he intended to undertake an indecent assault and happened not to succeed at it. We shouldn't be implying that he intended to attempt an indecent assault and fail at it, since he clearly didn't intend to fail at it. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
But if somebody had been found guilty of attempted murder when nobody ended up murdered, his actions would not be called a "murder incident", and if somebody had been found guilty of attempting to blow up a building when there was no explosion this would not be called an "explosion incident". -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but "murder" and "explosion" are quite specific, whereas "assault" is pretty general. I guess I'm saying that I don't have a problem with the general term "assault", even where the court found that his actions didn't meet the conditions for a specific type of assault due to his lack of success in that line. The other issue is that I like tight prose and hate needless verbosity - adding verbiage as a defensive measure doesn't seem to be needed here. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Non-admin I think I am right in saying that the concept of assault is a common law one, where the word "assault" means, essentially, an attempt to injure someone. The acutal act of injuring them is called "battery". So there is no such thing as "attempted assault", because "attempted" is implicit in "assault". In other words, if you take a swing at someone and miss, it is a successful "assault", but a failed "battery". You can check these facts if you care to.--FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that is rather persuasive, yes. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess the test of whether I am right or not would be whether a court report or similar can be found saying that someone was ever convicted of "attempted assault". I see that the matter is now resolved in any case, but when did a little trivia ever hurt anyone?--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
We may be ok as far as the main page is concerned, but I don;t think we're finished. This article really needs some discussion, probably at BLPN--the choice of vocabulary may not by NPOV, and the very detailed account of the event and the trials probably is undue weight, and might well violate BLP do no harm. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Reference to assault might be useful in this disagreement. Hopefully no one involved will then decide to rewrite that article to "win" the argument. -- llywrch (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In English law, an immediate threat of violence constitutes assault: pointing a gun at someone; shaking your fist at them, but only if you're right next to them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have the really weird notion that there is some serious socking with SPIs going on (see article-history - massive almost identical edits going back and forth), but don't want to embarrass myself by filing an investigation since it's only a gut-feeling. Can somebody have a look? Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing embarrasing about filing a good-faith SPI, even if it turns out that no socking is taking place. I've had an e-mail about this article from another editor, but can't look into it until later today. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've had a message from Presstvwiki (talk·contribs) (let's leave the username issue alone for now) re the article. Editor claims to be an employee of Press TV and would have a COI if they edited the article. I've given him a bit of guidance re how the company can get libellous material removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If you've been following ANI you may recall that on Dec 11th, Andrea105 taunted and provoked Malleus Fautuorum, including an edit war on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum.
In retrospect this was clearly an intentional and successful troll of Malleus (and the Administrators, and many others). It is highly annoying that John254 chose to do that to a productive user who has a history of abuse sanctions, apparently trying to goad them into getting sanctioned again.
Please keep an eye out for repeat performances. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I had thought she(?) seemed a bit too knowledgable. I just presumed she'd been an IP for some time. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus[edit]
In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.
A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.
User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".
All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also User:Rama/Fair use is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' [64]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term jocker, what he probably means is joker, in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The correct place to request restoration is WP:DRV. — Kusmatalk 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
See wider issue I commented about below @ 19:41. –xenotalk 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –xenotalk 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
So what do you guys recommend I do? Kusma, should I go over to DRV now and request undeletion for this and/or the other images? Or will you guys be doing something? Should I wait? Thanks!. DR04 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think DRV is the best place for this. I won't do anything about it, though, as I am WP:VEGAN and don't touch non-free images if I can at all avoid it. — Kusmatalk 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Working in this area is a pretty thankless job. I'm not sure that it's an area where local consensus can rule in any case. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –xenotalk 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Wikipedia community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at User:Rama/Fair use, do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content, the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, only states that pictures of people still alive are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a personal interpretation that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --Jayron32 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect [add copyright information] (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Wikipedia is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own." The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Wikipedia permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --Jayron32 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. DR04 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Did they give permission only for Wikipedia or also for possible reusers? "Only for Wikipedia" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — Kusmatalk 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Wikipedia and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Wikipedia to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Wikipedia to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3" from Template:Db-f3. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free with permission}}. As you can see, permission for Wikipedia tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - [65]DR04 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nor is consensus unanimity, especially in a binary decision. –xenotalk 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that User:CBM consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. Dabbler (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Wikipedia, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to WP:DRV. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Wikipedia's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we could be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the WP:BLP policy, except that I think they have handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion.
I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --Jayron32 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Of the two images (File:Nakheel Tower.jpg and File:Freedom Tower New.jpg) speedily deleted by Rama(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on Rama's talk page), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on File:Chicago Spire.jpg. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Wikipedia editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. Astronaut (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days). –xenotalk 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, well it sounds like Astronaut and I need to head over to WP:DRV to file some undeletion requests. DR04 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, based upon what others have said, we need to list the images Rama created as copyright violations. It is not my intention to upset him, but I am seriously concerned with creating images based on a copyrighted design and someone publishing them as their own work. This is something that could tick off Santiago Calatrava or Shelbourne. DR04 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have an opinion on either of these matters, whatever it is, I would appreciate your input. Thanks so much. DR04 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If one admin can arbitarily delete something then another can arbitarily undelete it. SpartazHumbug! 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I do wish people would use the adverb 'arbitrarily' more carefully in these discussions. I fully agree that if Rama were deleting images arbitrarily – "La di dah, I think I'll delete an image today. Ah! This one clashes with my wallpaper, it's got to go — bloop!" – then it would be perfectly appropriate to undo that deletion on a similarly lackadaisical basis. On the other hand, Rama's actions certainly don't seem to be arbitrary in this case. He seems to have acted on the basis of careful thought and extended reasoning. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning is open to discussion, but to imply that his action was whimsical or capricious and therefore subject to instant arbitrary reversal is a very disrespectful approach. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss his actions as 'arbitrary'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ten, I can't speak for Spartaz, but he might be referring to Rama's tendency to ignore other user opinions - something I have found to be very frustrating. It happened when the image was deleted the first time by Rama, it happened again when Rama tried to speedily delete the image again today [66] (this was after much of the discussion on this page was posted) and how he hasn't discussed his shape equivalent theory (as I introduced below) to this thread. It seems as if he detests talking with the community and consistently makes rash decisions. Again, I can attest how frustrating it has been for me, and probably a few other editors/admins dealing with these issues. I understand his perspective - and he might even be right, but won't he please just discuss things first? Sorry I'm done ranting lol. DR04 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As Spartaz commented, he has restored the copyrighted image. The commons page still needs opinion on deletion. Also, I have updated the fair use rationale on the copyrighted image. It should be more exhaustive in its argument now. DR04 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion on Rama's talkpage, I'm wondering if there's a language issue here (Rama appears to be French-speaking from his userboxen). He is interpreting "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed ... " (from s120 of the US code) to apply in a situation where building work has not yet started, and he has interpreted Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteriaNo Free equivalent: as Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use which is completely contrary to what the policy says, but may be based on a mistranslation???Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't think this is the problem at all. I think this admin could end up at RfC if things carry on this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I wish Rama would have brought this up in the first place, this would have saved a lot of time. Anyway, as I brought up on the restored image's talk page (I mean the copyrighted one, not the svg), Rama will now claim that per commons:Template:PD-shape, we can just use a geometric shape of the Spire instead of a copyrighted image. In other words, if shapes were free equivalents we could delete the copyrighted fair use image as there would be an equivalent. I'm inclined to say it is not an equivalent. The entire reason that copyrighted images of buildings have been considered fair use in the past (and IMO should continue to be fair use) is because they are illustrations of the primary subject of the article. I agree, copyrighted images of living persons should not be considered fair use. A celebrity or famous person's appearance is not the primary subject matter of the article. However with these articles on proposed buildings, the structure itself, as illustrated by the architect, is the primary subject of the article and therefore fair use. Either the image is sufficient enough to show the work (the copyrighted image) or it isn't sufficient enough (a shape). You can't have it both ways - it is a contradiction. Either it is usable in the article as an image or it is not. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I do not believe an image of the shape of a building is a free equivalent. Other comments please? Agree or disagree? DR04 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Chicago spire shape.svg, the example created by Rama does not even come close to serving the "same encyclopedic purpose" that the fair use image in question does. –xenotalk 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite, juste like the photograph that we have at Marilyn Manson is not as "cool" as this [67].
Problem is, we do not do Fair Use to snatch copyrighted images that we fancy, without charge, to make our webpage nicer. We take the one precise image that we need because it is discussed critically, like on Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima. All the difference between stealing an honest work. Rama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was snatched here. The copyright owner gave specific permission. Furthermore, the analogy you make is a false one. No one is actually claiming that the picture is included for merely aestetic reasons. The arguement is that the picture you created to replace it is actually the more eggregious violation, because it is a derivative work created without permission, being used to replace the original work which DOES have permission for use. Furthermore, the image isn't merely decoration. The article discusses such issues as building design and location, all of which are uniquely enhanced by the picture. You appear to be inventing policy out of whole cloth here, without the support of the community. If you believe the foundation supports your interpretation, get the foundation to make a statement saying so. If you believe that the existing guidelines need to be changed to a more conservative view, then feel free to initiate those discussions. But to unilaterally decide that your own singular interpretation of policy is the only valid one, without actual support, seems to be particularly problematic here. --Jayron32 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed that even admins who are generally quick to support the NFCC and remove inappropriately used free images are disagreeing with you here Rama. If I were in your shoes I might take pause at that. SpartazHumbug! 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Does Rama have an obsession with deleting images? He really needs to gain consensus on issues like these - what is with the consistent, rash decision making? Rama can respond to this directly and so can anyone else - but is this type of behavior consistent with how an admin acts? If I am out of line, feel free to let me know, but this is getting really irritating, for a lot of people.
[68] This was after admin User:Quadell kept the image in 2007, admin User:Spartaz restored the image yesterday, and after all the discussion here!!!
Again, if I'm out of line, let me know. I just find this frustrating. DR04 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have asked them to stop deleting files out of process and also noted to them that if this pattern of behaviour continues, an RFCU may be initiated to gather community opinions as to their approach. For now, I think we should allow the Commons process to run its course and that will inform our actions here as to whether this and similar images recently deleted by Rama qualify for fair use.
For now I would just advise you to take a step back and remember there is no deadline =) –xenotalk 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed and understood. I think it might be wise for me to take a break from these issues. DR04 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
...and just as a point of order, we have no jurisdiction over the commons issues you mentioned. –xenotalk 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep following the discussion on Rama's talk page. Somehow, lost in translation I presume, he has come to the conclusion that where the policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", the word ONLY means that fair use can only be applied in cases where there is only one IMAGE in existence and can only ever be one image (eg the Mona Lisa). I simply cannot persuade him that the sentence means that the rule applies where ANY image of that subject would be non-free. This is why he believes it is OK to allow the use of the Iwo Jima image, but existence of several architects drawings means that fair use can never be applied. This is almost moving into an issue of competency, but I think he's just dug his heels in. Is there a discussion area where other Commons editors would discuss this kind of thing that we could take this discussion to?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand
“
Nothing forbids using plans or schematics issued by the architect as documentation. The information that they carry is not, in itself, protected. Rama (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
”
I find it hard to believe that someone who is so hot for Wikipedia's fair use policy (which goes over and above the law) is unaware of the copyright issue raised by this sentence in relation to his drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
He's confusing simple data with rendered drawings. For example, a basic table created in Excel is not copyrightable, since it has no creative element and data itself can't be copyrighted. An architectural drawing does not fall under this exception, obviously. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at [74]. Can someone explain to me why Rama thinks that s120, which has by now I think been quoted 3 times and says that the architect's design copyright does not extend to making images of a constructed building viewable from a public place, means that he can make copies of the architects plans. For someone so adamant about not "snatching" other people's work, why can he not see how badly his approach breaches US law. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[75] I understand the need to wait until the deletion discussions are over, but I seriously question how someone who doesn't think it matters that by making a drawing of a building that isn't built yet, based on the architect's drawings, he has breached the architect's copyright, can continue in a position of responsibility relating to deciding on the use of non-free imagery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted File:Freedom Tower New.jpg because of invalid license. What was there had no fair use, just a claim of permission to use on Wikipedia. Whether an email permission (should be OTRS) can override the fair use requirement for minimal use and size would also be an issue for the possible fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone re-uploaded it after Rama deleted it, but didn't add any fair use rationale. Also, isn't it instadeath for any file that only has permission to be used on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia cannot police its use? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We should still provide a fair use rationale even if we've been given permission "only for Wikipedia". –xenotalk 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. If anyone has the source for the image, I would be willing to re-upload it with a sturdy fair use claim - I've been getting some practice lately at fair use rationales lol. DR04 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the image - please add the FUR asap. –xenotalk 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FUR added. I also uploaded a lower resolution version of the image - the same resolution used in the article infobox. DR04 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems the correct course. That's what should have happened with the Spire drawing as well. It's not replacable until the building is complete and a photo or artists drawing can be made based on the finished structure. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to jump the gun, but it looks like (currently) there is overwhelming consensus, except for Rama, that the "free" svg image he created at commons is a copyright violation (8 deletes including the proposal for deletion (me) to 1 keep by the original uploader, Rama) and the same thing for fair use of the Chicago Spire image. Of course this thread can and should stay open for as long as it needs to. I'm just worried the commons discussion could close at any time (maybe within a few hours or weeks), and wanted to point out there was one important ancillary consideration (to this Rama discussion) I think deserves a fair amount of discussion. It will have a decent impact on so many other articles and copyrighted building designs on Wikipedia - and I didn't want this thread to be "resolved" as soon as the commons discussion concludes. And the question is -
At what point should copyrighted, fair use images created by architects be replaced by free photographs of the building? In other words, when would a "free equivalent" exist? When it is 25% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? When it is 100% complete? At some other point? Please discuss!!! DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In 2007 I said about 25% complete (of the exterior) because that seems the point at which the design of the building can begin to be appreciated and understood. I'm not set on that and I've heard others here state that the copyrighted image should say up until the building 100% complete. I could understand that perspective as well, but there probably should be some consistent consensus on this moving forward from this lengthy discussion. DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the scope of the architectural drawing. If the drawing represents an exterior view of the complete building, then it should be removed when an equivalent version of a free image becomes available. Whether drawings at other stages of construction (or other methods of representation) can be replaced depends on the availability of equivalent free images and the purpose for which the drawing is used. Nathan T 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced that any use of a non-free image is acceptable in such a case. If a building has not yet been erected, I consider that it is non-notable and therefore should not have a Wikipedia article. An exception muight be made in the case of a commercial disaster like the Bay-Adelaide Centre which achieved notability before it was completed, see Bay-Adelaide Centre stump. If other editors are not convinced by my argument, then any non-free image should be replaced by a free one as soon as the new building is far enough along in construction as to provide a recognisable exterior photograph. Dabbler (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Something doesn't need to be exist to be notable. If stories have been written about construction, whether it exists or not is immaterial to its notability.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As soon as a useful photograph is available that gives some idea of the nature of the building (in other words, not just the excavation).Butthis should be an addition, not replacement, until the structure is actually completed, or so substantially completed in that the exterior is essentially identical. Buildings under construction can be notable, just as other incomplete projects can be, and even plans for such a building can be notable, again as other projects. It depends on the perceived public importance of the building, as typically measured by the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the most ideal situation would be some more unambiguous, comprehensive policy from the foundation which would clear up more of these gray areas in general WRT copyright. However, in this case, insofar as a free alternative cannot be created until such time as the building is completed (enough) to do so, I think that the copyright architectural plans can be used as a stand-in under fair use. Once the building is in a state such that a real, free picture can be taken of it, the fair use claim would then go away. However, there are notable projects that are cancelled, or delayed, or not yet complete, and I think there is a compelling case in THOSE cases for using the copyrighted work, since no free equivalent could exist. --Jayron32 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the licensing resolution is particularly unclear, but you're right that it isn't very specific. I'm not sure this is a bad thing; the issue for the Foundation isn't one of legal liability (that accrues to the uploader), but content that is reusable consistent with its mission. Within the guidelines of the resolution, each project (through its EDP) is responsible for making and enforcing its own specific rules. Nathan T 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The point basically stems from whether "built visible from a public space" should be interpreted as accenting "built" of "visible from a public space". I believe that the very question exhibits the magnitude of the absurdity that the "built" interpretation entails, leading directly to a Theseus' paradox. At the very least, assuming that the "built" interpretation is retained, which seems likely, we cannot accept arguments like "let's say 25%" proposed without the slightest reason. If we do not find very good and firm reasons to believe otherwise (which I doubt we would), we would have to struggle for safety and, thus, wait until the building is fully commissioned. Rama (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: of course, this would not be a problem for countries with Freedom of Panorama. Rama (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
PPS: And I do not believe that "Fair Use" images can be used at all before that point. These images do not constitute the subject of the article, but merely depict the subject of the article. Furthermore they are not unique, but taken amongst a number of other images in port-folios, and clearly not notable for themselves. As such, they are not candidates for Fair Use. Rama (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course it should be interpreted as being "built". Otherwise they would not have used the words "has been constructed". Note past tense. –xenotalk 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop repeating your absurd belief that there must exist only 1 fair use image for it qualify for fair use. –xenotalk 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Over at Burj Dubai the image used in the info box was finally changed from a computer generated rendering to this image from Oct '08, which showed the building nearing completion and included many of the major design elements which are discussed in the article. However, in light of this discussion, the earliest I think we could have changed the image, is perhaps to this one from Nov '06; at which time around half the concrete structure had been built, and it was large enough to show at least some elements of the design and the scale of the building. As for notability, I think buildings can be notable while still at the proposal stage, particularly if the proposal is for something that might make it into the tallest/biggest lists if built and it meets the general notability requirements. Astronaut (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama has made a point worth further consideration here. The law is different in different countries - in the UK you can pretty much photograph any 3d item standing in or visible from a public place, and not breach the creator's copyright. So you could take pictures of say the Gherkin at any stage of construction that you could see from the street, or from an aeriel photo. In France, you cannot take a picture of anything for which the creator can claim a copyright, without permission of the copyright holder. It follows therefore that there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France unless the copyright holder chooses to release one. The specific exemption of US s120 appears in natural language to apply only to buildings that have a fully constructed exterior "that has been constructed" - I am not aware of any caselaw precedent for permission applying to images of buildings that are under construction. This means that the decision will depend not only on how much of the building is standing, but where in the world it is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose one could upload the images from Belmarsh. I believe they give prisoners internet access these days LOL Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"...there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France..." That's absurd. I can see it now, the French courts filled by the millions of tourists every year who have dared to photograph the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre Pyramid, the Château de Versailles, La Grande Arche de la Défense, etc... And Wikipedia would be in huge trouble with pretty much any image of a building in France. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, every single photograph of the Eiffel Tower lit at night is a copyvio under french law, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. Absurd, isn't it. To clarify the rest of the law, it does restrict itself to two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. Which probably means one is safe photographing the Paris suburbs! The issue as always with copyvio is not making the image but publishing it. In Wikipedia's case, I have no doubt there are some images of French buildings that are not free and consequently need a fair use rationale.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Each deletion needs to be reviewed, in particular their Fair-Use rationales to establish whether their claim to Fair-Use is valid. Perhaps the easiest way to do that would be to restore the images, perhaps on a temporary basis.
Images deemed to be valid fair-use should also be restored to the articles where their fair use is permitted. That will need someone to go through the log of the ImageRemovalBot (talk·contribs) and any separate image removals carried out by Rama or other editors. I am, of course, happy to do some of this. Astronaut (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. It'll need an admin though.
Of the last ten on the list, only four had plausible source data. That's six gone because having a valid source is absolutely critical and that isn't "I found it on Flickr". Two were of the same design which isn't minimal use of non-free content. That leaves three left for us to look at whether they have a valid rationale. Any that did would need to be re-uploaded in lower resolution. Seems like a complete waste of time. Anyone who really wants to use these sort of things should be begging the architects for a free image of the design. "Didn't bother to ask for a free version" is not a sound rationale for using non-free content. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Angus, my request is in the last subsection at the end of a lengthy discussion. You might be interested in reading all the gory details before dismissing my request with "Seems like a complete waste of time". Astronaut (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
IMO Rama has caused quite a mess here. While I'm sure some of these images deserved a speedy delete (no FUR, invalid FUR, no source info, no license info, etc.) I'm sure other images probably should never have been deleted and only violated Rama's own "policy". Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to reupload APPROPRIATE images and then put in with proper FURs, source info, license info, etc.? Going through each of these and restoring them, then nominating some for deletion then discussing this would be an enormous undertaking. DR04 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
TBH, I don't mind spending some time on this. I would be happy to review the FUR, source and license info that existed on the images Rama deleted. I'm just asking for some help from an Admin to temporarily restore the images so I can get started with something to work on. I'll stick {{subst:rfu}} or {{subst:dfu}} on those I feel need further discussion or should be deleted again. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which is better, but I would recommend either re-uploading yourself (find the image, put it up with a new name) or go to WP:DRV - good luck to you and I would be happy to comment on DRVs if you bring themt o my attention.
Thank you for volunteering to scrutinize these images. I have restored them, without prejudice to appropriately conducted deletion processes - such as {{subst:rfu}}. Please do the needful. –xenotalk 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Progress on my [User talk:Astronaut#Progress|talk page]]. Astronaut (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Me: You based this drawings on the architect's plans, which are copyright. Rama: More or less indirectly, yes, I do use the plans as the basis of my documentation. And per Article 120, this is permissible. You do the same thing when you photograph a building in the street, the building in a derivative of the plans, and it is copyrighted. Article 120 is all about bypassing this copyright.[78]
There seems to be no sense in which Rama is even prepared to consider for a moment that his bizarre interpretations of Wikipedia Policy or US Copyright law are wrong. If he was an editor persistently uploading content that had to be deleted, and refusing to conform to Wikipedia policies on fair use, someone would block him. Obviously, that's not what needs to happen here, but this is an admin who is speedy deleting and closing deletion discussions, and his understanding of Wikipedia policies and the underlying copyright issues is pretty much 100% wrong. What is the appropriate course of action, and who has the jurisdiction to oversee it?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my possible ignorance, but is the "real" Spire image having specific permissions being claimed as red herring that's misleading us, or is it instead icing on the cake to show we don't a free alternative? In this one case I'd even argue that the created free alternatives are dangerous, with dubious copyright nature and impossibility to claim geometric shape on a one-off building design which is continuously variable in all 3 dimensions. The solely 2-dimension profile is arguably defamation to the developer until construction. With permissions offered on the "real" and better version, why should we not use it? That doesn't happen much. Can we point to File:Freedom_Tower_New.jpg as a very precise precedent to work in conjunction with this? Both are of issue currently. The content owner even extends permission the same way. They need consistency and whichever direction should be considered a reaffirmed consensus. Worth noting that the NYC building has no evil red templates on it. If copyright and fair use are being listed and 100% accurate in any way required, why does this drag on? That means either an RfC and/or change in policy. One has to bend. ♪daTheisen(talk) 11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
daTheisen, I love you man, but do you feed all your comments thru a Babel fish :):)? You're quite right, it is better to use the architects versions which they have released on terms acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation, than to mess around trying to make our own versions which may well infringe someone's copyright. Once the building is erected, it is possible to make a free image in many countries. In countries where that may not be possible (eg France, which has no Freedom of Panorama act) we can still use a photograph of the actual building with a proper fair use disclaimer. The only person who disagrees is Rama. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this still going on? Any accurate derivative of the original drawings are unlicensed derivatives and could only be used under fair use. The only thing we could draw and upload would be a stick drawing with crayon, or some such other drawing that would not accurately represent the tower, which would make it worthless. The original rendering can be used under fair use and is preferable to a lesser-quality fair use derivative. When the tower is completed to the point that a photograph or new rendering of it would accurately convey it, then the fair use image becomes replaceable. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama hasn't changed his tack. He's still arguing on commons that his image is free and that the architect's drawing can't be used. So yes, in that sense it is still going on.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with Elen that Rama's actions are not what I would expect from an admin. Consensus on this page seems to be that he is "interpretation" of policies and laws is not consistent with the communities. And as I pointed out somewhere else - it isn't that he is uber-conservative when it comes to copyright (at first I thought he was) - he is uber-conservative when it comes to copyrighted images with proper licensing, but uber-liberal enough to basically violate copyright laws by recreating copyrighted images and call them his own. I don't really want to get involved with this, but I do wish the admin community would watch his deletions more carefully, limit his deletions or something else to ensure he doesn't force his weird policies onto everyone else. So that is all I will say. It is out of my hands. DR04 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If they continue to take admin actions based on their novel and peculiar interpretation of WP policy/guidelines & U.S. law, then I would definite say an RFC is necessary. But I would wait to see how they proceed. –xenotalk 16:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears they have already had one desysop request made on Commons [79]Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [80] is the desysop request, which was rejected as premature, although there seems to have been considerable sympathy with the person bringing it. If it becomes necessary to take further action (one always hopes it will not) then an RFC - presuming that is within process - would certainly remove the argument that the community had not had the opportunity to become involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Rollingeyez (talk·contribs) appears to be here only to make a point. I've stopped short of blocking, but I suspect this is not this editor's first time here. Does anyone recognize this pattern? Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not recognize the pattern myself, but I'd agree there seems to be an agenda there. That said, I'm inclined to think s/he has a point: how does a list section titled "examples" in Tyranny of the majority not constitute WP:OR and a POV, unless sources are given to justify the inclusion of the examples? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like a review of my blocks of Brianwazere (talk·contribs) who I blocked for edit warring on Lauren Branning: Edit war warning: [81] Reverts: [82],[83],[84],[85].
After the block, I got an uncivil and threatening email from Brianwaswere. Finding this rant on his/her talk page, I reverted, extended the block removing talk and email privileges. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No problems with the block here. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good block to me and the contents of the e-mail would probably support that if you cared to make it public (which I presume you don't?). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Emails can't be published on wiki as most often the writer hasn't explicitly released them under a compatible license. Exxolon (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thank yo... crap... What about the e-mails in this conversation? They were used as a citation barring a lack of any other source. So that AN/I doesn't get cluttered, respond on my talk page. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The block's fine (I requested the review in the first place), but going from one day to five days for complaining about the block seemed a little on the long side to me. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I support the extension to five days for the continuing disruption via threatening email, he is welcome to request unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome, but now unable, so not welcome. I think this is an overreaction. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks. I've shortened the block. Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse amended block. I hope he will (at least, make an active attempt) to be civil when he comes back or if he tries to discuss this with you again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Emergency assistance in BLP violation on the main page[edit]
Resolved
– This is off the Main page now in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident is on the main page as the featured article. According to the article, Brown was not convicted of assault. He was convicted on attempted assault. The title should be changed/moved to possibly "Micheal Brown Okinawa attempted assault incident".
This is time pressing because it is on the main page. Otherwise, a slow and careful discussion could take place. This is a possible BLP violation against Mr. Brown. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the issue here. The court found that he intended to undertake an indecent assault and happened not to succeed at it. We shouldn't be implying that he intended to attempt an indecent assault and fail at it, since he clearly didn't intend to fail at it. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
But if somebody had been found guilty of attempted murder when nobody ended up murdered, his actions would not be called a "murder incident", and if somebody had been found guilty of attempting to blow up a building when there was no explosion this would not be called an "explosion incident". -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but "murder" and "explosion" are quite specific, whereas "assault" is pretty general. I guess I'm saying that I don't have a problem with the general term "assault", even where the court found that his actions didn't meet the conditions for a specific type of assault due to his lack of success in that line. The other issue is that I like tight prose and hate needless verbosity - adding verbiage as a defensive measure doesn't seem to be needed here. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Non-admin I think I am right in saying that the concept of assault is a common law one, where the word "assault" means, essentially, an attempt to injure someone. The acutal act of injuring them is called "battery". So there is no such thing as "attempted assault", because "attempted" is implicit in "assault". In other words, if you take a swing at someone and miss, it is a successful "assault", but a failed "battery". You can check these facts if you care to.--FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that is rather persuasive, yes. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess the test of whether I am right or not would be whether a court report or similar can be found saying that someone was ever convicted of "attempted assault". I see that the matter is now resolved in any case, but when did a little trivia ever hurt anyone?--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
We may be ok as far as the main page is concerned, but I don;t think we're finished. This article really needs some discussion, probably at BLPN--the choice of vocabulary may not by NPOV, and the very detailed account of the event and the trials probably is undue weight, and might well violate BLP do no harm. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Reference to assault might be useful in this disagreement. Hopefully no one involved will then decide to rewrite that article to "win" the argument. -- llywrch (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In English law, an immediate threat of violence constitutes assault: pointing a gun at someone; shaking your fist at them, but only if you're right next to them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have the really weird notion that there is some serious socking with SPIs going on (see article-history - massive almost identical edits going back and forth), but don't want to embarrass myself by filing an investigation since it's only a gut-feeling. Can somebody have a look? Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing embarrasing about filing a good-faith SPI, even if it turns out that no socking is taking place. I've had an e-mail about this article from another editor, but can't look into it until later today. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've had a message from Presstvwiki (talk·contribs) (let's leave the username issue alone for now) re the article. Editor claims to be an employee of Press TV and would have a COI if they edited the article. I've given him a bit of guidance re how the company can get libellous material removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If you've been following ANI you may recall that on Dec 11th, Andrea105 taunted and provoked Malleus Fautuorum, including an edit war on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum.
In retrospect this was clearly an intentional and successful troll of Malleus (and the Administrators, and many others). It is highly annoying that John254 chose to do that to a productive user who has a history of abuse sanctions, apparently trying to goad them into getting sanctioned again.
Please keep an eye out for repeat performances. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I had thought she(?) seemed a bit too knowledgable. I just presumed she'd been an IP for some time. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
More eyes requested, thanks.— DædαlusContribs 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Now, thats just weird. That's very similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme and although the one you have listed here has a great deal of input, the one I listed is languishing with almost no input. What is different in the two instances? What dynamic am I missing? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
These quotations under reference 1 as "unattributed" don't come up in a Wikipedia search as being anywhere but at that page. Thus, invented, somehow brought here before being deleted, or as memories of another account as deleted edits. Highly leaning at that last option. Could well be a classic puppet "good hand bad hand" case. Although Drolz09 was created nearly 2 years ago, it's only been active since the whole climate change email bit started. Those quotations and ANIs and all the other junk saved in there might have some meaning or way to tie in to another user. Since Drolz09 was posting at ANI as soon as becoming active, highly suspicious sock. I'll research it. ♪daTheisen(talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: The aboutme was put up for CSD G6(?) without notification to the user. I objected with a hangon, only to realize you can't use hangon on talk pages even if it's about a talk page. Put text in a generic notice box. Again, I'm just speaking as a procedural angle or CSD category. Suggest it be looked over and removed if appropriate. I figured ANI incidents were trumped by a CSD tag, thus I wouldn't have removed it under any circumstances without more opinion. ♪daTheisen(talk) 02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
hangon and text removed. I usually self-impose a "virtual wheel warring" block on any template placing in general. Anyway, I'm going to keep digging into the GHBH puppet. That would end all the separate incident reports at once. ♪daTheisen(talk) 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever else I may be, I'm nobody's puppet; I don't suppose you've any reason to take me at my word on that, but if you do you might save yourself some time. Drolz09 11:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That's what they all say. When an SPI is filed, the opinion of those accused is never a deciding factor in the case, unless they admit to wrongdoing.— DædαlusContribs 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is reasonable. But I doubt there is much evidence of my being a puppet in any event. Drolz09 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please make the necessary revert at Music of Final Fantasy VIII. I am sick to death of this rubbish already. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
An alternative solution occurred to me. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. You have restored my faith in Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have put my recommendation on the article talk page. It's not what you want, nor is it what the other person wants. But it might be the start of a consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't really see what that has to do with anything at all. The issue is nothing to do with copyright law, and the size of the image doesn't matter with regards to whether it can be used in that context... J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The image has been reuploaded, and has been added back to the article, along with another. Could someone please do something? J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Move/continue discussion to Talk:Music of Final Fantasy VIII please. This is more of an editorial issue and a policy-interpretation issue than a disruptive-editor issue. Several 3rd eyes would be very helpful in crafting a solution that meets both policy requirements and, if possible, consensus of all editors. Help is also needed in deciphering areas where policy lends itself to interpretation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected link to talk page davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Diplomacy is nice, but there really isn't any need for discussion here. Neither of those images should be in the article as it currently stands. How about I make it a behavioural dispute? Will that stop this bureaucracy? J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a policy which the foundation endorsed and said could not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored". You came to my talk page and spouted off about rubbish which has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with guidelines and pseudo-policies which "circumvented, eroded, or ignored" real policy. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a rationale for using this non-free content which met policy. It's just cut and paste boilerplated word salad and that was supposed to have been killed off more than two years ago. What is there to discuss? Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To all parties: If you want to continue this discussion with me, please do so on the article talk page, my talk page, email, or on your talk page, with notification to me on my talk page or by email. This is not the place any more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So you've said. You've also made it quite clear that it's legitimate for album covers to be in the article. You've proved my worst fears about these bloody noticeboards... J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Correction I have taken the article and the song-cover image off my watchlist - too much potential for this to drag on and on and I've run out of ways I can help solve the situation amicably. If you need me, give me a heads-up on my talk page or by email. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved
– As requested Tedder withdrew from the dispute, page protection was taken over by an uninvolved admin. Actions have been thoroughly reviewed. RichFarmbrough, 08:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC).
At Scientific opinion on climate change, User:Tedder reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 [86] which resulted in a warning. I don't think Tedder should have been blocked (as I said) but he should withdraw the protection and withdraw from the dispute: he has become involved.
He should either remove the protection or the tag, he can't have both. Unfortunately, he should be considered involved now. Verbalchat 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Tedder is involved. Being involved in a content dispute, violating WP:3RR and then protecting the page to his preferred version is not appropriate. Since he has become involved I would suggest the page be unprotected to the last version since his protecting and Tedder asked to not take administrative actions on this article. Basket of Puppies 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Contrary to his assertion on AN3 that he had not commented on the article,[87] his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position.[88] He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it,[89][90][91][92] and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version.[93] in blatant violation of the protection policy. -Atmoz (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not one of these diffs relates to anything but the war over the POV tag, which he originally mediated by blocking those who were adding the tag last week. The tag was removed, and a week later the dispute has not been resolve, so GoRight asked for the tag to be added from the same admin who enforced its removal. When he tried to do that, the other side edit-warred. Instead of blocking them (which he had every right to do), he reverted in the hopes that they would stop. They didn't and then they reported him for 3RR. Verbal and WMC should be blocked for warring with an uninvolved admin, just as GoRight was blocked last week. These games have to stop on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me. Tedder took a position on whether the POV tag should be in the article. He then edit warred to keep it in the article. Then locked the page in his preferred version. These are the facts, and they are not disputed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder's previous position was the opposite of his current position! He blocked those adding the tag last week, and when the dispute wasn't resolved, he decided it would be best to add it back in. He has never (as far as I can tell) been involved on the GW pages, and he only came here because of the edit war on the POV tag which was ongoing. That's not involved, that's following up on the dispute. By that logic, any admin who ever protects an article is banned from protecting it ever again. ATren (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No. At that point, Tedder stated he would block anyone for adding or removing the tag. Less than 24 hours ago, he changed his position to endorse the addition of the tag.[94]That was when he ceased being uninvolved. If he was truly uninvolved, he would not have done any reverting but would have simply protected the page on the WRONG version. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, please review the diffs. Tedder reverted the first time as well when he blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5. In that case, of course, he reverted to your preferred version. So did you consider that an involved block? Because by your definition above, it was. Yet even though Tedder was "involved" back on Dec. 2, WMC saw fit to request more admin action from Tedder against ZuluPapa5. Why would he seek admin action on Dec. 2 if he was involved? Apparently, WMC didn't think he was involved on Dec. 2. It was only today, when Tedder took the exact same action against WMC's side of the debate did WMC suddenly cry "involvement". Sounds like admin involvement is a sliding scale for WMC. ATren (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder has not been involved on that page. There has been an ongoing dispute on that page for maybe a week now, and Tedder never made a single contribution to that debate. As the debate went on, the two sides were warring over the tag as discussion continued on talk. Tedder blocked two editors on one side of the debate and the POV-tag war ended, temporarily. But the dispute remained.
Fast forward to yesterday, when GoRight asked to add the tag back after a week of no progress in the dispute. Tedder agreed. The other side (Verbal & WMC) reverted him a total of 4 times. Tedder probably should have protected the page, but he has said he didn't believe those editors would revert-war on that tag. He's obviously new to the global warming debate, since this kind of edit warring is common among 3 or 4 editors on the pro-GW side.
In any case, the dispute is ongoing, and Tedder's argument was that the POV tag should remain until it goes through dispute resolution. I have been following the GW pages for a year now, and I've never seen Tedder on any of these pages. His only involvement was last week, when he blocked editors on the other side of the debate. ATren (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Note WMC's comment on Tedder's level of participation in the debate, [95]. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. Edit warring the tag in was wrong, sure, we all see that; there is an active meta-dispute and if we can resolve that quickly - great. There is plenty of talkpage discussion, so I really could not care less whether we let the tag abide for four days or remove it now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not "four days." GoRight's stated intent (in which Tedder apparently concurs) is to keep the article tagged until all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, up to and including an Arbcom case. That means the tag could stay up for six months or more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And why is that a problem? ATren (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was pointing out an error in the previous post, and did not state or imply that it was a "problem." You may want to consider not imputing things to people that they did not actually say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, my apologies for misinterpreting. So, to be clear, is it not a problem for you then? ATren (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Four days is the length of the protection. It should also be plenty of time to determine whether the current tagging is an effort at genuine discussion or IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I must have misinterpreted what "let the tag abide for four days" referred to. Apologies for adding to the confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I was unclear. On an unrelated note - has this thread been completely derailed from something AN/I can deal with? Four hours and a scant handful of uninvolved editors seems a little light, but I am tempted to ask that it be closed anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy. My only involvement on this page has been to stop the edit warring that has been occurring over the {{POV}} tag after it was reported 10 days ago to WP:RFPP. My first involvement was to set up some ground rules to keep the POV tag from being inserted as that seemed the right thing to do [96]. I protected the page, blocked a few users who edit warred after my talkpage rule.
As ATren says, I decided the POV tag should be included when GoRight posted to my talk page, as the POV "issues" hadn't been resolved. I told GoRight to include it, then I re-added it after it was removed by various editors. I specifically didn't ask GoRight or others to undo these removals as the intent was to not have this turn into an editor-based edit war again. My edit summaries on the additions made this pretty clear: "unexplained removal of maint tag" after a SPA, likely "bad hand" account added it, " leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page." after WMC removed it, "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." after Verbal removed it, "as I said, don't edit war over this tag. See endless discussions on talk page." after Verbal removed it the second time.
I've purposefully tried not to be involved in this article, and I've repeatedly suggested it go through the steps on WP:DR, likely WP:MEDCAB. Hopefully this discussion will at least spur some interest from other admins, hopefully some that are better at untangling and resolving these sort of issues. I've given it the best effort I am capable of doing with my adminly hat on. tedder (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Without accusing either principal editor involved in this section, I would very much like to ask for more administrative eyes on the whole nexus of global warming/climate change/IPCC articles. Since the email disclosure incident, the onwiki climate has seriously deteriorated to the point where it's headed for WP:PLAGUE territory, with editors acting on the principle that things are right or wrong according to the effect that rightness or wrongness would have on their political beliefs, and judging other editors as culpable or blameless according to the advantage they perceive for some editorial side. Neutral intervention is very much needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
What is purpose of POV tag there anyway? The scientific opinion on climate change is pretty clear. It is also clear that GoRight and a few others disagree with the scientific opinion. But unless you can argue that the article on the scientific opinion misrepresents this scientific opinion in some way, giving the wrong weight to some POVs, then the POV tag shouldn't be there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
This is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute, as has been made clear. No one is disputing the scientific opinion or even how it is described. That is a red herring of the first order. The dispute over the neutrality of that page is, in essence but not limited to, the fact that there are public controversies related to that scientific opinion. The public controversies are being blocked from the page by mischaracterizing our arguments as we see here. If there are controveries about topic X those controversies are customarily described on the same page that describes topic X. This is clearly self-evident but our opponents simply continue to not hear that. This is the fundamental source of the issue and the reason that this issue was not resolved long ago. I made a good faith proposal, the others ignored it for days, so when I pointed out to Tedder that I can't resolve the dispute if the others refuse to participate he agreed to let me finally put up the POV template.
"What is purpose of POV tag there anyway?" asks Count Iblis. Well if one reads what it says and follows up further to read the essay it directs the reader to, its purpose is merely to alert the reader to an ongoing dispute. It does NOT indicate that the article is NOT neutral, only that someone is claiming that it is not neutral. As the template itself states, it should be left up until the dispute is resolved. That's all we are asking, leave it up until the dispute is resolved. This seems perfectly in line with the letter and the spirit of the tag and its associated essay, yet these editors continue to edit war against its inclusion when there CLEARLY IS a dispute.
I was reluctant to bring this issue here myself, see [97] and [98], because it appears to be a garden variety content dispute, although the use of the POV template and attacks on Tedder are an entirely different matter.
So I ask the independent editors here, what is the purpose of the POV template if not for these exact situations? When is it appropropriate to put the POV template up on a page? What are the community customs and norms in this respect? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This review is an unnecessary escalations, I originally placed the tag, it should reasonably remain on during a dispute. Any admin can review the page and see a valid dispute progressing. The principal complainant has brought their edit war here and I pray for reasonable oversight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the neutrality of the article disputed because people have sourced information suggesting there is no scientific consensus, or is the neutrality disputed because people disagree with global warming? The first is an issue that the tag would be appropriate for, the second is not. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither, at least in my case. The neutrality is being challenged because discussion of public controversies specifically centered on the "scientific consensus" are being systematically blocked despite long standing norms on Wikipedia to include such discussions on the pages where the topic in question is described. We all know that the "scientific opinion/consensus" is controversial in the public domain yet we are blocked from using WP:RS to describe that controversy. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the main issue is that GoRight wants to change the long-standing scope of the article. For a long time (at least a couple of years), the article has restricted itself to statements by academies of science and other bodies of national or international standing. GoRight wants the scope of the article to be altered so that it includes most any individual or organization with a verifiable opinion on whether a consensus exists (e.g., "public controversies" about the existence of a consensus, etc. as he says above). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC
(edit conflict)If such is the case, then said change in scope is inappropriate. If there exist overviews of scientific thought on the matter, then they outweigh individual reports, as including those reports would be OR by synthesis. Grabbing a few scattered reports and deriving statisistics regarding consensus is exactly what the creators of the large reports did, except on a much larger scale and without prejudice to individual POVs. Thus the official reports are more valid than an attempt at sysnthesis of a few reports by an individual editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Red herring. This is not what the dispute is about. --GoRight (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So, do you agree that there is a disagreement on the content of the article, one which hasn't been resolved? ATren (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Simply disagreeing is not enough. You must provide sources that outweigh the sources already included. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter of comparing sources because the content is being completely blocked. There are no public controversies discussed on that page. I guess by default that means any WP:RS discussing the controversy automatically trumps the empty set. --GoRight (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not necessarily a change in scope, as evidenced by the fact that Scientific consensus on global warming redirects to that page. If that page is not about the consensus, then as I said in my proposal the discussion on that page of consensus should be moved to the overlapping and competing article Climate change consensus and the redirect should be updated accordingly. If that page wants to discuss ONLY an articulation of the "scientific opinion" as documented by the statements of the academies I don't actually object, but then people should not be directed there either by redirects such as the one above, nor should it include any discussion of the issue of "consensus" as that would be out of scope. My position is simple. If an article is prominently utilized to represent the "consensus" as evidenced by redirects and wikilinks to that effect then THAT is where the controversies related to the consensus should be addressed. This is the long-standing custom for how to address controversies on wikipedia and this article should not be an exception. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, how about leaving the disputes at the talk page for the article, and talk about the admin-level needs/admonishments here? tedder (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
A fine suggestion but I still wish to have an answer to my questions about when it is appropriate to use the POV tag based on community norms as articulated by the independent voices here. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is certainly valid, but AN/I isn't the proper forum for it. The purpose here is to request admin intervention regarding a particular incident, not discuss wikipedia policies. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I want to report an incident at Scientific opinion on climate change where WP:NPOV is being violated and it needs to be stopped. Can you please insure that the POV template remains on that page until such time as the on-going dispute there is resolved? --GoRight (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Community norms for placing the POV tag on an article[edit]
What are they? Can uninvolved administrators please indicate their opinion below: --GoRight (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Administrators' opinions carry no special weight versus any other editor. You do not require administrative services; you appear to have a content dispute. Please choose from the dispute resolution menu, perhaps third opinion or mediation. JehochmanTalk 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This is as I thought, see my comment [99]. Please note that we were attempting to do as you suggest, [100], when the process was disrupted by WMC and Verbal. Please block them for edit waring after they were clearly warned not to and for disruption so that we can return to the task at hand. 55 hours seems to be the going time frame for this particular offense. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You are best advised to take your discussion to one of the forums mentioned. There does not appear to be consensus that an actionable offense occurred. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it ok for admins to edit war to a version of an article they like, then protect that version? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks so, doesn't it? The question I'm trying to figure out is whether Tedder has acknowledged what he did wrong here. Guettarda (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder's reply to the 3RR report seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms. They seem to be working through the RFPP board right now, so make of that what you may. My position, basically, is that we need more admins working in controversial areas, and should try not to excoriate the ones we have without dire cause; I acknowledge the seriousness of the principle involved, but I still see this as a minor incident not like to be repeated; I further acknowledge that I have something of a vested interest in hoping that the community may forgive but not overlook any mistakes I will probably make working the same area. tedder was clearly not involved at that article before today; there are reasonable arguments on either side for involvement status after having expressed an opinion on whether the talkpage debate warranted an {{NPOV}} tag; I really wish that the sides of the present debate did not align so neatly with the battle lines drawn in the topic area of climate change generally. Personally, I lean towards the revert, admonish, and move on solution ({{resolved}}?); I advise against lifting the protection just yet unless there is an enforceable consensus here regarding the tag. Other not necessarily exclusive reasonable resolutions to this thread include: admonish but leave the tag; request that tedder not use the admin bit on that article; request that tedder not use the admin bit in that topic area or with those editors (to be defined more rigorously if necessary); and request that WP:WikiProject Meteorology or WP:WikiProject Environment open a discussion on the organization of these articles (see Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for the antecedent of these). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, the POV tag is useful for articles that have only a few regular editors. In these cases, it draws the attention of other editors to possible problems. In the case of the many Global Warming articles and their related BLP's, there are already enough people representing many different points of view. There is really no need to advertise for more editors to get involved. On the other hand, it make sense to place some kind of indicator at the top of the articles to warn readers that these pages are very controversial. I believe that Template:Controversial would be appropriate for that. A better solution might be to create a special GlobalWarming template for these articles, in that way we could agree on less generic text AND provide a link to a page discussing the problems of producing a balanced NPOV article. (Yes, I am suggesting that it is time to have an article about the problems of creating good Global Warming articles. It may be OR, but it could be useful to people using wikipedia.) Q Science (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I think Controversial is a better template for this particular article than NPOV. That being said, I suggest we wait until some outcome to the current discussion is apparent before changing it, to avoid further muddying the waters. One issue at a time seems best here. As for the essay, that sounds like a great idea. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that {{Controversial}} is intended to be used on an articletalk page. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Originally posted to Tedder's talk page, but he has requested I post it here where I presume he will answer: Tedder, "As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks," Verbalchat 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Errr ... isn't that what this thread was supposed to do? 131.137.245.206 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No, this thread was designed so that the ususual suspects could argue about global warming. Actually adressing adminstrative misconduct was not the goal here, regardless of the fact that that waas the expressed goal. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the protection at Tedder's request. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Tedder to make the block himself, there was an edit war occurring, and there is still a lot of debate on the talk page, so I won't be undoing the protection. I also won't be getting involved in the dispute, so the wrong version will continue to stand as the protected version, and I will monotor for further edit warring after protection expires. You can more or less consider me the protecting admin at this point, as Tedder indicated to me on my talk page that he would not be taking any further action in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You declined to adress if Tedders actions were appropriate. Regardless of results, it was my understand that users were not to edit war, that admins were not supposed to protect favored versions, that admins were not supposed to protect articles they were involved in, and that admins were not granted the power to "bless" tags. Were my understandings incorrect? If they were, we need to update a few pages. I'll get right on that, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As you said, I declined to address those issues. I am not endorsing or condemming Tedder's actions or getting involved in this dispute. I was asked as an uninvolved person who regularly deals with page protection to simply review the protection and take whatever action I thought best, and that is what I have done, and all I will be doing. I think we can assume Tedder has got the message after all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The edit war was a direct result of Tedder's actions. He has yet to acknowledge any wrong doing, and the incorrect and justified result of his edit warring that he forced on the rest of us in violation of 3RR and WP:PROTECT, and without any discussion, despite prior notice, is still in place. I have placed an edit protect request to get the tag removed. I don't think we can assume all admins get the message, especially without Tedder saying he has got the message, we need a clear statement that this is not appropriate. Either he admits his mistake or is told with community authority that this should not happen again (no block, etc needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Verbal and his allies were warring long before Tedder came to the article - and Tedder arrived there as an admin responding to a noticeboard request. The insinuation that the edit war was a "direct result" of Tedder is completely wrong. ATren (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please check my contribution history to that article, and their is no cabal. I have not editwarred. Do you dispute the fact that Tedder broke editor and admin rules with his action? Verbalchat 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Please check my contribution history to that article ... I have not editwarred." - OK, [101] and [102] --GoRight (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If your implication is that two edits ever constitute edit warring, despite my asking Tedder to justify his action on the talk page which he explicitly refused to do, while he went to 4 reverts in 24 hours, after warning, and then protected his preferred version, then please feel free to report me to WP:AN3. However, I feel it will quickly be closed as frivolous. However, you several times pleaded for Tedder to edit the page as a proxy for you, which he then did. Do you acknowledge that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT? Verbalchat 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"If your implication is that two edits ever constitute edit warring ..." - Apparently I was unclear, so let me clear things up. I am not implying, I am outright stating that both of those reverts were edit warring and blockable offenses, especially after this was prominent placed on the talk page. And even if I give you the first one, the second clearly was after you got the following edit summary in response to your first: "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"However, you several times pleaded for Tedder to edit the page as a proxy for you, which he then did." - This is a lie, pure an simple. Tedder was never acting as my proxy.
"Do you acknowledge that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT?" - What I acknowledge, but you apparently refuse to do yourself, is that the 3RR was raised and reviewed at AN3 by independent administrators, and that the PROTECT has now been reviewed by BB, also an independent administrator. Any corrective actions deemed necessary as a result of EITHER of those reviews has already been addressed. It's history, get over it. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This is just a continuation of a pattern of behavior on User:Tedder's behalf, as seen by his similar actions regarding the dispute at Crucifixion in art.Yzak Jule (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that Tedder said above FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) . Thus is false. Tedder only asked for the protection to be reviewed. The admin he asked has specifically declined several requests to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I struck "tagging" per your request. That wasn't my intent. tedder (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
*Why* don't you want an admin to review your tagging? that is, after all, the controversial bit. Please invite an admin to review the tagging, just as you invited an admin to review the prot William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I invite (present tense) any admins to review my protection and tagging. I invited (past tense) an uninvolved admin to review my protection, as this admin spends time doing protection. tedder (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder, I invite you to review your own tagging of this article, and justify why it wasn't a clear violation of 3RR and PROTECT. Verbalchat 23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not adequate. You managed to find someone to review the prot; this is good. That same admin refuses to review the tag; you should *invite* a *specific* admin to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting that Tedder has noted The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling[103]. I agree - it is telling. Where are the Admins who agree that Tedders tagging, let alone his breaking 3RR, were correct? Please speak up folks! William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As is made clear in the above section, Tedder is only willing for his protection to be reviewed. However, most do not object to the protection. What is objected to is the editwarring engaged in by Tedder, who then protected the page so that it is stuck at his preferred version - despite being against the consensus, not being supported on the talk page, Tedder not engaging in discussion, and Tedder being warned that he was violating the 3RR. Tedder violated both 3RR and PROTECT, and has not admitted any wrong doing and has only "invited" review of the uncontroversial aspect of his behaviour. His only talk page response is to point people to this derailed ANI thread. What action needs to be taken? The POV tag should be removed to show that edit warring is not tolerated and that violation of WP:PROTECT and WP:WRONG will not be sanctioned. In addition, Tedder and admins in general need to be made aware that this is not acceptable behaviour in any forum, let alone such a controversial area where consensus is clearly against the action being forced. Verbalchat 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Tedder is imo a very good admin and editor. Looking at it from a technical point of view it does look a little bit like he got carried away, There is currently a lot of tension around the wikipedia regarding the climate change issue. I would say that there isn't a contentious disputed article on the wiki that you couldn't happily put a npov tag on, so why not just leave it there, to me it just says to the uninvolved that wikipedian editors are divided about some of the content in the article. perhaps it would be better if Tedder agreed not to act as an Admin on that article in future.Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Tedder is a good admin too. What is needed is a clear statement that this was wrong and should not happen again, and this can be achieved either by an acknowledgement by Tedder or a reversal of the disputed and unsupported action, with a note that it was improper. Verbalchat 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is needed at all, the article has a tag and clearly the content is disputed and there is agreement that it needed protection, we are none of us perfect Verbal, really this is excessive commentary over a minor issue. The issue was at 3RR and only a comment there and now it is here and there is no support for all this drama here either. Quality editors should not be hounded for the occasional misjudgment..if that was the situation we would all be in trouble wouldn't we. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This issue is not minor, unless you are saying that 3RR and PROTECT are minor? If we make a mistake we should be told and admit to it if we are clearly in error. Verbalchat 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(e.c.) The level of grandstanding here by Verbal and WMC is astounding. Tedder's only previous involvement with this debate was to sanction the editors on the other side a week earlier while changing the tag -- the exact same action he took here against WMC and Verbal. Yet, after that previous apparent transgression went his way, WMC was so impressed with Tedder's actions that he requested that Tedder take it one step further and institute a topic ban.
So, to review: Tedder arrives to this toxic debate as an uninvolved on Dec. 2. His action is to change the tag and block two editors. WMC is fine with this result and asks for more admin action. One week later, Tedder (having no involvement in the interim) sees that the dispute is ongoing, so he changes the tag back and protects the article after others edit-warred -- basically the same thing he did the previous week. The only difference is, this time WMC and Verbal didn't get their way. So all of a sudden, an action which one week earlier was commendable when taken against the other side, is now so controversial that it has triggered long, contentious discussions on at least three pages.
In fact, there was yet another difference here: Tedder blocked those in the initial conflict, but he chose page protection in the latter -- in effect, sparing WMC and Verbal a block. If he had done the exact same thing he did one week earlier to the other side, WMC and Verbal would have been blocked too. So, in effect, WMC and Verbal are raising all this fuss even though they got better treatment than the opposing editors did one week earlier.
There is irony, there is delicious irony, and then there is Wikipedia. ATren (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This "review" misrepresents the facts. Do you dispute that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT policy? If I was edit warring I should be blocked, however I didn't and wasn't. Tedder, on the other hand, clearly broke 3RR. Please don't pretend anyone was doing me a favour. Verbalchat 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Haven't BOTH the 3RR and the protection now been reviewed by independent administrators? Why are you still talking about this? Please, put down the stick ... --GoRight (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No, only the protection has been reviewed. The reviewing editor was quite clear about this. There has been clear admin abuse of tools and this has yet to be addressed or admitted (either would resolve this in my opinion). Verbalchat 16:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
[104] is NOT a review of the 3RR in your mind? --GoRight (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling[edit]
As Tedder put it [105]. So, to put a nice quick close in place - can we have a couple of admins come and OK Tedders breaking 3RR to insert the tag and then protect the article? Once we've got that, I'll shut up. Otherwise, this looks like the blue wall of silence because people don't want to embarass a well-respected admin William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope admins aren't avoiding commenting because they'll hurt my feelings or that I'm respected. My guess is that admins aren't commenting because it's a combination of a minor issue and they don't want to get dragged into the drama- look at the article talk page, my talk page, beeblebrox's talk page, and this ANI thread for proof of that. See MastCell's ELcomment, among other comments in this thread. tedder (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could help by responding to my query above, and giving us a review and justification of your own actions? I hope you asked MastCell before invoking him in support of your thesis. Note that the actions that created this "drama" were yours. Verbalchat 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
See ATren's comment dated "18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)" for a decent review. The drama existed before I got involved in the article for the article through the RFPP process. tedder (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, that doesn't answer my question regarding 3RR and PROTECT and your violations of these policies. Secondly, ATren's review contains contains factual inaccuracies and clear POV (for example, I have not edit warred ever in this topic area, have barely been involved, and wasn't involved in this article until your edit warring). Please review your actions in light of 3RR and PROTECT, and the clear factual inaccuracies of ATren's statement. Verbalchat 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, there are better ways I could have handled it. I certainly didn't see any complaints when the original proclamation was up to keep the POV tag off and blocked GoRight (and others) for not following my rule against editwarring on the tag. I didn't see any complaints when I decided not to block WMC for ignoring that rule. I'm not going to get sucked the climate change drama any further- that includes declining your request to write up a TLDR justification for this.
To all- I'm done. Don't bring this to my talk page further, don't imply it's my responsibility to drag other admins into this, leave innocent admins like Beeblebrox alone. Keep it in this ANI thread or escalate if you feel it's necessary. But I'm not going to keep playing this game. tedder (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Verbal, if he had been consistent with his previous actions on that page -- actions which WMC endorsed -- both you and WMC would have been blocked well before it came to 3RR. Instead, he gave you 3 extra chances to comply, chances that he didn't give to GoRight on 12/2, and in thanks he gets lambasted by the two of you here.
In fact, WMC has promised to war on the tag again as soon as protection is removed, see this: "Without prot, there is no need to say "remove the NPOV tag". We'd just remove it." The "we" referred to here is WMC, Verbal, and the other 4 or 5 editors who own the GW articles. The use of "we" in this statement is telling, since it implies that WMC and his allies will edit war in tandem (as they've done previously) in order to get their way without crossing 3RR. That is exactly what happened in this particular case, when the uninvolved Tedder tried to stop the war and WMC/Verbal teamed up to stop him. Tedder should have blocked WMC and Verbal immediately. ATren (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it is WMC's case with the tags [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], that should be under review here. This long ANI thread is testimonial to tenacious tag wars, with little care for folks to properly deliberate. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I would not have been blocked as I acted correctly. If Tedder had blocked me then it would have been quickly overturned, as it would have been a clear further abuse of admin tools (blocking someone you are in an active dispute with, especially after he had broken 3RR). It would have ended much worse for Tedder, so I hope we can lay that hypothetical to rest. The tag will likely be reoved as consensus is against it and it has not been justified. What we have here is clear abuse of admin tools, and the admin doing all he can to deflect attention away from his own abuse. Verbalchat 11:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Then why did you not complain when Tedder blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5, in the exact same situation, one week earlier? What's good for the GWoose is not good for the GWander? ATren (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't involved then. If you know of other relevant admin abuse please bring it here. Verbalchat 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Please quit being silly. Perhaps Tedder made an error in judgement, but that's all. There's been little admin comment because nobody sees any need to do anything requiring admin tools, and nobody wants to read this whole absurdly long debate over one tiny action. Mistakes happen, the world is an imperfect place full of imperfect people. This whole subsection smells of sour grapes. Please, everyone remove your capes and masks and descend back to ground level. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Please quit being silly" is a great response. Did Tedder break both 3RR and PROTECT or not? He clearly did. Has he been warned not to do this again, or a general statement made that this is not acceptable? Not yet. It needs to be made. Verbalchat 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Motion to simply consider this matter closed[edit]
Shall we simply consider the matter closed at this point? --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing to be gained from prolonging this. I'm convinced Tedder meant well though he could have handled things better. He isn't the first admin to have been led down the primrose path by GoRight, and unfortunately he probably won't be the last. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was Verbal and WMC who baited him into this, not GoRight. ATren (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Even though I started a new section below, I support close. But if it mustgo on, I've expanded the discussion below to examine WMC's actions here. ATren (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Boy, this crowd sure like the polling. The fact that Tedder backed away from this issue and asked for another admin to review his actions is a clear enough indication to me. What is to be accomplished by continuing to debate what is essentially a dead issue? There do not seem to be any admins willing to block Tedder over this, and I don't see any need for further admin actions in this matter. If you think there is a pattern here, and you can actually get the evidence together to quantify that position, then a user conduct RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, this is just flogging a dead horse Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder protected it for a few days, not weeks, months etc. his protection was reviewed and upheld. Time to relax a bit and keep everything in perspective. It is a shame that the involved editors saw fit to edit war over the tag rather than engage in discussion. Unomi (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's also absurd for someone to argue that tedder somehow created this issue. What he did should be avoided, but if you want to yell at him, first yell at all the editors who caused admin intervention to be necessary in the first place. Enigmamsg 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that Tedder took the right action in asking for admin review. He has obviously learned whatever lesson there is to take from this without any official warning. Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
I still think a review of Tedder's conduct is necessary.Yzak Jule (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Tedder refuses to realise that he cannot break 3RR and PROTECT at whim, without justification. He was warned before so this was not a mistake. He edit warred the tag, and reverted to his preferred version before protecting the page. Both against the rules, and an abuse of admin tools. He refuses to justify his actions, which is against admin guidelines. He has endorsed a clearly untrue "review" of events (I was not involved there until GoRight tried to recruit Tedder as a meatpuppet). Tedder's conduct started off bad, and has gotten worse. Admins are not above the rules. Verbalchat 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering when you would escalate your rhetoric from merely referring to Tedder as a "proxy", now you are calling him a full blown meat puppet. I think you should apologize for that as it is clearly uncivil. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: per Tedder. The lack of admin commnet on this issue is deafening. All we need to close this is a couple of admins to step up and say "yes, Tedder was right to break 3RR and then protect his version". How can it be that such a simple and (according to Tedder, GR, etc) obviously correct statement finds absolutely zero admin support? A second mystery is why Tedder is able to ask an admin to review the prot but for some reason unable to find anyone to review the tagging. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
WMC: your assertion is that Tedder "protected his version", which is essentially a violation of the rule forbidding admins to advance their position in a dispute, correct? If so, then why did you not report Tedder on 12/2, when he removed the POV tagand then blocked the two editors who were adding it? Isn't that the exact same violation? ATren (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As Tedder hadn't violated WP:3RR in that instance, and didn't revert and then protect while editwarring. I hope you don't mind my answering. Verbalchat 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, so the infinitesimally thin line between great admin action and sanction worthy of a 3-pages long AN/I thread is that in the first case he blocked the users before their continued tag-team edit warring pushed him over 3RR, whereas in the second case he gave you and WMC more chances to comply? Is there any other distinction I am missing? ATren (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Verbal. Also, in that case Tedder gave a warning first and GoRight violated that warning by putting the POV tag back on the article. Another thing is that the POV issue was and is under discussion (and Tedder demanded that we discuss the POV related issues). So you don't then need a POV tag. You also have to consider the fact that there exists many Global Warming related pages on wikipedia. There exists a lot of room for sceptical editors to write about issues they care about here on Wikipedia, e.g. in the Global Warming Controversy page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "Another thing is that the POV issue was and is under discussion... So you don't then need a POV tag." - from WP:NPOVD: "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."
I stand by my original point: the only difference between this action and that taken 12/2 against the other side, is that Tedder gave WMC and Verbal more chances to comply.ATren (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
To correct ATren again, I was not involved at that juncture and had no horse in that race. Whatever happened then is irrelevant to the issue now, which is Tedder violating 3RR and PROTECT. Note it has nothing to do with the content of the page. Also, warning by edit summary is not acceptable, and I had asked Tedder to justify the tag on his talk page and warned him about 3RR. The POV tag has still not been justified on the talk page, where the only dispute in evidence is the dispute of tag. The point of this discussion is to address the admin abuse of tools. If you think Tedder abused his tools in the past as well, that would be worthy of discussion here. Verbalchat 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, the question was directed at WMC, who WAS involved then. You took it upon yourself to intervene. I'm still waiting for WMC to respond. ATren (talk)
Tedder broke 3RR to edit-war his preferred version back in before protecting. This is the obvious difference, as ATren already knows - this section is entirely pointless. If ATren's bizarre alternate-reality version of events was correct, there would be admins signing up to the "yes of course Tedder was correct, close this thread" option. Instead we have people signing up to the "this is all too embarassing and Tedder is never going to admit error" close William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I think the take home message here is to simply block verbal and WMC when they start editwarring over tags. Fwiw I don't see the silence as censure of Tedder, but more as a sign that no one wants to get involved in the thespian antics of a select few who seem to have (hopefully only temporarily) chosen histrionics over constructive debate. Keep calm and carry on. Unomi (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to report me for editwarring, but as I have only ever edited the article twice and attempted discussion with the editwarring editor I will not face any sanction. Calling for bans is hardly "keeping calm and carrying on"Verbalchat 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If WMC's bizarre alternate-reality version of events was correct, there would be admins signing up to the "Tedder was wrong and should be punished" option. Obviously they aren't. --GoRight (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: WMC should be under closer edit war review. Seems to escalate issues with no remorse. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: based on the proposals, including the one below, I think the matter is more well-suited for RfC/U rather than ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: In this case Tedder probably should have known better to revert 4 times AND protect the page immediately after the 4th revert. Whether it warrants RfC/U, though, I'm not sure. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder was in fact admnonished for the 3rr violation. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Tedder broke both WP:3RR and WP:PROTECT by restoring the tag and protecting the version he had reverted to, without engaging in any discussion or justification on the talk page and despite a 3RR warning.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Geocities is now closed. I searched this site for geocities.com and found what must be hundreds of dead links. Could somebody run a bot to remove them? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That's totally not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Linkrot. We could use archive.org for example, even though I cannot think of a single Geocities site that could be a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of heaving dead links? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If you use archive.org, they may not be dead links. The Wayback Machine (as it's called) has archive copies of webpages you can link to, long after the originals have been taken down. PDF copies of old documents, for instance, that might now be found nowhere else on the Web. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of my favorite Javascript bookmarklets; add it to your toolbar and use it while you're looking at a "dead" link: javascript:void(location.href='http://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href) Label it WayBack! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed at length on various Wikipedia pages. Can anyone find a link to the latest views? Will Bebacktalk 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest views of what, Will? The latest archive.org copies of any given page? Precede the dead-link URL with http://web.archive.org/web/*/ (which is what the above bookmarklet does), and that takes you to a list of all the saved pages archive.org has. But don't automatically assume the latest date is a good copy; archive.org may have saved a few "page not found" messages. Go back from the end until you find a good copy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:WAYBACK suggests http://web.archive.org/web/2/ (plus URL) for "most current version"; is that what you wanted, Will? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Including a nifty template: {{wayback}}. (glee, glee, glee!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Archive.org does pick up some of the geocities links, although it misses others. If an EL can't be picked up using archive.org it should be removed, as there's hardly a chance it will come back. If I had my way, a cleanup crew would go around to each of the geocities links and check if they have an archived history which is relevant to the article. That probably won't happen because link cleanup doesn't generate much excitement here, which is probably why noone was enthusiastic about the issue at the other related discussions. C'est la vie. ThemFromSpace 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest views of what? Perhaps why there were hundreds of Geocities links to begin with might be a start. --Calton | Talk 12:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The URLs shouldn't be deleted simply because they are now dead; they should be deleted because they are Geocities links. Tan | 39 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the bot that kicks out facebook and myspace isn't targeting geocities as well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Geocities was the earliest free web provider on a large scale. Therefore some early adopters used them for publishing high quality information, and never changed later when web hosting became cheaper. I hope that's at least part of the reason we have such links. HansAdler 13:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, since the reduction of geocities quality, many geocities links remained until more suitable replacements could be found. The trick now is to actually find more suitable links, rather than simply redirect to a new version of geocities. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Most geocities links aren't appropriate here and should be removed anywhere. Unless they could have been verified to have been written by the subject of the article, they weren't reliable sources and their usage as citation should be extremely limited.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. By now most reliable publications have now moved to advanced hosting and have a domain. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Up to a point; you shouldn't underestimate the contributions from dedicated amateurs who put in the legwork but don't want to make a point of it, still less turn their work over to a commercial host. Case in point is a source for many Fairport Convention albums, which is authorised by that band, but has an underlying "fansite.com" address, and fortunately has not been rejected by XLinkBot; it is mirrored by a credible site, but which does not allow the WPCite tool to link to it. Some care is needed in relation to such sites, obviously, but in the absence of other sources, we should be able to use them. Meanwhile, Geocities is being largely mirrored at Oocities.com, and at least one editor is updating the links, without prejudice to them being later found to be inappropriate; but at least we have them to look at, and find alternatives if they don't cut the mustard. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No sorry. When it comes to unreliable sources they're unreliable. WP:V is a core policy on wikipedia and we don't allow links to someone's random site because you can't find a better one. That is why the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Unless the link is to something created by the subject of the article they have no business being used as citations. You may think its reliable, but reader Y has no idea and simply assumes its reliable because it is linked from wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Geocities was simply a free web hosting service that offered a dummy-proof interface with lots of tools. While it hosted mostly stereotypical "personal web sites" of non-notable individuals (sudden evil flashback involving "Under Construction" gifs and blinking text), there were some exceptions, even in recent years. "Dedicated amateurs"? Yeah, mostly. But there were some dedicated professionals, too, (e.g., scholars who had republished their own peer-reviewed articles on their Geocities site), notable individuals and organizations of various stripes, and so on—i.e., legitimate external links in certain contexts. If there are still hundreds of Geocities links here, I have little doubt that many of them fall afoul of WP:EL, but I have no doubt whatsoever that not all of them do. Rather than shooting them on sight, trying to verify them through archival sites and then updating the url if they're legit might be a more constructive approach. Rivertorch (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not about the site, it's about the content and the process of fact-checking. If some well-known authority happens to host a site on a provider that also has masses of junk then that does not reduce the quality of the well-known authority. Where a site is almost exclusively unreliable (as Geocities became) it's fair to request a decent standard of proof that the content is reliable. Where a usually unreliable site is constantly linked then we might very well blacklist it and then whitelist any provably good content. In this case I have to say that I have never found a reliable Geocities link, but Geocities was never high on my list of sites for checking as new links were not really being added at any kind of speed (unlike most of the major blog sites, which are often a pestilential nuisance). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Going to archive.org may not be necessary. There are a couple "copy" websites for GeoCities. One could try ReoCities.com and just add end of the website to that. (Example geocities.com/example becomes reocities.com/example). Also there is GeoCities.ws and Oocities.com. Both work the same way, but ReoCities.com seems to be the faster loading and updating website of the three. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a related conversation at the blacklist RfC, regarding the reliability of sources and blacklisting. Gigs (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys, appreciate the good replies here. as one idea, let's post different suggestions or notations as to where Geocities.com content has now been archived. this can be a semi-official beginning to the efforts to keep links current. thanks.
Here's one site which I found. feel free to add to this list. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
archive.org - as noted in discussion above, very sizable archive of past web content. geocities is one notable part, and received its own specific effort at this site.
Before someone expends no ends of effort re-doing the links, is there any serious contention that geocities is a reliable source for anything save its own (former) existence? It is (er, was) just a content host for any one who wants to have something to say - like a myspace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the above discussion covers that. Of course if you want to start checking though them yourself, no one is stopping you. RichFarmbrough, 09:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC).
Hi.. As far as I know, this bot was originally approved here, however, as you can see, the bot was only approved to resolve double redirects. It doesn't appear to have been approved for any other task, and yet, as their userpage says, it's task has been changed to fixing interwiki links. However, that is not all it is doing, it is also removing links to other versions of the page that are in different languages. Don't bots need to have new tasks approved before they are added? Also, I have notified the owner of this discussion, as seen here.— DædαlusContribs 09:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Xqbot is a global bot. WP:GLOBALBOTSallows the use of Global bots to update interwiki links --Xqt (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How is removing a link updating it?— DædαlusContribs 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the linked-to article no longer exists in that Wiki? I haven't checked, but that would be an example. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
We can marke this resolved, I just visited the relevant page, and it was up for CSD.— DædαlusContribs 12:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
1 was. Many others aren't. ♪daTheisen(talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion can be closed. Xqbot is a very active interwiki bot, and for this function does not need approval. The operator seems to be very competent. (He is a developer of the Python framework for bots and his talk page on de is very active with bot-related questions.) In this case the bot removed an interwiki to the Newari Wikipedia. (This Nepalese language has 800,000 speakers.) The target article was created years ago and has always been empty except for a category and lots of interwiki link.
If that's the only "problem" with this bot that has been noticed so far, I see no reason for further discussion. HansAdler 12:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
interwiki bots removes empty pages as well as nonexistent ones. This was introduced in revision 405 (Jan 2 2004) --Xqt (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, even I'm out of my original iffy worries-- the only few links I found being existing articles were from edit summaries with mutiple things expressed and things abbreviated. An edit summary 2 characters long wrong once or twice? I apparently got really unlucky when I ran into that one. Actually, I'm damned impressed it can do both edits and deletes at once, listing the full wiki article sometimes and other times just abbreviating by the 2 letter code... at the same time. Ooh, and I don't suppose there's an actual robot doing the edits, or it is for a global English word to avoid confusion? :) ♪daTheisen(talk) 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is of cause the edit summary is limited. Changes on more then 3 sites will be abbreviated. And btw. there is a real bot running. --Xqt (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Court judgments: Primary sources, libel, or both?[edit]
Despite promising myself that I'd avoid the topic, I've somehow been drawn back into the David Ferguson (impresario) disaster of an article again.
The legal history section referred to can be seen here. Everything in it is sourced. However, as almost all of those references are to web pages created and hosted by the San Francisco County Superior Court, they're clearly primary sources—which is why that section had been removed previously.
Hi, have you notified the other editor? Per WP:NPLT, it is probably best if we ascertain her intent. Frankly, it does not seem to be a legal threat, but perhaps the other user could be cautioned to use less charged language. As regards the content dispute, you might want to post at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that a straightforward listing of court cases can be libelous. I do see that a laundry list of routine commercial lawsuits involving a given business is generally a waste of space and utterly useless, and has no relationship to the subject's notability. But if they stay in, can I add a section to the UPS article about the Small Claims case I won against them? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Responding to both Wehwalt and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above: it's clear that I didn't word this as well as I'd thought, as in several places I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I'm not sure which editor you're referring to as "the other editor," but I notifiedboth within a minute of posting here.
My perception of the word "libel" is that it's always a legal threat—when is it not?
I'm not sure what you're referring to as a "content dispute."
I don't think that anyone claimed "a straightforward listing of court cases" was libelous. I put links to all the lists of lawsuits (in the collapse box, above) for the convenience of those wanting to get up to speed, but there was no listing of cases in the article (or here, either). The legal history section that was in the article can be found by following the link where I wrote "The legal history section referred to can be seen here."
I don't know what you're referring to as "a laundry list of routine commercial lawsuits." This is an article about an individual who is/was the proprietor of several businesses. He and his various DBAs have been sued more than 20 times, with at least ten of those being against him personally. The article covered this in about six paragraphs (which possibly fell under WP:SYNTH as well as WP:PRIMARY) to show a pattern in the subject's business style over the last 25 years.
So far as I'm concerned, if the owner of your local UPS Store has been sued many times by many people over many years (including being found liable for large amounts such as in this case or being mentioned in a book—such as here—as the target of two lawsuits), then something about this could be added by a person without a COI—but not by you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources are allowed - "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims" - for example Doe was sued in 1993 by Roe for absquatulation. Clearly other policies need to be adhered to. 79.79.127.255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC).
I closed the AfD of The Lion & The Sail yesterday as delete, but when I tried to delete the article I got a Wikimedia error. I tried again today, and got the same error. I think it might have something to do with the special character in the name, but that's just a guess. Is anyone able to explain what is going on/delete the article? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
– Oh look over there! It's a rainbow-coloured pony!
I have blocked Dekkappai (talk·contribs) for 48 hours for posting these remarks [111][112]. I saw the comment "you people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. For the harm you are doing to this project, I hope you rot in Hell" and warned him, and then when it was repeated I blocked him. It seemed like a no brainer.
However, I've got some stick about it because apparently I'd !voted in the afd, and thus (I suppose) could be one of the hell-bound people he was talking about. Since I don't want to go to hell, I admit with hindsight, I may have had a conflict of interest here. So, can some people who are not kindling for hell please review my block and consider whether it requires lifiting, extending or otherwise.
Yours from purgatory, --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem with the block. The whole "OMG you posted something in the same forum you are an involved admin" is BS. Tan | 39 15:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you describing my objection, or is this merely a strawman? -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeap, I'm describing your objection. Tan | 39 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Good block. I'll unblock him and reblock him myself if it makes you feel better. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Good block. Our volunteers don't deserve to be treated as such over a content dispute. Such comments damage neutrality by driving off people with contrary points of view. Our policy is clear on this matter. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact it was a CfD (and one concerning pornography). Do I underestimate the delicacy of the sensibilities of those who choose to participate in CfDs? -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It was me that wielded the stick.
It's a CfD for Krampussakes. Not quite all's fair in XfDs, but many things happen. People get annoyed. They say things they shouldn't. You then tell them not to. They often say the same things again. You do not then block them for 48 hours, at least unless you've given them a pretty clear warning that (in this case) telling people they're bigots is a blockable offense. And you make doubly sure about this kind of stuff if you think you could be perceived as being in an editorial argument with the editor.
That, incidentally, explains why I'm not unblocking him. I think he deserves to be unblocked, but as he and I have very recently been chatting amicably about, inter alia, the awfulness of Spielberg, if I unblock him it might well look as if the reason is that he's a mate of mine. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you block him? The user has been with the project since 2006, has made many productive contributions, and has never been blocked before. If they got bent out of shape about something, you should have shown a little sympathy and tried to understand why they were upset. It seems like you blocked him for mouthing off to you. JehochmanTalk 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec)He was not mouthing off to Scott, he was mouthing off to everyone who disagreed with him by calling them bigots and hoping they rot in hell. I don't consider an admin involved because someone made an insult at a group of people that happened to include him. True, the user has been here for 3 years, they can be here another 3 years after the block expires if they want. Being here a long time does not allow personal attacks. While ideally someone not involved in the debate should have made the call, uninvolved admins have confirmed the merit of the block. Personal attacks do not need warning when they are particularly egregious and the user is already aware of the policy. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the block, but I think it would have been better to leave his !vote and simply excise the personal attack part of it, in terms of the CfD reverts. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
A user who has been here since 2006 has even less excuse. This is not therapy. If he's upset he needs to go and do something else for 48 hours anyway. I had no idea what his "productive contributions" were or were not, never having encountered him before. I see now he's written a FA, but sorry, I don't see how "productive contributions" excuse that. If you can't work on wikipedia without cursing people, and calling fellow collaborators "bigots", then don't work on wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You should have figured out those circumstances and weighed them before blocking. Do you magically think they're going to stop cursing when they come back from your cool-down block? JehochmanTalk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hochman, if he's been around for three years with no block, seems reasonable to think that a few hours away will make him think about his actions and prevent recurrence. You may disagree, but calling it "magical" is not helping this discussion, IMO. Its needlessly dismissive of an alternate point of view. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. People have been awfully dismissive of my point of view. They've been layering on personal attacks against me. This whole dialog is so despicable and mean, it takes great effort to avoid getting sucked in. JehochmanTalk 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians". People have proposed that established/vested/excellent/long term contributors be treated differently in regards to personal attacks a few times and the community has rejected the idea roundly each time. The community does not want such a double standard and we should not be considering one. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Which specific editor was targeted by the purported personal attack? To be a personal attack, the remark has to be personal. JehochmanTalk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is that the sort of logic you will use in arbcom? He was clearly referring to those who were disagreeing with him by calling them bigots. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, when you call more than one person a bigot and hope that they rot in hell, the attack ceases to be personal and becomes impersonal. Tan | 39 15:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Without looking at anything else, 48h on first block is normally pretty excessive. I would've blocked for only 24 (or at most 31), and if 24 makes more sense, it has elapsed. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block, which should have been longer or indefinite (i.e., lasting up until a credible promise not to do it again). Personal attacks and incivility such as this is not to be tolerated under any circumstance whatsoever. A block by an admin who contributed to the same discussion is not objectionable, because disagreement in an AfD does not constitute a conflict per WP:UNINVOLVED. I am very disappointed to see Jehochman, an ArbCom candidate, defending this sort of disruption here and assuming bad faith on the part of the blocking admin. Sandstein 15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, your one-man crusade to attack anyone who has any tolerance at all for what you consider incivility is getting old. Jehochman is not ABFing, he's asking questions and making distinctions. Suggest you AGF a little yourowndarnself. Your escalation and change of focus is not helping resolve the question of this block. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC x 2) A proper block, but 48 hours is excessive for a user w/ a clean block record. Suggest reducing it to time served, and leave it at that. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
While probably not something I myself would have blocked for, not a block I would dispute, either. Absolutely no objection on the grounds of "involved", that doesn't apply and even if it did this is not an "edit warring" block for which blocking might conceivably give the blocking admin a vested interest in blocking the editor in question. Endorse block, but suggest shortening length as excessive for first offense+ sh. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Good block. That type of comment is just way over the line of what's acceptable around here. We're supposed to be a volunteer-driven project working for the good of humanity. Going around calling other editors (whether as individuals, or in small groups at a discussion) 'bigots' just isn't acceptable. If an experienced editor is making those sorts of remarks, a block – or some other sort of break – is probably necessary. Sometimes experienced editors get burnt out, and if they can't bring themselves to step away from the keyboard and get a cup of tea, perhaps we need to do it for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Taking into account his clean block log, and the helpful feedback from here, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. Indeed, I will be happy to unblock before that, given the slightest sign of contrition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Next time I'd recommend taking the user aside and say something like this, "You seem to be getting overheated. While this may not be your intention, your excessively strident remarks may put off other users. Could you please refactor. I'm happy to listen to your concerns and help you get them addressed, but first you need to stop cussing." If you're one of the people who's actions have been upsetting the user, you'll need to go find an uninvolved party to deliver this little lecture; otherwise it won't work. Our goal is to avoid blocking users when there are other means of solving a problem. Blocks are to be used as a last resort. JehochmanTalk 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. That type of hand-holding wiki-philosophy is exactly what has exacerbated drama and encouraged people to push the envelope. It is better to say a firm "no" to certain behaviours. People who don't realise that things like that are unacceptable really, in the last instance, don't belong here. The type of social-work response you suggest is utterly counter-productive. Sometimes order, and a better working environment for all, are best maintained by putting electric fences around certain obvious "no, no"s. --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Will look forward to you blocking admins who engage in personal attacks in future. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If an admin makes a comment as inappropriate as the one this user did then please do. Consensus is that the prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. I agree with Scott, our first priority is to make a safe environment for our volunteers and tolerating personal attacks drives off good editors who don't like be called bigots or told to rot in hell. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoping people will rot in an imaginary place? 24hrs seems about right for a block. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The block is reasonable. The objections to it are not. Friday(talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, although I might have made a shorter block. I had a lovely attack this morning from an 'astrologer' on an article talk page, " I here by send out my prayer that such people including Dougweller personally be slaughter by God between now and Feb 2. ". Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the block, I do feel that deleting a keep !vote when you have !voted delete is out of order. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the block could have been shorter or have been preceded by a more overt warning, but such incivility should not be condoned. It is unfortunate to see it coming from a valuable long-time contributor like Dekkappai, without whom Wikipedia would not have such articles as Horse and Woman and Dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I don't care much about the petulant attack. But that many see his "contributions" as "valuable" is the disturbing bit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought Office Lady Rope Slave was particularly valuable. But it's hard to choose when there's so much outstanding content to pick from.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, I don't know this user, and so I wasn't going to say anything in this conversation--but it really grinds my gears when I see editors snarking on other peoples' contributions and implying that they're "unimportant" or "trivial". I'm sure if I were to go hunting through the history of your articles, I could probably find something to laugh at too--and what makes it worse, the editor isn't currently able to defend himself. For god's sake, this is NOT--no matter how much it currently resembles one--a junior-high playground. Please stop with the "in-crowd"-style taunting--it's unbecoming of adults.GJC 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone else suggested something similar on my talk page about "kicking someone when they are down" and I agreed. I offered to remove my remarks if Bali ultimate were willing to have theirs removed also. Apparently they are not, so there's little point in removing mine. That said, no one has ever mistaken me for one of the "in-crowd" here. I do not find articles about movies depicting rape and forced bestiality to be something to laugh at. I should have made may point without the sarcasm. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else (and if you think i'm part of an "in-crowd" you haven't been paying attention). I wasn't taunting, or laughing. I was pointing out what i see is a real problem -- a user who spends all his time, it appears, creating articles on obscure, non-notable, japanese fetish porn (much of it seemingly violent) with the salacious dvd covers to boot for the delectation of the "child in africa." Have a look for yourself. It isn't "encyclopedic content." That someone who churns out all that crap is seen is a "valued contributor" is a real problem. No laughing matter, at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block I'm not one to block for civility but pleeze how can anyone seriously object to someone who invites their fellow editors to rot in hell being blocked_ Despite being an almost lone voice in opposition I look forward to the theatre of Jehochman taking this to arbitration but honestly, its impossible to fault the logic of the block. Experienced editors have even less excuse then noobs for this kind of behaviour. SpartazHumbug! 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Endorse block per Gigs, Penwhale, Sandstein, Dougweller, Goodday, Friday, and Spartaz. I think it's humorous that Jehochman (on his talk page) suggested blocking me, while he think a block should not have been imposed here. While blocks are to be used as a last resort, it appears that Jehochman does not appreciate the true nuances of sanctions. Scott was correct in taking this line of action here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback folks, I've taken consensus to be that the block was good - although perhaps a little long for a first time. I've thus shortened it, and don't see any serious complaints with the shorter block. Your discussion has been helpful, but I'd seriously suggest we don't as much as we can here, and that someone now archives this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've unarchived this for now - although I agree with you, the possibility that some users will claim that users from a particular timezone could not participate are a problem. Leaving it open for a few more hours would probably make it more solid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll ask the question though: does leaving it open longer simply give more drama than it needs? We had a situation, dealt with, discussed and adjusted ... further discussion is almost WP:STICKish, isn't it? (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My personal view is somewhat similar to yours...but we have to acknowledge (as a form of "fairness", even if it is merely procedural) that there may be objections within the next # of hours (maybe 10?), for reasons which we obviously cannot predict otherwise our rationales may very well have been different. Moreover, if there are developments that lead either Scott or someone else to unblock earlier, then it would probably need to be noted here anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This is disproportionate to the treatment we gave so many repeat offenders. A single outbreak in my opinion, only justifies a warning. If people feel that need to make a statement that will be seem more unmistakable than that, even 24 hours is excessive ; I would have said 30 minutes would have made the same statement. I think there's overinvolvement here about it, and I am about to reduce it to approximate time served. I think Scott was absolutely wrong to do the block himself in the first place,since he was having an ongoing dispute with the editor. I'm glad he at lest brought his here, but i had I seen this early I would have unblocked immediately on the basis of his being an involved admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No not do that. There is a consensus here and you'd be moving against it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect DGG, does that not make it more of a cool-down block, or even a punative block, rather than true preventative? I'm just sayin' ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that consensus seems to favour 24 or 31 hr block, and Jauerback volunteered to make the involvement issue moot, there isn't a real principle to unblock on - anything that could reasonably be construed as a cool-down block cause just as many (if not more) headaches. That said, I would support an unblock if the user is ready to cooperate...DGG, can you persuade him on or off-wiki to address the primary concern? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Involved" is a stretch, regardless it has seen plenty of review by less involved folks. Please notice the user's utter lack of remorse on his talk page. The user returned the attack after it was removed, and now "stands by it". The preventative nature of this block is evident. The block has already been reduced per consensus here and to reduce it further to time served would be a unilateral action against consensus, please don't do that. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If Scott objects, I'm not going to do it. This would be my first fight over something like this here and it isnt intrinsically worth it. I almost never do blocks, except in connection with vandalism I encounter, and I rarely engage in such discussions here either--because i dislike the hypocritical way they are applied, and I cannot possibly try personally to try to induce change in every possible think I thing wrong about Wikipedia. (I do not mean I think them typically too long--I think they're equally likely to be too long or too short, and the question to consider is the editor's pattern.) As I see it, there is not all that much difference between a cool down block and a short block meant to prevent further harm: the editor cooling down is what prevents the further harm. The practical difference is that a very short block does not work to cool down adequately--if this is the key purpose, it does take something like at 24 hours. If the purpose is to prevent harm, by persuading the person that we take it seriously, a very short block can make the point--it's essentially a step 5 warning. If we find we need longer times to make an impression, then the length must increase; if we find the person intends to continue to do harm, then it should increase very rapidly.
As for involvement, I think it essentially to avoid anything that might be interpreted as such. An angry comment is just an angry comment, and once being punished for it, people do tend to get angry about the punishment and so things escalate. If someone said something like D. did immediately following my comment at a discussion, I would probably ignore it entirely; I advise Scott do so similarly. If it were so serious as to warrant action, or the person intended to continue the harm, someone else would do it. I can see regarding the reinsertion as an intention to continue, and had I seen it , I would have left a very strong informal warning that I would block at the next repeat of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring one editor attacking other editors is a bad idea. These other editors do not deserve to be attacked, and ignoring such attacks is a disservice to those who wish to engage in civil debate. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I think you've raised some very valid points that are worthy of further discussion - the trouble is convincing either you or others (or even myself) to do so, be it on blocking policy talk page, or whichever venue we should be discussing them to clarify the issues and reduce the likelihood of them arising in the future, if at all, like they may have here. But if you're ready to give more discussion a shot (which would be widely appreciated), then please don't hesitate to make a comment to that effect. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
'Endorse block. Let's see. Editor posts to a talk page of a closed afd comparing delete voters to book burners [113]
McDonald removes edit, suggests editor take it up at DRV. Blocked editor responds with an edit summary of "kiss my ass" and adds "It should do many filthy, narrow-minded little hearts good to know that censorship at Wikipedia is getting to be so much easier." [114]
. He then moves on to a related cfd where he argues that You people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. Rot in Hell. This charming comment being removed once [115] he sees fit to restore it [116]. He is blocked for 48 hours. His block is then reduced to 24 hours with a promise that it will be lifted if he accepts the comments were out of bounds. He responds, in part, I don't consider blocking for a harmless salutation like "I hope you rot in Hell" to be acceptable either... In as much as wikipedia has civility blocks, why do you think this was controversial dgg?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I just want to speak up to support two notions mentioned above: 1) I think its inappropriate for an admin to block someone involved in an AfD or CfD that they have voted in, re a comment directed (in part) at them. That should be a bright line standard that admins comply with -- no matter how appropriate the block might otherwise be. Really, that just requires a modest amount of self-restraint. 2) I strongly second Duncan Hill's comment above. The lack of consistency in treatment that I've seen this past month is more than a little disturbing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This block once again demonstrates the corruption of the word civility on Wikipedia. The lack of courtesy to good faith contributors is disgusting, and it's carried out by the same cast of absuve characters again and again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm..rather than removing the posts wholesale (and inflaming the situation of an upset editor), I think just removing expletives from the original posts by Dekkapai would have been a better (and more calming) action, rather than escalating it. Once the exchange had started (and given that Scott had voted the opposite way in the debate and holds a very strong view about BLPs and had engaged in a mini-edit war with postings, then another admin should have definitely been the one doing the blocking. Anyway, this kind of admin action of inflaming rather than calming the situation is all too commonplace. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Still resolved. Issues raised have been addressed.
A couple of days ago I was involved in a content dispute with User:KillerChihuahua at New England Institute for Religious Research during which she was siding with User:Cirt, which she is more than welcome to do. An even more recent dispute with User:Cirt, which is tangentially related to that dispute, brought me to post at the RS/N regarding the matter. The specific book review under dispute, which is sourced to the Midwest Book Review at Twisted Scriptures is, as far as I know and no one has stated otherwise, only available on Amazon.com. For those who know nothing about The Midwest Book Review it is not a print publication itself, but an organization that prints other publications (under different names) and also writes reviews directly for the web. Anyway, User:KillerChihuahua soon appeared at the RS/N, sharing Cirt's opinion, which of course is absolutely fine once again. However, in that forum, as well as in the previous one, she has been engaging with me in a very uncivil manner from the beginning. Usually I have thick skin and don't go running off to AN/I about such things, but KC is in admin and she is now edit warring with me and issuing me block warnings. He, and Cirt, claim that I am "spamming" ("tendentiously" according to KC) simply because I reviewed some Midwest Book Review attributed Amazon reviews and posted them to the discussion in a subsection -- something I believe is completely appropriate due to statements made by the editor in chief regarding these reviews and the fact that the initial review that brought me to the RS/N can only be found on Amazon. It is the hiding of these reviews that KC is edit warring over and issuing warnings to me about. I tried suggesting, prior to her second warning, that she ask an uninvolved admin to step in, but she shows no sign of doing this. I find it completely inappropriate for her to edit war and and issue these warnings when she is involved in this dispute directly. Rather than escalate it there or edit war myself into a block I'm coming here to ask for advice/help. I will note that I have tried very hard to remain civil with KC over the past couple of days, striking any comment she has remotely taken the wrong way for instance, but it seems like she's out to get me or something. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I"m female, and those are standard warning templates. I have not bothered to ask an uninvolved admin to step in yet, because I am hopeful you'll stop stalking Cirt and engaging edit wars and starting tendentious arguments. There is no guideline against issuing warnings; almost all warnings are from "involved" people because they see the undesirable behavior. As you've brought it here, though, I request an uninvolved admin keep an eye on PelleSmith, whose actions regarding Cirt, and now myself, are questionable at best. Please note, for example, that I am described as "siding with Cirt" not "Cirt and KC held the opposing view in a dispute with me" or a similar non-accusatory phrasing. I for one am tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The male/female thing is a dumb sloppiness on my part and I apologize for that wholeheartedly.PelleSmith (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Went through and fixed this.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the content dispute, I don't see how posting warnings is a problem. If you don't think the warnings are applicable then you can ignore them. While admins should not use their tools in a dispute, there's no rule that I'm aware of preventing anyone from warning anyone else of potential policy violations. It's common for involved parties to remind each other of 3RR violations, for example. Will Bebacktalk 23:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also without comment on the general issues of the dispute, imo it is totally ok that to warn other users that they are in danger of violating 3RR and any user can do it, and should actually, it is a good faith note . It is not related to KillersChihuahua Admin status. This seems like a content issue and dispute resolution WP:DR is your best location for action. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
How does the other party in an edit war get to issue 3RR warnings? This is not about 3RR but about her interpretation that I'm spamming the RS/N, and using that as a rationale to hide my comment.PelleSmith (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that anyone can issue warnings of incorrect behaviour, if the "other party" is behaving wrongly then they too will face the possibility of a block. Your comments did seem to be extensively veering away from the purpose of the page, and your complaint would be better dealt with on the article talk page in my opinion. Evidently dispute resolution has been suggested, that's the appropriate way forward, not SNI. . . dave souza, talk 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It was not a 3rr warning. It was a spam warning. If there is consensus that I'm spamming that page please tell me. I'll apologize at once, but I don't appreciate someone on the other side of the argument hiding my comments because she interprets them to be SPAM, and then warning me for engaging the RS/N inappropriately.PelleSmith (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Off2riorob, I have already suggested WP:DR to PelleSmith. He seems averse to the idea, I am sorry to say. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
KC can you please provide a diff of this. I'm have a hard time finding it. With the flurry of activity surrounding this in the last two days I don't trust my memory, in which I can't remember reading such a suggestion, so a diff would be appreciated. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at 3 or 4 articles so far, it appears PelleSmith (talk·contribs) is barking like a big dog. That needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? Can you please explain how I'm hounding anyone? Those pages are all related. The final one, which is at the heart of the RS/N dispute I arrived at first.PelleSmith (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(copied from Toddst1's talk page since I've been redirected here) -- Toddst1, may I ask you why you think I'm hounding him? Because I made one edit to one page that I noticed in his edit history? The other three on which we have engaged in the last few days are all related to each other and I got the first in a manner wholly unrelated to Cirt -- New England Institute of Religious Research. The other two pages are linked to that one ... or I should say the one directly Twisted Scriptures and the third Midwest Book Review linked to that page. He followed me to this third page and the the RS/N. Of course I think nothing of that since its all part of a related dispute stemming from the first page. But then again I'm no accusing him of stalking me either. Have you reviewed the entire situation carefully? I'm just wondering. I don't want to hound anyone, and this is all in my general area of interest to begin with. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It is, unfortunately, common practice on Wikipedia for edit warriors to issue warnings to the other side of the dispute. It's a piss poor approach to conflict resolution, and if you respond in kind a new round of accusations will start. A courteous note suggesting means of dispute resolution would be better practice, espcially from an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed where I mentioned it above, CoM - I did suggest DR. PelleSmith was not interested. This was well before the warnings. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I might have missed it. I was commenting more generally on edit warriors issuing warnings to the other side of the dispute. I think it's an odious practice so I was disappointed to see it being condoned. I haven't had a chance to look into the underlying content in dispute in this case, it seems a bit droll, but I did notice that you accused another editor (who gives every appearance of acting in good faith and with some courtesy) of "stalking", "engaging (in) edit wars" and "starting tendentious arguments", in the same paragraph where you complain about being "tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor." ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I disagree, as well as with some of your comments in the "close" above, but not enough to fuss about it. Merely noting here for the record. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"I haven't had a chance to look into the underlying content in dispute in this case". In that case it was "uncollegial" and inappropriate for CoM to close this discussion and to write such an "odious" and clueless closing summary. Mathsci (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Other disputes with CoM or general questions regarding his editing of AN/I aside I actually agree with his general sentiment regarding the appropriateness of my original post. I think dispute resolution would have been a more appropriate venue for me. I posted here because I felt frustrated and baited at the RS/N, not to mention intimidated since an admin was issuing me warnings. Posting to AN/I was a rash decision on my part. Regarding the WP:HOUND accusation I've posted a detailed followup question to the uninvolved admin who warned me about hounding. See -- User_talk:Toddst1#Still_wondering_about_hounding. If you want to move this here please do so by all means. I'm happy to discuss this issue further.PelleSmith (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that results have been released yet. Just a lot of discussion on when they will be released and why there's a delay while votes are checked... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Prods and removal of content from Christian film related articles by User:SuaveArt[edit]
I'm worried that User:SuaveArt is placing prod tags on Christian film related articles and removing content from them just to cause a distruption or because he is biased against such articles. He cut about half the content out of Courageous (film) and put a prod tag on it even though it was kept at AfD less than a month ago, and he has added the prod tag back after I removed it. He also placed a prod tag on Facing the Giants, even though it clearly passed notability guidelines (and was a former Good Article), and he's now cut a lot of the content out of it. He has also removed almost all the content from Alex Kendrick, Stephen Kendrick, Tracy Goode, Sherwood Pictures, and I think a few other articles and placed prod tags on them. Its possible he is really acting in good faith to try to fix what he sees as problems, but removing all the content from articles and then proposing them for deletion seems inappropriate, especially since several of the articles clearly aren't eligible for prod. Calathan (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
1. The entire 'Courageous' article was one long promo before I edited it filled with encyclopedia trivia and Facebook and Twitter links. The AFD for the article also only had 4 users involved in it (all of whom are active editors of the article). You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy.
2. All of the other articles you just mentioned (related to Sherwood films) have little or no assertion of notability whatsoever (except for Fireproof, which grossed well, and Facing the Giants, which I removed the PROD tag for after doing some research). The rest of the articles mentioned were entirely promotional and full of trivia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. You should try getting a Myspace or taking these to a Wikia site for Sherwood films.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles that have been taking to AfD are not eligible for prod. Please actually read the prod rules. Also, I removed the prod tag from Facing the Giants, not you. Also, when you say I "should try getting a Myspace", keep in mind that I'm not an editor of these articles (other than to remove the two prod tags), am not Christian, and am not interested in Christian films. It just looked to me that you were editing in an inappropriate way. Calathan (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I was saying that if you want to advertise these films and include paragraph-long lists of trivia, you should find a site like Myspace to do that. I stand corrected on the PROD for Facing the Giants, however that AFD did only have 4 users comment on it. Everything I removed from those articles did not belong there in the first place, because it was either unsourced or just completely promotional. --SuaveArt (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Calathan. This is clearly disruptive (not necessarily bad-faith though), and shouldn't have been handled this way. I almost reverted all the changes, but didn't want to edit war. All of the articles are clearly notable (with the exception of one or two of the actors, which I created a while ago). The articles should be restored and improved case-by-case (just have a look at all the sources available on Google News about it). Trivia should be merged into the article when sourced, or deleted otherwise. You don't just delete all the good content and PROD'd. I contest all of them. Next time, discuss first. American Eagle (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine but if the sources are all over the news, then you could have easily added them yourself when you created the articles.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm highly confused by this. You removed a sourced assertion of bestselling author status (with an edit summary that said, "rvmed promotional spam with no assertion of relevence") and then PRODded the article because "No assertion of notability outside of Fireproof (film), which has an article"? On the face of it, this does seem disruptive. If you were uncertain of the source (which seems fine to me) you might have verified it elsewhere. One of the top hits at google news archives verifies best-selling author status at The New York Times, and best-selling author status is a strong assertion of notability. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the former contents on Alex Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick and am challenging their PRODs. While both of these articles could do with improvement, stripping them of sourced content does not seem constructive, particularly in the case of Stephen Kendrick, where as an outsider I see nothing that could be construed as promotional in the text. With Alex Kendrick particularly, I hope on reflection you can see that removing sourced assertions of notability from an article and then PRODding it because it does not assert notability may not seem like good faith, even if you meant well. Much of Tracy Goode was unsourced, and I'm unsure about WP:BIO myself, but, of course, regular editors to that article should feel free to contest the PROD if they disagree and to add any sourced content that seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's one thing to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content from a biographic article. It's an entirely a different thing to indiscriminately remove all sourced content, reducing the biography to a one-sentence stub, and then WP:PROD it for deletion. The later is simply being disruptive. I've restored some of the sourced content to Tracy Goode and Erin Bethea and remove the prod tag from Tracy Goode as his filmography shows that he could pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I considered the sources removed unreliable and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Like you said yourself, if there are mainstream sources for Kendrick's best seller status, then you could have easily added them yourself. Since your only source for his best seller status was "Christianpost", I considered this unworthy of inclusion unless you were able to provide mainstream sources such as the NYT to back it up. The reason I considered most of these articles "promotional" is because there was little notability for any of those persons out side of "Fireproof" (which mentioned them in its own article), and the articles contained unnecessary trivia and promotional links such as Twitter and Myspace.--SuaveArt (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
But you didn't just remove Twitter and MySpace, you removed the company's logo and URL from it's infobox, categories, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, The Christian Post looks like a reliable source to me. Before summarily removing content sourced to it, you might find it worthwhile to check and see if others agree with you that it's "unreliable and irrelevant", perhaps at a venue like WP:RSN. Even if it is not, though, removing a claim to best-selling author status sourced to it and then PRODding the article because it does not assert notability seems like a questionable action. That particular article did assert notability prior to your removal of the content. If you think these articles are promotional, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to address that (and I'm still not sure about Tracy Goode, as I don't know that his roles are "significant", but I'm not familiar at all with his films). But you want to be careful to avoid even unintentional disruption. Our goal here is to build the encyclopedia collaboratively, and there are venues to get additional opinions if you think that contributors to certain articles may not be unbiased in their construction. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTE and WP:BIO are not limited to "mainstream sources". For one, there is no way to judge that a source is "mainstream" and people will disagree on what makes something "mainstream", for example Fox News. WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and by extension WP:V, require are reliable sources. Removing reliable sources from an article is disruptive in most cases. The exceptions are usually related to relevancy to the articles subject or duplication. But the edit summaries you gave for why you removed reliable sources from the article ("spam", "self-promotional") are not acceptable reasons. You also removed links to the subjects' websites, and in a couple of cases removed the entire infobox and or flimography. The logical reason one can presume why you did this is to make it easier to delete the article or your simply engaged in a vandalism campaign. —Farix (t | c) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
SuarveArt, please realise that there is general disapproval of your actions. All I've seen is self-justification rather than any acknowledgement that your edits were disruptive. Please don't repeat such article gutting and inappropriate use of prods. You seem to be pursuing an agenda, which is not a welcome thing to do on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to pile on here, I have trouble continuing to assume good faith with SuaveArt's edits. Removing sources then proposing an article for deletion because of lack of sources, and targeting particular kinds of articles with this behavior, seems like a person disrupting with an agenda. -- Atama頭 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
More piling on. I am, for some odd reason, suspicious when any editor removes more than half of an article and then putting it on XfD. I would suggest that "recent history" showing such activity be usable as a basis for discussion in XfD as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
– This discussion needs to be closed. There is no consensus for a sanction; quite the opposite. Further comments are an unnecessary diversion of resources from the project. If follow up is needed, multiple users have suggested WP:RFC. JehochmanTalk 21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
User:ChildofMidnight (CoM) from WP:ANI, and possibly other WP:DR fora, for a period of 3 months, on threads where his name has not been mentioned by someone else. This excludes starting threads on issues that concern him, and excludes any existing threads he is already participating in at the time the ban is agreed (if it is agreed).
Reason: CoM consistently inserts himself into matters which don't concern him - with highly inconsistent results. Occasionally it is helpful, more often it is not. This behaviour was discussed recently at ANI, with a block of CoM under discussion; the conclusion was that an RFC would be preferable - but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remains a redlink. In lieu of an RFC, a temporary measure is a drama-reducing topic ban of the kind proposed.
Disclosure: The proximate motivation for this proposal is CoM's posts to a thread above, including this one [117], discussing an indefinite block I made of user:Grundle2600. This is merely the latest example of the way in which CoM's frequent interjections are based on a misreading of the relevant issues, with accusations of bad faith never far away. (I'm sure they will follow here, but I note that the terms of the proposal specifically permit further involvement in that discussion.) PS If it is felt that this ban is not appropriate at this time, could someone, please, take responsibility for starting an WP:RFC/U, which seems clearly needed. Rd232talk 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support not so much as a way to reduce drama here (that seems a lost cause) but as a way to encourage someone who can be a useful contributor of content to spend more of his time doing that and wasting less of it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support Rd232's analysis seems accurate. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose I hereby sign my name as placeholder for a profound defense of User:ChildofMidnight (if it is desired by CoM). ANI is currently an imperfect rhetorical space, with oft-occurring breaches of all kinds of propriety. From the fragments I have witnessed, CoM, on balance, can be counted on to inject, yes, "balancing" counter-force to certain situations which are not flowing fairly for whatever reason. This is no assertion of perfection — and I understand that CoM has been sanctioned by Arbcom itself (perhaps more than once). ... And, no I have not "weighed it all." ... But the glimpses I have seen of CoM on the rhetorical field (which, no, should not be a battleground, but we know quite well, sometimes are) ... makes be smile and even tear up from the beautiful power of ... integrity. (Placeholder registered.:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Reluctant support per the Grundle2600 diff above. While CoM brings a valuable perspective to AN/I, too often it's couched in inaccuracies like 'Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."' in the diff above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose on general principle. I think there's a danger that proposals like this can be posted and passed due to irritation of the moment as opposed to being calmly thought out.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support its a good idea but it might not work. Im willing to support to some degree however.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose if interposing oneself in matters which don't directly concern oneself is grounds for a page-ban, then this page would be utterly useless. It exists precisely to get feedback from the uninvolved. The proposal could just as helpfully be made about half the admin regulars here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose As someone who usually disagrees with CoM on just about everything, I still find it abhorant to ban someone merely for being annoying or unhelpful. The idea that he "inserts himself into matters that do not concern him" is basically bullshit. EVERYTHING on this board consists of inserting oneself in matters that do not concern oneself. I am doing it right now by commenting here, you are all doing it. ANI is a public discussion forum, and all editors are free to give their opinions. That CoM does not often hold opinions that many other people agree with is a dangerous reason to ban him. Yeah, he's usually not in the majority, and his comments aren't usually helpful in establishing a consensus, but seriously, do we all want to decend into groupthink by demanding that only people who agree with us most of the time are allowed to comment. Seriously think what you are doing here. CoM is not disruptive, his comments can easily be ignored or discounted if you don't like them. Absolutely not. We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like. --Jayron32 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Absofuckinglutely not. This would be a very dangerous precedent to set. --MalleusFatuorum 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I think using 'oppose' will sufice. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support in lieu of an indefinite site ban. Crafty (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that since a community ban of CoM from Wikipedia is not on offer, this proposal will have to do. Crafty (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Don't have much involvement with him, but it's a massive overkill to ban him from this page when the whole point of this page is, as others says, to get feedback from others. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
PerfuckingMalleus. I would be willing to agree to a complete CoM ban before I agreed to this extraordinarily dangerous precedent. Tan | 39 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear! and Amen! Proofreader77 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose ChildofMidnight is a reasonable guy, he doesn't need to be subjected to some big community roast via a ban. Can't we just ask him to avoid drama on ANI and other pages? I agree that more harm than good has come out of some of his opinions, but to subject him to a big, hostile community sanction is just bullying. ALInomnom 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose . A wide variety of opinion is preferable, CoM is not overly disruptive here in my opinion, in fact he is sometimes imo, a voice of reason. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Consistent failure to add anything of value to discussions is a good grounds for being uninvited from such discussions. Friday(talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. We cannot bind the hand of any editor who wishes to speak his/her opinion, even when that opinion is unpopular to others. There is no precident to do this. If COM is in violation of a particular policy, then by all means take appropriate measures, but to ban an editor from a page that is, by its very nature, going to have heated debates is absurd.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Jojhutton. Evil saltine (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose pending an RfC. This may be necessary, but it's a severe remedy and shouldn't be taken lightly. Will Bebacktalk 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
AbsoStrongOpposeOlutely per Malleus Fatuorum. This would generally be a bad precedent. Discussion-page bans should be used only in rare cases, not counting times when they are part of a broader ban. Cases I can think of are intentional disruption/bad faith edits; chronic, ongoing inability to conduct onesself civilly despite good intentions; or the disruption is so profound as to prevent orderly operation. In any case, there should be no ban unless there is good reason to believe the behavior will continue if unchecked. In 9944/100% of the cases, we can either live with it or encourage him to get a mentor to help him think about his edits before saving the page. I recommend "live with it" plus gentle reminders for 90% of editors who are mildly or moderately disruptive but are editing in good faith. Save mandatory mentorship for those whose edits are causing significant interference with the discussions, and save more severe restrictions for those who are acting in bad faith or whose conduct is, simply put, too disruptive to tolerate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Jayron and Malleus together put it well. Minority opinion must not be a blockable "offense". LadyofShalott 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. This matter should be dealt with through an RfC first, the arbitration committee second, but not here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Extremely strong oppose Although I may not always agree with what CoM says, I feel that this would be setting a very unwelcome precedent - as per Jayron, Malleus and JBsupreme -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Setting horrendous precedents should not be done lightly. Ever. Collect (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. Per Davidwr's standards above, CoM has persistently assumed bad faith of other editors (particularly, but not exclusively, members of the admin corps), chronic incivility, and an ongoing tendency to inflame rather than to contribute usefully to discussions on this board. Re to Tan - this action would be far from setting a precedent. In the Everyking 3 arbitration, an administrator was banned from commenting on AN and its subpages for 12 months (save for discussions which directly touched on him or his actions) for a pattern of unproductive and incivil sniping. That was back in 2006; there have been several cases since where editors have been banned from process pages and encouraged to do productive article work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It was ArbCom action, not a community ANI poll. There is a difference. Tan | 39 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, as it's a slightly shorter version of the same topic ban I proposed in November. [118] I got flamed for that proposal, but it's well past the time that some sort of action was taken, and these types of topic bans are not unprecedented. For those who were around here two years ago, User:Gp75motorsports and User:Blow of Light were restricted to article space, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request input on topic ban and the following few sections) and they were not the first people to have such a limitation applied to them. (I don't remember names, and don't feel like looking, but someone else's memory may be jogged.) CoM doesn't contribute anything useful to project space, but he is a very good contributor in article space. Horologium(talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Compromize proposal: Appoint a mentor. On matters that don't directly involve ChildofMidnight, he can only comment on issues raised here after asking the mentor for approval. He has to briefly state what argument he wants to make. If that is seen to be a valid contribution, he'll be allowed to participate in the discussion. If CoM violates such an agreement (e.g. by trolling instead of sticking to the propsed arguments he wanted to make), then he'lll be banned form participating in AN/I discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Just look at the section below for all the high quality discourse we would be missing out on. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is rather a lot of disruption here caused by this user. I think we could get the page length down considerably. Not sure if a ban is justified, but CoM is really trying to convince me with that drama mongering nonsense below this thread. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Compromise proposal - keep kicking COM until he's provoked him into doing something blockable. Oh, hang on, I see that's already been adopted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Pile on Oppose Sure, let's take away the first forum a user has for WP:DR. I see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is still red...why? Sure, CoM rarely if ever swims with the flow but clearly he's made more than one user step back and look at the situation; the ones who don't like that, well, that's on them. Grsz11 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support Every time I see a post signed by ChildofMidnight in ANI, I know that I'm go to see a post that is trying to raise drama (the section below is a nice example). ANI is not for raising drama and it's not for complicating simple matters. P.D.: sorry, I edit-conflicted with the close without noticing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that I do not approve of anyone blaming me for the disruption caused by RD232's initiating a thread to try and have me banned from ANI after I disagreed with his indefinite block of a good faith contributor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone does. For the record, Jayron's remark "We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like." is of course correct; thanks to Horologium for pointing out the prior precedents for the proposed temporary ban. But OK, not at this time. Perhaps you'd like to take some reflection time, CoM, and tread a little more carefully in future. Rd232talk 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Why, why, why has no one made an RFC yet? This is like, the twentieth time it's been suggested. It seems to me that people are convinced they don't want one and just want a sanction approved here at ANI. Clearly this isn't happening. I fully agree that CoM's behaviour is disruptive, but as I'm not personally involved, I can't make an RFC. Those involved need to bother taking the initiative, or nothing's going to happen. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably because of the "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user" aspect of user RfCs. When a user's behavior is so disgustingly atrocious that they include and defend the inclusion of Nazi imagery on their user talk page to describe other editors, there is little hope of ever making a dent in such a person to the point where they become self-aware of their problematic behavior. ChildofMidnight has built a barricade for himself where he is absolutely convinced that he is right and each and every singe person who expresses an opinion otherwise, from ArbCom to admins to users, is engaging in a grand conspiracy to censor him. How does one deal with that? Tarc (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it leaves one option. To bring the matter before the WikiSupremes. Crafty (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Which is why we probably need an RFC, since they generally don't hear cases without one of those first. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to ban any editor who attempts to censor Wikipedia discussions and content by aggressively pursuing those with differing opinions[edit]
let this drop. Please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved
– This is not going to help anything, especially not you CoM. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These behaviors violate the spirit of our civility policy and are clear violations of our core Neutral Point of View policy. We can't allow individuals to abusively attack and censor those they disagree with in order to push their personal opinions and perspectives. This kind of intimidation, harassment, misuse of admin tools, and other bullying is unacceptable. Those who engage in this sort of disruption as a means of censorship should be blocked indefinitely until they show respect and toleration for other individuals, including those with whom they disagree.
Support Bullying and intimidation are never acceptable and should not be condoned by this community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So... you're in favor of your own right to make noise, no matter how nonsensical it is? Why not do this on your own website? Friday(talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To "make noise, no matter how nonsensical"? I don't think calling for our neutral point of view and civility policies to be upheld without bias is nonsensical. I think putting a stop to bullying and intimidation is critical to developing a healthy community that can build an accurate and well balanced encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE- No- Don't dig yourself deeper into this. ALInomnom 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Textbook violation of WP:POINT. We should add it to that page. Tan | 39 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion, which guideline or policy he wanted to WP:POINT at? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Your anonymous trolling aside, that guideline does not require a specific target; the target is Wikipedia itself. Tan | 39 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Your pseudonymous trolling aside, I don't read that in WP:POINT. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Surely this isn't the right forum for this particular discussion? This would be a community decision, not an admins' decision - and so it would appear to have no place on ANI. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm darn close to suggesting we auto-block anyone who uses "censor" or "censorship" as part of a complaint. They're ignorant of the meaning of the word, and its simply abused here to mean "I want to be able to completely run my mouth about whatever, all over the site" or "I didn't get my POV in an article!". You're not being censored. Start a damn blog and bitch up a storm, heck, link to it on your user page. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 don't think we should punish those who point out instances of improper censorship, bullying and intimidation. That seems like an Orwellian approach worthy of Fahrenheit 451 that would be more in line with the authoritarian book burning and denunciations as employed by fascists. That doesn't seem to be a good model for building an unbiased encyclopedia. A more appropriate response would be to ask for specific examples and to give them careful consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please look up censorship. Wikipedia, and its editors and admins, cannot, by definition, censor you. You may start a blog and say whatever you want. Link to it from your user page. Go forth and be verbose! But its not censorship if we don't want to host it or deal with it. If there is "bullying", I direct you to dispute resolution. We are not here to listen to someone kvetch, bitch and complain nonstop. Really. Pick your battles, get your terminology straight, and use the correct venue. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban, I'm commenting on the opinions expressed in the discussion. For all means, oppose the proposal, but absolutely do not use "he has a minority opinion" as a reason. That's a stupid reason that has, with no exaggeration, allowed stalkers to keep harassing others before. No editor should have protection from our policies just because they're the Designated Dissenter; the problem is invariably not the opinion but the manner in which it's disseminated. If someone is being victimised on ANI simply because of their opinion, I will jump to their defence. But their opinions mean diddly squat to a defence against a ban or a block they're editing disruptively, and even act as an aggravating factor if they're abusing their protected status to be disruptive. Sceptre(talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. We also have no shortage of disruptive and tendentious editors who throw up the ink screen of "majoritarian persecution" whenever they are threatened with a block for their disruption. We have to guard against groupthink and against persecution of the minority because they are the minority, but willful (or inadvertent) confusion of disruption for discussion does more harm than good. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It also being said that there should be broad discretion to speak one's mind, especially at an inherently contentious page like this, where, very often, people's ability to edit Wikipedia is at stake.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a fun fact about Speaker's Corner in London: there's no statutory basis for its famous status. You can, in theory, be arrested for disturbance of the peace. But people are tolerant there because of that reason: it's basic human decency to allow people to speak their mind there, and the enshrined reputation of the place gives it a de facto protection from disturbance of the peace and obscenity laws. This whole situation reminds me of homophobicpoliticalcampaigns in America: the basic human decency and the defence of free speech is wilfully exploited to say that, using my analogy as an example, gay marriage will infringe on religious freedom (for example, the lovely old canard about churches being forced to marry gay couples) when it would do no such thing. Sceptre(talk) 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
There was a time, not too long ago, when criticism of a certain (now ex-)admin and bot-operator would result in streams of abuse and threats against those bringing their concerns here. To my knowledge, only one admin has ever apologized for the way in which well-founded concerns were treated. There is a very great danger of such a situation repeating itself if we start silencing the currently unpopular. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, another problem with the "cry-wolf" crowd. Admins aren't a hive mind. I have no idea who you are talking about and have even less of an idea why I should apologize for them. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And another comment from the "call someone names often enough, then we can get him wound up and then block him" crowd. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Say whatever you like. I still have no idea who I should be apologizing for or why. Kinda ruins the fun of accusing me of covering up for them. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I was making a general point about the dangers of silencing unpopular editors. I have no idea why you imagine the anecdote was directed at you personally, nor do I recall if you were one of the admins who spent so much time encouraging a (then) disruptive editor. He is now contributing positively, so I shall not be naming him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't imagine it. I mentioned it because you said "To my knowledge, only one admin has ever apologized for the way in which well-founded concerns were treated", which implied that more than one admin had cause to apologize. Its fine that you don't want to name names, but it pulls the wind out of your anecdote pretty handily. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Absolutely. But we have a responsibility to keep trolls and malcontents from ruining the place. No technical limitation exists preventing CoM from bringing his opinion to any and all "admin related" dispute on these boards (or any other board, near as I can tell). What must be discussed is a social limitation. We can't have a reasonably discussion of that if it immediately escalates into "OMG Persecution" territory. We aren't interested in removing him from these boards because he has a heterodox/iconoclastic opinion. We are interested in doing so because he is disruptive, prone to escalation, and seemingly incapable (unwilling?) of restraint. Calm and patience are in short supply on AN/I. There is value in simply removing people from the equation who insist that every thing stinks. We did it with Kurt after a long and painful process and frankly there was more cause to allow him to continue to participate in RfA/AfD than there is in allowing CoM to complain at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Those were exactly the arguments used in the attempts to silence critics of the certain editor I mentioned. When you start silencing those you don't like, you will end up silencing genuine complints. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Right. That's a genuine problem with no easy solution. But we can't simply say "oh, we could silence some legitimate complaints, so lets never limit disruptions". CoM has a privilege to comment adversarially on issues at AN/I (or anywhere else at the wiki). We call it a privilege only because it is not literally a right, it is so close to our notion of participation in the community that it is in effect a right. We should vigorously defend that right/privilege when it is threatened. But we also have to establish some threshold beyond which that right (for simplicity's sake) is no longer being exercised but is instead being abused. What I (and Sceptre, to some extent) am saying is that we cloak disruption with this veneer or good faith participation wherever possible and it hurts us to do so. It hurts us because it truly debases discourse, because it gives people an incentive to avoid community discussions, because it turns discussion and compromise into an attempt to "poke the bear" (As you alluded above). Part of this is generated from furious hornet's nest stirring anytime a contentious decision is brought up here. Why do you think we talk about paralysis in community discussion? Why are we offloading more and more problematic issues to RFAR and AE? When does this stop? Protonk (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It stops when editors like you stop being offended by those who don't agree with you. Easy. --MalleusFatuorum 01:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
For God's sake, Malleus. Either you're being thick or you're deliberately missing the point. We're okay with someone standing on Speaker's Corner and spewing anti-war rhetoric. We're not okay when they then go into a bar full of soldiers, pull the same trick, and then complain about how the big mean men with guns hit them. Sceptre(talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really offended. But I'm glad you found an easy solution. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
We topic banned Kurt from the Wikipedia space? That's news to me. I mean, he's had two successive arbcom runs... Sceptre(talk) 00:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the fallacy in the thinking in this particular subsection is that it's remotely of some practical possibility that disruptive users can be objectively distinguished from mere minority users. To extend the "bar full of soldiers" metaphor, the soldiers are only soldiers with guns because they hold the majority opinion. Anyone else automatically seems like a weaker unarmed pest. The dissenter is easily seen as a disruption despite how politely he presents his case. I don't have much experience with CoM, but I can be a rather unpopular fellow myself. The mental process of "Everyone is disagreeing with you, why are you not dropping this" is very prevalent, very dangerous, and probably very natural. I think it would be excessively optimistic to think we could write a "no taunting" policy that wouldn't be abused regularly. Equazcion(talk) 02:06, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm certainly not making the case that disruption can always and everywhere be objectively distinguished from disagreement. Such a distinction will be subjective, local and unique to the individual. What this little subsection is focused on is the prevalent and bothersome misapprehension that accusations of disruption are always pretexts for attempts to eliminate disagreement. Disruption exists. Disagreement exists. Often they co-exist in the same thread/same person. Where they do not co-exist, the solution is relatively easy: remove disruption, invite disagreement. Where the co-exist the solution becomes messy. Sometimes it is worth putting up with disruption in order to include disagreement. Sometimes it is not. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Our hypothetical anti-war protester didn't walk into his local and see some people fresh off the plane from Afghanistan, he made a conscious decision to go into a bar which he knew had several regulars who served in the Army, and annoy them about killing for oil and religious reasons. Sceptre(talk) 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh but more often than not you can indeed tell, but only over time. Eventually their motives betray themselves. A sincere person with a minority opinion will act based those sincere beliefs, an intentionally disruptive user(a troll) will eventually betray their motives with choices inconsistent with their faux-sincere motives. That is why some trolls get to disrupt us for months(or years for some folk), so that doubt can be removed and so that patience can be exhausted. The only question that remains is if that point has been reached yet.
It is also true that in some cases you cannot ever tell the difference between a sincere believer and someone intentionally trying to be disruptive. In such a case the end result is the same, either the level of disruption is tolerable or it is not and motives cease to be relevant. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly one doubt. Another is whether you're competent to judge. --MalleusFatuorum 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The community needs to set its own standards. I am not a judge. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. We're not the man in the corner of the pub seeing the soldiers beat down on the protester. We're more like the protester's old friend who we've known for several years. Sceptre(talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hasnt this gone on long enough guys? Seriousy if nothing good will come out of this (which it wont) then why continue? CoM was saved this time (thankfully as I have realized that banning him from this page is a very bad idea) so theres nothing really left to argue about right? Cant we all just get along?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is that with all lessons world history has supposedly taught us, it would be arrogant to think we can fairly "remove disruption" while still "inviting disagreement". This would especially be the case if the judges of "disruption vs. disagreement" were in the majority, as it seems they usually are. In fact, if you wanted to honestly mitigate such doubt, leave the decision up the the people on the "disrupter's" side of the argument. If they see a problem, there probably is a problem. Of course, there's the possibility of impropriety, since people holding the same opinion as the disruptor may want to back him up despite not agreeing with his methods; but then, the converse problem exists if the decision is left up to the majority: There's always the tendency towards slanting judgments in favor of one's side of the dispute. To make a determination that one can separate disruption from disagreement is to say you're so unique as to be different from everyone else who's been faced with a similar conflict of interest in history, and that you can be more trusted to make that call than they could. This is an arrogant supposition. Equazcion(talk) 02:57, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
But your missing my point. Since this is turning into a fight rather than a discussion. Why not end it before it turnes into another User:Coffee incident (see the WP:WQA archives for more)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 03:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a fight, just an interesting discussion that seems relevant... But I've been known to misinterpret such things in the past. Does anyone else feel like this is a fight? Equazcion(talk) 03:06, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair point and well taken. But we don't move immediately from accepting that point to concluding that disruption can't be dealt with. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would, personally. Again people throughout history have struggled with these issues, and still haven't found a way that works. The US court system is basically one big approach to trying to get everything relevant heard while weeding out everything else, all while making sure the people choosing which-from-which don't have a conflict of interest. In other words, this very issue. We don't and can't (on principle) have a system anywhere near that magnitude, and theirs doesn't even always work. Equazcion(talk) 03:20, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I think I would require more convincing. The analogy to the US government (and governments in general) helps, but elides a crucial difference. Assuming you believe John Jocke, the legitimacy of those governments stems from the willingness of the people to consent to their existence. And that consent stems largely from a need to develop a framework in order to protect some rights which cannot be protected without central authority. Obviously, the generation of that central authority emperils other rights. Hence the balance created through the minimal state. Wikipedia is not a state and holds no authority derived from consent. Wikipedia is a community of people working to build an encyclopedia. Obviously it is also an experiment in governance (As all open projects are), but do not confuse this with the pressures and obligations of governments in general. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of where their power derives from, the nature of the system itself is what I'm referring to. The comparison was to the court system itself, not what allows it to exist. Even if we were to assume hypothetically that a powerless community of equals got together and decided on that system, the point would still stand. Conflict of interest exists inherently and in our system can effectively be a factor, whereas in theirs there are at least checks and balances in place to mitigate it. If the point of this discussion is to say that we can form new rules to deal with disruption without having to worry about conflict of interest, my point is that it's been tried, and the volume of rules we'd need in order to come close would be impractical. We seem to do fairly well here, even with the existence of so-called "disruptors". They seem to create an unpleasentness at most, but I would contend that such things are necessary evils of any open and fair system. Equazcion(talk) 03:49, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Again, another fair point. but I'm not advocating a system of rules to classify every case. I'm acknowledging the intractability of that problem and stating obvious points: we have a threshold level of disruption on wikipedia, we have trouble distinguishing between disruption and disagreement (for reasons you mentioned and reasons I note here). I'm left to argue from those obvious points that we should be careful in determining that threshold, but that a common tactic among folks who have well exceeded the threshold is to "ink the waters" by conflating their disruption with some related (or in some cases unrelated) disagreement. On a related issue, my views are fleshed out here. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what system you are advocating then, but maybe you're not advocating anything yet (though I haven't read those links yet). Granted there may be people who use those tactics, and I've come across them myself. If it isn't blatant enough for nearly everyone to agree that it is intentional disruption, my stance would be to simply ignore. Granted there are individuals who will take advantage of this gray area, but as you say, there are certain rights that democratic governments emperile while Wikipedia doesn't, and the right to be a crafty pain in the ass might be one of them. Equazcion(talk) 04:17, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Well, broadly I'm advocating that we suppress the knee-jerk reaction to treat calls to restrict discussion as attempts to eliminate disagreement. And as a matter of empirical concern, we have no shortage of editors who mask disruption under a cloak of differences in opinion. One solution which isn't "ignore" (though that is usually the first-best) is to send disagreements like that to RfAr--something of a sign that the problems exist and that the community has failed to resolve them. Very specifically, we have been down that road before with this particular editor. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Calling them "attempts" might not be warranted, but to say there is a conflict of interest with a person on a side of the argument who would benefit from the proposed restriction is a valid concern, as is the restriction being called on someone who is generally unpopular. I suspect that the "attempt" wording is more a strawman characterization of the accusation than the actual word used in most instances, though it may be unintentionally so. What I would advocate is remaining fiercely, personally vigilant in not making any unilateral judgment calls that benefit you in the dispute, despite how objectively you feel you're acting (not talking about "you" personally, but everyone). Going back to my suggestion from earlier, if such restrictions need to be made, suggest that someone on the minority side make it. WP:JDI is also very relevant, and I think everyone should give it a careful read. Discussions don't need to be restricted if people don't feel the need to admonish a potential disruptor. Equazcion(talk) 04:41, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
We're probably going to have to leave it at that. We understand each other, but have a clear difference of opinion as to where the fundamentals of the discussion lead us. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Do editors think it's appropriate to have a whole article on Larry Craig scandal while braying about how outrageous it is that an editor connected a commentator's statement that all countries should adopt China's one child policy with the fact they've had two children themselves (widely noted outside of the mainstream media)? Is it really critical that we note that: "At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward"? Or is the BLP policy only for people we as a community respect?
Also, is it reasonable to remain quiet in the face of hypocrisy like Sceptre's lecturing us when he thinks that "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist" [119] is an appropriate edit summary? I'd rather someone offer suggestions on proper behavior who actually knows how to behave appropriately.
When Grundle starts using nasty edit summaries like that I will support his being blocked indefinitely. And if I start adding inappropriate content to articles, please let me know. But I won't apologize for pushing our admins and editors to actually uphold neutral point of view and other core Wikipedia policies. And we should all be calling out the bullies and censors. The civility policy and our BLP policies don't exist to be twisted into cudgels used by POV pushers against anyone who doesn't happen to share their beliefs (this is true even if those beliefs happen to be popular). And those pushing for civility enforcements should start showing some common courtesy. It all starts with collegial mediation instead of the score settling and mob rule cabalism we've endured for too long. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I realize that you're just acting as an echo chamber for Grundle's point-making, but didn't you stop for a moment to think before mounting the soapbox? There's precisely zero correlation between a person who pleaded guilty in a court of law and a journalist who, um, wrote a controversial (to some) article? Drawing a comparison between that case and this is just about as awful as Grundle's original problems with synthesis in the Francis article. Neither of you possesses the slighting idea of what WP:NPOV is and how to apply it. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. After all this is an encyclopedia we're building. So you support an entire article about any instance where a politician has pleaded guilty to a crime? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See strawman argument. Wikipedia supports articles where the content is referenced to reliable sources, and which cover material which meets the baseline inclusion criteria. You are making connections where none exists, hoping to invent the appearance of some sort of hypocricy, where also none exists. Try something else, because this isn't working. --Jayron32 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Jayron, you're quite mistaken that I'm making any sort of strawman argument. There are lots of subjects that are referenced to reliable sources and that meet the inclusion criteria that are deemed unacceptable and that editors even get blocked over adding. Just ask Grundle. Whether you choose to recognize the absurd hypocrisies that exist here is irrelevant to me, I'm content just to have a content related discussion instead of engaging in all the disruption above that is entirely irrelevant to encyclopedia building. Ultimately Grundle is being blocked over content issues, that's the origin of this dispute, and that's where the focus should remain. From your statement I take it that you think an article on Craig's foot tapping conviction is appropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I take no specific stand on any article except the locus of this dispute. Doing so is a redirection away from the issue in this discussion. If you wish to discuss another article, please do so at that article's talk page, and someone who is interested in that article will discuss the matter there. I only care about keeping the discussion from drifting all over the map, or to obfuscate the core issues regarding Grundle's behavior by bringing in unrelated issues, until we lose focus on what the discussion should be about. --Jayron32 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The locus of this dispute is over content. Grundle added the sentence you've noted elsewhere based on two reliable sources, but put the bits together in a way that was novel. It's also been noted in the National Review and the American Spectator, and he added those sources when challenged. When it was still objected to it was separated out in a compromise. But editors who disagree with Grundle's libertarian perspective and his article interests continued to go after him and he was blocked by RD232 well after the parties who participated in thread agreed it was resolved. I know many of our admins don't like to get their hands dirty actually investigating the substance of complaints, but that's the story. It seems a pretty thin problem to get all worked up over let alone to justify an indefinite block. Lots of editors make imperfect content additions. So clearly there's more to it. And I'm very interested in you and Tarc's opinion on other similar content of a salacious nature. So please don't try to obfuscate so you can weasel out of answering. Let's stay focused on content, BLP guidelines, and editing issues. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we're on the verge of making some real progress. Do all crimes by politicians that are reliably sourced warrant stand-alone articles? What are the other determining factors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a keep for me Will. I think it's definitely notable and worth including. Merging the substance of it would unduly weight other articles. I'd also like to see the article on the pretzel incident restored (I have it in my userspace...). I think it was a notable that remains relevant and interesting. But I know we can avoid trying to block each other at ANI even though we don't agree on everything that should or shouldn't be included. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment It is probably best to wait to see what happens when CoM's ArbCom Obama-related editing restrictions cease to apply on December 21. Just for comparison the indefinite sanctions on User:Abd (which can be appealed) state: "Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls." So editing restrictions on WP:ANI have been imposed before; but not by the community and never upon a devout bacon-evangelist. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we revisit Abd's sanction? What were the grounds for the restriction? When was it imposed? If he's been on the straight and narrow subsequently then it seems a good opportunity to reconsider whether the restrictions are needed going forward. We should always do our best to avoid punishing those who donate their time here in good faith. Working together collegially should always be the goal. Thanks for reminding me about when my restrictions will be lessened. They should have been reviewed long ago, (they're based mostly on a single trumped up edit warring allegation) but devoting the time to have the nonsense reviewed at Arbcom didn't seem worthwhile to me. Cheers. Make sure not to do any more envelope pushing as far as outting goes Mathsci. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
With contributions like this, CoM, ripe with misspellings and misreadings, are you surprised people see your contributions on WP:ANI as disruptive? They are not collegial, they are designed to WP:BAIT other editors and create drama. Nice try, though. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
PS Please refactor "Make sure not to do any more envelope pushing as far as outting goes Mathsci." You can leave the smilie. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As you well know, Abd's case was mentioned to note that this sort of An/I banning has been done before, and is certainly an option on the table for you. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of tilting at windmills and going somewhat off topic I'll actually answer C of M's question, "Do all crimes by politicians that are reliably sourced warrant stand-alone articles? What are the other determining factors?" The answer to the first is, of course, no—when a city council member gets busted with pot and it's covered only in one local, small circulation newspaper we won't write an article on that. Larry Craig was a sitting U.S. Senator, the "scandal" was massively reported all over the place, and it directly led to the loss of his senate seat as he otherwise would have sought (and won) re-election. So the primary other determining factor here, and in most cases, was the fact that this was a highly notable incident. Additionally, there are concerns of undue weight (and BLP, the reality is 180 degrees from what C of M suggests) here as we could not allow the scandal to overwhelm the Larry Craig article, and as such a split off article discussed somewhat in the main article was a good solution per WP:SUMMARY (see also here, this, that, and the other thing—all full articles on sex scandals involving very prominent Democrats). I would also point C of M to the article Chappaquiddick incident about another (now deceased) sitting Senator and a scandal/crime involving him. Closer to our time, it would be appropriate in my view to create an article on the scandal/crime surrounding William J. Jefferson and that is being discussed on that article talk page apparently. Closer to the Larry Craig scandal in type (though I think no crime was involved), I think it's likely we would have an article on Bob Packwood's travails had Wikipedia been around in 1992 (it was a huge story at the time). All of this should rather go without saying, and of course the fact that Craig has an article on his scandal is not indicative of some kind of conspiracy among Wikipedians, nor is it evidence for C of M's ludicrous claim that "the BLP policy [is] only for people we as a community respect." If some sort of liberal cabal (or something, I have no idea what C of M has in mind) were running rampant surely the 3,000+ word article on the Chappaquiddick incident would not have been allowed to exist for three-plus years (in addition to the others cited above), nor would this have been allowed to stand for nearly 7 years now. Hopefully that puts a rest to ChildofMidnight's concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I cannot comment on this particular discussion, but on the general topic of "banning" editors from ANI, I find that to be of some concern philosophically, especially as the top of the page says, "Any user of Wikipedia may post here." As I understand "any", that means "any, without exception." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
But the same applies to almost all spaces on wikipedia (with a few exceptions, such as archived pages, ArbCom PD pages, etc). Yet users are topic or page banned, sometimes conditionally, either by the community or ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Moreover that provision can be altered I would think. "Any user of Wikipedia may post here unless prohibited by the Community or the Arbitration Committee." Or words to that effect. Crafty (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A late comment on freedom of speech - in a free country, a minority voice should be able to walk into a bar full of soldiers and cry that dropping bombs on children is a bad thing, and the soldiers should respect that opinion and do the guy no harm. Soldiers are after all sworn to protect the constitution, which enshrines (among other things) freedom of speech. If the soldiers react violently then they are clearly in the wrong. The minority voice then should be able to complain that he got beaten up by the bad men with guns, and all right-thinking people should then leap to his defence and protection. Anything else is mob-rule. At the end of that road stand crematoriums. Let's learn from history. Wdford (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a free country, it's an encyclopedia-building project. Mob rule has essentially governed Wikipedia from the start. We're not going to send anyone to crematoriums. Let's avoid hyperbole. Will Bebacktalk 08:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Freedom of speech is a red-herring issue, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, or any other website for that matter. The capability of anyone to edit anything in wikipedia is not a "right" but a matter of policy. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", is obviously not literally true. I'm just saying that I don't think any editor who's theoretically in good standing should be kept out of ANI. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree, except that wikipolicy forms the "constitution" of the encyclopedia, and the constitution seemingly does allow all to participate. Like any constitution it does limit free speech, but only in clearly defined circumstances for the common good, and the legitimacy of restrictions are to be judged by an impartial judicial process (i.e. NOT by a mob.) The issue here thus should not be "is CoM breaking the rules by disagreeing with the mob", the issue should be "is CoM breaking the rules by materially disrupting the project?" We need however to be careful to ensure that "disagreeing with the mob" does not become synonymous with "disrupting the project". If only the mob has access to argue at ANI, then that conflation has already happened. Wdford (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: ANI is a long enough page as it is. If we want to have a philosophical/policy discussion on banning users from ANI etc under certain conditions, that's a discussion that should take place elsewhere. It is not a novel idea by any means, and has been implemented several times before, so there is no pressing reason to discuss the principle here. Rd232talk 09:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved.gif){kind=small}
Resolved
