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.

---

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

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: [1]. While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded [2], asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: [3].

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that any user has the right to provide such a warning; however, I have come to consider it improper (not by guidelines, but personally) to be the one to warn someone with whom I'm involved in a comment. The reason is that being in a conflict can defeat the purpose of warning, because the one warned may take it as simply an extension of the conflict. While I can understand GoRight's desire to stop what he sees as Badger Drink's aggressive behavior, there are better options, generally, starting with ignoring it. Deal with the articles, not the users. If "aggressive behavior," for example, leads to improper reverts of your edits, that are not being dealt with by other editors, use WP:DR. That includes discussing issues of substance with other editors, and a warning is not really a discussion, it is more like a threat. (Folks, if I seriously warn you on your Talk page, it means that I have concluded that I've decided you should be blocked, and I'm giving you a warning as a prerequisite. If I warn you somewhere else, such as in article Talk, it means that I'm hoping to be able to resolve the issue in a relatively friendly manner, because I have not set up the block prerequisite. And, in fact, you could be utterly and totally uncivil to me, and I doubt I'd warn you. But someone else might. Be that uncivil to someone else, though, I might act. I consider all editors to be quasi-administrators, we really should conduct ourselves in more or less the same way.)

In spite of this, warning, unless there is so little basis for it that it is mere harassment (which would require substantial repetition of improper warnings), should never be a cause to bring a matter to AN/I. If done civilly, it is not an offense. Even if wrong, it's not an offense. I've been warned, sometimes properly, but more often otherwise, in my opinion, many times. I wouldn't even think of complaining about it. If you are going to get involved with contentious issues on Wikipedia, it's best to cultivate a thick skin. Listen to complaints, by all means, but then take from them what you can, and let the rest go. A user blows off some steam by dropping a warning. If there is some specific behavior that one is being warned not to repeat, it's highly advisable to consider whether the behavior is important enough to stand before the community, holding to it and trying to justify it. Part of the question would be political: "Can I find support for this now? Is it worth being blocked over?" --Abd (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an analysis of the comments and endorsements at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. It's true that more editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment, but Stephan and most of the endorsers, including Raul654, were editors who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight and others. There were 13 endorsements. Of these, 8 had been involved in edit warring or other conflict with GoRight, leaving 5 for which I have identified no prior involvement. In contrast, the comment by JeremyMcCracken was endorsed by 10 editors, of which 3 have shown prior support for GoRight's edits, leaving 7 apparently neutral. That summary is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GoRight#Outside_view_by_JeremyMcCracken. The neutral plurality is with McCracken's comment, at this point. We can expect that if there is a faction of editors cooperating to maintain a set of articles on a hot-button political issue, they would come to comment preferentially in an RfC involving those issues, and we see many of the same editors active here in this AN/I report, which, considered together with the RfC, I consider harassment of GoRight. I became involved with the RfC because I saw wikilawyering -- on his part -- attempting to prevent its certification, and I cut through that and enabled it. And then I read it, and researched it, and was horrified at what I found. GoRight was greeted with entrenched incivility and edit warring by a number of editors, with the worst incivility being by Raul654, who also wrote the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-but-few-diffs RfC, and there have been other admins who have been involved whose behavior was improper. See my comment in the RfC, my extended RfC page as referenced there, and my evidence page. This is not a report on Raul654, but I'm mentioning him because he's been part of the problem, and looking at his suggestions for a solution would be a serious mistake. Incivility breeds incivility, and incivility on the part of administrators is a very serious issue. GoRight made mistakes, but has largely amended his behavior. I haven't seen that from the others.--Abd (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your analysis deeply flawed and your statement not reflecting your analysis at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will point out the following in response:

1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks.
5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.

--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reading GoRight's claims that he's taken the RFC to heart should bear in mind R. Baley's observation that "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard". R Baley had previously had no interaction with GoRight until he blocked GoRight for harassing WMC. GoRight feigned a change of heart and claimed to have self-reformed and convinced R. Baley to unblock him early. However, the fact that we are now here clearly unmasks this deception. And GoRight's absurd claims aside, both his past behavior and the fact that he has never stopped are very much at issue. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that just a few days ago GoRight was restoring a character-assassinating screed ([4]) to the BLP on William Connolley using an astonishly disingenuous two-wrongs-make-a-right policy-wonkery justification, I don't see that he has taken the RfC results 'to heart'. In that instance, he chose to justify his violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT purely on the basis of another editor's error in citing WP:VAND. From the ensuing discussion, he still doesn't seem to get why there was a problem with his actions there (GoRight's final comment) and I see no reason not to expect this type of problem to continue.

For the record, I had never interacted with GoRight before encountering him at William Connolley (which I think I got to from an AN/I discussion), and didn't know that he had been the subject of an RfC until after trying to reason with him on the William Connolley talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I clearly stated on the talk page, once it became obvious that the consensus on that addition would be against me I accepted it, and I have not attempted to restore it ... even throughout the course of our discussion there. In our discussion I was merely defending my initial actions based on what I viewed as a violation of wikpedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your initial actions were indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Re-adding text that talks about a biographical subject's "ruthless subversion of the rules" and includes a section header that says "Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute" is far beyond what's acceptable under WP:BLP, and any experienced editor should be aware of that without requiring a discussion to establish a consensus on the point. You chose to disregard WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT because you thought (correctly) that Kim had erred in citing WP:VAND for the removal of the text (which happened to be sympathetic to your own point of view). You can't claim 'I was sticking up for policy' if you're going to enforce some policies while ignoring others—and thereby harm the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As the record clearly demonstrates the material was properly sourced and attributed in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V and did not constitute WP:VANDAL as you admit above. Therefore it should not have been deleted as such. Regardless I have accepted the consensus of my fellow editors.

And yet again I will remind everyone, this is not the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic of this discussion is my attempt to get User:Badger Drink to remain WP:CIV in his interactions with me and to refrain from making personal attacks against me in violation of WP:NPA. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on the RFC I argued for a 0RR restriction on the Global Warming related pages fo GoRight precisely for this reason. Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but others including WMC himself argued that WP:1RR was sufficient. In any event, my actions are purely voluntary. No official action resulted from the RfC itself. Have I not stopped the edit warring subsequent to the bulk of the discussion on the RfC as I claimed here? Can you point to areas of wide-spread edit warring on my part after I indicated I was intending to adopt the WP:1RR restriction?

But again, this is not even the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic is my attempts to get User:Badger Drink to stop violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA in his comments to me by placing appropriate (per wikipedia dispute resolution process) notices on his talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if we're going to be children about "topics", the topic is your continued baiting and, to bring said baiting in context, your tendentious editing pattern, which I now see seems to be a rather established part of your history. Frankly, though, I see no reason to refrain from letting conversation evolve naturally from the original topic as it seems to already have - but then again, considering the way you treat the current "RfC" (term used very loosely) on TGGWS (see here and, of course, the "vote section" (like I said, "RfC" only in the loosest sense) here), it would seem, in all good faith, that the concept of conversation eludes you at times - willfully or accidentally. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a third, fairly neutral, opinion. Based on the opening statement here, it looks like Badger is being more uncivil. When someone asks you to refrain from jabs, you shouldn't raise a fit. And certainly a brief notification that personal attacks are not appreciated is not harassment; I'm sorry, that just looks like immature drama-whoring, and it reflects very poorly. II | (t - c) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And when someone (who, for the sake of argument, is "raising a fit" in your own words) tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you tickle the dragon's tail (or talk page, in this case)? Please. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. One thing I've noticed is that you don't deny making personal attacks on GoRight, and GoRight hasn't provided diffs on it. So -- would you say you've made jabs, or not? I noticed you describe GoRight as "somewhat tendentious" in your intro. Perhaps accurate, but at this point it would not be remiss to call you tendentious either, especially after your repeated ignoring/misreading of CAT. Is calling him tendentious necessary? Perhaps it is better to show, rather than tell. Rather than "GoRight is tendentious", you can more neutrally state "GoRight edits only global warming articles and only inserts the skeptical POV", or "Although I've explained [argument], GoRight ignores the argument (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)". If you have personal attacks, by the way, then reacting to the request to stop with a "don't edit on my talk page" is probably irritating for GoRight, to say the least. If you haven't made personal attacks, maybe it's a different situation. I just don't understand why you would get so worked up over such a relatively small matter, except as a weapon to use against GoRight. II | (t - c) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs were provided in my entries on his talk page, here and here. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jabs? Sure, I'll cop to that if it makes you happy. Personal attacks? Get real. If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable. While I'm uneasy to utilize South Park as an example, for the lack of anything more accessible immediately springing to mind, it'll have to do: One thing South Park does incredibly well is illustrate exactly what editors like this are doing, through the character of Eric Cartman - witness his "yes ma'am, no ma'am" approach to getting Family Guy taken off the air in Cartoon_Wars_Part_II. Surely there are other, more "high-brow" shows, movies, books and songs that illustrate this basic principle, but let's keep the example moderately accessible. As far as your reading of WP:CAT is concerned, it's completely incorrect. Straight from that page: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. No reliable sources were shown that anyone, anywhere (outside of three or four tendentious POV-pushers on a Wikipedia talk page and the two or three editors they suckered in) took issue with this being a denialist work - for all the bitching on the talk page, the "anti-denialism category" contingent was pretty short on actual hard evidence to support their endless kvetching, and this is exactly why the "civil POV-pusher" sort is the most malignant presence on Wikipedia today. I already stated this several times on the talk page, and while I expect an editor of GoRight's type to pull an IDIDN'THEARTHAT, it's rather dismaying that other editors such as yourself seem to be taking a "hit and run" approach to talk page participation. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable." - Ironically, this is likewise a personal attack, IMHO. I am not being pompous or sanctimonious, I am being WP:CIV. Even more ironically, my first complaint of a personal attack was for having been referred to as a pig, making the claim that I am the one being pompous even more laughable. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Figurative language, hth --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Is there a point to continuing this? This seems to be dissolving into a standard garden variety finger pointing exercise which seems like a major waste of WP:ANI space. As long as Badger Drink agrees to treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will, as I have already indicated multiple times, be more than happy to agree not to post anything on his talk page.

If the administrators here tell me that I should bring any future complaints in this regard directly to WP:ANI rather than following the recommended dispute resolution process, then I will be happy to follow those instructions as well. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering where Mr. GoRight sets the bar for what defines a "personal attack" (apparently saying "I don't mud wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy and the pig just likes it" constitutes a personal attack in his book), I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would you call it if not a personal attack? I assume you directed the comment at me and I am supposedly the pig, is this not correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

chuckle I guess you don't mind me calling you a dirty rat with the habits (and the unseemly girth) of a pig? :p I agree that it's a dumb insult, but it seems insulting nonetheless. You might be right on the category thing; it does look like it places the burden on them. I'll think about changing my vote again. I really just would prefer to end this discussion. It is just a cat. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you don't understand the difference between your hypothetical example and what I posted, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this particular conversation. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban Request

While I obviously preferred to follow the recommended dispute resolution process in this case:

• In consideration of the fact that I have provided examples of Badger Drink being uncivil (see the edit summaries at [5] and [6]), and issuing personal attacks against me, see [7].
• In consideration of the fact that I attempted to follow the recommended dispute resolution process as described in WP:CIV and WP:NPA by first placing polite requests on his user talk page explaining my objections.
• In consideration of the fact that Badger Drink's response was to open this WP:ANI incident report against me.
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued to be uncivil towards me in this WP:ANI incident, see [8] "the concept of conversation eludes you at times"
• In consideration of the fact the he has demonstrated a pattern of being uncivil in general in this WP:ANI incident and elsewhere, see the edit summary for [9] "since everyone's a fucking literalist these days...", and the edit summary for [10] "penis"
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued making personal attacks against me in this WP:ANI incident, see [11] "... GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese ...", and [12] wherein I was characterized as the "type of editor [who] is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind."
• In consideration of the fact that these personal attacks are already escalating in severity.
• In consideration of the fact that he has indicated his refusal to restrain himself in his interactions with me, see [13] "I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement.", and [14] wherein he demonstrates that he does not understand that his commentary is offensive.
• In consideration of the fact that as the target of these uncivil comments and personal attacks I should be the one to decide what is considered offensive, or not.
• In consideration of the fact that WP:NPA specifically states: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."
• And finally, in consideration of the fact that the above documented pattern of behavior clearly lies outside both the letter and the spirit of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and as such fosters a corrosive environment which is detrimental to the goals of the Wikipedia project.

I must respectfully request that the administrative community enforce the policies stated above by instituting an indefinite topic ban on Badger Drink wherein he is required to refrain from making uncivil comments and personal attacks against me anywhere on the project, subject to appropriate administrative actions for violations thereof. Such a topic ban would not affect Badger Drink in any of his activities here on the project in any way, other than to require that he remain WP:CIV and adhere to WP:NPA in his interactions with me personally which, as I stated above, is all that I ask.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• His behavior, while not great, has been *far* better than yours - certainly not warranting of a topic ban. If we are going to be issuing a topic ban, I see a far more worthy candidate. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The obvious difference, of course, is that I am voluntarily offering to restrain my behavior whereas he is explicitly stating that he will not. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, the obvious difference is that he hasn't disrupted the global warming articles nor violated the BLP policy, whereas you have. The worst that can be said about his behavior is that he's been moderately uncivil to you (and only you) in response to your baiting him. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I offer the following in response for the benefit of others who may be following along:
        1. On the issue of purported disruption, I have voluntarily adopted WP:1RR in response to the comments on my RfC and my record since making that pledge will demonstrate a good faith effort to adhere to it (although perhaps an imperfect attempt to do so).
        2. On the issue of purported BLP violations, I still maintain that my attempts to add reliably sourced and properly attributed criticism to the BLP page of WMC are within the bounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V as they stand today and as they stood at the time I made any edits thereto. I understand and accept that a consensus of my fellow editors disagree on this point, and I assert that honorable people should be able to agree to disagree on such matters without prejudice. As long as the consensus is maintained there is no harm done. In addition I am now pledging to not attempt to add criticism to WMCs BLP, the only area of contention in this regard, without first obtaining consensus on the talk page which is a substantive concession on my part given that obtaining any such consensus would amount to a nearly impossible task when considering the number of other editors who support him in this regard.
        3. On the issue of my supposedly having WP:BAITed Badger Drink, the actions on my part that have brought us here, namely my having placed two polite notices on his user page in accordance with applicable wikipedia dispute resolution recommendations, were in each case a response to actions initiated by Badger Drink, namely uncivil comments and personal attacks, not the cause of his actions. If anyone has been WP:BAITed here it is me.
        4. Finally, as with all of your posts in this WP:ANI incident thus far, this is merely a distraction from the point at hand and an attempt on your part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me. In accordance with what Ncmvocalist points out in the opening to his statement on my RfC, [15], any purported misbehavior on my part should not be construed as justification for misbehavior on Badger Drink's part. This is a concept that I had already embraced for myself as exhibited by my removal of counter-charges against you in my RfC, [16], even before Ncmvocalist had made his comment.

      --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, I have to disagree with you. GoRight may do things that are disruptive, but he has shown willingness to be reasonable and civil and listen to consensus. Badger's edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle have been tendentious and uncivil. It is difficult to tell whether his repeated misinterpretation of WP:CAT and asking the same question again and again was accidental or intentional, but he seemed unable to accept a consensus against him. Oren0 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me the diffs where this question of mine was actually answered? Can you please show me the diffs where someone showed where, exactly, my reading of WP:CAT is faulty? Surely this isn't more smoke-and-mirrors from the esteemed "Wikipedia Global Warming Skeptic" community? --Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Diffs really provide both, as they tend to answer your question and explain your misinterpretation of WP:CAT: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. I'll stop there. Five different editors explaining (some directly to you, some in general) that categories need to be sourced in reliable sources and uncontroversial. This category was neither. Despite that, you reinstate the category and then you post this, indicating that you still want a source that it isn't controversial and admitting that there aren't sources that it is (apparently it's so obvious that sources wouldn't even need to comment on it), completely disregarding or misunderstanding WP:CAT and WP:V (though you still repeatedly removed the unsourced category template on the grounds of some mysterious "reference on the talk page": [22] [23]). Are these enough diffs for you? Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really enough, no, as my question remains unanswered. I'll try once more, though I already sense a brick wall banging against my head: Given that WP:CAT says, quite clearly, "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"; and given that the central argument (at the time of my originally raising this issue) was that the category was somehow controversial (in this case, due to being "POV" or something - keeping in mind that truly "objective" categories would be near-useless, as I touched upon somewhere on that god-forsaken talk page in a post about Reefer Madness), can you - or anybody, really - show me a source that establishes that labeling this silly flick as denialism is, in any way, truly controversial? Badger Drink (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal

Hi all, I didn't see the addition GoRight made to William Connolley's article pointed out by Raul earlier (diff). My bad, this is unacceptable and it has been pointed out to GoRight many times. . .going back to June 22 of this year (diff).
We either protect our good faith editors from slanderous accusations by fringe POV-pushing accounts, or we don't. But we need to decide that one way or the other. Allowing this to continue will mean that there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here. The end result is that we provide the platform for personal attacks that can sometimes make it into the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media. We are losing good editors who contribute to a variety of scientific (and general!) topics due to these fringe campaigns and single purpose accounts. I propose a community ban for GoRight, this user is actively working against the editors trying to produce a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my personal edits and the restoration of another editor's work referred to above were properly sourced to reliable news media. Opinions were attributed to the authors in question. As such they met the standards set forth in WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. The criticism of WMC has now been published in not one, but three, reliable news sources: National Post, National Review, and CBS News. Censoring this criticism creates a WP:WEIGHT issue in the article. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't believe that I am going to voluntarily offer up a suggestion here as I still believe that I have not violated the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V (at least as they are currently written). As a sign of good faith and a thanks to all those independent editors who have commented both here and on my RfC in my defense (even though they may agree that the criticism I wish to include in WMC's BLP is "inappropriate") I would propose that in addition to my current voluntary adoption of WP:1RR as normal practice to also agree to voluntarily adhere to WP:0RR specifically for and limited to additions of criticism to WMC's BLP refrain from adding criticism to WMC's BLP without obtaining consensus on the talk page first. (Turns out I was confused about how WP:0RR actually operated, this is what I originally meant.) This would seem to address the specific area of most concern w.r.t. this call for a community ban, correct? Would this satisfactorily address the concerns of the uninvolved editors expressed below? --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too to claim you haven't admitted wrongdoing when you did just that on your RFC - "editors on both sides have made accusations of bad faith, been uncivil, directed statements at editors in the summaries, etc." Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I stand corrected. Allow me to clarify my statement above: I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy with respect to my addition of criticism on WMC's BLP in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't understand why this is a BLP violation, that's all the more reason for a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this is premature to the extreme - a gross overreaction. My view was made on 3 August in the RFC (1 day after that edit was made), and this proposal comes quite some time later. In response, as a first step, the user has said he's voluntarily taken on 1RR to help address edit-warring concerns (i.e. the so-called civil-pov pushing). He's aware of my concerns over BLP editing - if he edits inappropriately, then there are other remedies to deal with that. As I stated in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Disruption_by_GoRight, I'm pretty sure that a topic ban is where to start - and even that would need some more thought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His agenda is clear and unproductive and sends the message that if you are a recognized professional contributing here -you can be defamed, no problem. And if your stature is such that you get an article as well, even easier. Good message that. R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted single purpose account. A topic ban is equivalent to a full ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Opposed to community ban. I haven't really gone through this case in full detail - having mostly read the above as well as looked over the RFC and a few diffs - and I'm not convinced a community ban is warranted at this point. I could get behind some form of restrictive measure - such as a topic ban, or, better still, some kind of 0RR prohibition in certain topics, would be more called for. A community ban would be more suitable following a failure to obey a less harsh editing restriction, imho. Shereth 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He had already been informed that to add that defamatory info it would need to have -at the very least- a consensus behind it. That was not respected. R. Baley (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, and as such some administrative action does need to take place - I am just unconvinced that a community ban is required. User:S. Dean Jameson says it best below, in that community bans are a last resort after other methods of controlling the situation have failed. Shereth 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, though I agree in principle with everything R. Baley says. I just think, in this particular case, that we're getting ahead of ourselves just a little. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly oppose this, as a community ban should be a last resort, when all other methods have been shown to have failed. While R. Baley is not wrong in his assessment of the underlying facts, a topic ban would accomplish all that needs be done here, without restricting GoRight's access to editing of other portions of the project. We need to go a bit easier here, in my view. ^S._D.Jameson 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit on any other portion of the project. He's a self-admitted single purpose account. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By "topic ban", I mean that he would be banned from mentioning WMC in any of his edits, anywhere on the project, not just on the page of the main article. If he wants to try to make certain the skeptical view of global warming is presented in other articles, he would be free to do so. ^S._D.Jameson 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this would be the case even on talk pages and such? That would not be practical, IMHO, on the GW pages. For example, how would I refer to an edit or comment made by WMC? Would, for example, "in reference to WMC's edit" be considered a violation? --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you've made a rather uncomfortable bed for yourself. It will most likely continue to get less comfortable if you continue to edit as you have in the past on GW and WMC-related articles. ^S._D.Jameson 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of depends on one's definition of "topic" here. If "Topic = WMC's BLP" then this assertion would be false. If "Topic = Global Warming Related Pages" then this assertion would be correct. Let us take note of the fact the WMCs BLP is not a Global Warming Topic page, per se. It is merely a BLP for William M. Connolley.

I freely admit that I am a WP:SPA but this in no way should prejudice people against me as there is no requirement for accounts to be broadly based. My purpose here is specifically to work towards WP:NPOV on the Global Warming pages. I admit to being an AGW skeptic and by WP:NPOV I specifically mean making sure that the skeptic's views are equitably represented here in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Please take note of the fact that my being an AGW skeptic makes me unpopular with all of my detractors listed above who just so happen to be AGW proponents (uninvolved editors excepted, of course). --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fully agree that "there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here." In fact, we make it policy. As such, I fully support a community ban on William M. COnnelly. Given that he's managed to star in multiple major MSM publications discrediting the project, it's time for him to go. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading exactly what it was that R. Baley meant by that remark - it took me a couple tries as well. I believe what Mr. Baley is saying (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that by allowing such slander to continue, we make Wikipedia a very inhospitable enviornment for those editors whose knowledge in their field leads to notability - editor such as WMC and Elonka spring to mind. i.e., "we are giving them no reason to add their expertise to this project". --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure of what I've said. POV warriors who bring the project into disrepute by censoring opposition viewpoints in all manner of behavior need to go. Throw WMC out. He doesn't help the project, and he's editign as an expert in his field, which is prohibited. ThuranX (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Support - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Support topic ban - on the fence as to whether or not a community ban would really be valid at this point (no matter how tempting it may seem from a purely selfish and subjective perspective! =)). This thread is a bit convoluted to follow, and the diffs I provided hardly illustrate the whole spectrum of GoRight's behavior - it's too easy to see this as a single slapfight, as GoRight himself said above. The single "incident" which triggered this thread (posting on a talk page after being requested not to) should, itself, most likely be met with a warning, perhaps a warning and a trout. It's only once one factors in the other behavior, and GoRight's particular history, that a topic ban becomes truly, easily justified. As I said above, this particular type of editor is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose that I am not justified in considering you ascribing this characterization, "the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.", to me to be a WP:NPA violation either? --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it that Badger Drink's comment above is isn't assuming good faith nor is it helping to solve the issue. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Get real. WP:AGF isn't a noose. Badger Drink (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. But I do see the need for some action. We need to first officially impose a 0RR rule for RoRight. GoRight has said that he voluntarily sticks to 1RR. On the RFC, I argued that 0RR would be more appropriate. Under 0RR, if GoRight adds material that has been previously removed then that would be a violation and it can be reverted without discussion. If GoRight continues to violate the restriction he is under, then one can discuss banning him. Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a community ban (first choice), support a broad topic ban (second choice), or support a 0RR restriction on all article space (last choice). This is an editor who has failed to take on board any guidance he has received in how to work constructively on this project. The repeated, tired arguments above about his addition to William Connolley clearly illustrate the problem. Even if we take at face value his statement that he has "not violated...WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V" – which is false, as WP:BLP includes WP:NPOV by reference – his edit was both disruptive and a clear violation of WP:NPOV's provisions about article structure and undue weight; it probably was also meant to be a violation of WP:POINT. Our core policies aren't a buffet where you pick just the ones that you want, and GoRight's stubborn insistence that his editing is responsible because it follows some of our core policies holds no water. Whether it's wilful blindness or just an incurable inability to understand, Wikipedia has no place for editors who persistently fail to follow WP:NPOV—particularly where those editors insist on editing BLPs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. This diff [24] would be bad enough posted to a Talk page, but seeing it as an edit to an article, I have never been more tempted to reach for the trout. Reading through GoRight's posts to this thread leads me to believe that 0RR restrictions are simply not going to prevent the disruption GR is causing. Otherwise I agree with TenOfAllTrades' assessment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a 0RR ban is better, because then GoRight would not be able to edit in this section ever after having it done earlier. If he does so, then no matter what his arguments are, it is an immediate violaton of 0RR and he can be banned for some time. Now GoRight does also edit some other articles (mainly on politics subjects), so he won't be able to edit those aticles if he is banned for a 0RR violation.

A topic ban would allow him to continue editing the politics articles while not being confronted with his bad editing habits. Note that on the politics articles this sort of bad behavior is tolerated. From time to time we see editors like GoRight who usually edit politcs article come over to the global warming page and bring their bad editing habits with them. Count Iblis (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The conditions which GoRight has already willingly taken up (1RR on GW articles, 0RR on Connelly's BLP?) seem fine. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, given that GoRight has offered concessions that have a good chance of solving any problem here, I don't think it would be wise to apply sanctions right now. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban or topic ban. I agree with what TenOfAllTrades says above. I also see that an RFC has been tried. The POV pushing and BLP violations are detrimental to the project. --Aude (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reverting isn't the problem so 1RR or even 0RR solves nothing. The problems are tendentious editing and argumentative, unconstructive behavior on talk pages, especially wholesale disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOR (with a good dollop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for seasoning). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban, support topic ban on any pages related to William Connolley (which I'd suggest GoRight does regardless, not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley). This forum shopping to try to ban GoRight is getting old. Nothing short of an ArbCom case is going to generate enough agreement to ban him. The RfC was nearly an even split. GoRight is far from perfect but several regular global warming editors are regularly less civil and more tendentious than he is. Oren0 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, "pages related to William Connolley" is a pretty narrow topic; as far as I know it would only include Connolley's page and RealClimate, though perhaps there are a few others. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought that WMC no longer had a relationship with RealClimate, see [25]. Has this changed? Please note that I explicitly tried to maintain such an association, see [26] and [27], but apparently a consensus of my fellow editors have decided that such a relationship no longer exists since my addition has been subsequently removed and the page no longer mentions him. I accept that consensus and have not tried to re-establish a linkage. So why would you ban me from commenting on RealClimate? --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While WMC no longer contributes to RC, it is still a topic that is related to him historically and I think it'd be best for you to stay away from it. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban (on the wider topic of Global warming), at least for a while. From my experience with GoRight, he not only pushes a POV (which may be solved with good will), he also simply does not understand the topic very well. As a result, he cannot distinguish good from bad edits, and he apparently cannot distinguish good from bad sources. A temporary topic ban would allow him to get some or experience with Wikipedia in less contentious areas, and to demonstrate that he is interested in improving the encyclopedia an general, not just support his personal interpretation in a very limited field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban in terms set out by Oren0 two above me, no opinion on wider measures. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a community ban but Support topic ban. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for a community ban - see next section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Clearly no consensus for a community ban. But possibly growing consensus for a topic ban - consensus (or lack thereof) cannot be called either way because there is an apparent confusion on the area of editing (the topic). I'm neutral on topic ban proposals for now, but I'm making 3 separate topic ban proposals to hopefully get a clearer view from the community. I ask the community vote on each of them (these proposals can run concurrently if the community chooses though - in which case, the community would indicate support for all 3 together, or 1&2 - not 3...etc.)

1) GoRight topic-banned from editing BLP articles.

2) GoRight topic banned from Global warming-related pages.

3) GoRight topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three per above discussion. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

I posted concerning this matter earlier today at WP:Wikiquette alerts (see here), but it’s become clear that that forum is not really a suitable place for addressing this particular problem and so I am re-posting a revised version here. I feel a bit of urgency because while this editor’s edits are not malicious or extraordinarily destructive, he is very prolific and threatens to degrade a lot of articles in a fairly short time.

User:AlexLevyOne created his account just a couple of weeks ago but has already made several hundred edits. They are of highly variable quality. His intentions appear by and large to be good, and many of his edits appear to be well-informed, but he frequently displays very bad judgment, to the detriment of the subject article – e.g., removing uncontroversial and, to all appearances true, factual material simply because it bears a {fact} tag – then, often not bothering to edit the text left behind, creating non sequiturs and awkward transitions. He collapses short paragraphs into unreadable blocks of text and removes uncontroversial material without explanation (or with a cryptic edit summary); and so forth. Despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many (many) irresponsible ones as well. I’ve posted several template warnings to his Talk page today, along with narrative requests and suggestions that he reflect a bit more carefully on his edits, but he has neither acknowledged them nor slowed his pace. He needs to be reined in a bit; focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it short of seeking administrative help, which I am now doing here.

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my contribution ws a bit compulsive and fasting as much as I could wich happens to be destructive more than prolific sometimes. I'll try to stop the non sense exercice trying to correct as much as I find informations inappropriate and focus on a few articles in a more accurate methodology. User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If your writing style in articles reads the same as it does here, you might want to consider taking up a different hobby. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, folks around here spend an awful lot of time and energy dealing with civility and other behavioral issues, process issues, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, BLP problems, conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc., but very little on competency as an issue, and I think perhaps that is a mistake. A well-meaning but incompetent editor can do as much damage to the project as a vandal can, and yet many times this activity flies below the radar, and even when it's spotted, there doesn't really seem to be a process in place to deal with it effectively. Perhaps this stems from the egalitarian "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ethos, but isn't it about time to realize that although everyone can edit it, not everyone should edit it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

hold on their chap. The original post ser of this thread acknowledges that MOST of Alexs edits are good and beenficial to the project, and the issue at hand is a very specific patern of mistakes that can easily be corrected. Smith Jones (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Ed. I wonder if we couldn't set up a 'How to edit constructively' page. One that reinforces that English grammatical rules count, and spelling matters, that added material should be cited, or citable, that we don't deal in rumors and nonsense, that it's not myspace or a public internet forum, that if you don't know, don't touch... all that stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones: I think perhaps that JohninDC might have been being polite, because I've just sampled ALO's edits, and the majority of those I looked at were not "good and beneficial". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

maybeso. I dont disagre eiwth you on the larger issue, althought there are a few processes like WP:MENTOR stil extant to help editors become better with their contributions. I took JohninDC at his word when he said that ALO's edits were mostly good. Personally, my comp is way too bad to open all those links to pore through someone elses edits, so I think Ill take you at your word. There are lots of page sup on how to edit constructively, but they assume good fiath, so if a user is just here to prove a WP:POINT it wont be of much happenstance. one example is the welcome template which has a lot of info that I pesonally made use of when I first got here, and it helped get more on the right track afte ra rocky start with my first few edits. Smith Jones (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I said that "many" of his edits were good, certainly not most; but yeah, I still might have been too charitable. "Not obviously problematic" might've been better. Certainly in the course of reviewing most of them for a day I found some that made me think, well, he seems to know something about *that*. I agree that WP might do a better job of helping neophyte editors edit well - but that still wouldn't fix a case such as this one, in which the new and misguided editor simply ignores all entreaties and continues to edit haphazardly and destructively -- yet at the same time not quite running afoul of the various editing guidelines and prohibitions. Perhaps this one will sort out okay - AlexLevyOne has finally commented - but if he hadn't, it seems that the only recourse would have been an edit restriction of some kind. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I remain concerned about this one. It took bringing the case here to finally get the editor in question to "engage", and I feel that "engage" is overstating the response. Bringing the issue here got no more than a single sentence acknowledgement from the user. The user really needs to understand that when a message is placed on his page, it means that there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and that he must resolve that issue. Mayalld (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And further, while indifference or inattentiveness can be cured by a sincere promise, bad judgment cannot. I suppose the thing to do is to await some new edits and see if they're sound. JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with a better understanding of the biological process like to evaluate this morning's edits to Orgasm? Diff here. They are one of many new edits today and these in particular seem rather haphazard to me. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted some fact tagged stuff, which was potentially OK to do, particularly for the stuff that was long term tagged since last year, but also deleted a whole load of well referenced stuff without explanation. Reverted and {{uw-delete3}} Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that matters have not improved much. In addition to the foregoing, here he removes properly sourced material in favor of what appears to be his (unsourced) personal point of view - diff. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and his edit summaries are becoming less descriptive and more potentially deceptive. Whether that's deliberate or not is hard to say. This editor rather personifies the kind of editing that's so borderline, it's difficult to tell whether it stems from rank incompetence or a brilliant campaign of vandalism. In this case, I lean towards the former, but still, the damage is the same whichever is the cause. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Deceptive"? to my part, I couldnt understand what that edit sumary was talking about. It didnt seem to have anything do to re: the actual edit that was made. Is there a page here that contains an edit smamary tutorial of some sort? I think that a few people dont understand that edit sumaries are supposed to describe the edit . Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in looking over the edits I think "deceptive" was not correct - I don't know why I came away with that perception. Some of them do border on incomprehensibility, though. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I suspect that this is the same person as Elsass3 (talk · contribs), an account whose editing patterns (removal of sourced information, distinctive spelling errors, repeated blanking of his talk page, etc.) were very similar to AlexLevyOne's, who showed an interest in (and in some cases created) a number of the articles that ALO has edited, and who hasn't edited since two days after the ALO account was created. I haven't seen any evidence of disruptive socking, but I thought I'd point this out to carry ALO's history on Wikipedia a bit farther back in time. Deor (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. Fascinating. And I certainly share your suspicion. Indeed I'd up the ante and say that it is extremely likely they are one and the same -- the two accounts simply exhibit too many peculiar idiosyncracies in common. And, of course, both also reflect the same stout unwillingness to entertain any change in behavior. I think the next question is, then, what's to be done? I don't think it's in the interest of the encyclopedia to let it go on, and I also don't think we're going to see any meaningful voluntary correction here either. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as there is no easy way to deal with sub-optimal editing that hovers just below the level of vandalism, there's no easy way to deal with serial sub-optimal editing, which this instance seems to be a case of. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

howevere, they're is a methods to take care of sub-optimal editing that also uses sockpuppetry, and meatpupptry to avoid scrutiny. Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this whole debate is properly amazing ! I didn't expect something that serious and professionnal on my case. It's true i have no real competence in the wiki program set and my english can be a bit weak being french.It makes the whole inention look weird and sometimes look like vandalism. I think when the quotations are missing the text needs to be banned. I fell like rubbing the red key words to black or putting in blue the information i feel appropriate. As a matter a fact Elsaas3 is of course the avatar i used till last time when i lost it for acting to compulsively on the wiki scene.You can block me and i would find it quite normal not being irreplacable but keep inmind I really respect your work and your constant effort. It's an honor to have shared this time on this work since that time it started. Respectfully User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If your command of English is not that good, then perhaps you should refrain from editing English Wikipedia. I, in turn, will refrain from editing French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia etc. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ALO is now occupying himself by larding Marc Gilbert‎ (a cornucopia of fractured English about a person of dubious notability, which he created in his Elsass3 persona) with irrelevant images. I tried removing them but was reverted, and I have no desire to get into an edit war with him. The only thing I can think to do is to put an ownership warning on his talk page and walk away. I've wasted too much time on this guy already, and there's apparently nothing that can be done about his disruptions. Deor (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much a full time job to follow him around, check his edits for facial reasonableness, and then revert when necessary. Probably one in three, one in two, are plainly mistaken and need to be undone. I am sure that User:Deor and I would appeciate action by, or at least helpful advice from, an administrator about how to bring ALO to heel. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess what happens on other Wikipedias isn't really relevant here, but it's worth noting that on the French Wikipedia a user who is clearly the same person as Elsass3/AlexLevyOne was indef blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. (I think the French term, faux-nez, is cute.) Deor (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, "sock puppet" is pretty cute too. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there are at least 3 4 editors (myself, Deor, and JohnInDC and Mayalld) following this guy around, reverting his unexplained deletion of material and his inserttion of dubious unsourced material and so on, and since he's been singularly unresponsive to commentary, and since (I believe) he's already had a final warning, isn't about time to block this person, in both personas? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He's added several spurious images to his Marc Gilbert article and has restored them half a dozen times after reversions by the various editors keeping tabs on him. See the history here. Can someone please block him for a couple of days so we can get a bit of rest? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring; thanks to those responsible. It remains to be seen whether upon his return he will have reformed any. JohnInDC (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, add me to the list of people wasting their time following this guy round fixing the devestation that he causes. The 24 hour block for edit warring is a welcome relief, but I seriously doubt that it will have the slightest effect, and he can look forward to more and longer blocks if he fails to take heed. Mayalld (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's a good chance he will simply reincarnate in some new guise; let's hope someone notices him sooner rather than later. JohnInDC (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and adding the same tangential, decorative images to the same article. Marc Gilbert. In a couple of hours we will probably have another 3RR violation. JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

BOT violating WP:N

{{resolved|The bot is not violating [[WP:N]] nor [[WP:BOT]]. The notability of geographic places is highly disputed, this is not a clear cut case of policy. A block isn't needed at this time, I will leave the operator a note requesting they not run the bot while discussion is ongoingBJ^Talk 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)}}
Kotbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating an enormous pile of stubs by copying stubs from Polish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia based on a census database. It is doing so without any regard to WP:N, and is making absolutely no effort to comply with WP:N. Wikipedia:Bot policy requires all bots to " carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines", which this one blatantly is not. The owner has refused to shut it down. Will someone please block this thing until it is either fixed or there is a consensus that letting it run rampant over the notability guidelines is acceptable? There is a discussion over at the village pump, but it seems full of people willing to debate policy and none willing to put the brakes on until this is decided. The closest recent parallel was Geobot, and that one was specifically required to adhere to notability guidelines before it was permitted to run.
Kww (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How was this thing ever approved? I doubt the BAG would allow a bot such as this to run the way it is now. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been several hours since the bot started any new stubs. The worries here, I think, would be WP:RS along with WP:N. However, since I tend to think all automated article creation is (as yet) deeply flawed by technical limitations and my first thought was to block straight off, I'm afraid this means I've too many eggs in this basket to block the bot myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy enough for the moment if someone could get the guy running the bot to simply agree not to run it anymore until the dust settles and there's a consensus about what to do. Eventually, I'd like to roll back all the changes the bot has made, but I can't force that decision.
Kww (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear this task was approved by BAG in 2007 at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 3. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources need to exist, but there's no requirement that they actually be cited when the article is created. I agree it works much better if they are, though. --Rividian (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One immediate problem I can see is that there is a references section being added which cites the polish wikipedia. That is a clear violation of WP:V and I would recommend stopping the bot until concerns regarding polices and guidelines can be addressed.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't resolved until the operator agrees to cease operating the bot, not when he's asked to. If the notability of these places is controversial, then a bot that assumes notability cannot be said to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines, which means it violates WP:BOT.
Kww (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As many other people at the village pump I continue to feel that officially designated Polish villages are intrinsically notable and that what this bot is accomplishing is good for Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to stand in the way of expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Poland to match the coverage of the United States, where a bot long ago created articles for all census designated places. This a reasonable task, and as far as I am concerned your demands to predocument everything by locating individual secondary sources is unreasonable. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there any way they can be prevailed on to at least have the bot cite the sources they are using? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Rambot stubs had no sources when they started. They were added later on. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I just think it would be nice. Is it difficult to do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I am currently looking for secondary sources the bot can use. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
          • The latest creations did have a (non wikipedia) source when created as stated on the village pump discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
            • It is the earlier creations that are source free. Also, the little note about the info being on the Polish Wikipedia is pointless, since the info is the same, and there is the pl interwiki link. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
              • • Can we have the bot add the sources to the earlier creations? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is very little chance of articles of this type being deleted, the only question is whether the uploads are being done by hand or by a bot. Personally I don't see a reason why anyone should be asked to do it manually when it could be done automatically, as this would seem fairly regressive (we were doing this by bot three years ago), but presumably the project can continue under either method. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that an editor doing this by hand can't do as much damage as quickly as this bot does. Since it is creating articles that shouldn't be created but are very difficult to delete, it's a very bad thing to have them created so quickly ... it's a fait accompli, which is always very hard to undo.
Kww (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouay, les jeux sont faits. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure everyone understands the factual basis of the Kotbot's work:

I am one of the maintainers of Kotbot (the owner is on vacation this week).

1. The villages being created are Sołectwo - an OFFICIAL designation for administrative purposes in Poland. They have a elected head, called the sołtys. They are valid census units. Sołectwo are subdivisions of Gmina which are subdivisions of Powiat that are subdivisions of Voivodeship.
2. Data is being pulled from a number of sources from the Polish & US Government (including GUS and NGA's GEOnet) and verified against additional sources, PPWK S.A.'s POLSKA Atlas Samochodowy, ISBN 83-7329-526-7 and the [http//www.targeo.pl Targeo.pl] online atlas (which WP itself uses). All sources are commonly available. So we have FOUR, which more than satisfies WP:V and WP:N. Governmental database are secondary sources, they have interpreted primary sources (photos, radar data, etc.). Atlases could be considered Tertiary sources since they use Secondary source data as input.
3. Kotbot is not an unattended Bot. It is manually watched as it executes by one of two operators (Kotniski and myself - we happen to be on opposite sides of the planet, so we can have a larger operational window). Kotbot only processes what we tell it to process. We have control files that tell the Bot EXACTLY what to process.
4. Kotbot operations are multi-pass. When Kotbot sees an error in any data it recovers it logs it to a file and does not include the erroneous data (it logs it to a file where one of the operators MANUALLY processes it). Kotbot is being prepped for an additional future passes through the village files to do some format updates and increase historical (notations on prior political structures, etc.) and geographic features (mezoregions, rivers/major lakes, etc.) content. All in the name of increasing accurate data.

Ajh1492 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not a single one of your sources provides a detailed and direct examination of the topic in question, so they do not establish notability for the topic in question. All of them have the goal of being an exhaustive listing, that includes the notable and non-notable alike. Your information is indeed verifiable, but you are making no analysis at all of the notability of your topics. This was a major concern during Geobot's approval, and it was not permitted to run until it inserted a manual step:Individual articles cannot be created without some evidence of notability, so this is where the most evidence gathering will take place by volunteers through searches of the internet, paper sources, etc. Discussion should take place on whether sources are suitable, and also how to integrate the data. This can either be by editing the lists created in Phase 2 so that the bot creates the articles, or a commitment to add the information manually, in which case a simple mark can be made within the lists so that the bot knows that the article can be created in isolation. You have no such step, so you are operating in violation of WP:N. You need to stop operating this bot until you have a step which guarantees notability of the articles that you create. Your bot should not have been approved in the first place, since your stated methodology violates WP:N, and BAG is not permitted to grant an exception to this guideline.
Kww (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES clearly shows that real places are inherently notable, therefore your claim that the bot is violating WP:N by creating articles about real places doesn't fly. Now, if it's creating stubs without any sources, that's a different matter. Corvus cornix_talk 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES is neither policy nor guideline.
Kww (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is current WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. Corvus cornix_talk 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the approval [28] of bot, it was stated "Function Details: Based on a database, compiled from Polish Wikipedia articles and official population data, the bot creates short articles on municipalities and villages which are so far not present in English Wikipedia. Articles contain standard information such as coordinates, population, area, alternative names, higher-level entities, seat, constituent villages, neighbouring municipalities, categories, stub template, and interwiki links." The specified population data and area data are absent from the village articles. Until the bot can comply with its authorization, it should stop creating unreferenced articles which wind up saying basically "there is a dot called so and so on the map at these grid coordinates, and it is in such and such administrative district." Edison (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It also needs to stop self-referencing. This is a clear violation of WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Editors are proclaiming that this is a crisis. I strongly suggest that those Editors step away from their computers and take a break. Nothing on WP is ever a crisis. The Earth will not stop spinning on it's axis, flooding will not occur, dogs & cats will not start living together just because some new content is being added to WP. Some people really need to regain their sense of perspective. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The only crisis is that you pay no attention to people asking you to stop. If you would agree to do that, all sense of urgency would go away.
Kww (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I still see no reason why Ajh1492 should stop. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple, and I don't see why you can't see it: so long as the bot isn't following the words written in WP:N, the bot cannot be said to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines. Even if you are right, and the consensus is that every inhabited place in the world is notable, the bot is in violation of WP:BOT by not carefully adhering to guidelines and policies. Stopping the bot, trying to get consensus to modify WP:N to allow it, and then restarting the bot is an option, but just letting it run really isn't one.
Kww (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

also read what edison wrote above, the bot does not appear to be following its mandate. As long as it is not following its mandate it should not be running.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be in the minority but I have to agree with Kww here more or less. If it's true that there is consensus that all villages are inherently noteable I'm not seeing it. There are various places where this has been suggested, but none of them appear to be policy and I'm not seeing strong evidence such a consensus exists indeed there are several cases where the outcome seemed to disagree that villages are inherently noteable. From my personal view, there are many villages in Malaysia where I lived for a big chunk of my life so far, which I wouldn't consider noteable for a wikipedia article. However if consensus is in the opposite direction, I'm willing to accept that but I'd like to see much better evidence then I've seen so far. I agree with Kww, the bot should be stopped for now (I don't think the existing articles should be deleted yet) and discussion iniatiated to reach consensus on whether villages are inherently noteable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot owner believes that no rules apply to his bot, and standard policies don't apply to him. Will someone please block this bot? How big a violation of WP:BOT does it take to get someone to block a bot?
Kww (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the bot owner believes that no rules apply to his bot, and standard policies don't apply to him." Calm down, assume good faith, and argue policy, not people. --Raijinili (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. When asked how he can use Polish Wikipedia as a source when that violates WP:RS, his answer was Fortunately our rules are quite flexible, and building the encyclopedia takes precedence over their letter.. Combined with his refusal to comply with WP:N, I would say it is fairly clear the bot's operator does not believe that Wikipedia rules apply to his bot.
Kww (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Following all the arguments here and on the pump, I must say that Kww's characterisation seems correct. This bot was meant to help editors by creating short stubs on geographic locations with at least primary sources. Sure, its not exactly WP:N at that stage, but because the additions would be checked manually by the bot operators, there would (one would assume) be ample time to peruse the bot-suggested articles and find at least one secondary source mentioning the place before committing it to the 'pedia. The fact that it has gone one step further in the wrong direction (adding articles with incorrect or without any sources in some cases) is of even bigger concern. It's surprising to me to see that only Kww is arguing from the point of view of policy/guideline, while everyone else seems to be turning a blind eye to this. The bot should be stopped while discussion is ongoing. Then if/when some consensus emerges the bot can be allowed to operate again, presumably with some restrictions as to the articles it creates. Zunaid©® 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the bot should be stopped pending discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be off Wikipedia much of today (going to a neighboring island, where they actually have things like movie theaters and traffic lights, instead of spending my day in the non-notable hamlet I live in). Sure would be nice if I found that some admin had blocked this bot while I was away.
Kww (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution?

Given the similarity of the work, use the consensus of the GEOBOT discussion as the existing consensus for article places, and send these uys over to WP:GEOBOT to lend a hand uploading data in the formats we've been discussing over there? Just a thought to stop us having a lovely, lengthy discussion again! Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me ... I've been pointing at GEOBOT's step of doing a manual notability analysis throughout this discussion. Whether it's a parallel bot or whether it just feeds data to the GEOBOT project doesn't matter much to me, so long as a search for reliable secondary sources with a detailed examination of the city/village/hamlet is done before article creation.
Kww (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook

About 15 minutes ago I replaced a DYK hook because it was a bit of a BLP nightmare. The hook was as follows;

• ... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?

I actually presumed Joe Dudley must have died long ago for this hook to get through, but he's still alive. I'm not sure it's a good idea we stress that notable people were labelled mentally retarded as youngsters on the main page. I replaced the hook with;

• ... that entrepreneur Joe Dudley′s multi-million dollar hair and skin care business began with a mere US$10 investment in a sales kit in 1957?

Agne27 has disagreed with this, so I'd appreciate a review after recent problems we've had with admins changing current hooks on DYK. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to endorse Ryan's move, the fact he didn't even have a disability, makes the original hook seem rather poor indeed. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement. RxS (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Agnes27 has got a point. Why not just add "incorrectly" before the word "assessed" in the original hook? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I noted on Talk:Main Page, while I'm sure the intentions are sincere and good, they are none the less misplaced and shortsighted in the message they are conveying. My niece is currently dealing with very similar circumstances and while my sister and I are not completely convinced that she does have a mental disability, she is still being treated that way by the school system. I can tell you that this is a very emotional and draining issue when it affects your family. When I saw the Joe Dudley hook, it hit home and after reading the article I emailed my sister about it because it was such a wonderful and moving real life example that my niece can also overcome her obstacles. It's a testament to the human spirit. But the actions being taken to censor this "blight" send a very wrong-headed message that people like Joe Dudley and my niece should be ashamed and should be hidden away. I can't emphasize enough how hurtful that message is. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The time to discuss DYK hooks is before they are placed on the front page, not afterward. Now, from the gangrape that occurred two weeks ago, we've learned that WP is censored. Still, I must side with Agne due to it being inspirational, and because the time to choose its appropriateness was on the Template Talk page.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"gangrape"? "King Bedford I"? I'm not sure that you're going to find your words hold much credence when modulated on that frequency... ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern was brought up before it made the main page, and was quite ably answered by the nominator. [29] -- Vary | Talk 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If editors want to become involved in DYK, they should be there commenting before the hooks are put up and following typical DYK procedure. Not waiting until afterwards to make adjustments. DYKs are not put up to begin with if there is no agreement that they are suitable among the DYK regulars. It is improper to remove to or change them afterwards without consulting the DYK regulars. User:Charles Edward 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They can be discussed anytime really. To Agne27, Wikipedia isn't here for social transformation and because it is such a emotional issue, care should be taken in it's use. I don't see it as central to the article....Ryan's is a good replacement. RxS (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So why are we taking actions to send the "social" message that being diagnosed as mentally retarded is shameful and a BLP issue? Why are we being ashamed of this aspect in Joe Dudley's biography when even Dudley is not? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Agne, you're looking at it the wrong way. Being mentally retarded is not shameful, but being incorrectly diagnosed (with any condition) is a travesty that we should not help perpetuate. — CharlotteWebb 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte - we shouldn't impose our ethical standards on him. If he talks about it, and talks about it, and talks about it, he seems to feel its okay to talk about. Why can't we just respect his values? WilyD 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's awkward to speak of doctors and ethics in the same breath ("do no harm"—I made a funny!), but the only "standard" I would impose is that if incorrect diagnoses are to be mentioned at all, they should at least be explicitly noted as "incorrect". This should apply universally, whether the subject is alive or dead, a human being or somebody's pet poodle. — CharlotteWebb 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agne, I don't see this as imposing our ethical standards. It's more a case of being factually wrong. The fact presented was that Dudley was correctly diagnosed as mentally retarded. That's incorrect. Dudley talks about being misdiagnosed. There's no shame in being mentaly retarded, always assuming one actually is. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The Wikipedia article cites a light-as-a-feather (even fulsome) feature story in Nation's Business magazine. Here's what that story said:

One of 11 children, Joe Dudley was mistakenly labeled mentally retarded in the first grade because of a speech impediment. Growing up in North Carolina, he says, he struggled through school and had been held back twice by the time he reached the 11th grade. But with the support of his mother, who told him that 'When slow people get it, they've got it," Dudley made it through high school and, later, college. In the process he discovered the value of self-motivated learning.

The magazine story doesn't directly say where the author got the information from, but it seems clear that the author didn't go beyond Joe Dudley and his wife, Eunice (the only sources cited in the article). When people become big successes, they like telling others what obstacles they overcame, and it looks like the writer was working that angle to create a more interesting puff piece. I think Ryan Postlethwaite's good-faith move to protect Joe Dudley was a bit overprotective, but I can't find any fault with RP for making the change -- DYK features only last for hours and we always have the opportunity to add it back later. It seems to me that the deleted one should be added back, especially if any other articles on Dudley have that anecdote (it would indicate he likes telling it). Well, lo and behold -- look at what a simple Google search brings up. Ryan, would you please do this really quick research before you remove a DYK item? My research took minutes. Previously, I've criticized you for not asking enough questions before templating my talk page with an unnecessary BLP warning. Noroton (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's the clincher. -- Noroton (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of stuff wouldn't keep popping up if we had more people checking the DYK hooks beforehand. Right now it's just Daniel Case and maybe 2 others. I can understand the change on this one, though as a DYK person I'm never a fan of changes after the fact. Wizardman 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the facts presented it is hard to describe this as a "BLP nightmare"; I think before removing it would have been worthwhile to respond to the points that were raised when this was discussed before the hook went up. Though it's easy to see why this is a sensitive issue, that just means it is all the more important not to act rashly. Still given the prominence of the page the action was understandable. I would not be opposed to changing it back. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the action was understandable too. It's better to err on the side of caution with something like this. If a concern like this comes up it's okay to remove or change the hook and discuss. Sometimes the concerns will be reasonable, and in this case we will have removed a bad hook from the main page. Sometimes the concerns will end up unfounded. In this case, we can simply restore the hook after a brief period of discussion and again no harm will be done. What would be harmful would be to leave a bad hook up on the Main Page. Very much okay for RP to have erred on the side of caution. In general, if someone raises a concern about a hook, I don't see why we can't remove it, discuss it, and if everything is okay, simply add it to the next update. There really shouldn't be any stigma whatsoever attached to that sort of action. --JayHenry (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point but I wonder if the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach still encourages more drama than necessary. Hooks do go through a community process and vetting at Template talk:Did you know and are ultimately "approved" by an admin adding it to the template. A lot of major BLP and policy issues are caught on the suggestion page. While I certainly would encourage more admins and editors to take an active interest in the DYK process with vetting hooks, I can't help put wonder if the rash actions of another admin swooping in and changing the template without discussing it with the original admin is actually wheel-warlike? I think it would be more beneficial to encourage discussion with the promoting admin or at least open up a thread with concerns on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, WP:ERRORS or here to get more consensus. It seems like the root of any "DYK-related" drama the past few weeks have been due to rash and arbitrary actions (heat) versus communication (light). Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. There is a certain level of consensus among DYK regulars before an article is ever put on the front page. A single editor, or a group of editors, removing a hook without first consulting that community seems to be bad faith. Charles Edward 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, right or wrong it's not bad faith. RxS (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agne, I respectfully disagree and here's why: it's not shoot first and ask questions later. The whole point of that expression is that you can't undo shooting someone. With DYK, it's easy to add the hook to a Next Update. We all know DYK is understaffed and sometimes we miss stuff. Thus, if an admin has a good faith concern about a hook, especially for something like BLP, I think they should not be discouraged from removing the hook and initiating a discussion at WT:DYK (though initiating the discussion ought to be standard and done immediately). This should be no big deal at all. Editors will discuss the hook, and if there are no concerns, we can add it back to a future update. If we agree there are some concerns, we can use a different hook. In one case a main page appearance is slightly postponed to allow for discussion, in the other case we stopped a bad hook. If we, the DYK regulars, simply agree not to get up in arms when this happens, there needn't be any drama at all. Just as in this situation: one editor explained the concern, other editors politely explained the circumstances, and we'll be able to re-add the hook, and no harm will have occurred. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually removed the hook because I felt there was quite a serious problem with it. I did look at some quotes from dudley before removing it, but I still thought it was bad to push this. I felt that the hook I replaced it with was just as interesting, and less problematic than the original, but still allowing a Dudley hook to stay on the main page. If there are concerns about a hook after they have been put onto T:DYK, but there is an interesting hook from the same article available, I don't think it's a big deal to replace it. At the end of the day, it still advertises the article to a wider audience (a major goal of DYK) and it's still most likely that improvements will be made to the page. If I'd have replaced the hook with a hook from a different article, I could understand the concern - I just don't see it in this case when the same article stayed up there. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JayHenry. There's really no harm in removing a hook, discussing it, and putting it up again a few hours 'late' for the next batch. Wheel-warring is a subclass of edit-warring, whereas removing a concerning hook to discuss it is part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is definitely not edit-warring. What do we lose by playing it safe?

I also want to take issue with Wizardman's statement above that "right now it's just Daniel Case and maybe 2 others [checking DYK hooks]". A quick check down the current batch of suggestions shows more than twenty people commenting on hooks: if something like this gets as far as the main page you can guarantee that a lot of people have seen it and had chance to comment. That's why this kind of thing happens so rarely compared to the 25-30 hooks a day that we process. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess things have improved in the past couple weeks then, since i have seen it in that state before. Wizardman 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Was the DYK of the article removed or was the language that teased the new article merely replaced? Did the article stay on the main page, or was it removed? I think this would be the key importance to focus on. If the person who made the DYK gets credit, and the page is displayed, was there lasting harm? And yes, I merely want to know the answer, and I don't intend to participate after. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The same article was kept on DYK, the wording was just changed so it stayed on the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, so, for future clarification - the only times the DYK message appears are on the main page and then in the archive, with the talk page and user talk page templates merely saying the exact date it was on the main page and not listing the hook? So, is the concern is limited to the fact that the DYK on the main page was different and that an alternate was put in its place? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, basically yes. But some users felt there was no need to replace the orignal wording. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Ryan, you seem to be saying that it's still your position that there is something wrong with the original hook. Why? After this has been pointed out, why would anybody have a problem with restoring the original hook later? I think Agnes has a good point that it's helpful to families in that situation. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I still don't believe that a living person being labelled mentally retarded is a good hook for the main page, and the newer hook does the same job, without any possible problems. Any other admin is free to readd it, I'm not at all comfortable with it myself, but I'm certainly not going to revert any readditon. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks. It sounds like this is resolved. Noroton (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that DYK, especially the nominations page, needs a lot more oversight than it has right now. This is the second incident in as many weeks where... rather inappropriate and possibly negative hooks have slipped through the net and appeared on DYK. We really need to stop this at the root of the problem, instead of complaining the apples are sour again and again. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you've read the conversation spectre and are jumping in rather quickly. The hook was fine. The problem isn't DYK, it's those unfamiliar with it who want to jump in and change things, disregarding any attempt to get consensus. Charles Edward 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the hook wasn't fine. Calling someone "retarded", even when technically correct (in Dudley's case), is not really wise. See WP:WTA, a subguideline of NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of WTA do you think is relevant here? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied point of view". The word "retarded" is normally used derisively to mock people. I know in the 1940s, some terms were used medically that are unspeakable even in normal conversation today, and were subsequently replaced with lighter terms (and as RxS has said, "retarded" is one of them). There are alternative terms that are medically accurate and reduce the stigma of the term. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, The World Health Organization, Joe Dudley and a large number of the 2.1 million ghits for definition + "mentally retarded" disagree with you. Any term commonly used for people with low IQ levels is going to be used as a term of abuse in school playgrounds and some other places. I think "mentally retarded" is actually a replacement for other words that were commonly (or at least neutrally) used and are now considered derogatory, such as "moron". One day that may happen to "mentally retarded". Hasn't yet. Noroton (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

From AAIDD: Intellectual disability is the currently preferred term for the disability historically referred to as mental retardation. [30], also see the Alternative terms section in Mental retardation for more information about usage. Search results are pretty irrelevant for this purpose. RxS (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Search results are pretty relevant for this purpose because that's one gauge of acceptance in broader society. The "Alternative terms" section in that article says that among some young people the term can be pejorative. In the U.S., at least, it isn't pejorative in society at large. Just because people involved with mentally retarded people are pushing a new term doesn't mean that the current, still-most-used term is suddenly offensive. The euphemism treadmill doesn't work that fast, and AAIDD didn't change its name until 2006. "Mental Retardation" is still the name of our article and for some reason AAIDD hasn't burned all of its copies of its 2002 edition of ""Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports". The next edition isn't due out till 2010 or 2011 [31]. So if they aren't getting upset that the phrase is still around, maybe we can tolerate it, too. And by the way, prepare for "intellectual disability" to become a schoolyard taunt. I remember when I was in school we used to enjoy using the most compassionate-sounding or euphemistic phrases possible for emotional and intellectual disabilities -- as insults. Even glancing references like "short school bus" -- oh look, the insult is encyclopedic. It may be that words like "cretin" and "moron" only became pejorative after they were dropped by professionals. We'll see, but "mentally retarded" is still not considered pejorative by society at large (at least in the U.S.). Noroton (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If all that happened was the hook was tweaked, I don't really see a problem with the change. I would've liked to see it discussed, but in all reality is it as worthy of our time as it appears to be right now? I don't know the answer to that. Wizardman 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's general agreement that it was fine, at the very least use a term more in line with current thinking, even professionals in the field are moving away from that usage. RxS (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with both incidents was that there were nothing wrongs about the hooks, but instead some admins have different sensibilities and believe theirs should be above all others, regardless of consensus, and woe to anyone who dares disagree with them.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, Bedford, stop it with the holier-than-thou attitude. I don't know of any saints who called their opponents very disparaging terms. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's statement is legitimate. What gives you any other editor the right override the consenus of the DYK community without first addressing them and attempting to change the standing consensus? No one has yet to address this issue, which was left hanging from the last incident - thank you ArbCom. Charles Edward 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Things that go onto the main page need to be very, very, adherent to our policies and guidelines and even common sense. If something on the main page is potentially embarrasing to us, like this hook, we change it, regardless of the agreement of two or three people. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you and the other that are having problems not joining DYK to ensure this? Instead of allowing it slip by? You are perfectly welcome there. And as noted above, there are more like 20 DYK regulars, not two or three. Charles Edward 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Only two or three people, at the most, will look at a hook before adding it. Most people simply copy hooks that have a nice green tick to the next update page, and admins will copy the next update page without thinking either. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As Jimbo has pointed out on the Village Pump discussion about BLP (and verified by community consensus at a very high number) our concerns with BLP are legal and ethical, so the "consensus" of a few editors (which did not exist, as DYK are normally chosen by Admin and aren't based on the community agreeing on the DYK) can not override BLP ethical concerns. And Charles, I am a regular DYK editor, so I don't think you can criticize me in the way that you have Spectre. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Struck per user understanding where I am coming from or where others like myself may be coming from and this is no longer necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the last time this happened, BPL was not the issue. I would just be happier if the editors who want to be involved and have final say over DYK material, would actually join DYK as a regular reviewer or contributor. That all i have to say. I'm off for now. Later Charles Edward 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So are we now saying that those people who frequent the DYK board have ownwership rights over what goes on the front page in the DYK section, and no other editor has the right to object to the wording? Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all. But is it fair that an individual administrator should be able to trump the consensus of a group of editors? Charles Edward 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense trumps a consensus any day. If you tried hard enough, you could get a grassroots campaign to get Abraham Lincoln deleted, but even if the AFD has 900 deletes and one keep, it'd be speedy kept per "are you having a laugh?". Especially in cases like this, where it's only two or three people who agree to something (which a consensus does not make). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing a hook or rewording it after it gets to the main page does go against the consensus of the group of editors that work the DYK pages. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong. If there is a compelling reason to do so, a single editor should be able to make the edit, and make the case. If the change sticks, then the group of editors overlooked something. That's not a slur against them, the DYK gang works hard and has a lot of articles to look over. No one is perfect and some things slip through. I think Ryan did the right thing. And yet I also think that discussing it afterwards, as has happened, to see if his edit was goodness was right too. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am the user who promoted the hook more or less as it was originally proposed. Had I not gone offline shortly afterwards, I would have strongly objected to Ryan's replacement of the hook, which I think was totally wrongheaded. There are kids everywhere who are suffering torment because of speech defects and similar types of problems, the original hook could only have served as an inspiration to any such child or any young person who feels that he is different or not accepted for his differences. Score one for political correctness, and zero for compassion and common sense. I also think that, given it is Dudley himself who has widely touted this story, it is totally ridiculous to cite BLP as an argument against running this hook. So I think there is something very skewed about some people's notions in this thread. I would have commented earlier but I only just noticed from looking at the archive that the hook was changed after I posted it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're not understanding what Wikipedia is not. It's not a tool for inspiring retarded people. It's not a tool for furthering Dudley's mission. It IS an encyclopedia, and it IS required, per internal policies and external legal considerations, to give a great deal of deference in BLP issues against things that could be negatively construed as defamation, especially when dealing with accusations of mental illness which can be defamatory per se. This was the right move to pull the hook, and the people who are hellbent on including that he was misdiagnosed as retarded ought to question their reasoning WHY they are so hellbent on inclusion -- all of the reasons for inclusion in the hook are based on things that Wikipedia is NOT.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean FFS, the segment about his accusation of mental illness takes up ONE SENTENCE in the article. Why on earth do people think that this MUST be in the hook? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"one sentence" -- so what. I bet that's not uncommon, and an interesting fact is an interesting fact, no matter how small (didn't a Dr. Seuss character say that?). "accusations of mental illness" -- a diagnosis or misdiagnosis is not an accusation (I think you meant "allegation", and it isn't that, either). "hellbent on inclusion"? The BLP reason for removing (the only reason possibly justifiable) turns out not to be a concern that the subject himself has. Restoring the hook is justified primarily for the original intent: It's an interesting fact. It seems to me it would be a good for Wikipedia not to treat mental retardation with so much sensitivity that we can't mention a childhood misdiagnosis from half a century ago. Since we know the problem isn't that Dudley will feel hurt (quite the opposite), what's the point of keeping it off the main page? It seems like an over-elaborate concern about mental retardation, which gives the impression that condition is so awful that to mention it would shock the senses of our readers. No editor should get that impression. Nothing about the hook is offensive, and the idea that mental retardation may itself be offensive is the implicit message. And that kind of thing is harmful to people with mental retardation and even harmful to their close family members. I guess I need to state this: Mental retardation is a condition, worse than some conditions, not as bad as some others; people who have family members, friends, classmates, coworkers who are mentally retarded aren't faced with someone with a curse for everyone to be depressed about but with a condition which everyone can deal with. Restoring the hook sends a message to anyone reading this (or aware of what happened here) that it's perfectly OK to mention it, talk about it, deal with it -- because the alternative is to ignore it (which was one of the objections to removing "mental retardation" from the name of the department in the state of Connecticut -- the fear was that if you remove mention of it, you tend to ignore it). One of the things Wikipedia is not is a tool for averting our eyes from mentally retarded people. Therefore, once the BLP concern is resolved, we put things back where we found them because there really are no other concerns, and we should make that clear. We don't do that to inspire anybody but to avoid the opposite. Noroton (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. WP:NOTCENSORED. Charles Edward 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a soapbox either. This is not the place to fight a battle over rights for retarded people. Fact is, it is completely irrelevant whether the guy is proud of his history or not. You have no idea if he'll change his mind tomorrow. It is a BLP article, and there is a serious legal concern over this, and it's just not an important fact to include on the front page when compared to everything else in this guys life. You all really need to get over this "Fighting the battle for awareness that retarded people are just like everyone else" thing (I mean, Noroton, look at your post, that's your entire justification for inclusion). This is Wikipedia, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. That's a major principle of our project. Sounds like you ought to start a Wikia on retardation if it's such a big deal, but it is inappropriate here per our own policies. Fighting that for the purposes of your own advocacy is just disruptive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Swat, your comments are directed more at criticizing other editors than criticizing the points made. You might want to think about your approach. This is not the place to fight a battle over the rights for retarded people. Whatever decision is made: whether to put the hook up or take it down, you send a message about what's appropriate. My comments were consistent with Wikipedia's best interests, which don't conflict with putting the DYK hook back up but may conflict with keeping it off the main page. This is Wikipedia, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. You assume that people who disagree with you are the only ones with a POV on this question. Look to your own. it is completely irrelevant whether the guy is proud of his history or not. You have no idea if he'll change his mind tomorrow. He puts it on his company's website, mentions it -- repeatedly -- to reporters writing about him and his company, seems to pass it on to people publicizing his upcoming speeches, and we just have no idea whether he'll change his mind tomorrow? Your scenario sounds just a tad unlikely. This is Wikipedia, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. That's a major principle of our project. What part of "Restoring the hook is justified primarily for the original intent: It's an interesting fact", do you find difficult to understand? In fact, what is it about WP:AGF that makes it so difficult for you to understand? Sounds like you ought to start a Wikia on retardation if it's such a big deal, but it is inappropriate here per our own policies. Fighting that for the purposes of your own advocacy is just disruptive. I think personal attacks are more disruptive. Noroton (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar has summed it up well here. It's wise for editors to get more involved in DYK, just as with other parts of wikipedia. An editor's lack of involvement means that the editor generally has little right to complain about the fact a decision was reached. But the lack of involvement does not mean an editor has no right to try and change a decision that was reached. Normally this would involve an editor iniating a discussion and seeking wider input. For items on the main page, these often only appear for a short time, especially for DYK. If there is a substanial/significant concern this has to be fixed fast. If this concern is expressed by several editors then it is is even more imperative. Particularly the case when there is no real harm done by erring on the side of caution, then it is indeed wise to err on the side of caution. This generally shouldn't be taken as a negative on the people who made the earlier decision but simply reflective of the fact that wikipedia is a work in progress. As for how to handle such problems, it's probably generally best to just remove the hook completely. That way the matter can be discussed without any party feeling aggrieved (and the hook either added in the future or re-worded or simply never added as a result of the discussion). However while I understand why some editors feel annoyed when their proposed wording of a hook is not used, even if the hook is simply re-worded (which means the earlier proposed wording is not likely to ever make it back to the main page) editors need to remember that they don't WP:own anything on wikipedia. Editors should still feel free to participate in a discussion of the hook wording even if the issue seems 'dead'. BTW, as others have pointed out, wikipedia is not about inspiring people or about showing people it's okay to discuss something so that point is moot and is implicitly NOT a demonstration of harm by the re-wording of the hook. (This doesn't mean we should ignore mental retardation or refuse to discuss it in articles.) [In any case, I don't really see this story as an inspiration to people who are mentally retarded. There is no real evidence Joe Dudley was ever mentally retarded, it may have simply be a mistaken diagnosis as quite a number of people have raised here. If anyone believes they or someone they know have been mistakenly diagnosed, I suggest they seek an second opinion rather then trying to get inspired by stories of other people mistakenly diagnosed. If the diagnosis is not a mistake then it is wise the person accepts the diagnosis but realises it doesn't have to rule there life, there are surely a lot of better inspirational stories coming from people who are really mentally retarded.] Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is very reasonable. I believe DYK could benefit from some sort a "formal" method for removing hooks after they have been promoted, by designating a fairly general definition of what is appropriate, and in what situations hooks can be removed prior to discussion, and in what situations hooks should be left until after discussion, and the forum in which the discussion should take place. Charles Edward 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope not to come across as dismissive here, but isn't this whole sordid affair something of a tempest in a teacup? It's more of a content dispute than anything else - why is this taking up so much discussion at AN/I? Shereth 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott's solution is a great one; I can only hopp that's what was put into place. On my first reading of this section, and that line, i read it as him being retarded, not erroneously diagnosed. Of course, I immediately knew what was coming next, but the writing did give the impression that he overcame a huge hurdle to succeed, not that he was misdiagnosed. Poor writing in cases where BLP applies should be fixed, regardless of whether they're up or not. This is the sort of unfortunate result of low DYK participation, and the wider community, esp. admins, shouldn't be punished for stepping in to make BLP compliant clarifications, or, really, ANY needed clarifications, though in any non-BLP, conversation/notification should go to the DYK project first. ThuranX (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the hook on the next batch

Joe Dudley mentions himself the mental retardation diagnosis on an interview with CNN [32] and with INCTV, on the Black Issues Forum [33] and in his bio corporate page, where it says that this event caused him to be a role model [34]. So, as it was already cleared for inclusion, and as it seems that the BLP concerns for the removal, altought well-intentioned, where not really serious after all, we should just place it on the next batch, if only to set a precedent that DYK hooks should be put back if they are removed from the main page for reasons that are later found not to be all that important. Otherwise, we risk DYKs being censored every time they pick on something controversial, causing a chilling effect similar to censorship.

(oh, and all the sources says "labelled", so please use that word instead of "assesed") --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article got to spend its 6 hours on the main page, even if not all of it was with the exact preferred hook. Right now we've got a bit of a backlog at DYK, and I'd much rather give the spot to an article that hasn't yet gotten it's moment in the sun. The original preferred hook doesn't get featured for plenty of articles and while I don't think what happened was ideal, refeaturing the hook seems worse to me. Vickser (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose You think the solution to a DYK with strong BLP issues is to put it up TWICE? That's ridiculous, and I'll tell you right now, I'll take it down if that happens. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how an anecdote can have "strong BLP issues" when the LP himself is the originator and prime disseminator of said anecdote. Care to explain? Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - There doesn't seem to be a need for this. It's had its newborn "Moment in the Sun", pushing it across the Mainpage is likely to dredge dramas and not right some imagin'd wrong. WilyD 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, readding the hook is a violation of DYK rules, the article must be expanded five fold to be eligible to be placed back on the main page - it has already had a hook for it's previous eligible expansionCharles Edward 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, most of the original parties are moving on and there is no need to have something on the DYK mainpage space twice. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article got its time in the sun, even if there were a few clouds. While I disagree with the BLP argument at this point as the subject clearly uses it as a badge of honor, DYK rules are rules. However, I do support the original hook wording and do not consider it a WP:SOAP issue as it was; if the teaser said "wrongly labeled" or "falsely labeled", that'd be a different story. Besides, I think this nice long thread on AN/I plus the multiple mentions to come when it's referenced in future DYK discussions will give this article lots of notice. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Vickser pretty much nailed the reason and there is no need for it to be featured twice. Hopefully some good will come out the discussion in that editors may be more aware of the negative implications that well intentioned actions can have. While I share some "head scratching" with Gato since the "BLP nightmare" has been shown to be none existent, I nonetheless think it's best for everyone to move on. We've got an encyclopedia to write. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Lots of great DYKs that haven't seen the light of the MP. MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support Concern about fairness between articles here is inconsistent. If this were put back up, one article would have to wait six more hours before it gets its DYK put on the main page. The unfairness of that should be accompanied by violin music from the world's smallest violin. Editors have pointed out that removing the hook prematurely was no big deal (and I agree with that), but the same logic applies to adding it back (and so what if some other hook for the same article took its place -- get out that violin again). Despite Swatjester's loud objections, whatever we do can easily send a message. Someone will say or think: You know, an admin removed that kind of thing as a DYK hook on the main page and AN/I (a) backed him up / (b) didn't back him up. I'd better (a) not mention / (b) not be concerned about mentioning mental retardation where I have the option. I don't think it's a loud message either way, so no great harm done. It's still wrong to not put it back up, though. And you may also encourage more admins to pull DYK hooks in the future. I notice in the comments above more concern about WP process than the people that our actions inevitably affect. That priority seems to be skewed -- does it have anything to do with editors implicitly agreeing that we should avoid mentions of mental retardation whenever we have the option? I'm not making an accusation, just asking a question worth thinking about. I'll post my own defense of my way of thinking about this above one or two of Swatjester's comments above. Noroton (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) -- (((crossed out comments that, while not meant as any kind of attack, probably aren't helpful -- Noroton (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC))))

Oppose. It should've read 'incorrectly' to begin with, to comply with BLP, but ran anyway. Giving it double exposure because people had well intentioned, serious and legitimate concerns with it is as stupid a reason as it gets. ThuranX (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for DYK

After listening to a lot of concerns, the major issue is how to deal with BLP issues especially when they make it onto the main page. I believe (and I vouche for myself only) that when a line is on the main page, it can cause more damage than if it was among others. This is about WP:Weight, as we are trying to lure people to a page with that interesting fact. I'm sure there can be equal problems with weight resulting from a new page on any controversial subject. Now, when there is a complaint, the main page would require immediate clean up to keep it from spiraling out of control. We must all recognize this, and even in a mistake that is determined later, sometimes caution before is necessary. This is not to say one way is right or wrong, but to say that we shouldn't pass judgment since it is there to protect the encyclopedia.

Now, after I prefaced the situation with the above, here is just my thought: the concern seems to be that there are potential BLP issues that could result, and previous concerns addressed sexism or copyright violations. Now, the DYK page is long and a lot of people spend a lot of hours devoting to checking the various hooks. However, things are occasionally missed. Now, a DYK may be selected roughly 6-8 hours before it will be displayed, but that would include 1/3 of the day that I (and probably others) will not be able to see an upcoming hook. Perhaps we have our current "next update" section, but include a secondary section for review (possibly on the talk page of "next update". The process would be changed slightly to have admin moving hooks to the review page (6-8 of course) for the 6-8 hour period before it moves to the next update section. Each hook will be listed with the credits given. There will be a small section to respond only to issues of BLP, copyright, verfiability, civility, and other major Wikipedia concerns. This will not be used to discuss if you like the hook or not. This will not be used to to voice if you like the DYK or not. It will merely be there to address major concerns and give people additional time.

I feel that such a thing as the above should go onto Village Pump for decision. However, I hope it can satisfy everyone's concerns so that we can deal with these matters in an easy manner before they happen and can temporary pull out DYKs until the community can have true consensus behind them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have occassionally noticed problems with hooks that have made it to the "next update" section but unless I see blatant errors there, I raise no issues as the time for discussion has by then passed. A forum for last minute concerns might be useful as long as it doesn't bog down the process. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I could support this if the community would vest a certain level of final authority in the decision made at that step. There will still be some editors who find a hook from time to time to be offensive, inappropriate, or a violation of their interpretation of policy or guideline. If that is not done, there will be nothing to prevent situations like this from continuing - there will just be a six hour delay before they happen, and they would probably be reduced in number and frequency. If something is a blatant breech of policy, it should be removed - otherwise discussion should be made before action it undertaken, IMHO. Charles Edward 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone wants to put this up at Village Pump, feel free. Its just that there is a lot of talk about problems without any real fundamental solutions. I wanted to see if a giving a few more hours could satisfy the parties involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've been thinking roughly along the same lines as Ottava Rima and Charles Edward. I was thinking that at a stage between the overall approval and appearance on the main page, the hooks could be reviewed by admins and should have, say, three admins willing to sign their tildes to a statement like We have reviewed this hook for possible BLP, copyright and other potential violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and we approve it. When at least three admins sign (and none oppose), that constitutes a consensus that anyone would be in violation of if they removed the hook after it is posted to the main page. A 0RR rule should be in place for these hooks once up on the Main page (or maybe people who want to take them down should come to AN/I and ask for consensus support before removing them at that stage). If anyone objects to the hook before it goes on the main page, that would call for further review and an attempt at consensus-building. There should always be more DYK hooks on the final review page than are needed, and editors or admins should all be invited to look over the final review page. This way we don't have episodes like this coming back up at ANI with offense taken on many sides. I didn't suggest this before, though, because I'm not yet sure it's worth the extra bureaucracy -- as far as I know, admins taking DYK hooks off the main page has only happened twice. Maybe we should wait to do anything until we know we have a problem. Or from this incident and the last one, do we know we have a problem? I'm skeptical. Set this up and you may have future bottlenecks form at the final review page. Noroton (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: if we have admins signing, should we have the ability for admins to oppose? Now, what about the reverse - if two or more admins oppose, remove the tag, have a wider discussion, then place it back to be up for appearance if it passes? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that you should have a clear consensus with at least three admins signing off in approval. If just one admin or editor also opposes, I think we'd normally still consider that a consensus, but a delay for more discussion might be considered and if the opposing editor feels strongly enough, that editor might want to make a request for comment from others. I think if two or more editors or admins oppose, you'd have to get more support for a consensus. Maybe you send it back to the first discussion forum. I think the result would be that controversial DYK ideas would tend not to get on the main page, which would be a good thing, overall. Noroton (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I add the above as a secondary/sub proposal to the first? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Noroton (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, but these ideas are just not practical. The fundamental problem at DYK is lack of manpower/interest, and creating an extra page for an additional review step will do nothing to remedy that problem, while asking "three admins" to sign off on each and every hook will make for a very unwieldy system. I'm sure Ottava means well, but I feel this is a solution in search of a problem, since in the eight months I have been associated with DYK, we have had IIRC exactly two hooks which some people objected to, both of which just happened to occur in the last couple of weeks, and both of which were removed within a short time of being posted. Gatoclass (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - if there will not be any problems, why not have a secondary section so we know what articles will go up into the next update without some at the last moment? And also, you left out the copyright problem and the current discussion about John Edwards. By the way, this isn't a proposal. This is a proposal for a proposal, or just finding out if a proposal could work as a solution to satisfy the major AN/I concerns. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this above, but why can't we just institute "Poor writing in cases where BLP applies should be fixed, regardless of whether they're up or not. This is the sort of unfortunate result of low DYK participation, and the wider community, esp. admins, shouldn't be punished for stepping in to make BLP compliant clarifications, or, really, ANY needed clarifications, though in any non-BLP, conversation/notification should go to the DYK project first." as a standard part of the DYK procedures and rules, so that we don't have to go througgh this stuff over and over? Changes could be discussed there instead of clogging up AN/I, because then they'd be DYK issues, not incidents. (I'm not implying that this or the previous issue clogged up AN/I, just that with policy change, there'd be a proper venue for such things) Having a place there to handle this would also mean regulars get better at writing and reviewing hooks. ThuranX (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but who exactly has been "punished" for "mak[ing] BLP compliant clarifications"? Neither I nor any of the other DYK admins have the authority to "punish" someone for disagreeing with us, least of all a senior admin like Ryan R.

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a common or garden content dispute, which occur all the time in every part of the project. The fact that such content disputes might crop up occasionally at DYK is therefore not at all suprising, but I feel that the fact they have occurred so rarely at DYK ought to indicate that the regulars there are actually doing a pretty darned good job. I might also point out that even in this particular case, there is no consensus that the hook was inappropriate, just that some people didn't like it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mspraveen

Resolved

 – CheckUser made a mistake, account unblocked, all is well in the world. Tiptoety ^talk 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser issues

This is in reference to the RRaunak checkuser case. Multiple accounts have been blocked based on it. One of the users blocked is User:Mspraveen who is an established user who has produced multiple GA and DYK contributions. My interactions with him have always been good. I am curious to know how conclusive is a check user evidence. What if all the users were from using the a shared external IP (proxy) in a university? Do we still block all the accounts? The user has not made his statement yet. The blocking admin has asked the user whether he would stop using socks. I wanted to bring this to the community's attention. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as the CheckUser marked the accounts {{confirmed}} that pretty much means all the accounts were/are editing from the same IP and as such that is as conclusive as it gets. As you stated above (and seeing as I am the blocking admin) I have noticed that the user in question has made some rather impressive contributions to the project and as such am willing to unblock the account if I feel that they will no longer sock. Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not block some IPs since they are shared across the university (see SharedIPEDU). I am curious to know why there is a double standard when it comes to individual accounts. I feel checking IP addresses alone does not prove some is a sock, editing patterns and conversations must be matched before a checkuser becomes conclusive. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GaneshK, this block doesn't seem right. Mspraveen has a very different style, personality, and contribution history compared to the others. I appreciate, as I think everyone else does, the blocking of the other users, but Mspraveen? ~ priyanath ^talk 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Needed

Resolved

 – Unblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge an immediate unblock on behalf of WikiProject India. This user has an impeccable record and I'm sure that he has certainly not engaged in the disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has posted unblock request. I urge admins with checkuser privilege to look into this urgently and get this user unblocked ASAP. We need this user's continued contributions here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a conditional unblock pending further checking? This really does seem to be a big mistake. Let's show some good faith toward a long-time contributor. (and also good faith that the RCU and block were done in good faith, just a mistake). ~ priyanath ^talk 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I (like Priyanath) thought something might be fishy about the CU results myself and that’s why I originally offered to unblock the account after a discussion with the user, but to be sure I would like to hear a CU comment here. Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's no response in the next hour or 2 by some CU, the user should be unblocked as a measure of good faith. If, by then, you're still hesitating to unblock without the confirmation, I will ask another admin to unblock. Mistakes happen, and we make allowances for them, but there's 0 reason to prolong the unnecessary, that too, at the expense of putting off an extremely valuable contributor (who has had impeccable conduct at all times). The block log can be annotated even with something as simple as 'appears to be a mistake'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen checkuser editors mark a case "confirmed" but later retract that conclusion, so even confirmed cases aren't necessarily completely conclusive. I came across the user's unblock request and after looking into it a bit, I support unblocking and agree with priyanath and Ganeshk above. The checkuser (Sam Korn) has been contacted, so this can wait a short time until he makes a comment here. If he feels the evidence is unquestionable (which I seriously doubt), I'd support Tiptoey's slap on the wrist unblock along with a promise of no further sockpuppeting. Otherwise, I'd lean toward giving this valuable editor the benefit of the doubt. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over some of the contributions and patterns, and I find it very unlikely that User:Mspraveen is part of that particular sock flock, regardless of IP evidence. So I'm going to unblock. If Sam has strong evidence to the contrary, we can always reblock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I did the CU again and I don't think it's him. Mspraveen is on a very noisy range and it the data appears to show that his exact IP number changes every day when he starts another editing session and the ISP always gave him a new number on a different day. There was a direct hit on an exact IP number between RRaunak's socks and Mspraveen but these were two months apart. RRaunak's socks all came within one day, which suggest the socks logged in and out in one internet session, but the fact that a new IP address is assigned every day seems to imply to me that it is a complete fluke. Also the edits aren't related anyway. The range is also very noisy - almost all the Wikipedians I know from a certain geographical region of over 100 million people (West Bengal) seem to be on this /16. At least four different guys each with FAs use this range and they total 15+ FA/GAs and 150+ DYKs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this Blnguyen, glad it turned out for the best. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I trust Blnguyen's analysis, though I am slightly surprised. Frankly, though, it really, really annoys me that people bring this straight to ANI. I am a reasonable person, and I respond to these requests the moment I see them. It really isn't necessary to make an ANI song-and-dance about it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It wasn't brought here because people thought you were unreasonable because of a mistake. It was brought here because it needed to be resolved as quickly as possible, and getting more eyes on it (so the block could be lifted asap) was considered a matter of urgency - although you might disagree with that assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, it patently was not an emergency because the user had not logged on and requested unblocking. It is common courtesy, practice and good sense to talk to the person who took the action in the first place. You didn't even have the simple courtesy to inform me (thanks, Tiptoey) and I feel pretty hacked off about that. That is not reasonable behaviour. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It took you 40 hours to comment on this (since Tiptoey's talk page request for your comments). The reason it is brought here is so that other admins can act on issues of urgency (this is a volunteer organization...noone is expected to turn up every single day to contribute). I was waiting to hear how you came up with your CU results. Instead you come here and hurl accusations on people who were trying to help. It is disappointing. Respectfully, Ganeshk (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed with all this. I know it was a mistake. It was a reasonable mistake to make (more than one shared IP, other similar information), but I will readily agree I should not have made it. I am hugely disappointed, however, that this was handled in this way. Hurling accusations is hardly what I was doing, and if you think it was I suggest you read again. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn,

1. you were informed by Tiptoey, 7 minutes after this thread was opened - I was going to notify you myself, but Tiptoey's notification eliminated the need for further notifications (and it is unreasonable to expect any more notifications after you were already notified - such an expectation, as you should know by now, will almost never be fulfilled by anyone).
2. for your convenience alone, I went to your talk page twice and modified the link in the notification so you could get here on 1 click (as the title of this thread changed a couple of times) - no one was obligated to do that, but I did it out of courtesy.
3. you took (as Ganeshk points out) a heck of a long time before you came back to look at your mistake and discuss it, let alone fix it. All of us have tried to be as understanding and reasonable as humanely possible, but if you honestly think responding to concerns after 40 hours is doing so in a timely manner, perhaps affirmation from a venue outside of ANI is needed.
4. you've come here hurling accusations and suggesting incidents like this should fester for as long as possible unless the unblock template is used - even though the block was based on very limited (and poor) analysis to begin with. A mistake like this can be very costly in driving away valuable contributors. But, due to how quickly and effectively it was resolved, it didn't come to that in this case - frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed by your failure to even recognize that fact. With the utmost respect, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The first port of call should be the talk page. First. Not afterthought-if-I'm-feeling-generous. That's common sense. 2. Well, thank you. Generous. 3. Yes, I know it was not prompt. You will, of course, find that I made no edits at all in that time, and did not even log on to Wikipedia. I agree that you needed to take it somewhere else after that time period. Coming straight here was unnecessary. You know it ends up with overly strong words, such as, well, yours. "Reasonable as humanely possible"? You make me sound like an animal waiting to be put down! 4. I suggest you read again. Mistake, certainly. Extremely bad mistake, possibly. Hurling accusations, where? There are more peaceable ways to deal with this than yours, and I take issue with it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy), who is reminded of the Yes, Minister meaning of "with respect" 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes it should be - it need not be, nor has to be. This is particularly so when your response was predictably untimely, given your editing pattern of late (as specified in your reply to 3) - the issue of substance (quick review & unblock) far outweighed any such formality in this case - even if you're predictably the only user here to disagree with this assessment.
2. Your accusation that "You didn't even have the simple courtesy to inform me" is only in your head, for the reasons I stated in my previous reply. That, and the uncalled for bit about 'behavior not being reasonable', is where you're hurling accusations.
3. But for your unreasonable replies (the causal factor), no overly strong words have been, or would have been used in this discussion. See also my next point.
4. To date, except yourself, no user had expressed any concern with how this incident was handled (or that it was unpeaceful). What I suggest is that instead of championing and tendentiously arguing formality over substance, you need to focus on reviewing your own approach to avoid potentially tragic mistakes in the future (like your one that led to this thread) and how to handle yourself afterwards once you make a mistake. I thought it was a good faith mistake. Heck, if you actually assumed good faith and politely asked why it was brought here instead of assuming the worst, there would've been no overly strong words at all. So, I take issue with the mistake you made and the way you handled yourself after the mistake. Finally, note, I'm not the only one disappointed by your recent edits in relation to this incident. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I need to say something here. When I realized from Tiptoety that Sam Korn was primarily responsible for this action, I was totally put off. One can try putting themselves in my shoes and think of how a well-established user could be deemed to sock due to an analysis similar to Sam Korn's. That was my feeling at that time. I knew it was a huge mistake and I wondered why should I promise not to sock, when I never did! It was at this juncture, Ncmvocalist, Ganeshk and Priyanath came into the picture and voiced their concern here. Whether it should have been on Sam Korn's talk page or at ANI, I feel it is inconsequential now.

All I can say is that though I held grudge against Sam Korn for his wrong actions a few days ago, as much as I appreciated Ncmvocalist, GaneshK and Priyanath for their support, I have forgotten this as a case of a good faith mistake. Now when I thought this was all said and done, I really feel sorry to see what this issue has brought in here. I sincerely request all parties not to raise this into anything uglier. After all, aren't we trying to make this a better place? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing my mistake as what it was, an honest mistake. Your good grace is something to admire. Once again, I apologise to you personally. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

 – Bigger discussion taking place here. D.M.N. (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has blocked these users just for being friendly.

• User:Unknown the Hedgehog
• User:Sonic&Mario KId
• User:SLJCOAAATR 1
• User:Super Badnik
• User:Talon the cat
• User:Person373

They have been blocked indefinitely without notification. The last two editors are still learning how to use Wikipedia, I've been teaching them. What Gwen has done is ridiculous. If being friendly gets you blocked on Wikipedia then there'd be no editors left to edit. User:Ryulong has also deleted their userpages, a WikiProject to help improve articles, and a couple of Skeletal's userboxes. What that was for I don't know. I request that they be unblocked and their pages undeleted. I also request that someone have a talk with Gwen Gale.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been discussed earlier here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You (FFF) were spared from blocking because you at least made more contributions to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly will have a word or two with Gwen Gale; Well done, Gwen Gale, and keep up the good work. Alright now? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It;s still being discussed over there, if anyone's missed it. I'd suggest we resolve it here, since it was open there first. Dayewalker (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm tagging this as unresolved. I suggest parties that are unhappy with the block indefs join in with the discussion here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's resolved here, technically.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin abusing power

If you look at the way user:Gwen Gale has been treating people lately, especially new members, you will discover that she does not have the best interests of the project at hand. She is mean spirited and never does anything to help a new user. She needs to take some time away from the project and reflect on the goals of the project. The fact that some of her blocks have been overturned proves she is out of touch and is starting to think she owns the project. I am sickened by her mean-spirited behavior. 66.197.38.153 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on – Gwen's one of the most helpful editors we have when it comes to newcomers. AGF and all that, but might you possibly be someone she's recently blocked? – iridescent 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Without any evidence, this is a non-event. Moving along... Tan ǀ 39 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen recently blocked two good users, User:SLJCOAAATR 1 and User:Super Badnik, by saying they were treating Wikipedia like Myspace. They're just being friendly, and sometimes use userspace to teach newcomers. She also blocked four other users, two of them were editors who previously used WP like Myspace because they were new here, and the other two who hadn't learned all of the basics of Wikipedia, and therefore edited userspace more than articles. All of these blocks were indfinite when they should have been an a few hours or so.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean forever though - if they commit to ceasing the behavior that led to them being blocked, they can be unblocked. A shorter block would be pointless in this situation. Kevin (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryu, is refusing to un-delete the userpages for Person, Talon, and SAMF, see this for more information on the matter. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained myself fully there. If you continue to obsess over userpages, then you truly have not learned anything from why you, or any of these other users have been blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not obsessing over them. I think though, that you are stressing false rules. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F notes you shouldn't have non-encyclopedic material on your user pages. Given that userboxes are controversial on Wikipedia and in the user space, are considered mostly non-encyclopedic to begin with, along with your very limited contributions, few editors are going to understand why you need so many user pages or userboxes. You were unblocked but this doesn't mean the worries are gone. Wikipedia accounts are meant to be used for writing articles, but here you are only hours out of your block, making many edits to user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why do userboxes exist in the first place? It seems rather pointless, if these specific ones aren't allowed. And, I've only made some (Userpage post issue.), most on mine to reply to an admin who was there, and to other admins to get pages un-deleted. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)What's pointless is continuing to complain. Userboxes are a very minor part of wikipedia. For reliable editors who contribute to the encyclopedia, userboxes aren't a problem. For people not seeking to help the wiki and using all of their time trying to get their userboxes up, it certainly seems like a MySpace-y problem.

And you're not trying to get pages undeleted. You're trying to get userpages undeleted. That doesn't seem productive to anyone, especially coming off of a block for not taking wikipedia seriously. Dayewalker (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I do take Wikipedia very seriously, which is why I remove vandalism, and unsourced info. If you don't like that, and can't appreciate it, I'll leave, but, heed my words, you're turning decent editors into vandals. Your logics have proven to be rather discrimintory. You're saying users who haven't done as much to Wiki as admins, shouldn't have userboxes, sandboxes, etc. Oy? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)That seems a vague threat to me, that if these editors don't get their way, they'll refuse to understand wikipedia and turn into vandals. If an editor is a deleted userbox away from vandalism, it's probably best they don't come here in the first place. As for your last statement, I'm saying people who come here and are immediately consumed with their userpages and boxes don't seem to get it. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, as administrators, we should be very cautious in removing material from a user's space that that user hasn't asked us to remove. In general, I believe that such material should be taken through XfD and not deleted unilaterally unless it's really bad (attack pages, blatent copyvio, etc.). Is there some precedent or policy indicating that deleting items from a user's sandbox is OK? Oren0 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Social networking is self-promotion, which is nothing less than advertising, a CSD. For-profit sites like MySpace carry paid advertising to pay for all that and this can be wonderful, much fun. Wikipedia is supported by donations from folks who hope they're giving money to a free encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Yes, Wikipedia has a community driven side which does stir up participation in highly meaningful ways but the pith is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a social network. As with any human project there are swaths of overlap in common but the targeted tasks and hoped-for outcomes are not at all the same things. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot

dlabtot (talk · contribs) is following ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) around, reverting him, and issuing attacks on him on the talk pages, which ignore completely the content of any changes made.

ScienceApologist is a controversial editor, and I don't want to deny that. But something like this [35] is highly disruptive, and ignores completely the content of SA's edit, in favour of launching another attack in the MartinPhi-ScienceApologist war, with Dlabtot (who had been one of MartinPhi's supporters for some time) taking on the MartinPhi role. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a 'supporter' of no one, certainly not Martinphi. I stand by my edits; examine the diffs and judge for yourself. I'd be happy to discuss any specific edit with any administrator reviewing this thread. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Dlabtot to back away from conflict with SA.[36][37] Concurrently I am arranging a mentor for SA. Hopefully that will improve the situation. Thank you all for your patience. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I actually do something wrong that I should be 'warned' against doing? Jehochman, are you saying I'm not allowed to interact with SA? Why not? Because he doesn't want me to? Here is what happened: ScienceApologist made an edit to Wikipedia's civility policy. An edit that to my mind, looks to vitiate the policy itself. That's just my opinion, but since this is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that there should at least be some talk page discussion of the issue. So I reverted[38] and asked for talk page discussion. Looking at my edit summary, I could have had a more neutral tone, I admit. In response, SA simply reverted me[39], with the edit summary revert wikistalking edit. I'll admit I was tempted to edit war. I admit that I find the accusation of wikistalking (defined as following an editor to another article to continue disruption ), to be highly inflammatory because it is without merit. There's nothing disruptive about asking that changes to core wikipedia policies be discussed. WP:CIVIL is on my watchlist right now because I participated in an RfC there that is still open. I refrained from reverting, instead asking on the talk page if there was consensus for the change[40]. Shoemaker's Holiday calls my post a personal attack. Well, I do think SA's continued problems with our civility policy are relevant in the context of judging his edits to that policy. If the consensus is that I'm wrong, I'd like to hear it. I certainly object to a sanction being imposed against me that I'm not allowed to interact with SA - which would essentially give him the power to topic ban me from any article, policy page or talk page simply by participating there. If such a sanction were to be imposed, I'd hope it would be the result of a more formal process in which I'd have the opportunity to respond, rather than simply a warning from one administrator. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some other editors to review this situation, please, and leave comments? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't delved into any past history between Mr. Glabot and Mr. SA, but regarding the situation which the former has outlined above, it seems that Mr. Dlabot is out to lunch on this one. I see an edit by Mr. SA that can basically be summarized as "use common sense", followed by a couple reverts, followed by pretty solid well-poisoning on the talk page by Mr. Dlabot, making conspicuously sure to call attention to Mr. SA's on-going AN/I threads and SA's previous comments (seven months old) about his then-ignorance of the WP:CIVIL policy. Seems odd that Mr. Dlabot, in his rush to defend the sancticity of WP:CIVIL, would so completely forget the spirit of WP:AGF - but maybe I'm just being snarky there. Anyway, that's my inflation-adjusted $0.02. Badger Drink (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I'll have to state a mea culpa that my comment was over-the-top - if the consensus is that persistent violators of a policy are good candidates for writing that policy than I am clearly in the wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, SA did simply revert me with a rude edit summary instead of going to the talk page to discuss the issue[41]. When a talk page discussion about the edit did take place, SA chose not to participate. BoldRevertDiscuss is a good mechanism for building consensus. BoldRevertRevert is not. Dlabtot (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

JASpencer

User:JASpencer and I have had run-ins in the past, but his editing pattern has gotten worse and worse - he seems to go out of his way to only find Masonic-related articles that portray negative things only, and I'm sure it is because of his religious views.

Usually it can be sorted out, but he has now undone 5 CSDs I placed (A7) for various Masonic Grand Lodge articles that have sat for over eight months with nothing more than a name, location, and homepage. There's no basic information, much less an assertion of notability.

They are:

• Grand Lodge of Denmark
• The Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm (Belgium) -- (I later redirected this - this is a specific location of a Rite we already have an article on, so there was nothing in it different save a specific webpage link, which we don't do for Rites to comply with NOT DIRECTORY. MSJapan (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
• Grand Orient of the Netherlands Expanded. MSJapan (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Orient de Suisse AfDed when the one source turned out to contain no information whatsoever save a page title, graphic, and email address, which puts paid to any claim of notability, since now its existence is questionable. MSJapan (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Orient du Congo AfDed when no sources could be located for an unsourced article, thus no way to establish notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He claims "intrinsic notability", but that is ridiculous for any topic that has no secondary sources.

He also has undone a merger between Grand Lodge of West Virginia and Frank Joseph Haas, stating that the originator of the discussion cannot close it. I allowed nine days for discussion, and all the comments were in the positive. He objected after the discussion was closed.

I'd like an admin to step in and sort all this out. MSJapan (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be totally out of proportion.

(1) The CSDs were not appropriate and this sadly goes back to Masonic politics (I'm not a Freemason by the way). There are lodges that are in alignment and lodges that are out of alignment with the United Grand Lodge of England, which the UGLE regards as false and perhaps treacherous. Freemasons in alignment with the UGLE are supposed to shun those that are out of alignment. MSJ is in alignment, the lodges he wants to speedily delete are out of alignment. He has been far worse before, trying to delete international organisations that are out of alignment. However CSDs should not be proceeded unless there's widespread consensus. There was never going to be that consensus, and so I removed these within procedure. When I could not remove a CSD, on my own article I did not do so.

(2)The merger of the former Grand Master of West Virginia who was expelled from the West Virginia lodges for asking for blacks and disabled people to be admitted (so there may have been reasons other than notability for the merger proposal. This already went through a prod. I didn't check on whether there had been a vote (I thought this was a substitute for AfD) and that was my mistake for not checking. I hold my hand up to that. I was not notified in all of the nine days about the merger, and one has to ask why. Haas appeared in a number of newspapapers, including the New York Times.

The wider issues is this. Despite MSJ and others' allegations, I am not anti-Masonic, I am merely Catholic. I just don't like the concerted attempts to bully editors out of the Wikipedia project, of which this is the latest example. MSJ has previously boasted about taking 18 months to get rid of an anti-Masonic editor, and he seems to be going through the motions again. I don't think it will work, but I can guess where the support will come from.

JASpencer (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with MSJapan here. JASpencer's does seem to be editing with a bit of POV recently. He seems to be jumping to the conclusion that if a Mason nominates an article dealing with Masonry for deletion, he must be doing so because he has some sort of agenda. But cleaning out poor articles, articles with no citations or claim to notability, is not an agenda. Nor is merging two articles after discussion and consensus to do so. To give another example of his jumping to conclusions... please note JASpencer's reaction to a recent AfD nomination I made. He focused on the topic and not the article... and assumed I had done the same. I don't think this needs much in the way of intervention... Knowing JAS, if an uninvovled admin says that he is indeed letting his POV influence his editing, he will take the admonition to heart and will back off. But I do think he needs the admonition. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"I have to agree". Doesn't sound like you want to follow that obligation.

Come on Blueboar, even you must think that MSJ simply went too far in nominating those articles for speedy deletion. There was simply no way that they met the criteria, as was shown with the debate on the Grand Lodge where I didn't (and couldn't) delete. MSJ has persistently said that non-UGLE groups (including CLIPSAS, for crying out loud) are not notable. In the case of the speedy deletions it was another case of trying to do this while no one was looking. I will come back to the Salza case if you want me to, if you are prepared to add yourself and MSJ to this AN/I. JASpencer (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alignment is not at all the issue - any Mason can converse with any other Mason unofficially, one just can't go to the meetings of or send any official correspondence to a group one is not allowed to do so with per the bylaws of the organization. My real concern with non-UGLE bodies is that they pop up all the time, and many of these bodies simply have no history to speak of, and no secondary sources to support claims made in the articles. There's no value in an article that will always be "X lodge is located in Y place, and here's their homepage link" (and the homepage is half-done). The articles I speedied sat for eight months or more with nothing more than a line, and the one editor who started the articles and was in a position to have the information to edit them did not do so. Thjis is why "intrinsic notability" of GLs is a bad idea - when a state has multiple Grand Lodges, and all but one or two are scams run by unscrupulous people to make money (and there are; I can prove that), to call them notable is misleading. Similarly, when a Grand Lodge only has an Internet presence and no indication of anything going on aside from an officers' line (no events, no lodges, etc.) then they do not assert notability. When non-mainstream grand lodges only govern less than 10 lodges in an entire country (or in the world) and have no membership figures (when UGLE lodges have a minimum 10-20 times that number and documented tens or hundreds of thousands of members), it's ludicrous to say the smaller bodies are notable per guidelines. They simply don't have the minimal coverage required by WP:N, especially whenthey don't even make the news. There's N, RS, V, and probably a few other fundamental policy issues with these articles, and they have not been and cannot be corrected - many of them are European, and therefore use languages other than English. MSJapan (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But CSDA7 is about no assertion of notability. By the very act of calling themselves Grand Lodges they are asserting notability. If you think that it's three men and an apron go for an Articles for Deletion vote. Face it you were wrong and I was right on the speedy deletions. And yes, although the case is not (yet) about the original inapropriate use of speedy deletion I do think that your previously expressed bias against Latin masonry has a large part in this series of misjudged CSD nominations. JASpencer (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion of notability does need to meet the criteria set forth in WP:ORG. Claiming to be a Grand Lodge does not automatically pass that test. If five disgruntled Masons split off and form their own Grand Lodge, they are not notable. The article needs an assertion of notability that is more than just "its a Masonic Grand Lodge". Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But the debate is not whether it would lose an AFD (debatable, but not certain) but whether it meets the CSD criteria A7 which is that a Grand Lodge does not assert its notability. The question answers itself. CSD should be used in cases where there's no real question of the case. This was not the case here. MSJ was out of order and you know it, whatever obligation you feelJASpencer (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... CSD A7 is not talking about whether the subject asserts its own notablility (I would assume that every Grand Lodge would say it is notable)... CSDA7 reads: "Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject." In other words... it applies where there is nothing in the article which indicates the importance of the subject. If you look at the articles that MSJ nominated, this is the case. The articles did not indicate why the subject was important. Thus, the speedy nominations were quite appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't work. If there's a Grand Lodge it is saying it is important by the very act of calling itself a Grand Lodge. The article is saying it's a Grand Lodge. Therefore the article is asserting importance. Your arguments are getting more tortuous just to save MSJ's face. JASpencer (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with saving MSJ's face... it has to do with your skewed interpetation of the notability criteria (including the criteria for an A7 speedy delete). Naming something with a fancy sounding title does not make it important - or notable. I could create a Grand Lodge with a membership of just me and a few friends... is it important? Of course not. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:MSJapan is a real problem here at Wikipedia. His constant attacks against editors here at Wikipedia with differing beliefs is ridiculous and foul. He hounds people like JASpencer and myself, he follows our every edit, he plots with others against us and he abuses the rules of Wikipedia to get what he wants. His complaint here against JASpencer is ridiculous and to attack his religious views is unconscionable. User:Blueboar, his brother in the craft and his proverbial lap-dog, backs up MsJapan’s every actions. Look at their edits and you will see a systematic attack on every article that has even a hint of something other than pro-freemasonry. Their actions in getting the articles on noted Catholic author John Salza and writer Paul A. Fisher deleted by implying that they lacked notability was stupid and lame. But it was because these two individuals, despite all their credentials and accomplishments, wrote negitively regarding freemasonry. MSJapan and Blueboar’s aggressive behavior is simply reprehensible. They do not care about making Wikipedia better instead they only care about protecting their beloved freemasonry and removing anything they believe to be critical of it. It is high time that these two editors realize that they are not in charge here. MsJapan why don’t you stop crying like a little baby and be a man for once? By your vindictive and childish actions you two are making freemasons look bad and possibly giving credence to the suggestion that freemasonry is a indeed a cult. Go ahead, cry, whine and complain about these words. Dwain (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) formerly User:Pitchka as MsJapan loves to point out.

Paul Fisher went? Good God, I missed that one, it's even more shameless than Salza. Not as bad as losing the Masonic obligations. They are good at gaming the deletion syatem, you've got to admire that. Ah well, at least Jahbulon is up. JASpencer (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by owner of indefinitely blocked User:Whitenoise123

After months of evasion and finally an outright denial, User:Musiclover565 has specifically admitted to being the sockpuppet master of the indefinitely blocked User:Whitenoise123. Despite the block and admission, Musiclover565 is editing Wikipedia in flagrant violation of the block. In my opinion, the indefinite block of Whitenoise123 should now be extended to Musiclover565. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he should not. His use of the Whitenoise123 account was used to avoid scrutiny, IMO, though he denies that. His alternative account has now been indefblocked, per the blocking admin/clerk at RFCU so he's obliged to use the one account, as is clearly the intent. Furthermore, he approached your talk page with a genuine statement as to his wishes that you all should work together and that he agrees to honour that. You reverted it, as is your right, etc. However, it's starting to look like a content dispute and one in which you want this guy to be removed from. He's willing to work with you ... so why exactly not? - Alison ^❤ 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not been privy to the last 9 months of this user's dishonesty, disruption, and passive aggressive behavior toward myself and numerous other editors. We have attempted numerous times to work with him, only to have our attempts dismissed by him at every stage in favor of his unilateral edits against clear consensus. His offers to cooperate have been proven over-and-over again to be disingenuous. I don't know how to be more clear about this not being a mere content dispute. For some history about this whole problem, see this and this. Also, have a look at this, where Whitenoise123 admitted to being disruptive concerning the Sharapova article. Tennis expert (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have been lurking at the Sharapova article (occasionally making a small edit) for awhile now, and I have to concur with Tennis expert on this one. He's removing huge swaths of material from the article without anything resembling consensus to do so. He is editing disruptively, and as a sockpuppet of an indef-ed account, should not be allowed to do so. ^S._D.Jameson 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• His content removal is so massive that Cluebot just reverted this edit as potential vandalism. He made the edit as an IP, so I'm making a small assumption here, but I don't think it's unfounded. ^S._D.Jameson 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not evading any block, I was given instructions to use this account to make edits. I will admit to being aggressive on my original stint at Wiki, but that was a long time ago, and everyone is entitled to a clean start, which was what I wanted with WN123; you have failed to legitimately point me to an edit or conduct policy I have breached since returning. You are yet to point out a legitimate concern about my edits.

As Alison pointed out, you are completely unwilling to engage in any type of attempt to reach consensus; my attempt was just one of many. Please point me to one, just one, example of you trying to work co-operatively with me. You cannot make statements like that w/o evidence to back them up. As for that link you cited supposedly me "admitted to being disruptive"; actually, that was me admitting to trying to get round the system, not disrupting, on just one occasion, in retaliation to you doing likewise. That day, you had tried to game the system; because I had already performed 3 reverts, you then began restoring your preferred version of the article, despite consensus rejecting it. So I (regretfully) rose to your bait and subtly rephrased the wording of mine to get round it. It was then I realised how silly the dispute was, and therefore, made an attempt for consensus, which you, surprise surprise, rebuffed.

SD Jameson - you are entitled to your personal disagreement about the edits, but that does not mean I violate any editing policy. Others have agreed with my edits, and in addition, the "silence implies consent" principle validates them; my edits had largely been in place until mid-June, until Tennis expert yesterday restored the version of the article that had been in place before that, effectively reverting around 300 edits by various editors. In addition, since I began working on the article, it has improved from C-Class to just narrowly missing "Good article" status. Should Tennis expert ever agree, and talks to reach consensus do take place, your input would be much appreciated.

(Oh, and yes, the anon was me. WP keeps logging me out lately. I have reported the revert as a false positive to ClueBot. It did remove a lot of material, but that is only because it reverts what I see as vandalism by TE, given his edit reverted 300.) Musiclover565 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify - he should not, IMO, be blocked on the strength of his serial use of other accounts; that's done and past and he's stopped now. The other accounts are blocked. On his current and past behaviour, however - I've no comment, really, as I'm not that familiar with his history. So yes, let's separate both events and look at his ongoing behaviour - Alison ^❤ 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "ongoing behaviour", Alison, is that, when I initially returned and began working on the article again, I did remove quite a lot of content, because I believed it went into too much depth (it listed pretty much every tournament she has ever played in) and the writing was very stilted in parts. Tennis expert claims it is abusive to do so, but I believe WP:Be bold permits this. He is yet to point to any actual editing policy I have breached since returning to WP. Musiclover565 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:BRD. You've had your "boldness" reverted, by multiple editors. Now discuss it, and don't remove the information again until consensus exists to do so. Right now, your editing pattern on the article verges on tendentious. ^S._D.Jameson 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you and Tennis expert are I believe the only editors to register significant complaints about my edits, so considering they have generally been in place since June, it can be taken that that is not general feeling. If anything, considering it is so long since your/Tennis experts preferred version of the page was in place for a significant period of time, the onus is now on you to justify such a radical edit. What is the point in consensus for consensuss sake? If an edit improves the article, then why is consensus required? If you do not believe my edits improve the article, then please say why specifically?92.1.164.122 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In February 2008, Musiclover565/Masha4ever/Whitenoise123/92.1.182.171 was warned about disruptive behavior, to wit: "It has become clear that your editing habits at the article Maria Sharapova constitute edit warring, a practice which only serves to disrupt the article in question, and Wikipedia in general. It is essential that you discuss controversial changes you intend to make, seek dispute resolution for contested edits to seek a consensus and talk about, rather than blindly re-undo, any reversions of your edits to an article. As a measure to prevent further disruption, I have blocked you from editing, for a period of 12 hours. It is essential that you reform your editing habits, and refrain from pushing through your view of what the correct article revision is by warring. Please take time to think about your contributions to Wikipedia, and the damage your revert warring is having." See also this and this. When this user returned to editing the Maria Sharapova article in June 2008, his behavior had not changed. How many chances should someone be given before the community's patience is exhausted? Tennis expert (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use that to justify it. That warning was when I was literally re-writing the entire Career section, and when I made no attempts to reach consensus. Since I returned, I have removed much less material, and have made numerous attempts to seek consensus with you. The ball is now in your court; if ever you want to start discussions, I am fully willing to do so. 92.1.164.122 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have watched this dispute over a number of months on the Maria Sharapova and would like to offer the following observations;

• 92.1.182.171 has contributed some useful edits to the article and some of his/her concerns about it are perfectly valid.

However;

• Whitenoise123's approach to gaining consensus was often back to front. Instead of justifying his/her edits, other editors were to justify the status quo. And if they failed to do this promptly then Whitenoise123 would charge ahead.
• His/Her approach in changing identities has been very disruptive to the article over a some time and has done nothing to assist his/her claimed intention of attempting to reach consensus.
• It is impossible for other editors to reach consensus over edits when there is a continual question over who they are debating with and how many opinions they have. 92.1.182.171 claims never to have edited the article simultaneously using multiple identities. How was anyone else to know this at the time? How do we know it now? 92.1.182.171 actions have promoted an atmosphere of distrust, not just about contributions from his/her multiple identities, but in all other IP and new editor contributions.
• His/Her undeniable lies about his/her identity and attempts to censure other editors (via complaints on this noticeboard) who questioned it are simply not acceptable. How are we to believe anything he/she says? What else is he/she still lying about?
• Yes, editors have a right to a clean break, but not if they are to return to the same edit wars against the same editors on the same articles using the same tactics.
• After a break of barely 14 hours, Musiclover565 has returned to revert radical edits on the article, claiming a lack of response from other editors in that time is all that's needed to justify them.

I wouldn't like to see an editor who could usefully contribute banned, but this is a ridiculous state of affairs. If 92.1.182.171/Musiclover565 is to continue to edit it must be as a single user and he/she should be instructed to leave the Maria Sharapova alone and prove himself/herself not to be tenacious and disruptive on other articles.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Musiclover565 edit to which Escape Orbit referred (two paragraphs above) uses this typically disruptive edit summary: "It has been many hours now and SD Jameson and Tennis expert have ignored attempts to reach consensus. Therefore, I can only assume they do not have legitimate concerns." This "because you did not respond to me in the way I wanted by the secret deadline I imposed, I can only assume that you agree with me" is one of many tactics that Musiclover565 and his countless sockpuppets have employed against many editors (including myself) since the beginning of this year. This latest edit negates whatever miniscule possibility there was that Musiclover565 intended to contribute constructively to this project. Why should we tolerate this kind of behavior? Tennis expert (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tennis expert, that is incorrect. Yesterday, at 22:49, I clearly implied that if you or SD Jameson had concerns about the content of the article, you should say so. Since then, and before I edited the article today (which, by the way, I had an automatic right to anyway, considering I was reverting what is technically vandalism by you in reverting 300+ edits in one go), both of you contributed to this discussion again, and therefore had presumably read my request, and yet, did not answer it. Therefore I assumed you did not have specific concerns. But, yet again, here is your opportunity: what exactly about my edits do you find so disagreeable? What editing policies do you believe me to have breached, and/or why do you personally disagree with them, bearing in mind “consensus” should not be accepted as a suitable response (WP:BRD). If you kick up such a huge fuss about edits, and then refuse to answer numerous requests to say specifically why, how on earth do you expect to be taken seriously?

Escape Orbit – your post left me a little confused. I am not sure if this anon IP is me or not (my ISP for some reason constantly assigns me new IPs – that annoys me more than anyone, though, since returning, I have always made clear that, when I occasionally use an anon – before I registered WN123 and since, when I have inadvertently been logged out – that it is me). In any case, I would prefer you separated my actions from earlier this year – I have fully apologized for those, admitted they were disruptive. However, everyone is entitled to a clean start, as long as they keep within in the rules, which I have done since returning. Regarding your distrust issue – I believe I was within my rights to deny my identity, as this was a separate edit dispute (my desired edits now are completely different to those back then, I recognize they were unacceptably radical). I will acknowledge it would have simplified matters if I had confessed, but, given my edits were within rules, my identity was irrelevant, so I was within policy. Also, for the record, my complaint on the Noticeboard in July was regarding Tennis experts unexplained reverting of my edits, not his accusing me of being ML565.

I would certainly like to take issue with your accusation of me doing edits “back-to-front”. My interpretation of Wiki edit policy is that the onus is not on the editor to provide a full, detailed justification of an edit that is within Wiki policy, as it is implied they believe it to improve the article. If someone disagrees with the edit, the onus is on them to sufficiently challenge the article, pointing out an editing policy they have breached or providing balanced viewpoints on why they believe the article to not be improved. Tennis expert has failed to do this – he has never pointed out a policy I have breached, and has, quite frankly, always given off the air of a person insulted to have had their work (he had written most of the article in its previous form) edited quite significantly, which comes with the territory on Wiki. If he disagrees with this conclusion I have drawn, I will be only too happy to be corrected.

Regarding the consensus issue, one last time, I would be only too happy if myself and Tennis expert (and anyone else) could reach a consensus to allow the article to fulfil its potential and allow us to move on. But I have made genuine attempts: at least four or five times now, I have approached TE on his talkpage requesting to reach a “ceasefire”, and each time, he has rebuffed it, usually by removing my comments completely, most recently yesterday. If the other party is unwilling to get talks going, what else am I supposed to do? The crux is that I do not see how it would be acceptable for Tennis expert to allow his full preferred version to take hold, and then refuse to take part in consensus-building attempts, as he appears to be implying should be the case. To my mind, he has two clear choices: either he should engage in discussions, which I am genuinely willing to do, and have been since mid-June, as soon as he says the word (though I feel the dispute is now so intense, some form of official meditaion is required); or he does not have the right to complain about the article. I think that is a very fair, reasonable choice.

In any case, most of what has been discussed here is irrelevant, as nothing I have contributed to this edit dispute since returning in mid-June constitutes abuse. 92.1.164.122 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove is disabled project-wide

• https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15107

What is going on? -- Cat ^chi? 00:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So what was the problem? I cannot immediately see it. -- Cat ^chi? 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a regex on the titleblacklist. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you translate the regex for me? -- Cat ^chi? 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They all look like different Unicode E characters (i.e. é, Ē, Ê, etc.), as far as I can read, but, no pun intended and no offense meant, it's a bit too Greek for my understanding. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction

Deletion log tells all: User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction

What does one do when a userbox gets deleted by an admin, gets overturned by DRV, and then re-deleted by the first deleting admin? -- Ned Scott 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You let it go, and get back to doing something more productive than complaining about the deletion of inflammatory content. That's what. krimpet✽ 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm complaining about your abuse of admin tools. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting inappropriate content is exactly what the "delete" button is designed for. If you have an issue with this, take it up with the community as a whole or with ArbCom, but they will just re-iterate that insulting slurs aren't welcome in userspace, and never have been. krimpet✽ 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The community just told you that you were wrong. Don't act stupid, Krimpet, you're embarrassing yourself. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you're just dragging this down into petty personal attacks, I'm not going to debate this with you any further, Ned Scott. I've repeated my points enough times - that the mass nomination at DRV wrongly lumped this deletion of a particularly nasty userbox referring to hateful epithets into being restored. If you feel the community disagrees with this interpretation, file an RfC or RfAR and see. But I'm done with this conversation. krimpet✽ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting it again saying "it shouldn't have been lumped in with the others" when you haven't even commented at DRV? That's a bit much. The consensus wasn't even to restore but simply to list at MFD. I'd suggest restoring and allow it to go through MFD. Another one there was already deleted. I hate joint listings for this very reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, joint listings are bad, and I'm highly disappointed that the DRV nominator simply went through my deletion log and batch nominated everything, because this was deleted for a far stronger reason. We don't tolerate racial, sexual, or religious epithets in userspace; this is beyond debate. krimpet✽ 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. I'd say you should have been willing to explain your reasoning at DRV. If you don't comment there, you have no justification to re-doing your actions. Admins should always be willing to explain themselves, even if it there is rationale behind it. If you only concern was the naming, why not change the userbox and move it? It is a wiki after all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know the DRV was going on until it closed. I see the boxes are at MfD, where I already commented - that's the proper place for this discussion. krimpet✽ 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I recreated the userbox in question from looking at it in Google cache, in order to place the MfD tag on it. Krimpet and deleted it again, and now has protected the page. I don't care what the box says, this is serious abuse of admin tools. It doesn't matter how strongly the admin in question believes in one set of ideas or another, this is simply unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This amounts to WP:OWN and the admins position should be examined.--Crossmr (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Ned on this one (though it probably wasn't all that helpful trying to recreate it). It's bad enough that Krimpet took it upon herself to ignore procedure and delete a bunch of userboxes in the first place. But to do it again when deletion was overturned at DRV is really out of order. IDON'TLIKEIT is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. PC78 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets just delete DRV. It was always pointless, afterall, right? Being an admin does not make you more important than other editors. Your bit exists to serve the consensus of the community and not your own. Nevermind - I don't feel like injecting myself into WikiDrama =D --mboverload@ 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have many close friends who are male-to-female transsexual, and it is true that some of them consider the word "shemale" to be an insult when applied to them; however, this userbox does not accuse any particular person of being a "shemale," and may in fact only be referring to the subjects of "shemale" pornography, who are essentially fictional characters. In all, I would argue that it does not clearly meet the (highly subjective) CSD T1, and that deletion review should be respected. If User:krimpet feels that her opinion was not considered in DRV, she has the option to nominate it again for MfD at a later time. Dcoetzee 08:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in that vein, it's alright to use a racial epithet in a userbox, so long as it's not directed at a person, yes? From Wikti, for example, shemale is clearly pejorative - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair argument for an MfD, not for a speedy deletion after the first speedy deletion was overturned. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just another example of Krimpet abusing her tools; time to remove them, I say.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I find myself wondering... how exactly does this userbox help the encyclopedia? I can't think of one way that it contributes to building an encyclopedia or even fostering community, but it is certainly causing a lot of drama, divisions, and all around ill-will. What point would there be to keeping it? Consensus and process is not supposed to override common sense- that's IAR, our most cherished of rules. This seems pretty common sense to me: if we keep it, a lot of people are going to get offended, community standards are going to be lowered, and the air will be just a little smoggier. If we delete it, one editor who could have improved an article but instead spent that time making a questionable userbox will get his ego bruised, and the thousands of people here on Wikipedia who are so enthused by their love of "shemales" that they feel the need to scream it from the top of Mt. Sinai will be forced to do it without a userbox. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can;'t defend a userbox such as this, but neither can I justify an admin overriding the result of a DRV. I regret that such an excellent admin as Krimpet has let her understandable indignation defeat her commitment to orderly procedure. That she's right on the underlying issue is irrelevant--the userbox will be deleted rapidly enough with the normal procedure. It is in just such cases like this that there is an advantage in proceeding in the normal way--it's much less fuss than trying to override a community process. DGG (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Sometimes using process saves time (and drama). Oh, and we don't need that userbox. Kusma (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You completely hit the nail on the head : ) - jc37 08:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I'm fine with this userbox being deleted in due process, and would probably vote for its deletion (or rewording); I just don't believe it meets T1. Dcoetzee 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted as there no doubt are transexual editors and a box like this would make them less keen to edit alongside someone displaying it, as they might fear the person is a bit sleazy and they might be 'pounced' on. However I don't know how it can be done in process now for a while. Sticky Parkin 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for the MFD to be over with. If the MFD ends as a keep then we'll have this restored and at that point Krimpet should file a new MfD for this specific userbox. If they all end as delete then it won't be relevant. Does that seem reasonable to people? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and inappropriate tool use by User:JzG

Resolved

 – Discussion continues at Talk:ABN AMRO. –xeno (talk)

I just noticed this debate going on Talk: ABN_AMRO. Apparently there was move proposal which was determined successful, and "ABN AMRO" was moved to "ABN Amro". One of the participants, User:JzG then moved the article back, saying "Silly move. This company is a customer of mine, AMRO is how they style themselves, it's not for us to "correct" them."[42] Then there was some edit warring by two of the participants in the move proposal, which led to another page move by JzG [43], who wrote, "Fuck the MOS, this is what the ocmpany is LEGALLY called." Then to enforce his move, he move-protected it [44]. This seems a blatant misuse of the admin tools. JzG's talk page says he is "retired", but he doesn't seem to be. I request that some uninvolved admins take a look here, and keep an eye out for any further abusing of the tools by this editor. --C S (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more recent Talk:ABN_AMRO#Straw_poll indicates that there was no consensus for the move from ABN AMRO to ABN Amro. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was canvassing this second time around, if you investigate the recent contributions of User:Steelbeard1, the most vocal opponent to the move. --C S (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with the thought "Fuck the MOS": I experience it at least once a day. That matter aside, I might point out that the capitalization of Amro/AMRO has recently been and still is under discussion (on occasion improbably heated) at MoS too. As I'm an opinionated (but I hope polite) participant there, I shan't say more here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I notified him but I'm concerned about the move protection to prevent others from changing it. While it obviously stops regular users, admins aren't going to want to wheel-war over something that disputed. I would hope for a removal of the protection and leaving it to be discussed yet again. -- 05:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment except to say that the media, including the financial media, is roughly split between "ABN AMRO" and "ABN Amro". --NE2 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Should JzG have protected the page himself? Probably not. But does the page need to be protected? Absolutely. There is clearly no consensus. In order to alleviate the concerns above, in my own small and humorous way, I have reversed JzG's action, and then re-protected the page myself. A few people, plus a manual of style policy, plus "prior consensus" used as a bludgeon, does not override current consensus, or lack thereof. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you sure you have properly observed the timeline of events? Note that the initial move and determination of consensus, rightly or wrongly, was done by someone uninvolved in the discussion. Indeed, JzG is the one that started the move war. It seems to me you are saying that JzG's protecting the page after moving the page himself to "his" version is justified because you agree with him. --C S (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with him that the concept of "consensus" has been misused; it was determined with very few people, and then when more people arrived, they were told to stop objecting because the decision had already been made. (Although I don't fault the original decision; at the time this issue was probably thought to be uncontroversial.) So I protected the page in its current version, which also happens to be the original version. Regarding the capitalization issue, I couldn't care less. But both sides have used tactics I consider heavy handed, and I want you all to go back to talking and stop moving the page back and forth. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: there's clearly no consensus for the initial move which is why it's been reversed. Remember, the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - someone boldly moved it, but it's been reverted to the initial version while discussion is under way. Meanwhile, the page is protected in a way that prevents users from continuing to edit-war or move the page during this time. To resolve the content dispute, both sides should consider pursuing dispute resolution; particularly Article RFC or mediation, as the current approach in resolving it is clearly not working, or helpful to the pedia. (NB: I myself have no view on the merits of this content dispute, momentarily.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, precisely that. And please not that if the MoS fans had not immediately reverted my move back to the original title, I would obviously not have move protected it. Just one more minor fact they forgot to mention. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If Guy knows something about the company through personal experience, then he is in a good position to contribute helpfully to the discussion and potentially sway the discussion in his favor. That's what he should be doing, anyway—ignoring or defying other contributors and imposing his own preference through admin tools isn't acceptable. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So am I as I am a former ABN AMRO customer until it sold the bank I do business with (LaSalle Bank Midwest) to Bank of America. When the articles for Bank of America and the former ABN AMRO American unit LaSalle Bank were changed to say "ABN Amro", that's when I become involved in the dispute. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, could you clarify the retired template on your talk page? It is a constant source of confusion to editors. A revert-protect sequence would be a poor example for other administrators, but it seems that the underlying dispute is quite trivial, and that instead of edit warring or protection, other measures could be more effective. In any case, I urge the disputants to drop this immediately. Name the article the same way the company styles itself on its own website. That can be determined without any sort of debate. (I've done business with them before, and yes, it is ABN AMRO, and that's what appears on their website.) Jehochman ^Talk 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows something about something... it still needs to be backed by reliable sourcing, and agreed through consensus however. Minkythecat (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

regardless of the merits, if the matter is a genuine dispute rather than vandalism, I can not see how it is even remotely acceptable for any administrator engaged in the dispute, to ever protect a page in his favored version, no matter how right he may be on the underlying issue. That the matter was trivial hardly makes it any the better. DGG (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved, I was attracted to the dispute by a AN thread, I have zero prior edits to the article and only one content edit which was to change the lead back to reflect the original title. If I didn't know for a fact that the company uniformly self-describes in all-caps I would not have bothered. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was I who reported the renaming without consensus to the AN. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever so slight over-reaction here, the page is not and never was edit protected, only move protected, and another admin has reinstated the move protection under their name not mine so the protection doesn't even have my name against it. I strongly dispute the "involved" claim, I have absolutely no edits whatsoever to the article before this dispute blew up, I went there to fix a problem where a "consensus" of two consenting and one dissenting was used to move an article into a title which, it is alleged, complies with MOS, but which I know, because ABN AMRO is a customer of my company, is wrong per the company's self-identification. The claim of edit warring is simply false - I have exactly one content edit to that article. One.

The "move proposal which was determined successful" was on the basis of MoS, two people agreed and one dissented. That's a grand total of three people, hardly consensus in any meaningful definition of the term. And right now the "consensus" is 7:0 for all-caps ABN AMRO, how does that affect the debate I wonder? Why did C S not mention this in the complaint? Why did C S not mention that I had zero edits to the article before it was brought to the noticeboards as a problem? Why did C S call me on edit warring when I have exactly one content edit to the article? Why did C S not mention that I only protected it after they reverted my move back to the original title in line with WP:BRD? Why did C S not reference the fact that I have already discussed this at length on the article's talk page? Why did C S not mention that this has already been discussed on the noticeboards? All questions which I think might usefully be considered here.

When it comes to how a company styles itself, the company itself is the most reliable source. Here we have a group of people looking for support for a move that was originally predicated on MOS grounds, but which conflicts with the company's self-identification. Check the website, see if you can find a single instance of the mixed capitalisation there. Same in email footer, contracts and other communications. Finally, this is blatant forum shopping. Not only has it been previously discussed, the discussion on Talk is now 7:0 in favour of ABN AMRO on precisely the grounds I note, that this is how the company self-identifies. Wikipedia is not here to tell companies that they should conform to our manual of style in describing themselves, that is hubris of the highest order. In as much as ABN AMRO exists any more (it's being split between the buyout partners Fortis, RBS and Santander), it identifies itself as ABN AMRO and our MoS is of no real importance by comparison. End of. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• On reflection I replace the above comment with this: Evil Dutch Bankers in conspiracy to destroy WP:MOS, entire Wikipedia threatened! Admin with tengential connection to Evil Dutch Bankers involved! Pictures at eleven! I think that more accurately reflects the reality and invdeed the seriousness of this complaint. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that an admin should not use protection to enforce a personal opinion. It can be used to enforce consensus (if necessitated by edit or move warring), but at the time of protecting the article, as you explain, the (non-consensus) was 2-1 in favor of the move. You should have added to the discussion as an editor, not trumped it as an admin. It doesn't matter if you were "right" about the issue. It doesn't matter if there is now an emerging consensus in line with your views. An admin's responsibility, fundamentally, is to uphold consensus, whatever that may happen to be -- not to control the encyclopedia according to his sensibilities. Nothing justifies that behavior.--Father Goose (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, that isn't really what happened. A discussion with virtually no participants moved the article to a title whihc is simply wrong, according to the company's own self-identification. Per WP:BRD I moved it back. The MoS-warriors then reverted that move - they started the war. I am not vested in either side, I have no prior edits ot the article and no prior involvement in MoS disputes that I can recall either. This is a skirmish in MoS v. Real World, and it's not a very significant one either. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per BRD you were damn well entitled to move it back. But once they re-reverted you, you were involved. You had a view, they defied your view, and you enforced your view using the tools. You may even be right about the MoS being wrong, but you have to establish a consensus for that view before enforcing it, because you do not have the right of diktat. That is not the role of an admin. That is not a privilege of adminship. It does not matter one bit if your views about the MoS issue were sound; you do not have the right to enforce that view. You only have the right to enforce consensus, which at the time, did not exist.--Father Goose (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that ABN AMRO is the legal name of a corporation where trademark claims clearly do not apply. Look at the Hoover's directory listing at [45] where it clearly shows that the company name is "ABN AMRO Holding N.V." The ABN AMRO name is both an abbreviation and an acronym standing for Algemene Bank Nederland-Amsterdam Rotterdam Bank. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not Father Goose's point and not the subject of this discussion. user:Everyme 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, please do not use this page to discuss the merits of the capitalization issue. Do that on Talk:ABN AMRO. Thanks! -- SCZenz (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The original move from AMRO to Amro was improper, as there was no consensus among the few that even knew about the discussion, so moving it back to AMRO was appropriate until or if this incredibly tedious issue can be resolved. Meanwhile, it's spreading across multiple pages. This is just one of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, you used your admin tools during a content dispute which you are intimately involved in. That is absolutely wrong and you know it. Further, you are using vulgarity as part of your reasoning. Lastly, you are referring to those of the other spelling opinion as "MoS-Warriors". That's absolutely unnecessary. You are wrong, JzG, and you owe Wikipedia an apology for the yet again misuse of your admin tools. It just so happens that I used to work for ABN-AMRO and I agree with the all capitalized spelling, but I won't be getting involved in this content dispute while you continue with your admin abuse. Bstone (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the anal retentive MOS warriors who consider MOS a Holy Bible not to be questioned who owe Wikipedia an apology. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an update on the Talk:ABN AMRO straw poll which, as I type this, show the ABN AMRO group having a more than 3 to 1 margin over the anal retentive MOS warriors who back "ABN Amro". Because of this margin, as it currently shows, in an edit war the MOS warriors would certainly lose because of the iron clad 3RR rule because they would face at least a temporary block. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse page move by JzG. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For our next policy-guideline-wonkery battle, I suggest we try "MoS v MOS". Any takers? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, calling one editor anal-retentive would be a clear violation of WP:NPA. You are calling a whole group of editors anal-retentive. Logic dictates that you have just violated WP:NPA several times. What say you? Bstone (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I had wikied anal retentive to show that it perfectly describes the behaviour of the MOS warriors insisting on "ABN Amro" and it not intended to be an insult but to perfectly describe their behaviour. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anal retentive" is not a personal attack; it is an accurate behavioral description. I also support the page move. seicer | talk | contribs 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While "anal retentive" may not be derogatory when used in a clinical setting by practitioners of certain disciplines, it is, in my experience, never used in anything other than a derogatory sense in any other setting. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be rude but not really worth getting worked up over. Shereth 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Waring/ Article Ownership with User:Wehrmacht007

User:Wehrmacht007 has repeatedly reverted my edits, along with the edits of several other users on the List of characters in the Resident Evil series article. I attempted to talk out the issue/problems with the article, but the user has ignored me, as well a 3RR warning from another user. I added a user ownership warning to the user's talk page after he began reverting the changes of other editors for no apparent reason [46]. Any input on how to resolve this problem? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has been inactive for over two hours... just a note. -- RyRy (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has edited the same page a few hours ago, but till seemingly ignored the comments I left. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  09:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on the telescope and history of the telescope article

Hello. I am having trouble editing some pags because a user (User:DigitalC) indiscriminately reverts my edits. You can find the "reasoning" behind his/her actions here. There was recently an "unofficial" consensus regard my very edit, so you can find the basis of my concern here. I know I should just wait for the community to take its course, but I feel I can end this here and now. I hope you can help. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome any constructive criticism and feedback regarding this issue, as it has been going on for awhile now. In fact, I was lead to it by a post here at AN/I regarding an edit war that InternetHero was involved in at Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive452#User:InternetHero). I fail to see the consensus alluded to by InternetHero, and additionally feel that a consensus cannot overrule policy such as WP:V. - DigitalC (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A variation of this dispute was brought to WP:3O last week, which I answered. There is argumentation and discussion, but nothing really in the demesne of this noticeboard. WP:RPP might need to come into play or maybe an RfC, but at least DigitalC is not being disruptive on those pages. I am tagging this resolved unless anyone can see a reason to extend the discussion here. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? LOL---You're obviously mistaken, or possibly a meat-puppet.

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here.

The latter is my defence so lets hope you have a good case against me. Happy Drinking! InternetHero (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing edit notes...

Resolved

 – Oversight requested Alex Muller 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor on the The Chaser article has added a phone number in their edit notes and is encouraging people to call it. I doubt whether anyone one will, or if it is the number it claims be or not but I don't think it should stay there. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested oversight - they'll disappear completely shortly. Cheers for this, Alex Muller 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Deleted the revisions for now, requested oversight and blocked the user responsible. Note there was a bad edit on Andrew Hansen too. the wub "?!" 10:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The person appears to be back with a new account Itsmagic (talk · contribs). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess yoy can say at least they're honest about it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Benedict Stuart

Resolved

I would be grateful for your advice please on how to handle an attack which I believe to be personally abusive? I have added contributions to the article on Henry Benedict Stuart about his personal relationships. I took pains to source and reference these correctly. Some contributors disagreed with these, and I tried to take comments on board by refining the text, and balancing the phrasing so as to avoind NPOV issues - I did this in good faith. But despite this and instead of discussing how to improve the text itself I have been subjected to pretty nasty homophobic abuse at a sustained level. I'm happy to argue points academically with other contributors but on this occasion feel that the contributor Sceptik has over-stepped the mark. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Zodiac Code?

I was browsing articles when I came across mysterious vandalism in the article for Barbara Gordon. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Here is a screenshot of it: http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p18/zaidynkaen/GlitchintheSystem.jpg

The text is as follows, for easy copy-paste: ЕНКЁШКААНЛЁПЕЦЦААЭАН ДАЛЫЧЫНВКЁШКАШЕАНЦА АМЫНЮЛЛЕЯЬЦЦЫМЬЫНЕ НКЫЫЪЕХЦЫЬЕНДЁЪПХЫ НЦЕХЁККААМПЫАКЮЫНКЁ ЛМЕЦЮХАЦЦАЁЪВАШМЕЯ АШЕЁННЫЫНХАЮШКААШ ЫНЮНПЫЦЬЫШЫЙЪЫЦЦ ЬЬЦЕХДЬШЕНПЙШЬККЫЁ НЦЙПЕЪЫЬШЫКЁЯА! Looks likes some kid playing around with the cipher used by the Zodiac killer. Contact me at this email if you want the original screenshot. I wasn't smart enough to save the page, sorry. 74 68 65 2e 73 6b 69 65 73 2e 61 62 6f 76 65 40 67 6d 61 69 6c 2e 63 6f 6d 75.169.240.246 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was template vandalism, which appears to have been fixed now. – ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've been seeing a lot of that particular vandal. He's been blocked, all his edits have been reverted, I've reported him as a potential open proxy and semi-protected all the templates he hit. Wikipedia still has a huge number of unprotected templates that present targets to vandals like this one. Hut 8.5 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism, but I am going to unprotect the following templates:

• Template:Metal Gear
• Template:Batman
• Template:YouTube channel
• Template:Cold War figures

Protecting pages that get one bad edit is not, and has never been, a necessary response to such an edit. These templates are not high profile, being used on a mere few 10s of pages, and I don't think it accurate to claim that they are. They are also not vandalism prone. I observe that some admins have recently begun to slip into thinking that there is 'an opportunity' to protect things whenever they get one vandal edit. This is a wiki, and protection is a last resort, not an opportunity to be sought out whenever it can be. The principles matter, especially when they can be demonstrated at such low cost as in the case of very many templates. I'm a bit concerned that "ah, it's a high risk template" has become too-easy an excuse for protecting vast continents of the template namespace that do not meet the description at all. Better reasons need to be thought of (but of course this is not an invite to re-protect these with spurious newly-cooked-up excuses). Splash - tk 20:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Political promotion via commons and EL

I'd like to have a third opinion on the following: Mazdoormukti (talk · contribs) (also functioning through asisdas (talk · contribs), 59.93.202.211 (talk · contribs) and 59.93.194.19 (talk · contribs)) is involved in a rather odd case of political self-promotion. Texts of Mazdoor Mukti, a small communist grouping in West Bengal, India, releases pdf pamphlets at wikimedia commons and then links them across various wikipedia articles. Whilst releasing own works to PD should be encouraged and this is still just related to a few article, I still feels that this is a case of WP:SOAP and WP:COI. I left a message at the Mazdoormukti talk page regarding COI back in July, but without response. --Soman (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the PDFs for deletion on Commons. MER-C 08:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in a Discussion

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox. Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on erasing his own comments, after other users have responded to them, and provided the references he requested. --the Dúnadan 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just revert edits like these. If Maurice27 wants to strike out comments he made, he should use the <s></s> tags. Removing usernames with the motivation "Name removed by it's owner" is not acceptable, user names are not 'owned' by anyone. --Soman (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Antonio "Tony" Montana "Scarface" and The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

Resolved

 – Puppets and master all blocked.

After myself and Asenine confronted The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (talk · contribs) about a number of suspect images he uploaded, he at first just kept lying, claiming he was the author, or uploading other stolen images in their place and claiming he was the author of them. (Example.) As soon as it seemed that he was going to start co-operating, Antonio "Tony" Montana "Scarface" (talk · contribs) came out of nowhere (having not edited in a little while) and starting mindlessly supporting 20K in all of the deletion discussions, but denies being a sock. Both of these users have a history of ignoring copyright and not taking it well when their image uploading/use is challenged,[47] as well as both sharing the 'Internet tough guy' persona. They also cross over a lot, both fussing over the images that form part of 20K's persona and the same articles. I'm unfamiliar with these sort of procedures- what should be done now? J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have strong feelings that Scarface is a sock - but the 'best friend' thing is believeable(ish). I think what is really needed now is a consensus for checkuser, but naturally there will probably need to be more evidence before such a thing can occur.  Asenine  21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, it's as plain as the nose on the face of Cyrano's near-sighted, cross-eyed cousin. Checkuser  Confirmed, also YourGr8M8 (talk · contribs) and Prem01 (talk · contribs). There's more monkeyshines in the contribs of these two accounts so examine them before deciding on an appropriate remedy for 20K. Thatcher 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks have been blocked. —Travis^talk 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is undeniably the single best heading I've ever seen on this page. I don't even care what you guys are talking about. --Masamage ♫ 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a film waiting to be made out there..... --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone block User:BombBot Commons (an account created today) as another sock and a user name improperly containing "Bot"? Deor (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Also blocked. I’m blocking the main account as well. —Travis^talk 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. Want me to slap a resolved on, or does someone else want to do that?  Asenine  08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Wasn't sure how best to handle it, I'm really not a blocking admin... J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I've tried everything I can to work with an editor, and they just continue to feet-drag, are disruptive, and talk right past me. The relevant conversation is here. You may note that this person seems to subsist only with reverts to Atropa belladonna. I'm at my wits end. This guy just cannot be worked with, he's outright rude to my research and does not respond directly to my queries. I need some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any revert wars. Diffs?  Asenine  21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a smoldering edit war that isn't partaking in outright reverts, but the effects of each of our actions is the same. I'm just having no luck getting through my points at all.... Even my attempt at compromise seems rudely rebuffed and almost ignored in a Civil POV-push tactic. Or am I wrong? I'm just so frustrated, I'm trying to get help. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pro-homeopathy POV-pushing from the "water memory" school. Water memory is completely bogus, and is relevant only to the article on homeopathy, not to anything else. Unfortunately the homeopathy mob seem to want to insert "foo is used in homeopathy" into everything under the sun. Luckily I don't think that anyone's going to be poisoned even if they do accidentally get the one bottle in a undred that has a molecule of the active principle in it, but asking for scientific proof that something doesn't work when it is diluted to the extent of less than one molecule per bottle, average, is rather silly. SA is very isolated and needs support in the numerous places where he resists overt pseudoscientific POV-pushing, so more eyes will always be welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding that homeopathy as a whole was pretty much "foo". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Simular problems have been encountered on various tlak pages relating to homeopathy and other alternative medicla proceudres. I concur with JzGuys statement and I second the cal for more experienced hands to bgo over there and help resolve the current dispute. ScienceApologist, have you ired a Request For Comment? That might help get through to an unusaly recalcitrant editor. Hope that helps. Smith Jones (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC): D

Maybe an RfC, but I really don't have time to go through and dig through all the muck right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, Bugs. It is instead, absurdly diluted "foo". Remarkably however, in this application, that small amount of foo is just as effective as a whole boatload of it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought that it actually became more effective through dilution (or whatever they call it). —Travis^talk 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. The most common remedies actually contain zero molecules of the thing the remedy is named for. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the physical chemistry it takes to understand how it is impossible to "imprint" things in water is a complex field. And it severely impairs the interested student's wonderful imaginativeness. user:Everyme 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just forum shopping. There are two threads on this at WP:FT/N. The latest one attracted outside comment from Moreschi, Jehochman, DGG, and others. They all say the same thing I said: it is one sentence, sourced reliably, stating that there are homeopathic preparations from belladonna. It's not a big deal. 2 mainstream clinical trials have been done, which unsurprisingly found it ineffective; personally, I think those trials should be included in the sentence, but they aren't currently. 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs)

Agreed. This is forum shopping. Also, we are not dealing with any form of pro-homeopathy POV pushing - at least no where I am concerned. I am not pro-homeopathy. I agree that it should be regarded as pseudoscience. I don't believe in water-memory or any of that foo. However, painting me as pro-homeopathy has been a tactic throughout this whole debate. Quite simply, I support the inclusion of a sentence which says it is used in a homeopathic remedy but the efficacy of such a remedy isn't supported by science. If anything, this is an anti-homeopathy POV which I am pushing for (it's actually the mainstream POV). Please read my final entry at FTN to get a clearer sense of where I am coming from. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see as forum shopping. It appears that he obtained a weak consensus at FTN, and is requesting help in enforcing it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, although WP:AN seems more approriate than WP:ANI. I do see it as premature, as the current status of Ab seems adequate. (And I'm forced to admit that, if anyone had asked, I would have placed you in the pro-homeopathy camp.) Would the you consider me an "uninvolved admin" for the purpose of this discussion? I've been involved with disputes with SA, II, and Levine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was more than a weak consensus at FTN, but it was one against SA's position. He's against inclusion of any text regarding homeopathy no matter how well-sourced it is. He had also posted previously here and at NPOV/N where once again the large majority of editors were against his position. So with a couple of forums not supporting his position, he now reports here saying that I'm dragging my feet and I am disruptive? I don't think so. ArthurRubin, I don't blame you for thinking that I am pro-homeopathy. The campaign to make it appear that way has been perpetrated by editors for such a long time and done so well, how could you believe otherwise? But make no mistake, I am scientific skeptic thru-and-thru. I don't believe in the efficacy of any treatment unless the science is there to back it. But I am also fair. Just because I may have a personal opinion that something is bunk, doesn't mean that I am going to suppress any mention of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia other than on its main article. Wikipedia is about knowledge. And in this case, the knowledge that "Atropa belladonna is used to prepare a certain popular homeopathic remedy with an efficacy unsupported by mainstream science" is well-sourced, relevant, and therefore can and should be included in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes it seem more like forumshopping to me is SA's lack of mention of the other discussions, where he didn't get the answer that he wanted. II | (t - c) 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I also see signs of a admin dispute, as another admin, on User talk:Levine2112, seems to have come to the conclusion that SA is right and Levine is wrong, while my conclusion is that Levine is right, and I have no idea what SA wants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee

Resolved

Persistent addition of (critical) anonymous blog to article is against WP policy. Philip Cross (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, but what, precisely, are you requesting in terms of administrative intervention? Shereth 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems (different) IP's are persistently adding a blog reference into the article Polly Toynbee,[48] [49] [50] recommend semi-protection. - Icewedge (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 7 days. -- The Anome (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ReputationDefender & Administrator Sanctioned Censorship

I'm writing about something which seems to be occuring more frequently. A company called Reputation Defender is using multiple novel approaches to vandalising wikipedia articles. ReputationDefender is a service hired by individuals who explicitly want information factual or otherwise removed from the internet. I'm writing about just one of those approaches. The seemingly justified merging of articles. Once the articles are merged, certain information is no longer relevant and removal becomes easier to justify. Below is a description of recent hijinks concerning Ronen 'Ronnie' Segev. Segev acquired Internet fame recently after a customer service alercation with priceline.com

Good or Bad, thr article, and Ronen "Ronnie" Segev, is now part of Internet History as it relates to Internet Censorship. Interestingly there is nothing defamatory in any of the articles. They are simply a statement of events which transpired. This is very basic factual information.It is ironic that the article itself is now the victim of such censorship by a company called Reputation Defender, employed by either priceline.com or Segev himself.

Is this editor Xoloz employed by ReputationDefender as well? This cannot be tolerated!

Why was this article merged? ...when there was no justification for such a merging?

Simple: it's very hard to argue against the relevance of the priceline.com controversy information in a 'Ronen Segev' article, but it is much MUCH easier to argue against such information as relevant in a newly merged 'Ten O'Clock Classics' article...this administrator and this article needs to be reviewed by multiple independent administrators.

--Vancedecker (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28, [51] and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_27 for the full story on this. I have deleted and protected the latest incarnation. Kevin (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not attempt to argue this matter further. As the history of such incidents is against the casual poster. I may post something to Jimbo Wales as my last gasp jumping from the increasingly infiltrated and manipulated sinking shell which used to be wikipedia. On a positive note, I now know where to go if I ever have something I don't like appearing on the Internet, ReputationDefender obviously does a damn good job! --Vancedecker (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Need some help here

• Top Gun‎ (talk · contribs)
• Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs)
• Battle of Tskhinvali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Top Gun and Captain are both currently blocked for edit warring on the above named article. Captain was reported by an anon IP which I suspect might actually be Top Gun (CUs?). Regardless of that (there is definitely edit warring) Top Gun has been indeffed in the past, in part for copyright violations, and then unblocked with strict instructions to never do it again. Captain has now accused him of doing it again, with word for word ripoffs of major news websites [52] and [53]. Firstly Top Gun has a hell of a lot of edits in a short space of time to that article - many of which could be copyvios - some help finding them would be great. Secondly - I am inclined to indeff him again, partially for edit warring but mostly for copyvios again - ie breaking the unblock conditions. I know the unblock was a while ago but someone caught with copyright violations should only have to be told once. Feedback (and help!) please? Viridae^Talk 08:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP that reported Captain Obvious was me and I'm not Top Gun‎. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog_reported_by_User:92.8.254.213_.28Result:_1_week.29 or this diff [54] for more details. I would have reported Top Gun as well but filling out the report just for Captain Obvious took long enough. I also knew that if he got blocked he'd likely complain about Top Gun and get him blocked as well so I saved myself the extra effort and let him do it. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain's block (for a week) seems a little harsh, considering his edit-warring was reverting Top Gun's godawful edits (which included misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing). I have asked the blocking admin (Seicer) to consider reducing the block's duration. I would also be inclined to indef Top Gun if he returns to POV-pushing or making up death statistics again. Neıl ☄ 11:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've cut Captain's block down to two hours, considering the god-awful quality of the edits he was reverting and have also unblocked Top Gun and then reblocked him indefinitely. You can't lie about sources, and he was. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite seems a bit high. Can you provide some diffs of all the lying he's done? I can see where he changed a Georgian casualty figure from 200 to 180 for no apparent reason when the reference said 200. That doesn't seem to be a work of a master criminal though. The figures and references and their history are confusing on that page anyway. I think editors have changed some figures without changing the references that supported the old figures that they removed, so some figures aren't supported by their references even though they were if you go further back in the edit history. I can see where he's added correct figures and added accurate references for "citation needed" tags earlier on down the history, before he got into the argument with (a fairly belligerant) Captain Obvious. Not saying he isn't POV, just that an indefinite block seems high, as does a 2 hour block seem low for Captain Obvious 92.11.162.47 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As ever, indefinite does not mean forever - it means "for only as long as there are unresolved issues." Once issues are satisfactory resolved, then the block can be lifted or substituted for one of an appropriate length. Only when indefinite blocks are imposed as part of a community ban can it be considered infinite - which is likely the period most folk are mistaking indefinite for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, many times an indefinite block will eventually be much shorter than a specific time block. Once issues are resolved with an indefinite block, the block is typically lifted. With a block of, say, a week, most editors/admins are more inclined to have the editor just "serve the block time" or something similar. I don't like how indefinite blocks have a stigma of "forever" around here. Tan ǀ 39 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought indefinite meant forever. How about blocking both parties from editing the Category:2008 South Ossetia war articles for a week? They could do with some less confrontational input from other people and there are lots of other articles to edit. 92.8.255.240 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive airport page-moves?

Special:Contributions/Jasepl. He's changing the names of foreign airports to their "translated" official name. Check his talk page, and you'll see it's been quite thoroughly explained to him that this is not how pages are named, and it's been made very clear to him that he is disagreed with. So a few dozen page moves strikes me as fairly uncooperative. Well, I'm going to bed, so I'm just posting this for someone less tired. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

I just came across User:SLJCOAAATR 1 in a ani case filed a few days ago, and, me being the curious person I am, I clicked onto his userpage, and found that he had a lot of personal information on it, His age, location and other things, usually this wouldn't be a problem but this user isn't even 15 yet, so I am requesting a second opinion on this. Another thing which came to my attention was the behemothic ammount of userboxes and quite a rude statement on the top of his userpage. Citedcover (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread. I'll write him a message about the userpage a little later. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the message at the top of his page is remarkably restrained considering how he was "welcomed" by certain "trusted and respected" editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about restraint, it is incivil, considering he got blocked indefinitley and then unblocked within hours, he has no reason to display such a message. Citedcover (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image from Karren Brady article

Resolved

 – image has been deleted

--Crossmr (talk)

Someone may want to look at this diff and its edit summary, where an IP registered to Birmingham City F.C. removed an image from their managing director Karren Brady's article, claiming it to be a doctored image, and mentioning "further action". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment (from a non-admin): I wonder if this is more a case of DOLT than NLT? The picture removed certainly appears heavily edited, when compared to other images of Karren Brady.

Not defending the anon's actions in any way, just musing.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It was partially discussed here: Talk:Karren_Brady#Photo. Cell phone pictures are often not clear, or perfect, and can sometimes look strange. I don't see any evidence that it has been doctored. Regardless, it sounds like if the image is restored (which I'm going to do as the reason given seems false) they're threatening legal action.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is now a moot discussion as an admin has up and deleted the image without any discussion, citing its clarity.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn! I just reverted the anon. Oh well, time to self-revert.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the image in a google cache, [55], and compared to some other images [56], [57] it may be off. I don't think its been doctored, I think the aspect ratio may just be off on the photo. as her whole face looks stretched.--Crossmr (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm guys, this is how you deal with such cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hope they do come through with a decent pic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP left his email address in one of the edit summaries; might it be worth contacting him? Neıl ☄ 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wants to renew a polite request for a replacement image with them, sure, they might. Other than that, I personally consider the matter closed. The image was clearly unsuitable; and, just as clearly, we can't demand they collaborate with us and give us a better one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP is the same address as Bcfcmarketing (talk · contribs) who I am in contact with. They have been blocked as a corporate account and another admin might want to look at their unblock request. I have directed them towards Wikipedia:Contact us. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation and identities template move/merge

I don't participate in the normal editing of this template, I am an outside observer. I have noticed how volatile the templates have been recently, and there seems to have recently been an edit war on the content. Template Talk:Sexual orientation and identities

After two days discussion (or less), one editor merged two templates, "Sexual orientation" and "Sexual identities". Perhaps it is a good idea, perhaps not, I don't have an opinion. I do know that the article moved from edit war to article merge within a few hours. Discussion on the talk page does not seem to indicate any consensus for a merge, but instead, action by one editor.

I am of the opinion that templates, more than articles, need to be changed very selectively and with sensitivity. I don't think great care has been taken in this case. Atom (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tq6993

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have been very patient with this user, and tried assuming good faith. However, no matter how many editors warn him, or politely ask him to stop he continues to delete sourced content, based on his personal opinion. Here He even says every time he logs on to Wikipedia he is going to delete the sourced content he doesn't agree with. Here is some examples [58] [59] [60] [61] and many more. He has received several warnings including two level 4's. I don't know what else to do so I'm bringing it here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch administrators, bureaucrats and editors handling of User:86.83.155.44

OK, this is a multi wiki case, and I am getting increasingly annoyed about it. The current part is here, I'll leave the other wikis to themselves (but mention them here to show similarities).

User:86.83.155.44 is an IP mainly/only used by (according to the signing etc.) D.A. Borgdorff. DAB came into problems on the Dutch wikipedia for some conflict of interest edits (don't know the case extensively, I am not a regular on nl.wikipedia, though I am Dutch), and apparently there have been some cases about that. I do see that the user indeed has that tendency of linking to own work/books, but if the reference is OK, and the editor is not only adding that, then it merits discussion, not plain blanking of such edits. I'd like to note at this point that conflict of interest edits here are discouraged, but not forbidden. Still, a couple of editors, as far as I can see all originating from the Dutch wikipedia (there are a few edits from 'locals', but not many), have followed this IP around many wikipedia, erasing his contributions (which are quite often indeed involving himself)

I have blocked and unblocked user:86.83.155.44 twice, in both cases assuming good faith on the user, hoping that he would improve his edits (and I think he is, he seems to stay away from the conflicts that resulted in the blocks). I did however quite strongly warn, also after the unblocks.

For as far as I can see, the involved Dutch editors are:

• User:MoiraMoira (admin, bureaucrat on nl)
• User:Erik Baas (editor on nl)
• User:Robotje (admin on nl)
• User:Wammes Waggel (editor on nl)

(there may be more)

I have now given user talk:MoiraMoira a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (yes, I know about not templating regulars), for twice reverting user:86.83.155.44 on user talk:86.83.155.44:

• diff - summary: "please do not remove text of some one else on this talk page" - note that all what was removed was in own comments, and the rest was moved.
• user:86.83.155.44 reverted the edit, and starts discussing on user talk:MoiraMoira.
• diff - redoing revert of the edits; summary: "please do respect other people's contributions on this talk page and be so polite to answer questions asked before deleting them which is rather unpolite" - similar as above, nothing was deleted from others, only moved, and deletions only in own comments.

Other interesting diffs:

• diff - Erik Baas removing a non existing redlink in comments made by user:86.83.155.44 (reverted by me, Erik Baas warned about this)
• diff (to Tram) and diff (to List of town tramway systems), both without explanation. The removed reference on Tram were there for over 10 months, and 400 edits, and does seem to assert the statement (I have now converted into a more conventional reference). 86.83.155.44 reverted the removal, and was then re-reverted by Erik Baas (both 2 times). Information does not have to stay because it is there for a long time, but this unexplained blanking of a probably good reference is strange.

On many other wikis the user is blocked for various times. I saw this yesterday on it.wikipedia, where this user is blocked for a year after a handful of edits to his talkpage (last revert, diff by MoiraMoira: "Linkspam removed again - user does not contribute to wikipedia, only misuses talkpages for nonsense everywhere" and only to his talkpage since the last block finished!). Note, the 'linkspam' are links to some images in the top of his user talk page. I don't know about the Italian rules, but this seems quite strange to me (example contribution, so the user does contribute). Also, linkspam for me is something that is mainly visible in mainspace, or linked to that, and may be a very promoting userpage, but a talkpage which has a sentence (which may be for own convenience or whatever reason) does not need, IMHO, such drastic action. And I can't see that the self-promotion is quite obvious, but I am not happy that Dutch editors, administrators and bureaucrats are doing this, in this way, here.

If looking around on other wikis, the same Dutch users are involved in many of 'discussion' and blocks. To me this seems harassing/stalking, but I'd like some other comments before I go on. Maybe I am missing something crucial here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed references he included to his book in five other articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in July (together with Tram, this makes at least six articles where he included this reference, which seems a bit much for a local, self-published book (published by a club of tram enthusiasts that is). Afterwards, an edit war occurred between the IP doctor and a few Dutch editors (I was not involved in the edit war or the following blocking). I have today removed the reference to his own work again from Tram (while doing some other much needed cleanup on this poor article), together with the example that was referenced by this book. It added no value to the article at all.

As for the rest of this case: yes, Borgdorff is stalked by Dutch editors, which is bad. But on the other hand, Borgdorff has been IMO a nuisance on many Wikipedias, being mainly a dual purpose account, adding references to his own work and to a fringe scientist, while otherwise mainly being busy making tons of extremely small edits to his signature. It would be better for the English Wikipedia if both sides (Borgdorff and the listed Dutch editors) took there efforts elsewhere. Spamming Wikipedia articles with your own work is a bad idea, and following editors around to other Wikipedia versions isn't much better. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am (not hard) disputing that it does not add .. there now is not a reference for the '150 trams', which is in the book .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Shevashalosh

There is a content dispute between this editor and mainly me on several issues.

• He wants to rename Deir Yassin Massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin
• We don't agree on the choice between Siege of Jerusalem (1948) and Battle of Jerusalem (1948)
• There is also a dispute on Operation Nachshon
• He wrote this article Blood Libel at Deir Yassin which is considered at best badly written and NPoV, at worst Pov-fork by all editors on the talk page of the article... (here I am far less involved)

I tried to bring some issues on the project military history
But he prevented any discussion in attacking me.
I also brought the debate on the talk page of the article Siege of Jerusalem (1948) where he didn't answer. I brought the discussion on the talk page on the Project Israel and again he attacked me.
(fed up, I deleted one of his attacks there)
I have been adviced by Gatoclass to complain here.
I am aware of how to settle resolution dispute but I am sorry, there is no rationale with Shevashalosh and I don't see how to discuss with him.
I would highly appreciate some support because it is not possible to work in these conditions...
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) NB: I would highly appreciate the intervention of a sysop who agrees to talk a little bit about the content too, because, it is a little bit "too much"... Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Libro0

I have had nothing but problems with Libro0. I try to get him and another user to stop their war, and he calls me a sockpuppet of the other user (among several others he suspects, most without cause) and has launched a series of passive aggressive attacks. The latest was a series ultimatums and threats, in his typical passive aggressive style which implies I am a sockpuppet. Take a look here [62] and here [63]. His "evidence" of sockpuppetry is laughable at best, delusional at worst - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy and this [64]. Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)