Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned from a one-week block[1] for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again[2] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[3][4][5][6][7] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I coined that phrase and other editors and administrators have warned you that you attack me by using such dismissive language as disruptive. Your action of reporting people here does not give you license to attack people. Your previous bleating behaviour about me and shrill attacks are unacceptable, as well as your psuedo-officious talkpage warnings are passive agressive behaviour. Her is one for you: Continue to engage in your antisocial behaviour, and it will be you who will be blocked. Consider yourself warned and nough of your meritless gaming the AN/I system to attack user as you did me.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[8] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy",[9] and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before[10], and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.[11] He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me. Wikidemo (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor is continuing,[12] so at this point I have deleted part of his comment[13] and asked him to stop.[14] I don't know what else to do. Wikidemo (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Time out

I would like the opinion of uninvolved admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a single-purpose agenda account, one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been blocked 4 times in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a strong suspicion that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at Talk:Barack Obama - note 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on Bill Ayers election controversy describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as George W. Bush (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and Tony Blair (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and their single purpose and their agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke WP:BOLD and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of John McCain in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a coatrack for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. Agenda-driven single purpose accounts are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further uninvolved commentary is invited. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at John McCain, try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this here, but the Keating Five were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only "Obama campaign volunteers" are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at Hillary Clinton. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky scandal" (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other investigations" (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of George W. Bush. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you were losing the argument in rather spectacular fashion and you knew it was only going to get worse. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) All due apologies. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit more uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention the article devoted to this controversy briefly in the body of Obama's article, with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. II | (t - c) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

The several previous ANI discussions about editorial conduct on the Obama page clearly do not resonate enough, and problems have still not ceased. I think we as a community have had enough of this drama. I propose the following restriction be enacted:

The Obama related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Obama pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Talk:Obama/Article_probation#Log_of_sanctions.

Need community consensus to impose this. If it needs any tweaking, let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of article probation are already in effect. Admins Gamaliel and Rick Block are participating on a regular basis now; they're "involved" but they can call for other admins very quickly. What we have here, NMCV, is a group of editors who have developed marvelous expertise in what Die4Dixie accurately describes as "disagree/ provoke/ report" and what ThuranX described as one editor "revving up" the newbie so that others can report him. They engage in a constant stream of low-level provocation and baiting. False accusations are being used as substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. Every trick and stratagem in the book is being used to block anything negative about Obama, and get rid of any editor who seeks to introduce it.

Don't reward this behavior.

One of them gave up an account of several years because he was afraid he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party operative. I suspect there are others who differ from him only in being more careful about concealing their Democratic Party links. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. You don't get to level accusation after accusation against other editors based on nothing but your own imaginings. If your present behavior is any indication, your previous problems were entirely because of your reaction to normal Wikipedia interaction. If you want to be a positive presence on Wikipedia, you must learn to play well with others, even if, especially if, they disagree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I heartily welcome such attention to the article. As someone who has been repeatedly berated by the involved editors as a "whiner", liar, etc., for participating on this noticeboard in a non-administrative capacity, I ask that we clarify that good-faith, plausible reports of editor misbehavior, SSP and checkuser requests, and other are not impermissible assumptions of bad faith, but that taunting editors for their good faith participation in administrative discussions is considered disruptive. Non-admins can be honest dealers too. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, casting aspersions (assumptions of bad faith) has been, and continues to be a major problem in this area. It is unacceptable for editors to continually make accusations in an attempt to besmirch another's reputation. Engaging in tendentious argument is also futile. Any concerns should be raised in the appropriate forums, if at all. (Eg; sock-puppetry accusations go as a checkuser request or to WP:SSP) If users have concerns about the continual filing of reports against an individual (should that happen) as if it were an act of harassment or something else, then they should pursue WP:DR. Accusations, attacks and the like are not to be scattered through article talk page discussions, as it further contributes to a toxic environment. The proposed article probation is intended (in spirit, if not by the letter) to tackle these sorts of issues as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support any measure that encourages users to play nice, but I'm wondering why we need probation for the article and why we don't just impose it on the particular troublesome user. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first user who has been troublesome there, and been subject to lengthy ANI discussions, blocks etc., and for some time to come at least, won't be the last one either. I think the proposed/new scheme should be more effective in dealing with any other problems/problem-users, both now and in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I support this suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this suggestion as well, although how it differs from current practice will clearly need to be explained on the talk pages. I suggest we apply this to both the McCain and Obama pages. There don't seem to be quite as many problems on the McCain pages at this point but applying this to only the Obama pages would no doubt be characterized by some as evidence of a pro-Obama slant. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What previously required constant community consensus for each individual editing restriction can now be imposed at the discretion of an administrator. I'm not sure it can be extended to McCain pages in the absence of any major problems, like the Obama pages have encountered in the last 3 months. It's primarily intended to deal with editorial misconduct; an important BLP should not be subject to a toxic environment, especially for that long. But if the community wants to deal with both issues at the same time, I certainly do not have a problem with it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. About time. Please give a warning first, except in egregious cases. I hope that at least several administrators get involved in this. Editors should understand that baiting/taunting/goading by someone else will not be considered an excuse for their own behavior. As FT2 has been saying recently, we're each responsible for our own behavior. I expect monitoring administrators to set a good example in their own communications and follow procedures to the letter -- otherwise you may start repelling good editors from the articles. Noroton (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I support (as noted, I'm not an admin). Gathering up thoughts from the above discussion could we include some or all of the following? "Except in egregious cases editors should receive at least one warning, or must otherwise be clearly aware (1) of the terms of this article probation, and (2) that their specific conduct is deemed problematic, before any administrative sanctions apply. A heightened standard of civility applies: editors should not on the talk page post comments that disparage or make accusations regarding each other's alleged biases, veracity, editing ability, conflicts of interest, status as legitimate editors, and so on, whether directly or indirectly, by name or by reference to groups or edit history. All commentary about editor behavior should be directed to appropriate dispute resolution forums, or a sub-page created to discuss edits on the talk page, which reports if made reasonably and in good faith are not considered to be in violation of the article probation." - Wikidemo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not; the standard wording I've used for this remedy is sufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the attention would be welcomed;however, the standard practices of civility etc. are more than adequate. I would suggest one warning from an uninvolved administrator to the talk page of a truly offending editor and than true sanctions starting with 24 hour topic blocks and escalating thereafter. I think most editors could use a clean slate there. I do think that the "friendly" warnings often do not serve to calm a situation, but rather to inflame. if we can get someone uninvolved in editing to watch, it would be warmly welcomed.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)05:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The clean slate is okay, if only people will take advantage of it to get a fresh start. I think the concern isn't the occasional isolated lapse of temper but long-term low tension that's developed among editors. At the risk of too many rules we could ask that any official warnings under the probation system be left to uninvolved administrators. Wikidemo (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm done here unless there are more suggestions.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This idea is on the right track, but before officially supporting I'd like to see some input from admins who have experience with enforcing Arbcom sanctions, for example, admins who have logged any blocks or bans under Arbcom cases. The above proposal, though it does not come from Arbcom, has the flavor of those kind of sanctions. Also, whoever is going to impose those kind of restrictions will need to follow the Obama page night and day. Do we have admins willing to volunteer for such hazardous duty? EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think (I might be corrected if I'm wrong) there are 2 admins, Gamaliel and Rick Block, who are regularly looking at it (although, I don't think any admin in the world will want to do it as exhaustively as you've suggested :) nuh uh). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Since both Gamaliel and Rick Block are active in participating in the discussions on that page, neither is likely to be in a position to do anything more than report problematic edits and comments -- just as any other editor would. Given Rick Block's statements to me on my talk page, I have no faith in his ability to step back from someone he disagrees with and give a fair assessment to an uninvolved admin. What we need are multiple, uninvolved admins who get a sense of what individual editors have been doing on those pages because they've been watching them regularly. MastCell has done some of that, but I haven't seen that admin comment on this section of the thread. In the past, some other admins have said they'd watch those pages, but I haven't seen evidence of that. This proposal of Ncmvocalist's will not work until we get what we've always needed: multiple, uninvolved, admin eyes aware of the context and attached to fingers willing to warn and block for clear misbehavior. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a rub. Any administrator moderating the Obama pages will get drawn into content - and probably they should. We need moderation to handle POV pushing, accusations of bias or imbalance, reliable sourcing, weight issues, BLP vios, dealing with perennial proposals, keeping discussions on track, declaring a discussion closed or an edit to be with or without consensus, etc. Otherwise we don't solve the process problems that keep the article in an indefinite stasis while generating long heated talk page fights. Such a person can be fair and unbiased, but as soon as they tell an editor that their praise or derogatory comments about Obama are out of line, or issue a warning or administrative action, they're likely to be accused of taking sides or having an agenda. They end up in a war of words with the offending editor, trying just to justify their own actions, and so their neutrality is not accepted by everyone anymore. That's what seems to have happened with Gamaliel, Rick Block, and perhaps other administrators on the page. Noroton is clearly a serious, capable editor, and I think his questioning of Rick Block's neutrality and fairness is a fair, good faith concern - not that I agree necessarily, just that it's a fair question. I'll let people form their own opinions on the recent dispute between Gamaliel and WorkerBee74 on WB74's talk page.[31] How can one draw a distinction? Wikidemo (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

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

At Barack Obama, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has engaged in low-level edit warring and provocation for the past 48 hours. [32][33][34][35]

LotLE is fully aware of the 3RR rule and all of its components. He/she has successfully had other editors blocked under this rule, not for four reverts in a 24-hour period, but for violating the spirit of the rule. He/she is attempting to remove any mention of controversial Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and a photo of Obama with Gen. David Petraeus.

This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. Please notice the edit summaries. He/she directs other users to the article Talk page where there is nothing to support him/her. He/she accuses one user of being a "contentious SPA," and notes that another has an "interesting focus" (user's focus appears to be gay rights). See also this diff [36] on the article Talk page, where he/she encourages others to "start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA."

LotLE has a long and turbulent history of combative and provocative behavior that resulted in several blocks and countless warnings that he/she has deleted from his/her User Talk page. This is gaming the system. Both Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama are already semi-protected, and the article is on the verge of community probation at WP:ANI, due to such edit warring and continued provocation. LotLE is a significant part of the problem. Please take action, since it is necessary here.

I suggest a 48-hour block and a topic ban until after the election. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no consensus for a block at AN3. Let's not forum shop for a block here. As a side note, is Kossack4Truth topic banned from any Obama-related page? seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. And while the WP:3RR administrators are unprepared to take action on a combination of low-level edit warring and low-level provocation (focusing only on the low-level edit warring and ignoring the low-level provocation, which has an exponential effect), others here at WP:ANI who are more familiar with the turbulent histories of both the article and the user may be prepared to do so. I know for a fact that if I had engaged in such misconduct, I would be blocked in a New York minute and it would last for at least a week. Also, I would get the topic ban you thought I had. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked MastCell to clarify whether Kossack4Truth is indeed topic-banned. My understanding from the old ANI thread was that they were placed under restriction - I might be wrong. Whether or not that is the case, as Seicer points out, Kossack4Truth is forum shopping with this--Cailil ^talk 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE is definitely skating thin ice, and probably should've been blocked. Too bad we lack proactive, courageous admins who will pre-empt such behaviors with a few prominent blocks like this could've been. ThuranX (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's most unfortunate. The people on one side who do the baiting and badgering get a free pass and, when the people on the other side react, they're blocked in a New York minute. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Although Scarian and myself thought it was essential for Kossack4Truth to be topic-banned for 3 months...MastCell, Bigtimepeace and Ed Johnston were reluctant on handing out individual topic bans or editing restrictions at the time, so unfortunately, he's not. He was blocked for misconduct at a later date (just like the other individual users who I proposed be topic-banned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Updated_Suggestions_by_Ncmv_and_Scarian). Rather than say I told you so, I think the time is ripe for article probation as suggested in the above section. Nevertheless, I agree - Kossack4Truth is forum shopping here, so I'm closing this section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as FORUM, i see it as not getting any response at AN3, because it's rare to see admins do the big digging there. I've had reports there bounced for not including all the diffs, or for linking to the page history, not the diffs. Further, looking at that page you linked, it's clear that LotLE has as long history of edit warring. This should be fully examined here, not swept under the rug again. ThuranX (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More than 3 admins have looked at the 3RR report, and 2 are aware of the history. Blocks are not punitive, and there has been full attention given. This type of forumshopping by Kossack4Truth is unacceptable. The page I've given is not an evidence page - it's an archived discussion, and nothing is being swept under the rug. Unless a sysop wishes to use tools or give it more attention (in which case they're welcome to reopen the thread), this should stay closed. The consensus is clear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, now admins are above the rest of us? I don't see that consensus. What I see is a long slow edit warring and revert pattern on the part of LotLE. I see involved editors/admins protecting her, and blaming everyone else, instead of working to solve the problem and prevent further edit warring on the page. I think this needs more attention, and given the long-time belief that admins are no different than editors, just a coupel new buttons, I'm reopening this for wider community consensus and action. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Possibly disruptive image tagging

This post is in reference to recent mass tagging of images for deletion by User:OsamaK. I've tried to talk it over with him here but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).

The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, this one. The subject died 201 years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about this one? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... It has been discussed so many times before. See HERE, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, these images are clearly PD, regardless of their lack of sourcing. Someone with automation tools needs to undo these tags, which should never have been placed. Losing all these images will be detrimental to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How to discus while you undoing my edits?--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I have to undo all of your undoing. Stop now!--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The first couple I checked, I don't think it's disruptive, I think it's a fair cop. No matter the age of an image, it still needs a proper source, and those items didn't have one. No image comes from thin air. Maybe threatening to delete in 7 days is a bit much, but the rules are what they are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, George Dawe will rise from the dead to sue Jimbo and Wikipedia over Image:Aleksey Arakcheyev.jpg. You are free to believe this, but please don't flood my talk page with this useless clutter and loud deletion threats. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not likely, but you still need to provide a source. I've been told this many times about images regardless of their age. Maybe it came from a website, maybe from a book; but wherever, it did not come from thin air, it had to come from someplace. You need to provide a source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need a source in that sense. You do need enough information (author or publication) to verify public domain status, though, and being really old isn't enough. If someone was born in 1840, took a photo in the U.S. at the age of 10, never published it, and died at the age of 100, we have an 1850 photo that's copyrighted until 2010. --NE2 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but really, how likely is that? At some point (pre-1900?) we ought to err on the side of assuming PD. Requesting source information is fine, but threatening to delete within a week when they've sat there for 4-5 years with no problems is rather counterproductive. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I stopped arguing with these guys after they deleted the equivalent of Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 058.jpg because "the uploader needs to prove that it is a rembrandt" and not the work of a modern forger. I suddenly realized that browsing the web archives for a website where I had found the image years ago was not worth the effort: they will still find something to torment me with, say, that the attribution of Rembrandt paintings is highly uncertain, or that a reproduction may not reflect the original color scheme quite faithfully, or something else. In short, I can't prove that it is a rembrandt to someone who is determined to expose what a cheat I am. Let them have their way. I still firmly believe that the activity aimed at sourcing=deleting obvious (and in many cases hard-to-find) PD-art stuff is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

extreme view. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a copyright extremist. I (and many others) just read Wikipedia image policies and try to apply it. Simply, because it is our interest. Well, if Mr. Biruitorul ,or anyone else, think that image source policy has to change, I'll discus, and I may agree for better image hosting, but it is not my job! I think currently policy is fair enough. It is ugly to say: "a troll", "extreme view" or "Definitely disruptive". It is not my mistake when I try to apply Wikipedia policy.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never accused you of trolling. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, you did not.--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that documentations tell us to note you by default. It is easier to skip you and others, and tag image page only. Once, I had a problem in Wikimedia Commons, I filled some inactive user talk pages with these notes, which makes my browsing so slower. I taught about skipping all user talk pages. After few days, an user undid all of my edits and my hard work lost! For that reason, I note all users. Read this documentation for more.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If an image is so old it's OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY in the public domain (say, photos of people that weren't alive at any time when a copyright would still be valid), no source for the image is needed. It's trivial. Doesn't matter where it come from, no matter how or when it's public domain. Tagging countless images we have a perfect right to use to be deleted based upon stubborn kneejerk adherence to a policy just adds countless hours of work for people to go through and try to fix them all for no good reason, assuming they get caught before deletion. Blind adherence to a pointless policy when someone knows that it's considered bad behavior is not even an attempt at good faith anymore, it's just being stubborn. If OsamaK wants to help Wikipedia he'll voluntarily stop doing these things. If not I think he should be temporarily blocked so he gets the idea that what he's doing is wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

you cannot say that yourself. you cannot even block me for a minute or less. you cannot reexplain the clear policy to be compatible with your view. People in everywhere delete unsourced images since image policy created; here, in Arabic Wikipedia, and in Wikimedia Commons (at least). Please be civil.--OsamaK 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from seperate section below

Ed Fitzgerald doesn't stop removing my image tags without discussion or even change the default edit summary. I asked him three times (one, two, three) to stop doing that, and he didn't respond and still redoing. last moment he undid Image:AR Sevier Ambrose.jpg and Image:Apelles.jpg. I want someone note him to stop doing that for last time until the end of discussion above.--OsamaK 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookin' at his contribs, that looks unhealthily like stalking. It's only in the last 50 or so edits, so it's not a major problem right now, but I'll go have a word with him. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this section up into the main thread from a seperate section below. The problem is that this editor is tagging obviously PD images because they are in technical violation of a absolutist reading of policy, and if they are not untagged, they will be deleted, at a detriment to the project. The editor has had this explained to him, and continues in his actions, so no edit summary is necessary on each seperate revert which, because I do not have automation, I am doing by hand. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a copy-paste edit summary, then; it'd be rather easy to hit tab after editing then paste it in. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just one side. I'm talk about losing my time without discussion! We have a week to get a solution.--OsamaK 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to wait a whole week if a solution is presented before then. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been discussion -- just look above. Your actions may be in strict adherence to a dogmatic reading of policy, but they're not helpful to ther project. You really should stop and help to undo the tagging you've done so far. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no one! He is removing my long time tagging, he is ignoring and breaking above discussion! He is explaining the policy as his personally view to it and trying to impose it on others? Note: I stop tagging ages ago!--OsamaK 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You say you stopped tagging ages ago but, actually, I see that you reverted Ed's removal of your tags about an hour ago: [37]. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean ages. Last new tag was this one, on 19:30, 21 July 200.--OsamaK 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. You're losing your time, I noted you many and many times, I stopped tagging last 36 hours at least: I'll undo all of your undoing.. If any admin wants to take an action, (s)he should review his edit first. This is a stupid game.--OsamaK 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a stupid and disruptive game and you're playing it. Consensus here is clearly against you, and yet you continue to waste the time of a number of editors by reverting. Since you seem to be unable or uninterested in discussing the issues (as opposed to complaining about other's actions), and you've now upped the ante by using Twinkle, the only solution may be for an admin to block you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:). I asked you many and many times to stop it. I'm not here for playing. You will not put the ball in my court, I have more comments there than you, Can not I discus? So, in your view, you can undo all of my edits with invalid reason, but I cannot restore them. Are you kidding? --OsamaK 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning the images were as they were, then you came along and tagged them for deletion. People objected to that, began a discussion and removed your tags, returning the images to their original condition and that's how they should stay while the discussion continues. if the discussion goes against you, the images are in the condition they need to be in, if the discussion goes for you, you can revert the untagging which you have been doing anyway, so it's no additional work for you. This is the reasonable and proper procedure to follow. You seem to want to have the discussion continue while the timer ticks down on the images and they get deleted, meaning they would have to them go to deletion review, more work for everybody.

So, yes, the answer to your question is all of your tagging edits should indeed be undone, pending the outcome of the discussion -- which, incidentally, is clearly going against you -- after which they can be restored if that's the consensus. Please use your script and remove your tags, and avoid the necessity for others to do it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by alnokta

Jello,

Can we please get over with this issue? I don't see any harmful behavior by Osama here. he is just following the current policy, whether you like it or not. you should be thanking him for applying the policy not blame him. any image needs a source, how hard is that? if you don't like the tagging, provide sources, search the web and provide sources. or the other way around, go change the image policy regarding sources for public domain images. stop the game of reverting please.--Alnokta (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

fair enough :)--OsamaK 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. Yes, sources for images are crucial. But when a picture is obviously PD, we do ourselves a disservice by deleting it and not simply requesting a source. There's no legal benefit to be derived (since no one is going to sue), and no ethical one either (since the copyright has almost certainly expired). Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean?--OsamaK 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an essay, not policy. And anyway, since strict interpretation of the source requirement is in this narrow instance (obviously PD images) a hindrance to improving/maintaining Wikipedia, we can safely ignore it. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. but the question is: Who governs successfully of politics? Anyways, I think we're in a loop!--OsamaK 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant edit warring

OsamaK has now reinserted a tag on Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg for the sixth time since July 17. Argue respectfulness towards WP:3RR all you want but this is blatant revert/edit warring. If it wasn't disruptive before, it most definitely is now. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so unfair. Let me be honest, before undoing the tag there, I reread WP:3RR to check if my restore is legal or not (Is 3rd or 4th illegal?). The policy says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts". For that reason, I restored it last time.--OsamaK 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's under discussion here, and it's obviously controversial, I'd strongly recommend not tagging at all until the issue is resolved. You're essentially telling everyone here trying to discuss the matter that it doesn't matter what they say, you'll continue to edit in a manner considered disruptive by some here. And that's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is simple as 1-2-3. Stop undoing, Stop tagging; I stopped tagging since 19 July (Lazy to check), but Ed doesn't care about that. There is no stopping unilaterally, and if so, this is unfair.--OsamaK 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not unfair. If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I conceded that you did not breach 3RR but I do consider your reversions on the above mentioned image as constituting an edit war. 3RR does not need to be breached to constitute an edit war. And also, I think it's very condescending to other involved users to continually argue semantics about how you stopped tagging 3 days ago when you're still restoring the tags that were removed after you. There is no difference between adding a tag for the first time and hitting the "undo" button after someone removes your tag. You need to stop re-adding those tags until someone here starts agreeing with you. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, We're in loop. It is unfair, because I didn't start it. and what about Alnokta, who agrees with me? I believe that there is no AIR with copyrights issues, and then, no one should restore my edits before ending of discus because he is ignoring rules (Wow!), they even want to block me as a troll, becuase they ignore rules!--OsamaK 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We're only in a loop because you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your actions. Under your theory, your tags would remain in place while discussion takes place, until, finally, the clock ticks down and the images are deleted -- this is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the proper procedure, since your tagging is conroversial, is for the original status quo ante (meaning the images in untagged condition) to be preserved while the discussion proceeds. If the discussion goes in your favor, then you can reapply the tags, and the images will be deleted. In fact, though, with one exception, the discussion is going against both your actions and the necessity or advisability of your tags. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Breaking tagging every time, everywhere is a well known story. Dear Ed. If you really want to change, open an issue, write a 'bata' policy and it may applied.--OsamaK 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With the Tschaikovsky picture, it's indeed possible that a 20-year-old photographer in the 1890s could have been alive late enough to renew the copyright. For the Sterret picture, though, it's not physically possible for a copyright to be in force. Hence, tagging it is disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in his latest round of mass reversions (using Twinkle), the editor has accused those who are removing his unwarranted tags of breeching WP:POINT. Of course, no "point" is being made here. What is happening is that editors are attempting to prevent useful images from being lost to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't using Twinkle, it was using my own script. Anyways (let me skip POINT issue), Let us have a cup of tea in #wikipedia-en. Could you come there?--OsamaK 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC):

I don't do IRC. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my view will be discounted because I take a relatively liberal position of the use of NFCC in interpreting the rules--while accepting them, of course--but it does seem to me that Osama is not in the right of it here, and is taking an over-literal view of things--as is easy to do when using any sort of automated tool. In any case, to insist on large scale tagging over multiple objections is disruptive, and should not be continued until there is some consensus that it is being done appropriately. DGG (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your option. Wikimedia policies are illustrating each others. In Wikimedia Commons, we delete all unsourced image no care if it is (PD-old, PD-art, etc..); Everyone knows that. Are we taking an over-literal view of things? No for sure! Another point: Our policy says clearly about source for all images, and we must apply it to be compatible with Wikimedia Commons' one, do you believe that problem when bots uploaded many PDs from English Wikipedia without source? That's illegal in both policies.

Finally, I think we had a long discussion there about this issue, and we may have to deep think about wider discussion to review image policy, I think some people there cannot understand it well.--OsamaK 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I Think we've hit the crux of the problem here: you're applying Commons' methods to Wikipedia, which you should see by now is not going to work. If you want a wider discussion on that, go to Wikipedia talk:NFCC. In the meantime, please stop your tagging as it is disruptive on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. I just give an example for the answer of a question from DGG. Please, read my reply again. Another point, you have to understand that these images are NOT NFCC and we cannot discs them in your former link, note that not I who started the long discussion there. Last point, I have frieze my tagged since 19 July.--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that a strict and dogmatic reading of policy is overriding both rational decision making and what's best for the project. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to be a repository for policy, policy exists to make Wikipedia better, and if it's not doing that, then rational consideration of the situation needs to prevail. If an edit, of any kind, is not helping the project, then it's hurting the project. The project would be diminished by losing the use of those images, which are clearly public domain, and therefore enforcing the strict letter of the law is detrimental and should not be done. We are not here to enforce policy, we are here to make an encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Images lock like Public Domain, but for more trusting, more verifiability, and better academic usage policy requests sources, this is not a bad read of it! I want to note all people there, that Biruitorul has a very great contributions for fixing sources. Just take a look for these as examples: Image:Bellayguillaume.jpg and Image:AnthonyWayne.jpeg. We're all believe that sources is well needed, let's try to fix all of them rather than long boring discussion, that will improves trusting of our wiki (That anyone can edit!).--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like there's only one solution that will make OsamaK happy. Delete every PD image from Commons and Wikipedia, and let him relocate and find all of them, and replace them. He won't of course, leaving us with a dearth of objects, and the continued insistence that PD needs attribution. It doesn't, per the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision quoted ad nauseum in prior similar situations. This is simply a copyright activist gaming our rules to make a point. He should be charged with personally replacing every single image he tags and succeeds in deleting, and if he refuses, banned from the project to preclude further disruption. ThuranX (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really :), And we should do the thing makes project better, not OsamaK happy! An image + clear source + correct licenses = Good information, Kept; That's making me happy, making the project better. I'm very clear from first, and you're trying to put the ball in my court, and showing me as a troll. You still revolve around a single wrong point, called "Ignore all rules, always".--OsamaK 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I havent' called you a troll at all, but that I managed to SHOW you as one makes me feel like an amazing success to hear you admit it without any prompting from me! However, this notion that every image is not really PD because of titanic counterfeiting conspiracies whose sole aim is to discredit Wikipedia is asinine. Unless you've got proof that most PD images are actually copyrighted counterfeis, I think you really should find other goals in life, maybe not on Wikipedia, because the amount of blatant and disgusting BAD faith you are heaping upon every uploader to the project is a serious issue, as is your constant disruptions to wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you talking like that? Stop your bad offend to me! I'm a volunteer here .. Come Together "v-o-l-u-n-t-e-e-r" easy, no? People who want to help wikipedia of real, don't attack such as yours! You're unable to rating my volunteering. It is enough to me to be civil (You're not) and away of personal attacks (You're not too). Timeout. I (And others) lose my (And their) time here. Sorry to say that, they do not you have plans to rectify the situation on the ground.--OsamaK 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WHy are you talking like that? Half in broken english, half in american slang like 'rectify the situation on the ground'? I am able to 'rating your volunteering'. It's lousy. You violate AGF all over with these taggings. As noted below, you tagged self-made images fully released per the GFDL just because you didn't find a three word phrase, even though the meaning of those three words was already in the text for that image. I think you lack a full command of the language, and that inability to read english fluently leads you to tag a lot of images that don't need tagging. ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OsamaK's bot-like or bot-using tagging or images is IMHO annoying. User:Tuxraider reloaded uploaded a pic. Although he had tagged it as created himself and released under the GFDL, Osama threatened to delete it and templated Tux's talk page because he hadn't needlessly also added a mere three words or something to effectively say what the tag already said- that he made it himself. As a new editor, such automatised behaviour would seem unfriendly, nit-picking and does not reflect well on Osama. If someone just left a brief message rather than a template, it would be much friendlier but of course that would take too much time which is being spent on such gripping activites of taking policy so literally and retentively. Sticky Parkin 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{GFDL}} means nothing about the creator. You have to add the creator when you putting an image under GFDL terms.--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just really starting to get ticked off by his incessant claims of I stopped tagging on July 19 (or variations on that statement) when he is still very cleary tagging PD images for deletion. Why do you bother saying you stopped tagging? This last image was tagged today. It's really frustrating trying to have some sort of a constructive discussion with you when you're talking to everyone in here like they're complete idiots. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I tag it as no-source?--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why sometimes User:OsamaK's comments are idiomatic English (or very close to it), and other times they look very much like they were written in another language and passed through a mechanical translator. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I need a second cup of coffee this morning but I fail to see what your point is with this last statement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's primarily an observation more than a point, but the wierdness of some of the language does make it difficult at times to figure out what is being said. And, I have to say, I do generally have a bit of a problem with people editing English Wikipedia without sufficient command of English to do so. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, and the editor does seem to focus primarily on image-work, but it's something of a sore point for me, so perhaps I'm more sensitive to it than others. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. I can't say you're wrong in your thinking but, If I may, I'd like to suggest to keep focus on the issue at hand (OsamaK's controversial image tagging) rather than letting the community lose sight by branching out into general complaints and grievances against OsamaK. In the end, we're discussing the editor's actions, not the editor, right? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of topic.--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should stop and another one be started somewhere else (everybody knows where; policy talk page). Your stances vis-à-vis policy application are clearly polarized and obviously you cannot solve that here. My opinion is that all parties stop doing what they have been doing and discuss the issue in a constructive manner at the policy talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that before. Someones are still thinking that my edits are illegal in their own view.--OsamaK 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your tagging is being described as disruptive, not "illegal" -- in fact, the point has been made repeatedly that the problem with your tagging is that it's been done with an extremely narrow and dogmatic view of policy without taking into account the specific circumstances of images that are patently public domain. Therefore while your tags are "legal" in the sense that you can quote chapter and verse from policy to support them, they are harmful to the project because they will result in the loss of useful and available images.

More to the point, multiple editors in this thread have objected to your actions, while you are pretty much alone in your defense of your actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good that you had said that but I don't think people describe your tagging as illegal. Anyway, please discuss it in a constructive manner there but the tagging/reverting cycle should stop and not just temporarily. After all, we are not in a rush to tag/untag all of the disputed images. Discussions come first and, of course, they have to stay on topic as per SWik78. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional images ready for tagging by User:OsamaK

I'd like to point out that the editor in question has about 400 other images lined up and ready to be tagged, and that keeping things in the status quo ante should apply to these images as well, not just the ones that have been under discussion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Ready for reviewing.--OsamaK 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you review the images you tag? Then why is it that I just fixed two images that you tagged in which the uploader had used the non-free FUR but neglected to add the non-free fair use license? To an editor like yourself doing bulk image work, it should have been obvious what the problem was, and fixing them would take just about as much time as tagging them and posting notices. So why didn't you? (I'm referring to this and this.) It's really very rude to tag an image that you can easily and in good conscience fix, and detrimental to the project as well, since you take the chance that the uploader won't see your notice in time and the image will be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lest anyone think this is an ancillary issue, it's not. Both this case and the larger one of bulk tagging clearly PD images for deletion shows a lack of good editorial judgment and a preference for rote activities over rational evaluation of what's best for the encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking with you is useless. Did you have a quick checking of tagging page? Tell me if it is including ANY un-free images.--OsamaK 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

After seeing [38] and [39], I agree also that OsamaK should not be tagging images, as he is obviously getting the tags wrong. Those two images were very easy to save, and instead he got them tagged for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is uploader job, all these images was uploaded on 24-hours or less. That's meaning: the uploader will definitely see the note. The images was without a copyright tag, and I added {{nld}}, tell me if I did a mistake should let me not be tagging images.--OsamaK 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that fixing images is any one person's job - after all, the encyclopedia is a collective project. Yes, there are situations where the uploader is the only person who can provide the information needed, but there are others -- and the two images I mentioned above are clearly cases of them -- where it is absolutely clear, without a doubt what the uploader intended, and in that circumstance any editor can make the correction, just as any editor can correct a typographical error or a broken link. You, as the person who noticed the problem, have an obligation to fix the problem if you are going to do anything at all about it, not just to tag it and foist the problem on somebody else. (If, indeed, they see the notice in time.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just block him? He is fully aware that his actions are extremely disruptive, and frankly, violate WP:POINT and WP:COMMON because he knows full well that he could fix some of those, but won't, and as such, there's no good reason for him to be allowed to continue. ThuranX (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If he'll agree to stop tagging PD images, and instead work to help uploaders fix them, and fix obviously repairable image problems himself, then there's no real need for a block, I would say. If he won't agree to that, then I don't see any other solution, really. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't agreed in four days, why would he start now? BLOCK. ThuranX (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of rudeness: this edit summary, in Arabic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just shut up, talking with you over for ever. You're not exist. As long as you're not civil.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Block for this is obvious. He's continuing to tag, continuing to edit in opposition to consensus and wide community disapproval. ThuranX (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Osama, you said you've already stopped it and agreed to go discuss it at the policy talk page. There's clear consensus here that you stop tagging and discuss. It doesn't seem that you are stopping as I understand from links Enric provided. You are also dismissing calls for fixing some instead of tagging them. This is not how stuff should be done. Discussion is above any questionable action. So you better stop and take this issue to the policy talk page for serious discussions. Failing to do that would lead to a block.

Ed, the Arabic edit summary translates to "time is gold" and yes that is a bit uncalled for but you would better have avoided focusing on the issue of English. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Mr. FayssalF. You may could be our Jack ;). Just a minor note: I have not started this issue here. So, I'll not moved it.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I ran it through Google Translator and got the meaning -- but I disagree somewhat that it's not relevant. Sure, there's a policy issue, and that can be discussed at the proper place, but there's also an issue of an editor's behavior, and it seems to be that it's all of a piece: tagging an image instead of doing an easy fix, tagging PD images about which there's little or no copyright concern (whatever their source) and posting an edit summary in a language which the majority of editors cannot read. Taken together, they indicate a lack of judgment about what the right thing to do is, and a certain rudeness that is either deliberate or the result of lack of understanding or cultural differences. Either way, they don't indicate that this editor should be doing that kind of work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a friendly warning for OsamaK. I will leave a stronger warning if he carries on with tagging PD images. As for language, it can indeed be a worry. In my work I often see businesses lose time and make wrong decisions because of small interpretation and translation mistakes made by highly educated people. Good faith users should never be put down (or put out) over how they write English on talk pages but there is nothing untowards about noting that an editor's use of English may be slowing down or thwarting communication. I should also say that OsamaK's take on image policy may not only be swayed by linguistics, but by cultural background. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I hope to skip the level of stronger warning. Thanks for you advice.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Does that mean you agree not to restore any of the removed tags, or tag any other PD images while this discussion is ongoing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So long as OsamaK is only tagging images that in fact have no source, then his actions are correct and he shouldn't have to stop. If he's making errors, though, that's another matter. Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree, and your opinion is clearly not the consensus of the participants in this discussion. Dogmatic insistence on following policy to the letter is not the best course of action in this situation, but whether or not it is or not, he should hold off on any further tagging of this type while the discussion is ongoing, since reverting the tags put the images at risk. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the best way to prevent these images from being "at risk" is simply to provide the required sourcing information. It doesn't matter what "consensus" is among the handful of participants here. For one thing, local consensus does not override the larger consensus of site policy. If you want to change the policy, make a proposal at the policy pages. For another, consensus cannot override legal issues such as copyright. See WP:CON#Exceptions for what I'm talking about. Kelly ^hi! 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, except some of those images have been up for years, and some of the uploaders are no longer active, or are semi-active. So, we'll just snap our fingers and like magic the sourcing information will be provided? No, a good proportion of those images once tagged are doing to be deleted, and you know it.

As for changing policy -- this is not essentially a policy issues, it's a question of how policy is enforced. Is it enforced like an automaton without any consideration of circumstance or effect, or is it enforced rationally with what's best of the project in mind? Clearly, both you and OsamaK are in the former camp. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that something can be in good faith and arguably correct under policy and still be disruptive. Correct or not, these edits are clearly controversial. And you shouldn't do something that is controversial on a mass-automated edit level, even if you think that you are correct under the policy because it is disruptive. Now is the time for discussion, and I think it is imprudent to encourage OsamaK to continue as he has without addressing concerns. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's sensible. With something like image sourcing, though, I believe it's more than "arguably correct", the policies are basically there in black and white that the images must be sourced. Not a lot of room for interpretation, though I'm open to any dissenting views. Kelly ^hi! 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you possibly be "open" to dissent, when you're flat out saying that there's nothing to discuss and nothing to be done? Please, your pose is killing me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, please don't put words in my mouth. Kelly ^hi! 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, please don't deny the essence of what you've said below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)Alright, let's stop. I think we can both agree this is getting us nowhere. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Kelly

If I could, I'd like to make a couple of points:

1. Regarding tagging images for deletion that are easily fixed - yes, absolutely this should be done whenever possible. I wish we could tag images without sources in a way that did not place them in the deletion queue. There used to be a tag for this (it was called "PD-no-source" or something like that), but the template was deleted after a community discussion because Wikipedia policy is that images must have a source or face deletion.
2. It's an unfortunate fact of wiki-life that many (most?) image uploaders will not address questions of copyright/sourcing until and unless the image is facing deletion. Not a condemnation, it's just that are probably more interesting things they would like to do than jump through the legal/policy hoops.
3. Osama is correct that images need a source, regardless of how "obvious" it may seem that they are public domain. There are several reasons for this...the primary one is not that we going to get sued for using an old photograph. First, just because something is old or was obviously made before 1923 does not automatically mean that it is public domain. The key fact is that copyright is established when a work is published, not when it was made. I have run across photos from the American Civil War that were still under copyright, because they were put away in a family album somewhere after being taken, only to be published by the heirs decades later. It's even more problematic with paintings. First, you don't know a painting is old just because the subject of the painting is long dead. People are still making paintings of Jesus Christ and Elvis Presley, even though they've been dead a long time. If someone made a painting in 1803 and put it a private home, and in 2008 the great-great-great-grandaughter of the painter displayed to the public (i.e. "published" it) for the first time, the painting would be copyrighted.
4. Why is this important? Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for free information and media that anyone can modify and use for any purpose. If someone complains to Wikipedia that we are violating their copyright, it is very easy for us to instantly remove the offending work. However, if someone trusts our statements about copyright, and re-uses our content in a published book, it's not very easy for them to rectify the problem after the book has been published, and they would likely face a financial liability because of our error. This would damage our credibility as a free media resource.

Just a few thoughts I had. But please, could everyone calm down and assume some good faith? I think we can all agree that OsamaK is not trying to destroy the encyclopedia by deleting good content. And we can also all agree that people who upload images they sincerely believe are public domain, but lack all the sourcing details, are not criminally-minded copyright violators intent on stealing copyrighted work. I'm not sure why the rhetoric gets so heated over images, but I'm sure a path can be found that satisfies both policy and the community's etiquetee norms. Kelly ^hi! 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though a "pending source" disclaimer tag for these unsourced PD images could be helpful. As I said on OsamaK's talk page and as Kelly said above, these images should have source information since PD is indeed swayed by date of first publication, not creation. It is also true that most of these images are clearly in the public domain and it would be disruptive to embark on a mass deletion until a consensus is reached over how this will be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thing: fair view, Kelly.--OsamaK 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, it's not that images should have a source specified - they must have a source specified. This ultimately traces back to WP:C and WP:V, two of the five pillars, and is outlined more specifically in WP:IUP (in boldface right at the beginning) and WP:CITE#IMAGE. The policy that OsamaK has been following is WP:CSD criteria I4, which says that images with unknown source will be deleted after seven days, regardless of when uploaded. This is why the old disclaimer tag was deleted before. Perhaps OsamaK could go about this more diplomatically, but his actions are solidly based in longstanding policy. It's wrong to condemn him - we wouldn't sanction someone who spent their time tagging articles on bands for speedy deletion under CSD A7.

For those that are calling for OsamaK to be blocked, we don't block good-faith contributors who are following policy without even the benefit of a Request for Comment - I urge anyone who has a grievance to follow dispute resolution. (This would be appropriate if, as stated, OsamaK is tagging images erroneously - not just for correctly tagging images with no source.) Also, I think it's unjust to warn image taggers for what they're doing, when we're not similarly warning people who don't include required information on their image uploads, or who refuse to go back and fix this information when asked to do so. In those cases, the taggers are following policy, the uploaders are not. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I was aware of the word choice between should and must. I never said OsamaK was "tagging the images erroneously." This is an implementation worry and weak implementations against consensus can be disruptive, hence the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, Gwen, thank you. But a few people upset about a policy does not a consensus make. My sole point is that OsamaK shouldn't be warned if his actions are within policy, which I believe they may be. Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The pith is, following policy to the letter, whilst skirting common sense, can be highly disruptive. Most of these images are not copyright violations, yet they should indeed be sourced. Mass deletion would clearly be disruptive unless an overwhelming consensus for this action shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you are clearly not an "uninvolved editor" except in the most restricted sense that you haven't participated in this particular discussion until this point. What you have, in fact, managed to do, is to take a situation that seemed to be moving not to a resolution, but to a place where some profitable discussion could take place, and thrown a whole lot of fuel on the fire, and then fanned the flames.

Your actions are regrettable, since they obscure what is the main point here: images which are valuable to the project, and almost entirely certainly in the public domain, were in danger of being lost because an editor chose to follow by rote the dictates of policy as if it was handed down on tablets of stone, instead of using his own rational facilities to evaluate the circumstances and adjust his behavior accordingly. You may think that robotic following of policy without the slightest consideration is laudable, but I don't, and I'm much more interested in what's best for the project than anything else.

I was planning on engaging what I thought was an interested editor's view of the situation, so thanks for revealing your agenda before I bothered to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dogmatic deletionist"? Ed, I would vastly prefer to keep the images. I have stated that, if the image problems can be fixed by the tagger, they should be fixed by the tagger. My point is that we shouldn't demonize people for following policy that is pretty clear-cut without making some attempt to change the policy, or to demonstrate that the person is not following the policy. You're making this way more personal than it needs to be. And so far I haven't heard any arguments as to why sources for the images can't simply be provided. Kelly ^hi! 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your reference to the participants in this discussion as a "lynch mob" over on User talk:OsamaK, and your advice to him to go ahead and tag orphaned PD images because no one will notice, so please don't tell me how you would "vastly prefer" to keep images. If you prefer to keep them then don't tag them, instead work with the uploaders to fix them, or fix them yourself if you can. But, in any case, you've pretty much blown any good faith multiple times now. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So I guess it's your opinion that if I mispell something in an article, I'm the only one who can fix it, right? After all, I'm the one who uploaded that mistake, so the thing to do is not to correct any mspellings you come across, but instead tag them as being mispellings, notify the uploader that their edit is in danger of being deleted, and then 7 days later, if they haven't fixed the mispelling, revert the edit? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the "lynch mob" reference is tongue-in-cheek, and anyone who has worked with image tagging would understand it as such. If you were offended I apologize. I didn't say to tag orphaned images because nobody would notice, I said do it because it does not damage the encyclopedia. And so far as I can see, OsamaK has tried to work with the uploaders to fix the images, by notifying them of the sourcing problems, and letting them know they have at least a week to fix them. It's the only path allowed him by current site policy and processes. I'm sorry for blowing away your assumption of good faith, it wasn't intentional. Your misspelling reference seems to me to be hyperbole. As I said three times now, if the tagger can fix the problem they should, but with image uploads, often only the uploader knows the source. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you're stirring things up here by calling this discussion a "lynch mob" or that OsamaK is being "demonized." Neither is true, please stop the name calling. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended - apologies. I'd be greatly appreciative if you also asked others in this conversation to tone back their rhetoric, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok :) Yep, everyone, please stick spot on to the topic with neutral wording, skirt needless characterizations, more'll get done here if this happens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of dealing with these two contrary, good faith notions, trying not to gut the encyclopedia's images in the meantime. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Gwen, I don't see how the issue can be solved here. I suggest that the discussion either be moved to WT:IUP (if it is the image sourcing policy that is disputed) or to Requests for Comment (if it is OsamaK's behavior that is disputed). I don't think either is clear-cut enough to resolve in a conversation here. Kelly ^hi! 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem, from your point of view, that neither discussion can possibly be productive since (1) the rules is the rules and (2) Osama was just following the rules. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, that's the way I feel from the conversation so far. I didn't say my mind couldn't be changed if evidence the other way were provided. :)

(ec) Kelly, I didn't say it could be resolved here. However, a mass deletion against a consensus at ANI would clearly be disruptive until a clear community consensus has been found. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I understand. But I don't understand what permanent consensus will result from a conversation here at WP:ANI if there is no corresponding change in policy. A look back through the archives will show this has been discussed before. The normal result is that an image patroller finally throws his/her hands up and gives up on the copyright policy. Situation resolved until the next time. I suppose if the objective is to force OsamaK to stop tagging images the situation could be resolved here. :) I guess the questions boil down to éither Did OsamaK violate Wikipedia policy? or Is the image sourcing policy bad for the encyclopedia? The answer tells us which forum we should go to for a real resolution of the problem, rather than yet another flamewar. Kelly ^hi! 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your take on this, Kelly. I don't think OsamaK has strayed from Wikipedia policy. Nor have I seen any hint of opinion that the image policy is "bad" for Wikipedia. As I said before, this is an implementation flaw and if, after being warned there are worries expressed in a thread at ANI, an editor were to carry on with a good faith mass deletion, even by following a close take on undisputed policy, this would indeed be disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What would be your suggested alternate approach? (question to anyone) Kelly ^hi! 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already said what I thought about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I get you - but that was already rejected by the community. (darmit, I'm still trying to find the old template!) But my argument would be - the uploader is currently notified that he/she has a week to fix the sourcing. WP:IUP says the images must be sourced. WP:CSD says unsourced images will be deleted after that week. Are you advocating a tag that says "Although this image is unsourced, we think it's OK because the image is likely PD"? Or would you advocate lengthening the amount of time from tagging to deletion? I think if the uploader doesn't fix the problem in a week, they're unlikely to fix it at all. (Totally apocryphal from my own experience.) If they're on wikibreak or something they can get the image undeleted when they get back so they can fix it. Kelly ^hi! 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The community may not have understood what the outcome would be. Meanwhile, please don't infer utterly unhelpful template wordings from my remarks (why did you do that?) and do keep in mind, there is no need for any mass deletion of images to begin tonight, tomorrow, or next week. Let the discussion carry on, in this thread for now, and maybe later on another project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to substitute any alternate wording; I was just trying to drive at the gist of the conversation. I think discussing here is likely pointless, so I'll disengage and will wait for a more productive discussion elsewhere - this one will peter out with no result and disappear into the archives, I think. I'm positive that any attempted block of OsamaK for simply tagging unsourced images would likely be quickly overturned. Kelly ^hi! 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of our disagreement is, I think you're still stirring things up rather than helping to find a settled path through this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh start

Let's try that everything above this point stays there, this is a fresh start. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What I suggested earlier, but got lost in the excitement, was that instead of immediately tagging an unsourced PD image, which involves leaving a message on the uploader's talk page, that the image-worker simply put a different kind of note on the uploader's talk page, one saying that there are problems with the image, a clear statement of what's missing, and perhaps some tips about how to fix it. Then, after some time has passed and the uploader hasn't fixed the problem, then the 7-day delete tag can be applied. (And why 7 days, specifically? Why not 14, or 30? Is there some kind of rush I'm not aware of to get rid of unsourced public domain images?)

This is essentially the same as Gwen's suggestion, except implemented informally without a specific "pending" tag. It seems to me that if the point is to fix images rather than to delete them, either scheme provides some more chance of that fix coming about. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be 90 days. There is no rush. The pith would be to helpfully disclaim that PD status was not yet wholly confirmed, which would both warn re-users and give the project time to track down sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush at all. It is clear that this is not a BLP or any other sensetive issue and it is my opinion that this is also a reason for this "fresh start" to be started where it belongs. Anyone against copying and pasting this at the policy talk page? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't.--OsamaK 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei

Complaint frames issues and context?

Tenmei (talk · contribs) has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are destroyers, other sources say they are helicopter carriers and other sources say they're aircraft carriers). As is shown on Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks), [45] and [46]). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times ([47], [48], [49] and [50]) but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order. However, I have fully protected Hyūga class helicopter destroyer due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads WP:TLDR. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Most of the points on that process have now been tried, however. I will continue to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, where hopefully this can be resolved. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do sympathise with your difficulties there - there's no doubt that he's disputing the consensus reached on the talk page, although I don't really understand what he's continuing to argue against, since you've mentioned the naming issues in the article. He's been warned over the reverting; that's currently not a problem now the page is protected, and if it continues once protection is lifted then a block from an uninvolved admin should follow. Maybe just ignoring him might be the best option for now? EyeSerene^talk 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple prose equals "problem"?

The term purple prose can be construed as describing words which are seen as over-the-top, over-reaching, over-done ... too much. Stretching a point ... in a sense, it could be said that a complaint in this venue about "personal abuse" is about a kind of purple prose. For emphasis, it may be seen helpful to change the font color to purple in this expository paragraph and in illustrative text below. Arguably, it could be potentially constructive if the words which constitute personal abuse at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer were similarly modified as purple prose. As far as I can tell, this is a novel suggestion; but clearly, some will agree that this is only reasonable -- my just deserts, as it were.

The Wikipedia community has already developed other useful orthographic conventions which are attractive because the consequences are meaningful. For example: As a way of illustrating recanted views, and editor need only strike out the text from which he or she withdraws. If, in this venue or elsewhere, I could come to understand that my words deserved this orthographic modification, I would do it without hesitation. Thus far, the constructive engagement of participants in this venue has done nothing to assist me in understanding why anything whatsoever posted at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer should be re-visited and modified by striking out. The following block of text demonstrates my willingness to invest time and serious thought in learning from whatever opportunity this venue might be able to provide. Except for the comment posted by EyeSerene on my talk page, that proof of my willingness to engage these issues with sincerity, diligence, and frankness has not appeared to inspired any congruent investments. I deserve better, if not in this venue -- where? when?

I have here presented proofs of my willingness to mend the errors of my ways if convinced that I've done something I should not have done; but thus far, my open-handed approach has not served me well. Perhaps this becomes one of those times when it is best to try something new?

I'm proposing an orthographic device which I would want to be understood as crying in the wilderness. By minimizing the bulk of the following text, the words which remain in a conventionally-sized print are inevitably emphasized. For our purposes, please consider this as if I were re-reading these words aloud -- with a raised voice, with an insistent, on-edge, alarmed tone; but do not spin this gesture to mean that I withdraw from any part of what is here made small. I parsed my words before posting them, and I have parsed the sentences by grouping them together below. This sign of cautious, thoughtful and intentional draftsmanship would more conventionally seem at odds with the tenor of complaints put forward here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Personal Abuse"?

The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record: (1) Nick Dowling is an administrator; and (2) Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≥ Nick Dowling
This record, consistent with WP:AGF, demonstrates my continuing efforts to bridge an identified gap. Moreover, this record shows the repeated identification of Nick Dowling as non-responsive.
12 July

• Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, ...[t]he exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why? .... --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps the following outline from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:

• 1 Focus on content
• 2 Stay cool
• 3 Discussing with the other party
• 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
• 5 Turn to others for help
  • 5.1 Editor assistance
  • 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
  • 5.3 Ask about the subject
  • 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
  • 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
  • 5.6 For incivility
  • 5.7 Request a comment
  • 5.8 Informal mediation
  • 5.9 Formal mediation
  • 5.10 Conduct a survey
• 6 If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
• 7 Last resort: Arbitration

... Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

13 July
To his credit, only Bellhalla showed any willingness to grasp that I was trying vainly to focus on something non-trivial, as evidenced at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier? How else is it possible to construe the following?

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

My patience was frayed by this point, but I was still proceeding underthe assumption that this impasse was the result of a difficult-to-pierceveil of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≠ Nick Dowling
Disingenuous is a polite word for lying, for fraud -- dishonesty. What did I do when confronted with clear, specific, and astonishing evidence of Nick Dowling's lying, fraud, dishonesty? My words remained seemly, appropriate, correct.

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.
:Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence .... Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
• 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
• 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
• 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
• 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
• 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I also sought help from the WP:Mediation Cabal ....

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

__________________________
AND YET, these not inconsiderable efforts to stay focused were not met by congruent words or actions .. and Nick Dowling instead chose to make a complaint about my "personal abuse" in this WP:AN/I venue.

It doesn't bode well, nor augur well. In the context of this record and WP:CIV#Should established users be treated different?,

• WP:AGF ≠ trust
• WP:AN/I ≠ trust

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how can I become better informed about what WP:AN/I is intended to be? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: [51], [52], [53] and [54]]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat ([55]) - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response. EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:

• 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
• 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
• 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
• 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Wikipedia Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?, e.g.,

'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia

• ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.

It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....

• Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
• Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?

The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:

• 1. Nick Dowling is an administrator; and
• 2. Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly tag-team ownership game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.

Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The tag-team ownership "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' comfort zone ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:

• Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
• When did the task of creating a Wikipedia article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:

• You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
• You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
• A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
• Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.

Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerene^talk 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the Jane's article linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the GlobalSecurity.org article points out that "Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer). There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons," I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.

No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography to the pictures of the ships. It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...) Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.

1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.

2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:

It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)

3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Wikipedia project.

2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review: Consistant misattribution of cited sources

Pointers here left at Pederasty#Australasia and User_talk:Haiduc#Problems_with_a_recent_citation

I'll attempt to present only the facts here.

• 02:38, 23 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (77,173 bytes) (→Post-classical and modern forms: removed sections without references: Australasia, Central America, Europe) (undo) [56]
• 03:50, 23 July 2008 Haiduc (Talk | contribs | block) (81,803 bytes) (restored removed sections and added refs) (rollback | undo) [57]
• Upon reviewing the cited source here I am unable to find support for the majority of the material.

I'd ask for a review of the source, of the material added, and of the comments that I've left in both places. brenneman 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that editing disputes did not belong on ANI. Am I missing something, here, or are you just trying to keep Haiduc so tied up he cannot edit properly? Jeffpw (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. When an editor consistantly has problems with interpretation of sources (see Jules Verne talk as well) then this is an appropiate place to raise the concern. - brenneman 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also just issued a warning [58] to Jeffpw. In my opinion he's been ratcheting up the heat across several venues, and is bordering on disruption. I'd welcome a opinions on this as well. - brenneman 05:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is difficult. Editors who give even the appearance of advancing a pro-paedophilia POV have, historically, been given very little slack, for good reason. There has in the past been determined and wholly unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, and ArbCom has historically fast-tracked consideration of any such issues, and debated cases in private. I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism, and he should be aware that this is one area where militant activism is particularly problematic, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the project. I think Jeffpw and Haiduc need to turn the heat down at least two notches and respect the fact that the default for disputed content is to keep it out of mainspace until there is agreement from all sides as to whether, and how, it should be included. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion - anythign else would be a POV-pusher's charter. In this case it is especially important to remember that consensus IS NOT agreement of a small group of like-minded users, it requires broad agreement from all sides, and additional input must be solicited if there are not enough eyes on the dispute. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Brenneman, you could not have found a more unsuitable instance to support your contention. The citation was applicable to the text, it was from an article that discussed the extinction of the very practices discussed in the paragraph (which, as you might notice, I modified to reflect this more recent report). It is an initial citation for a totally non-controversial section. Australasian pederasty is well known and documented, there is nothing to argue about there.
  • Guy, if I was a litigious fellow I would have you strung up by the authorities here for your slur of "pro-paedophilia POV." How do you permit yourself to cast ugly innuendoes on my work on homosexual history? Is this what administrators are supposed to spend their time doing??? Haiduc (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Read it again with more care. I said even the appearance. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism. Excuse me? I am not here to advocate for pedophilia at all, and I strongly resent the insuination that I am in any way doing so. If you look at my approx 10,000 edits, including one FA and 2 GAs, you'll see a minuscule percentage relating in any to pedophilism. I am anti-pedophilia, though I should not have to be forced to state this for the record.I have monitored the NAMBLA article against both pro and anti-pedo edits, to revert vandalism, and have dome the same on the Pederasty related articles. Brenneman has now threatened to block me for disruption if I continue to participate in what I see has been a civil manner. I feel threatened and intimidated by this post. And I feel besmirched by Guys quote above about my participation here. The atmosphere regarding this area of articles has become poisonous, indeed, and I do not think it is my doing at all. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? Jeffpw (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I said militant activism, I meant militant LGBT activism, not pro-paedophilia activism. There is a small overlap at the margins, and this is a key part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit - no ec warning but post appeared here for some reason] I don't think that's what was meant by turning down the heat ;) Haiduc, I see nothing in the above post that accuses you of a pro-pedophilia bias. Guy was making a general observation about the need to be extra careful not to even give that impression when editing such controversial subjects. EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I think worrying about appearences rather than content isn't a great way to edit. If Jeff gets militant sometimes, well, maybe sometimes we need that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearances are very sensitive on this subject. Very sensitive. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What 'we', Dev920? Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. The notion that anyone is here to push an agenda makes me extremely uncomfortable (and, while I'm sure you weren't serious, your post does illustrate Guy's point about giving the impression of soapboxing, even unintentionally). EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you linked to my name? (genuine question) And I get that people do get all icky over pederasty, but it's not pedophilia. And neither Haiduc or Jeff is a pedophile, they are long, long established editors with an interest in editing pederasty. They really shouldn't have to worry about being accused of a pro-pedo slant, their cumulative efforts here surely show that this isn't the case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just copy/pasted it from your post in edit view (now you've pointed it out though, I've realised I do that pretty much at random - I didn't, for example, with Guy. No idea why!). However, I think the point being made was not relating to pedophilia so much as militancy in other areas, to the point where it becomes difficult to accept edits in good faith because they give the impression of being decided by a personal agenda. This can be true of any group: LGBT, animal rights, nationalist, religious... the list is endless. I think appearances do matter because of this, and it's difficult to claim neutrality if we aren't seen to be behaving that way. EyeSerene^talk 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because emotions run high in editing the Historical pederastic couples article, it's difficult to pinpoint the fault of a single editor. One the one hand, I agree that the citations need to be immaculate and notes should be extensive. However, editors who are either unhappy with the outcome of the AfD or eager to see the article make vast improvements in a small amount of time, are removing content and claiming the sources do not back up the claims when I doubt they have read the sources. Then it rather dissolves into arguing over actions rather than content. I know I have not read the sources, so I am unable to make commentary on them. I have been questioned about content in other articles I have written, though, and when that happens I find my source and copy the passage I used verbatim on the talk page and discuss it there. What might help is if Haiduc posts a timeline or an estimate of how far he thinks he will get in improving the article in a reasonable amount of time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to state clearly here that, due to the level of intimidation I am feeling (On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that I will be banned if I continue participating), and the threat of blockage for supporting another Wikipedia under attack from all sides, I am now withdrawing myself entirely from any of these debates. Call me a coward, but I am under enough stress without adding to is by trying to help a disputed article. I shall now confine my edits to Mary Poppins or The Sound Of Music....oh wait, they involve children too. Damn. OK, I'll just try to tidy Angie Dickinson's bio. That shouldn't provoke any storms of controversy. If it does, I'll just give wiki smiles to all and sundry. Wiki cheer promotes a collegial environment, no? Jeffpw (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Take the disputed content out of the article, leave it on the talk page, and all just do something else for 48 hours. There's an essay jsut created at WP:TABOO which makes a lot of sense in this context. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no reason to stop now, and I think the solution is to focus our attention more closely on what is really going on. It is not pedophilia that neeeds to be exposed here, but intimidation. I feel bullied by Brenneman's behaviour, and while my feelings are between me and my analyst, unfortunately there are objective reasons for my reaction. His gutting of the Hpc article and his belligerent response to my restoration of the Tilden entry are ample evidence, as is his even more troubling equivocation and sparring over my exposure of his behavior. The "appearance of pedophilia" accusation above was more fuel on that particular fire. It is a particularly insidious attack in that there is no defense against it, like Bush's assuring the American public that there is nothing to worry about at Guantanamo because they are all bad guys. Truthiness, welcome to Wikipedia. I am not good at chapter-and-verse polemics, so I will leave it at that. I do want to add that it seems that the suite of pederasty articles is like some sort of glue trap for sub-standard administrators (FCYTravis and Brenneman are just some of the more egregious examples) who come in and act abusively. I can only ask you people to monitor yourselves, and each other. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PedCpl cite prob arb break 0

Apropos of this conversation, please note Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Details_of_Haiduc.27s_mischaracterization_of_DeFord, discussing Haiduc's mischaracterization of Frank DeFord's book "The Triumphs and the Tragedy", and this talk page, where Haiduc triumphantly cites Cocteau being "devastated" at the death of his friend as strong evidence that he must have been having a sexual relationship with him. This editor has a problem accurately summarizing sources, and it is negatively affecting many, many articles. Nandesuka (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jeez, that smells of WP:OR for sure. But I return to my point above: disputed text out of mainspace and onto talk, and everybody step back for 48 hours. If necessary we should lock down talk for a while, just to make it happen, I believe. There are too many trees for the wood to be evident, and I think some space is required. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Don't put words in my mouth, Nandesuka. You have a problem with objectivity and the mischaracterization ofmy edits. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• You say? I don't see any evidence of Nandesuka having an agenda here. You've been open about yours, which is much appreciated, but your expressed agenda means that you need to be especially sensitive to the concerns of other editors who do not share your minority perspective, per WP:NPOV. Valid concerns have been politely expressed by editors in good standing, regarding your interpretation of sources. In this case I strongly recommend that you present your sources on talk, and wait to see whether there is consensus to support your interpretation. Agitating for what looks to a number of people like a novel synthesis is likely to cause you trouble. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y'know, I think that Guy has got it exactly right? What we are seeing here, once the clouds of suspicion, accusation and counter accusation regarding pederasty/homophobia is lifted, is a classic case of WP:BRD. We are at the stage where discussion, and therefore consensus, is required before the bold (which is another persons "controversial") content can be included. While we are taking the simple route to dispute resolution, can I just remind participants of the nutshell of WP:NPA; "Comment on content, and not contibutors."? It may be wise, as suggested earlier, to commence the discussion after a suitable period to allow all parties to engage civilly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly surprised that so much on the topic is on here at all. Most of the 'sources' attribute a modern label to ancient social behaviors, allowing both sides to push and pull on the articles to validate either 124th trimester abortions for all offenders, or to validate their molestations. Few editors seem able to keep the articles balanced, but it's fairly uniform that a modern perspective on this mess is the perspective. We would have a lot less hassle of the articles were restricted to using only sources contemporary to any part which use the term pederasty, thus placing emphasis on the modern issue, not on allegations that it's all normal because it's been going on for years (despite ancient cultures being very different than ours), or that it's all deviant because some tragedy befell the culture as divine punishment.(and good luck sourcing that shit.) Tighten up what's permitted on those articles, and you'd have a lot less trouble. I'm not sure the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for pederast, much less a body of scholarship on the matter. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep assuming that pederasty = molestation though, and that it follows that an article detailing specific pederastic relationships thus justfies molestation - and it doesn't... it merely offers instances of pederastic relationships...

As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy. Crimsone (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So there are Greek and Egyptian writings on the molestation and predatory behaviors of pederasty in those cultures? Great. Please cite those sources. And no, have you read the list? It's all about the glorious and eternal love blah blah blah between a molester and his victim in some cases, and turning some other "normal" relationships INTO pederasties to augment the size and scope of the perversion. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No... I've not read the list... however, pedastry is niether molestation or predatory by definition. Pedastry, by definition, refers to romantic/erotic involvement regardless of whether it involves sexual contact or not. It also primarily refers to and is defined by the emotional context of a relationship, not the physical context. It's a perfectly valid term, and a perfectly encyclopedic subject. How about you "getting real" per your edit summary comment (not the most civil of comments)... suggesting some manner of delusion or fantasy land on the part of another editor is hardly becoming of you (or so I would hope). As to ancient writings, I don't know about the Egyptians, but I do know that it's a historical fact that man/boy relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece, and prior to that, the neighboring Spartans legally sanctioned and required them as part of a boy's development. They weren't always sexual (some were), though many involved a romantic bond. You're welcome to dismiss that, but to tell the truth, I can't be bothered to go looking for sources for a commonly known historical fact in order to satisfy someone who's already demonstrated and inclination to dismiss quite civil and reasoned articles based on actual definition and complete neutrality with such offensive remarks as "get real". Chances are, given your current style of communication, whatever the source it won't be good enough for you. Especially if it doesn't use the term pederasty precisely, in spite of my prior logical argument of analogy. I don't need to read the article to see it being attacked in its entireity from a POV that ignores the definition of the articles subject in favour of calling the subject something it isn't. Crimsone (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not reading my comment clearly. If you have copies of the Spartan decrees requiring such, then you could use that in the Pederasty article, perhaps. However, if it was required, that sounds like an apprenticeship than a true romantic connection. You keep missing my point. Pederasty is a modern label for a behavior which in some cultures is not pederasty, but the normal course of behavior. Pederasty is specifically NOT normal behavior. If it was, we wouldn't need a list of such relationships. IF you can find ancient greek writings about the cultural behavior, you could cite those. You could cite the Spartan law. But you should NOT be using modern assignments of value, 'pederasty', to describe ancient cutlures' takes on relationships. ThuranX (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed no point, nor do I do so regularly, Pederasty is not a value term... it's a word with a definition... ie, it gives a name to a very specific object/subject. To quote myself, having said it once already... "As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy" Crimsone (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's a difference. And you keep missing it. However, I get tired of arguing with POV pushers, especiallty those who push the worst behaviors as normal. So I'm done debating with you, you keep arguing that child molestation is normal, and good luck with that. ThuranX (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's not a difference. The difference in it's discussion is merely that you are ascribing a negative value to a defined term that the term in itself does not carry. Actually, I'm not the one throwing around offensive and charged terms and accusations, and so before you continue do do so, I rather think it might be wise to look at the typical symptoms of POV pushing. Civility isn't one of them. Incivility most certainly is. I have said or done nothing to suggest that I either believe that child molestation is normal, or that I advocate in favour of that view. Put simply, I don't. Crimsone (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, read up on the 'Civil POV Push'. the essay link's around somewhere. Second, assigning a modern value to ancient cultures to validate touching kids isn't how things should be done here. Unfortunately, Civil POV pushers have pushed too many of our articles into validations of child rape and other criminal acts. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) *Sigh* perhaps it is... it doesn't alter the fact that my approach is from an entirely NPOV standpoint though. Pederasty isn't a value... like Appendix, it's a term with a definition. Events and occurances of the ancient world fit that definition, thus are namd by that term... a tree is a tree in whaetever century. Aditionally, it validates nothing. It merely says that it happened, which it did. Once again, Pederaty does not equate to, nor is it defined by molestation. No physical contact has to occur in a relationship, and it can still be legitimately defined as pederastic. The only way to NOT push a POV on this subject, is to view the term for what it is and how it's actually defined. Nor can it be equated to pedophilia by it's definition. If I saw a man of 30 touching up a boy of 12, whther pederastic or not, I'd call the police because it's not acceptable in today's society, and I'd find it disgusting... However, I wouldn't protest a university for holding an academic seminar on "perderasty through time - from ancient greece to the modern western world". To describe a man-boy relationship as perderastic, regardless of whether sex (consentual or otherwise) or not, in any century or culture, is correct per the definition of the word. The POV here is not on my part, but on your assignment of a negative value judgement to a defined and legitimate term, which by nature of being nothing other than a term is inherently neutral apart from the value assignments people such as you seem to believe the term automatically holds. It's a noun, and not even a pejorative at that - as such, it cannot hold or relate to such values.

I've answered every point you have served and refuted it with clear logic and neutrality. The point you seem to think I've missed is related to the value judgement that you are making on the basis of the term pederasty itself. I've addressed that here, though no doubt you'll once again say "but it's about molesting kids!" or some such thing, which you've done fairly consistently so far. In terms of incivility, you could only really go one step further which would mean a personal attack, such is your level of misconduct. The fact is, language changes, and academia claimes and defines new terms all the time - and being as they are, just words of language - descriptors of type, they apply centuries ago just as they do in the modern day - they are how we now name things, and it's really that simple. Crimsone (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a simple as what I said. Using modern lenses to examine and judge ancient things to promote a modern agenda. It's a lame way to write an encyclopedia, and using simple object nouns to refute the use of a word which has an inherent value judgment to it, one diffused by your own 'Sparta' example, in which it's an obligation not a romantic behavior, is disingenuous. This article's got massive problems, and assigning a modern value judgment, like Pederasty, to ancient cultural norms, is manipulative agenda pushing. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not familiar with the subject, I have no idea what's a reliable source, but there seem to be enough books that apply the word to ancient Greece, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows that the etymology of the word is Greek: [59] Whether or not the ancient Greeks used the word "paiderastes", it seems verifiable enough that it can be applied to their behavior. --NE2 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, NE2, I thank you for being clear and direct. That accounts for one situation, now on to all the other value judgments assigning a modern concept to ancient behaviors. One down, dozens to go. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for it being a modern concept? --NE2 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is clearly a modern word, circa 1736, merriam-webster. While this is hardly a definative source, this example appears to indicate the level of scholarship taking place here: We shouldn't be trying to score points with cheap shots that take less than five minutes research to disprove. No amount of retconning will change the fact that the term is a new one, even if it encompases behaviours that have been going on since day dot. more to the point, it's a word that comes with an incredible amount of baggage, in the vein of terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter. - brenneman 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So the English word is from 1736, but that says nothing about the concept or the Greek word "paiderastes". Again, I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but there's a translation of a writing by Philo in [60], in which the word "pederasty" is used. --NE2 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the original text by Philo, with παιδεραστής (paiderastes) highlighted. (But, since I don't know Greek, I can't confirm that it's not a modern recipe for calamari.) --NE2 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to and in this case, do AGF and all that, but language changes over time, and as a book travels through history, it's likely, in most cases, to be... adapted? mutated? changed? however you like it, but I can only think of one documented case where a modern copy exhibited almost zero change when compared to the most ancient copies. ThuranX (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your argument here is. You stated that people are "assigning a modern value to ancient cultures", but here it's clearly (assuming the sources are reliable) an ancient concept. --NE2 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman gets it, and so do you, but you won't admit it. A word invented less that 300 years ago to discuss 3000 year old behaviors isn't appropriate. Unfortunately, Brenneman's source trumps yours, because yours could have been adulterated inthe last 2000+ years. This isn't like 'apple' for a fruit the greeks ate, but we use 'apple' cause it's the english language equivalent. There's a fat stack of SYNTh and OR to assume that a social obligation in Sparta is the same as a 'voluntary romantic relationship', and you've yet to demonstrate that the social obligation of the Spartans was called Pederasty by the Spartans. EVEN if you could, you'd still ahve to demonstrate that the Spartans were able to 'romance on command', and that pederasty in the modern sense, and the spartan pederasty, IF that's what it was equal to, really were the same thing; a duty to train young men and a desire to bone them are different. ThuranX (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I gave? Philo, writing at the time of the birth of Christ, talks about the "evil [that] has crept into society, namely, pederasty". He uses the Greek word παιδεραστής (paiderastes). I don't know how you can look at that and say that the concept of "pederasty" is a new one. --NE2 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No Thuran... my Sparta example diffuses nothing... The history shows it to have been an obligation, and it also shows the relationships to have more often than not to have been or have become romantic in nature. Pederasty is not a value jusdgement. Pederast is a noun, and pederasty is applied form of the noun. Niether are value jusdgements, and that's just the way the English language works. It's a legitimate term in academic study with a specific meaning. NE2 above has gone to the level which I had not the time for, and has actually even gone so far as to offer the ancient greek etymology of the term, describing the relationships at the time in the language of the ancient greeks themselves. Crimsone (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 1

I'd like to refocus discussion by re-iterating the claims made in the section and comparing them to what is found in the source cited.

• Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
  • Sperm essence of strength surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
  • Not spontaneous but must be introduced unsupported by reference
• 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites unsupported by reference
• Mentoring
  • Father, mother's young adult brother choose unsupported by reference
  • Educating, guiding into manhood unsupported by reference
• Fatherhood
  • First two kids ok to "mentor" unsupported by reference
  • After that had to quit it unsupported by reference
• Casual relationships existed this is supported by the reference, however
  • Boy had to be recipient (?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
  • Growth could be damaged specifically refuted by reference
• Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle unsupported by reference

I've seen H's referencing described as “careless and garbled.” I'd say that is as generous an interpretation as it is possible to make. In the example given, even the least contentious claim is mostly unsupported by the citation, and at least one claim is directly refuted by it.

H's creative use of sourcing, combined with abject unwillingness to accept any other interpretation of sources, is damaging the encyclopaedia. Frankly, had I come across this situation "fresh" I'd have blocked him outright to prevent any further damage. I'd support a topical ban (at the very least) until H can be made to understand why his novel sourcing is a problem and some way can be found to allow him to contribute positively.

brenneman 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you are doing far more damage to this encyclopedia than I ever could. The density of citations that you are suggesting is found in what percentage of the articles??? And why are you so focused on the bizarre practices of an extinct society of what have been described as "homicidal banana farmers?" The material is there to illustrate the gamut of homosexual/pederastic constructions, not to recommend the practice to present-day do-it-yourselfers.
To my eye your contrived "denunciation" coupled with your previous belligerent behavior are indicative of one thing and one thing only: you do not like pederasty and are out to make it as hard as possible to cover the topic. I think you should be subjected to a topical ban, you have given ample proof of an inability to be impartial. Haiduc (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the problems that Aaron has highlighted with your sourcing with respect to this particular example? Do you have any explanation for those discrepencies? Nandesuka (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The "problems" are blown out of all proportion, this is a case of lese majeste made out of whole cloth. The paragraph in question was written by me in May 2005, when we did not yet focus as strongly on citations as we do now, or at least I was not aware of it. If this was the only uncited paragraph in all Wikipedia I would feel a lot more contrite about it. As it is not, I simply have to lump it with the other several million uncited paragraphs, and certainly it needs references. It would be a lot more useful to the readers if it did. At some point it will. This very instant in time I seem to be spending more time talking to other editors then doing useful work, not a good situation.
However, the material as presented is essentially correct and legitimate. It is based mainly on the work of Gilbert Herdt, of whom you have certainly heard, seeing your familiarity with the topic. The material is utterly uncontroversial in the academic sense. So why is everybody getting so agitated? Do you think I made it up? Do you think I prettied it up? Do you think I added it with prescriptive intentions?
I'll offer you a challenge, both of you: If the material does not prove to be largely as I have written, I leave Wikipedia for a year. If, on the other hand, it is largely as I have said, you both leave Wikipedia for a year. Deal? Haiduc (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The density of citation is what is required of Featured Articles. Furthermore, just about all of the sentences are highly controversial statements and need to be verified. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, it seems to me that the mature solution would be to remove the material yourself, stick it on a userspace sub-page for now, then add it back in when you've tracked down the references. Does it really matter if a few days or weeks pass by without it in the article? And of course, if you don't manage to reference it, it should never have been there in the first place. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While I've been attempting to be a politic as possible here, the direct question has been been asked: "Do you [brenneman] think I [Haiduc] prettied it up?" Well, in a word, yes. I've been unable to locate a copy of the particular Herdt work I beleive that you're caliming this material is based upon. I have however found a large number of other papers that cite that paper, and they consistanly quote Herdt as saying that "from 10 to 20 percent" of cultures practiced RH. "Ten to twenty percent of all tribes in Melanesia -- an Oceania region stretching 3,000 miles from Irian Jaya to Fiji -- have mandatory "boy-inseminating" practices, claims Herdt." That it was chosen instead to be a bald 20% in the article is, if we may be frank, "pretty-ing up." I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong. (As in the case above where the source directly contradicted the claim in the article.) All material that's all material, added by this user should be removed from articles until such citations as there are can be confirmed. - brenneman 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Located a direct source "Sambia Sexual Culture: Essays from the Field By Gilbert H. Herdt" where as predicted it says "...age-structured homoeroticism occurs in approximately 10 to 20 percent of Melanesian societies." - brenneman 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, I looked through that reference and I don't see any sort of deception here. I see a reference which supports a good portion of the text it was added to. Do you disagree that there were statements in the removed text, not included in your list above, which clearly WERE supported by the reference? Do you disagree that the reference clearly does describe youths having homosexual relationships and then transitioning to purely heterosexual relationships... essentially the 'Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle' which you call unsupported?

It seems like you are saying Haiduc needs to immediately bring everything he has ever written on Wikipedia, going back to 2004, up to the level of citations required for featured articles... or it should all be removed. Because he wrote 20% and you found other sources which had '10 to 20 percent'? It isn't possible that he originally (when he wrote it a couple of years ago) got that from some source which DID say 20%?

As I understand it, most of the statements in that passage aren't even controversial. Nobody is denying that it is largely correct... it just needs more references and a few wording adjustments to note estimates and differences of opinion in the field (e.g. growth stunting or not). Right? --CBD 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is a good idea to indulge improper behavior. It does not go away on its own, but if unchecked it becomes more widespread and serious as time goes on. It also corrupts the environment in which we work here. For my part I certainly do not want to function as an enabler. Brenneman's statement that "the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" [emphasis mine], taken in the context of his previous behavior and statements to date, amounts to defamation and harassment. I request that the matter be investigated (take my last 100 citations, for example) and if they are largely not as described by this gentlemen, that he be formally disciplined. Haiduc (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBD, the problem is that this is an ongoing and continuing behavior. It's aggravated by Haiduc often preferring fringe over mainstream sources. See the discussion on Talk:Jean Cocteau for one good example of this, where he completely ignores the authoritative biographies on Cocteau. But even when he cites a mainstream source, he tends to mischaracterize -- as in his selective quoting of Frank DeFord's book Big Bill Tilden, where through cut-and-paste he manages to construct a paragraph suggesting an ongoing relationship and a sympathetic defendant by selecting disparate sentences from a chapter where DeFord unambiguously paints a picture of a squalid assignationm and a legal case that can only be described as a horrific train-wreck. When discussing this on article talk pages, instead of coming clean, Haiduc tends to double his bets down. In the DeFord case, for example, he suggests that he and I "just have different readings" of DeFord. In fact, absolutely no one who comprehends English could possibly read DeFord and then claim that DeFord suggests that Tilden had "long term loving relationships"; the author devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating the exact opposite. If we were only talking about a few old citations that would be one thing. But this is a continuing pattern of behavior, and I see no signs of improvement over time. Nandesuka (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A sterling example of straw man argumentation. My reply must await the end of the business day. Haiduc (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBD, it seems to me that Brenneman makes clear that he checked the source Haiduc DID use, and the source Haiduc used said something other than what Haiduc represented it to say. Given that, and given the highly controversial topic here, any statement not supported completely transparently by a source should be immediately removed. Any statement for which the source is questioned should be removed to the talk page until it can be sorted out, and in any case where a problem continues, it should be held off the article page until settled. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you seem not to understand that I also checked the source Haiduc used and disagree with the claim that it was deceptive. Indeed, my first concern on comparing the source to the article text was that it might stray close to plagiarism, given the presence of some exactly matched phrasing. That source DOES support the text it was added to. More sources are needed, but sourcing being incomplete is completely different than sourcing being 'deceptive'. Removing contested statements without sufficient sources to the talk page IS, as you say, the proper course. But then... most of these statements AREN'T contested (just '20%' instead of '10 to 20 percent' so far as I know)and they weren't moved to the talk page for discussion. Just removed. (confused this with one of the other complaints) --CBD 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I did understand. Haiduc is playing games with the statistics. Would you rather pay 10% or 20% of your earnings in taxes? When the source says 10-20%, and Haiduc selectively reports the higher end only, it's damn close to a POV push, and a certain misrepresentation of the source material. It's the sort of statistical pick-and-choosing one sees in polemics, editorials, and other persuasive essays and opinion pieces. Haiduc should either report what he finds only, without editing to his agenda or POV, and nothing else. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I haven't investigated the incidents that Aaron Brenneman and Nandesuka are talking about, but I've seen Haiduc's contributions in many articles dealing with classical antiquity, and his work there is fine--both the quality of sources and the representations of them. So statements such as "the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" are overblown, and calls to remove all of Haiduc's contributions a bit on the hysterical side. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 2

I cannot believe that this is an any way difficult: We have a serious problem with a prolific editor who is chronically unable to attribute material correctly. And this is not someone making up things for articles on profesional wrestling or sea turtles: This is a highly contentious, hot button issue. While I am unaffected, there is signifigant reputational risk here if we do not correct the problem now that it has been identified.

1) My original statement was "I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong." That statement is correct: In every case where I have been able to actually locate the source, the information bears little or no resemblance. I'm happy for a workshop page to be created somewhere and a working party go through them with me.

2) The "FAC" line of reasoning was created from whole cloth, and was never in any suggestion that I made. I'm not a member of the "every phrase cited" brigade. I'm happy with a single citation per paragraph (or even less) as long as there is accurate representation.

I'm dumbfounded by CBDunkerson's claim that the citation supports "mostly" the claims. I made some effort to show that it did not, and in places that it directly refuted what was claimed. I'd ask CBD to re-read my comments above: I did not find "another source," I found the source that H claims supports the statement. It, like literally every other time I have attempted to verify his claims, was a misrepresentation. If, as Akhilleus suggests, this author has done acceptable work elsewhere let him return to that, per the topical ban I initially suggested.
brenneman 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! I'm a bit more strict about it than Aaron, apparently, because I'm advocating that ANY contentious statment be pulled till separately sourced, but Aaron has provided examples of the disingenuous sourcing occurring, and there should be a topic ban for that editor, and any like him (her/it). ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, when putting something in quotation marks (e.g. "mostly") and attributing it to someone... it is generally good for that to be something the person has actually said. Which... I didn't. What I said was that the source supports a 'good portion' of the text in question. I didn't do a mathematical analysis of the paragraphs preceding and following the reference to determine the percentage supported (presumably would need over 50% for 'mostly'). Should I accuse you of 'deceptive sourcing'? Seems more like minor sloppiness not worth making much of a fuss over... which is also how I see the examples of Haiduc's 'crimes'. He said 20% instead of 10 to 20? You say he cited the source you found... but I didn't see that source attached to the text in the article. Are you sure that was his source? The source I DID see him citing actually matched part of the article text word for word... which isn't good either, but certainly doesn't jive with it NOT supporting the text. In another 'case' he said that two people had a sexual relationship because they went to dinner, played tennis together, met at one's school, and oh yeah fondled each other's privates a few times... 'sexual relationship'? Completely insupportable on that evidence. It was just a relationship, which happened to include sex (unless we're going to get Clintonesque on the definition). Or the other one where it was completely unjustified to cite a source as claiming a relationship JUST because that source said one person was devastated over the death of the other... except that the source didn't say JUST that... it also said that they had a "romantic relationship". My take on the 'case' as I've seen it is that Haiduc's citations are not perfect in covering every clause of every sentence with no possibility of dispute or alternate interpretation... but they also don't seem like the nefarious deceits which seem to be being claimed. --CBD 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotation_marks#Irony. Barring that tangent, I'm confused by your claims. While this is a trivial example, chosen from an extensive list of incorrect citations:

• The text said "about 20%" with no citation
• I removed it
• H added it back, with a citation
• I looked at that citation, it said nothing of the sort
• H claimed here that that figure was from another source
• I found that source, and it says "from 10% to 20%"

Fine, let us characterise this as simple "sloppiness." (Your choice of polarising language like 'crimes' is unhelpful as well, but I digress.) It's not a single instance of "sloppiness" it's a continuing series of misattributions or misreadings. Let's move on to your "relationship" example, Tilden and Bobby.

• Per the source:
  • One dinner together,
  • Played tennis together once,
  • One hand-job in the car that got them arrested.
• Per H: He was clearly Tilden's boyfriend, even if of recent vintage. Tilden had a number of long term loving relationships with boys and there is no reason to suspect that, had these two not been busted, this might not have evolved in a similar direction.

I've been very careful to provide evidence for every statement I've made, and attempted to break down the problem here very carefully. Please be specific when making counter claims. And moving on to one of your claims, that it "matched part of the article text word for word."

• From the text H added: "...some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent)..."
• From the actual source: "A case study of striking change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea suggests that ritualized homosexuality and insemination of boys have become behaviorally vestigial or moribund and that characterizing sexual practices in these terms has been difficult to begin with (as the original proponent of these terms has himself suggested)."

It's clear that, as Nandesuke makes refernce to, a cut-and-pastiche approach has been taken, using the highest figure from one source combined with a snippet of text from another, and leaving out utterly the caveat that I've emboldened. I'd encourage anyone wishing to weigh in to this debate to actually take the time to look over the talk pages of these various articles to familiarise themselves with the issues at greater depth.
brenneman 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 7246

Sigh, what happened to the usual procedures like editing the article, discussing things on the talk page, RFC in case of problems and using this page only for vandalism, using AFDs only for AFD discusions and DRV only for DRV discussions? Currently we have discussions at a DRV and here that belong in the talk page. :( Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is about preventing deceptive sourcing, which is an AN/I issue. On contentious articles, it needs to be stopped fast. ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I'd welcome additional editors on the talk pages of these articles. - brenneman 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not open an RFC on either the article or on the involved editor(s)? Compare e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight Count Iblis (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that the admins pursuing this attack have repeatedly compromised themselves and should be disciplined for taking advantage of their position in order to pursue a personal agenda. It is not the sourcing of my writing here that is deceptive, but rather the tissue of fabrications which these people are weaving. As I have said, take my last hundred citations and prove your claim. I will not be reading this page any further, please find me at my talk page. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We'll develop a consensus here about what constitutes some responsible sourcing, and let you know the new rules when we're done. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue with Haiduc has also surfaced at Jules Verne... see here for details. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've found the whole level of discourse on this subject, from admins, sadly enough, who would presumably know better, alarming. I'm sure I too can expect to be labeled a "pro-pedophilia activist" or similar nonsense and painted as advocating agendas. Throughout the AfD, the DRV and now spreading to related articles and admin boards is a level of unpleasantness that has made editing there and constructive discourse more than a bit toxic. That admins have concerns is fine, that they creep onto and even cross civility lines is not. I know that this is a sensitive area for many dealing with multiple cultural and social taboos but we can certainly deal with the subject without demonizing editors. Personally, I've had to walk away from the article as I didn't appreciate the treatment Haiduc was getting there and on these admin boards. Essentially disparaging their work, all of it. Those of us who have a depth of understanding in taboo arenas of the human experience don't need special treatment but neither do we deserve pillorying at multiple public forums in addition to the more juicy talkpage and offline arenas. Editors face enough challenges without having their reputations smeared. Banjeboi 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

I've fully protected Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) following edit warring over what to tag the page as. I suggest uninvolved admins look over the talk page. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. From 2005 to late 2007, it was a "guideline". After some disputes, it was marked as a "proposed guideline". Currently it's marked as an "essay". So what's current policy in this area? RC patrollers await an answer. We need to know what fancruft to mark for deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FICT is mostly a summary of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:IINFO. Though, really, it should have the "historical" tag. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't major changes like that brought to the community's attention? FICT ought to be a guideline or flat out 'crap isn't notable' policy. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol that would make a good policy. In the end, we really don't need so many policies though, notability is about whether something's been mentioned in reliable sources, so there don't need to be different policies for different subjects- why should some be treated differently to others? Sticky Parkin 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the quality of 'reliable sources' seems to change by subject area, and according to the various projects, and according to the standards of Inclusionists or Deletionists, or those just plain sensible and serious. Asserting it's 'so easy' is oversimplifying. Get an inclusionist Pokemon fan and we wind up with 2500 articles detailing each pokemon because 'not only does it appear on the card but in all the 'how to play pokemon' books. thus it's notable'. and so on. That sort of incestuous sourcing needs to be stopped in all subject areas. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be stopped? m:Wikipedia is not paper. To quote: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."

What exactly do we gain by REMOVING verifiable information on notable topics? The satisfaction of having declared that sub-portion of the topic 'not notable'? I'd rather Wikipedia be the comprehensive encyclopedia it was intended to be. --CBD 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To ThuranX's question: the proposed version was brought to a large-scale RFC back during June to get input on it (after the 2006-ish version was contested in part to TTN's actions and the ArbCom cases) - the RFC failed to show consensus, 50% for, 25% against it due to being too harsh on fiction, 25% against it due to being too lax on fiction. Analyzing the results, its been determined that FICT can't really be resolved until we answer questions (via another large scale RFC) on notability in general. --MASEM 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We gain the priceless guarantee that Wikipedia treats all subjects equally and from the same real-world perspective. We ensure that the article on Homer Simpson devotes more time to examining how the cartoon character has influenced the rest of the world than to the cartoon character's daily routine and favourite pastimes. Have a look at how Memory Alpha treats Star Trek articles compared to here. If you were a disinterested third party who happened to want to know something about a Star Trek episode, which wiki is more useful to you? "Comprehensive encyclopedia" does not mean "limitless database of everything ever". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, we want to concentrate on being useful only to people who AREN'T interested in the topic they are reading about? :]

You state that we have to choose between two types of information... but we don't. There is no reason not to have BOTH the 'real world analysis' and the detailed documentation. Seriously, what does it hurt? Why is it better to limit our coverage of notable topics to the lowest common denominator? We can't cover things which a disproportionate number of people obsess about in any greater detail than things which only a few people obsess about because... that would go too far towards giving readers what they want? --CBD 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason not to have both is that by its very nature there's always going to be massively more fictional information than real-world on many fictional entities. Homer Simpson would have a longer biography than almost any living person were WP:N to be thrown out for fictional characters (which is basically what those opposing WP:FICTION advocate). It means uneven coverage and is usually going to result in decreased readability. Dedicated external wikis with different policies on fictional content are always going to be much better for this, and I don't see why Wikipedia should try to be a superset of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma ^message 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

I've been having issues with User:Hiram111 in Druze, where he kept removing references by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and other scholars, calling them unreliable and unscholarly. He recently monitored my edits and followed me to Twelver Shi'ism, where he added POV statements from unreliable sources about concepts already explained further in the article. I repeatedly reverted his edits until he reverted mine from a newly created sockpuppet account, User:Macabricvoid, adding other dubious statements with sources that have absolutely nothing to do with the content he added. He then proceeded to request protection for the article using, unsurprisingly, another sockpuppet account, User:Vitriulum. I'm requesting that User:Hiram111 and his accounts be blocked for violation of WP:SOCK, and revert Twelver Shi'ism back to the consensus version. GreenEcho (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho rather than such behavior, I think it would be better for you to work for consensus concerning the disputed articles since you had been gaming the system for more than a month and your distributive editing history is still here, anyway If we are going to continue with this dispute i think the issue will never end since it seems that we both have alot of free time...please recheck your references and our references so we can get over with it and get to consensus since it had been going for over a month .(and I don't think its worth it, to lose such time to say that the Druze belief that caliph Alhakim is God!)

And why would a Sock Puppet use an account that redirects to his other user page ????.Im not actually that new to wikipedia, I hope you will review your actions and decide if its leading you anywhere. « Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many sockpuppets used by both sides

• Macabricvoid (talk · contribs), Vitriulum (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Hiram111 (talk · contribs). Blocked indefinitely. The master account Hiram111 got a week block. Feel free to review this if you feel the duration is short.

• GreenEcho (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of the abandoned (for a reason) NAccount (talk · contribs). Please refer to the 7 weeks old archived Klaksonn sockpuppetry case. Another sock Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) has been also indef blocked. NAccount for 2 weeks since this is not the first time and this user has been heavily abusing multiple accounts. Next time it will be indefinite. Do not create new accounts because you are not happy with the one you are left with. Request changing your username instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak

Would some uninvolved administrator please review the 3rr edit warring situation regarding User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak? It was reported here and ended up with only one block despite the fact that they were both edit warring. Note that the other party is just coming off a block for edit warring three weeks ago. This really appears unfair, and it would make sense that either they should both get blocked or both only get warned. The discussion can be found here at Hillock65 talk page. Ostap 03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that User:Hillock65 violated the 3RR rule, User:Kuban kazak did not, ("The rule is breached when an editor makes more than three reverts.") so don't try to present it as the same thing. While there is a provision that says, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.", this is up to an administrator's discretion, and I see no problem with the blocking admin treating them differently because their actions were indeed different, User:Hillock65 was the only one who crossed the 3RR line. Also, check their contributions, User:Hillock65 is primarily a revert warrior while User:Kuban kazak is primarily a content writer. And why are you asking for an "uninvolved administrator", the blocking admin was an uninvolved administrator.
Furthermore, an uninvolved administrator has already reviewed this decision. User:Hillock65 has already asked for an administrator to review this decision, and another uninvolved admin (User:Mangojuice) declined his demand to unblock him/block the other user, saying, "You made your point about the other editor's behavior on WP:AN3. While there is a compelling reason to review decisions to block users, the same does not hold for decisions not to block users. If you don't like the way it was handled, you can take it up with Scarian afterwards, but neither I nor any other admin is likely to reverse Scarian's decision to issue a warning"[61]--Miyokan (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewd this and the complainer's complaint seems valid on the surface: The other person (Kk) did three reverts *bangbangbang* and rewarding them for that is inappropiate. Kk has recently been blocked for blind reverting, and the message that "three a day" is not an entitlement clearly needs to be driven home. Heck, the person who was blocked said "please use the talk page" in every edit summary, which Kk chose not to do. No one is lily-white here. - brenneman 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets see then:

1. 15:55, 23 July 2008 I change a blatant mistake
2. 16:39, 23 July 2008 Hillock reverts without any talk page comment (1st revert for Hillock)
3. 13:18, 24 July 2008 I revert the disruption, citing wiki policies under which I did that per WP:1RR (1st revert for me)
4. 14:02, 24 July 2008 Hillock reverts my statement and offers me, with WP:CIVIL to "discuss my grievences on the talk" (2 reverts for Hillock)
5. 14:06, 24 July 2008 I revert and point out the extensive discussion on the talk page (2 reverts for me)
6. 14:09, 24 July 2008 Hillock remembering WP:OWN tells me to literally bugger off (again WP:CIVIL) (3 reverts for Hillock)
7. 14:35, 24 July 2008 I do a complete copyedit of the article, correct many grammatical mistakes BUT DO NOT TOUCH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION THAT HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF DEBATE (so still 2 reverts for me)
8. 14:43, 24 July 2008 Hillock however does not bother to check the diff, and reverts w/o any though still with the same WP:unCIVIL comment (4th revert for which he was blocked!)

• I recommend to Ostap, who has been Hillock's WP:MEATpuppet since he arrived on wikipedia (check the edit pattern for this and many other articles) to leave it per WP:STICK, otherwise feel free to voice your complaints on my RfC which was started a year ago, but got nowhere then, since I don't even watch that page. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You respond in your usual fashion, throwing around baseless accusations. If you continue to do this, I will report it here also. Ostap 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't make threats that you won't follow through with.--Miyokan (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" [62] [63] [64] [65].

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. [66] [67] [68] [69].

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks [70], he ignored [71], prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him [72], however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages [73], yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. [74] McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Wikipedia's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Enemies of me have been having a gay-old-time attacking me at WT:FRINGE. Of course, this is not the place to do it. So I removed the discussion of me (which was extremely personal and offensive) with this diff. Just giving you all a heads-up for the eventual brouhaha. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The material wasn't that bad, and looked to me to be well on track towards being a great linkable archived discussion of 'why is this fringe thing so mean to me and my wacky ideas?' each time a new editor asks. I agree that it opened with some shots at you, but the more you obscure things like that, the more Ludwigs2 and others will attack you for it. I'm going to publicly ask you to restore that section. You're welcome to ignore it now, the focus has shifted to why those two are in the wrong, so hiding it now, after hours of discussion, isn't a sensible way to handle it. had you blanked it after the first four or five comments, I'd support you 100%, but the conversation's grown and changed course. ThuranX (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The trickeries of Troy 07

It seems that the administrators have closed their eyes to the abuses of Troy 07. This user, by all sort of trickeries, has been systematically undoing or vandalizing all my edits. In the most absurd cases, he uses his "sock puppets" 66.183.101.6, 66.183.98.107 and 66.183.111.222 (and maybe others). Although some of the articles have been temporarily protected, I will not desist from restoring my edits. I hope that some administrator will prevent him from insisting on his edit war. Ausonia (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These two editors;

Troy 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and

Ausonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

have recently shown up at WP:AN3 (three cases will be found by searching for 'Ausonia'). There was also a sockpuppet report WP:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3 claiming that Ausonia is a sock. No RFCU has been yet run, though a request could be filed. Ausonia's most recent activity has been insisting on changing technical descriptions of various Roman Catholic cardinals and sees to other titles that he prefers. Troy07 argues that the original titles are correct, and in many cases are required by WP:MOS. Pontiff and pope were semi-protected to stop editing by what seemed to be IP socks of Ausonia.

Re-opening Ausonia's closed sockpuppet report to impose more sanctions is one option. Ausonia's behavior does seem sockish; this is an account newly-created on July 2nd as a single-purpose account that edit-wars on one issue acoss a range of articles. I haven't looked into whether Troy07 could be running any socks. Troy07 is also very interested in naming issues, but his account is open for a year longer, and he seems to listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited various, but only two pages about Cardinals: Dean of the College of Cardinals and Odoardo Farnese (cardinal). My edits on the Suburbicarian Sees are perfectly correct. The prior version, however, was not correct. Troy 07 has never argued anything. How and where WP:MOS requires the "original" titles? If you look into them, you will see that those IP are sock puppets of Troy 07. There is no doubt. Ausonia (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Also see [75] [76] [77] Enigma ^message 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These two have been at each others' throats for the last several weeks. Neither seems to wants to give any ground. I think this should go to an RFC, with a temporary moratorium prohibiting either of them editing articles dealing with the Catholic Church until they can come to some common ground. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I should like to comment, as an administrator, that the sure fire guaranteed way of getting sysop help for whatever problems you are having is not commencing your comment as did User:Ausonia. I read that sentence, wrote this and am now moving onto the next section to see if anyone needs any help... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not insist on continuing the edit war. It's hard for me to imagine you making claims like that as you have evidently done so today. Please discuss the issue with me instead of ignoring the issue.

I deeply, deeply regret my part in this and feel terribly sorry for wasting the time of several administrators over such an issue, however, I kindly ask you to discontinue negative comments. I really could do without the insults, and would suggest that you use constructive criticism instead. For the most part, though, I will leave these articles for the administrators to deal with.

I have neither the time nor the desire to keep up with what has been going on surrounding the issue. Please don't assume that I enjoy such ridiculous revert-warring. ~ Troy (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again: topic ban of user:Kossack4Truth from Obama pages for review

Resolved

 – Topic ban imposed with community consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

---

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: [78] and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned ([79], [80]).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page [to] refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And they've just warned via a template for it[81]--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 [82], my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). Endorse topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Bedford and misogyny

• Bedford (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A bit of backstory: Bedford suggested a rather... titillating... hook at DYK which got accepted. An edit war erupted at Template:Did you know (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with several female admins - who themselves consulted male users - removing it because of its content. However, his objections to the removal are not that pleasant: "feminist objectons is not good enough of a reason to remove this.", "I feel so sorry for you for being so pathetic", accusations of vandalism and censorship to someone who didn't even remove it, and "Besides, mantis was a dupe due to feminazis". Can we have a male admin warn him against such behaviour? I'm very concerned about his temprament, and I think that, sadly, if a female admin warned him, he'd accuse her of feminism too. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So the argument is that DYK can't contain a hook about scantilly clad women? I'm not seeing how that's misogyny. Nothing on the main page should ever be edit warred over, even if one is being censored by evil femenists. Just drop the edit war and discuss it somewhere. --Rividian (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the edit war, his attitude. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see here is that he edit warred, especially on this template. That's something that deserves some sort of rebuke. Just having unpopular opinions about feminism really shouldn't be an offense; disrupting Wikipedia over those opinions is a big deal though. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was censorship by a bunch of extremists." How is that acceptable? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is okay, the actions he's talking about aren't. I don't really think censorship is a good word for it, but Bedford was just making an argument. There's nothing disruptive about that... I don't consider "extremists" to be a personal attack in this context. --Rividian (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Extremists blow up office blocks and abortion clinics. I don't any of that happening in the DYK template history, especially from the women. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't censorship and calling an editor an extremist could be taken as a PA (mind, though I think the DYK was dumb I didn't think it was misogynistic). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) An extremist is merely someone with an extreme point of view. I don't think the terrorist context was meant, if it was then yes it would be a personal attack. But "extremist" alone doesn't have to be meant that way. Just for good measure I looked up the word in Webster's and it doesn't mention terrorism. This could be clarified by asking if he actually meant to accuse them of being terrorists. --Rividian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, these individuals don't both discussing things on DYK, and just arbitrarily remove anything they don't personally like from DYK. There were no Wikipedia rules against the hook. There have been things I objected to being on DYK, but I did not remove them. I can diagnose the sentiment against the hook, and call it what it is.--Bedford ^Pray 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on DYK is a big no-no (the last time it happened, an admin was blocked IIRC). Instead of reinserting the same ole hook into DYK, Bedford should have just written a brand new non-controversial hook. He could have then started discussion regarding the problem with the original hook. That's the sensible way to handle such matters... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. If at least five users disagree with you, I think you should realise you're on the wrong side. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is a DYK hook such a big deal? A bunch of people disagreed with a hook, a new one could've inserted and no harm would be done. Why wheel-war over it? Maxim_(talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what did happen - Krimpet inserted an alternate hook, but Bedford refused to accept it and edit warred to keep his own hook on the main page. Sarah 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: this is about Bedford's attitude, not the DYK hook. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What, that he likes bra and panties matches? It's normal for those of a certain age. Life goes on regardless. All that's demonstrated is that he needs to watch more real porn and has bad taste, because the wrestling in such matches invariably sucks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Bedford indeed engaged in some edit warring, and calling someone another editor a feminazi could probably be considered uncivil in most any context (no matter what you think about feminism, "anything-nazi" is pretty much name-calling). I don't see a problem with anyone, male or female, admin or non-admin, issuing him a warning and then (assuming the behavior is not ongoing) moving on with our lives. It's not like there is such a thing as an "official" warning... (except I suppose ArbCom restrictions, heh) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest outburst I know of was five minutes after I posted this thread. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, can I note the sheer insane hilarity of an admin with an attitude that I consider pre-dates the internet lumbering about Main Page-related pages grumbling about uppity women? That said, I think he's demonstrated a total lack of understanding of WHEEL by noting that he stopped short of 3RR in defending his own hook on DYK, stepped well over the line by repeatedly accusing fellow admins who disagree with him of forming a ideological cabal ("bunch of feminists") in gender discriminatory language ("feminazis"), and continues to show a general lack of understanding that he's acting like a total dick. (I'm willing to put that wording to a vote to demonstrate that most users would find it accurate.) I especially love his accusation on his talk page that it's a conflict of interest for women to attempt to remove DYK hooks they find bring disrepute to the wiki, which also includes the brilliantly phrased and punctuated, "I feel sorry for you, to be so pathetic". I figure the only reason there doesn't seem to be a movement to desysop Bedford is because he appears so utterly hapless. It's like one of those fish out of water movies when the Australian woodsman goes to the big city or the big city lawyer's car breaks down in the countryside. I just keep waiting for Bedford to discover the bidet or try to milk a cow, or whatever the equivalent is here. - BanyanTree 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a civility warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was recently reading talk page highlights then clicked over here and forgot which page I was reading. Someone should copy this over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This happens :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that this situation really pissed me off and I should have handled this better. I reacted to being called sad, pathetic, feminist etc. What did Bedford think he would achieve by using emotive language like "extremists" and "feminazis" or comments like this, this, and this? That's definitely not how to "win" an argument.

This was way out of line and I'm glad people called him on it. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a bunch of purposeful misunderstandings and self-righteousness. The fact is that a few women decided they should rule what is covered in DYK, even through they do not contribute anything. It has been proven that hooks regarding attractive women are popular, which is why it was used. I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions. Personally, I'm done with this topic, as I have bigger concerns than this triviality.--Bedford ^Pray 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Put away the spade and climb out of that hole, will ya? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear me. Now you're resorting to calling people jealous? You clearly still have no grasp of what the issue was here. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't about the DYK topic, it's about how the editor responded to disagreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford please consider refactoring your post. Attributing the issue bad faith assumptions like "purposeful misunderstandings" is not acceptable. The way to clear up any misunderstanding is to comment on the topic of disagreement rather than describing the people you are disagreeing with. You continue to speculate and comment on other editors in a derogatory way and that is not cool. I realize you must feel under attack right now, and are not likely to be receptive to my critique. But I hope someone who knows you better will take a moment to email you and reaffirm that my concerns about your reaction to this dispute are valid. I would hate to see you dismiss these concerns and possibly cause yourself more grief in the future because your friends do not care enough to involve themselves and help guide you in this area.--BirgitteSB 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to get back in this nonsense, but if you insist. Would you prefer the term "personal-worldview misunderstandings", as it reflects the fact that those who are trying to bully me have not opened themselves to the fact that not everyone shares their worldview, and they need to be more tolerant of those differences? As I said before, I'd rather be spending this time writing new articles, not get mixed into this abyss.--Bedford ^Pray 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that you ask a few people whose opinions you respect if they would look at my comments and tell you what they think of my concerns and how the things I pointed out in your edit could cause you problems if you edit in the same vein in future disputes.--BirgitteSB 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I make a suggestion? Can we put this thread on hold for 24 hours? I would exhort Bedford especially not to comment further at this time, with the assurances that obviously nobody is going to block him or anything dumb like that. Let it go for a day, and see how you feel tomorrow. I can't imagine a normally level-headed editor like Bedford making insinuations like this while calmed down -- even if he feels they are accurate, he must realize how much it will piss some people off?

On the other side, too, let's try not bait Bedford here. Not that I see any baiting right now, but let's not have it start.

If we can all stop making gender-charged comments, I think underneath it all there's really nothing to see here. Bedford made a DYK suggestion that some people found offensive. We don't have to agree that it was offensive, nor do we have to agree that it was inoffensive. We just need to agree to stop hatin' on each other. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you really replying to my post cause I don't see any gender charged comments that I would need to stop. I am not into baiting people nor rising to bait I am offered much less "hatin' on" anyone. While I understand your concern about the effects of Bedford's temper on his edits regarding of this issue, frankly I see no reason to put off my thoughts on this issue. If you have a problem with something I have said, please bring it up explicitly instead making vague accusations that you are concerned I (among others I suppose) am going to begin baiting him, use gender-charged language, or weirdest of all feel the need to assure no blocks are forthcoming (where has anyone mentioned blocking him?) while explaining that underneath it all there is "nothing really to see." You do realize that last statement only gives Bedford confidence that his behavior is not problematic that his evaluation is correct. What is needed here is someone like you, who apparently is already acquainted with Bedford, to step-up and say "Bedford that is not cool you really need to comment on content not contributers. By the way don't edit war 3RR isn't an entitlement and it sets a bad example when admins edit war." Taking such a principled stance about what the actual best practices for editing Wikipedia are, would do loads more to resolve this than all your vague hand-wringing about postponing it.--BirgitteSB 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I found Bedford's comments offensive and I think it makes Wikipedia look incredibly bad having an admin make such derogatory and sexist comments about his colleagues. I also think it's inappropriate for someone to nominate, promote and then edit war to keep their own hook on the front page. Sarah 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

We seem to have several problems here:

• Wheel-warring on the main page.
• A misunderstanding of edit warring ("the only reason [I stopped] is due to 3RR" [83] [84]).
• Personal attacks ("feminazis" [85] [86]; "I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions." [87]).
• Ascribing motives ("a bunch of feminists decide to censor Wikipedia, as they'd rather do that than actually do something fruitful for Wikipedia. Sad. Oh so sad. Pathetic, too." [88]).
• Demeaning behavior ("Then again, those who can't pick good hook are the most likely to critique; it's the way of the world." [89]; "Thanks for confirming I'm better than you" [90]).
• Material on their userpage which brings Wikipedia into disrepute ("The second greatest country ever [is] the United States of America, and the greatest country ever [is] the Confederate States of America.").
• Absolutely vile offsite harassment: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91214440&blogID=418159317, backup in case it's taken down

I've long realized I am a magnet for attracting cretins, who think they will, in wrestling parlance, "get over on me". Sadly, Wikipedia ia huge website and, as a result, there are a lot of cretins. Just this morning I had to deal with a bunch of PMS from a few feminazis that did not like a hook used on the DYK section of Wikipedia's front page, dealing with a bra & panties match. Not politically correct, so the harpies attack, and then accuse me of bullying when it is they themselves ganging up to bully on me. Is it just a mix of PC and PMS? Is it because they are unattractive and don't like being even slightly reminded of it? Who knows? (Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school. - 202.155) The fact they are still moaning over it says I struck too close to home in analyzing the reason fo their being in a frenzy. They are overcome with the belief that their excrement doesn't stink, when it absolutely reeks.

This type of combativeness and unseemly behavior is nothing new from Bedford. I suggest a request for user conduct be filed. I am also declining to post this from my account: I am a person of color who edits under my real name, lives close to Bedford and fears harassment or violence. I do not enjoy playing this card, but I grew up in the South and have good reason to fear Confederates and their ilk. 202.155.167.221 (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, I'm not sure harassment is the adjective for that. I'm not a MySpace member and can't read the full original, but if that's as specific as it gets--suggest replacing with a different adjective. Vile I agree with, but harassment has a more specific meaning. Durova^Charge! 09:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgh! What a bigot :( Well, I guess we know exactly what this guy's position on the whole matter is now - *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, if you really wrote that, I ask you to resign your adminship. I have no opinion right now if such a request is legitimate based on policy, or precedent. I only know you've lost my faith in your ability to act in a reasonable and impartial manner. And if you didn't write it, you need to find out who is impersonating you on myspace, because they're making you look really, really, really bad. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgh indeed. Seraphim♥Whipp 01:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

202.155, if personal attacks are so bad why is it okay for you to say stuff like "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school"? Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, just because he has an unpopular opinion, such as on the CSA, isn't cause for sanctions. We aren't the thought police. It's only a problem if he's POV pushing or otherwise disruptive. Other than that I agree with the points. --Rividian (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a valid defence. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just not helpful in the first place to make personal attacks while complaining about someone who made personal personal attacks. I'm not saying Bedford's attacks were okay because the IP did the same thing, but hopefully we can agree personal are attacks are a bad idea even if you don't like the person being insulted. --Rividian (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof? I did a search on the range. Only two contribs from the entire /16 range I could see this month. One was to a football page. The other to this noticeboard. Though that gadget is buggy. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I can't figure out what this comment means. The IP interrupts his quote of Bedford's (supposed) blog to insult him, see the quote "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school". --Rividian (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't catch that. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse recall. I was going to initiate recall myself, but reneged after realising that, without the category, it would be an excercise in futility. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was asked about recall in his RfA in April and he answered: "AOR is like a pre-nup, assuming trouble on the horizon when it is vastly hoped there will be no problems, and darkening clouds which should remain bright and fluffy. If editors are uneasy about my nom, I can add myself to it; but, if I am a problem admin, I will be removed by my peers in any event." In the spirit of that answer, he should either resign and stand for reconfirmation or add himself to the recall category. Sarah 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Barneca's request for resignation. If Bedford really wrote that blog his position is now untenable with all female editors and admins on Wikipedia and a huge slab of males, too, IMO. Sarah 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the community needs to take a good look at Bedford's conduct as an admin, especially given the evidence above that this may not be an isolated incident. I unwittingly set off this fiasco last night by removing a DYK some users found offensive and leaving a polite note with Bedford since I saw he was the one who'd promoted it... but his immediate reaction was to call me "ridiculous" and revert my removal. It really disappoints me that he had to escalate this into an edit war and personal attacks - culminating in gross Limbaughesque insults to several female Wikipedians. We expect better from our administrators. krimpet✽ 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I see that Bedford's RfA three months ago anticipated him using his bit to work on DYKs, and one opposer raised his inflammatory national language at times as an issue. There are (and not just because of this incident) sufficient questions of judgement that lead me to think that the decision to grant adminship, while supported at the time, was not the correct decision and should be reviewed. Orderinchaos 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A 24 hour break sounds reasonable, as there is a need to cool down for everyone. Much of this is due to warring between the two sides of political correctness. But notice that I am the one being threatened, that I must think and act like others think and act. At no time did I abuse my role as an admin; I even took a careful take on POV. Therefore, to say my adminship should be revoked is purposeful intimidation; nothing I said was against females in general. I was not the only admin to think it OK, as I did not initially move it to the main template. Had I not woken up prematurely, this brouhaha would not had occurred, and the censorship would have been successful. It was not my article; I just came up with the hook; a hook that no one had problems with on the Template Talk page, and none of those who removed the hook cared whether or not people there saw no problems with it. It was the third hook proposed, in order to use the article, as those who submit articles would like to see them used. An admin posting a hook he devised but had no hand in the creation of the article has been done before, so no foul there (although a future rule against it could be debated).--Bedford ^Pray 02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is delicious irony - while I definitely bridle about the c-word and the tw-word, nobody seems to care if a male editor is called a "dick". And we're getting righteously upset about PMS jokes now? Please. Come on, ladies - nobody respects a victim. It's better to give as good as you get. Kelly ^hi! 02:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Jokes are supposed to be funny. I see no humour in his posts. Besides, we're using the word "dick" in the metapedian sense, not the common social sense which is commonly suffixed by "head". Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Eh, whatever - anything he said, I've heard ten times worse in my workplace. This is political correctness run amok. Talk about a mountain from a molehill. So guys like women in their underwear - everyone knows this from middle school. Yes, he shouldn't have edit-warred about the hook but the reaction is extreme. Bedford, I forgive you - go forth and sin no more. Kelly ^hi! 02:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Do I need to repeat the point of order? This is not about the DYK hook, this is about his reaction. The language he's used would make Mike cry. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think so. If so, then Mike Godwin has lived a pretty sheltered life. Are you talking about the PMS thing? You should hear what women say about PMS amongst themselves. Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Vegetarians are evil because Hitler himself was one. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Huh? Kelly ^hi! 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I also endorse Barneca's request for Bedford to resign the tools. I'm not sure Bedford can maintain an admin position when he's using the tools to enforce personal prejudices. It's fine to think differently, that's something I celebrate, but this is a case of being deliberately offensive and antagonistic without purpose. I find that attitude incompatible in the role of an administrator, a role where you deal with all kinds of people. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Did he use the tools? My understanding was that he was just acting as an editor, but maybe I missed something. Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Edit warring on a fully protected page which is subsequently transcluded onto the Main Page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  He promoted his own hook and then edit warred on an admin protected page to keep it there. I'm more concerned that the position of adminship is one of trust. Trust that the editor will use the tools responsibly and for the right reasons. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  If he was edit-warring on a fully-protected page, then one or more other admins must have also been edit-warring. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Separate admins each time. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  That doesn't make it any better. Kelly ^hi! 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  If you are reverted by different people each time, then you are the one with the problem. There obviously wasn't consensus for the hook otherwise it would never have got taken down. Seraphim♥Whipp 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Two problems I see with this incident, the first is DYK itself but for another discussion. The problem this discussion is about is that of Bedford's actions. No editor should have to wheel warred to defend a DYK hook, its no big deal if a hook is removed or altered many suggestion dont even get a run. The choice of language is indefensible whether we agree with an action or not its just not acceptable to vehemently accuse any person of extremist views because their physiology or imply that a person has some condition. When other admins have made unfounded uncivil accusations and acted disruptively using the tools(DYK template is an admin only edit protected page, like all main page templates) they have resigned their admin bits or had them removed by ARBCOM. As for Bedfords off Wiki comment there are a lot of cretins then to into a rant on one supposed group, to me that means he also express that other editors as unidentified are also a problem in his view and he's likely to react the same again when people dont accept his actions. To me this totally unacceptable any actions taken as a sysop by Bedford are now questionable as to whether he was acting based on the community decisions or his own personal opinions. Gnangarra 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  It's been established in numerous forums that we don't sanction people on-wiki for what they do off-wiki. That said, if the only thing that's got people upset is the blog post - yeah, it's not that great, but I've seen way worse. I think an apology would be sufficient, speaking for myself. If someone thinks more is necessary, they should take it to ArbCom. Kelly ^hi! 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits consist edit warring? Look at the Edit history. What were the excuses? That it was "demeaning" and akin to FHM? Not that reasoned a reason. Also, note it was User:PeterSymonds who first placed it on the front page, not me. It should be noted that Ryulong has tried to wipe the history of the hook from both the article's talk page and the Recent Archives page. I think there is a problem with objectivity. If anyone should resign, it is not me. Anything I did was after a consensus of DYK reviewers. I think we need one of those templates used onthe Sri Lanka talk pages here.--Bedford ^Pray 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You promoted the hook. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, DYK/Next update says the same story. Peter's only fault was cutpasting. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It was reviewed by four editors, one of whome was the original writer of the article, none of whom had problems with the hook (sans one rolling of the eyes). The suggestion was up for a day, the hook was expiring, and as I said before, admins that have suggested alternate hooks have in the past elevated them. If you don't like it, get involved with DYK and let your voices be heard. I feel you did not respect the DYKers.--Bedford ^Pray 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's original over reaction to petty comments led to a further overreaction ion by Bedford. I say everyone go have a cigarette and calm down. While I'm the first person to call admin abuse when I see it, nothing was abused here. "Tough" language and civility is abused by people to get rid of their enemies way too much around here. Beam 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - this has escalated beyond all sense. I suggest that if anyone really believes Bedford should be desysopped they take it to dispute resolution. Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... open an RFC if you feel so inclined. ANI isn't really going to solve anything except cause unproductive drama... maybe he'll dig himself in deeper but that seems like a poor reason to keep the thread going. An RFC would actually be headed somewhere other than dramaland. --Rividian (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting the wheel warring aside, honestly, who cares? It's just a hook (one that probably gained many views in the time it was up), and while I personally didn't see a reason to remove it, edit-warring to keep it on also makes no sense. This whole thing really reeks of something that has escalated far, far too much. The hooks have come and gone, that's over. I'm disappointed my pretty much all sides in this wheel war, of course some more than others. Wizardman 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of order, point of order, point of order. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's actions may have been very wrong today, but he does bring up a good point above. The hooks stay at T:TDYK for several days. If there were any concerns then why not actually check that page for yourselves to see if anything offends you? This way it saves the drama of removing and adding hooks. I mean, DYK is a hard-ass job for no respect as it is, with people complaining abotu things that could be solved if they spent 5 minutes participating there. Wizardman 03:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Moral of the story: the most important item at an RfA is Question #3. If a candidate gives a vague, evasive, or essentially meaningless answer to this question, don't support their candidacy. MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was the one who created this drama. Hooks get moved around and thrown back in all the time. It was his behaviour and the edit warring that was wrong. Seraphim♥Whipp 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not on an active DYK unless there's something really wrong with the hook. Wizardman 03:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Which there was! Which is why it was removed in the first place. Seraphim♥Whipp 03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but was it bad enough to be re-reverted as many times as it was? I'm not getting into that, that's a question for elsewhere. My point at 3:15 stands though as my main one. Wizardman 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am amazed that so many people are not getting this. Forget the hook. Opinions about the hook are debatable and its appropriateness on the Main Page is a subjective call. When there is a dispute over something debatable and you find the other people making a different subjective call than you would prefer . . . You do not react by speculating on the motives the editors you disagree with. You do not label them with derogatory terms. You do not personalize the dispute. You comment on content that is in dispute, attract a wider audience, and seek consensus. This is the issue; not the debatable point of whether that hook was a desirable item for the Main Page. The behavior displayed after the hook was disputed in real issue here. Some people will agree that the hook is desirable, some will not and some won't care either way. But, who can say that they find Bedford reaction to the dispute acceptable and on what basis do they believe it to be so? I think that inappropriateness of his reaction should be widely agreed on. The only reason we are still here is not because Bedford got upset and said what he should not have, but because he believes what he said was not problematic. Now is the part where the admin community says "Hold up. X,Y, and Z was out of line." and then Bedford stops claiming he has done nothing wrong or at least stops posting about it. And we all go our separate ways either hopeful that he has learned a lesson here and this discussion never need be re-visited again at least satisfied that a unified voice reaffirmed how admins are expected to behave. Or I suppose you can all ignore the real issue here talk about how you liked or didn't mind the hook and the real issue will fester into a premature RfC. Bedford is the only loser in the latter scenario but obviously not many people here care to help guide him out of the hole he has dug himself into. At least not when is a controversial issue to debate. Seriously you all should ask yourselves: Have I actually tried to imagine a resolution to the problem brought here?--BirgitteSB 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting timing: as the female editor who recently created this article and got it through DYK, and who is currently running this peer review request, no one can accuse me of being too uptight. Bedford, your action at DYK crossed the line, and your statements since then have been worse. All editors should be able to communicate with administrators without worry that the sysop would screen their words through a filter of perception about the editor's race, color, creed, gender or other external factor. The name for such filters is bigotry and that is incompatible with Wikipedia administratorship. I read this thread hoping a well-meaning misunderstanding had taken place, but your own words condemn you more clearly with each iteration. I respectfully request that you resign the tools, and if you refuse I will endorse every step toward their involuntary removal. Durova^Charge! 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to endorse Durova's request here. We have absolutely no room for bigotry within the admin community and an admin who has issues with (arguably) 50% of the population is not going to approach matters dispassionately, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resign the tools

So where do we go from here? Seven people are requesting that Bedford resign the tools. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have desysopped him. This is not even a close call. He's so far over the line of the conduct - both onsite and offsite - that I expect from admins that nothing short of a full and complete apology for his behavior and a retraction of his comments will do. Additionally, he will have to stand for re-election if he dares. As for me, I would never vote for someone with this kind of behavior in his history.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• He's continuing to edit without responding here. User:Durova/Request for comment/Bedford Here's a working space. Durova^Charge! 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, yet again

That IP address User:128.197.130.249 who just kept mass-adding a sentence to a lot of biographies claiming that that person's papers were at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center was blocked after attempts to get him/her to stop and discuss it has gone back to just readding them all again after the block expired. Still no response on the talk page. I don't know if this is just a bot or a stubborn person ignoring us or a person who somehow doesn't see the notice that there's a message waiting for them. They may need stronger blocking, and a roll back of edits or something. Most of all some sort of two way communication to get them to understand why this isn't appropriate would be nice. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the current edits -- I believe the old ones have already been reverted by various editors.

I've had some luck in the past, when some BU IPs were vandalizing my user page, in contacting the SysOp at BU. They never responded, but the vandalism stopped. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator in the office in question, and this controversy has just been brought to my attention. Would someone please direct me on how to initiate the process for opening a dialogue on these problems and concerns? Thank you. Sdnoel (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably look at this for beginners. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And this Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that information. I will confer with the Director on this matter. We are, in fact, attempting to inform researchers that the archival collections of these individuals are housed at Boston University. We report our holdings to the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, but not all researchers go first to the Library of Congress; many of them come to Wikipedia. We are a resource for researchers, and our goal is simply to help them to find us. Boston University may not be the first place a researcher would look for the papers of, say, David Halberstam or Oriana Fallaci because neither attended Boston University. Neither did Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire or Bette Davis, but we hold those collections as well! Our only goal is to assist researchers in their work, but apparently those who manage these pages find the simple edit we seek to add is not sufficiently detailed. We wanted to direct researchers to Boston University without adding incredibly detailed listings and overwhelming each entry. Isaac Asmiov’s collection is several hundred boxes large, and the inventory is several hundred pages, for example. UltraExactZZ made use of our “Notable Figures” database to check facts. This database contains information on important correspondence found throughout the various collections, but is not an inventory of each specific collection. For example, we do not have a Tennessee Williams Collection, but there are several collections which do contain TW correspondence, and the Notable Figures database will help a researcher to discover which collections they are contained in. The two or three letters he finds under “Michael Denison” are only those listed in other collections; Denison’s collection is far larger. Another admin, J.delanoy, indicates that it would be physically impossible for us to house all of these collections. It is very possible; we hold the papers of nearly 2000 individuals in over 7 miles of storage space (as calculated by linear feet). These are “good faith” edits, but I understand the community does not find them sufficiently detailed. We appreciate the work involved with maintaining the standards of Wikipedia, and will have to consider how to move forward. Any suggestions would be welcome. With nearly 2000 collections, adding detailed listings is simply not an option considering the resources we have to make such entries. Perhaps, as suggested above, adding HGARC as an “external link” might be the most appropriate way to proceed. I appreciate your time. The volunteer who was adding these listings for us was in no way attempting anything malicious. Thank again for taking the time to educate me in this medium. I hope we can find a way to make this work and get the information on our holdings to the people who need it.Sdnoel (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sehend1

Sehend1 (talk · contribs)

I recently blocked Sehend1 for a week for his endless battleground-style edit warring without discussion. You will notice from looking at his contributions that 90% of his edits are reverts, while he has only made a total of three comments to a talk page (ever). I initially warned him but he responded by continuing his reverting campaign and making personal attacks on his talk page in which he said "Some user worried why i monitor Azerbaijani-related articles and revert destructive changes specially two enemies of Azeris: Kurds whom without knowing anything about history of Azerbaijan and Atropatane tries to force people that everywhere is Kurdistan." I explained to him here that he should read up on several of Wikipedia's policies most notably WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Instead, he left a message on my talk page with an IP titlted "KhoiKhoi is a Kurd", in which he said:

I don't say this story to you as i am sure you are brain washed kurd and will not affect you. i am saying this to open mind users.

you can call me whatever you like, editing war, POV etc.

simply i don't care. if you have power to block one IP i will come with another one. I am very very serious to defend Azerbaijan in virtual war started by Kurds and Persians againt Azeris and some Europeans or Americans are interested to slightly help them, but who cares from Azeris, we are very strong people with very high self confidence.

In his message to me, he essentially promised to continue his reverting campaign at all costs. Should we tolerate this type of behavior at Wikipedia? I'm wondering if this warrants and indefinite block, as he clearly isn't here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. What do others think? Khoikhoi 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall some sort of arbitration-committee restriction on articles in this area? That might be a first step. If it continues, I'd absolutely Concur with a block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. However, I don't know whether the remedies apply only to the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles or if they apply to all articles in the general area (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq (Kurdistan), Iran, Georgia, southern Caucasus). —Kurykh 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it initially included a much broader range of topics, but this was later amended. I could be wrong however. See this for example. The user in question (Sehend1) has been mainly edit warring in Iran-related articles, so I don't think it is covered in this case AFAIK. Khoikhoi 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the comment, it looks like I'm going to have to reset Sehend's block as he's currently evading it. Sigh. Khoikhoi 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify him of this ANi. Beam 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp vandalising Commons

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lundeunge.jpg - apparently a vandalised template, though I'm having trouble working out where the vandalism has been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have been fixed now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a persistent and consistent vandalism; I've seen it maybe half-a-dozen times in the month or so I've been patrolling. is it the same vandal? also, would it be possible to write a bot to watch for it and snip it (and the IP that posts it) as soon as it pops in? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that some of these moves are being done by copycats, some are targeting specific targets more than once, Grawp constantly jumps to different topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

well, the Grawp thing usually aims at templates (which would limit its range of targets), and it's a very elaborate bit of code, so it must be pre-fab and might be passed around between different vandals... it would be nice if we had some data on how often and where it pops up, and maybe from where, to see if we can localize the region it comes from. any admins bored enough to want to do the grunt work?  :-D --Ludwigs2 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it's tough to say where all these trolls are coming from. nevertheless, Each of us should Deny them recognition. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming.[91][92] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[93] Request outside opinions. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• [94] and [95] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, [96], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [97].
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [98].
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [99], [100], [101], [102] as well as on his personal blog, see [103] and [104].

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion

Resolved

 – There was no violation of policy, or guideline, here. The only admin action I see is the need to get this copy-vio out of the article space. That is now done. The article can now be found at User:Uiteoi/Sandbox, copy-vio removed. Sentences or paragraphs from their website should not be placed here. Information from reliable sources should be used to build the article, not what the company's own website claims. LaraLove|Talk 13:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This morning, after I created the article about the Open Web Foundation, I was surprised that seven (yes 7) minutes later the article was already nominated for speedy deletion for an alleged, unverified, copyright violation. This despite a clear guideline in the criteria for speedy deletion stating that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, ...". No attempt was made by the administrator to check if the article could be improved as he acted mechanically over a bot indication that their MAY contain a copyright violation.

I then had to engage in a race to avoid the speedy deletion by tagging the article with a "hangon" tag, editing the article and providing proper explanation in the talk page.

Two hours later, another administrator changed the speedy deletion tag for another one, still calling for speedy deletion but for another reason. This time because the article did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". If this second administrator had spent less than a minute checking the relevance of the subject, they would have found lots of reliable sources. Therefore this second nomination was also violating Wikipedia guidelines.

Finally after other edits from myself and another generous contributor who added some references, a third administrator accepted to remove the speedy deletion tag entirely.

My point here is that at no time did the first two administrators consider they were violating their own guidelines of considering whether the article could be improved before nominating it for speedy deletion.

During this process we have exchanged a lot of messages on the discussion page of the article instead of improving the content of the article. A big waste of time for nothing because the cops@wikipedia won't consider they could have been violating their own guidelines and nobody will blame them for that. Uiteoi (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If an organization fails our notability guidelines for inclusion, it will be deleted after a discussion about whether it should be deleted. The fast track to being deleted, which you have experienced, involves summarily deleting an article when it doesn't state why it's important. The simple way to avoid this is to state why the organization is important. Simply existing is insufficient rationale for notability. If you want to contest a deletion, please consider taking your concerns to deletion review. --slakr^\ talk / 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that no administrator is willing to consider whether the article could have been improved per the guidelines for speedy deletion. So either change the guidelines or notify administrators to not be overzealous and check if the article can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiteoi (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a short article about a new org and it was speedy deleted once as blatant advertising (Wikipedia gets a lot of org spam). I wouldn't assume the admin was thoughtless. If there is no meaningful assertion of importance, an experienced editor is likely to think there is nothing to improve. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? There is no pending deletion now that the problems seem to have been fixed. The article wasn't deleted, no harm done, we can't unspill the milk. Deletion taggings can be frustrating... but it's a necessary system to make sure the stuff that needs to be deleted does get deleted. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, to correct your misunderstanding, the first two people you mention were not administrators - administrators have the ability to delete articles, so would not have needed to tag them. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins should not delete things on sight. They should tag them and let someone else look at it before it goes, just like everyone else. The more eyes the better. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins will add speedy tags so that another admin can concur with the suggestion. Admins are not perfect. We don't always delete on sight. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I know, I mostly wanted to point out that if they were admins, this would have been a more obvious violation of policy, but I didn't word it well. The important correction is that the taggers were not admins. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable complaints. The trouble is there's a lot of work to do on improving the encyclopedia, and so people frequently do hurry with stuff like this when they believe it to be uncontroversial. The good news is that a deletion of an article can be undone just as easily as anything else--it only takes two or three clicks. So even when people are wrongfully cavalier, you can always get a deletion review as Slakr stated and discuss the article's merits even when it's gone. Meanwhile, no harm seems to have been done; we just all need to be patient with each other.

The next thing to do, as Slakr said, is to add something to the article about the Foundation's notability. As the article's creator, this burden lies with you, and if you don't do it soon, someone else will probably try to speedy it. I would help, but I don't know anything about the subject matter, and a brief google search doesn't reveal a lot of notability. It's of course possible that I'm missing it, but I'm leaving the house soon and don't want to put too much time in. So please add what you know, or if you like, we can move it into your user-space to work it up to speed before putting it back in the encyclopedia-proper. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• This has been talked to death at the article talkpage. There's really no administrator action necessary here, that I can see. He's assuming terrible faith of the both the initial tagger and the deleting admin. This has also been explained to him at the talkpage. I don't know what else can be done for this user. He seems to be wanting to extract a pound of flesh from the tagger and the deleting admin, but I just don't see any actionable mistakes on their part. S. Dean Jameson 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The harm done is that we are now spending more time defending edits rather that contributing. This is happening more than ever. I am really tired of this. If these users were not administrators I don't understand why administrators can't consider that nonetheless there was indeed a violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion. Feel free to delete the article, or improve it yourself, I will no longer contribute to this bureaucracy. Uiteoi (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So long! Tan ǀ 39 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who brought this to this noticeboard... the deletion tags were already gone and resolved. Sometimes articles get tagged for deletion... it seems as if you wanted to sanction everyone involved. That's just not practical... people tag articles, sometimes the tagging ends up being unwarranted... but really it's just water under the bridge in the long run of Wikipedia. We do not really sanction people based on one incident that didn't do any actual harm. --Rividian (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

This form of behaviour is what I refer to as 'shit and run'; unless used on an article that obviously have no merits, it is extremely rude, especially when done to a new article. People who hang over recent changes like vultures so they can quickly slap speedy or prod tags on any articles that do not spring fully grown from the forehead of Athena are the worst type of editor. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the first speedy tag was perfectly fine. It was for G12, blatant copyright infringement, as CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) correctly detected the article to substantially be a copy of content from [105]. Notability or the lack of an assertion of it has nothing to do with it. It is you, Jtrainor, who are rude in labeling routine attention to copyright issues as "shit and run". The copyvio is still in the article, which should be speedily deleted by the administrator closing this discussion as resolved. The second speedy tag was also correct under A7 for lack of assertion of notability, although the tagging admin might just as well have deleted the article. We are not a blog; people who write articles must expect them to be speedily deleted if the articles are not much more than a few sentences copied from teh interwebz.  Sandstein  07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What an appalling example of bad faith. I am referring to Jtrainor's comments above. Corvus cornix_talk 07:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What needs to happen is that wikipedia administrators, and would be administrators, need to be less hasty at slamming these tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is way too easy to slam these tags while someone is actually working on a new edit or article. As for the so-called copyright violation, it was maybe an improper citation of an extract of the charter of a public non-profit organization. Instead of slamming these tags, there are other ways, which in many case would be more appropriate, such as writing on the discussion page or to the (non-anonymous) user. You, the administrators, need to work on facilitating the work of contributors, while helping them provide content complying with wikipedia guidelines. Uiteoi (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that as the editor (not administrator) who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, I would have appreciated being informed of this action taking place. I originally raised the speedy deletion as the material was a direct copy of text on this site. It also read as advertising, and for a day old organisation I felt that it would be difficult to prove notability (I'm constantly reminded that we don't report news). I considered the merits of the article, as I do with all before tagging them for speedy deletion. I then attempted to engage with the editor concerned, both on my talkpage and the article's talkpage. I am concerned that the original article creator seems to be fixated upon process failings when the process worked as intended, and instead disregards the fact that he introduced copyrighted material. I am also concerned that he has ignored good-faith attempts by myself and ohers to help him create better articles, and instead has focused on this singular purpose. If my action was incorrect, please let me know, however I feel I acted carefully and in good faith. Many thanks, Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 09:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked carefully, and I agree with Gazimoff's statement above. It is true that editors and admins should always act in good faith, but it is clear that Gazimoff followed this during the talk page discussion. There are no grounds for admin action here. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not want retaliation against any specific user and I fully understand that we all make mistakes, and I certainly did make some mistakes. Maybe this was not the right place to voice my complaint but I did not find any other place and was directed here by an administrator. What I would have liked was 1) an acknowledgment by administrators that the guidelines for nomination of speedy deletions had been violated and 2) to study in good faith, how we could make wikipedia a better place for helping and rewarding contributors contribute instead of hastily slamming tags at them. --Uiteoi (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that they weren't violated. None of the list of actions suggested by the policy as being preferable to deletion could be performed here, and since there was no earlier, non-copyright violating article to restore, deletion via the same guidelines you are talking about was an appropriate suggestion. Once you had made some corrections, presumably removing the copyright violation, another editor reviewed the article and found that there were further guidelines to be followed - given that you had corrected the article, it would not be unreasonable to assume that an assertion to notability would have already been made. All you had to do was add the assertion to notability, then ask the tagging editor to remove it, or rely on the administrator who would have read the article and removed the tag after reading the assertion.

So, as far as I can see, no guidelines were violated. For your other suggestion, perhaps going and talking to the folks over at new page patrol would be worthwhile, or amending the policy on speedy deletion by talking to editors on that page to add some kind of rule on allowing time for articles to be built. I hope this helps Fritzpoll (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, following the review of this matter and a brief look at the article in question, is that someone created an article that was in violation of several Wikipedia tenets - and is complaining that instead of acting within the guidelines (which they did, since a bot recognised the same text as being on a site with a copyright logo at the bottom), the reviewers should have "improved" the content? I am frankly amazed at such a condescending attitude. It is the writer/creators responsibility to provide content that falls within the encyclopedia's guidelines, to be familiar with the rules and guidelines, and to only copy material that is subject to public domain status. All these requirements are indeed listed in the editing window (and from memory, is even more apparent when creating an article), so the author has no ground to complain - and to wikilawyer over the wording of the deletion tagging guideline when no regard has been taken of the editing rules surpasses even arrogance. All this for an article for a day (or so) old company. Now, if I was an abusive sysop I would hike over the article and delete it as non-notable, as the basis of notability is not "potential" but effect, but I shall allow other contributors make that value judgement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism

According to a friend of mine from college who works on the Report, Steven Colbert has discovered that any article he mentions on Wikipedia is immediately locked. Consequently, they are going to do a bit on Monday where he reads a list of articles to see how many viewers can get to them before they are locked. Appearently the joke is to say that each thing is not really that thing, but really something else. For example, aardvark is not really an animal, its a hard coating on the outside of a tree. They continue revising the script right up until they tape the show so the list may change by Monday evening, but as of now it is as follows:

• Aardvark
• Bulgaria
• Charlie Chaplan
• Don King
• Elephants (yes we've seen this one before)
• Frank Lloyd Wright
• Gilgamesh
• Hoisin sauce
• Italy
• John McCain
• Kremlin
• Leopold Kronecker
• Marrakesh
• Niigata
• Orcas
• Polo
• Quebec
• Randolph Carter
• Silver
• Tarantella
• Uganda
• Victor Victoria
• Winnipeg
• Xenon
• Yellow Sea -- I can only imagine what this one is
• Zwide

Just thought you guys should have a heads up. -Anon colbert watcher (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Funny guy. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list--we don't protect articles preemptively, but we'll keep an eye on the Report. --jonny-mt 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We have protected articles pre-emptively for Colbert in the past. I fielded a specific request from Jimbo prior to one of his appearances to lock a few. [106] for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya get the feeling Colbert is not taking wikipedia seriously? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil, while I think your preemptive protection back then was right, I also have to agree with Jonny now. While this anon's warning is good to have, any action before "air" (that is to say, taping) could be used against us. It's kind of a live grenade, in fact. Anything we do or do not do proactively, as well as anything vandals might do proactively, could rebound. I think letting it go and keeping our eyes open is not only the safest, but least show-worthy thing we could do. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the wikipedia policy, if any, regarding action to take, if any, when there is knowledge of impending vandalism? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR? I suggest someone watch the show and report back here. John Reaves 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe we should bite back. whatever words Colbert ends up using on his show, let's work them into his article - for instance, if he mentions 'aardvark', I think we should edit in some scandalous information about his pet aardvark Humphrey. that'll teach him to mess with wikipedia...  ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lol I completey agre. The only way to fight and exortation of violence is to vgiorously violate WP:BLP as oftne as we can :D

w/re: Bugs's quesiton, if there is soid proof of impending vadliams, (as opposed to a threat by a user or forum), i think that an admin might watch out for that article. we dont want to wind up locking down a whole article just because omeone MIGHT mention it and oter people MIGHT come and vandalism it; we want to respond to actual evidnece of malfeasance force. Smith Jones (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuck that guy is funny. I suggest we let the articles go haywire for a couple days till they get bored, then we revert back to the good version and carry on. Lets not feed the really funny trolls. And to the fella who suggested Colbert was not taking Wikipedia seriously, I suggest that he only mocks serious subjects. Chillum 04:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are enough administrators who are also Colbert fans that they will react accordingly when they have to. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And subjects that take themselves seriously while having major failings that he can use to show hypocrisy. Like Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the show is taped ahead of time, I doubt there's much to worry about. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to float an idea that popped into mind: why not use this opportunity to give reversion flagging a trial run? All we need is the devs to turn it on temporarily (it's already installed and in use on the German Wikipedia), and then an admin to go flag the current versions as stable, and set stable versions to display for those articles. Then people can vandalize to their hearts' content, and it won't show up to the general public. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a nice idea. Enable it as a trial run for a couple of days, then turn it off again. It would be a nice test in any case, but timing it to coincide with a predictable vandalism burst would be icing on the cake. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days? The Harding thing went on for like 2 weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning on a major mediawiki extension because a new user's friend might work for Colbert and they might do a bit about Wikipedia on Monday is over doing it. A trial run of flagrev may be warranted but not because there might be vandalism in the future, that's already a given. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protecting these at around 11pm on Monday, and leaving the protection for 24 hours would not be unreasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that the vandal-patrol is up to the task regardless of how much he dishes out. If we semi-protect preemptively, Colbert wins. What we should do is keep an eye on the articles, and only semi-protect if it gets bad, just like any other page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Because then he'll say, "Look, we got them to react just on rumors!" Leave the pages alone until or if something actually happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert is not our enemy. He is not encouraged by how successful vandalism is. He's encouraged by whether people laugh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the only page I see in that list that would be a huge problem is John McCain, and that has been semi-ed since March. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't underestimate how far-reaching our article on Hoisin sauce is. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um has no one thought to question whether the anonymous friend of a supposed Colbert employee is really a reliable source here? This could just be a joke to make us protect a bunch of pages out of paranoia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or to see how much time and effort will be put into discussing the matter. Perhaps Wikipedia's shameful inability to get anything done without pages of discussion and disagreement, frequently resulting in no consensus to do anything, has become public knowledge. Either way, I'm saddened that I no longer have Comedy Central. It's been over a year since I've seen an episode of The Colbert Report... and I used to watch every episode. :( That said, I'd just protect the BLPs that aren't already protected. The rest should follow the protection policy. LaraLove|Talk 14:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are on the internet Lara, I am sure there is some way to watch the episodes hehe. Chillum 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They have 'em all online now. :) krimpet✽ 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

O!! My life is now complete. The void in my heart has been filled, and the hunger of my starving soul for humor that only Stephen Colbert can satisfy has been relieved! You never fail me Krimpet. *snuggles* XD LaraLove|Talk 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Docmartincohen

I previously expressed concern over this user - my concern is, at this point, deepened - it appears to me that the sole or primary purpose of this user's editing Wikipedia is to promote his own work, and denigrate that of people he sees as his opponents. Since having his page '101' as a teaching method for Philosophy deleted, which was a promotional article for a book he wrote, he's been making numerous edits promoting his own work: [107], [108].

In addition, there have been serious problems with him seeming to crusade against other people in his field - tagging two articles as COI with little evidence, and maintaining a page that is seemingly slated for deletion as an attack page.

I'm not sure what to do here - as someone who nominated one of his pages for deletion and tried to courtesy blank the attack page, I feel too close to really step in, but I think somebody needs to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been editing here for just about a month (with a single edit from one year ago) and has been indefinitely blocked for some minor mistakes, and without any warning. Confusion is understandable, since he did things such as blanking a number of categories from an article, [109] giving a user warning to the editor who reverted this, [110] and making the redirect Pig Empire. He has, however, explained all of these things, [111] [112] and none of them appear to be vandalism.

The first admin to review his unblock request does so pretty blindly, and doesn't even seem to look at his edit history or his unblock request. [113]. The user puts up another unblock request, around the time I was looking at the unblock request category. I leave a note for the original blocking admin User:Sandstein at User talk:Sandstein#User:Lenerd. In this time User:Ultraexactzz asks for a further explanation and Lenerd provides one.

Sandstein reviews, more discussion goes on, and to me it's pretty clear that this editor is not here to cause disruption and understands the basic gist of our rules. See User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked for full discussion.

However, for some reason Sandstein has not unblocked this editor, whom shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place.

So I'm bringing it here for review. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what others think. Lenerd is not your typical vandal, that much is clear; he has made productive (if generally automated) edits and mostly seems to be here with the intention to do good. However, he's engaged in blatantly disruptive conduct in a number of areas in a relatively short span of time, which is why I have blocked him for the reasons given on his talk page. I've made clear at the outset that I don't mean this to be an infinite block. I have stated that I will unblock him if he convinces me that he understands what he's done wrong and that he won't do it again. That has not happened so far. The gist of his responses on his talk page is that, while he may have been excessively zealous in some areas, in general he feels entitled to do as he pleases. I've also made clear at the outset that I won't object if another admin unblocks him if they feel that he is not or no longer a problem. But in that case, I would expect that admin to continue to watch his conduct and to intervene in the event of continued disruption.  Sandstein  06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support an unblock, but only after Lenerd promises to strictly avoid disruptive editing, and familiarise him/herself with our copyright policy. Also, his TWINKLE access should be disabled for a long time due to[114], which is way too close to outright trolling. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• No objection to an unblock, here. I very specifically declined the second unblock request, because it looked like a double-post of the first one - repeatedly making the same request for unblock is forum-shopping-ish. I noted the decline as procedural, in order to avoid prejudicing a future request. I also asked for more detail on the edits that caused the block, as ntoed, and I'm reasonably satisfied with Lenerd's response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I add, in reference to Sandstein's analysis, that a mentor for Lenerd might not be a bad idea. This sort of thing is indeed disruptive, and Lenerd needs to be aware of what is acceptable and what is not. Having an experienced user to assist with that would be of value, I think. I think it's a good block, but can be lifted under the conditions that Sandstein cites. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women

Guys and gals, we badly need more admin eyes on Comfort women, our current Korean-Japanese hotspot. This is worse than Liancourt Rocks. (Not least because it's a much more serious topic and having continuous edit warring on it really looks bad on Wikipedia.)

I made the mistake of expressing an editorial opinion (gasp!) on this article while trying to deal with a tendentious sockpuppet (thanks Moreschi for blocking User:Lucyintheskywithdada), so I'm currently not in a good position to wield the banhammer as I'd wish. That means the article is without any close admin scrutiny right now.

There's Japanese tendentious editing in trying to include a long undue-weight passage trying to relativise the Japanese crime by sharing the blame with the evil Koreans, and there's Korean tendentious editing in trying to spice up the article with unencyclopedic emotionalising material such as long repetitive lists of atrocities, detailed witness reports with all sorts of colorful details and so on.

Top of the to-be-blocked list right now are Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Northwest1202 (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I have just topic-banned Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Danceneveril (talk · contribs) from all Korean-Japanese articles for two months each, for their activities on Liancourt Rocks, Korea under Japanese rule and elsewhere. We need very forceful admin intervention in this field, as per the latest discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take it on my watchlist for a while, as I've never edited in this area (I think). Are there any on-point ArbCom remedies covering this area, or is it basic blocking policy only?  Sandstein  06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected the article for a week to stop the ongoing editwarring; this should give it some breathing space.  Sandstein  06:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only officially the article probation on Liancourt Rocks (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks). I'm of the opinion that we should just act as if it covered the whole Japanese-Korean mess, Balkan-style. I can't be bothered to ask Arbcom to endorse it though, we should just do it on admin consensus alone. Why not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. We should be able to deal with this here ourselves as well as they can, unless there's dissent about it. DGG (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese-Korea article area is getting more and more problematic. I support the topic bans. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited or read the article in question, but will gladly watchlist it. If I am accused of a pro or activist bias in either direction, as I have been on other articles I never actively contributed to, I will resign from Wikipedia. This is an important topic, and deserves full neutrality across the board, as any Encyclopedia (and this wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, no?) should do. Feel free to decline my offer if you think I cannot be neutral in disputes. Jeffpw (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems Logitech95 has edited the article again, despite Fut. Perf's sanction - I don't think it officially passed when Fut Perf. notified him though (it would've, had a draft sanctions idea like the one below, passed). So I'm going to warn him again - if he continues to edit in the area after that warning, someone needs to block him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It seems Fut Perf. beat me to the warning and blocked him already for 2 weeks. I do think it's excessive, given what I said just now, and that after 2 blocks, 1 week is the usual duration for the next block. Anyway, I'm recording the topic ban as I noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Declined the unblock, but I think a block of one week is more in line of this offense. Feel free to refactor the block or whatever, and monitor his replies on his talk. seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Japanese-Korean disputes, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be notified of these provisions by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing these provisions will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Talk:Japanese-Korean disputes/Sanctions#Log of blocks and bans.

---

Modified from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, removing inappropriate references to the arbitration process. Two things to consider: interaction with the Liancourt Rocks arbitration and I'm not particularly sure whether the bit about the AC and desysopping is appropriate. Hack away. MER-C 10:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (redux)

User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about deleting a credible/reliable references (such as a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel".This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.

I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation on January 14. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to lawyering and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".

I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with User:JimBobUSA directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. Grant | Talk 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've participated in discussions in both Yamashita's Gold and Japanese War Crimes and corraborate Grant's description of JimBob's behavior. JimBobUSA appears to be either unwilling or unable to correct his behavior so administrative corrective action is probably necessary. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No satisfaction on the previous complaints, so here we go again, eh? Grant65 fails to mention that he is the only one who has warned me, for removing his false references. I will post below (again) from the only source used to support his reference(The Seagraves novel), a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books.

• The Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate
• Are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese
• The book is full of errors
• One of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity
• The Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have take the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book

Maybe I am over thinking this, but what part of the above makes a novel scholarly. Moreover, it makes for a grand novel, with bits and pieces of real history, fictional characters and buried treasure. Nevertheless, it falls way short of “proving” the Seagraves conspiracy theories are anything but storylines in a novel.

Here is the last complaint thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D Jim (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To balance out the complaint, I would like to copy/paste this editor posting to Grant65:

"You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign." Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above can be found [here]Jim (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian Peck

Resolved

 – Edit has been permanently removed and the editor warned - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A new page, Brian Peck just appeared. It makes accusations of sex offences with no citations; and with a bit of goggling around I cannot find any. Obviously removing them still leaves them in the edit history which worries me. Don't know what can be done; but I presume there's some sort of scrubbing mechanism for this type of thing? --Blowdart | ^talk 06:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for WP:OVERSIGHT--Crossmr (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Done. Thank you. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fabrice Wilmann

Please vanish my account and any trace of my name 'Fabrice Wilmann.' Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice Wilmann (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please follow the process as explained at WP:RTV. To vanish, you may request an username change to something that is not your real name, then change all links pointing to your old account accordingly, then request deletion of your user page. That's as much as we can do; accounts cannot be deleted outright.  Sandstein  07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

SYSTEM BUG: rollback replaced a page by an irrelevant page instead of reverting

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history .
  • In page Unidentified flying object, at 02:13, 26 July 2008 User:68.6.121.57 replaced a word "they" by "there". This was a good-faith edit, but wrong, so at 04:18, 26 July 2008 I reverted it by rollback. But the rollback mechanism, insteads of reverting, replaced the page by a copy of an edit of page Massoud Rajavi (which is a page which I have never edited).
  • At 08:25, 26 July 2008 User:Rursus noticed the change and reverted it, and complained to me in my talk page.
  • In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history , the automatically-generated edit info line "04:18, 26 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (75,793 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.6.121.57 (talk) to last version by Kingrook)" gives the page length of the UFO matter that should be in that edit, not the page length of the Massoud Rajavi matter that is in that edit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happened earlier today, see here. It replaced the page with Henry Cavill in this case. As above, the byte size was consistent with what the editor intended to do, not with what was actually in the article. Someone needs to do a Bugzilla report I guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me as well, except that, instead of replacing Talk:Pikachu with another page, it blanked the page. I didn't realize it had done so (I could see the edit I made and didn't see a blank page) until User:A Man In Black reverted it. However, in my case I was editing normally, rather than using rollback. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more instance I encountered today of the same bug. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread over at WP:VPT discussing this issue: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug: revisions/pagesizes/pagerendering/wikisource not matching up, resulting in blanking or page replacements. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, rollback is for obvious vandalism not something that was done in good faith. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Filed at bugzilla as bug 14933: "New revisions occasionally created with wrong text on enwiki". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per DeadEyeArrow, rollback in such circumstances was inappropriate. "Undo" would have had the same expected result (and may not have corrupted the page as did Rollback) or by editing the previous version. In this one matter it was useful in finding a possible bug, but was rather naughty. I proclaim that Anthony Appleyard look a bit sheepish for not less than, oooh, a minute for misuse of the tool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem rollback has anything to do with this bug: most of the examples given so far have been ordinary edits. As for the inappropriateness of rollback, I'd say undo without a custom edit summary would've been no better: neither gives any explanation of why the revert was done, leaving the original editor to figure out by themselves why they were reverted. Undo with a custom summary would've been better, though. (Incidentally, if you find yourself doing a lot of such reversions of good-faith but mistaken edits, you may want to consider installing TWINKLE and using its "AGF rollback" feature. It's even available as a gadget these days.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Can someone take a look at Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments [115]? I feel that only an Admin can sort this out. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Tony1 of this discussion and advised him to keep it cool and bring such situations to administrators' attention rather than cause talk page disruption. LaraLove|Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The refactoring at issue: : first removal, restoration, second removal. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) shouldn't have just removed Tony's comments - twice. Gimmetrow 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rasied this issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Tony1 (which is what I most likely should have done). But this latest comment from Tony1 worries me [116] when in no way have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of lacking "good faith" in total disregard to the outrageous behaviour of someone else, who has stripped away my contributions to the discourse twice: that's good faith is it. I repeat my accusation of POV on your part. Tony (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of not assuming good faith nor have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "just remove" his comments. This is an over-simplification of events. User:Tony1 refactored my comments[117] which I reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and advice I was previously given some time agao at WP:WQA. I explained the reason for reversion in the following post.[118] When another editor again refactored my edits with User:Tony1's comments I again reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and the WP:WQA advice, again explaining the reason why.[119]. Why should it be OK for him to refactor my comments, making the converastion unclear and not OK for me to return my comments to the way they should have been left? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like you removed the comments. It's OK to object to interspersed comments. Although they are commonly used, Tony's indenting there is confusing and he might have noted the comment splitting. You think Tony is messing with your comments, and by removing them, Tony thinks you're messing with his comments, a vicious cycle. One way out of this cycle is to move the comments as a group to a location after yours. Another is to ask Tony to move them. Maybe do one of those next time. Gimmetrow 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could have refactored his comments but that seems inappropriate and since he was the one who made the mistake it's really his responsibility to fix it. It's not as if I just deleted his comments forever. I did explain, civily, why his edits were reverted. It would have taken him a lot less time and been far more productive to re-add his comments properly than it has been to complain for the last two days, in which time he has been bullying, threatening, aggressive and not assuming good faith. If you were to make the same mistake I'd probably do exactly as you've suggested because you're being civil but Tony1's attitude has been such that there is no incentive to do the same for him. One only has to look at his response to Bidgee for simmply suggesting he assume good faith to see an example of that attitude. I have no doubt now, having watched his posts over the past few days, that had I done as you suggested he still would have complained so I feel comfortable in the course of action that I took. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, thank you for retrieving those links. I've left a message for AussieLegend notifying him/her of this discussion and also warning to refrain from reverting comments of others.

Tony, can you please provide some diffs of the POV pushing you refer to? LaraLove|Talk 14:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV is the comment directly below my entry in a new section, which s/he is now attempting to recast as "reminding both of you of assuming good faith". I don't see that, given the words, the location and the timing. This page is hardening my attitude towards these people. Tony (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. I'd like to recommend that you remain calm though, so this can be settled in a polite and positive fashion. Synergy 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pavn123

Resolved

 – User warned. LaraLove|Talk 13:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The above user has vandalized Kamma (caste) article by inserting abusive and hateful input. Please take action.Kumarrao (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson

Resolved

 – The removal of contents from one's own talk page is supported by written policy, using rollback to do it has been supported by consensus for some time now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is the place to discuss this matter; if not, my apologies. I have concerns about the behaviour of the user S. Dean Jameson (talk · contribs), with whom I was recently in a dispute over the article Ashanti (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). S. Dean Jameson removed my comments on his talk page regarding the issue using the rollback feature [120] [121], in violation of the instructions at Wikipedia:Rollback feature to only use rollback in response to nonproductive edits. When I voiced my concerns about his behaviour, he again removed my comments from his talk page, writing "if you took this to ANI, you'd get laughed off the board". [122] I don't think this is conduct becoming of a user who has been entrusted with the rollback feature. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. His removal of your comment can be taken as an assumption that he has read it. –xeno (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern regards his misuse of the rollback feature, not the removal of my comments from his talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the restrictions on use of the rollback feature are intended to prevent people from edit-warring with it. However, since S. Dean Jameson is fully within his rights to remove your comments (and in fact you were acting inappropriately when you restored the comments) there is no potential for abuse. I see no problems with using the rollback feature this way. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback feature states: "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism." An editor who removes legitimate comments on their talk page by using rollback is essentially indicating that they feel those comments are as nonproductive as vandalism. I don't feel that this is acceptable.

I should also note that I did not restore the original comments that S. Dean Jameson had removed; I responded to comments he left on my talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. While it may not be exactly polite, I don't think it's an abuse of the rollback feature. –xeno (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, such a ludicrously strict interpretation of the rules is seen as Wikilawyering. We know what the rule says, but it would be a travesty to censure a good faith user on such an absurd technicality. He did not in any way violate the spirit of the rule on what the rollback feature can be used for. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I thought the "spirit" of the rule was to prevent legitimate edits by good faith editors being marked in edit histories and on Special:Recentchanges as nonproductive. Why should user talk pages be exempt from this? 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally vouch for S. Dean and feel any use by him of the rollback feature is in good faith. Beam 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. While I don't suggest editors do either, removing comments from one's own talk page (and using rollback to do it) are both ok. The former is supported by written policy, the latter is supported only by current consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So if he had used the "undo" function and spent an extra second and a half, this thread wouldn't exist? Sigh. Rollback causes so many discussions, issues, investigations... for nothing. Tan ǀ 39 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Tan, which is to say, I think rollback should only be used to revert vandalism (which is what the policy says), but the consensus for use on a rollbacker's own talk page is otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't commenting to you; I was making a general observation that rollback is treated like it's a big deal, when it's really not. Tan ǀ 39 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I knew you weren't commenting back to me and I think we agree again: If rollback was indeed only used to revert vandalism (as the policy says) it would be much less of a big deal, since any admin can take it away from an editor (I should add that I'm not talking about User:S. Dean Jameson, who acted within policy and consensus in good faith). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify that the main reason I believe that this was a misuse of the rollback feature is because, in the context of edit histories and Special:Recentchanges, rollback has the effect of indicating to other editors that one or more "blatantly nonproductive" edits have been undone. I don't understand why the use of rollback on user talk pages should be treated differently when it has the same effect. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism but there is an unwritten consensus about a rollbacker's talk page, which you didn't know about and couldn't read in the policy because it's not there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)