Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,248: Line 1,248:


:I already did it about three minutes ago (fifteen minutes only; they'll be expiring soon) ... btw thanks for fixing my talk page. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:I already did it about three minutes ago (fifteen minutes only; they'll be expiring soon) ... btw thanks for fixing my talk page. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


==More offsite harrassment==

Yesterday, I made a few edits to the [[Jewish Internet Defense Force]] page after a relative absence of about two weeks. Shortly thereafter, the JIDF website issued what they claim to be a picture of me, accompanied by some borderline libelous text speculating that I may be a "High Brow [sic] Antisemite".

The JIDF is also claiming that I deleted "an important Jerusalem Post" editorial on the topic of "Isreal Apartheid Week" from [[Israel and the apartheid analogy]]. Their case is somewhat undermined by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&diff=prev&oldid=235318620 link they've provided], however, which shows me ''adding'' a link to the JPost article in question. (I later moved this link to a different section of the article. I didn't delete it.)

For details, please click [http://www.thejidf.org/2008/08/cjcurrie-biased-wikipedia-editor.html here]. (Please note that the last time I posted a link to the JIDF's website, they replaced their original text with an Inspector Gadget cartoon. By the time you click on this link, they may have changed the text and switched the photograph with a picture of a monkey or somesuch.)

Comments and suggestions welcome. As a side note, I would tend to think that these sorts of petty vendettas speak very poorly about the JIDF ... and about those who write articles in support of them. [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] ([[User talk:CJCurrie|talk]]) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:32, 31 August 2008

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

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

    Since the deeletions that went to DRV were upheld and an RFC has been opened this discussion is now moot. Spartaz Humbug! 08:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. S.D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Wikipedia, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a Free Encyclopedia or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One White cat 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:

    Copy of IFD discussion

    Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg

    Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs).

    Keep, image is of low resolution and small in size, there is no free alternative that can be used and it would be impossible to recreate the exact image even if the mill were to collapse again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

    I believe I have adequately covered why it is OK to use the image in the fair use rationale given when I originally uploaded the image. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright isn't up for a vote

    The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Wikipedia editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One White cat 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. S.D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Action to be taken on Consensus violations

    We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly hi! 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly hi! 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly hi! 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Slight change in my own view towards some sort of action after having seen some further examples of behaviour which suggest this is a much more advanced case than I thought we were looking at. I'm not absolutely sure this user should continue to be an admin at all if we see much more of this. If I was to see evidence of an acknowledgement of community concern and an undertaking to change their behaviour, I would feel a lot more comfortable as I think would many others. Orderinchaos 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • !vote ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) (wait, why are people even supporting a paragraph that ends with a rhetorical question?)[reply]
    Change of topic title made; see: Issues with admin actions for the genesis of this topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support (not sure this is a poll, but I agree with those saying "support") - the issues with this admin as discussed here and on AN (which Bzuk mentions) did not specifically follow on from one another, but they do appear to be different examples of some of the same issues. You can read my concerns in more detail in this section at AN. Pfainuk talk 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Support, I have also expressed my concerns in some detail at this section at AN. Justin talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Interesting discussion here regarding this. --John (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm coming here from that interesting discussion. I don't think the "involved" clause is what we are looking for here. If FPS is deleting images under CSD that don't meet those criteria, then that is a problem. If he is doing so as an application of the WP:SNOW clause, that also may be an error but it is less grievous. This is a much thornier problem than we seem to be treating it as. As I see it, very few actions can be justified post hoc as proper on the basis of some contingent outcome. By this I mean that if FPS deleted an image that "shouldn't have been deleted", then there was an error on his part. However, if it turns out that his deletion was "legitimate" (read: endorsed by DRV's, which almost all have been), then there was no error. That is a problem, because we can't base our valuation on his actions as "correct" on the basis of their outcome. But we also don't have much of a leg to stand on if his actions weren't wrong. In other words, if those images didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept as FU images, then all the talking in the world won't change things. As was said above, NFCC/COPY aren't up for a vote. We have those policies in place because the foundation tells us to. So how do we deal with this? DRV's support the outcome, which (presumably) means the deletion was proper. But it is inappropriate to justify curtailing of discussion based on eventual outcome. My suggestion is that the community admonish FPS to not be a jerk about things but that we hold off on what is looking to be a snowy endorsement of a community reprimand for violating WP:CONSENSUS. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, actually, NFCC is always up for a vote. The foundation requires that each project establish it's own criteria for fair use, but it doesn't dictate the content of those policies. Please stop spreading the meme that somehow parts NFCC are not up for debate. As with all things on this project, consensus changes, especially when it comes to portions that are being misapplied. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact wording may be up for debate, but the spirit isn't. No valid wording (no matter how many support!'s you can count) would allow the use of those images Fut.Perfs deleted. This is the eternal skirmish of an unpopular policy. People like images, you know, and they get angry when we say "you shouldn't have been copying images from Associated Press". People don't read the upload page warnings. And there's this common misconception that for every image you'll find on google, there's an hypothetical non-free-content-rationale that would allow it to be used. --Damiens.rf 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I enthusiastically support everything Damiens said here. All too often at IFD we run into a large number of people who aren't discussing an image based on policy, but how much they like the image. Take this discussion, for instance, where a number of people commented on the need to retain the image based solely on how much they liked looking at Paris Hilton's face, completely disregarding the policy at the NFCC. While I think all administrators should wait until a deletion discussion is over (if one is started) and that they should probably refrain from deleting images for discussions they participated in (though I don't know that this ever happened), I find no fault in any actions that Future Perfect has taken. He, like Betacommand before, has been willing to make tough calls on images which, when analyzed strictly from a policy standpoint, are almost always upheld. This also tends to make him a magnet for criticism when the primary grievance appears to be the policy with which his actions are executed. I think the distinction there is important for the purposes of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The extent to which we use fair use, both in letter and in spirit is determined by the community. The foundation mandated we have an EDP, but the community decides how liberal we are. Note that the Wikinews community even allows Grant of License images under their EDP, which is basically cc-by-nd. So yes, if the community decides that we should start allowing cc-by-nd, then we are free to do so. It is not our mission to produce and house redistributable media, that is commons' mission. We are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia that is as free as possible. While free is always preferred and a reasonable effort to obtain free should always be expended, we can and we should consider fair use if it enhaces the quality of the article. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong speech, but empty arguments. What you says goes directly against WP:5P. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? In what way? --John (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia is free content", I presume. A decent amount of people strongly dislike using fair use images at all. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is immediately followed by "...that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly." (my emphasis) This project still allows fair use of images. If people don't like that, they should either find another project to volunteer for, or work in the proper ways to change our mission. To say this is against WP:5P shows ignorance of WP:5P. --John (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I agree. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, in order to accuse FPS of taking an image to DRV in order specifically to shift the burden of proof over deletion, we need to prove as much. It is a pretty bold accusation. Far more likely to me is that FPS is speedying images that he feels fall under the CSD while there disagreement over that very fact exists. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's rather irrelevant whether he's doing so intentionally, as the practical result is that this is what's happening. In an IfD, the burden is on the nominator to provide a strong-enough argument that consensus will support the deletion of the image. Once the image is deleted, though, at DRV the burden shifts to the supporters of keeping the image to show that the deletion was improper or incorrect. By closing IfDs as "deletes" against the consensus of the debate, FPS's action helps to ensure that the image will stay deleted, as he argues that NFCC policy (his interpretation, of course) trumps the debate's consensus, thus playing the "policy card". Whether he behavior is intentional or not is irrelevant, it still ends up with usable images being deleted because while they withstood the lighter burden of IfD, the supporters can't muster the strength to overcome at DRV in the face of what seems like legitimate policy concerns. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support action on him: the NFCC is fine; disregarding consensus is not. Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support FPS (and others) seem to have the notion that their understanding of NFCC policy is policy, and they behave accordingly. FPS has ignored consensus numerous times in deleting images, and has done so with, at times, uncivil and authoritarian language. He has threatened blockage for one-time restorations of images that were incorrectly removed from articles, as being "edit-warring", and has generally used his administrative powers to further his personal (and extreme) conception of what image policy should be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support something I do think that the way he goes about things is in need of some correction. Just because he gets calls right, or even if he got all calls right, does not excuse him from being civil or from other policies. To what extent correction is required is probably better decided in an environment other than ANI (Perhaps a RFC?). Narson (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Instead of all these vague "Support ... erm ...something" comments, would it not be better to take this to an RfC? Something like this can't really be decided at AN/I. Black Kite 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am confused about what "support" means above. I also have a huge problem with FPAS's conduct in deletion of images under his own interpretation of policy, as well as his entirely uncivil manner if communication, treating image uploaders as convicted criminals. In addition to mass deleting images, he openly trolls through individual user's upload logs, and deletes many images by the same user, and leaves bad faith edit summaries that provoke argument. I asked him to stop this conduct, but he just gave me a shitty reply, so I gave up on him and predicted that a wider discussion would inevitably occur if he persisted in Burger-Kinging his way around with the tools and treating people that way. Obviously I was right. IMNSHO FPAS should refrain from (or be prevented from) deleting images for 6 months so he can be able to see that the project can still exist without his aggressive and unilateral behavior. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC started on FPAS

    I've started an RFC on FPAS' conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise. He has been notified. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks

    Statement of complaint

    I have been continuously attacked by Tenmei (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages. I had not been interacted with the user until I found out that three articles on a same subject of Korean and Japanese relationship exist Wikipedia such as Korean missions to Edo created by the uer, Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa. Except Tenmei, the other creators do not seem to be active for months. Therefore, I visited him to suggest for merging the three in due course.[1] His articles is the newest one, so I thought his article should be merged into the oldest one. The discussion started peacefully[2] [3] except a little friction on the title. He started to attack my comment on User:LordAmeth's talk page[4], so I said him to be civil.[5]

    However, the user suddenly kept out of the normal track and nominated one of them for deletion in the middle of the discussion. His rationales for the deletion is Joseon tongsinsa does not meet WP:V and its title with the proper noun is not WP:English. However, the Japanese user did some research on my contributions, and stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women. Also the user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article. Almost everyone said the AFD is ill-attempted, so recommended him to withdraw the nomination[6] [7] and encouraged us to keep the discussion for merge. Other editor pointed out on his usage of the perjorative "Wonkery" as well.[8]. I also implemented the article with a reliable Korean sources to prevent the deletion of contents. However, he even doubts the source and makes the AFD page with adding all irrelevant things to make WP:POINT to delete the whole content and agendas like Liancourt rocks.[9] [10] [11] [12] As he also uses very vicious languages against me and drags his anti-Korean sentiment to the AFD, so I gave him warning and requested him to remove his ill-faith comments and disorganized and unhelpful contents from there. He also pasted my warning to him without my permission several times.[13] [14] He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances.[15] The AFD is going to nowhere. The page turns out to be a place for him to abuse the procedure and make personal attacks based on his strong bias against Korean editors. The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this. WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling. I think the user really need a proper lesson on WP:Civility. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Tenmei, do not alter my report on you.[16] I'm trying to keep the report as succinct as possible as holding your notable verbal attacks. You altered my statement and posted to the AFD without my permission several times. That is a no-no, and you've been warned for your disruptive behaviors more than enough. You said I'm editing Wikipedia for anti-Japanese sentiment and doing "tag teaming". Those false accusations are ill and malicious personal attacks done by you. That's why you're summoned here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Caspian blue is attacking me

    This is is an extraordinary example of what is called "gaming the system" in wiki-talk; and it deserves to be examined with close scrutiny an and a heightened attention to what actually happened here.

    Responding to this very serious charge will take some time; but as a first blush look at this complaint, why don't you click on the hidden text which Caspian blue has created. Look at the last of the choice quotes which are presented as proofs of my intolerable behaviour. The red font text shows what was edited out, and the external link simply provides proof that what I wrote and what is posted here are significantly different. This isn't just bad form. This isn't just an accident. NO -- this is something worse; and the rest of the serial charges Caspian blue has made here can be similarly addressed and deflated seriatim. However, it does take longer to expose and quash a deliberate fraud than it took to create the misleading evidence which supports this false allegation. --Tenmei (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am involved in this only in that I voted in the AFD discussion. After CaspianBlue posted a request on my talk page, I have done some looking into the dispute, but not perhaps enough. Here are some preliminary ideas. First, CaspianBlue and Tenmei both seem to be non-native-English speakers, and ones from different cultures. They should both realize the difficulties of communicating and working together in a foreign language. Tenmei, especially, seems to become very upset whenever he/she perceives incivility - I think that Tenmei should be very careful to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and try to not get upset at what is, in American terms, a reasonable discussion. Tenmei should, at all costs, not abuse other editors - that accomplishes nothing. Tenmei seems to be capable of contributing usefully and working with other editors; he/she should strive to do so always. One thing Tenmei must, however, learn - discussions suffer from the addition of large text blocks. Adding long, rambling, and unnecessary blocks of text to discussions harms the discussion and irritates other editors. Tenmei must learn to discuss in a concise and on-topic fashion. Long documents should be placed in user-space or other off-topic locations and linked to if necessary; comments should be short and concise (unlike this one, but I'm trying to say a number of things). I think Tenmei should be given a chance to change his/her behavior, if they want to try, rather than being blocked. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NO to "strong bias against Korean editors"

    This a phoney claim -- contrived for purposes I can't fathom. We all come to Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. In my case, Caspian blue seems to have come looking for a fight, hoping for an argument, angling for something to complain about. I avoided participating in that game to a greater extent than I would have thought possible given the repeated provocations. The clear record which is saved by the Wikipedia system will show that Caspian blue set out to create something out of nothing. I won't get into why this happened. I don't have to do that. I don't have to explain what motivated this. However, I do intend to show that I neither initiated nor participated in anything like a "personal attack" as defined in wiki-terms. No.

    The one phrase that most deserves to be highlighted above is "strong bias against Korean editors." This could be a very serious charge, but it deserves to be rejected as completely out-of-place here.

    This is over-reaching, and in way -- sad; but to the extent that the accusation is designed to cause me harm, it needs to bring down harsh rejection in a fashion that Caspian blue cannot misunderstand. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote the following. I'll address the other specific complaints Caspian blue makes; but for now, this is a good beginning. There is no offense in this -- but there is a demonstration of the plain fact that I've had the good fortune to learn from a children's story -- The Emperor's New Clothes.

    The fact of the matter is that there are problems in some articles which involve both Korea and Japan. There is current strife between Korea and Japan. That's not a revelation of any kind of anti-Korean bias, it's just the way it is. Having written an article about a time when something went right between Korea and Japan, the question Caspian blue and others force me to confront is how to foster scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development. At the same time, the task becomes one of figuring out how to avoid the endless litany of pitfalls which fill the talk pages of articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort Women, just to name two of them. What to do is a real question -- it's not "Korean bashing" unless heightened sensitivity, thin-skinned indignation and a need for something to argue about are combined to make something out of nothing for reasons I don't have to understand ....

    I see a problem which affects my ability to work effectively on the task of improving Wikipedia articles, and I did address it in a straightforward manner. As a first step, read what I wrote. The following is an invitation to work together towards worthwhile goals. It was rejected entirely and instead, Caspian blue wants to fulfill a quite different need.

    Instead of adding in-line citations and reference sources to Joseon Tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo or just any article which attracts interest, Caspian blue chooses to focus on me. Read the following and decide for yourself where I've tried to engineer my focus:

    Withdrawal from AfD
    Taemyr counsels me to withdraw the AfD listing. If advised again to do so, I will comply with good adice ... but then what?

    - * ------ * ------ * -

    In re-visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I was inspired to examine Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. If someone else is able to stretch WP:AGF farther than I'm able to do -- if we assume that everything above is really nothing more than a big mistake, then would it be reasonable to consider "userfication" of the text posted at Joseon tongsinsa? The citations look like bad faith to me, but the reference source is real. Taemyr counsels me to keep focused on the potential of this article.

    Frankly, I don't quite understand what this would achieve ... but it could be construed as a recognition of the importance of Korean contributions, especially in the process of developing further articles which flow from Foreign relations of Imperial China.<

    Both Joseon Tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo at present account for only a relatively short 300-year period in the history of the Joseon Dynasty, and Korean scholarship will continue to be important as this subject evolves over time.

    This could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. Just because this seems to have started off badly doesn't mean that more constructive alternatives can't be imagined. --Tenmei (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - * ------ * ------ * -

    In response to Taemyr's well-reasoned and patient counsel, I have been persuaded that it is no longer essential that Joseon tongsinsa be deleted, but that does not mean I disagree with Stifle. With Taemyr's help, I've begun to think I may see another way to handle what seemed like an intractable problem, but I truly don't know what's best.

    Fundamentally, the impeccable posture of Taemyr's wiki-weltanshauung still troubles me because it necesssarily implies a deliberative cognitive dissonance, a stance which is undeniably best in this setting .... This is in no way a criticism or a complaint. I have nothing but thanks to offer Taemyr as I acknowledge his thoughtful assistance in helping me begin to re-evaluate a small problem from a broader perspective.

    There is no reason for Taemyr to have expanded the ambit of this AfD evaluation to include a consideration of Liancourt rocks, also known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, , literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[17][18] [19] [20] which is currently move and semi-protected. There is no cause for complaint if Stifle was entirely unaware of the following not-"normal editing" notice which has been posted by administrators on this not-unique page:

    ----This is a controversial topic. Before making substantial changes, please
    ----read the talk page and make sure to edit only in a spirit of cooperation.
    ----This article is currently under special administrative surveillance and
    ----absolutely no edit-warring will be tolerated.
    ----Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked.
    ----Incivility and edit-warring will not be put up with, and all reverts must be discussed fully
    ----on the talk page before you revert. Not after! Thank you.

    Although Brianyoumans may have known about controversial Dokdo class amphibious assault ship[21][22] and about ROK naval manoevers last month [23] [24] , there was no obvious reason to acknowledge that current events might impact an AfD concerning a 17th-19th century subject. Indeed, Brianyoumans constructively noted that "the Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations."

    I did know about something about these subjects -- enough to be scrupulously concerned in crafting Korean missions to Edo so as to avoid, as best I could, any plausible cause for controversy. That I was unsuccessful in real world terms does not undercut the extent to which I did manage to comply explicitly with WP:V -- and my efforts were for naught. Two specific sentences informed this AfD nomination; and to both my response was a clear, unequivocal, disgusted NO -- NOT POSSIBLE:

    1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." -- NO, CAN'T BE FIXED
    2. "Articles should only be deleted when the issues are not repairable." -- NO, NOT REPAIRABLE

    The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue were joined by other like-mindedAny future tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic at Korean missions to Edo, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, Any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.

    Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. The dignified and sober Taemyr asks "What is best?" Stifle thinks deletion is a better course of action. I myself don't know but I would invite consideration of the following:

    ONE: It is frustrating that the following fell on deaf ears in this AfD venue:
    "The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort ...." --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TWO::It is frustrating that it would take hours to respond to just one paragraph Caspian blue posted at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge#Opposition to Merge, and in all probability the questions were merely rhetorical -- which means that any misguided attempt to respond calmly, rationally, critically will only become fodder for yet another perverse escalation of angry accusations:
    Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fostering scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development

    It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan (林氏, Hayashi-shi).

    Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.

    An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.

    In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant Japanese era name was construed as evidence of an anti-Korean insult which deserved a resounding rebuff ... and WP:V becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.

    Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.

    My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern McCune-Reischauer romanizations or Revised Romanizations of Hangul names from Joseon Tongsinsa in the body of Korean missions to Edo could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.

    No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.

    No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.

    Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to Korean missions to Edo as they develop over the coming months and years. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I don't even read your lengthy rambling but still seem like you fill with same disdainful false accusations. Your serious false charge of me are all attached above. You abuse the AFD from the ill-faith as filling with all bashing instead of focusing the AFD. Besides, you paste the same comment from the AFD. Even User:LordAmeth said that you have a tendency to make personal attacks to editors. Heh.. he knows you way better than me. Well, this rambling seem to be your tactic to distract people's attention. I think you really deserve a proper sanction. Will see.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Good grief. I have read both of your ramblings and they are entirely long, winded, and contradictory. Can both of you sum it up in a few paragraphs, with relevant citations, so that the administrators can infer just what has gone on? Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you read my thread only (I sum up the situation), you can grasp why he should be reported to here. More shortly, Tenmei who has tendency to make personal attacks suddenly made a peaceful merging proposal to be a place for making personal attacks at the AFD. He drags irrelevant articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women which I have edited as a method of attack and distrust for my merging suggestion. He also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me. I said he should be stop his making personal attacks and removed irrelevant bashing from the AFD, but he refuses and keeps continuing such behaviors. My report is not for a content dispute, but for his so impeccable behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008(UTC)

    Sub-thread: Other contexts and other editors

    • Comment This seems to be similar to Tenmei's highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour towards me and other editors over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article. In my experiance this editor routinely responds to disagreements with long and highly uncivil posts and escalates minor disagreements into major disputes as he not willing to enter into good-faith discussions but instead stubbonly sticks to his position and attacks editors who have different views. Tenmei has been warned many times for his uncivil and disruptive behaviour and has been asked to condense his long-winded talk page posts as these are not contributing to discussions, but this has had no observable impact. Diffs to some of Tenmei's uncivil comments involving the Hyūga class article include: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32] and the warnings Tenmei has recieved for his behaviour on that article include [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40]. As this editor is displaying a consistant pattern of misbehaviour I believe that some form of block would be appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented exchange between Seicer and Tenmei, seems unrelated to Dowling-initiated the sub-thread --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seicer -- If you are not an administration to whom I should have presented a request about restoring what was reverted, to whom should I have gone. I wrote "please" which was coupled with a request to do something. If that is perceived as a demand, I don't know what to say.
    I'm in no position to demand anything from you. In fact, as far as I know, no one can demand anything from anyone else in the Wikipedia environment. I asked -- that's it. I take it your answer is "no" and that the question should not have been directed to you.
    As for your worry about that mis-posted "rant," I can move it here where it was intended to be posted.
    I would have thought that "rant" was perjorative. If so, it is undeserved. What I did do was to use the template provided at WP:CIVIL as a tool to organize my response to a charge that I have been more than uncivil -- that my alleged anti-Korean bias has been exacerbated by a wrongful personal attack. That's not a rant -- certainly not in the context of this rapidly changing thread. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs you provide show no evidence of incivility. [41]: What incivility? Weird yes, but incivil no. [42]: I don't know what diff he is defending here, there might be incivility in the comment that lead to the warning but I can find none in this diff. [43] and [44]: I don't see anything that could be construed as incivility here.
    [45]: On it's own it seems merely to be Tenmei stating that he feels that Nick Dowling is choosing to ignoring reliable sources. Context might mean that this is a personal attack, but in general one must be allowed to disagree with other editors. [46]: No incivility, although a clear element of failure to AGF on Tenmei's part. [47]: Clearly not helpfull, but not a personal attack. [48]: Why do you give this diff twice? Taemyr (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editors who warned Tenmei for those posts regarded them as uncivil and highly disruptive - I imagine that you would also be offended if I accused you of "framing sham "queries"", dismissed your responses out of hand or accused you of plotting and acting in bad faith. Sorry for posting the diff twice - that was an accident. To summarise a long story, Tenmei was insisting that the article on the ships label them aircraft carriers, when there is no consensus on what kind of ship they are. Rather than participate in a good faith discussion he abused the other editors, sat out the process of drafting text to describe the ambiguity over the ships' classification and then restarted the dispute. The same behavior seems to be occuring in this dispute - complete with Tenmei's incredibly over-long and unreadable posts. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dowling -- I don't see the constructive purpose served by this thread. Rest assured that I have no hesitation about addressing whatever it is you are proffering here. When time permits, I will return to re-visit the knowingly inaccurate summary which has been posited above. With regret, I suppose this posting is unsurprising. Indeed, I was warned that something like this would likely happen, if not now then at some other point in the future. However, in the context of the specific instances which are alleged to have caused Caspian blue to lodge a complaint in this venue, a request for a little more specificity seems not unreasonable.
    Dowling -- What evidence of Korea-bashing or anti-Korean bias is to be adduced from my participation in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer? Were there other contexts or other issues you hoped to highlight in the context Caspian blue creates? If so, please be specific so they can be addressed seriatim. By all means, please edit the sub-heading for this section if, as I suspect, it does not sufficiently reflect what you had in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted my message here as it was at the bottom of the thread at the time as per normal talk page procedure. I was asked to comment on your behavior and it's clear that you've failed to pay any attention to the many warnings you were given for the Hyūga class article and are continuing to rudely make mountains out of molehills. As it's you whose been adding sub-headings to describe other editors posts (which is an unusual practice) don't go complaining about the sub-headings not matching the content of the posts. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dowling -- You note that adding thread sub-headings is non-standard; and you also observe that much else in my Wikipedia participation is non-standard. Thank you for recognizing one of the valuable contributions I make by participating in Wikipedia -- no less in this venue than elsewhere. I the last sentence of your paragraph above, you also exhibit characteristic trait in attempting to contrive a cause for disagreement where none exists.
    As you may remember, you you were offended at my temerity in removing brackets which created a link within a sub-heading you created. I did not know then that headings were sacrosanct, and I still believe this just something you made up. Nevertheless, with your complaint in mind, I invited you to edit a thread sub-heading I had created. There is no complaint in the following:
    By all means, please edit the sub-heading for this section if, as I suspect, it does not sufficiently reflect what you had in mind.
    I would argue that this non-standard invitation to collaborative editing is typical -- as is the contrived indignation such attempts to build bridges seem destined to evoke.[49] I offer no apology for the length of this sentence nor for its substance. --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait! This thread is becoming so complex, I can't sort out how to respond

    This can't be made simpler while the thread grown more complex faster than I can figure it out. My initial attempts to clarify have been reverted already. Caspian blue deleted the words which were left out from what has been posted above. This means my words are not read in context. This becomes an impossible hurdle.

    Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility
    In the illustrative list of behaviors which can contribute to an uncivil environment, insults and name-calling are near the top of that list. On the same line, there is a helpful injunction -- an inviation to "comment on the actions and not the editor." This is what I have done. In order to identify which actions deserve comment, it is inevitably necessary to identify a specific individual or group of individual editors. That, I have done; and as long as I scrupulously focus on actions and content, there is no personal abuse -- no incivility. Taking umbrage as a way of avoiding further discussion of actions and content can be a mistake, an emotional misunderstanding, a faux pas. In this case, the feigned umbrage is gaming the system. That has always been the fear which motivated the resort to AfD, and that worry is now born out as fully valid.

    Also in that illustrative list at Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility is a warning against "taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Caspian blue has been pushing for something to argue about, angling for a dispute, and posturing to use indignation or feigned offense as a cause to achieve a disagreement. This is not conduct which deserves to be rewarded; and Wikipedia is diminished to the extent that an agenda-driven campaign like this is encouraged in any way.

    In a sense, Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility anticipates both of my invitations to explain myself at WP:AN/I when the illustrative list includes "ill-considered accusations of impropriety;" but while the content dispute which was treated here as a personal dispute with Nick Dowling is be partly explained by cognitive dissonance, this fake-issue, this ersatz-problem with Caspian blue is an entirely different matter. This is a cake baked from scratch by a knowing baker with a recipe in mind.

    The easiest proof of my innocence and Caspian blue culpability is in "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead" and in "quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them."

    This was never a simple situation, and it can't be resolved by ignoring the context. At its root, Caspian blue has proffered a complaint of foul play, discrimination because of an intolerable bias against Koreans. The nature of that complaint takes this out of the ordinary run of disputes which appear on this page.

    Ultimately, Caspian blue's complaint runs afoul the last of the items on the list of behaviors which can contribute to an uncivil environment -- "feigned incomprehension" or "playing dumb." In this instance, Caspian blue's actions are revealing, rather the lack of actions. When an perceived offense was discovered or announced, where was there a realistic opportunity to address that offense with an explanation. The record will show that there was never that kind of opportunity. Rather, Caspian blue was carefully saving up a list of insults and slights and offenses so that cumulatively they could be made into something to complain about.

    In conclusion, this was a campaign, an orchestrated strategy. How can I address it without putting my own words in context? That's an essential objective ... else innuendo becomes the only coin which buys anything.

    I have to be able to put my words in context; and I can't keep up with constant reverts which happen too fast for me to follow. --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenmei (talk · contribs), I used to hear a complaint that I made a long-winded report but you surpass me indeed. I don't need to waste my time to read "irrelevant ramblings". It seems that this is your tactic to get out of your charges because you know nobody read "lengthy complaint". You did the same thing to the last report on your disruptive personal attacks. You initiated to attack me out of nowhere from my peaceful proposal for merging as labeling my comment as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging". The uncivil comment was not a big deal until you nominated the article for deletion with pulling the "race card" and "anti-Japanese sentiment". It is YOU who falsely has accused me that I'm editing by tag-teaming with others and do not deserve to edit the nominated article because I've been editing Comfort women and Liancourt Rocks. (how irrelevant to the article) You are digging my contributions to make the whole content to be deleted, and deliberately chose vicious languages like "skewed out" and you denounced all my contribution history. More than half of the AFD is filled with your bashing about me. You still have a chance to give me your sincere apologies and to retract personal attacks. Oh well, after you got a warning from an admin, but you keep continued your behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting out-of-context in order to malign, Part I

    Caspian blue has listed nine examples of "Tenmei's verbal attacks." I can and will respond to all of them; and it will become plain that there never was any personal attack nor was there anything other than an attempt to grapple with a difficult question having difficult consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • FIRST QUOTE: This article comes to my attention because a Korean editor experienced in the harsh melée flowing from Ilbongun wianbu proposed merging Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo.
    The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort .... --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[50].][reply]
    RESPONSE:
    A. There are articles which are highly controversial. There are people who exacerbate controversy. Some do so intentionally and others do so unintentionally. Without commenting on motivation or intention, the fact remains that there are some whose contributions inflame or worsen an already difficult situation. This happens in life, and it is irrational to conceive of a wiki-reality in which editors do not have the same effect.
    B. Regardless of whether Caspian blue was amongst those who make exacerbate or ameliorate any specific emotionally-charged talk page exchange, the fact remains that experience in an environment of heightened strife establishes a tone, a comfort-level, a context which is defined as "normal" based on specific experiences. We all learn from experience, and it is entirely reasonable -- not a criticism -- that prolonged experience at Talk:Comfort women is likely to have produced a conception of what is normal in that context.
    C. It is not necessary or vital or productive for that sense of heightened strife from Comfort women (Ilbongun wianbu) or Liancourt Rocks to be replicated in Korean missions to Edo.
    D. When I developed a sense that this was escalating too fast into acrimony -- without any apparent causal factor in the context of Talk:Korean missions to Edo, I worried that there may be an external cause; and I tried to figure out how to calm the context for further discourse. The tool of choice for me is WP:V -- focus on the sources, the specific citations, the published facts. Nevertheless, the level of emotionally-charged, accusatory tone continued to worsen.
    E. One working hypothesis was that this was a misplaced extension of the on-going contemporary series of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese -- nothing to do with Joseon tongsinsa, but everything to do with the present day ... and Wikipedia is naught but another handy battlefield.
    F. In the process of testing a hypothesis, it always happens that you look for evidence which seems to support the proposition; and you look for evidence which might lead to another, better formulation of the same hypothesis or another hypothesis altogether.
    QUESTION:
    Could I have explained all this more succinctly. Should I have expressed these thoughts sooner? If this had been spelled out so clearly, would this clarification have further excited an already inflammatory situation?
    CLARIFYING ACTION:
    What I did do is this -- I added the following right after the sentence to which Caspian blue objected, hoping to explain in this neutral way rather than making anything worse.[51]
    {:{medcabbox|2008-07-25_Comfort_women}} -- This article, Comfort women, is currently the subject of informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
    {:{calm talk}} -- Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
    {:{Controversial-issues}} -- This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.

    Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.


    • NINTH QUOTE: Caspian blue -- Nope. Not having the affect you seek.
    FACT: You are offensive -- stop it. You've been offensive for some time; and I've been trying to figure out how to contrive an alchemy which will allow me to focus on the scholarly issues which interest me. It's taken a while to sort through my thoughts, but ignoring you isn't exaclty the answer. NO -- you and your ilk require a quite different strategy. Do us all a favor -- just stop.
    FACT: You perversely aim to construe anything and everything as a new cause for argument -- stop it.
    FACT: Your claimed distress is a mere sham. My advice to you -- Find someone else to trouble.
    FACT: This arguing gambit is a kind of fraud, and it really can't withstand close scrutiny. Instead of bothering me, why don't you focus attention on something constructive, anything.
    On the other hand, if you're determined to try to make a fuss, you'll have to be more specific. I've done nothing, written nothing, contributed nothing for which I have any regrets except that it took so long for me to figure out a tentative strategy for handling the problems you present. You've managed to feed your appetite for argument in other settings, but maybe all I need to do is to demand you abandon innuendo and instead that you make your complaints specific. Then it's my challenge to figure out how to divert a rambling rant into anything to do with credible source.
    That's my plan -- not much really. Kinda simple. Alchemy turning dross to gold.
    Speaking of gold -- what about that Korean baseball team? Olympic gold. There is only one explanation for that victory -- hard work, practice and teamwork. A good lesson worth learning in any number of contexts. --Tenmei (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[52].]
    RESPONSE:
    From first to last, I have always tried to do what is expressly explained here -- to divert non-constructive complaints into anything to do with a credible source. The result of trying to work through this seemingly intractable problem did result in something succinct. The mere fact that these few important words in red font were excluded proves one thing -- they were not perceived as offensive. It is not proof, but it is suggestive that these words were excluded. It suggests that Caspian blue understood well enough that these words were conciliatory and that if they were read in this context, others might be persuaded that my focus was on collaboration, cooperation, consensus and enhancing the quality of the subject which was the focus -- not personal attack, and not anti-Korean discriminatory bias.
    QUESTION:
    Could I have explained all this better, sooner, clearer? If I had amplified this crisp statement, would the clarification have further excited an already inflamed situation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by tenmei (talk • contribs)

    Taemyr escalating the situation by his own personal attacks

    Caspian Blue, you have been blocked once in part for attempting to use NPA to solve your content disputes[53], and two more times for edit warring with a pro Korea POV[54]. For this reason it is especially important that you are careful to assume good faith in fellow editors, especially on disputes about Korea related articles. I am personally amazed that you are able to be so certain about what Linmei is trying to say, most admins that have commented in this thread finds getting any real meaning out of Tenmei's comments to be very difficult. Stricken reference is fallout from a run in with a sock farm, it is less indicative of a trend on the part of Caspian than what the block log suggest. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite obvious that you come to condone Tenmei's disruptions as accusing the above admin making "false accusations" to Tenmei. I strongly advise you retract your personal attacks against me and the links. My blocks are deeply involved with "sock/meat farms by pro Japanese and they were indef.blocked for their disruptions. The log has nothing to do with the tread. You have witnessed the AFD was going nowhere with personal attacks. I had assumed good faith, and used up all for his repeated personal attacks. Well if you can't not retract the attack, I will ask admins. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not condone Tenmei's statements, there is definitivily an element of incivility there, but I consider your responce to them an overeaction. The fact that you have been blocked over using NPA as a weapon in previous conflicts is relevant, and I see no evidence that Amagase is part of any sock farm. Taemyr (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Overraction? Taemyr, retract your personal attacks and bad faith comment. You mentioned my other blocks, which are related to sockpuppetry's disrutpions. You mock me here to defend Tenmei. I say again, remove your increadiblity uncivil and inappropriate comment. You are no position to mock me in the public place.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one making the situation getting worst and worst. I said you have to remove your mention of my block log, not partially striking out on your comment and adding another ad hominem attacks in a disguised analysis. You made more attacks not retracting your insults. You know how well your statement anger people. Good faith is not always effective to people like you. You also attacked Nick Dowling, and target at me. Your inappropriate behaviors should be examined.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenmei, at the very least statements such as "you and your ilk" is a personal attack. As is the statement "You are offensive". In the latter example note that there is a difference between "You are offensive" and "Your actions are offending me" or "This action offends me". Also, try to keep the discussion you are involved in to the point, you tend to run on a lot, this makes it very hard to get at what you are trying to say. As a consequence people are bound to misunderstand you, and at times this will escalate conflicts you are involved in. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Folks, much as the above makes the eyes glaze over and inclines one to bypass as TL;DR, I think that Tenmei has proved Caspian Blue's point for him rather well. Question: what, if anything, should be done? Tenmei is clearly exceptionally vexatious, but it's not all one-sided. I'd like to suggest that both disputants accept a 48 hour injunction to disengage, resist the temptation to post further diatribes here, leave all mutually disputed articles alone and allow some space for a measured consideration of the issue - otherwise I'm afraid it's likely to end up with people simply losing patience with the whole festival of Stupid. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracting 'you and your ilk
    Before filing this WP:AN/I, Caspian blue asked User:LordAmeth if I were Japanese. In my view, whatever is going on with Caspian blue has little to do with me. As for what was happening, I don't want to be involved in that difficult speculation.
    I did try not to make this worse. Who will not credit me with trying to think through this as best I could? In my view, my efforts to avoid making a bad problem worse should purchase the counseling which will help me figure out how I could have done better ... and that is exactly what I thought was happening at AfD until Caspian blue abandoned a venue in which I thought the participants were helping us re-invent the wheel.
    Guy -- Mercutio's curse is not appropriate here -- "A pox on both your houses." Japanese and Korean conflicts may be like the Montagues and Capulets, but I've been trying to figure out how to avoid conflicts, not only with Caspian blue others similarly motivated.
    Taemyr -- You identify some of my faux pas above; but this has has nothing to do with Caspian blue in the sense that I am not now, nor have I been angered by this. I've just been frustrated at my inability to participate in a way that makes for a more constructive environment. If "you and your ilk" is an prohibited personal attack, I can withdraw those words immediately. I'm doing my best to be constructive and appropriate. No other interpretation of my edits is accurately reflects my intention. If there are other unacceptable remarks, I can and will remove them in a second. I can even apologize for wrong words, BUT I don't apologize for trying and failing in circumstances which were difficult to fathom.
    To whom could I have turned for counsel except to Taemyr? Whatever else you can say about what I was doing, there was a mind at work trying to figure out how to proceed. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You pulled all anti-Japanese sentiment and race card first because you know I'm Korean, and over analysied my contributiosn and attacked me. Therefore, I have to know why your malicious false accusations come from. According to other editors' saying, you're not a native speaker but uses very odd English. Well, You have to apologize your personal attack. The AFD is clearly your failed attempt filled with the irrelevant matters and your rant.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenmei, I urge you to seek a Mentor. The fact that most editors find your style of discussion to be difficult to understand, as well as tending to sidetrack the discussion, is going to be a problem for you and editors around you until you substantially improve your prose. Taemyr (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian blue -- I can and do sincerely apologize for using the term "you and your ilk." Those words are not permitted in this venue, and I am happy to comply with the norms established here. But there is nothing else for which I have any regret except that the consequences were not constructive, nor were they perceived as attempting to conform my behavior in a focus on making Wikipedia better.
    If I could be made to understand that other parts of what I've written are deserving of an apology, I will have no problem expressing regret.
    Caspian blue -- Do you remember this? You somehow construed this apology as a new cause to get angry:
    Please do not feel rushed. Feel free to proceed at a pace which seems comfortable to you. My opposition to the merge can change and will change when in-line citations and bibliographic references are added.
    You may want to look at what I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse. It is possible that this may produce helpful results; and I hope we both find reasons to appreciate the additional help this gesture brings. Maybe we will discover that this gambit was the most constructive step either you or I could have taken.
    Please note that it is not possible to engage the attention of this Article Rescue Squadron without listing Joseon tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. Also, please note that I did not list Joseon Tongsinsa as an AfD nominee. --Tenmei 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[55][reply]
    Caspian blue You told me I was too sensitive and that my words were offensive and uncivil. I apologized -- and yet this was a new cause to get angry.
    I am pleased to notice that you consider me too sensitive. That significant difficulty is easily resolved. I will strive to be more flexible.
    You mention that you construed my words as "offensive and uncivil." That too is easily resolved. I can and do sincerely apologize for having caused offense -- noting easier or more welcome than to confess regret for having erred when nothing but finesse and diplomatic, cautious langauge was intended. --Tenmei (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[56][reply]
    You stroke the comment and then suddenly began to pour all racial cards and analysis at me.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what to do going forward, but apologies aren't helpful -- even when sincere. I will only apologize to the extent that someone like Taemyr counsels me to do. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, Taemyr defended you as making insults by him. Good behavior.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So "the nom" means your opinion and another person having to mamke personal attacks? Ha! --Caspian blue (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Substance not well-served by style of communication

    Part of my problem is that wiki-norms require me to beat around the bush. Also, Caspian blue construed everything and anything as a new cause for anger -- even an apology caused trouble I don't understand. But what else was I to do except to try to make sense in the only venue where, thanks to Rescue Squadron, there was even half a chance of getting real help?--Tenmei (talk)

    THE UNANSWERED QUESTION:
    How to limit the kind of problems which mar Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women? How to do something so that Korean missions to Edo (or whatever it is renamed) will not become a battleground? That is the question I've invested time and effort in trying to answer ... or in trying to figure out where to go ...?
    Any future tag team editors who feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic at Korean missions to Edo, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. Any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.
    Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time.

    In the absence of permission to speak more freely, the best I can do is respond to Caspian blue's complaints in an effort to create a constructive outcome ... which was what I thought I was actually managing to to at AfD. In fact, I construe the fact that Caspian blue tried to turn this into something to do with a personal attack was a kind of wierd proof that some of what I was trying to achieve was beginning to become clear.

    I'm trying to convert this into something that actually resolves a root problem instead of merely focusing on slapping someone's hand. Under the circumstance, I would have thought that even if my approach is awkward, my persistence deserves to be commended, not derided.

    Guy -- This, at least, is not festival of Stupid. --Tenmei (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting out-of-context in order to malign, Part II

    The fifth through eighth quotes which Caspian blue cites as proofs of personal attacks and anti-Korean attacks are all related to a single paragraph of complaints which drafted by Caspian blue as an overall criticism of what he seemed to have found offensive at Talk:Korean missions to Edo.[57] This paragraph assumes some knowledge of the subject, but for the purposes of this WP:AN/I the tone is oddly excited and scolding.

    Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RESPONSE:
    Caspian blue's paragraph represents an impassioned reaction to passionless, dry prose. Two books and one scholarly article are listed as bibilographic references, and there are 11 in-line citations, all of which include clickable links which may it very easy to check that what is stated in the Wikipedia article is immediately verifiable in a credible, published source. This unassuming draft text -- very little more than a start -- was construed as a cause for anger ... already, at first glance.
    A. It is clear that something else is motivating a reaction which is too extreme for any plausible reading of the provocation. I can't guess what that might be; and in any case, I must abjure such thoughts because WP:AGF requires me to avoid that logical path.
    B. Although I must resist speculating about the here and now, there is no wiki-policy which prohibits me from recognizing that, if this non-descript text produces such a strong reaction, I am only prudent in anticipating something similar or something more extravagant in the future.
    C. I can and do speculate about how to avert similarly dramatic outpourings in the future; and I make guesses about how best to proceed, and these become a number of tentative hypothesis/conjectures.
    D. If there was this much trouble flowing from Korean missions to Edo, what about the more complicated text at Joseon tongsinsa? That prospect seemed like it would ensure that this became another Liancourt Rocks, so I posted the AfD and I posted on Rescue Squadron so that the future problems would be mitigated.
    QUESTION:
    What else could I have done to avoid escalating problems which seemed likely -- not just from Caspian blue, but from unknown others? If I had been more blunt in explaining what I was doing and why, it would have only inflamed the situation, so I was forced to proceed obliquely. Regardless of my intentions, if I can come to understand that I need to apologize to Caspian blue for other comments, other mis-statements, other mistakes, I will be glad to do it if someone can explain to me what I need to apologize for and why? --Tenmei (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CLARIFYING ACTION:
    I anticipated more of the same, if not from Caspian blue, then from others similarly inclined to see no difference between this subject and Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. In these quotes which are construed as offensive, I showed that I'd tried to understand the Korean perspective, and that what was perceived as offensive was actually respectful. This research also pointed the way towards collaboration and consensus. It fell on deaf ears, but it wasn't a bad thing. In fact, the Silhak school could be a way to construe Caspian blue's disruptive attacks on me as defensible outside the wiki-context which has different norms and rules ... or at least, that was what I was trying to say. What else more could I have tried to do in coming to understand Caspian blue in his own terms?
    • FIFTH QUOTE: It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan (林氏, Hayashi-shi).
    • SIXTH QUOTE: Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.
    • SEVENTH QUOTE: An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.
    • EIGHTH QUOTE: In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant Japanese era name was construed as evidence of an anti-Korean insult which deserved a resounding rebuff ... and WP:V becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.
    Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.
    My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern McCune-Reischauer romanizations or Revised Romanizations of Hangul names from Joseon Tongsinsa in the body of Korean missions to Edo could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.
    No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.
    No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.
    Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to Korean missions to Edo as they develop over the coming months and years. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC) [This part was edited out because it emphasizes the focus on CONTENT rather than personal attacks.[58].][reply]
    Tenmei, you're now trolling and disrupting ANI as pasting all the same ramblings from the AFD (maybe the last one is third or fourth copy) Now you step up as the most "unique" person whom I've ever encountered in my Wiki life. You think ANI and AFD are your battlegrounds as well as the whole Wikipedia as if you're fighting against illogical people, and you're solely righteous and innocent, aren't you? Open your eyes, and think! You firmly determine to declare who will be survived in your lengthy, intelligible, totally irrelevant and still extremely uncivil ramblings. (the red texts only bother people's eye, and make annoyance toward you) You really make people wasting valuable time with your weird writings. You're proven that you can be very uncivil and deny to acknowledge your errors. I'm pretty sure of that if you would not change your attitude, well you will get a nice treat soon. Good luck.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenmei apologizes to Caspian blue

    Caspian blue -- I appologize for writing "You are offensive" here. --Tenmei (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to use " " and to link your mockeries against me. The tooooo brief sentence is not even an apology and quite contrasts to your lengthy and unreadable ramblings. Another indef.troll is using your personal attack. How great.---Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no mockery or insincerity in the apology above. I was not insincere when I wrote the following, and I still believe it to be valid, accurate, direct, succinct and constructive. However, as it was explained above, in this wiki-setting, I am required to constrict what I truly think; and instead, there are some sentences which are not appropriate, not permissible. Now that I understand that I cannot write "You are offensive," I am apologizing. I did not know it was wrong when I typed it out, but now that I do understand, I have no hesitation admitting that I was wrong. It's as simple and as straight-forward as that.
    If you continue to construe mockery and personal attack in everything and anything -- even an apology as clear-cut and uncontroversial as this -- then you appear ridiculous, not because of anything I have said or done, but because your actions, your own words make it hard not to believe that you arise each morning apoplectic, highly excited, ready for a fight about what you believe in. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman

    It seems to me that there's a commonly-used American expression which applies here -- an old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. I think it's the fight itself which is most important to Caspian blue. At best, maybe it's an adolescent attempt to do what seems to be the right thing ... but somehow the best intentions fall a little short of the mark? I don't think anyone can sort this one out. I know I can't.

    The more important problem at hand is that there are likely to be other similarly-motivated wiki-editors who make the prospects doubtful for any article which includes both Korean and Japanese themes. The future is especially uncertain for articles like Korean missions to Edo and Joseon Tongsinsa which rely for their ultimate success on a collaborative merging of Korean and Japanese scholarship.

    These articles seem already to have become another one of those Sterling examples of wiki-failure. As some of us know quite well, there are some Wikipedia articles which have devolved into nothing but proxy battlefields in a centuries-old set of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese.

    When I created the rough draft of Korean missions to Edo, I thought there was a chance that this specific subject could become a meaningful example of something else -- an illustration of something which worked out well to the advantage of everyone; but whatever progress I thought had been made was dashed when Caspian blue accused me of personal attacks and Korea-bashing. As everyone knows, this deflects attention away from working towards developing commonly-understood objectives ... and indeed, I had some reason to believe that an AfD discussion was working towards a consensus decision, but that was untimely closed merely because of the unsubstantiated allegations Caspian blue posted here.

    I tried to find an example of this American saying on the Internet. The following is from a televised discussion about a political compromise in the US Senate in 2005. We don't really need to understand the politics of whatever it is these two men are analyzing -- the objective was simply to find an illustration of an apt phrase used in context.

    JIM LEHRER: Take us through this, David. These are your folks -- the conservatives. How are the conservatives going to react to this? Is anybody going to have to pay a price, do you believe?
    DAVID BROOKS: I don't think they'll have to pay a price. The conservative like James Dobson are apoplectic. James Dobson wakes up apoplectic. But, you know, they wanted to fight. I'm reminded of that old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. They were geared up for this fight. But I think in a not-too-distant future people are going to see that this is a good win for those conservatives because ....[59]

    Two wiki-examples of wiki-failures are Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. I recognize that the real-world disputes about these subjects are both controversial and valid; but the talk pages provide ample evidence that for many contributors, the proxy wiki-fights are more important to the combatants that the article itself.

    In the example from American television offers another useful mirror in terms of a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Brooks says that "James Dobson wakes up apoplectic," meaning that he wakes up in morning highly excited, ready for a fight about what he believes in. If I've understood wiki-etiquette correctly, Brooks would be reprimanded at WP:AN/I for writing "Dobson wakes up apoplectic," but I think I can safely write that Caspian blue acts as if he were apoplectic before he clicks into a discussion about Joseon tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo; and what seems like Caspian blue's frustrated anger is only indirectly related to whatever words are to be read on the computer screen.

    For Caspian blue and other peers with whom there is common cause at articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women, it appears as if it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction between what infuriates them in the real world and what is construed as inflammatory, offensive or personal attacks in the wiki-context.

    When I nominated Joseon tongsinsa for deletion because it did not comply with WP:V, that was not an anti-Korean gesture.

    When Caspian blue added an online Korean encyclopedia entry as a reference source for 4 in-line citations in Joseon tongsinsa, I translated the article via Bablefish. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

    The machine translation was largely unreadable, of course; but by simply highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates with a bold font, it became possible to show that there was no correlation between the alleged citations and the source. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

    I mistook the ensuing silence as an indication that the real work of merging reliably sourced information had at last begun. I was even proud of myself for having stumbled through the onerous task of machine-translated Korean to English which could be read by the other AfD discussion participants.

    But NO -- that's not what happened. Instead, the modest momentum of constructive engagement was stalled, quashed, blocked. Instead, the consensus reality of wiki-dispute resolution focuses attention elsewhere. I predict this can only happen again and again ad nauseam as it has played out in other articles.

    The task at hand is difficult enough, but it explicitly becomes a Sisyphean exercise unless something is done differently. In my view, Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women are doomed to failure because each are independently re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

    Caspian blue has participated in both talk pages -- and I mention this only as a way of demonstrating a knowledge that both articles exist and that both illustrate talk page difficulties. In addition, I know about both these pages, and now anyone who reads these words will know as well -- but where is the wiki-mechanism which allows for a chance that participants at Talk:Korean missions to Edo can profit from the investments of time, energy, and intellectual engagement in difficult discussions on these talk pages?

    Other than posting here, what can be done to avoid the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel in Korean missions to Edo and other similarly difficult articles? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you write so much? Everything you said above could have been said in one short paragraph. 86.152.160.18 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While being concise may be encouraged as a good idea (reader fatigue being a possibility), there is nothing inherently wrong with someone being lengthy in comment. - jc37 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting grossly over-long messages is hardly good practice and can be seen as a way of shutting down discussions as no-one is going to read them. Tenmei routinely posts these kind of messages in disputes, and doesn't respond to requests that he provide a short summary of what he considers the issue to be, which is both discourteous and unconstructive. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked Tenmei to stop with the rhetoric as it makes any kind of discussion impossible. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for a block on Tenmei, I want to hear a sincere apology from Tenmei, but oh well, in the disguised "apology" section, he made more personal attack as if I'm an insane and hysterical person. Look at his so-called apology.


    This is so typical of how Tenmei behaves in Wikipedia. When the user defends himself, the degree of the insult is getting worse. I don't need to put up with this extremely uncivil and rude person any more. Besides, Nick Dowling who has also undergone Tenmei's same pattern of personal attacks already requested a block on Tenmei per his continued disruptions. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well he did apologise 'I apologize for writing "You are offensive" here. --Tenmei' and instead of accepting that apology you chastised him for using quotation marks and linking to the phrase he was apologising for. Both of which are absolutely standard. He did need to use the quotes because he was quoting himself and that's what quote marks are for and he did need to link to make it clear what he was apologising for. Yes his apology was short, personally I applaud that because he writes waaaayyy toooo much usually. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Theresa, I really don't see what intention you have here and the below thread. It seems pretty clear that you have something in your mind. That is not an apology, because he continues more attacks in the "apology" section. Besides, whether accepting his "so-called" apology is to be reflected by his following behaviors and my mind, not you. The insulting comment is not only one, but too many disruptive comments here and the AFD. Besides, why are you so calm at Taemyr's mentioning my past? I really don't appreciate your intervention here.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't appreciate TK commenting, I suggest you post your next complaint to WP:Admin Noticeboard not involving Theresa Knott (or LessHeard vanU, for that matter). I certainly won't miss you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not need to appreciate any comment addressed here. However, just for a courtesy, I thank you for your "big" help here so far.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: at this point, is there any substantial dispute yet to be settled, or is it really just mutual bickering dragged on and on? Can we perhaps just stop now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Content disputes are not the matter that I reported but Tenmei's behaviors at the AfD. I still don't understand why Tenmei suddenly got hostile from a discussion and did research on me. His mention about my ethnic background and Liancourt Rocks and ianfu are not related matter to the AFD. He was saved by his typical lengthy writing from the last ANI, so evaluation is not done yet.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project. I suggested mentorship higher up in this tread. Taemyr (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taemyr -- I did act on your suggestions. I did apologize as you expressly urged me to do; and I did post at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User#Referral from context of WP:AN/I?.
    Your reaction here was not anticipated -- quite the opposite. I expected approval, not disapproval. I thought that I'd at last managed to write something which would be perceived by all thread participants as helpful, on-point and concise.
    I'm mystified, for example, that Fut.Perf. above evaluates my contributions to this thread as being within the ambit of anything like "bickering" .... --Tenmei (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I was not aware that you had posted at Adopt-a-User. Good. Sorry that I had not picked up on this earlier, I have your user page watchlisted but forgot to put this talk page on my watchlist.
    Apologies are good, but your realizations that parts of your posts had an uncivil tone is far more important. While your actual apology was concise, by the time I had returned here you had produced another two pages of text, so it drowned a bit. Taemyr (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed Fitzgerald revert-warring over non-free images

    Somebody needs to warn or block Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs), who has been waging a mass revert-war against admin Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) reinstating non-free images without any justification, and abusively removing legitimate "di-" deletion tags from image pages she tagged. Links: here and multiple other articles; here and multiple other images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Calliopejen1 came to my attention when she threatened to delete appropriate fair-use images from J.R.R. Tolkien (see [60] and [61]). I thought this choice on her part indicated extremely poor editorial judgement, so I looked at her contributions, and, indeed, found a whole slew of deletions of images that were perfectly appropriate to the articles they were in, and these I restored. Three or four of her deletions were reasonable (for instance, the picture of Tolkien in the Anglo-Saxon Language article) and I left those alone.

    I used proper editorial judgment in deciding whether the images should be restored or not, and never restored simply because she had deleted it - so there's been no improper "mass revert-war" on my part.

    That's about all I have to say at the moment, except that FPS and I have been somewhat at loggerheads recently (see my comments about him here, and our discussions here and here) because we have a fundamental disagreement about how NFCC poicy should be enforced. My feeling is that images should be deleted because of copyright concerns only on the basis of community consensus, which is properly expressed at an IfD, while FPS apparently believes that any editor can delete images they feel are not in compliance at will, with no community involvement -- or involvement only at DRV when the burden of proof is reversed. (As an admin, FPS can delete images directly, whereas non-admins such as Caliopejen1 have to use a back-door approach, which is to remove an image from an article, so that it is orphaned and will be deleted automatically.) I find this to be fundamentally opposed to the basic values of the project.

    I'll perhaps have more to say later on if it's required of me, but right now my dinner has been served, and after that I'll return to the task I was interrupted from, which was posting notices on the talk pages of articles, images from which Calliopejen1 has nominated for deletion -- apparently she didn't think it necessary to notify the editors of these pages that a part of their articles were being considered for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Calliopejen1 is an admin. Algebraist 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really! I find that suprising. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (Ah! I see now that FPS referred to her as an admin in his first sentence, which I missed.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complex subject; all I have done so far is remove (a) images from articles where they are overused (i.e. in two or more articles when one would do), and (b) where free replacements are easily sourceable. Black Kite 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on my talk page, it's easy to say that an image will be "easily sourceable", but less easy in reality to find free images. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)When you get back from dinner and have time in between those notifications, maybe you can explain to us how the burden of proof is reversed at deletion review. So far as my understanding goes, when posting uploading a non-free image, the burden of proof is on the uploader to show that it's use fits the fair use criteria, at an IFD debate, the burden of proof is still on those advocating for the image's retention, and if the image is deleted and goes to DRV the burden of proof remains with those who want to keep the image. Or am I missing something? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's difficult about this. At IfD, the burden is on the nominator to provide a strong argument for the deletion of the image. At DRV the burden is on the person seeking to overturn the deletion to make a strong argument that the deletion was improper. That may not be official policy, but it's very much what happens in reality, as anyone who's tried to overturn a deletion at DRV will attest. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're right, but as ever, everything doesn't fit into the pre-arranged pigeonholes. For example, we (and Commons) appear to have no non-free image of Idi Amin. Whilst living, I suspect this might be quite a difficult image to source. The second question is whether a non-free image is reasonable at Uganda despite already being in Idi Amin. Whilst being quite tough on fair-use (I have been called am image Nazi in the past by someone who failed Godwin's Law quite dramatically), this might be said to be reasonable. It's something to discuss. However, some of the other examples mentioned above are not, and I have removed them. Black Kite 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Amin died five years ago. Algebraist 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. I was thinking of Robert Mugabe. The general point still applies, though. Black Kite 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to the subject

    (out) If I may return to the original subject -- Does this really qualify as a "mass revert war", worthy of a notice at AN/I, here among the sock-puppets and vandals? A blockable offense to disagree with an admin on NFCC policy and their editorial judgment? Seems a bit draconian to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another question - wouldn't it be relatively easy for the system to automatically place a notification on the articles an image is used in when it's nominated for deletion? I understand from FPS that it's not required for an editor to place such a notice, but I always thought it was only fair that they do so -- after all, both the editors of the article and the nominator for deletion are only interested in improving Wikipedia, and should both be interested in a full and open discussion of the image's value among as many interested editors as possible. For that reason I would hope that most editors would make that notification, although Calliopejen1 chose not to do so (and I wish she hadn't nominated so many images of Armenians used on so many pages, since making the notifcations manually after the fact is pretty tedious), but if the system did it, wouldn't it be easier, and fairer, all around? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely something worth discussion; see this thread above, where the judgment of the originator of this thread has been fairly comprehensively challenged. It's interesting that FPS has started a new thread here rather than make a substantive response at that thread or even at their talk. This issue is far from simple, and I think all admins and concerned users need to take an interest in it, refrain from short-circuiting legitimate debate by out-of-process deletions, and consider contributing to discussions at the proper place. --John (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that deletionists live to delete stuff. Notification, which would be the polite thing to do, gets in the way of deleting stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people use a tool to help them list something for AfD or other deletion processes though, don't they? It simply needs an extra stage put in that tool, Twinkle or whichever one it is. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's really needed is the deletionist caring about anything other than deleting stuff. Don't hold your breath. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes wonder what the motivation is. After all, deleting images isn't like deleting unsourced information, or rewriting for a clearer presentation. It doesn't make the encyclopedia better in any appeciable way - in fact, image deletion arguably makes it less interesting and useful. Are they all copyright attorneys? Were they all abused by an evil image when they were children? Did a drunk-driving image run over their dog? I really don't get why people would voluntarily spend their free time doing this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument would be that removing excessive fair-use from articles does actually improve the encyclopedia, in that it makes it more "Free", per the mission statement. I admit that this argument rarely goes down well with the editors of those pages :) Black Kite 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I recognize that's the argument, but it just feels so... I don't know, bloodless to me, that I have difficulty understanding what attracts people (some of them rather fanatically) to dedicate themselves to it.

    Clearly, there's a communication gap here, a classic "failure to communicate." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding notifications to articles? Yes - in fact BetacommandBot can ... oh hang on. Black Kite 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe other bots do the same thing, and I'm appreciative of the fact. I wish that notifying the uploader and the talk pages of articles was a requirement rather than a suggestion which appears to be ignored in most cases. I gave up trying to notify talk pages of User:Calliopejen1's nominations for deletion, there were just too many of them. I would have been spending all my time doing this one laborious and tedious task, instead of what I prefer doing, which is editing encyclopedia articles. This means that one day, an editor is going to discover that an image has been deleted from the article he or she watches over, having never had an opprotunity to be involved in the discussion about deleting it, which will be decided by people who hang out at IfD -- doesn't seem quite equitable, does it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I couldn't resist the BCBot remark, but actually I completely agree with you. It shouldn't be too difficult for a bot to do this - try asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests? Black Kite 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that suggestion, I will. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted that idea here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was under the impression that Twinkle already did this routinely (not the article talk pages, but the image captions in the articles themselves) - but it turns out I seem to have been mistaken. Strange. It shouldn't be so terribly difficult to implement. (Although, finding the caption to tack the notification on can be trickier than one might think, especially if the image is in an infobox, where the script won't find the standard [[Image:...]] syntax.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be better that notifications go on the talk page, rather than disfigure the image caption. We already have far too many notices and notes and tags on the articles which are aimed entirely at editors and only get in the way of users, the people who come to Wikipedia to get some information. We need to start thinking more about our presentation to readers, and cut back as much as possible on what are, essentially, internal memoranda between editors put in "public" places. My analogy is opening up a printed encyclopedia, and finding a page covered in post-it notes with messages between the book's editors. We wouldn't put up with that, and there's no reason that our users need to put up with a bunch of internal memoranda getting in their way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got a point there, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As to why people want to make the encyclopedia worse by removing images they consider to be not fair use (this is mainly addressed to Baseball Bugs) isn't it because to use them otherwise might be erm...illegal, if they're under copyright? Sticky Parkin 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, there have been countless lawsuits against wikipedia due to the use of images that are also on a thousand other websites. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point. In another thread on my talk page I referred to one instance where User:Calliopejen1 had removed from this article a picture of a Nazi officer (this one) and replaced with an inferior image, the first being non-free and the second, a Commons image, being obstensibly free. Not only does this raise questions about when the inferior quality of a free image justifies the use of a superior non-free image, a question which, at least to my knowledge, no one has addressed, but also, in researching the removed non-free image (which I'm fairly certain, but cannot prove, is actually not covered by copyright), I found that it was present on at least a dozen other websites. At what point does the widespread proliferation of an image make it fair game for use here? The absolutists would probably answer both my questions "Never", but I think that's not only unreasonable, and harms the project by unecessarily limiting the range of images available to us, but is not justified by the current state of fair use in American law. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the "it's OK to drive at 100mph down this road, because everyone else does it and there's never any police around" argument. Marvellous. Black Kite 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, that's not even close to a good analogy. Copyright and other intellectual properties are not a god-given right, they're provided for in order to insure that people who create things of value are able to benefit from their work. However, it's not an all-encompassing license, there are limitations to it and fair use is one of them. Another is that rights owners have to make a reasonable effort to protect their property. You can't, for instance, send out a publicity picture for free to every publication in the country, and then claim copyright on it when someone republishes it on a blog without your direct permission. You have, in fact, given de facto permission by widely distributing the photo without restrictions, even if you technically retain the copyright on the photo. The reason that Kimberly-Clarke and Johnson & Johnson work so hard to stamp out colloquial use of "Kleenex" and "Band-Aids" for tissues and bandage strips is that if they don't they're liable to lose their trademarks. So if a photo appears widely on the internet, and no one's going around to try and stop its spread, there's a fairly good argument to be made that the use of the photo is fair game.

    Now, that's not at all akin to going 100mph because someone else is doing it, it's more like not stopping at a stop sign because a big bush has obscured it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's stretching the analogy a bit, but the important point is to strike a reasonable balance between (a) minimal use of fair-use where it clearly improves the encyclopedia, and (b) plastering copyrighted images all over the place without the slightest thought, even when they're obviously not necessary. Currently, Wikipedia errs too far towards (b), mostly because people don't actually understand the concept of fair-use (or even what fair-use actually means). Black Kite 11:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's not helped by the fact that wikipedia's page on fair use is nearly incomprehensible. It looks like it was written by law-school dropouts. But the essence of it seems to be "do no harm", which has virtually nothing to do with wikipedia's notion of how to apply fair use. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my understanding is that the boundaries of acceptable fair use are much broader than the project's policy allows, which is wny many people perceive this headlong rush to delete anything that even remotely crosses the line (in terms of WP policy) as "copyright paranoia." What that means is that a significant percentage of those images deleted because T's aren't crossed and I's dotted are not "illegal" in any reasonable interpretation of the law. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why risk it? Plus it would reflect on us badly. It sort of makes the wiki look good (ethically I mean lol) that we're strict about these things. I agree with you ironically about the warnings etc people place on talk pages when people haven't put the info in the right part of the form or something, so whatever automated tool or robot brain they're using can't see that all the info's on there, they just see the empty box. That is annoying, especially to new users or those of us not that confident at uploading. There's quite a few of such people/bots around though so it's policy/what we deem acceptable that needs changing, not individual people. Sticky Parkin 23:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethics, sí; esthetics, NO. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the reality is that ethics has nothing to do with it. I wasn't privy to whatever deliberations took place within the foundation, but the NFCC policy has the smell of lawyers all over it. It's not there because the foundation wants to be ethical, it's there because some lawyers decided it was a scheme that might prevent the foundation from being sued, and a workable defense if it was. Because of that, it is conservative in the extreme, and when you add an absolutist and extreme interpretation to the enforcement of it, as many here do, you get a situation which has, with some justification, been called "copyright paranoia".

    Why take the risk? Because it improves the encyclopedia significantly, and because the risk is actually very much smaller than is being advertised. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The 100 MPH analogy is misleading. Wikipedia's paranoid approach is actually more like driving 30 in a 45 zone, just to "be safe". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to the subject 2

    I've outdented again in order to ask again, because it does rather effect me and no one has yet answered it, was what I did a "mass revert war" and is it a blockable offense, as claimed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise? Is it legitimate to disagree with another editor's judgment and their interpretation of how NFCC policy should be enforced, and undo their removal of images on a number of articles, given that each revert was individually considered, and those removals which were judged to be legitimate were not reverted? Should I have been warned, and this thread (enjoyable and interesting as it's been) started at AN/I? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although Ed's position seems to be more in keeping with the law and with Wikipedia policy, I would like to add a little correction. "... rights owners have to make a reasonable effort to protect their property" is incorrect as to copyright law, both now, under Berne, and in the past. The examples given relate to trademarks, where the statement does apply. In particular, A plastering an image all over the web does not authorize others to do the same, or to plaster it somewhere other than where A plastered it. However, we're not talking about whether the image is a nominal copyright violation, but whether it's allowed by fair use and by WP:NFCC.
    Carmen Electra snapshot

    The real problem is the underlying assumption (that I once naively believed) that copyright and fair use rules had anything to do with wikipedia's policy on the subject. They don't. Wikipedia simply has a policy of having as few fair-use images as possible, and if a person or building still stand, then theoretically a free photo could be taken, and hence the deletionists clobber any fair use photos in those cases. That's how we ended up with this charming photo of Carmen Electra being the article's main photo for a long time. Free trumps fair use, no matter that the photo is so ugly it would make paparazzi grimace. That's the true wikipedia policy on the subject in a nutshell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Give or take the polemic, yes, the policy is precisely that: free trumps fair use. See the top left, under the jigsaw globe. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia remains "free" regardless of whether it has one fair-use photograph or a hundred. Our concern should be to provide, free of charge, accurate and reliable information, well-presented, and that is something that fair-use images help us to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It seems to me some editors aren't even aware of current policy. Current policy is that free trumps NFCC regardless of quality issues. The only justification for using images under NFCC if free images are available is if there is something important to show which is not shown in the free image. This may for example be a historic photo. Any argument 'we should use this NFCC image because it looks better then the free image' is therefore liable to be ignored. The second issue is what's a replacable image. Current policy is that if it's a living person who appears in public (i.e. anyone in prison, under house arrest, anyone who lives as a recluse etc is a different case) then it's replacable. Both of these are not only in our policy but spelled out to some degree in the foundation directive Meta:Resolution:Licensing policy. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. (almost all i.e. there are only going to be limited exceptions) Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. (same educational purpose, i.e. the fact that one looks better is not sufficient). There is still a very large grey area (e.g. how important is it to show how someone looked 10 years ago?) but the living people and free trumps NFCC regardless of which one 'looks better' is clear cut. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this very interesting, and an object lesson in how perceptions differ, because your summary of policy is much more restrictive than the actual policy is, since it clearly allows for possibilities where free images would not trump fair use ones.

    This is, I think, the nub of the problem, that deletionists operate on their extremely restrictive understanding of the policy, rather than deal with the reality that the policy recognizes that the issue is complex, that it's not cut-and-dried, and that it's subject to discussion. Those who operate in a dogmatic and absolutist manner to cut off any possibility of discussion are therefore (ironically) in violation of the spirit and the words of the policy.

    Frankly, anyone who says "I am absolutely right, there is no need for discussion, this image violates policy" about an image about which other editors have differing opinions, probably doesn't really understand image policy at all, only a cartoon version of it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to remind you, Ed, that the block warning was most of all about the second set of your disruptive edits: removing deletion tags from image pages that had been placed there in good faith, and edit-warring over it [62]. That was definitely against policy, and yes, I would have blocked you for that if you had continued after my warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin: Wikipedia needs to be fair and immediate administrative moderator attention given to this

    Request some eyes on the above article, given the current vice-presidential speculation. Kelly hi! 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Its been semi-ed. I'll add it to my watchlist. A MILF I can believe in. (Laugh) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that one's gonna' be fun. Watchlisted as well. And Kyaa, do you mean MILF or MILF? lifebaka++ 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful, she's a member of the NRA. Or is it the NRA? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Watchlisted. Skimming the sources, they look reasonable - mostly the Anchorage Daily News - though I haven't looked at the text in depth. MastCell Talk 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair how? Why does it need to be semi'd? Corvus cornixtalk 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia needs to be fair

    Jill Tracy Jacobs Biden is the wife of Vice Presidential candidate Biden. Todd Palin is the husband of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Jill has an article. Todd's article is a redirect and page protected to prevent creation.

    Given the big news of Sarah Palin, all administrators should rush and end page protection to allow the Todd Palin article to grow. After a few days, if it doesn't grow then it can be killed. Todd's claim to fame is exactly the same as Jill Biden, a spouse of a VP candidate who has had some news articles written specifically about the person and not the politician spouse. 12.176.20.2 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (copied from my talk) Sorry, that's not how we work. We consider the merits of each article on its own (see WP:WAX for more details). In this case, the crucial difference between Jill Biden and Todd Palin is that there has been a community discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Palin, that decided that the article about Todd Palin should be deleted, while no such discussion has occurred about Jill Biden. The decision to delete the article can be overturned, though, if the reasons for which the article was deleted are addressed. Here, this would mean that someone would have to write a stub (a short article) that provides references to substantial reliable coverage about Mr Palin himself (see WP:BIO). Then, that person would have to ask for permission to move that draft to Todd Palin at our deletion review page or on another appropriate forum.  Sandstein  16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure how to do this but I have put a delete tag on Mrs. Biden. Will a lawyer help format it and file it in the proper place. What I seek is equal treatment for both Mrs. Biden and Mr. Palin, not killing the Mrs. Biden article. I favor an article for both and will help both articles. Sorry for the clumsiness, but I am not a lawyer. After this, I plan to let the process run without further comment but please do help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We aren't lawyers trying the articles as cases. Each individual article needs to be weighed on the article's on merits using the standards at WP:BIO and WP:N. Please remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please no wikilawyering

    Please unlock the page now and let us begin working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome to contribute at Talk:Sarah Palin. The article will likely remain semiprotected for some time, since high-profile biogrpahies tend to attract significant amounts of anonymous vandalism. I would suggest registering an account. I'd also be a bit more optimistic here if you weren't using an anonymizing IP, which I'm tempted to hardblock. MastCell Talk 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 5 years and have never seen so many edits to an article within a few hours. I think semi-protections's ok for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake had a tidal wave of edits. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lift page protection on Todd Palin

    Resolved
     – Article has been unprotected and a draft copy moved in to its place. Shereth 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no policy reason why the Todd Palin redirect to Sarah Palin is salted against article recreation via full page protection. As far as I can tell the protection was a bit strong of a reaction to a single attempt to revert the redirect after the deletion result. However, the result of February's AfD does not preclude simply recreating the article in a fashion that avoids the flaws in the original (namely, being a 250-byte sub stub). It's plainly obvious that Palin is notable[63] and that an encyclopedic article will be written about him beyond the sub-stub that was deleted. Deletion review is the wrong process, and it would be counterproductive to create the article on a user page. It's simplest just to unprotect, and let editors get started. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How about one of the folks calling for unprotection write a version of the article in user-space, present it as "evidence" that an encyclopedic article can be written, and then we can speak of unprotecting the redirect and moving an article in its place? Shereth 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's wasteful and poor editing practice to edit articles in user space. The guy has more than 700 current news articles - feature profiles, biographies, interviews, articles about his heritage. Of course an encyclopedic article can be written. The purpose of page protection is to prevent edit warring - here it's being used to enact a non-policy (and kind of silly) content/procedure point. Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps at least some demonstration that there are sufficient reliable sources? Linking to a Google search is not sufficient - the onus should be on those wishing to have the article unprotected for editing to show that there are pertinent sources. Asserting that it is "plainly obvious" that he passes notability criteria is a subjective argument. Shereth 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The bulk of the Google hits just say that he's the husband of the governor and devote a sentence or two to him. Are there any articles devoted to him? Profiles or anything like that? He may be notable for being a champion dog-sledder snowmobiler. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stripping the word "Sarah" out of the Google News hits reduces that 700 to just 6 ([64]) and most of those are about his wife as well. That doesn't look too much like independent notability to me. Black Kite 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I just found three articles mostly about Todd Palin:
    • "Alaska's "First Dude" takes leave from BP job ; Potential conflict of interest wasn't the reason, but ethicist sees merit in the decision;" TOM KIZZIA Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Mar 2, 2007. pg. A.1
    • "Todd Palin unique among nation's five first spouses ; THE MAN: He's worked the oil patch, won the Iron Dog and takes care of the kids.;" JEANNETTE J. LEE The Associated Press. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: May 27, 2007. pg. B.4
    • "Husband loves to work and should be allowed to, Palin says" Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Sep 2, 2007. pg. A.10
    These would appear to indicate notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that shortly a large number of articles will be written about him, given today's news. Might it be worth waiting for that to happen rather than trying to cobble together a stub based on a few local newspaper stories? Black Kite 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The best thing might be to start a section in the Sarah Palin article, and then spin it off once it's long enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are really editing decisions to be made by article editors, not something to decide by page protection at AN/I. Most articles start as stubs, and when a subject has its own article it gets the proper infobox, categories, references, and so on. I'm sure the press will be working faster than we do to fill out the coverage, but there's already enough for a fairly comprehensive biography: his birth, culture, career, family (deciding with his wife to keep, and care for a baby with Down's syndrome, which is important in context of their politics), time on the public stage as first spouse. Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - that sounds like a good compromise. Black Kite 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Will's suggestion the most - start it as a section in the target article and split it off when it's bulked up enough to form its own article. Shereth 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I will do that and remove this article from this page. Radiomango (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This all seems unnecessary. Everyone here knows that an article on Todd Palin will eventually be written. Instead of all of this process wonkery, why not be bold, unprotect the article, and save everyone unnecessary noticeboard debates. AniMate 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, at least for the time being. Shereth 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It didn't take long...

    ...for the vandals to find it. Semi-protected for 2 weeks. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to mention that I indef blocked VPILF (talk · contribs) as a username policy violation, albeit a funny one (in that Stifler-drinking-pee sort of way). caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to underscore what's going on here, see [65] - there's certain to be more of the same in this regard. Anyone monitoring articles related to Sarah Palin should be on the watch for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted & salted a few forms of the vplif variant of MILF which have either referred to or redirected to Sarah Palin. I guess at some point the term or the website might become notable, but it shouldn't be for being linked to her name on Wikipedia. I consider this a WP:BLP issue, but understand there are probably those who won't see it that way. --Versageek 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin and BLP

    We now have speculation in a vice-presidential candidate's biography that she is not really the parent of her youngest child. Nice. Kelly hi! 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If speculation does not cease and edit warring starts, I would almost advocate full protection of that article. I think it needs some days to cool down everyone and we have enough admins to make changes if needed. SoWhy 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the same kind of speculation and inappropriate editing that goes on in every political candidates entry. The article is semi'd and unless you'd like full protection to your preferred version until the end of the election, you're just going to have to actively keep an eye on the article and engage on the talk page, especially since the article won't be fully protected for the next two months. AniMate 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, currently there is much edit warring even amongst autoconfirmed users. And WP:UNDO does not work, when someone else edits further. I do not think, personally, that there is much more information that just came into existence after she was named presumptive nominee. A full protection for now until the end of the GOP convention might help to stop that...but that's just a thought. SoWhy 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I doubt anyone has a problem or I'd have been messaged by now, but I moved this topic up to here and made a sub-topic of it; may as well have everything concerning this subject in one place. HalfShadow 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The libelous information is being repeatedly re-inserted, shouldn't there be some blocks for violating BLP per the ArbCom's policy on footnoted quotes? Kelly hi! 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes: I left a note at Talk:Sarah Palin, but: the first time an account makes an edit like this, it should be reverted (3RR does not apply) and a note left directing the editor to WP:BLP and warning them that it will be enforced with blocking. If the account reinserts this material with inappropriate sourcing (and at this point, I think that's all there is) then let me or another admin know. I will block accounts that reinsert this kind of poorly sourced speculation to what is probably our highest-profile article of the moment in violation of WP:BLP, and I suspect (hope) other admins will as well. MastCell Talk 03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed it from Talk:Todd_Palin as per this discussion. However do we regard www.dailykos.com as an appropriate or inappropriate source? ϢereSpielChequers 09:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now even a website devoted to this "scandal" ---> BristolPalinPregnant.com ... with photographic evidence of the "baby bump". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.214.42 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Schneider (writer)

    This came up at AIV last night, but after today's reverts, I thought it would be best to bring it here for admin attention. Dan Schneider (writer) is an article about a semi-notable writer, which was created legitimately (no AfD's or quite a while ago. I believe by an admin. However, for the last couple of years, the article seems to have been maintained by a series of SPA's (and possible sockpuppets). Check out the contributions of Cop 666 (talk · contribs), Mitziohara (talk · contribs), Mathemaxi (talk · contribs), Vester99 (talk · contribs), Nightnipper (talk · contribs), Lyledag (talk · contribs), Wallaby Jones (talk · contribs), and Corinthiani (talk · contribs). All of them seem to exist only to edit this writer's article, and also insert his links into other pages.

    After this came up at AIV last night, StevenEdmondson (talk · contribs) pared the article down, then was reverted by one of the SPAs above [66] which called the edits vandalism. This happened again [67], which was again called vandalism. Cop 666 did post to the talk page in this time, which seemed to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

    The page seems to have become a complete vanity page, but with the large number of SPAs editing the page and the possibility of an edit war, I wanted to bring the matter here for the admins. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, it's good to see the page has been 'capped' so to speak so the information can't go back in. I came to the page after being made aware of the review links he puts under so many film articles. I've removed loads of those, however he is very prolific so it's impossible really for me to get them all. My problems, to outline, with the page was that it was essentially a plug for himself and the sites, and was written by himself, (writing style is very, very obvious, as is volume of what he writes). It was also irrelevant. I think the page is a strong candidate for deletion altogether, but it's not really my place to say, and I have edited it down considerably, but would leave it to an admin, if deemed appropriate, to delete the article. (Just a quick note, I remembered that the article had been nominated for deletion previously- Before it was inflated to a huge length. Therefore it makes sense that the article is kept, as previously decided, but in a smaller, and crucially unbiased form)(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Note: two of the references are dead links. The other is a self-published site featuring one of Schneider's poems. This doesn't establish notability. You can't leave it to an admin to delete the page. It has to be nominated for deletion and left to the community to decide. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it might be a good idea to ask that cosmoetica.com be put on the blacklist. That's Schneider's site that these accounts are spamming all over the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, I didn't know that. I'll need to look up how nomination for deletion can be done. I agree that cosmoetica.com needs put on the blacklist, however he has used other sites with similar content before, but a blacklist on that page would get rid of the bulk.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
    I deleted quite a number of his links, but remember, blacklisting doesn't automatically remove the links. However the next person who edits the page won't be able to unless they take the link out, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Some of those accounts are stale, but some are still active. Links to cosmoetica.com are manifestly excessive for the objective significance of it, and one more WP:SPA in evidence as well.
    I think that the 100+ links to this website likely need pruning. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the original author of this article. It appears that the article has been subjected to a lot of edits by SPA in recent months. However, I have now reverted the article to an earlier version, which was both NPOV and filled with a number of reliable sources proving that this subject is notable enough for an article. This is essentially the same version of the article that was subjected to a previous AfD, where the decision was to keep. While I don't agree with the SPA POV pushing, this is a notable subject and a good article.

    I also wish to note that I have a long tract record of writing NPOV articles about literary figures who may not be well known to the general public but which meet the Wikipedia notability standards. Just because we don't like the SPA accounts editing this article is no reason to delete said article. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would anyone be amazed at the fact that a SPA has already shown up. --Procutus (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hear you. But my concern is with the article, not with the SPAs or the link spam elsewhere on Wikipedia. We shouldn't delete a valid and sourced article because of the actions of editors we disagree with.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. The article should not be deleted but it also should not have been expanded to an outrageous length by obvious sockpuppets. Perhaps a reversion to how it was before the tampering would be in order (and thats being generous I think)? I'd also like to point out that the offending editor/s is very likely Schneider himself by the way he writes and takes the whole thing personally. I say very likely- I'm actually certain its him. Tmwns (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already reverted the article to a version prior to the SPA edits (a version that was stable for a number of years). I also think the article should remain protected until the SPAs lose interest in the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, I will note that the decision at that earlier AFD was "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the person who closed that earlier AfD was inexperienced and misinterpreted the consensus, as several of us pointed out. In the discussion, there were seven established users who said to keep vs. three to delete, with almost all those deletes coming from SPAs. So obviously SPAs have been an issue around this article for a while.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem of SPAs is far worse than I thought. I've deleted as many unnecessary links as I can (around 100)but there are probably more. I'm starting to think that a vast amount of cosmoetica's hits have been a direct result of this outrageous spamming. Whats more, all edits have been done by sock puppet accounts with NO exception. Either they have been anonymous and come from IP addresses starting with 4.230/231, or by accounts that do nothing but link Mr. Schneider's articles. Here is a list of all accounts I have found doing this:

    Theovetes Lazarus86 Mathemaxi Ingupper Athenosia Filialprojector Fordhawk Vandenflexor Wallaby Jones Stratuspower88 Mondocanetoomer Rebeccamack SouthernLights Verbaleaux Verdipun Sunstruckglass Alfonsogloriano Ambersoniata UmaPa Deadsandsflashing Anatolikarpantov Corinthiani Chasfagan Lyledag Timesawaste Slopack Tallulahdor Nathanor Landoloch Good Shoestore

    and Cop666 who has elongated the Dan Schneider article.

    There are probably much more. It is also very likely that all or most of these accounts are Dan Schneider himself. At least 2 of these accounts (Cop666 and IP 4.230.147.227) have shown themselves to be Schneider by arguments on Talk pages and their personal writing style, although neither admitted it. I was in support of the page being kept, but in light of these underhand tactics I'm not too sure if it even deserves one anymore. Tmwns (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look at this [68] Schneider, posting as Cop 666, has gone way over the line now, spewing forth a train of personal abuse against another editor. Schneider, in all of his incarnations here, should be banned from this site. Ovenknob (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to clarify. I am not a sock puppet. Dan produced no evidence to that effect, and it is just a baseless assertion, or rather attack. Also, it is beside the point of what the article is too discus. The AfD page needs closed, as with Dan as Cop66 present, nothing useful will be gained from it, and I think as long as the SPA problems can be kept from inflating the article again, it may stay, kept protected in the form made by SouthernNights. StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we get someone to start blocking or something?

    I have no idea whats going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schneider (writer) (2nd nomination) but it looks awfully exciting, with lots of SPAs lobbing entire landmasses of text at each other. I have a feeling that admins are needed to either hit buttons aggressively on this, or to hit people. I defer to your judgements, but it's a total horrible mess. rootology (C)(T) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same thing happens with almost any AFD; 'interested parties' just begin appearing like mad. HalfShadow 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. But before my eyes fuzzed over from not wanting read 4 pages per post of printed text from each SPA, I saw SPAs lobbing civility violations and potential outing of real names like mad. That's not an ordinary AFD. rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please someone close the AfD! Nothing is being accomplished, I am not a sock puppet, I am being attacked and Dan is wittering- Practically no discussion pertaining to the AfD is taking place. It's all too personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC) StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, he's claiming my edits before the Dan Shnider incidents are biased. This is not the case- my edits have primarily have mostly been regarding either the novel Ulysses or Kate Bush, or removing faulty links and such. A look at my talk page on my account will shown that I have previously been commended by an administrator for my edits- no bias intended or present, in fact the nature of most of these edits do not leave room for bias, further more most of my edits have been fairly small anyway. The accusation is an attack, with no basis. Sorry for wittering here StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I'm going to leave this now. I'm not too sure who the admins think the SPAs are, but this has gone out of control, and I really did not mean that to happen in bringing up this whole thing. Whats more, I don't want to get an entirely innocent wikipedia user in trouble merely by association with all this. I've made a list of all the SPAs for you, I've pointed out the self-editing and such and deleted the links. Now I can get down to actually doing some editing on other subjects (thats if the admins don't think I've violated any rules).

    Anyway, sorry about all this. I think I can say overzealousness on my part is partly to blame. Close the discussion down- it stopped being useful ages ago. Tmwns (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ack. It looks like there's more than one type of SPA at work here. In addition to the ones already noted, user Ovenknob (talk · contribs) (who commented above) has been removing every mention of Dan Schneider without regard to whether it was legitimate content, citing this discussion as his/her mandate. The article is now an orphan. I don't know about the user's motivations, but it sure doesn't look like good-faith editing. - Eureka Lott 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we have a see-saw effect: on the one hand there are SPAs who link the subject to absolutely everything in an apparent attempt to inflate his importance, on the other we have SPAs excising everything. Is there some off-wiki dispute we don't know about, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a possibility. Just from what I've seen, this writer doesn't seem like the kind of guy who makes a lot of friends. His page having a slew of SPAs and possible socks loading his page, attacking other editors, and spreading his links to any other subject he may have ever written about probably didn't help him get editors in his corner on wikipedia either. I was going to comment on the AfD, but it's such a bloody mess with SPAs right now I'm not going to bother. I'd move to keep the article in its stripped-down, properly referenced state, then full-protect it and force the two sides to hammer it out on the talk page until something happens. Dayewalker (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd move to keep the article in its stripped-down, properly referenced state, then full-protect it and force the two sides to hammer it out on the talk page until something happens.

    I'd agree that the article needs kept in a stripped down and protected form, however nothing good will come out of a talk page discussion- just more attacks and SPAs. StevenEdmondson (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also support closing the AfD and keeping the article protected, with the editors forced to work things out on that article's talk page. The article is currently semi-protected; since all these SPAs are new accounts, this should solve the edit war issue (and if neccesary, we can full protect the article). If someone else could close the AfD. It appears that if one removes the comments by SPAs, the consensus was keep.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, consensus was definitely keep in SouthernNights' NPOV form. StevenEdmondson (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD discussion

    Can one of you end this? It was started on August 21. Schuym1 (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When are we going to get an adminbot to close AfDs? --mboverload@ 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When we can code Clue. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    if(rand()%1)
  Close("Keep, exists");
else
  Close("Delete, non-notable");

    — Coren (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong language! if( rand( 1, 999 ) == 257 ) { Close('keep'); } else { Close('delete'); } X!xlamation point 00:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fools! Python ftw!
    import clue

    Mr.Z-man 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An adminbot to close AfDs? What exactly will it do? Could someone explain to me the details of this "adminbot" planned to be in use? Thanks. -- RyRy (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a joke RyRy.;) You can't really create a bot "smart" enough to find consensus in AfDs, though maybe Data could be connected to Wikipedia's servers to do the job.:P--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, I see. :P Bots can't possibly decide consensus and have good judgement enough to close AfDs... (Or can they?) -- RyRy (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one thought that there would be anything like the internet a hundred years ago, and look were we are today! (I still doubt any idea of bots being able to use "logic" for making good judgements). ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, oh so very true. But still, what about future robots? Say, they are directly connected to the internet and have human level intelligence? What then? ;)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why should humans edit Wikipedia when there are "high-tech bots" to do the work for us? But as far as I know, that will never happen, and if it did, I wouldn't enjoy it. Wikipedians should be the ones building Wikipedia, not bots who do all the work. But again, I doubt that will happen at all, so lets not worry about it. :-) -- RyRy (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If a guy didn't do any work on anything, how would he/she feel privileged? That's the whole point. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (*not vandalize*). But then again, I agree that high-tech bots are unlikely and I will probably have been dead long before that sort of thing could even exist. ~ Troy (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    if strloc($_CONTENT,"POKEMON") return (KEEP) else return (NO_CONSENSUS); Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    try
{
    debate.close(XFDConstants.DELETE);
}
catch (AdminAbuseException ex)
{
    User troll = ex.getComplainant();
    enWiki.block(troll, "indefinite", "Abusing administrators again.");
    // Remove the frivolous complaints.
    Revision[] contribs = enWiki.getContributions(troll, Wiki.PROJECT_NAMESPACE);
    for (int i = 0; i < contribs.length; i++)
        enWiki.rollback(contribs[i]);
}

    You forgot to handle the errors. Seriously, I think the best we programmers can do is hack up something that executes the human-made decision. MER-C 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback abuse?

    Resolved
     – Rollback revoked, Tiptoety talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When reviewing the unblock request for Bomsalam (talk · contribs), I saw in the history of Emil Gilels EricV89 (talk · contribs) apparently using Huggle and rollback to revert war with Bomsalam, who is apparently the article subject's niece. Bomsalam received only 1 warning for vandalism, though EricV89 reverted her 4 times over the course of 2 days. This seems to be a fairly major misuse of rollback and this does not look like vandalism at all (Bomsalam did at one point blank the page several days ago, but reverted it a minute later). As I said on EricV89's talk page, if the article was a BLP, I would have removed rollback immediately, but as its not, I'm bringing it here for further review. Mr.Z-man 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse removal. —Animum (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, should be removed. That's rather shocking really. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see his response first, but this is certainly not what rollback is for and is probably one of the worst situations in which you could have used it. John Reaves 00:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse, edit warring with rollback is wrong and the edit you cite was clearly not vandalism. MBisanz talk 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (massive ec) JaGa was uing Huggle to revert the same non vandalistic edit - needs looking into - I dont have time now,. ViridaeTalk 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As JaGa only reverted the once I have left a stern reminder at their talkpage about the appropriate use of semi-automatic tools, while noting this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I stand by my edit. I saw a user remove cited content, and I put it back. I didn't warn the user, since it wasn't definitely malicious, so I don't think I abused Huggle in any way. I disagree with the idea that this was definitely not vandalism; I saw this as a POV struggle (trying to spotlight vs. obscure Jewish heritage) and sided on keeping the adjective, since it was already established in the article and cited. What good is there in removing information? (Side note, of my many Beethoven sonata recordings, Gilels is my favorite. I only wish to honor him, and not offend his family; but I also want to maintain a good encyclopedia, and don't think I did anything wrong, despite my warning.) --JaGatalk 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You will note that WP:VAND#NOT mentions NPOV violations as something that is not by itself vandalism. Taemyr (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    JaGa, that edit was still a rollback, so it shouldn't be used in content disputes. Does a few seconds of convenience sound worth the trouble? ~ Troy (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't in an edit war or a content dispute. I saw a user remove established, cited content and I put it back. I didn't warn the user. I feel like I'm getting piled on via guilt by association with EricV89. We can split hairs about content disputes, but I don't think an impartial observer will find anything wrong with my choices. --JaGatalk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) A much batter idea to have done was to discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead of rollbacking away. I would think discussing something first before taking any action (if any) would have been best instead of reverting, especially while using rollback. I see myself echoing what Taemyr mentioned that WP:NPOV violations is not vandalism in most cases. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. -- RyRy (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    JaGa, I'm afraid that you misunderstand: rollback is only to be used for actual vandalism. Sure, it is easy and even tempting to press the rollback button, but you could have easily written a short edit summary. No one said that your rollback was to be revoked for one edit (*silliest thing I've ever heard*), but it isn't a good habit to revert good faith edits. Also, since you were technically in an edit war, I expect you to give a 3rr warning or provide an informative edit summary. ~ Troy (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Troy. Simply using the undo button would have been much more convenient, having the ability to provide an edit summary, rather than using the rollback feature. -- RyRy (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That brings up an interesting question - why was she so determined to take that out anyways? It he not of Jewish descent after all? --JaGatalk 02:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were wondering why, then that's all-the-more reason you should use the user's discussion page instead. Even if you use the rollback feature, which you shouldn't, you should at least give a valid reason at the right time. Instead of waiting until this issue affects you (ie: here and now), you should have discussed/explained it while the edit war was going on. ~ Troy (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, this poor, dead horse. OK. This user started an account with one purpose, and one purpose only: remove the mention of a Jewish family from the Emil Gilels article. The content was established in the article, and cited. The user also blanked the page. Page blanking and anti-Semitic edits (and yes, I think editing the article solely to remove cited references to Jewish heritage smacks of anti-Semitism) is vandalism. So this user was acting like a vandal, and I rolled them back. Now they claim to be Gilels' relative (do we have any actual proof of that?) and we're all falling over each other to throw EricV89 and myself under the bus to show this user how sorry we are. I don't think what either of us did is wrong. If you disagree, feel free to take away my rollback, because I do not think I did anything wrong, and would do the same thing again. Otherwise, let's let the dead horse be and agree to disagree. --JaGatalk 03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see. It was a "cited reference" - cited with an OTRS ticket, which is not exactly a topnotch reliable source. What you characterise as "anti-Semitism" could also be an exercise in removing information that had been given undue weight - there is nothing else in the entire article discussing how his Jewish heritage influenced his life or his achievements. As I've said below in response to EricV89, I could probably accept a single revert on this, although it would be much better using "undo" than "rollback" since it isn't clearly vandalism. Remember that almost all Wikipedians start off with just one article on their watchlist, where they make mistakes and try things. One of the most valuable things that patrolling editors can do is reach out to these new editors and help them to learn our processes. But before one can reach out, one has to have enough of an open mind to believe that new editors might have something to add, even if they do it imperfectly. Risker (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Undent) Ah, I think we finally have some common ground. There are different ways to perceive this user's actions. What I saw looked like vandalism and I acted accordingly. Now, we have new information about this user, so things are perceived in a different light. The point is, (and I believe this of Eric as well) I was not trying to win some content battle or something like that. I saw actions that I thought was vandalism, and dealt with it. The question is, was my intent bad? Was my reasoning at the time unreasonable or indiscriminate? Did I want to bully some new user with the awesome power of Huggle? No. Look at my edits. It's not my way. I'm trying to do a very thankless job of vandalism patrol as effectively as possible. And I think the same of Eric. We talk about having an open mind toward the new users, but we don't have enough of an open mind towards Eric's intentions to even let him try to explain himself before taking away rollback. That is unjust - look at his contributions, he's done loads of great work for Wikipedia: 9000+ edits, never been blocked, adopts new users. We worry about the harm we did to the new user, but what about the harm we did to the established one? Is the kangaroo-court rollback revoking any different than Bomsalam's block? In both cases an authority rushed to judgment before hearing all the facts. I'm sure my arguments can be wikilawyered to pieces, but there's a spirit to the law that I'm concerned with here, and I don't think Eric has received justice. He should get his rollback, er, back. --JaGatalk 08:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) There are a few issues that concern me here:[reply]

    • For the most part, the "edit war" was over an adjective - whether to describe the family of the subject as "Jewish" or "musical". That makes it a clear content dispute, with no reason to think this was vandalism. Ordinary content dispute mechanisms should have been used after the first reversion. There was nothing on the talk page of the article relating to this, the last entry being June 2008.
    • One of the editors, apparently the niece of the subject, was clearly new to Wikipedia and was focused entirely on this article. Her first edit was August 13th. She received no welcome, no assistance on how to edit, and no personal messages on her talk page to help her understand what the problem was or what steps to take to resolve the content dispute.
    • An OTRS ticket is involved in this situation. I have asked the admin who inserted the OTRS message to please comment on the talk page of the article, as it appears to involve the information in dispute. The OTRS ticket was issued on August 24th, and there is some indication that the editor who was blocked may have been the person who provided the information for the ticket as well. Incidentally, the OTRS ticket is also not mentioned on the talk page of the article.
    • It's unclear to me, having read the article, why anyone would consider it essential to include in the article whether or not the subject was Jewish. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the subject being Jewish had anything to do with his accomplishments or the key events documented in the article.
    • This isn't a BLP; the subject has been dead for over 20 years.

    Not only do I see rollback abuse, I see a textbook case of WP:BITE, and some very significant communication issues happening here. Risker (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c) (<--) I endorse revoking rollback from this user. Obviously this user is committing repeated and disruptive misuse of rollback. Causing revert wars with the help of rollback? Certainly a situation to remove rollback. -- RyRy (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Risker, my impression is that you are entirely correct in saying that this is a bad case of biting a newcomer. However, I would like to know what sort of explanation Ericv89 could come up with. ~ Troy (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse removal of rollback. It is abuse to use it for edit warring.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will still also endorse revoking rollback, though. ~ Troy (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed EricV89's rollback flag, not sure why it was not done earlier actually. Tiptoety talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's funny, I sent an approved AIAV report and he was blocked for disruption for vandalism. The user was blocked by a admin and I thought that it was a decent AIV report. Not only that but Tiptoety closed this before I could respond. This is ridiculous, I've sent tons of good AIV approved reports considoring my thousands of edits of vandal fighting, you seem to see only a recent, focused event to take my rollback rights. How am I suppose to revert vandalism now? --eric (mailbox) 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this might have been a premature action. The disputed information that Bomsalam was removing was inserted as the result of an OTRS ticket. EricV89 was reverting removal of the information. There may be more going on here, and I'm not certain that rollback should have been removed from his account. AniMate 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RyRy, get your facts straight before you accuse someone of only using rollback to edit war and disruptions. Everyone runs across people who disagree but I have never intentionally done anything to disrupt Wikipedia, if it is a personal issue then it can be solved on talk pages and not by revoking someone's rights. Why do I feel like I'm being ganged up on? The user's SPA was to edit Jewish to musical. These don't even relate to each other. I reverted them as vandalism becuase the edits seemed to be unconstructive, not only that but no one confonted me in regards to this prior. You are making irrational ideas. --eric (mailbox) 05:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So what do I do now? --eric (mailbox) 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep editing without rollback, is the easiest answer. I've never bothered to ask for it (though I probably should), and have never had a problem. If you really want it back, I'd engage Tiptoey as the administrator who revoked it and you should probably contact User:Avraham about the OTRS ticket that was responsible for the inclusion of the information. Finally, you should remember the "undo" button isn't that tough to use either. AniMate 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric, you continue to do the things you enjoy doing here. I'm still looking into why the information you were putting back into the article was even there; the fact that an OTRS ticket is used as a reference source is somewhat unusual, especially for what is an apparently trivial point. Perhaps that is a take-away lesson from this; when a new editor is determinedly trying to remove information, take a look at the information they are trying to remove, and its reference sources as well. Reverting it the first time was reasonable; when the removals continued, that was a good opportunity to start asking some questions: what's the issue with this content, is the source any good, is this content essential to the article, is it just an editorial decision to modify this sentence, etc. Article talk pages are also available to editors carrying out RC Patrol, and I'd encourage all of them to use them more often. Even I have found myself rolled back by RC patrollers under similar circumstances, but at least I know how to address the situation.
    With respect to the OTRS ticket that is being used as a reference source for this article, a message has been left for the administrator who worked on this ticket requesting some further information. It is my understanding that he will not be on-wiki before Sunday at the earliest, so this aspect won't be fully addressed for a while. Given there is no immediate concern (i.e., the subject of the article is deceased so there is no BLP issue), I think it can probably wait. Risker (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (<-)It was incorrect of me to use the ticket as a source when there was a conflict. I have removed those entries from the article and instead placed a sanitized version (without the name, e-mail address, snail-mail address, and phone numbers of the great-niece) on the talk page for further discussion. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused. -- Avi (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How is a controversial move carried out without discussion handled?

    Palin was move to Palin (disambiguation) without discussion even though it was always going to be a controversial move as Michael Palin is a rather well known person, probably better know worldwide then Sarah Palin before she was selected as the Republican VP candidate. How should this be handled? IMHO, the move should be reverted and a discussion started as per WP:RM but I'm open to suggestions Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See Talk:Palin to discuss. In my opinion this move is a bit U.S.-centric. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always a good idea to discuss the move before going ahead with it—even if it "doesn't look controversial" because there is always that chance that it actually is. Discussing is a good editing practice, and, for controversial moves, they should always be discussed. I suggest that you use the talk page instead of reverting the move in order to avoid any edit warring or incivility. ~ Troy (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    palin is once again the disambig page and has been protected. Looks like the way to go. Dlohcierekim 09:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On Friday, for just a hot second, I thought Michael Palin had been selected as McCain's running mate. Imagine McCain's campaign ads including "The Lumberjack Song". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarrely ... [69]. Black Kite 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. In this case NPOV demands that we don't prefer the two-year Senator over the groundbreaking comedian, actor and world-renowned travel writer. Or vice-versa. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/203.97.221.19

    Can anyone please look at this stranger than fiction note in my talk page? Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he is getting you confused with User:Taamu. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have no involvement with the article(s) in question, just ignore it and move on. — CharlotteWebb 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beta Command again

    What is the point in blocking him for a day when as soon as he is unblocked he continues to mess with categories in articles like here?. He hasn't taken a blind bit of notice to why he was blocked and is continuing to make faulty edits leaving other editors having to go out of their way to correct him. It is quite embarrassing to think that he is blocked and then continously returns as before -every time. A complete waste of time. Doesn't anybody care enough to stop it permanently? The Bald One White cat 11:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Betacommand made that edit before he was blocked. Nothing to see here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I;ve just seen his talk page. Regards. The Bald One White cat 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you should just step away from BC altogether; there is little to be gained by your hawk-like attention to his every edit except further acrimony. — Coren (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Might be time to take a step back, Blofeld. GlassCobra 14:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You think I have nothing better to do than watch his edits? Do you think this is all I do on wikipedia? My "hawk" like scrutiny of his every edit and activity (given that I've only ever checked his contributions list twice ever) as you so wonderfully put it happens to be in the protection of our content of which few people around here seem to care about what he is capable of. Its not your place to tell me who I should be rightly concerned about. I had looked to see if he had taken the liberty to acknowledge his errors and provide a way he might undergo his bot runs more efficiently after he was blocked. I saw nothing on that and saw that he had continued operating again without correcting it again so what am I supposed to think? The Bald One White cat 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't say what you're thinking, but I can state that I notice that most every time I see your name is you calling for Betacommand to be banned, drawn, quartered, shot and hanged. Whether BC is acting improperly or not is no longer the point because, by this time, you appear to be on a holy crusade to rid Wikipedia of this menace you perceive. Step back, please, and let someone else handle things because you are not helping anything. — Coren (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be silly. All I want is him to accept responsibility and acknowledge his mistakes and the concerns of others and start doing things properly. If he had done this to start with, we wouldn't be here and he wouldn't have been blocked again. He is without a doubt one of the most serious threats to wikipedia because of the way and speed in which he edits. Now I have the legitimacy to speak up about it as much as anybody on here, particularly when I see a problem. As I can see now that there are others who are concerned and that some attempt to speak to him is being made, I'll make the decision myself to back away, which the crossing out of the message implies as I can now see it hasn't gone unnoticed. I find your response highly patronising as if the say "leave it up to the "authoritive editors". Just because you run a bot too, doesn't give you the right to boss people about. The Bald One White cat 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget "burned at the stake". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any substantive discussion should be centralised in one of the BetaCommand ANI subpages, probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, but Rjd's comments are completely inappropriate, and fail to observe good faith, so I've reverted the section close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegation of checkuser being misused

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Resolved
     – No reason why we should indulge a sock making wild and incoherent accusations

    We should all remember that if an editor edits reasonably, the edit history is the gold standard for behavior. Anything else is just guesswork. Accusations of sockpuppetry are subject to manipulation because there is no public watchdog to review results and vague claims of similar writing styles are just malicious accusations. As long as two users are not forming a consensus, they are not socks.

    User:Tvoz is a Obama supporter manipulates Wikipedia in order to help Obama without regard that Wikipedia is an independent website that’s supposed to be encyclopedia.

    Yesterday, User:Radiomango created an article on Todd Palin. Tvoz wants nothing positive about any Republican, even the woman’s husband. Radiomango edits neutrally without support for any political party. Tvoz proclaimed opposition and wanted to merge the article. If you’re against the article existance, you shouldn’t edit it. You should nominate it for deletion. You should not pick off sentences hoping that it will be a stub and get it deleted. Radiomango found over 20 references and started a good article.

    Tvoz then secretly contacted the checkuser, Alison, in order for an excuse to ban (saying on her user talk page that an email was being sent). Alison provided false information by claiming the user is Dereks1x. Radiomango’s edits are all well referenced and neutral. The only reason for banning is for Tvoz to win an editorial dispute. The weapon is that if you have a checkuser friend, you can call anyone a sock and ban them. Besides the link with Alison, Jpgordon also edits Obama and has a conflict of interest.

    Radiomango’s edits include “bringing up that the Dali Lama has been hospitalized with citations provided, that Senator Biden is also running for Senator with citations and correcting an ERROR in wikipedia that said he wasn't sure, reorganized the Barack Obama political positions by rearranging text so that the foreign policy things would be together and the domestic things together but not saying he's good or bad, mention about Yuri Nosenko with references, mention about Loudoun County with references, all of these are good edits”

    Dereks1x is now the excuse to ban anyone in the world if they edit anything but glowing praise for Obama. Wikipedia is for neutrality, not for campaigning. Dereks1x is proven to be in Seattle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAleta&diff=212942311&oldid=212822136 and is proven not to be Oprahwasontv http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FDereks1x&diff=150245668&oldid=144850707 Yet, Alison now fabricates that Ophrawasontv is Derek because once she keeps on repeating false information, people will see the block reason in block histories and believe it to be true. Alison admits on Goss9900 (who she blocks just to cast a wider net) is in Maryland after first saying he wasn’t. Maryland and Seattle are almost 3,000 miles away.

    The standard for editorial conduct is the edits. If the edits are well referenced and neutral, this is permitted. If they are POV, the editor could be banned.

    This problem is too high profile for this manipulation to continue. Wikipedia’s reputation is at stake.

    The way to solve this is to block the troublemaker and manipulator, Tvoz. Whether or not you like or dislike Obama should not cloud your judgement. Tvoz is hurting wikipedia and there was another complaint against Tvoz in AN a few days ago which prompted Oprahwasontv to resume editing.

    The only reason I am mentioning this is because I love Wikipedia. I am in Indiana, so that proves that I am neither Radiomango or Dereks1x. Everyone in the Eastern and Western US are now “proven” to be Derek using flawed logic. However, this will just give Tvoz friends to ban everyone in the entire U.S. (East Coast, Midwest, West Coast) with the false accusation of being a Dereks1x sock whenever she wants to ban anyone. Looking at Tvoz’ edit history, Tvoz has even attempted to accuse people who edited in the UK, India, and Korea at about the same time as being Dereks1x. This was an attempt to call the anyone in the whole world a sock. At that time, the checkuser concluded that no sockpuppetry occurred and no open proxies were used. At least one of the checkusers edits Obama and has a conflict of interest but routinely helps Tvoz manipulate wikipedia and ban anyone.

    The matter could be resolved if the we concluded there is some abuse of using the Dereks1x ban as an excuse to manipulate Wikipedia. The edit history shows that Dereks1x was banned because an user edited about Mrs. John Edwards’ cancer and several doctors supported the edit but did not want to edit it themselves. The ploy was then used to say Dereks1x was impersonating a doctor even though the checkuser history shows that the doctor presented his diploma. So it may be that the original ban was a fabrication so that once a first ban is started everyone in the US could be accused of being a sock of that first banned user.

    This is just wild, worthy of a news expose. Such thing would hurt Wikipedia because it shows how Obama supporters have manipulating Wikipedia with the sock excuse. I have notified several reporters of the national media who cover Wikipedia so that they can write something if Wikipedia acts irresponsibly and tries to suppress real discussion. One way to suppress discussion is to ban me with some made up excuse. A mature Wikipedia would simply discuss this and try to stop politician’s supporters from manipulating it and welcome anyone to see it work.

    The solution is unban of Radiomango and banning Tvoz for 1 year. Tvoz’ manipulation of Wikipedia for a politician’s benefit is so damaging to Wikipedia. It is unmistakable that once Tvoz hated Radiomango, Tvoz sought Alison to ban Tvoz’ opponent using the sock excuse even though the evidence proves there is no sockpuppetry. Review of Radiomango’s edits prove Radiomango is a good editor. IndyIndepen (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User's first edit... speaking of socks. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Credibility of this post dropped to zero as soon as I reached "Alison provided false information....". Archiving this. Black Kite 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    It should be noted that this person has been sending abusive emails, and has made threats against User:Tvoz, stating where she lives, etc. This person has also threatened to "massively vandalize Wikipedia" and has been shown by checkuser to have abused multiple accounts to evade block. The talk pages have further details - Alison ❤ 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Godheval

    Godheval (talk · contribs)

    I warned Godheval for general incivility here (note the more petty comment was removed). I received a rather sarcastic 'apology' of sorts, and then saw that Godheval had also been warned for incivility elsewhere shortly afterwards. He has showed no sign of slowing, and even his last edit was rather confrontational with an I-don't-give-a-shit-if-I'm-insulting-people attitude. I have blocked Godheval for 48 hours. I don't block many people, so I was wondering if someone could just check I haven't overreacted. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reasonable block for the incivility, since it was repeated. Perhaps the wikibreak could allow the user to go away and gain Clue that Wikipedia != IGN and Gamespot, as well. Black Kite 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, I don't support blocks for lack of clue (yup, self interest!) but this editor revels in his "unorthordoxy"; image policy does not interest him, nor does the policies and guidelins generally, and neither do the volunteers who edit and police the website, and he isn't going to refrain from acting (or speaking) as he sees fit... Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User space being used as platform for RL legal dispute

    User:Kay Sieverding - is this appropriate? Movingboxes (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone who knows a little law should take a look at their contribs. Looks like they've put a lot of undue weight info into articles based on their own experiences in court. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified the user so that they can find out what's going on. They deserve at least that much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like the user responded by putting the inappropriate material back again. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They re-inserted the material, so I've deleted and salted, and explained why on their talkpage. Black Kite 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of their edits seem to be related to the court case, including those back in March, reverted by User:Famspear. I have now reverted all of their unreverted edits, except for a comment to an (apparently random) IP's talk page. They all seem to be "case law dumps" (without a secondary source for the relevance or interpretation), or comments about their own court case. There may have been some valid edits within sequences of edits, but I have my doubts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Sandifer - edit-war + minor rollback abuse

    Today I deleted a medium-length discussion from a WikiProject talkpage as it was merely general chitchat about the TV show in question rather than anything else. I quoted from WP:TALK as I did so ("Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.") Phil used his rollback (reserved for "blatantly unproductive" edits - perhaps those quoting two policies/guidelines are not quite so blatant?) to undo my deletion. He didn't notify me or try to enter any discussion.

    I politely tried to engage him in a discussion, suggesting that if he didn't want to talk to me, there were other places he could go to. He was clearly not interested in having any useful discussion. Could someone either:

    • Advise on whether the material should be deleted as a waste of space and a breach of WP:FORUM and WP:TALK
    • Talk to Phil to try to stop him simply edit-warring over the issue and making unhelpful comments like the one I linked above, and this one where he called my edits "utterly stupid"
    • Protect the page

    One or more of the above suits me! It is also worth noting that 3 of Phil's blocks of me were overturned, one specifically about the issue of deleting talkpage comments for irrelevance. See also this. Thanks, ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are overreacting. You could have talked about removing that section, even if invoking WP:FORUM. Personally I think the section should be kept because while most of it is forum-like discussion, some bits are maybe useful for the related articles. Wiki is not paper so I do not think "waste of space" should be of any concern. If there is only the slightest reason to believe that this discussion might be useful in the future, it should be kept.
    There is no reason to go edit warring about this. Phil's reverts were not really nice and the language he used could have been better but neither was your revert to him any good. You could have discussed it with him or on WT:WHO before doing so; there might not have been any reason for this section here then. SoWhy 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If other serious users were willing to respond to these comments, then they probably also disagree with your interpretation of whatever policy you are appealing to. I strongly doubt this is a "Phil Sandifer problem". — CharlotteWebb 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (-: How does one misinterpret the passage I quoted? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat, sort of, at Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force

    This is just a heads-up, not a request for action. Over at Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force, we have a minor edit war, and a comment by Einsteindonut (talk · contribs): "Also, I'm going to get many more of my friends (with whom I do respect and with whom have NOBLE intentions) to start getting involved."

    This seems to be a spillover from something that started as a flame war on Facebook last year [70] and was blown up into "antisemitism 2.0" by some commentators.[71]. Something to watch. --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war, if you can call it that, is at the article, Jewish Internet Defense Force, not it's talk page. There are currently arbcom restrictions on Israel/Palestine related pages. If it gets out of hand, take it to arbcom enforcement or bring it back here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Range blocks

    I notice on a few tickets that there are range blocks affecting legitimate users. 90.200.0.0/16 is one of them. Why such large ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am requesting review. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, why do we have to block entire /16's just to deter one of Raul's pet peeves? Raul should leave Scibaby to somebody else who can handle it in a more rational manner. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy wonk

    I just nuked Policy wonk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it named several living individuals with only one of them sourced form one comment in a scarcely impartial news story. I think the subject is important, although it's not clear to me how we can elevate it above a dictionary definition without simply quote-mining and applying the label to the people that $EDITOR thinks are this week's bete noir. I could not find a version that was not full of unsourced this-or-that living individual as examples. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. If other sources (with or without examples) can be found then it can be DRV'ed, or more likely recreated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suppose you found this by googling for "Guy Chapman"... — CharlotteWebb 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal

    In the Deaths in 2008 article, 91.104.221.210 added obscene stuff. I reverted the edits. Can someone look out for this person? Noble12345 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have stopped after a warning, but I watchlist that page. --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lovestudy

    This Grawp sock spent a while welcoming users (none of whom have any edits) before making Grawp edits. Anyone want to consider the possibility that the users he/she welcomed were Grawp socks too? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt it. Probably just a cover-up. Xclamation point 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks like just went straight down the user creation log. I don't see any unusual surge in account creation frequency during the time he was "welcoming." (I'm glad I wasn't welcomed that way). Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should someone go through these users once more to "re-welcome" them? In particular, the welcome template invites sending questions to the users talk page, and that might not be best. Taemyr (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, unless he tampered with the links on the welcome template. I say we just add the welcomes to the very short list of Grawp's positive contributions and move on. ON a different note, wasn't "nimp.org" blacklisted from edit summaries. I recall that domain being used by the Avril Lavigne vandal... caknuck ° is geared up for football season 05:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What about the vandalism in his page forwards?? its not just vandalism its crude and a disturbance as well. Thorough uncivil. Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antandrus , have already indef blocked the user. [72]. Taemyr (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NonZionist

    NonZionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Admins, please have a look at the user page. Does it violate user page policies (asserting Zionism=Jewish fascism)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SOAP HalfShadow 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Does anyone want to delete it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanked by HalfShadow. Algebraist 00:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked there and I just don't see how that user comparing people who disagree with him to Nazis or saying that they're trying to start World War IV. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not supposed to be an exact parallel, but a clear example of someone using their user page as a "soap box". This is bordering on racism, for example: "Even though I'm not a Zionist, I will not let the Arabs off the hook for falsifying history (the history of Eretz Yisroel and the history of the Jewish people); and for its savagery in murdering my brothers and sisters, deliberately targeting men, women and children and giving a hero's welcome with Sheiks in attendence for them." "The Arabs"? That's beautiful. And here, basically everyone is demonised: "To the rest of the world, and those Arabs not guilty of the above, this is what I have to say: that G-d will hold you accountable for assisting murderers, either by aiding and abetting them or by providing political cover under the guise of neutrality. No one will be able to claim innocence. Know that you are represented by your heads of State and you are represented in the United Nations. If they don't represent your conscience then it's imperative on you to do something about it, or at least make it known to them." One big pile of self-righteous propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But instead of just removing it, let's open a dialogue with him about it. I'll go leave a short message on his talk page, and go from there. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left him a message before noticing this item. Please don't WP:BITE while washing out the Soap. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by socks of proven sock master User:Nyannrunning

    Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Holla213

    Resolved
     – Block extended for IP block evasion. MastCell Talk 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per this talk page edit, 128.103.142.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Holla213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has been editing in evasion of his block. He admits the evasion here, but made no effort to undo his edits. It is also telling that his block-evading efforts were to immediately return back to the page he was blocked for edit-warring on and repeat the exact same series of edits. I've reverted his edits because of the block evasion. Perhaps a block extension is in order?Kww (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    No. I used proper sources. You need to use the proper discussion page before you undo. You're the one who told me that when people take stuff of the page, it stays off until it's discussed. I will continue editing as a good wikipedian. If necessary, I will get Jimbo Whales and the Berkman Center involved as they are here on campus. Thanks. 128.103.142.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't anybody home? A block-evader edits WP:ANI, and no one acts?Kww (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to edit war on the page he was originally blocked for edit-warring on.Kww (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Handled. MastCell Talk 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He or she is back and using User:74.94.191.89. In addition, can we please get a CheckUser to handle the request we made a week ago related to this editor? --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One edit, and gone quiet for now... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True that he is gone for now, but looking at the edit history of 74.94.191.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it is apparent that it is a residential semi-static assignment: he has had that IP for several months. A block on his home IP address qualifies in my book as preventative, rather than punitive. Why make sock-building any easier than it needs to be?Kww (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple Compromised Accounts

    I don't know what exactly is going on, but it looks like someone (possibly 66.55.199.47) suddenly made an edit as Deamon138 (talk · contribs) ...what's going on? ~ Troy (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deamon138's edits were fine right before and after that one. That's strange... ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs) ...recently, the edits were radically different. ~ Troy (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very stange indeed, this is out of the ordinary for GO-PCHS-NJROTC (I can not speak for Deamon138 as I do not know him), this edit makes me think the accounts have been compromised and I am thinking a block is in order until we can sort this out. Though for the sake of not wanring to jump the gun I would like another admin opinion. Tiptoety talk 02:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    concur, both appear compromised. I'll handle GO-PCHS. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deamon138 has been blocked, I will send him a email in hopes of getting to the bottom of this. Tiptoety talk 02:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he does not have email enabled. Tiptoety talk 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They do appear compromised. I support the blocks.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Has someone tried emailing GO-PCHS-NJROTC about the situation? -- RyRy (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try doing so now.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RyRy, already have. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've e-mailed GO-PCHS, and added a string to confirm their identity if and when they get their account back. No idea what to do with Deamon138, though - which is why we always enable e-mail, kids. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, take this as a lesson learned for everyone, enable your email! At this time there is really nothing we can do about Deamon, so he is just going to have to remain blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With some luck he'll know another Wikipedian off-site (real world, or another site) who can contact him and vouch for him. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't the email have been changed or removed by the person who compromised the account? -- Jeandré, 2008-08-31t07:09z
    Anybody get a checkuser yet? WODUP 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on it.. Tiptoety talk 03:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking a steward to lock the accounts, pending checkuser, to avoid cross wiki vandalism. MBisanz talk 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently neither is a global account, so a local block should do, pending checkuser. MBisanz talk 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also notified a few checkusers, and they should be responding quickly. Tiptoety talk 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of a strange place to do that. I mean, the Sandbox, where the edits are going to do the least amount of damage. HalfShadow 03:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I don't think it could have gone on for an hour and a half in the mainspace. WODUP 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still kind of weird, though. Compies usually try to do as much damage as physically possible before getting axed. HalfShadow 03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try contacting GO-PCHS-NJROTC via Myspace regarding this. The account's activity indicates that it is compromised by some hacker... Blake Gripling (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've unblocked GO-NCHS-NJROTC; he confirmed his identity by posting a scrambled list of the dates for the Cincinnati Bengals games from 2005. Why I have a Bengals schedule magnet near my desk is not open to debate, thank you - but since I e-mailed the string, and he posted it, it's a safe bet that his account is back under his control. Did we ever end up running a checkuser to find additional accounts used (or compromised) by this IP? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats and Personal Attacks by User:BehnamFarid

    This user has made repeated legal threats against Wikipedia after I editted an article that he originally authored. 1 2 3. In addition, I consider his personal attacks 4 5 6 (also present in the diffs with legal threats), especially the accusation of racism, to be beyond reason. The user has a history of personal attacks. I wouldn't report him if this was an isolated incident, but the sheer number and intensity of the personal attacks combined with the complete lack of remorse and the complete lack of respect for Wiki policy leads me to believe that action is necessary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is old news. I've already told BehnamFarid about this here when it happened as he apparently was not aware of the policy. And contrary to what you claim, he did respond to my comments. Your diffs are five days old anyways. Khoikhoi 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been editting for two years and he didn't know that writing in Wikipedia was subject to editting by anyone? You're right, I did wait awhile before reporting him. I slept on it. I'm no longer upset. I think this is the right thing to do. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not User:BehnamFarid knew about WP:NLT before making legal threats, now that a clear and unambiguous legal threat has been made[73], the threat must either be retracted or the user who made it must be blocked. After taking a quick look throught the talk page of the article in question, Talk:Unruled Paper (film), I do not see User:BehnamFarid retracting the legal threat anywhere thus far. How is that "old news"? Nsk92 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave a note on his talk page. Khoikhoi 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is both a legal threat and a revocation of the GFDL licensing of his contributions. Unless there has been a subsequent retraction, he should be blocked immediately. CIreland (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said above, I've asked him to retract his statements, so we'll see what he says. Khoikhoi 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought WP:NLT was clear. Block until legal threat is retracted, not "Let's dither about it for a while until somebody decides to be decisive." Corvus cornixtalk 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my capicty as an adminstrator, I have asked him to retract his comment. We'll await his response once he resumes editing (the user in question does not appear to be online right now), as the comment appears to be about a week old. There is no rush here as his comments at User talk:Stifle doen't even seem to show that he was serious in the first place. Khoikhoi 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He called me a racist too. And suggested Stifle might be a racist. You guys don't seem too concerned with his personal attacks, you don't think these are severe enough to warrant action? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That overshadows the repeated statement, "my Wikipedia article", which illustrates he hasn't read WP:OWN, either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're giving him a chance to retract before blocking him, by my understanding, you're going against policy. I understand the policy to be that legal threat=indef block, no questions. The user making the threat then has the opportunity to retract the legal threat on his own talk page as part of an unblock request. Bugs is right that there a clear WP:OWN issues here, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLT states "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved." To me that says INDEF-BLOCK. That doesn't mean forever, but only until the issue is resolved in some way. There is no requirement or even suggestion of any need to wait until the guy has edited again. He should be blocked immediately. He can always appeal the block on his talk page, if he cares to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin beat me to the quote by a minute, and is presumably making the same point, that the guy should be blocked immediately. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle told him about NLT, and he dropped one week ago. If he continued making threats then we would have an actual issue, but after Stifle told him about it he moved on. This is old stuff being recycled. Khoikhoi 08:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This also raises a technical question - Even though he deleted something and claims he owns it exclusively, it's still in the history and is still fair game for use, right? I would think so, anyway. The exception would be if he had already published it elsewhere and hence it was a copyright violation. But if it's original to wikipedia, then I would think wikipedia would still own it, even if it's currently not in the article. Perhaps a legal beagle could answer this. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AzureFury, your behavior hasn't been that much better: [74]. If I were to take action on this, I would would probably block both of you. Behnam was already warned for incivility, so please drop it. Trying to get your opponent in a content dispute blocked will not get you anywhere, since you're not citing any recent diffs. Stifle himself is an admin and has already addressed his comment anyways. Khoikhoi 08:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sarcasm. I'm showing how ridiculous it is to call us fundamentalists. It's not a personal attack, as I explained. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <-you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved Corvus cornixtalk 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BehnamFarid has advised me that he does not intend editing Wikipedia for some time due to health issues.
    I agree with Khoikhoi that this is an old story; while I confess to having extended BehnamFarid considerable latitude in the past, I think that the threats are idle and at this point moot. He is, however, running out of warnings on the WP:AGF and WP:NPA fronts. I don't think any action would be constructive right now, though. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not retracted the legal threat, so the rules say he still should be blocked. That does not preclude blocking his antagonists also, as needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules say it, but what would it achieve? Stifle (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It could achieve a promise from him to remove the legal threat before he does anything else. Then you lift the block, and if the first edit he does is not removing the legal threat, then he gets blocked again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also lost in the shuffle is how POV-laden that Unruled Paper (film) article is. It reads like a movie reviewer's essay, not an encyclopedia entry. The first 3 paragraphs talk about how wonderful it is (which may well be true, subjectively speaking) with maybe 1 sentence actually discussing the content of the film. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already working on an alternate version at User talk:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper and User:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper in the past few days. Khoikhoi 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - User:AzureFury has been waging a war against me ever since he encountered me. A brief review of the edits of this User clearly shows that he constantly is engaged in edit wars with various Wikipedia editors; in other words, I am not his first nor his only target. He has now taken on himself to act as a public prosecutor. He claims that he has "edited an article", the article being Unruled Paper (film). As the details on the talk page of this entry clearly show, User:AzureFury has undertaken this so-called editing without having seen the film, without having read an independent source regarding this film, without knowing the director of the film and/or any of his works, without knowing any actors acting in this film, without knowing the second script-writer of the film, without knowing the language of the film [the film as known to me, has no subtitles], etc. How and on what account can he have "edited" the entry at issue? By his own admission, the entries concerning Bach and Beethoven `suffer' from exactly the same `shortcomings' as that concerning "Unruled Paper". Explicitly, he wrote [75]:

    I read the leads in the articles on Beethoven and Bach. I noticed they also lacked citation and were laced with POV language such as "brought it to its ultimate maturity" and "unrivaled control". It seems to me artists are not very concerned with objectivity, no surprise there.

    At the time of this writing, User:AzureFury has not made even a single edit in either of these two entries, i.e. those of Bach's and Beethoven's. The question arises as to the reason for User:AzureFury taking the liberty and "editing" a Wikipedia entry about the subject matter of which to his own admission, and to my best judgement, he knows absolutely nothing. Is this attitude not a sign of hubris against everything Iranian? As I shall point out below, User:AzureFury has threatened to ram planes into Iranian buildings. In other words, User:AzureFury is at best someone who is incapable of judging the enormity of his own words and actions on the Wikipedia pages and has taken on himself to play the victim of my supposed injustices towards him.

    User:AzureFury asserts that I accused him, or perhaps someone else, of racism. A search of the texts written by me on the talk page of Unruled Paper [76] clearly shows that I used the word "racism" once and the word "racist" thrice. I reproduce the relevant part of my text here below (the boldfaced words are made so here for clarity):

    Dear AzureFury, please let DGG speak for himself. He undeniably wrote that "the plot section reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source." DGG's remark is that of a racist; this person is implicitly saying that I, an Iranian, cannot have written this text. The remark not only accuses me of ignorance, but also of theft of someone else's intellectual property. Perhaps you have never suffered from racism, for if you had, you would not have been so insensitive to such a blatant insult addressed at me. I strongly believe, and this has been clearly corroborated by the racist slur of DGG, that if I had written an entry on a Western film, or if my name were a Western name, I would not have been in the present situation, i.e. my entry had not been tagged by almost all negative tags available to an editor, and forced to write thousands of words in defence of my text. That is as racist as things can get. Mind you, none of the people who have been crying havoc has even seen the film; in particular DGG, who has had the temerity to lecture me on how to write an entry for Wikipedia. Please note that the things that he is asking about the opening paragraphs of the entry are all recorded and documented in the entries concerning Khosrow Shakibai and Hadyeh Tehrani (as can be verified, both of these names have been linked to their pertinent Wikipedia entries). No, the person is full of himself, and cannot imagine that an Iranian can have read Nietzsche, Shakespeare or the Old and New Testaments; the thing must have been "copypasted". As I wrote previously, he could have at least tested his racist hypothesis before hurling it at my face. --BF 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    Clearly, I did not call any individual a racist, nor accused any specific person of racism. I called "DGG's remark" as one used by racists and the "slur" by "DGG" as a racist one. I shall expound on my choice of the words "racist" and "racism" below. Before doing that, however, I should like to point out that it is not User:DGG who has initiated the present arbitration process, but User:AzureFury, acting in a way as a public prosecutor. Note that, as my above original text clearly shows, the text to which User:AzureFury had responded was addressed to User:DGG and not to User:AzureFury!

    In the initial part of my above-quoted text I have clearly and unequivocally explained my reason for my subsequent use of the words "DGG's remark is that of a racist" and "racist slur". An impartial observer should wonder what reason DGG could have had for making the baseless assertion "the plot section reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source [my bold]."? What made DGG to believe that I were not capable of writing the plot section of Unruled Paper (film)? For those who feign ignorance, racists entertain the belief that coloured people are weak in their minds, so that e.g. writing a coherent text is beyond their reach; they also are of the opinion that coloured people are weak in morality, so that they have no problem in appropriating someone else's e.g. intellectual property. I shall not repeat myself and therefore quote what I wrote to DGG in response to his insulting assertions [77]:

    Dear DGG, you are the second person who has insulted my dignity on the present subject matter (the first one was User:Stifle, and I am as yet awaiting his apology): on which ground is your judgement "reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source" based? What are the characteristics of a "copy-pasted" text? Do you believe that I cannot have the ability to write what to you appears like a "copypaste"? Are in your opinion all those who sacrifice their precious times on Wikipedia morons? Why this hubristic presumption? You could have at least made a Google search on "Unruled Paper" and tested your baseless assumption before accusing me of "copypasting"; if there was something that I would have copy-pasted, that would not have remained unknown to you (you could have searched on strings of words looking to you as copy-pasted strings --- I have also given the title of the film in Persian; you could even have made a search on this Persian title and informed yourself of the possible existence of any review in Persian that I might have been so unprincipled as to have translated and passed on as my own). I must disappoint you: I am an academic with a wide horizon (film and literary criticism are merely two of my several hobbies), and have tens of works in refereed journals on my name. In my academic discipline it is considered criminal to use texts by others without presenting the pertinent sources. I therefore hereby explicitly demand from you to retract your insulting words and apologise! I am not here to tolerate abuse of my dignity! If you are in the habit of copypasting the works by others without citing your sources, which is your business insofar as I am concerned, you should be careful and not project your habit onto others.

    For completeness, User:Stifle, to whom I have referred in my above text, has later explicitly apologized and I have thanked him for that. User:DGG has never apologised for accusing me of copypasting someone else's intellectual property.

    To summarise, it is User:AzureFury who has to clarify his behaviour. Why is he trying to misrepresent facts? There is a mob mentality prevailing here on Wikipedia as the following incident shows. Some days ago I pointed out to User:Paul Barlow that an edit by him contained some typing errors [78]. Rather than thanking me for my reminder, he responded very rudely to me, neglecting the fact that the errors introduced by him had been sufficient reason for me to revert his edits. He wrote:

    Please do not make pointless notifications of obvious typos. You should correct them, as I do when I see them. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    Clearly, this person besides being rude is oblivious to the fallacy of using the adjective "obvious" with "typos"; "typos" that are "obvious" should not be there in the first place.

    The subsequent discussions on the talk page of User:Paul Barlow show the reason for this person's rudeness [79]: Paul Barlow explicitly says that: "My reaction was also partly a result of my distaste for BehnamFarid's quite shocking comments elsewhere - accusing another editor of being a "racist" simply for disagreeing with him". I have reproduced my text at issue here above; did I call any particular Wikipedia editor a "racist"? User:Paul Barlow has apparently had "Distaste" for my "quite shocking comments elsewhere", while I had addressed him thus [80]:

    Dear Paul Barlow, just wish to point out that your recent edit of the above-mentioned entry has introduced a number of serious spelling errors (such as "norted" for "noted"). Could you please remove these shortcomings? Thank you. --BF 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    On the same talk page, User:Dougweller adds [81]: "And he gets away with that?" It seems as though User:AzureFury has taken the advice of his supporters to heart and has taken on himself to push me out of Wikipedia. Remarkably, neither User:Paul Barlow nor User:Dougweller has contributed to the discussions on the talk page of Unruled Paper (film).

    It is very strange, to say the least, that User:AzureFury accuses me of "personal attacks". This is what this person wrote to me:

    You're right, how silly of us to adhere to a fixed set of rules. All rules can be broken when we really want. Brb, murder. Brb, 1+1=3. By asking you to remove words like "stellar" and "laudable" we are exactly as bad as Osama Bin Laden. He is an Islamic Fundamentalist, we are Wiki Fundamentalists. EXACTLY THE SAME. Next thing you know we'll be ramming our planes into Iran in protest of your opinionated language. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    Where in my text had I referred to "Usama Bin Laden"? He is so insensitive and rude as to conflate Iranians with the atrocity of 9/11. Note the words by User:AzureFury: "Next thing you know we'll be ramming our planes into Iran in protest of your opinionated language. [my bold]" This person is calling for violence and does not hesitate to suggest acts of mass murder on Iranians. These are offensive words, AzureFury!!! Can't you see that you have been unapologetically insulting me and my nation all along??? What else would you want to have said before I protested???

    User:AzureFury's impertinence seems to have arisen from my use of the word "fundamentalism". Later I explained this use as follows [82]:

    Have you ever looked into the dictionary definition of the word "fundamentalist"? I doubt it, for otherwise you would not have used the debased Fox-News language in response to my comment. [...] Please before referring to Iran and that maniac mass murderer Usama Bin Laden in one sentence (which goes a long way in showing the kind of thoughts people must secretly entertain - there is no shortage of ill feelings against all things middle-eastern, excluding middle-eastern oil of course; to wit, the accusation that I could not have written the text of the entry; that I must have copy-pasted it, and a host of other insults that I have had to suffer on this page), take the trouble and read what my "Urgent proposal" was all about. Briefly, I said that one should not use those tags; instead, one should either improve a text, or put one's opinions and suggestions on the talk page of the pertinent entry. That was all. Simple and unequivocal as this proposal is, in a week time, and after having spent thousands of words on explaining it, it has given rise to "Usama Bin Ladan", "1+1=3", "ramming planes into Iran" - AzureFury, you should realise that these are mighty Freudian slips on your part! You must know full well that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, so that unless you are watching Fox News 24 hours per day, I do not know how you have managed to contrive your venomous sentences addressed to me. Above all, even though Unruled Paper is an Iranian film, we have not been discussing Iran, or even politics, at all.
    Let us end this unholy business, here and now. I wasted one week of my time and failed to get the contents of my message through; now I am being presented with "Usama Bin Ladan", "ramming planes into Iran" and a host of other insults and utter irrelevancies (for your information, "fundamentalism" in its most popular sense today was first used in 1923 [according to OED], long before Usama Bin Laden was born, referring to a religious movement within Protestant Christianity which became active in the USA, and not in Saudi Arabia, or even Iran for that matter; in general, however, it refers to the strict maintenance of orthodox doctrines). --BF 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

    User:AzureFury is disingenuous to the utmost in referring to my so-called "history of personal attacks" [83]: After raising this issue earlier with User:Khoikhoi (evidently, User:azureFury has been scheming against me for quite some time), I told him, i.e. User:AzureFury, that he should not take the unfounded statements by User:Eleland at face value, but read my response to these statements. Explicitly, on the basis of the contents of a website written by someone who is not known as an historian (to my best knowledge this person, a certain Gregory Noll, has not a single publication on his name in a peer-reviewed journal, aside from the fact that this person seems to be affiliated with no academic institution), User:Eleland has called me "a nationalist problem editor". The entire problem was the making of User:MiS-Saath who had taken on herself to insert an utter falsehood into the Wikipedia entry of Khuzestan (see later). For a proper understanding of the case at hand, it is important to realise that User:MiS-Saath, an Israeli citizen of European heritage, had been introducing herself to the Arab editors of Wikipedia thus: [84]. Clearly, User:MiS-Saath had been behaving as an imposter, by addressing Arab editors as "fellow arab editors". Here is one of the dubious edits that User:MiS-Saath had been involved in: [85]. It is remarkable that I should be accused of being a "nationalist problem editor" (and later by User:AzureFury of having "a history of personal attacks") for having pointed out that there is not a single authoritative text that would even suggest that there had been an "Arabistan" inside Iran. As User:Nepaheshgar has clearly shown here [86], all the extant historical maps unequivocally show that Khuzestan has always been within Iran's internationally-recognised borders. In fact, I have cited one of the most noted of the American historians on the issue at hand as follows [87]:

    I close my discussions by quoting from Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki Keddie (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2003), pp. 84 and 85:
    Regarding foreign investments, while Millspaugh and the Iranian government were eager to attract American capital, Great Britain, still the most influential power, was hostile to inroads by others. [...]
    Millspaugh tried to prevent Russo-Iranian agreement on the Caspian fisheries and on tariffs, though his claims on these points went against the 1921 Russian-Iranian Treaty. No agreement on these issues was reached while Millspaugh was present, and Russio-Iranian trade suffered. Millspaugh's failures made him increasingly unpopular, and disagreements with Reza Shah led to Millspaugh's resignation in 1927.
    The British, rebuffed in their attempt to control all Iran, continued to try in the south. They took four years to evacuate their troops there, and considered plans for an autonomous state, including Khuzestan, the main oil province. These plans centred on Shaikh Khaz'al, the powerful Arab tribal chief. The British negotiated with Khaz'al and promised support against the central government. At the end of 1923, Khaz'al formed a group aiming at an independent south Iranian federation and got some Bakhtiari and Luri [both non-Arab] groups to follow him. The government put down the Lurs, but Khaz'al and his allies declared independence. The central government was now too strong for the rebels, however, and Khaz'al was met with the army and forced to surrender in 1924. Soon after this, Reza Khan negotiated with the British, who saw it was in their interest to come to terms with the newly powerful regime. The British henceforth supported Reza Khan. [My italics.]
    So much for the Arab Emirate of User:MiS-Saath and her associate. As the above quotation unequivocally shows, Shaikh Khaz'al was just an opportunistic rebel, declaring independence on the instigation of a foreign government.

    To my best knowledge, User:Eleland has never apologized for having called me "a nationalist problem editor"; instead, User:Eleland's nonsensical jibe has apparently created a "history of personal attacks" for me. It is a testimony to one's intellectual bankruptcy to use a baseless remark issued by someone who clearly knows absolutely nothing about the history of Iran (i.e. User:Eleland) to accuse me of having had a "history of personal attacks" on Wikipedia. I am absolutely serious on this matter. What should I have done? To have praised an imposter, as User:MiS-Saath has proved to be, for her falsification of history on Wikipedia? To have praised User:Eleland for having cited a worthless piece of scribblings by a non-entity at best and a mercenary at worst, suggesting that Iran occupied part of Arabistan? Even if I had a "history of personal attacks" (User:AzureFury does not mention of what my "personal attacks" consisted), I have not falsified facts.

    As for "repeated legal threats". I have explained this issue to User:Stifle earlier. Briefly, when an individual behaves like a loose canon (as User:AzureFury has been doing, and continues to do to this date), what means does an editor in my position have at his disposal? One hopes that taking refuge to institutions of law is not considered as a unlawful here on Wikipedia. Those who are not familiar with the issues pertaining to Law should take note of the fact that threat of sanction(s) against those who may use their constitutional rights (one of which being the right to seek judicial arbitration) is in itself against law: editors of Wikipedia do not lose their constitutional rights by volunteering to edit for Wikipedia. "Due process of law" remains operative, no matter in what activities we engage. Incidentally, before accepting as truth the assertion by User:AzureFury regarding "repeated legal threats", please read what I have exactly written on the issue.

    I hope that the above details have made it evident that if some person should be excluded from Wikipedia, it is User:AzureFury. In this connection, it is important to determine what User:AzureFury has carried out on Wikipedia since his arrival, aside from his apparently interminable wars with various editors.

    Lastly, if my words in my various texts on Wikepedia, including those on this page, give reason to exclude me from Wikipedia, then so be it. I do not regret, not for a moment, for having stood up and fought for matters of principle on the pages of Wikipedia, for not having hesitated to spend hours of my precious time on arguments with User:AzureFury and his ilk whose behaviour I consider as being utterly destructive. If Wikipedia is seeking after unprincipled editors, then I am not one of them and do not wish to be associated with any of them; so, please close down my account immediately. I advise User:AzureFury to look into his soul and ask himself about his aims in life; what goal does he aim to achieve by constantly taxing people's times on Wikipedia on matters he clearly knows absolutely nothing about. It is just dumbfounding how rude some people behave here on Wikipedia (certainly against Iranians or those who are perceived to be Iranians) and how brazenly they turn the table and act as victims. --BF 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    A long post with a long list of percieved wrongs against you by other editors. However, I do not see anywhere in this post you addressing the issue of the legal threat that you made here[88]. Are you willing to withdraw this legal threat or not? Nsk92 (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He should be blocked until he pledges to remove the legal threat. And if his first edit after being unblocked is not to remove the legal threat, then he should be re-blocked. The rules are clear about this. I don't see why this guy is being allowed to get away with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And as of right now, the legal threat he posted a few days ago [89] on Talk:Unruled Paper (film) remains in place. Maybe I should make a legal threat against wikipedia also, and it should stay in place, too. I'll threaten to sue over the use of the Arial font as the standard font, when Times New Roman is so much easier on the eyes. For starters, I'll send wikipedia my optometrist's bill. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the main problem on Wikipedia: People appear to be oblivious to the rudiments of a civilised interaction. For the attention of User:Baseball Bugs: I am NOT "this guy", or any "guy"! You may call your chums guys, not others, and certainly not me! Do you even realise that you are insulting me? Further, if you had read my above text, you would not have said "allowed to get away with it". I am not here to "get away" from anything. It is not an honour for me to be associated with the people who conflate Iranians with a mass murderer, i.e. Usama Bin Laden, threaten to ram planes into Iranian buildings, and subsequently portray themselves as victims. As for the "legal threat", if you had read my above text, you would have known that it is illegal (viz. unconstitutional) to sanction against those who would consider to use their legal rights. Internal rules of Wikipedia cannot run counter to our basic rights as enshrined in our Constitution. We are not living in a banana republic! |--BF 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]
    Since User:BehnamFarid is unwilling to withdraw the legal threat, would someone please indef block this user immediately? Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why something hasn't been done already. Meanwhile, two points: (1) BehnamFarid is under the false impression that there is a constitutional right to edit wikipedia; and (2) admins should also consider taking some action toward the users that to some degree may have prodded BehnamFarid into making his various threats (legal and otherwise). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I agree. This user is being allowed to post legal threats without sanction, then come here and defend them in a long, rambling post to this page. He shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all while the threat is pending. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he's been allowed to get away with it out of deference to the admin who cautioned him but hasn't done anything to stop him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny Weidler

    Resolved
     – tidied up, and on the right noticeboard

    could an administrator review this article - which I've just reduced to a one line stub. Some folk may be aware that I'm currently under mentorship for BLP editing (I've noted this in my mentoring pages, and haven't yet touched base with any mentors) - it was in such a truly icky state, that I'm popping a note here, and am now heading over to the BLP noticeboard..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be bewtter off just deleting it and starting over. What you have now is essentially '...was just some guy, y'know?' HalfShadow 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    there's some good stuff in the history, Half, and I'd say he's definitely notable - it's just that I'm not really able to help at the mo! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated deletion by Ncmvocalist of existing valid section in Carnatic Music

    In spite of repeated reminders since around Aug 19th, 2008 Ncmvocalist has deleted without discussions about 7 times through reverts or edits a valid section and statement those existed for long time with consent of other editors. Now he has created a RFC after deleting the section that existed for a while. RFC should be based on the version before he deleted the section without discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Fixed section title, now level 2 header. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Naadapriya is a civil POV pusher and has continually used unreliable sources and synthesis as a means of keeping his edits on this article. As it is, he has driven away several valuable contributors through tendentious argument, which is why his changes existed in the article prior to the 3 month protection of the article. The section was deleted per NPOV policy concerns of undue weight, which like BLP policy, is critical to this encyclopedia. I've made a compromise pending the RFC by including a mention in the Compositions section that isn't in violation of NPOV. Naadapriya has however insisted that he will continue to reinsert this contentious material that directly reduces the integrity of this encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Naadapriya was warned by another admin yesterday over edit-warring for reincluding contentious material (in violation of NPOV) that does not have consensus. Browsing through Naadapriya's contributions, one can see the generally disruptive nature of his contributions - these have gone unnoticed for this many months due to lack of input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a post outlining what I believe to be the proper solution to this argument is at Talk:Carnatic music#Ugabhoga inclusion argument. However, it comes down a bit harshly (i.e. pointing out that blanking cited article content is grounds for vandalism blocks), so I'd appreciate it if a couple of you could look and see if I'm being reasonable here. --erachima talk 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Erachima (above) has threatened me with a block for vandalism which is atrocious. Citing unreliable self-published sources as the reason for including this content is disrespecting the very pillars upon which this encyclopedia stands - I'm considering taking this to ArbCom to clarify if there's no consensus on that here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning an editor whose block log includes a flurry of blocks earned in the course of this exact same dispute that they may be blocked again if they continue it is not "atrocious", it is a reasonable caution. Though I repeat that I would appreciate it if an admin or two could review my statement. --erachima talk 08:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think you're improving the article and the pedia by wanting to elaborate every single composition listed in that section, then great - whenever a user feels that the page is too long and they want the section cut down to only leave the most significant forms of Carnatic music (to comply with our policies and guidelines), I will be citing you. And btw, in case you didn't know: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." And the next paragraph "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." Naadapriya's atrocious conduct has been unnoticed to date which is why he's dodged blocks so far. Now I know another user who is going to be very involved in the ArbCom case this is going towards. Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy poster.jpeg

    Resolved
     – Franamax's dummy edit fixed it

    A trivial matter, perhaps, but I'm not sure where to take this. The image page states that nothing links to it, and a template to that effect was posted. Yet the article Yankee Doodle Dandy contains that image, and clicking on it takes you to that page that claims nothing is linked to it. What am I overlooking here? Or is something wrong? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, all 3 images from that article were tagged. I thought that happened because some idiot IP address had blanked the article. But that was reverted, yet the images still show as "orphaned", which is not correct. I removed the tag from all 3, but would like to know what the problem is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a null edit to the page and the images seem now to show proper usage links. I do believe the servers are a little wacky today, or else it was just a long job queue to update them. Franamax (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. This was probably not an admin issue. The bit-heads would probably be better people to ask. (I watch that page too - bein' a geek and all...) Franamax (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it get as fast of action as this page does? When you're not watching, I mean. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Projectlongbeach

    User:Projectlongbeach - another use of Wikipedia as a personal website. Corvus cornixtalk 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has edited Project Runway Canada which has similar looking boxes on it, so I suspect he is using his userpage as a sandbox for either that article or a similar one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's nice and colorful, anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's most likely a sandbox. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please undelete a page

    • Please undelete page Lê Quan Ninh. I tried to delete it temporarily as part of a db-move that turned out to need histmerge; but when I tried to undelete it I get this error print:

    A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

    {SQL query hidden)

    from within function "ExternalStoreDB::store". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 136 from storage engine (10.0.2.102)".

    The file was deleted 3 times because each time I tried to move the other file in over it, I got an SQL error, but the move was done also.

    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • (ec - to Anthony Appleyard)I'm not sure that that would be compliant with the GFDL, as there is no attributions in a copy and paste. Better to have it deleted, and undelete when the bug is fixed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attack

    Resolved
     – indef block for threat of violence Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an uninvolved admin please respond to this? Many thanks. — Alan✉ 13:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks. — Alan✉ 13:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While threats are never acceptable, in my opinion Alan's action was also unacceptable. He should at least have told Martin-1 about the issue first, rather than going in and removing all that stuff without any warning whatsoever. If you're going to do home invasions of that sort, you have to expect violent responses. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have taken it to WP:AIV, but either way, the indef-block was appropriate. That does not preclude some kind of action against the complaining user if an admin sees fit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the complaining user could have brought the issue of the blocked user's talk page here, as just rubbing it out is kind of being a busybody. However, talk pages, including users' talk pages, are supposed to be about furthering wikipedia, not stream-of-consciousness random personal thoughts, which is what it seemed to be. And it's hard to tell from that lengthy rant whether it contained real personal attacks, but personal attacks are fair game for removal, as they are automatically assumed to have nothing to do with furthering wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AlexLevyOne redux

    This user has previously been the subject of an ANI thread here. Since that time he has been carrying on in much the same way, creating unwikified substubs[90][91], deleting {{fact}}-tagged material in a way that makes nonsense of what remains, making edits that highlight his poor English skills, and unnecessarily duplicating or removing wikilinks. He has also thrown in some vandalistic edits, such as blanking the article Osama bin Laden, and some tendentious ones, such as adding categories not supported by the text of the article. The only thing he's been blocked for so far (twice) is edit warring, but to me the main problem is that his (few) useful contributions are simply not worth the amount of time other editors have to expend in cleaning up his messes. His talk-page history shows that attempts to engage him about his edits and his insufficient command of the English language have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears. Is there any hope for a lengthy block to give other editors a rest? I think he deserves it for the bin Laden blanking earlier today, if nothing else. Deor (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 2 weeks for vandalism on Osama bin Laden. If others feel this is not long enough, feel free to extend. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP range attacks - BLP vios

    Please review, can we get a range block?

    ? rootology (C)(T) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I already did it about three minutes ago (fifteen minutes only; they'll be expiring soon) ... btw thanks for fixing my talk page. Antandrus (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    More offsite harrassment

    Yesterday, I made a few edits to the Jewish Internet Defense Force page after a relative absence of about two weeks. Shortly thereafter, the JIDF website issued what they claim to be a picture of me, accompanied by some borderline libelous text speculating that I may be a "High Brow [sic] Antisemite".

    The JIDF is also claiming that I deleted "an important Jerusalem Post" editorial on the topic of "Isreal Apartheid Week" from Israel and the apartheid analogy. Their case is somewhat undermined by the link they've provided, however, which shows me adding a link to the JPost article in question. (I later moved this link to a different section of the article. I didn't delete it.)

    For details, please click here. (Please note that the last time I posted a link to the JIDF's website, they replaced their original text with an Inspector Gadget cartoon. By the time you click on this link, they may have changed the text and switched the photograph with a picture of a monkey or somesuch.)

    Comments and suggestions welcome. As a side note, I would tend to think that these sorts of petty vendettas speak very poorly about the JIDF ... and about those who write articles in support of them. CJCurrie (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=235399875"