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

Review of A Man In Black's block of Jtrainor

A Man in Black has been in a content dispute with multiple parties over his claim of a copyvio for general information in a infobox on Gundam (mobile suit). He has threatened and followed through on blocking Jtrainor in blatant violation of our blocking policy in the following manner: You do not block those who you are involved in a content dispute with. I would suggest that Jtrainor is unblocked immediately and AMIB be reminded that you do not use the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and that blocking is not to be used in a purely punitive manner. There was no other dispute resolution tried other than AMIB threatening this user. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "this is a copyvio" constitutes a content dispute. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and citing "policies" will get you nowhere. Admittedly, it might have been a better idea to ask somebody else to block, but I'm not sure that an immediate unblock is warranted.

Also, it's a long-standing practice to block people who insert copyvios – it's not necessarily punitive, but deterrent (which is, of course, a legitimate preventative purpose for a block). — Werdna • talk 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that he claims it is a copyvio, however, claiming that a character has blonde hair or a spaceship has laser beams does not seem to be copyvio, but simply a ploy to hide the fact that he's attempting to camouflage his violation (which is threatening to use the mop to quell dissent and gain advantage in a simple content dispute). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look at this. The relevant diff seems to be here. The website in question is here. The next few edits to Gundam (mobile suit) were reverts of this information about the character. One of the reverts was by Kyaa (who started this thread and should have mentioned that she was involved in this). Kyaa was carrying out the same edit as User:Jtrainor, but Jtrainor was the only one to re-add the information more than once. Presumably that is why User:A Man In Black blocked, but I need to check the user and article talk pages and the block logs, and check they've been notified. I'll do that now, as well as consider the copyvio claim. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial follow-up: there is another article involved: MSN-03 Jagd Doga. See this diff and this website and then step through the page history from there. Kyaa mentioned this thread on Jtrainor's talk page, but didn't link to the thread, so I've left a link there, and at AMIB's talk page. Looking at the block log and contributions now to find out if this is being discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found another article where this dispute has erupted. See RGM-89 Jegan, where with this edit AMIB says " All of this is copyvio from mahq.net" ([1]). The root of the dispute seems to be at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. It seems to go back as far as November 2007. See here (compare with Infobox MS Gundam, now a redirect). There was an edit war over that infobox back in November 2007. Then things started up again a few days later with this edit and this edit ("Why do we have two infoboxes for the same thing?" - from User:TheFarix), which led to this edit by AMIB ("Because I never finished converting them to dump all the in-universe nonsense"). The diffs for that infobox from here to here seem to sum up what is happening:

• AMIB - "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail; a lot of this still needs to be retooled to better emphasize RL, but hey"
• TheFarix - "rvt; given past opposition. The fields previously removed where those suggested by proponents as unnecessary"
• AMIB - "It's still highly in-universe, unencyclopedic, and wholly unsourced"
• L-Zwei - "oh, then exclude heigh as well. I think weapons are actually more important in represent mech's characteristic"
• TheFarix - "I agree, the height and weight doesn't really tell you anything about the mecha while aremaments and special equipmenet does"
• AMIB - "It's not the most important facts about the subject as an object in the real world. If a weapon or special system is important, it's in the body of the article. If it isn't, it doesn't bear mention"
• TheFarix - "rvt; You are not going to dictate what can and cannot be included in the infobox without discussion and consensus. You don't WP:OWN this template"
• AMIB - "Offer a single non-licensed source discussing the armaments in the detail that these infoboxes go into and I'll relent"
• Jtrainor - "rv vandalism by someone who has no interest or knowledge about the subject matter and insists on inserting his version anyways against consensus"
• AMIB - "Reverted edits by Jtrainor (talk) to last version by A Man In Black"

OK. That's enough for now. I think I've uncovered enough of the history for something sensible to be decided. Hopefully AMIB and Jtrainor will add more if I missed anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed a few. See Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam. Particularly the sections Ahem (from the November 2007 dispute), and Redesign (the October 2008 dispute). At the WikiProject, we have numerous threads showing clashes between AMIB and the WikiProject. Starting from around here (June 2007). More clashes are here, here, here, here, here, here (what is the "I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now" referring to - from November 2007?), and here (the latest dispute in October 2008). So what we seem to have is a long-running dispute over in-universe and possible copyvio stuff, running from at least June 2007 through July 2007, November 2007, and now October 2008. Anyone have any ideas how to handle this? What was the resolution process back in November 2007? The first "Characters and Episodes" arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And more to point, was the block justified? I'm not entirely convinced that the copyvio case is not debatable, but I do see a long running attempt by AMIB to clean up an in-universe area (the Gundam anime articles), along with dealing with copyright issues (non-free images and possibly character information - if that turns out to be copyrightable - see for example the note AMIB left for Kyaa [2]), and a long history of resistance at the WikiProject and poor interaction between AMIB and Jtrainor, culminating in the confrontational exchange here: Copyright warning by AMIB, "Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats." (Jtrainor), followed by "Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again." (AMIB). The block is due to expire 08:47 UTC, 2 November 2008, which is around 20 hours from now. No response yet from either side. I would hope AMIB manages to answer here before the block expires - someone should also keep an eye on Jtrainor's talk page for any response there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen blocks overturned, due to the block being done by "involved admins" - overturned on far flimsier grounds than this. It looks to me like AMIB simply doesn't like that info being in the article, and is using whatever reasons he can come up with, to keep it out. It looks like blatant abuse of admin power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The simple fact is that AMIB is POV pushing in template and article space. His claim that listing the armaments and other statistics of fictional elements amounts to a copyright violation is simply the latest argument he has used in order to remove these statistics. Originally, it was that the statistics overwhelm the page giving WP:UNDUE weigh to in-universe details, that they violate WP:WAF, or that no reliable third-party sources list such information. At no point has he ever sought a third opinion or any other dispute resolution procedure, instead preferring to use his administrative tools to enforce his preferred version.

If you also look at WT:GUNDAM who will see a long history of AMIB and the Gundam WikiProject bumping heads over various issues. At times, I do think that AMIB is deliberately antagonizing them. As a result, the WikiProject has lost its focus in cleaning up and improving Gundam-related articles. This is one of the reason why I've suggested that WP:ANIME absorbs WP:GUNDAM as a work group. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. AMIB does make some good points though. There is a point at which sourcing/copying character information from a website probably can become a copyright violation. The essential points are whether the basic elements of the information is copyrightable (probably not), and whether the information as a whole for a character, or set of characters, is copyrightable (a bit like a database copyright, but not quite the same as here we have artistic [fictional] content). If Wikipedia is presenting the information here in the same way as it is being presented on the official websites, then we are, in effect, directly competing with them for web traffic, even if some of our readers follow the links to the sources and to the official website. It is also easier to justify including such information when it is discussed and placed in a real-world context in the main text of an article (using third-party sources) rather than just repeated verbatim as in-universe information in an infobox. One final point - it is possible for different editors, working over months and years, to separately add stuff from a source, and for the final article to end up being a copy of all the information from that source - this is a problem of unintentional "piece-by-piece" copyright violation that is peculiar to the wiki-model, and that Wikipedia will have to address at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're generously making AMIB's argument for him, whereas it would be much better if he himself would comment - if he decides it's worth bothering with, since there is currently no hint of any sanction against him. While his claim of "copyright violation" is pretty lame, it would have more credibility if he hadn't been all over the map with his previous arguments against it, which simply add up to "I don't like it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are actually my arguments, not AMIB's arguments (though he may agree with me). I will say that I'm not impressed with AMIB's flippant "well, OK" response to Jtrainor's "this is a content dispute". As I've laid out above, AMIB does have a long history of disputing what should go in that infobox, and in the past, AMIB has started from trying to clean up in-universe stuff, to switching to copyright stuff. He may be right in both cases, but it does feel like another stage in the same long-running dispute. AMIB is clearly heavily involved here, and should have requested a second opinion, instead of allowing Jtrainor's 'block me if you dare' comment to bait him into blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether AMIB has a point does not justify him enforcing that point by edit waring, blocking one editor, and threatening to block a second editor involved in the dispute. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You've said that. I'm waiting to see what others say. I think there are two issues that need resolving here. The immediate issue of the block, and the wider issue of the long-running festering issues at the Gundam WikiProject. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Update - it seems that the previous dispute resolution wasn't an arbitration case. It was a mediation. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. Not sure how far that got things to improve (seems to have been withdrawn when things started to improve), but it is clear that things have taken a turn for the worse again. I've also noticed that the dates of Jtrainor's other two blocks (July 2007 and November 2007) coincide with the dates of Gundam-related disputes. Unfortunately, the blocking admins did not specify the articles that were involved in the blocks. I could dig through Jtrainor's talk page history, but will drop a note off for the blocking admins as well and see what they can remember. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Final update for now - there is quite a history of this on Jtrainor's talk page. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a mess. Jtrainor has filed an unblock request under the latest section. See here. I have to go out now for the rest of the day, but I hope there is enough here for others to review and sort out what needs doing. As I said, it is a mess and a long-running dispute. I'll check back in the evening and see what has happened then. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • • FYI the November 2007 blocks probably revolved primarily around Gundam Mk-II, Psyco Gundam and MSN-03 Jagd Doga (disputes over "in universe" content and sourcing) and Jean Carry Talia Gladys (along with all the other characters in the ZAFT / OMNI / PLANT alliances) re: copyright material. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I was also blocked my A Man In Black (my first block on Wikipedia) over almost the same thing, though things were more civil back then. I had hoped that that big mediation process we went through with AGK had resolved some disputes, but obviously that is not the case. This is an old issue. MalikCarr (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Addendum, interested parties ought to review Jtrainor's unblock appeal, in which interesting and relevant points are made on the topic of copyright violation. See here. This issue has also been addressed before, wherein some consensus was gained and to which A Man In Black was opposed to, in the infobox template's talk page which has been previously addressed above. MalikCarr (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The request for mediation on Gundam was exclusively for edit warring on in-universe-like items in one of the Gundam infoboxes. At its worst, they were repeatedly reverting each other without discussion. Then they seemed to be getting better at talking more than reverting, and so I didn't think mediation needed to be pursued. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar, except what AMIB is saying is not just that they are in-universe, but that they are copyright violations as well. I haven't looked closely enough into this 18-month-long dispute to work out when the copyright concerns first surfaced (a few days ago, six months ago, a year ago?). Hopefully AMIB will turn up and clarify that. There have been more developments on Jtrainor's talk page, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question. If Jtrainor is going to remained block for edit waring, should AMIB also be blocked for the same violation? --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be punitive and unhelpful. A warning would be justified if consensus finds that AMIB did anything wrong. I personally would warn him not to block in cases like this where he has a long history of clashing with Jtrainor. If someone wants me to explicitly put that on his talk page, I will do so. But a block would not prevent anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked based on the discussion here and on the user talk page. If Jtrainor resumes the edit war, he can always be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And if AMIB also resumes edit warring, I assume he will be blocked as well? After all, it wouldn't be appropriate to give such a stipulation to one party but let the more aggressive party in the dispute off the hook. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope so. Policies should apply to everyone, sysop or no. MalikCarr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

The locus of this dispute is based around whether it is acceptable to include some of the fictional statistics of the items in question. AMIB's latest position on this issue is that it is not, because they are a copyvio. This is clearly false, as the information falls under fair use, and is not as detailed as in, say, model kit manuals and so forth, as well as the official guides on the matter. The current material in virtually all cases serves to better describe the items in question, similar to the stat blocks on, say, Star Destroyer, or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), or Battlestar Galactica (ship), or Andromeda Ascendant, or . It provides additional information in a concise form that is of interest both to fans of the subject and to people who are seeking information about an item. Certain items in these lists of equipment are even linked elsewhere, to better provide understanding about the subject to those who may be unfamiliar with it. For example, in the previously mentioned MSN-03 Jagd Doga article, there are links on the words Newtype, psycommu, mobile suit, and funnel, to points in the appropriate article which explain what these things are. Likewise, the name of the designer, the series it appears in, and the fictional pilot of the unit in question are highlighted as well in case one wishes to find out further information about them.

It is unclear what AMIB's actual position on this material is, other than he doesn't like it and wants it to go. It is very clear that his dislike is not truely based on policy and a desire to better Wikipedia, as he has changed this reasoning several times over the years concerning the same material, and has displayed erratic behaviour when he hasn't gotten his way, including blocking those who disagree with him, such as myself and User:MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, I was pretty sure much of the content in question was copyvio from somewhere. Now I know specifically where it's copied from. I removed it as such, was reverted, warned the users, and blocked the one who reverted copyvio into an article the second time. Jtrainor didn't attempt to defend himself, he just removed my comment from his talk (which is the typical acknowledgement of a warning) and replaced the copyvio content.

This is not the first time MalikCarr and Jtrainor have engaged in brinksmanship over copyright to affect an aggrieved posture. I am not interested in playing political games over copyright.

The dispute over in-universe content is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So, if they properly attributed those bits of trivia as being from [3] would that fix everything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not satisfy WP:FUC #2 (Bandai and its licensors publish their own guides, either for sale or to guide people to their promotional websites), #3b (we can discuss the weapons with encyclopedic prose, so there's no need for blocks of stats), or #8 (the blocks range from somewhat to entirely trivial detail). Copyrighted material requires not only a source, but a valid fair-use rationale.

It is important to note that these are not uncopyrightable statistics, like the weight of an aircraft or the caliber of a firearm, but instead copyrighted fiction that affects the style of a technical readout.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if the editors re-stated that info in prose style, and properly attributed it, then it would be OK? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting into the actual content issue. Personally, I don't think it would be okay using a stat dossier as a source, because parroting fiction of lesser importance only serves to obscure the important facts, like the object's role in the story, artistic development, impact on licensed goods, etc. Disagreeing about this is a content dispute.

That said, I'm not blocking anyone because they disagreed with me on that; I'd have blocked dozens of users by now if I blocked people because they disagreed with me about how to present fiction in an out-of-universe way. I blocked Jtrainor because he replaced a block of text copied verbatim from a copyrighted source after being warned. That's not a content dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black continues to edit war

AMIB has once again reverted an edit[4] that restored the disputed text. Since he has reengaged in the edit war, I expect another admin to take appropriate actions. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed text" was copied, verbatim, from here. That's not a content dispute, that's copyvio.

I also removed a section immediately below it, apparently since my first edit; this was in error, and has since been corrected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He also added a "primary source" template to try to pre-empt bringing the information into the article directly from its source. This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation. The claim of the info being "trivial" was AMIB's original complaint, and that's what this is really about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The material I removed was copyvio. I don't like a lot of things about that article, but I excised only the portion copied directly from a copyrighted source, despite the fact that the history is riddled with copyvio at this point.

If someone were to rewrite the block as prose, I would be unhappy and would disagree for the reasons above, but I wouldn't treat it as a copyright violation because it wouldn't be. I would rather the article be written based on sources that aren't fiction, yes, but, like I said, not blocking people over it.

I don't really appreciate these accusations of bad faith, especially immediately explaining directly to you that I understood the difference between what I would like and what the rules are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith, especially since you yourself originally brought up triviality as the complaint, and have since gone looking for "legitimate" reasons to delete it. And you yourself blocked someone with whom you were having a content dispute, which is a gross violation of your authority. I don't know anything about you except what you write. And you're all over the map on this one item. Maybe you should leave it alone for awhile. There are plenty of other articles that need improvement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like trivial information to be marginalized or removed. Copyvio needs to be removed on sight. The complaint I have always had is that the blocks made the articles too much like a fansite, and being copied exactly from an official fansite is a pretty excessive example of that.

On top of all of this, I had moved on. Someone reopened the issue, I limited my edits to the template, and for the last several days limited my edits to the talk page of the template. Someone suggested that the stats were copied verbatim from somewhere, and after checking two articles I'd edited a year before, I found them to indeed be copied verbatim from there. So I removed the copyvio, tagged one of them for style, and moved on, until my removal of copyvio was reverted with undo or edit summaries of "rvv". I warned, saw the warning ignored in one case, and blocked in that case.

I have more or less abandoned what I would like, save in the limited case of not cramming things into infoboxes, where I've been discussing it on a talk page. This vague suggestion that I'm trying to muscle my way through a content dispute makes no sense considering that Jtrainor, Kyaa, and until today MalikCarr hadn't even commented on Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit, the only place I was pursuing what I would like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So if they rewrite it as prose, with proper attribution, that removes the copyright issue, and takes it back to your original complaint, as stated in your first sentence: That you don't like it. Hence, it still comes down to a content dispute, and you were out of line blocking someone in that circumstance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor didn't rewrite it as prose with proper attribution. He reverted copyvio into an article. He was warned, and then blocked.

Farix rewrote as attributed prose, and got no warning and no revert.

So if people are rewriting as prose, I'm not much happy, but, for the third time, I'm not warning or blocking people for making me unhappy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, you revert changes to Template:Infobox Mobile Suit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because you don't like them. Even though the reason part of the template was collapsible no longer exists because the articles that had problems with overly long infoboxes were merged a few days ago.[5][6] --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, discussion ensued. I didn't even revert to a version I liked; I just reverted a change that didn't seem to make any sense until you explained it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still edit warring on the infobox. LEAVE IT ALONE. You are not the arbitrator if which fields are legitimate and what fields are not. If you want to ask about changes in the infobox, ask them on the discussion page instead of undoing them. I am aghast that another admin has not blocked you yet for continuing to edit war. --Farix (Talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting an unrelated edit once, to a version I don't like, is not a revert war. If you're aghast that someone might revert an edit you made because they disagreed with it, you might be interested in reading this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet you revert again. What I am aghast about that you haven't been blocked for continuing to edit war over Gundam articles. But if that's not edit warring, then there is no such thing as edit warring. But since you are not discussing your reverts on the template's talk page, then you are simply vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted some style changes to the infobox as vandalism, so it wasn't clear what you had done. Perhaps if you didn't revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but instead asked about them on the talk page instead of undoing them, you might get a better response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I you've been the one removing good faith changes to the template without explanation because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I think we call see that you are edit warring/vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history.

1. AMIB - "rm forced italics; not every work is longform (for example, a suit that appears in only one episode, in a short story, or in a single volume"
2. AMIB - "When did a last appearance field get added? That's not a very good idea; most designs continue to appear in licensed works, in guides, in spinoffs, etc."
3. Farix - "rv vandalism" - This was apparently reverting edits #1 and #2.
4. Two edits - I change some template code, Farix changes it back. Stylistic difference, essentially no practical difference.
5. - Two edits by AMIB - I wasn't clear what had happened to the ital change and the removal of the last appearance field from #1 and #2, figuring that they were lost in the fiddling with the title. Farix reverted them as vandalism in edit #3, for reasons he hasn't felt the need to share with me.
6. Farix - "rvt vandalism"
7. Two edits by AMIB - I revert with a snarky comment, then self-revert, thinking better of it.

Vandalism? Ownership? IDONTLIKEIT? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the history. I'm seeing you edit war to revert my good-faith edits as vandalism, ignoring my edit summaries and making wild accusations.

So. Where are your good faith changes again? Where is my vandalism? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently left out this edit where I originally added the italic and the last field. That was the edit you kept reverting because you didn't like them. The documentation of the template states that the series was for the name of the series the Gundam came from, not the name of a episode. That is what the first field is for. And the last field, it is standard on pretty much every infobox for fictional elements. Yet you kept removing them for no reason what so ever other then not liking them. Which is funny because you were the one originally complaining about the lack of out-of-universe field in the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When your edit summaries don't explain what your edits are, how can I hope to know what you're doing in an edit? What part of "rvt; I perfectly know well why this was made collasable as I was the one who did it. It is no longer an issue" implies that you're adding a new field or changing the formatting of one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See what we have had to deal with, ladies and gentlemen? Changing reasons and a complete refusal to negotiate in any way, shape, or form. He's now taking advantage of the fact that I am not allowed to revert him without being blocked. I should hope you now block him for edit warring, as he is clearly interested in continuing it. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is start a wider discussion on whether or not the text in question is a copyright violation. You say AMIB is enforcing his view of things. Equally, you are merely stating that you think you are right and he is wrong. Get a wider discussion started on this. That's the only way it is going to be resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And now A Man In Black has protected the Jagd Doga page on his revision. Why bother editing articles in the first place when having a fundamental disagreement with a sysop simply results in being blocked and the pages protected from editing? MalikCarr (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as copyvio is being accused relevant to the Jagd Doga article, (e.g. "lifted verbatim" from websites/books) I'm going to plaster the Google test into the relevant discussions. If, as AMIB claims, these figures are "lifted verbatim" from a given source, wouldn't they show up when pasted verbatim (and cleared of Wikipedia formatting, obviously) into Google? MalikCarr (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of A Man In Black's block of MalikCarr

I've had to block MalikCarr (talk · contribs) under essentially identical circumstances, in MSN-03 Jagd Doga. This brinksmanship over copyright is not appropriate.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You absolutely had to do this? I'm not impressed with either side here. The Gundam editors should be discussing this, not reverting, but equally you should be getting a second opinion on whether this is a copyright violation and whether you are too involved here. I laid out above the long history here. You should have made a report here that MalikCarr (talk · contribs) was violating copyright and asked for someone else to block him. That is one way to find out if anyone else agrees with you. For the record, I agree that there is an issue here, but I think what needs to happen is for there to be a wider discussion about this. You talk about fair-use rationales for text. That's confusing things terribly. We have non-free-use rationales for images and other media, but the issue of how Wikipedia:Non-free content (and the associated policy) applies to test is covered at Wikipedia:FU#Text -

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

There is no mention of use rationales there, and quite rightly so, since Wikipedia articles are primarily text-based. We must attribute the use of texts as information sources and quote them when using short extracts of text. Use rationales don't apply here, unless you want people to supply a rationale everytime they quote something - please tell me you didn't mean that. Don't get me wrong here - I think you have a very valid point about the copyright issue, but I don't think it is black-and-white enough for you to be handing out blocks over this, especially not give the history here. I'm not going to dispute the specifics of the block you made here, but I will note that you have twice blocked MalikCarr before over copyvios (back in July 2007), so you need to get this resolved one way or the other. If MalikCarr's previous copyvio blocks were also valid and over the same issue, then you are not resolving the situation merely by issuing blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous blocks over copyvio were over misuse of a non-free image after having been warned by multiple people, followed by repeated uploading of the same image after it was deleted. Again, MalikCarr ignored warnings that what he was replacing violated copyright policy and he continued to do so.

There may be a possibility of rewriting the copyvio text or quoting it properly or some other alternative, but no such effort was made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue. It is a pity that block logs are not more descriptive - there is usually room available in the block log to provide a diff to an explanation, but the explanation usually gets written after the block is applied (so you have to go look at the user talk page history instead). You haven't responded to my point that you have a long history here with the Gundam WikiProject and copyright and in-universe issues and that you might need to ask for opinions from others to see whether you are judging things correctly here. Do you think that your long history here means outside opinions would be helpful? I'm finishing off a post about this in more detail on your talk page. I've also added a link above to the bit where you talked about fair-use rationales for quoting text. Would you like to respond to that point as well? Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We could get into a lengthy discussion of how to properly deal with copyrighted text here. However, it'd be in the wrong place and not germane to the issue at hand.

Copyvio needs to be dealt with swiftly. I had no reasonable way to be assured that copyvio would not be reverted into these articles after a warning; in fact, after a warning, copyvio was twice reverted into articles with no explanation at all.

There exists the possibility that I'm wrong, that none of this is copyvio, that I'm completely off my rocker. But there was no "This isn't copyvio," no "This could be reformatted," not even "I think you're wrong," just "rvv" and "revert to last good version." Faced with that, at some point I was trusted enough to use my discretion to block people who act in a way that can harm Wikipedia, so I exercised that discretion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisified with that. I'll continue the discussion on your talk page about where to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This block is patently ridiculous. AMIB has still provided no proof whatsoever that there actually is copyvio, he is most definitely an involved admin, and now he's adding a citation needed tag to the Gundam (mobile suit) article over whether the Gundam... is the Gundam. I've displayed extensively that the practice of using a summary of a unit's fictional equipment in an infobox is widespread and accepted, so he has not a leg to stand on. This is nothing more than an admin abusing his tools in order to push his POV. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So where's the bit where I'm blocking people over that, or in any way using any administrative tool? My talk page, the article talk, the project talk, WP:RFC, and any other appropriate place for dispute resolution remains unfilled with your comments on that article. This is not the "Burn AMIB in effigy" discussion; I have a talk page for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me there's a page where copyright violations are to be discussed. In fact I think it's mentioned somewhere below this section. Here: [7] Why isn't MIB bringing these issues there instead of setting himself up as judge and jury of copyright matters? And why is he allowed to continue to get away with blocking users with whom he has disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good question and one I'd like to see answered. I started this thread due to AMIB blatantly pissing on the blocking policy and now he's moved on to the protection policy. When will he stop rampaging over wikipedia policy and being a one man army to enforce his preferred version? There is no consensus that the material that is being added is a copyvio other than AMIB's repeated "because I said so" rants. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is inappropriate admin conduct. Instead of performing blocks when he is involved in the dispute, he should raise the issue for consideration by other admins, and blocks should be performed if other administrators agree that copyright-violating edit warring is taking place. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that there is no room for discussion on this matter, as A Man In Black has established that he is the arbiter of what content should and should not be allowed within the articles in question. Circumstances such as this are why I have been taking an increasingly inactive role in editing articles as of late - there is no compromise, and as a great statesman once wrote, compromise is the essence of diplomacy. I believe the bitter and caustic history of these content disputes and edit wars (I cannot count how many 3RR violations I have filed - are not policies enforced equally on all Wikipedians?), which anyone can review with a bit of digging, will speak for themselves as to the level of diplomacy that has existed here.

Or, if that's "tl;dr" as was once ascribed to my position, I am not trying to damage Wikipedia, and I would be very pleased if you would stop insisting that I am. Thank you kindly. MalikCarr (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor comes back from block and resumes replacing copyvio into articles

Jtrainor has returned from block and immediately resumed replacing copyvio into articles. The most egregious case is in RGM-89 Jegan. It's 6K of text copied directly from a fan site (which in turn copied it from licensed guides, but their notation, such as the weapon mount locations, is particular.)

Compare this edit and this, this, this, etc. It's blatantly obviously copy-pasted. This was part of reverting every single edit I made to Gundam articles, so I'm inclined to say he doesn't really care.

If it is inappropriate for me to be handling this, I would appreciate if someone else could. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor's attitude here is absolutely unacceptable. After the recent set of blocks, I asked AMIB to not get involved and to start a wider discussion (see his talk page). I don't think AMIB has done that, but he has been discussing things more. I also told Jtrainor above, to start a wider discussion to settle the question of what is and isn't a copyright violation (in fairness, I should have explicitly stated that on his talk page - he may not have seen my comment above). Still, in my view the edits by Jtrainor above are clear copyright violations, and Jtrainor is, as AMIB said before, engaging in brinkmanship and has resumed edit warring. More to the point, Jehochman and Phil Knight clearly warned Jtrainor on his talk page that he would be blocked if he resumed edit warring. In my view, as Jtrainor has gone back to the disputed articles and reverted the disputed content back in, a block for 48 hours is warranted here. I will double-check what has happened here and then block. Any admin should feel free to unblock or increase the block length following discussion here, as I won't be around in the day tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on WP:CP, and the Jagd Doga article (which has a much smaller amount of copyvio content) is currently in discussion here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't actually block, as that might send things off the deep end. Jtrainor's last edit was 12 hours ago and he did seem to stop after Jehochman warned him at 17:00 (this was a warning in response to the edits you pointed out above, I think), and none of Jtrainor's copyvio edits have survived, as far as I can see. I am going to leave him a stern warning instead, and insist that he stop reverting and discuss these edits before making them. If he starts edit warring again tomorrow, someone should block him. If things get out of hand, the articles might need protecting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for Jtrainor (unlike GundamsRus (talk · contribs) once alleged, he is not my sockpuppet) as far as the Jegan goes, but equating him to be a villain in this regard (which he may well be, all things considered) while A Man In Black's continued insistence on his position in the Jagd Doga is overlooked strikes me as being rather one-sided. We've tried mediation before, we've tried civil discussion, and zero ground has been made between the relevant parties. MalikCarr (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And MalikCarr reverts copyvio into an article a third time, immediately after coming off a block for doing so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you still use your admin tools in conflicts in which you are a party.... [8] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I took the least disruptive route to prevent replacement of copyvio, and even reverted my own incidental edits. You'd rather I block MalikCarr? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd rather you walk away from the articles. You don't seem to get that your stubborness over this has passed beyond annoying and is bordering on disruptive. Your complete disregard of Wikipedia's blocking policy, by blocking two users that you were involved in a content dispute with, should cause anyone to question whether you should continue to carry the mop. You don't use the tools on a page where you are involved on. Don't they teach that first in the newbie admin school? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What a suprise, more edit warring on AMIB's part, and now protecting the article. There have been people hauled before Arbcom for less. Also, now there are two admins on my talk page yelling at me. It's nice to see that the rules only apply to us peons, while admins are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they're only screwing with nobodies. Jtrainor (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC#Admins' Abuse

Unresolved

 – Split active >55kb thread to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse slakr^\ talk /

Resolved

 – DanielB banned from #wikipedia-en-admins for indefinite period of time. Discussion @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse --slakr^\ talk / 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator tools

Administrator Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, over the span of numerous years, been deleting articles about various specific phobia without a deletion summary and without any accordance to the policy. He believes that these articles are garbage and that he is free to delete them as long as restores them if there are objections. Mikkalai came to my attention after I created the article Phasmophobia to feature in DYK over Halloween only to find that Mikkalai had deleted the article three times; once in 2006, once in April 2008 and October 2008 (about 12 hours before I recreated it). Other articles he has deleted include; Apotemnophobia, Siderodromophobia, Pithikosophobia, Papaphobia, Oneirophobia, Nosocomephobia, Nomatophobia, Cymophobia, Climacophobia, Aulophobia, Amaxophobia, Podophobia and they are only the first few in his deletion log that lack deletion summaries and do not pass CSD. I tried to discuss this with Mikkalai, his answer was that he will restore them if asked and if no one objections to the deletions then he was right in deleting them. He then claimed that there is nothing wrong with him abusing his administrator tools to push his point of view and then blanked his talkpage before I had a chance to respond. I'm not quite sure how to proceed with an administrator who refuses to discuss their out-of-line deletions and is self-admittedly pushing their POV by using the delete button. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong here, other than a bunch of slanted personal attacks being made against Mikkalai. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to judge either of the two, JBsupreme. bibliomaniac15 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Biblio, this bears looking into. If summary deletion of articles has been going on, ie, no talk, no afd, no speedy tags, etc, this is of concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note on Mikkalai's talk page alerting him of this discussion, Metros (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If user:Ameliorate! thinks I am refusing to dscuss with him, this is their problem, not mine. Nowhere I told them to "step off". On the contrary, they are free to continue recreating stupid but harmless pseudo-"phobia" articles, which I restored after objections and even not going to nominate or tag them for deletion. I don't think I want to have any discussion with a person who does not want to learn from what is said in -phobia#Phobia lists and who has buddies who posted an article on DYK while it was under AfD. And unlike Ameliorate, I am not going to make fuss about the double violation of the admin who closed AfD against the rule only to promote a fake phobia aricle in DYK, again against the rule: DYK cannot post contested articles. I have no idea what was the problem of the creators of the listed "phobia" articles, such as Papaphobia (which is a persistent fear of Pope): whether it is immaturity, weird sense of humor, or disruption of wikipedia. Yes, for four years now I am deleting articles such as fear of belly buttons (exercise: guess what was the article name), and until now they died without fuss. Now I see I stumbled across a strong-willed phobiaphiles User:Arbitrarily0 and User:Ameliorate!), and I am stepping off. Have fun dealing with Prostitute Phobia yourselves. `'Míkka>t 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• none of this answers the core question: Why were you deleting pages outside the criteria for speedy deletion unilaterally? That you were willing to restore them upon request is unimportant. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  WP:IAR. I was saving large amounts of time of other wikipedians. Yes, willingless to restore is important. `'Míkka>t 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Your deletion rationale is IAR? That it improves wikipedia for you to ignore the rules about unilateral deletion of material? No. That's the wrong answer. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  As an aside, that is the sort of response that caused this. Tan | 39 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I'm brusque. Can't help it. I also can't help it that there is a right and wrong answer to this question here. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I see. Can't help but disagree, but at least now I see the point you made in Protonk's RfA. If only you had included a diff to anything of the sort in your RfA comment, Tan. Everyme 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yes it improves wikipedia as long as it does not create conflicts of opinions. Willingless to restore is an important part in it. I don't see fundamenal difference between deletion of an unreferenced section in an article or the whole blurb. Once again, you are feel to disagree with my opinion, and it will not lead to disruption of wikipedia form my side, the latter being an important caveat in WP:IAR. `'Míkka>t 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. While I am at this, may I recommend you in the future to write "IMO that's the wrong answer", rather than "That's the wrong answer": you will look less authoritarian. `'Míkka>t 04:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Noted. The issue isn't how I look in this conversation with you. The issue is that the admin bit isn't a right to delete things at will. The deletion policy is written to protect article contributors from admins deleting material out of process. IAR would be an exception to that like "This isn't quite a G10, but I'll delete it as defamatory anyway" (not that I would agree with that). IAR isn't an operating rule for you to delete a class of material because you feel like it. You can feel free to cast this as some difference of opinion between the two of us, but it isn't one. There are expectations for how you delete material and you aren't following them. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai, the impression I get is that you think these phobia articles are spam. Is that a speedy deletion criteria? (Looks like G11 might apply.) If so, or even if not so, why not apologise for not stating your deletion reason in the deletion log summaries, and say that in future you will state your reasons in the deletion log summaries? (Preferably by using an explicit speedy deletion criterion). That would, as far as I can see, resolve this entire matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

G11 applies to advertising. The articles are not advertising a company or product, G11 most certainly does not apply. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I have created one article on the subject matter for a specific event (it stood out to me as a redlink on Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2008) so while your offer of giving me permission to continue creating articles is appreciated, Mikkalai, I will have to decline the invitation. I fail to see how you claim that it is my problem that you blanked your talkpage, removing discussion related to the matter; that is refusal to discuss it. The information on -phobia#Phobia lists is supported by one source, everything else there is a primary source, while content spamming may be a problem it has not effected books that were written before the internet (as we know it) existed and it not an acceptable reason to delete articles outside of policy and process. I fail to see what the article being added to DYK has to do with this, it was added by a completely uninvolved party and the AFD was closed by an uninvolved party. What you appear to be missing is that this is not about one specific article, this is about a number of articles that you have been deleting outside of policy for over 2 years. I don't necessarily WP:CARE about phobia-related articles, I care about the damage that can/is being done to the project by spontaneous deletions. What would happen to the project if every administrator was given the ability to delete any article because they WP:DONTLIKEIT? Deleting an article is entirely different from editing portions out; only admins can see deleted content, edits can be reverted by anyone, undeletion can only be performed by admins. What I wanted was an assurance that you would not continue to delete to articles in this fashion, what I got was that you will undelete them when asked and that you are free to delete articles that conflict with your WP:POV and then had the discussion closed, which, frankly, is not good enough. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if all of these are real phobias or not, but I do know that Phasmophobia is legit phobia and should not have been deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research in -phobia

Er, I just read -phobia#Phobia lists, and while it may be true, it is currently presented as original research. What is needed there is a source that confirms the assertion "A large number of-phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name." - at the moment, the sources cited are only claimed examples of this. We need a reliable source (not a Wikipedia editor) that confirms that this spamming practice exists. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Strike that. I see one of the sources is about the phenomenon. Not a great source, but still the sort of thing I was asking for. Should have looked more closely. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While the source is reliable for content about websites, I think the section on phobia spamming is a violation of WP:UNDUE in that article. It contains a bit of clever spamming too, the name and phone number of the spammer/scammer. Strongly suggest removing that content as it appears to be commercial spam.

As for mass deletions, I think it would be best to assemble a list of any unreference-able phobia stubs and AfD them all at once. Anyone may request sanctions against those who are apparently adding useless cruft to the enclyclopedia in persistent violation of our content policies. I have not looked at these stubs yet and am not saying that is or is not what's happening here. I am suggesting a process for dealing with alleged problems. Jehochman ^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The "clever spamming" you reference was added by Mikkalai. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the person who originated the spam was clever, because their spam meme spread to WebProNews and then to Wikipedia. We should not be publicizing the name of the company and their telephone number in our articles, even as an example. Jehochman ^Talk 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, papaphobia mentioned above: it has 3 sources, 2 of them are VERY trivial entries in dictionaries, which shouldn't really be used because they are tertiary sources, and the remaining one is to a commercial site that fails WP:RS, IMHO. Now, how Wikipedia readers are supposed to verify its truthfullness? In its present state this article looks like a 100% for PROD, at least I would have deleted it, had I stumbled upon it while clearing prod backlogs. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Perhaps one should be opened concerning the use of tools here? One's POV is hardly reason for mass-deleting articles with no recorded explanation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree; that's grossly inappropriate, and should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While Mikkalai has acknowledged what he is doing is not within the "Rules", he has claimed IAR, which in this case, is inappropriate. IAR does not mean "I can do what I like". Rules should be ignored only for a very good reason. Deleting stuff being "I don't like it" is not a very good reason. To be fair, he did restore the articles without a fuss, but I'm unconvinced he's going to stop doing this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly care even if I was convinced he was going to stop doing it. "Oh, okay, I won't do it again" is not the correct answer to this problem. Abuse of administrator tools is abuse of administrator tools. This represents a clear misunderstanding of both IAR and deletion policy, and I'm very uncomfortable with having someone like that in possession of the mop. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you start an RFC, where I will probably weigh in. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading the arguments presented here and in the section below, #DYK hoax article?, I admit that my course of actions was wrong. I still insist that an occasional deletion of a silly article created by and anon is well within WP:IAR. However since the creation of fake phobia articles is a rather persistent and ongoing problem, I should have invited other wikipedians to a discussion how to deal with this problem in a systematic and consensus way. The presence of phobia-peddling websites makes it easy to create fairly convincing "podophobia" articles, and unfortunately occasional AfD voters are easily fooled when not bothered to look into the essence. `'Míkka>t 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are so many things in that statement that deeply unsettle me. First, IP editors had the ability to create pages taken away a long time ago. Second, even if they hadn't, the fact that an article was created by someone without an account is no reason at all to delete it; such things are decided on the merits of the subject and the article itself. Third, we (the community) can't undo your deletions. You should think very carefully when you delete something, and be absolutely sure that what you're doing falls into the CSD criteria. If not, then either leave it alone or take it to AfD. If you have a problem with them, you should try to amend the CSD, not do whatever you feel like. Fourth, AfD is consensus. You're here to enforce that. If you disagree with it, fine, chime into the discussion. Point out what you think is wrong with a source, but certainly do not just disregard everything that's said, make your own decisions and apply your own standards.

You have the tools so you can enforce the will of the consensus, not so you can apply whatever arbitrary personal standards you like to the project. If there was an established (read: binding, not RFC, with any chance of success) way to de-admin you, trust me, I'd go start it right now; but that doesn't exist yet, so the damage to the mop pool can't easily be undone. Thankfully, you do seem to realize what you did wrong and that you'll seek consensus in the future. I do hope that you take away the above points from this and realize that IAR is not an "I WIN" button you can use to do whatever you want. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The reverse: undiscussed un-deletions

Are admins supposed to restore pages without a DRV? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was an expired prod that was deleted. Anyone can contest a proposed deletion at anytime, even after deletion. It's standard practice that any admin can overturn a deletion if it was deleted because it was a prod. Nothing to worry about with that one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't touch this article again

Re:[9]. Could somebody look at this article? I've reviewed the talk and concluded that it's not a copyvio, but Jayjg reverted me with the rather strong comment "Don't touch this article again"... I don't want to edit war with another admin on copyvio issues, but I detected strong IDONTLIKE feelings on talk. Comments by neutral reviewers appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think you both need to step back for a while. Jayjg doesn't accept your good faith assertion that the article isn't a copyvio and you aren't waiting for some neutral assessment that it isn't one before changing it. If he replaces the article with the COPYVIO template in good faith, then don't edit it superficially and remove the template. It's that simple. However, he seems to have escalated the talk page discussion pretty quickly. My guess is that the article isn't a copyvio but that it is plagiarized somewhat from that pdf. I am not going to read the whole 273 pages of it, nor am I going to search every 7 word string of text to find unquoted liftings, but enough has been lifted (including the sources) so as to raise concern. I'd wait until some thrid party steps in and either deletes the article or removes the template. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Protonk's suggestions here. I've also commented at the talk page. Incidentally, are copyvio discussions raised at Wikipedia:Copyright problems designed to be conducted on talk pages of the articles in question and then be deleted along with the article if it is determined to be a copyvio (or borderline enough to be a concern - obvious cases should go speedily)? Or should such discussions be preserved much as deletion discussions at AfD are preserved? Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • There's hardly ever actual discussions of copyvios. If the article is deleted, we could make the talk discussion a subpage of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 2. (I've left talk pages that seemed useful to me after deleting copyvio articles only to see them G8ed by other admins.) I suspect given the nature of the conversation, though, that if the article is deleted a new version will be placed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think using phrasing like "Don't touch this article again" is not at all a good approach. Certainly not one that we would expect someone of Jayjg's long experience here to use in good faith. So I'm disappointed in that choice. Somewhat milder and less confrontational phrasing probably would have been a better choice. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

as a incidental point, it was my understanding that talk pages that contain information that would be of value in the further development of the encylclopedia are not supposed to be deleted at all. A more organized way of handling some of them would of course help-. DGG (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz

User:Jagz' indefinite block appeal was unsuccessful.[10] This editor had operated the sock puppet account User:Fat Cigar while blocked and made uncivil comments such as [11], [12], and [13]. A ban should be considered. --Whistler's Notch (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He is effectively banned under the basic definition: "no administrator [or ArbCom] willing to unblock". A formal ban is not necessary. Out of curiosity though, why are you interested in the matter? This appears to be only your second edit to the site, and yet you seem to have an in-depth knowledge of this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's banned according to my understanding of the term, but not everyone's, apparently. Not that I care particularly; he should not be editing here, and his socks should be blocked on sight. The technical details aren't that important. Re: the larger question, I've asked Whistler's Notch (talk · contribs) to retire this sock and use his/her main account to comment on project-related discussions. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is a racist troll and should be banned. --Whistler's Notch (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked without notice or comment?

Hi,

I just got back from the weekend to see that 3 hours after my last edits last Friday, I was blocked for 31 hours by User:Nishkid64 for edit-warring on Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.

In the former I agree, there was an editing dispute with User:NoCal100. In the later I had made only two edits in the past week, both about 7 hours apart -- hardly edit-warring. The later article as, as I have seen, been locked due to edit-warring, but NoCal100 and I seem to be the only ones who got blocked...

Now, while the reasons for blocking are debatable, the form is not. While I am aware of the special sanctions regime regarding the Israeli-Palestinian articles, I was neither informed of the block, nor of its reasons. I even went and reverted an IP on the first article this morning before even seeing that I had been blocked, which could now possibly be interpreted as me diving back into an edit dispute, perhaps warranting further blocks.

Is this the way blocks should work? I think not, and would like this taken off my log. Any thoughts from other admins here?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 07:48

I agree it's poor form not to notify you of the block on your talk page, but that doesn't make the block void. He could have simply forgot, it happens. The block can't be removed from the log anyway, save by a dev.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You should allow Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) time to explain his behavior before coming here, as Atlan says, there might be a good reason for it. And as Atlan says, it cannot be removed, although an admin who made a mistake in such a case may do a 1-second-block to add to the block log that he made a mistake. But as I said, let's wait what Nishkid has to say about it before discussing this further. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it frustrating for this admin not to let the user know about the block it's also against ArbCom rulings for the admin not to promptly explain his/her actions. Bstone (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 left a perfectly clear entry in the block log explaining why he placed the block: "Edit warring: Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks."[14]. Had Pedrito attempted to edit while blocked, he would have seen the explanatory entry. Yes, Nishkid64 forgot to post a notice to Pedrito's talk page, so we give him a wrist slap for that. What additional explanation is required? It is readily apparent from the article histories that Pedrito and NoCal100 (whom Nishkid64 also blocked) were repeatedly reverting each other on the two named articles — clear edit warring, whether or not the 'electric fence' of 3RR was reached.

Now, after the fact, some editors want to discuss the matter further. That's fine. As far as I can tell, the first query to Nishkid64 about this block was left on his talk page ([15]) about four hours after Nishkid's last edit. The block in question has long since expired, so there's no urgency. There's nothing for Nishkid to undo, and there's no violation of the ArbCom ruling here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFAR Bstone cites requires admins to be communicative when questioned about actions. In the block policy; Wikipedia:BLOCK#Implementing_blocks, I don't see any rule requiring notifcation. Nish's block log entry was clear enough for any reviewing administrator to figure out what was going on. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have some issues, though. There was no edit-warring going on when I was blocked and claiming I was warring on Reactions to the September 11 attacks is a really, really far stretch. So was this block punitive? And if so, what for?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 16:00

It looks to me – as someone who has never seen you, NoCal100, or either article before – like you acknowledged you were involved in an edit war (*ahem*, an 'editing dispute') with NoCal100 at Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just a few comments up in this very thread. I count at least five reverts of NoCal100 in two or three days, including at least one where you abused popups to do it: [16]. You also appear to have reverted twice in the same day at Reactions to the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one of those reverts undoing NoCal100's edits).

I see an ongoing pattern of combative editing (especially with regard to NoCal100), and Nishkid64 was acting well within his discretion to issue blocks to both of you. Why are you pursuing this further? You were engaged in disruptive editing, you got called on it, and – as it turns out – the block didn't actually even hinder your editing. Go forth and sin no more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, mBisanz, I find it interesting that despite that ArbCom ruling the blocking admin still has not yet responded to why he did not notify the blocked editor on his/her talk page, as is extremely common practice. Bstone (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no active block to undo, so there's no rush. Nishkid64 hadn't edited for several hours prior to the requests on his talk page. Presumably he has a real life outside of Wikipedia and he hasn't picked up his messages. Call me crazy, but I imagine that the reason he didn't leave a message on the blockee's talk page is that he forgot. Perhaps the baby was crying. What's the hurry now? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling says admins must explain their actions when questioned, promptly. An active block or not, admins are responsible for explaining their actions withing a reasonable period of time. This admin seems to have done everything possible to avoid explanation and has in essence committed a "block and run". Active block or not, the ArbCom ruling is extremely clear- admins must explain their actions- promptly. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, I was under the (perhaps) mistaken impression that admins were allowed to log out occasionally and have, you know, a life. I have even (gasp) had a day or two where I didn't log on at all. Can we wait a little while longer before we get all offended that Nishkid64 is "ignoring" this, until he actually logs in again? Especially since this isn't time-sensitive, and since it certainly doesn't appear to be zOMG admin abuse? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. --barneca (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed admins are allowed to log out and have a life. Who would be so silly to ever suggest otherwise? Certainly and absolutely not me. However if an admin makes an explained block without any notification then they have a duty to promptly explain the purpose of that action. Promptly. Anything else would be a violation of the crystal-clear and utterly unambiguous ArbCom ruling. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to read an ArbCom case that's on point and worth reading, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the midst of simultaneously running a number of CUs and reviewing the page history of the articles in question, I forgot to leave a notice on the Pedrito and NoCal100's user talk pages about their blocks. I evaluated the recent history Reactions to the September 11 attacks and Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and found Pedrito and NoCal100's editing to be in violation of WP:EDITWAR. Both editors are experienced enough to understand our policy on edit warring, and their behavior on those two articles was, in my opinion, a gross violation of said policy. If you check my record, you will see that this is probably the first time I forgot to leave a block notice on a user talk page. Just to note, my laptop is broken (I speculate it's a graphics card problem), so I have limited Internet access for the next few weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax article?

I reviewed the article John R. Smith, and I believe that it may be a hoax. This article is well crafted and looks authentic prima facie. However none of the online external references make any mention of the subject whatsoever - (United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war?? [17]), (Article alleges he was on station at Fort Sumter - also in the hook - once again no mention in the source [18]) (Book preview contains no mention etc. . [19]). Most disturbing however, is the allegation that John R. Smith was the "first soldier to receive the Silver Star" (apparently during the Civil War). However, the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (more than 31 years after the subject's death) as per these sources [20][21]. It turns out that the user deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article. I've left a note on the article + user's talk page. Could someone more experienced with the US Civil war confirm/dispute these claims. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, however I'd rather be whacked with a trout for false accusations than see a hoax appear on the main page. Peace --Flewis^(talk) 09:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article was nominated in DYK on October 27 - Currently under the "expiring noms" section. --Flewis^(talk) 11:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive removed it from DYK nominations. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Google search for 'John R Smith silver star' brings up nothing related to him but the wiki page in mention. Skinny87 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I cannnot, using the sources or google, corroborate a single fact in that article. I would say that this definately looks like a hoax. If you want to get wider opinion on it, start an WP:AFD discussion. Given that it looks, on its face, like a hoax, it should probably be deleted... It would also not be the first time someone went through this much trouble to create hoaxes. Anyone around 1-2 years ago should remember the "Estland" hoaxes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention in OR or in other online sources I've checked. Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860. Would that it were true, but this seems very unlikely, and certainly not proved by online sources listed. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Now at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Smith. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages. I wonder if it's a troublemaker, or simply someone who didn't realise we write about facts here, not imaginary characters. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can any users knowledgeable in the American Civil War or Pennsylvanian African-American lawyers prior to 1870 give this a look?
    Also, after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from here. --Flewis^(talk) 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Never mind - Already speedied --Flewis^(talk) 12:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Has the creator been blocked? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Although we tend to presume that the user is a troublemaker, it's quite possible that they're acting in good faith with a purpose. For instance, I remember the Orange bellied pike hoax incident from several months ago and how the author ended up explaining why they created the article. At this point, I don't think we know about this user's intentions. Jamie^☆S93 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, thanks to Flewis's alertness there are now many eyes on that account and nothing he does would go unnoticed. Everyme 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unwise to delete an article on a purported topic in U.S. history after a mere 21 minutes' AFD discussion in what, in most U.S. timezones, is the middle of the night. We don't speedily delete hoaxes, and it is unwise to "snowball" delete articles after just 21 minutes of discussion. We don't want all of the holes in the Swiss Cheese slices to line up just because only editors who live in a single timezone have been involved in the discussion.

Having said that, I was researching the article whilst it was listed for deletion, and at least one of the book citations was fake. Hardie Grant Books published no books in 1977 according to its own (somewhat poor and hard to search) catalogue and the other book catalogues that I checked. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer. This is what IAR is for - we don't want hoax articles here. I don't see the point in having a long discussion about it either. Also, there are people, other than those who live in America, who are familiar and are experts on U.S. history. That this was deleted at an unfavorable time for them is unfortunate, but not an issue. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is very much an issue. I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management for a particularly apposite example of how it takes several pairs of eyes, and more than 21 minutes of discussion, to determine whether something is a hoax or not. What may be "clearly a hoax" to you may well prove to be a viable subject. (The canonical example of this is Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), but there are many others.) I suggest that you read about the Swiss Cheese model, too. We don't want the collective holes in the knowledge and abilities of a 21-minute sample of editors in a single timezone lining up so that we end up making the wrong decision at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• In general, I would agree. Closing debates that early is usually improper. But in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around. Hoaxes is one of those areas that can be very damaging to WP, so I applied a bit of IAR. But if you feel strongly about it, feel free to undo my closure and let the debate run longer. henrik•talk 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was actually coming to point where I was about to add an opinion to delete myself, based upon finding no sources when I looked, and the citation that turned out to be fake. But the point to remember is that we don't speedily delete hoaxes, and we let AFD discussions proceed for a reasonable length of time. We aren't in such a hurry to delete hoaxes that cite sources that we cannot afford at least 24 hours so that editors around the world, with different areas of expertise and different access to sources, can check things out. We want AFD to make the correct decision. Bad decisions at AFD usually happen when editors sheep vote without doing any research themselves or when not enough editors participate. We want to avoid that. If something is a hoax, we want multiple editors to check it out independently, so that we can be confident that the AFD process has come to the right decision.

    This is all explained in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, since it was tagged with a {{hoax}} template, I don't think keeping it for longer would have been a problem. That said, it would be really dumb for someone to undelete it now --NE2 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just about to say the same thing. As long as it's clear to the casual reader that the article is bogus, it's not really an issue; in fact to the casual reader it speaks well of wikipedia, by letting them know that wikipedia editors don't just sit around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In watching my non-editing friends using wikipedia, I've seen that nearly all of them invariably scroll past any and all maintainance templates without really reading them. I'm not sure {{hoax}} is 'scary' enough to deter a user from not relying on the information. Ideally, I'd like to see the hoax template look more like the text of {{Copyviocore}}. henrik•talk 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. I find myself asking my wife what templates are on the articles she sees and she says (usually) some variation on "dunno" Protonk (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my experience as well. The last time I asked my wife about the banners at the top of articles, she said they were "just for wiki-wonks and other people who care about the site's arcane rules and wiki-process." She might have read the first few banners on her initial visit to Wikipedia years ago, but I doubt she has even glanced at a single one since then. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • That's because the banner is an essay. It should be a single, bold-faced, large-print sentence saying THIS ARTICLE IS MOST LIKELY A HOAX. Then you could have another sentence in normal font that points to where the discussion is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Uncle G is usually right on the money, and his citing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management is a good reason to not speedy delete hoaxes. However, for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible. In the Swiss Cheese case, the nomination was "seems to be OR essay", and the problems were of the "I cannot find sources" variety. Although these are verifiability issues as well, it is not active proof that the content is a hoax. There is a difference between things which seem to be a hoax because its hard to find sources, and things which are proved to be a hoax because the sources were found and actively contradict the article. In the latter case, just getting rid of it and being done with it is not something I will lose so much sleep over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While personally I think it was, at the very least, likely to be a hoax, I didn't see any sources that contradicted the article being raised - if you're refering to the Silver Star being created in 1932, the award was handed out retroactivly. So without further sources, I see it as still possible. Personally, I think the account of the battle of Fort Sumter may have been enough to show it was a hoax, but that's a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The whole point is, we had to hash these things out in open discourse to show that the article was a hoax. While it showed itself to be patently a hoax, it was certainly helpful for people to enumerate exactly why they thought it a hoax. That discussion needs to happen before articles such as this are deleted. For the record, the discussion happened (albeit, mostly here rather than AFD where it belonged), and the right decision was made; however for more subtle hoaxes (and this one WAS quite subtle, but I have seen many worse, cf. the Estland debacle), the important thing is that the opportunity is given to investigate. This wasn't what speedy deletion was created for; it was created in situations where people create articles about their cat, so that we can just delete those without comment. However, there is no impending destruction that befalls the earth if we discuss these issues before the deletion. In some cases, it turns out that it wasn't a hoax after all; and its worthwhile to have the talk. Wikipedia is in no rush, and doing the right thing is much more important than doing something NOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is that difference. But that difference also applies to the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Winter, 2nd Baronet, which we are happy to calmly discuss for the full AFD discussion period, and not rush to close. After all, I might be wrong. Someone could come along with sources that very well do contradict the Burkes, and with authority. Even here in this case, as you can see, Bilby has raised an argument against the initial "it's obviously wrong" diagnosis.

    We've had plenty of occasions where what have thought to be hoaxes have proven to be viable subjects once other editors, with different abilities, from around the world have been given a chance to contribute to the discussion. Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) springs immediately to mind. Although it looked like a pile of random rubbish accrued in a dusty corner of Wikipedia, as editors added random pieces of information over a period of three years, and was suspected of being a hoax, it turned out that everything in the article as it stood at the time of AFD nomination was verifiable. The article was bang on in terms of its informational content. The AFD process involves several days of discussion precisely so that editors have a chance to come to the discussion with the sources that no-one else found. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Exactly. As well as what I said below, there is another reason to avoid speedy deletion. I had the idea of asking the US Civil War taskforce at WP:MILHIST about this, and I found that someone had already asked them. See here. I know no-one said anything about that query left there, here or at the AfD, but the (rather rambling) response didn't really provide an answer, and a clue as to why can be found in the first few words of the answer: "It appears that the article is gone." <groan> We've ended up with someone asking a WikiProject for some expert help, and a group of people on an ANI thread short-circuited that process by doing a 20-minute snowball delete at AfD. Excuse me while I silently scream at the inefficiency of on-wiki communication. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing. I was about to ask at the reference desk to see if anyone there could help with this (it can take time to gather opinions from far-flung corners of Wikipedia, longer than 20 minutes, say...), but I would prefer to have an actual article to point them at to ask them what they think is going on here (and for the MILHIST people as well). Would it be acceptable to undelete, reopen the AfD, and let it run the full five days, to allow people to see the full article? I thought of posting the full article from the deletion logs, but that doesn't really show people the references properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Restart Proposal

Seeing as this is causing such a big deal, I propose undeleting the article, and restarting the Afd, so that the article can be scrutinized by the wider community. It's no longer in DYK, and we're all keeping an eye on the article creator - so it cant go anywhere. As I mentioned originally that I have doubts as to its authenticity, so my assertions are not, as yet confirmed. As I'm not an administrator, I'm unable to view the article, and provide any refutations/proofs to it being a hoax. That being said, keeping the article open to the general public for 24 hours, while clearly stating/linking that there's a strong possibility that it's a hoax will only further confirm our sentiments --Flewis^(talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

meh... I still think the article was a hoax, and I think there is a general consensus that it was for all of the reasons enumerated above. In the future, I think people need to understand exactly why we don't, as a matter of practice, speedily delete hoax articles, especially well written hoax articles, without discussion. Not one person in the above discussion, even those arguing against speedy deleting, seems to think the article WASN'T a hoax, so I don't see the need to jump through additional hoops, WP:SNOW and all that. However, in the future, lets at least give it a chance for WP:SNOW by opening an AFD on a hoax article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible that the article was a hoax, but it is also possible to pick holes in the logic of those arguing for deletion:

• "United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war??" - the article actually referred to an 1860 Census, but linked to an 1890 Census. Strike one.
• the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (and websites were cited to 'prove' this). Unfortunately the very same websites carefully explained (if you read the whole page) that the award started in a different form in 1918, and was retrospective to the US Civil War. Strike two.
• "deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article" - that is only the case if these are errors - it could be a genuine misunderstanding of what the sources are saying. Strike three.
• "Pretty dubious assertion that an African-American was able to enlist in the U.S. Regular Army in 1860" - agreed, with the caveat that enlistment took place from 1862 (see Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War), so again this could be a misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of the sources, rather than a hoax. Strike four.
• "Article was created by a brand new user, who appears to be fully aware of rules like WP:CENSOR and signing on talk pages" - good point - not yet rebutted. The talk page signing I think anyone can pick up first time. The WP:CENSOR link is a bit strange.
• "after further inspection, it appears that sections from the article are copied directly from List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients" - many of the citations for gallantry in the US Civil War describe similar actions and use similar language. Strike five.
• "When it is clear, as in this case, that the article is a hoax, I can't think of any possible purpose in keeping such an article any longer." - it wasn't actually clear it was a hoax, as might have become clear if you had allowed further discussion. Strike six.
• "in such a clear case, there's no need to keep the article around" - it wasn't a clear case. Strike seven.
• "for this particular case there is a critical difference. For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible" - there is no anachronism surrounding the award - just confusion over what award is meant when, but no clear smoking gun. Strike eight.
• "obviously, this man coudn't be the first person to receive Silver Star because it was established in 1932 - years after his death" - obviously, because there are no such things as retrospective awards. Oh, no, hang on, there are such things! Strike nine and out. :-)

Sorry for the overtone of cynicism there. As I said above, it may well be a hoax, but it would be nice to actually have the "obvious" stuff checked out properly by each person (rather than accepting what the nominator said), and for people to leave the AfD discussion open until those who know something about military history come along and correct people's misunderstandings about retrospective awards of medals and citation stars. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problems or objections if anyone should decide to undelete and restart the process, if they feel it would be useful. henrik•talk 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Several points

I'd like to make a couple of points here, both about the article in question, John R. Smith, and about the process by which it was reviewed, discussed and deleted, as well as the quality of the discussion.

• (1) I noticed this discussion early this morning (UK time), but was unable to comment until now (some 16 hours later). There was quite a lot I wanted to say when I got home, but unfortunately things snowballed as I watched. If a deletion discussion is started, I think (as others have said) it would be best to keep the discussion open at least long enough for people in different time zones to comment. Also, the speedy deletion means only admins can see the article, unless you look in Google's cache or somewhere similar (I used a cache during the day, taking a spare moment here and there to look into this). I understand that people thought there was a WP:SNOW delete consensus, but all it takes it for one person to point out something that others have missed, and opinions can change.
• (2) I was rather surprised that no-one at the ANI thread or the AfD debate spotted the distinction between the Silver Star (the medal started in 1932 to replace the Silver Citation Star) and the Silver Citation Star (the citation star awarded from 1918 to 1932, and also retrospectively back to the US Civil War and before). All it takes is for the editor of the article to link to the wrong Silver Star article and confusion will be rampant. See also Award star and Service star - both have silver versions and both can be called "silver star". A misunderstanding like that can incorrectly skew a debate towards deletion. See my next point about how initial misunderstandings were blindly accepted by those arriving at the ANI and AfD discussions (what Uncle G called 'sheep votes').
• (3) There were several initial misunderstandings that affected the way the deletion debate progressed, the most egregious being the claim that the article must be a hoax because the Silver Star medal didn't start until 1932. Eventually, very late in the day, someone (Bilby) piped up and pointed out what everyone should have realised from carefully reading Silver Star: "The Silver Star is the successor decoration to the Citation Star which was established by an act of the U.S. Congress on July 9, 1918. On July 19, 1932, the Secretary of War approved the Silver Star Medal to replace the Citation Star" Now, I presume everyone did what Bilby and I did, right, and went and read Citation Star. If you didn't, you should have done, because that article says: "The Citation Star was a silver star device pinned to the World War I Victory Medal to denote those who had been cited for extreme heroism or valor. The decoration was made retroactive as an attachment to all service medals back to the American Civil War." - now do people begin to understand why it might not be so silly for an article claiming to be about a Civil War soldier to talk about this award? Dig a bit more and you find Civil War Campaign Medal which says: "The medal was first authorized in 1905 for the fortieth anniversary of the Civil War's conclusion." (more retroactive awards stuff - a military historian would pick up on this no problem, but no-one here did except Bilby). And: "several senior military officers, still on active duty in 1905, were veterans of the Civil War. In 1918, for those who had been cited for gallantry in action, the Silver Citation Star was authorized as a device to the medal. Only six Citation Stars were awarded." For more about the Silver Star and it's history, see this website. It only became a medal in 1932. Before that, from 1918 onwards, it was a 'citation star' designed to be affixed to the service ribbon of a campaign medal. "Known in the Army as the "citation star," the award was made retroactive, so that all those cited for gallantry in action in previous campaigns, even as far back as the Spanish-American War, were eligible to wear it" And "It is estimated that more than 20,000 members of the Army received such citations before 1918." (though these were only citations until the star was authorised in 1918. For more on the Civil War Campaign Medal and the 'Silver Citation Star' for that medal, see here and here. This is not really relevant to the presumed John R. Smith, as the article said he died in 1901, but the potential confusion over "silver stars" is there again, and it was possible for the relatives of deceased soldiers to claim such awards on their behalf. The 'silver star' stuff still doesn't quite add up at the moment for John R. Smith, but my point here is that there is enough potential for confusion and misunderstanding, that a more thorough review is needed to make sure nothing else has been missed. Certainly not a speedy deletion. One of the main reasons the article was speedy deleted was because people took the "1932 date for the Silver Star means the article must be wrong" claim at face-value, and didn't check for themselves.
• (4) More of a minor point, but another of the comments on the sources said that the census link was to an 1890 census. If you go back and look at the article that was deleted, you will see that the link says "1860 census". So that could have been the editor linking to the wrong census (the 1860 census for Baltimore doesn't seem to be online). On the other hand, I'm not quite sure why Baltimore is the location here, as the article doesn't mention John R. Smith living in Baltimore.
• (5) The "bits have been copied from List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients" argument is more than a bit hollow. Search those pages for "bearer" and you will see many similar descriptions (similar to that in the article that was deleted) of awards for people who did stuff under fire while retrieving or carrying the "colours" (the flags). This means that the similarity has no bearing at all on whether the article is a hoax or not. If anything, using that type of language suggests that it may be genuine, or at least a good imitation.
• (6) If you want editors who know US Civil War history, instead of asking at WP:ANI, why not ask at the Military History WikiProject. That is one of the first things I would have done (or asked at the reference desk). With all due respect to the people that read ANI, you are unlikely to find a Civil War expert or someone who knows Pennsylvanian African-American history, hanging out here. Another thing is that people from the Military History WikiProject might even have some of the books used as references in this article, and they might be able to check them.
• (7) Ultimately, because of the ease with which different John Smiths can be conflated, even by professional historians, what is needed is to track down the claim attributed to the most authoritative source. In this case, I think it is the claim cited to: "McPherson, James M (2003). The Negro's Civil War. Random House Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4000-3390-4." As our article on him says, James McPherson is a prominent Civil War historian, and has written on African-Americans in the Civil War. The possible hoax article said: "Smith's exact date of birth is debated by historians. Prominent historian John Nelson claims that Smith was born as early as 1830. Others such as James M. McPherson hold the mainstream view that Smith was in fact born toward the end of the 1830s." It should be simple for someone to get hold of a copy of McPherson's book and check this. If this is a false claim, then deletion is probably OK, though the other offline sources could be checked as well.
• (8) I did try searching for stuff on the civil rights and lawyer stuff, but drew blanks.

As far as content goes, the medal stuff is complicated and could be a misunderstanding (e.g. accounts that he was given a citation for gallantry got conflated with statements that this could, theoretically, have been retrospectively turned into a 'citation star' and then a 'silver star'). Other parts of the article do not seem to be backed up by the sources. It is entirely possible this article is a hoax, but it is also possible that an amateur historian has mixed up and conflated online sources about different John R. Smiths (there will be a lot of these around). I think for this one, someone should try and get hold of a paper copy of one of these sources and check what it says (some of the online sources are not fully searchable).

Overall, the process wasn't great here. Sure, the article can be undeleted if needed, but equally the article could have been blanked, or the suspect material removed, until the discussion concluded. It is annoying to spot a discussion like this, see that an initial misunderstanding might be skewing the debate, and then find that 20 minutes later the discussion has concluded in a rather sheep-like fashion, not allowing others to add their thoughts when they get home/wake up/log on, or whatever. So can we please leave discussions on "hoax" articles to run the full course in future? Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the discussion was somewhat rushed, however the fact is that none of the sources backed up the claims made in the article, and it really stretches credulity to imagine the user in question got every single one of his references mixed up.

It's also clear the user is very familiar with wiki processes even though he has apparently only made a couple of dozen edits. Wouldn't a checkuser be appropriate in such a case?

Finally, there doesn't seem to have been much discussion of sanctions for the user involved. Creating hoax articles is deliberate sabotage and it seems to me such actions should not be tolerated. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was never confirmed that this was a hoax, sanctions would be somewhat uncalled for. If the process had run its full course, then yes, we could make the call, but as it didn't there are too many questions left in the air. Keeping a close eye on the user should be sufficient, though. - Bilby (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No sanction for inserting deliberate factual errors into Silver Star? And I agree, the hoax template needs to be blatant. dougweller (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a different issue. And yes, that counts as blatant factual errors. I'd add that I'm now happy to call the John R. Smith article a hoax, on two grounds - the McPherson reference doesn't seem to mention Smith, and, as I mentioned previously, the account of the battle at Fort Sumter is extremely questionable, at best. There was, however, a John R. Smith in the 108th out of Pennsyvania, but I'm happy to write that off as a coincidence. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't CSD G7 apply? Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation.

User:Hoponpop69

Resolved

 – Final warning given regarding personal attacks Tan | 39 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked 9 times in the past for vandalism, sock puppetry, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. He has been warned by countless admins and editors like myself to stop making personal attacks. I have warned him recently about personal attacks for this edit summary, then days later he calls an admin incompetent simply because he doesn't get his way. He doesn't listen to me so I'm hoping if another admin warns him about personal attacks he will stop. Blocking doesn't affect him in the least, or the previous 9 didn't anyways. If he doesn't stop a topic ban may be in order. Virtually all he does is edit war on music related articles regarding genres in the infobox. He refuses to use the talk page, almost never does. On August Burns Red here recently he ignored consensuse of a dozen or so users and a lengthy talk page discussion and just continued to revert away. Landon1980 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I issued a final personal attack warning after his last contribution, and before your post here... Tan | 39 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that until just now when I was informing him of this thread. Landon1980 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call asking for people to provide sources "edit waring".Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nine different admins who have blocked you seem to disagree. 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface and WP:NOT

User:Pixelface has been outspoken about the presence of the WP:NOT#PLOT clause in WP:NOT. Speaking one's own mind is acceptable. However, the user continues to push this forward by completely striking the section, asserting there was never consensus for this two-year old segment to be a part of WP:NOT. The user just did this again (see this diff) after a lengthy discussion (here) ensued no less than two weeks ago after Pixelface nearly hit the 3RR limit on removing it, reverted by three different editors (including myself) (see first, second, and third times within the same 24hr period). Pixelface has done this before on WP:NOT, roughly every few months (more recently since User:TTN has been back in action), and each time, if there's discussion, it is concluded that PLOT should stay, and the change is always reverted. I will note for full disclosure that I have in the past had issued a Wikiquette Alert for Pixelface for tenacious editing during the RFC on WP:FICT (see alert here), but I don't consider this a grudge - just the fact that the actions are disruptful and not helpful to achieving a compromise and consensus.

Pixelface knows better not to edit war (the editor is part of the involved parties of the Episodes and Characters 2 ArbCom case), and these continued changes, knowing that they are going to be reverted, does not help to foster discussion. It's obviously not a true 3RR case, but I would consider this to be approaching the behavior that 3RR is meant to prevent. --MASEM 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Masem, as the editor who has reverted my removal of PLOT the most, I don't really know why you've brought this to ANI. A few months ago there was consensus to remove PLOT from NOT, I removed it, yet was reverted anyway. Recently I've explained that I think WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest to the Wikimedia Foundation. You're welcome to tell me why you think it does not. --Pixelface (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading your diff as a straight vote, you have a 7-7 "vote". It's rather disingenuous to summarize several clearly dissenting views (Ned's, SamBC's) without counting them in the "against" section. Methinks you should take some time and figure out exactly what consensus is before making the bold move of claiming it exists. Badger Drink (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it was 7-7 as you say it was, wouldn't PLOT need something greater than that to be considered policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors? And as long as you're evaluating consensus, could you tell me if there was consensus here to add PLOT to NOT in the first place? --Pixelface (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango and Masem was not slow to revert in this case. The matter is subject to discussion in various places and we may hope that normal discussion and dispute resolution will eventually reach a satisfactory result. I have myself just proposed a constructive suggestion to Pixelface and assume that he will consider this in good faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt that if I didn't revert that it would have stayed removed; I'm not the only one in the past that has reverted the flatout removal of PLOT. That said, your option on Pixelface's talk page (notcopy vs notplot) is worth exploring which I will start there. However, I am still concerned with the flatout removal of a section over and over again over several months as pushing the bounds of being BOLD and of 3RR. --MASEM 18:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right Masem. Other editors have reverted the removal of PLOT from NOT — half of them involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2. But none more than you. Why is that? The flatout removal of plot-only articles about fictional characters per Wikipedia "policy" so they can then generate a profit over on Wikia does not concern you at all? --Pixelface (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am seeing more and more evidence that we are headed for another arbcom over episodes and characters as it seems that the various sides of this matter are failing to compromise. We clearly have no consensus whatsoever on fictional notability of which plots are an element and I know how frustrating it can be to see articles with templates slapped on them rather than that time being spent helping improve the articles under discussion, just as I know how frustrating it can be to see AfDs that claim sources do not exist and the articles cannot be improved only to have sources turn up and the articles be improved with relative ease. In any event, these disputes seem to be heating up all over the place as seen here and here, for example. --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've notified the other participants in Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Plot (Pixelface has solicited participation in this thread from other editors that have agreed with him in the past, I thought I'd solicit from *all* participants in the recent discussion). Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I asked two other editors who have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past to comment. I don't know why Masem has singled me out for removing PLOT from NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I am specifically looking at the actions you have done on that page over the last two weeks - 3 changes (that were reverted) about 2 weeks ago, and then again today, which is compounded by the fact you do this every few months. The other editors like Hobit have done it once but didn't edit war over it. --MASEM 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • And yet you have edit-warred over it. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Please read WP:BRD. When you make a change and it is reverted, you don't go and make that change but instead seek discussion on it. --MASEM 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
            • I've been discussing PLOT at WT:NOT since January, since before E&C2 even closed. When I removed PLOT on March 29, 2008[27], you reverted it completely ignoring the discussion on the talk page. The idea that I have not been discussing PLOT is ludicrous. WP:BRD is an essay. But WP:POL is a policy, and WP:POL says "Consensus for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong..." and "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow." WP:POL says "Policy change comes from three sources: Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them, Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change, and Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load." but the addition of PLOT to NOT did not fall under any of those. Since March 2008, WP:PLOT has been removed from NOT by Colonel Warden, Hiding, Hobit, and Pixelface — one of whom was an involved party of E&C1 or E&C2, me, Pixelface. I was included in that arbitraton case because of an ANI thread that falsely accused me of reverting all of TTN's edits. TTN was later placed under editing restrictions for six months. WP:PLOT has been re-added to NOT by Bignole, Collectonian, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Masem, Moreschi, S@bre, Sceptre, and Sgeureka — four of which were involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2. The idea that PLOT has wide acceptance among editors is simply not true. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
              • After you were blocked for edit-warring on WP:NOT in April, your unblock request was declined with the following - "No consensus means no change - this is standard procedure across the project, and applies to everything from deletion debates to policy discussions. Unless there is a clear consensus to make your changes, they should not be made. The manner in which you made the changes is also disruptive." And that's exactly right, and exactly the point. Unless there is consensus for a change - and that's a large consensus, not a few vocal supporters, the status quo is the default. Black Kite 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
                • I was not blocked for "edit-warring" in April. I was blocked for "vandalism" because Sceptre said my removal of PLOT from NOT was "vandalism" and an AN thread started by AGK later decided it was not. Incidentally, Sceptre is currently serving a three month block. I agree, unless there is consensus for a change, a policy should remain the same. But there was not consensus for a change when PLOT was initially proposed. So PLOT should have never been added to NOT by Hiding. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • We've been working on trying to avoid that. A recent RFC on WP:N was put out to try to assess what community consensus was for how sub-notability guidelines can be written and how spinout articles can be handled. We're awaiting a neutral review of the comments though there are certain lines clearly drawn from that. In response to that, an excellent start on a renewed FICT that fits in those results as best we can tell that clearly represents current practices was drawn up by Phil Sandifer here. Regardless, however, there are those on both sides of the issue that seem to refuse to compromise. The problem is is that this is not a behavioral debate (TTN's recent AFD actions were brought to ArbCom after his block expired, but Arbcom agreed he's not violating anything at this point). The current FICT failed regain a guideline status because while it has 50% support, you had 25% from inclusionists that thought it too strict, and 25% from deletionists thinking it too loose; at this point, I think it's clear that there's a middle position we're going to have to take and a large fraction of editor base is not going to like it, otherwise we'll continue to war over the issues indefinitely. --MASEM 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced that it had 50% support, because I also consider the opinions of those (perhaps thousands?) who write the articles thereby presumably believing that they meet our inclusion criteria, but do not necessarily get involved in all of the discussions. Far more editors write the disputed articles than actually participate in AfDs. I similarly am not persuaded that behavior is not a concern, because how is the following dispute not disruptive? See here, here, here, here, here, and here, as well as [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36]. In just these examples, you have everything from insults to edit warring and these examples just reflect one recent, ongoing dispute pertaining to plot, fictional characters, and episodes. Put simply, Pixelface is hardly the sole participant in any dispute here. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was contacted by Pixelface about this. I also had contacted him about the same topic just before this ANI page popped up. I think we need an RfC on this, and if there isn't consensus to keep NOT#PLOT it should be removed. I do think Pixelface has been a bit pointy on this issue (though I too have removed NOT#PLOT in the past). But I strongly suspect there is no consensus on it and it should be removed. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was contacted by Pete.Hurd, Although I have often agreed with Pixelface, he did not contact me. It is obvious that there is fairly general disagreement here, and that its about the fundamental issue of how much coverage of fiction should there be in wikipedia, not the wording of particular section MASEM has generally done a reasonably clever job offering compromise wording, but one or another side have always been unwilling to accept the compromise. Worse, people on all possible sides of this issue have resorted to reverts, to multiple redirects without establishing consensus, to multiple undifferentiated afd nominations of good articles along with bad, of blanket statements that no sources will ever be available accompanied by refusal on one pretext or another to consider them when they are,and of people intransigently defending absolutely impossibly detailed articles on minor plot elements. I can't include everything, but this should be enough to give the idea. Very little of this has been constructive. Constructive would be a discussion of what was actually wanted, a compromise here as the views will be incompatible, and then writing rules to accommodate this. I have not been participating in the RfC much for two reasons: first, I've been too busy defending articles,and more important, I think the discussion was started and continues on a too trivial level of what the rules will permit, not what the general intent is. I know what I want, and know I am unlikely to get it all, but some other people are still trying to force their view. I avoid names, as the list would be too long. I think the continued refusal to compromise is best shown by the refusal to accept combination articles on minor not-individually notable characters as a natural solution--and I know the reasons why: some people are too attached to their over-detailed fansite prose, and others don't want any details left in under a merge or redirect that could ever be used for reconstruction of what they disapprove of. Between the two, the result in chaos. I'dlike to do an essay to match Phil's, and a more general explanation of why detailed coverage of fiction is appropriate, ready wednesday--but I can only do them if I can have a rest at Afd. _Perhaps this discussion in general would go better ifpeople abstained from introducing new articles there for a few weeks. DGG (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Pixelface has edit-warred on WP:NOT#PLOT in the past, and he should know better by now. When there is project-wide consensus to remove it from WP:NOT, then it can be removed. The only reason that people are trying to remove it now it that it is a barrier to creating hundreds of unencyclopedic TV episode and fiction articles. Some of those canvassed to comment above have also been involved in trying to create such articles and stacking AfDs in their favour. If there is overwhelming consensus to remove it, then it can go. Otherwise, it stays. Black Kite 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note that this is not an opposition to the type of combination article that User:DGG is mentioning above; in the main, these are generally OK because there are enough sources to support them as a whole. An article on a single episode and many characters need not only to hit WP:NOT, but also WP:V and secondary sourcing. This is where they generally fall down. Black Kite 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• This I fundamentally disagree with. If there isn't consensus to keep this here, it should be removed. We don't keep rules around that we don't have consensus on. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Er, no. We don't remove large chunks of policy on the basis of a discussion with an even distribution of views. And we certainly don't remove them because of a straw poll on an obscure talkpage where most of the people involved have a vested interest. Black Kite 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• And yet you don't support a wider RfC to gauge consensus? Hobit (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• See below. I've got no problem with an RfC, I'm unconvinced how useful it'd be. Black Kite 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The whole term "unencyclopedic" is subjective and not really helpful for a paperless encyclopedia. Britannica had limitations that paper encyclopedias had to have, but if you look at what the philosophes really wanted, then it would be the cataloging of all human knowledge and I am confident that if they had the means to make a Wikipedia it would indeed be far more extensive than the historical paper encyclopedias had to be. What is and is not eneyclopedic as pertains to a paperless encyclopedia is therefore not the same as what pertains to a paper encyclopedia and if thousands of our editors and millions of our readers believe these articles to be encyclopedic than I care far more about helping and working with them than a vocal minority that thinks otherwise. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect, given your previous history on this issue, I'd suggest it might not be the greatest idea to introduce this discussion - on which you've previously been shot down numerous times, and eventually blocked - on a high traffic page like this one. Black Kite 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have never been "shot down" by unbiased editors and was never blocked for making this valid argument. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Black Kite, I wasn't one of the people editing WP:NOT (or PLOT) when you protected it for edit-warring. And you weren't an uninvolved party then either, having given your opinion about PLOT multiple times at WT:NOT and having been an involved party of E&C2. There was never a "project-wide consensus" to add PLOT to NOT, so why should there be a "project-wide consensus" to remove it? Besides all this, WP:PLOT poses a blatant conflict of interest for Wikipedia, and for Jimbo Wales in particular. --Pixelface (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• I think the main issue here is one of intent. If User:Pixelface honestly believed that the edit would stand without being reverted, that's one thing. If he made the edit knowing full well that it would be immediately reverted, then that edit was made only to anger and annoy people that he disagrees with, which is clearly a form of disruptive editing. I tend towards the latter explanation. As for User:A Nobody's concerns, it is true that Pixelface is not the only person that has problems in this regard. Some users have even been known to try to hide their history of involvement with these disputes by pretending to vanish.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• He clearly knew it would be reverted; you only need to look at the history to see that. I'd remind people that Pixelface was blocked previously (by User:AGK on 16 April) for exactly the same thing. Black Kite 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You're wrong. But that's okay Black Kite, it won't be the first time you've made false claims about me at ANI. I was not "blocked previously (by User:AGK on 16 April) for exactly the same thing." Check the block log yourself. I was blocked for "vandalism" because Sceptre (who is currently serving a three month block) made an AIV report after I removed PLOT from NOT. An AN thread started by AGK later decided it was not vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, you were blocked for removing PLOT from WP:NOT, and now - you're removing PLOT from WP:NOT. Same thing, no? A quick scan of the history of WP:NOT from April 2008 will conform that to anyone who wishes to look. Do feel free to substantiate your claim that I've lied about you at AN/I at any point. Black Kite 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was blocked for "vandalism" after an AIV report, and this AN thread showed my edits to WP:NOT to not be vandalism. And here is where you've previously made a false claim about me at ANI, when you accused me of "stalking" — which is why you were included as an involved party of E&C2. But you know that already. Besides that, you edit-warred with TTN[37] in January and used rollback to revert edits that were not vandalism. And you protected WP:NOT[38] to further your position[39] in a content dispute over PLOT, in violation of the protection policy. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• *Sigh* none of those diffs show anything of the sort. (1) You clearly were stalking TTN's edits, so that comment was correct. (2) Myself and another admin reverted a bunch of edits back to their encyclopedic form - so what? I note they're still in the state we reverted to. (3/4) I protected WP:NOT because there was an edit-war going on which was not involving myself. Now then, if you want to continue to post random diffs with misleading summaries on here, then that's completely up to you, but I'd make a very clear suggestion to you now that calling people liars and completely failing to back it up is not a good idea. Black Kite 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now you're really lying. I was not stalking TTN's edits. I was un-redirecting every Scrubs episode article based on all of the complaints at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. See here. And take note of whose edits I was reverting. I was found to not be edit-warring in E&C2 — and certainly not stalking as you claim. You were supporting TTN's edit-warring by using rollback[40] to revert edits that were not vandalism, a violation of WP:ROLLBACK. You were not an uninvolved admin when you protected WP:NOT since you had commented multiple times about PLOT at WT:NOT [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77], you were an involved party of E&C2, and you started the DRV on the History of For Better or For Worse in order to set some "precedent." That you still insist I was "stalking" TTN shows that you are a liar. --Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Though this is completely false, I'll let it stand as an example of where the problem lies. Black Kite 00:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]I partly agree and partly disagree. I believe he knows it will be reverted, but also knows that a few naysayers shoot down any discussion on that page. I think an RfC is the right way to go. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unsure how an RfC would be any more than an extended version of the same arguments on WT:NOT which have generated far more heat than light every single time. Black Kite 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The intent here seems to be to insult other editors' work by calling it "junk" and prevent other editors who contribute to building the encyclopedia from "enjoying themselves" by indiscriminately removing their edits. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You couldn't have misrepresented TTN's comment there any more if you'd tried. Try assuming good faith once in a while with people who disagree with your position. -- Sabre (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reality of how his edits have affected others suggests otherwise. --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The opinion held by other users of one particular editor still does not give you any right to misrepresent that editor's comments to imply something other than what the editor actually means. -- Sabre (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• He has made clear plenty of times his negative opinions of so-called "extreme stalker inclusionists", i.e. other editors, i.e. colleagues. --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Many people hold that opinion of editors that obstruct the process of merging and deleting articles that violate WP:NOT#PLOT. It's well deserved. There is a small group of editors that are dedicated to ensuring that truly bad articles stay. In this discussion, we've got Pixelface showing us the contributions documenting his personal dedication to make sure that every Scrubs episode has its own article, despite the fact that the ones that remain redirected are blatant violations of WP:NOT#PLOT. The mysteriously vanished User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles used to add misleading and barely relevant citations to fiction articles in an effort to mislead other editors into believing they were actually well sourced and passed WP:N, a major guideline. These behaviours are not the behaviours of colleagues. The point that you and Pixelface and others miss ... it really doesn't matter much what you think of WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:N. So long as WP:NOT#PLOT is policy, and WP:N is a guideline, you should adhere to them. If you can persuade people to change them, that's fine, and then people should adhere to the changes. But to violate any policy or guideline en masse is disruptive, and that's what TTN and others are fighting.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you would look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, you would see why I un-redirected those articles. The consensus to redirect them changed when more people became aware of the redirects. List of Scrubs episodes was viewed over 223,000 times in January 2008[78]. WP:NOT was viewed under 30,000 times in January 2008[79]. Episodes for every article of The Simpsons were mentioned long ago in WP:NOTPAPER on meta. That is why Wikipedia has so many episode articles — the simple fact that Wikipedia is not constrained the way paper encyclopedias are constrained in the number of topics it can cover. The fact that Wikipedia is not paper is probably why would you decided to create the article GTD-5 EAX. There were 6 people who supported making WP:PLOT policy when it was first proposed. There were more people than that complaining at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that every Scrubs episode article had been redirected. Polices are not laws to be followed blindly. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. WP:N is a guideline, that's true. It was written by Radiant! (no longer here) and that user tagged it as a guideline after a mere 16 days. And there was plenty of warring over the {{guideline}} tag after that. Notability is a subjective opinion. I see after your failed RFA, you added some references to GTD-5 EAX which you created. And it only took you 19 months. Good for you. I guess that makes you look like slightly less of a hypocrite when it comes to your strict insistence on "adherence" to WP:N. Personally, I've added reception information (according to WP:PLOT) to tons of articles about fictional works. I've even been told I added too much. But WP:PLOT does not have the consensus required of policies.

• WP:PLOT and the WP:GNG were heavily influenced by one editor, Hiding, another user who has changed their name now that you bring it up. WP:PLOT was proposed by Hiding, and the WP:GNG evolved out of Hiding's summary of various subject-specific notability guidelines (which Hiding now laments — "The staggering thing to me, is that words I wrote have become, I really don't know how to put this, but they appear to have become almost religiously followed, raised to some sort of biblical meaning that I just never intended.") There weren't even subject-specific "notability" guidelines until this proposed rename and move by Jiy (who is also no longer here).

• There are over three-quarter-of-a-million articles on Wikipedia under the umbrella of Category:Fiction — over 28% of the articles on Wikipedia — that's more articles than we have about people, dead and alive. And WP:PLOT affects most of them — so it better have damn strong consensus to be policy. I don't see how a policy proposal that has 6 editors agreeing and 6 editors disagreeing means that it has "wide acceptance" and that it's a "standard that all users should follow." Policies require a greater degree of consensus than that. If it only takes 6 editors to make something policy, and then 8 more editors to force that policy down over 8 million editors' throats — that's sad, and wrong. TTN is actually violating WP:NOTLAW. But with this kind of thing in TTN's contribution history, I guess he just doesn't know any better. And TTN shouldn't be fighting at all because Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I get it, you think people who create episode articles are "vandals." Maybe you should re-read your failed RFA; you might learn something. --Pixelface (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Fortunately, the community was able to recognize's Kww's history of disruption, micharacterizations, and bad faith at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww#Oppose. --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Rather than generalizing the problem, why don't we do what we would for any policy edit war--revert to the wrong version and fully protect the page? Protonk (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because the edit war, if that is what it is, is too slow to justify that? Hobit (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, but this is an important content policy and read widely. It won't do for editors to expect that WP:PLOT is there and then find that the section has been deleted (or, expect that it not be there only to be faced with it). If this post has stopped the slow edit warring, then fine. If not, it just seems easier to protect the page for a few days and start an RfC on this exact topic. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the RfC by itself should be enough. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• No problems with an RfC, as long as certain people understand that "no consensus" on an issue isn't carte blanche to mess about with policy pages. It'd be useful to post it to WP:CENT as well, so that the discussion isn't dominated by people with an axe to grind. Black Kite 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would not want to see a duplication of the notability RfC, which I understand is undergoing review by a non-involved party. As the issues are closely related, maybe it would be worth waiting to see the outcome of the notability RfC before fanning the flames with another one. Fletcher (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not trying to anger or annoy anyone. The intent was to remove a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. In addition to that, it's a bad policy, one that's horribly misunderstood by a certain editor on a crusade after his recent six-month editing restriction. In addition to that, WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest since it's used to ship articles about fictional characters off Wikipedia to Wikia in order to generate a profit. --Pixelface (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Was kindly pointed here by Pete Hurd. From my reading Pixelface has been tendentious and should leave the policy pages alone. (BTW tenacious is a good thing, Masem!) Fletcher (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think this dicussion is better carried on at WT:NOT; this dispute is not a matter worthy of consideration by the Administrators - I am sure they have better things to do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sweet Lord in Heaven, please guys. Just ban Pixelface. He's never going to stop his single-issue crusade to water down and ideally abolish each and every last guideline and policy that provides any barrier to any form of content. He is simply an enemy of the encyclopedia part of that anyone can edit. The very least indicated measure is a one-year ban from project space, and certainly from WP:NOT/WT:NOT. Everyme 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If we ban users for removing sections of policy that don't have consensus to be policy, ban away. I'm not the one on a crusade. But I can think of one user who's just off a six-month editing restiction who is. Policies don't exist to enrich Jimbo Wales, and that's what WP:PLOT does. --Pixelface (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just leave WP:NOT alone forever, please. Everyme 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• If PLOT is removed from NOT, I will do that. But how would I know you wouldn't then try to get Hobit, Hiding, and Colonel Warden banned from NOT as well? The idea that people who think Wikipedia should have articles on Baldrick and Cosette are "enemies" of the "encyclopedia part of that anyone can edit" is asinine. --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I really don't give a fuck. I edit only in my free time, when I don't earn my living in the closest Walmart parking lot letting strangers spit into my face for 2 cents. Still, PLOT is an integral part of Wikipedia and I dearly hope it will survive all silly attempts to remove it. The assumption, for lack of a better word that wouldn't get me blocked, that pure plot summaries can be surrogates for encyclopedic articles is ludicrous. Anyone who doesn't understand and who, like you, refuses to be educated on the issue instead of aggressively defending their own ignorance, has no place in project space. I freely admit I can be a zealot and I'm dead wrong most of the time, but you manage to make me look like Yoda. Everyme 21:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You clearly "give a fuck" enough to be here now and call for my banning, which is the second time you've done so that I know of. Your claim that PLOT is "an integral part of Wikipedia" is false. It became "policy" two years ago. But pure plot summary articles, like Baldrick, have existed for over seven years. And plot-only articles are often kept at AFD. [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] So WP:NOT's claim that "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply Plot summaries" is false. Apparently everyone who's edited Baldrick, 271 unique editors, "has no place in project space" either. You refer to Yoda, yet that article itself currently does not meet PLOT. So, if you can manage to find some space in your free time, feel free to nominate the Yoda article for deletion — since PLOT is an "integral part of Wikipedia" and everyone who's edited that article is an "enemy" of the encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You really know how to make me put my head in my hands. Everyme 04:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Both those articles are in a terrible state. If an article on a character as clearly notable as Baldrick can have no sources whatsoever, it is hardly surprising that articles on many more obscure characters are in a worse state. Black Kite 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are those articles what Wikipedia is not, content not suitable for Wikipedia, and need to be deleted? --Pixelface (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Since you're deliberately missing the point, I'll make it for you. A character like Baldrick clearly has sources available, even if no-one could be bothered to put them in. Put an article like that to AfD and it'll survive every time, even if the article itself is of poor quality. However, many episode and character articles also don't have sufficient suitable secondary sources, because they don't exist. That's the difference, and you know this. Oh, and this thread needs to go to WT:NOT now. Black Kite 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing the point. If a plot-only article such as Baldrick will survive AFD every time, then there is clearly no consensus that articles are not simply plot summaries and therefore WP:PLOT does not belong in WP:NOT. If people deem plot-only article like Baldrick suitable for Wikipedia, then plot-only articles like Baldrick do not qualify as content not suitable for Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Baldrick would be kept, not because of its current problems, but because it has the potential to be developed. Its current state should not substantially change its viability for inclusion. Baldrick is currently a dreadful article, but the potential for development under WP:WAF and inclusion of sources is why its kept, not because plot-only articles are accepted. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• But plot-only articles are accepted. [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] And WP:PLOT itself says nothing about "potential." And essay like WP:POTENTIAL does nothing to dissuade editors on a crusade to enforce WP:PLOT like a law through mass AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sabre, how do you measure or predict "potential"? Almostr anything has potential to be written about if a grad student is looking for a thesis topic:) DGG (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic-banning may be a solution, or it may be overkill. I will agree with Everyme that it seems highly unlikely that Pixelface will accept any form of compromise that makes restrictions on the coverage of fiction articles. I think it is clear that A Nobody is much the same. If they aren't topic banned, it needs to be accepted that this issue will never go away.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my complaint is not about Pixelface's persistence on arguing against it - it's the means (in this specific case, the removal of PLOT repeatedly) that I believe needs some type of admin action. Banning is not an option I think is supportable - that's equivalent to simply censoring an argument and "winning" the battle by shutting up the resistance. --MASEM 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already written a survey in order to generate discussion at WT:FICT, so the idea that I will not accept any form of compromise that makes restrictions on Wikipedia's coverage of fiction is simply untrue. You may not be aware of it because Collectonian keeps removing any mention of it from {{fiction notice}}. I think such a survey would be helpful in achieving a compromise and consensus. Please edit the survey if you think it could be improved. --Pixelface (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can voluntarily avoid commenting in AfDs, as I have this entire month, then topic banning Kww per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Proposed_motions_and_voting seems like a sound solution. --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion would go better if we did not talk about topic bans, but try to find some way to get a settlement of the issues. Pending that, we might want to freeze some policy pages for a short time, to everyone. Obvious we otherwise have entirely different ideas of who should get banned, and that's simply an extension of how we stand on the issues. As for freezes, if we block new fiction articles from afd for a week, we could similarly promise not to try to restore any during the period Anything we do should be equitable. DGG (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to remind people this is AN/I - I brough this forward not to debate the issue of PLOT (WT:NOT is the correct venue for that), but Pixelface's action, and by necessity, anyone else involved with this (including myself) if there are admin steps needed. The entire issue of PLOT, FICT, and so forth is a much larger discussion that doesn't need to waste admins' time - only the questionable editing actions. --MASEM 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I personally hold many views that are contrary to Pixelface, but trying to silence him by making a complaint about him in this forum is not appropriate. As far as I can see, he has done nothing wrong. There are many other forums for discussing your disagreements, but here is not one of them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Masem has a good faith belief that Pixelface is editing policy without consensus to do so, then he's not necessarily wrong to bring a complaint here. That doesn't mean his complaint is valid, but it isn't "trying to silence him" by any stretch. Protonk (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Point taken. However editing without concensus is not a crime, so I disagree with you about the validity of the complaint. I think this matter should now close. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between a complaint being acceptable and the complaint being accurate. I don't think that Masem's charge about Pixelface is completely correct, but that isn't the threshold for bringing complaints here. In other words, we can agree that Pixelface isn't out of line and still feel that Masem was not wrong for bringing the complaint here. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not about our views of WP:NOT, and cannot be. We have to stand up for people we disagree with who are reasonable, distance ourselves from people we agree with but WP:GAME our processes. If Pixelface is indeed edit warring policy pages, he needs to know this is unacceptable and get the idea. This is an example of WP:GAMETYPE#4, breaking the spirit of the 3RR while defending yourself with wikilawyering. Revert warring, only to return a few weeks later and start up again does not give you a free pass. And if a policy has been around for almost two years, you can't pretend WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT say there was no consensus in the first place. The most important part of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, in this case, is "note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem." Whether Pixelface is merely towing the line or has full on breached it, there needs to be a stern warning so that edit-warring policy pages doesn't happen again. It's not a witchhunt to humiliate one editor. It's just about stopping the disruptive behavior. Randomran (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino revert-warring

Hi all, I'll cut right to the chase: User:Ragusino has been stirring trouble for weeks now on several Dalmatia-related biographical articles on people or noble families from the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa [90], [91], [92]. He has engaged in revert-warring to push his POV that's based primarily on the "fact" that he, as a supposed descendant of the noble Gondola family, possesses privilege to dictate (without any actual sources) that the articles in question must use exclusively the Italian mode of a family or person's name in the lead. In recognition of the dual culture of the Republic of Ragusa, these articles have been using both the Slavic and Italian names in the lead for a very long time. Now it would appear Ragusino has decided to try and achieve his goal by constant edit-warring, in the hope that his version will come out on top solely due to the relative obscurity of these articles. Frequently asked (by more than one editor) to try and restrain himself from reverting until discussions are finished, Ragusino did not feel the need to extensively discuss his edit-warmongering. I myself stopped reverting his POV-pushing and asked him to try and discuss with his version on top [93]. As a consequence neither the User, or his associate User:Debona.michel (another supposed "descendant" of a noble family) found the talkpage to be of any interest after their version remained in place. In short, the nobility is restless and needs Admin attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Ragusino/Debona.michel has been removing Slavic names under the silly argument that they've not been used before the 19th century (where allegedly they were "invented" for the cause of reintegrating old nobility names into Pan-Slavic nationalist currents of the time), even though there are plenty of attestations of Bunić, Gundulić, Palmotić and other noble patronyms in works produced by 15th, 16th, 17th century writers (which can bee seen in e.g. Croatian Wikisource or facsimile editions of their works available in digitised Web editions).

Also, Ragusino has been adding some Romance names as an alternative to Slavic names which I couldn't find anywhere (not in standard anotologies, nothing on the Web), which are presumbly his own "Italianicized" inventions, or which he copied from some old book which just lists it and does not mention whether it is a secondary Italianicization or those people actually used those names.

Ragusino should either be forced to communicate and provide verifiable evidence to support his claims, or articles such as [[Junije Palmotić]] should be locked for further edit-warring to be prevented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Plus, I'd add to those concerns logging out and edit warring from your everchanging IP address. See Special:Contributions/190.21.73.216 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.13 Special:Contributions/190.21.93.150 and Special:Contributions/190.21.82.68 to name just a few.
Of additional, perhaps greater concern, is Ragusino's uploading of images with highly questionable licensing rationales. See, for example [Image:Genealogy Vojnovic.jpg] where he/she says its PD because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years, yet the family tree in question clearly has a latest date on it of 1956. There's [Image:Ragusan family crest.jpg] with the same rationale. There's [Image:Orsato de Saraca.jpg] which was painted by Oreste da Molin (1856-1921) (see http://www.orestedamolin.org/opere/satira.php) with the same rationale. Same rationale for [Image:Helene Ghetaldi Obituary.jpg] an obit notice of someone who died in 1930. There's [Image:Julius Fedrigoni Edler von Etschthal.jpg], where the subject was born in 1893, same rationale. [Image:Burakowka 1929.jpg], same rationale. [Image:Bernardo Caboga.jpg], clearly somebody's own photo with the digital camera details on the image page, same rationale. [Image:Ivan Rendic.jpg] which has got www.crohis.com written on it, same rationale. Plus (no kidding) [Image:Ghetaldi-Gondola Cementary.jpg] with the same rationale on a photo blatantly taken at 00:49, 17 October 2008. So a variety of images, some undoubtedly his own creations, others obviously not his own, with highly questionable use rationales. Moreover, the following images have got extremely dodgy rationales [Image:Gondola.jpg], [Image:Reesti.jpg]. There are lots of these, so I'm afraid somebody needs to go through the list of all Ragusino's uploads. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tired of cleaning up after Mac

Mac (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2003. In that time he has cultivated an intense interest in electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and solar power. The result of this has been that although he does make some good edits, his editing does not follow policy or guideline much of the time, and instead produces hundreds of bad redirects (often circling to the top of the very page a reader is on), spam links and articles, very messy categories, and copyright violations. A non-exhaustive list of the warnings he has been given in the past, as well as difs of 33 poor edits he did in one day are here, and more notices follow. Mac does not respond to these notices, and continues with the bad redirects, copy/paste violations, spam links, etc...

Is there someone here who has more experience dealing with editors who, while not being "bad people", are harming the project because they are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their cause? The many people who have warned Mac in the past have not yet had an effect as far as I can tell, and he definitely does not pay any attention to me. NJGW (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it's time for a short-term block of that user for disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From briefly going over today's edits, this is copied from here (not copyright, but no attribution, which he has also been warned about several times), this redirect was made only so this edit could be made, this redirect to a company was made instead of to Upgraded metallurgical-grade silicon (which may or may not be a neologism, as Mac created that as a redirect this June), category:Ford was added to the Mazda page (the do business together, but aren't the same company as far as I know), inserted a bad redirect into the lead of an article (this redirect was created by Nukeless (talk · contribs), which other editors have questioned might be a sock of Mac's)... I don't have time to go through all of them... here are a couple of other strange redirects created today: [94][95][96] NJGW (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up after Mac. I came across this spam link on a disambiguation page that he inserted and promptly warned him.

I am now suspicous that the user listed below may be a sock of Macs.

Solarfuture2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is a minor issue and is based on this edit. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Only a tiny proportion of Mac's edits result in a positive change to the article, usually people just revert back to the previous state, rather than attempting to sort his edits out. His general refusal to discuss edits, or to change his behaviour in response to several months of this, is most frustrating. Greg Locock (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: SandyGeorgia was very helpful with AnnieTigerChucky, who is now a great editor. I'll ask SG's comment. --Iamunknown 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough situation. I probably invested more hours into cleaning up after AnnieTigerChucky than I care to remember, but a good editor did result. On the other hand, her edits are confined largely to one area, and they didn't number in the hundreds. It did make me want to tear my hair out some days, because it took so much of my time, but it worked: we got a productive editor instead of someone turned vandal. What was the most helpful in the process of bringing ATC up to speed was me working with an admin, who was firm but patient and did block ATC several times. That got the message through. A perusal of AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)'s talk page (in particular the warnings and blockings from admin Sarah) might be instructive. I mentored and delivered help and praise and instruction, while Sarah delivered the stern discipline and a few needed blocks. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GNU FDL 1.3 released!

• http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/date.html

• ""Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site."

• "Section 11 imposes two deadlines on licensees. First, you can only use works under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if they were added to a wiki before November 1, 2008. We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards. Choosing a deadline that has already passed unambiguously prevents this."

• "Second, this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision."

There appears to be a problem. From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects.

I suggest we say so on the edit page and tell people at various forums and remove any such material that was placed in Wikipedia over the last two days. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we choose to stick with 1.2? This one seems a bit oppressive to me. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan is to go to GNU FDL 1.3 and then switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Of course we will have a community wide discussion first to get consensus. That is why it gives us a year to decide. I think the community will support this, but if it does not then we stay with GNU FDL 1.3. The not being able to use stuff made on non-wikis after Nov. 1 is only about avoiding stuff that we can't migrate to CC-BY-SA 3.0. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such plan. WMF requested the option of a switch, and we now have 9 months (not a year) to decide. I'm not really sure why there's a thread here, as it has absolutely nothing to do with admin responsibilities. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be more appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can mention it, though I think there is very little material that enters Wikipedia after being copied from a GFDL licensed non-wiki by someone other than the copyright holder. In other words I think the impact is pretty limited. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the impact is limited, these measures will make the impact even less. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The material restricted from addition if we plan to convert is pretty limited - I don't think there is that much work going on that involves moving previously published FDL material to Wikipedia. I'm also not sure that adding the bit to the notice would help - although if you include on the edit box "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license" that could be useful as cover later on. Avruch ^T 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well as I understand it will be ok if it has been previously released under another FDL license but they were the sole author. So it should say something like "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license or that it if has that you are the only author." JoshuaZ (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

what exactly is now being done that is affected by the first deadline? And what will have to be done by the second deadline? And, to get to the real basics, what is the difference between gfdl and- CC-BY-3.0 ? DGG (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread on that here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

← Q about the dates from the FAQ:

“ Q. What is the purpose of the two different dates in section 11? Why did you choose those specific dates?

A. Section 11 imposes two deadlines on licensees. First, if a work was originally published somewhere other than a public wiki, you can only use it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if it was added to a wiki before November 1, 2008. We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards. Choosing a deadline that has already passed unambiguously prevents this.

Second, this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision.

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've brought up the question of how this will affect the current language at WP:C at WT:C. Please weigh in there, anyone who has a thought on the matter. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If understand this correctly, the plan is to migrate Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA, and the 1.3 version of GFDL is a necessary intermediary step for legal reasons (the viral provision of GFDL). BTW, Citizendum already moved to CC-BY-SA for new articles. So, this essay should explain the issues in excruciating detail. For those looking for a summary, see GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism_of_the_GFDL. VG ☎ 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Reviewed and fine - Editors engaged in hate speech and random attacks are not welcome here

Perhaps someone can review my block of Cbreseman (talk · contribs). It seems he wasn't too happy with WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) for getting his userpage deleted as an attack page. Indefinite blocks may not always mean forever, so perhaps a shorter block would've been better? Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Edits like this are totally inappropriate - and this wasn't the only one like it. User can always use the unblock template if he/she feels up to it. Tan | 39 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I certainly hope indefinite does mean forever, and think "infinite" would have been appropriate too. We can do without someone spewing this stuff and throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. --barneca (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The deleted content of his userpage = bulletproof indef. Nothing to review, no chance for unblock. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. I'm only bringing this here because users with some constructive edits are sometimes given chances. Spellcast (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no way. This guy should not have his block shortened. He's also going to have to have a doozy of an unblock request to convince us to let him back. His user page was WAY beyond the pale, and the stuff he has done since it was deleted is inexcusable... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The thoroughly multilingual attack was a nice touch, though. Made certain that an admin would indef him pretty much regardless of which languages they spoke.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I can't see his original userpage, but the commentary left for WereSpeil smells more like an indef-wish that anything I have seen in awhile. Thanks for taking out the trash. -t BMW c- 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The mind-boggler for me was the previous, NON-hateful versions of his userpage--you know, where he talks about how much he loves his kid and throws in the "America Needs Jesus" userbox. Hope he and his version of Jesus aren't teaching his son those multilingual expressions of bigotry and hate...Gladys J Cortez 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a compromised account, but either way it's a good block. Like Jayron32, I'm looking forward to reading his unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I would only have checked the edit history of his user page back far enough to establish that the bile came from the user rather than a vandal, so I probably didn't see what Gladys noticed. Somehow I'd like to think it was a compromised account, just like I'd rather have been wiping IP graffiti off a user page than flagging an attack page for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IP-hopping user edit warring and adding unsourced, biased content

Unregistered user, hopping 86.158.236.85 and 86.158.237.227 is edit warring [97] [98] to add an unsourced and biased statement. Initial report was made by a new user here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Assistance_Please:. Further proof that the IP user is one and the same user: I've left a note to 86.158.237.227 and got a reply from 86.158.236.85. The IP user is edit warring with a new registered user Rcacitizen, and will likely bait him into breaking 3RR, while avoid this himself by IP hopping. The IP user has serious WP:OWN problems ironically calling Rcacitizen "a new random editor", which makes me suspect that IP's are socks used for edit warring. A range block or semi-protection seems the only option here. Disclaimer: this might be just another Indo-Pakistani proxy war, but I have no reason not to WP:AGF on behalf of User_talk:Rcacitizen. VG ☎ 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Am watching the page concerned. There is no need to block at the moment, I see only two reverts. If they continue, then steps will be taken to prevent any edit warring. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ebeing

Resolved. Blocked for 48 hours by Jayron32. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been spamming and vandalising pages including Solar hot water, Steam shower and Construction with links that violate WP:COI. Ebeing was given a 24 hour ban for spamming, but then started vandalising pages by blanking external links [[99]] and inserting spam links [[100]], [[101]]. Also blanked entire reference section of Solar hot water claiming it was a link farm [[102]].

Ebeing has continued to remove all links from external links sections seemingly regardless of whether they violate Wikipedia policy or not. [[103]], [[104]]

User was given warnings about this [[105]], [[106]]

Now Ebeing has created a page (which was speedily deleted) for one of the companies that he/she was spamming, Grus Construction. [[107]]

I was advised by administrator User:Jayron32 on the Editor Assistance page to file a report here at WP:ANI if Ebeing continued the behaviour, and I have done so as the spam article was created since then. Charlie Tango (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I blocked User:Ebeing for 48 hours for continuing to advertise despite prior warnings not to, and despite prior blocks for attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise. As always, I invite other administrators to review my actions here. If anyone feels that this block is out of order, or too long, please feel free to correct me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

History restore request

The Boston Tea Party (political party) article has been deleted several times but has just survived a DRV. Could an admin restore all the policy compliant (i.e. non-copyvio, BLP-friendly) deleted edits so non-admins can dig in the history for useful content? Thanks, inb4wrongforum, the skomorokh 21:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: a restore may also been a GFDL requirement. the skomorokh 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the lazy, can you link the Afd/DRV's and let us know why a GFDL debt exists? I'm happy to restore it but curious as to the particulars. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas

File this under lame, but here goes. There seems to be a large amount of SPAs intent on changing the DOB on the Sofia Shinas article. According to the article's history, this has been going on since at least 2007, long before I even got involved. Naturally, they don't cite the change and if they do leave an edit summary, it's usually to claim that the info is wrong because they supposedly know the subject personally. While I know this isn't the place for content disputes, attempts to engage the user(s) (the main one of late being User:TonyKay1) have been ignored and the sheer amount of accounts making only this change is suspicious. After changing the DOB back yesterday (again), I left a message on the talk page of TonyKay1 that they either didn't see or simply ignored because they reverted again and didn't leave an edit summary. I did file a SSP report back in October (after I left a note on the article talk page days before), but it has yet to be addressed. To my knowledge, the subject herself hasn't contacted Wiki to correct anything, but one of the SPAs (which I tagged as a sock) claims to have the subject's birth certificate and wanted to know how to get in touch with Wikipedia. Considering I left a message on that user's talk page nearly a month before that request asking for some kind of reference and she didn't answer me before makes the whole "I-have-my-friend's-sister's-birth-certificate" claim kinda suspect, but I'll go ahead and AGF. The only reference I've found for Shinas' date of birth is IMDb which, in my opinion, is most likely correct. Since IMDb isn't considered reliable and there seems to be an ongoing crusade to change this point, should we just remove the DOB altogether? At this point, I really wouldn't be opposed to that, but I'm having some problems with the lack of communication and the multiple accounts aspect of all this. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. dougweller (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption by WorkerBee74

Resolved

 – Blocked for 21 days.

Despite an earlier request, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks diff and edit disruptively at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It would seem from an extensive block log that this editor is incapable of remaining civil. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly disruptive editing; a problem editor. Who's ready to use their tools? 1 week blocks have been tried twice now; I think a longer break is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Dealing with this disruptive, single-purpose account and probable socks has been prompting me to prepare my own incident report, and I see Scjessey has beaten me to it. This user has exhausted all remaining dregs of good faith. I no longer even trust it to accurately report the contents of a citation. --GoodDamon 02:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked WorkerBee74 for 21 days for the disruptions and incivility. Because of the ineffectiveness of past blocks, I believe that this is an appropriate length. Perhaps some can establish some sort of civility parole for him upon his return? Metros (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if he will return, since the presidential election will be over by then. Political passions should have cooled significantly at that point. If he does come back, though, very little tolerance should be shown for any misbehavior. We don't need to institute a formal "civility parole" for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a civility parole will be worthwhile here; if he can't stop being disruptive, or is incapable of being civil after 21 days off Wikipedia, probably better to let the blocks duration escalate - he'd certainly be heading towards a full site ban if his conduct does not improve. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a single-purpose user, and his "purpose" will expire on November 5th, so don't hold your breath waiting for him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...until 2012; 2010 if that year's Congress elections turn out to be as hotly contested as 2006's were. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By then he'll have his own show on Fox News. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fox Noise doesn't give random people off the street a job. They give faithful goppies off the street jobs. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fox Noise". I like that. It's more clever than Olbermann's "Fixed News". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann's used "Fox Noise" as well. Also "Fixed Noise". -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this section to the bottom of the page, and removing the "Resolved" template, because there are a couple of editors who deserve blocks for their conduct on that page. I'll collect diffs and be right back. Marx0728 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please spare the Wikidrama. You will likely find little support here for disruptive editors edit warring on election-related topics, or for the theory that they were only disruptive because other editors provoked them - long one of Workerbee74's favorite arguments in defending his own and other disruptive accounts' incivilities and edit warring. The chance of any administrative action from that would be close to zero. The chance of incivility, recriminations, and long pointless talk would be close to 100%.Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx, if you think an ANI report is warranted, open a new section. Anything you bring up is irrelevant here. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New "relevant" accusations

This is directly relevant, and part of the same discussion. This is about User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, who has been repeatedly blocked for misconduct, and User:Bali ultimate. Both of these editors had been attacking Workerbee on the article Talk page, in clear violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. [108][109]

It's also about User:Scjessey, who has been repeatedly blocked for misconduct, and User:GoodDamon.

I left warnings on the User Talk of the first two editors. [110] [111] And Workerbee apologized to Bali ultimate for his outburst. [112] Despite these warnings, their badgering and baiting of Workerbee continued. [113] (Bali ultimate accusing Workerbee of being deliberately misleading) [114] (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, saying that not only is Workerbee misleading, but that it's expected) [115] (Scjessey accusing Workerbee of being disruptive, despite no signs of being disruptive) [116] (GoodDamon, launching a rant against Workerbee). It's no wonder Workerbee reacts the way he does, when surrounded by four people like these. Please review their conduct and determine whether blocks and/or topic bans are appropiate. Marx0728 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable, and needs dismissed immediately. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: WorkerBee74 is the archetypal single-issue tendentious partisan agenda account, and has been from day 1. He's accumulated a remarkable record of blocks for disruption, edit-warring, gaming the system, and abusing Wikipedia in general. Instead of indefinitely blocking this account back in July, when he'd racked up 4 disruption blocks in as many weeks, he was allowed sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth chances. Now, after 4 straight months of unrelenting tendentiousness, attempts to game the system, and likely abusive sockpuppetry, a couple of users have lost patience with him.

We as administrators (I include myself in this criticism) should do a better job protecting Wikipedia from editors like WorkerBee74. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect the other editors to put up with this sort of sustained abuse of the project without ever looking at him crosswise or voicing occasional frustration. The diffs you've listed betray such frustration, but I fail to see anything actionable in them. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing here to act upon as an administrator. Most of these comments are simply reactions to actions that Workerbee brought upon his/herself. In no way do I see anything that baited Workerbee into disruptive editing. Additionally, this is a consistent pattern of behavior with Workerbee, so it is highly unlikely that baiting was needed. Either way (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell and Either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to draw administrator attention to a few things concerning the account that attempted to reopen this incident report and turn it into an attack on the exasperated editors who have had to put up with WorkerBee74. Marx0728's first edit on the ACORN article appeared right after one of WorkerBee74's previous blocks, and in it he urged the editors who have put up with WorkerBee74 to "Make a few other concessions to the SPAs, reach a compromise, and stop acting like this is the Alamo." So from the very beginning, Marx0728 was urging editors to put up with the disruptions of an abusive account and attempt to placate him, even while admitting that we had perfectly good reason to take umbrage with the abuse we'd had to put up with. Shortly thereafter, he again suggested making concessions to SPAs, and made one of the changes WorkerBee74 had been pushing for himself. And immediately after, another admonishment to give them "an inch" so they look bad when demanding more. Finally, as suspicions that Marx0728 is in fact just another sock of WorkerBee74 began to sink in, I said this: "If marx is the POV warrior, we'll find out very, very shortly, because he will side with 300wackerdrive and WorkerBee74 on almost everything, while arguing that he's merely being 'reasonable.'" And this is exactly what happened. Marx0728 has been absolutely insistent that WorkerBee74's edits be allowed to stand, while ostensibly siding with "us." As in "we" have to make concessions to SPAs or oh no, they'll be angry. So. It's likely that each account, like WorkerBee74's other likely socks, strictly uses separate IP addresses, making proving sockpuppetry damn near impossible. But it's very likely, and they should probably be treated as, at the very least, meatpuppets. --GoodDamon 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing notices for candidates' bios

I've strengthened the language of the MediaWiki editing notices for Obama and McCain's bios (the latter notice is new). The language reflects a likely zero tolerance response to BLP issues for these two articles. I did this in particular b/c they're both appearing on the main page in about 20 minutes as simultaneous TFAs. Comments and modifications are welcome. (This assumes the articles are not full-protected right after they go up.)--chaser - t 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage articles are never protected. And it isn't good that we adopt a "zero tollerance" approach - mainpage articles get lots of good faith experiments. BLP is not a worry as the stuff wil be instantly reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage articles are sometimes protected. These two are too, I think. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Chaser; considering the vitriol that has been dripping from nearly every single comments section on every election-related article I've read on the Web today, the next couple of days should be utter mayhem without a strong warning at the very least. I'd be cool with zero-tolerance for blatant political vandalism by any registered users, not so much for IPs - if that gets heavy, semi-protection for short periods would be something to consider. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection will govern as usual.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. They're already full-protected.--chaser - t 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. We're saving vandal-fighters a lot of time here :-) (I think the protection was discussed here at some point). – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Even under the circumstances, front-paging them was a huge mistake. Front page articles are the first thing they go for. Now we have to differentiate between political vandalism and some little bugger having a laugh. HalfShadow 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the protection logs, these are going to be fully protected all day it appears, Either way (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you turn this on: yes, it was discussed on an/i a few days ago. The thread was just archived. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Obama's page is fully protected but McCain's page is only semi-protected. Any reason? Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither should be full-protected, per guidelines at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Why has this guideline been violated, and what is being done about it? Tarc (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've abandoned the open editing model the above notices can safely be deleted. Bloody ironic that the preceding edit was to address accessibility concerns. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible personal attack on user page?

I am not sure but User:Flyer22#Hall_of_infamy kind of seems like a long personal attack on Kctwty. Since I have recently had a disagreement with Flyer22, I am posting here instead of her talk page. Because I have kind of promised not to post on her talk page. If I am wrong and said "Hall of infamy" is not a personal attack, then I apologize in advance. This is not an attempt of harassing Flyer22. I just know that I would feel pretty angry if I were Kctwty. --Law Lord (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems quite out of line to me - it's one thing to bring attention to harassment to get it to stop, but it's quite another to continue it through a public vendetta. I'll wait for a couple more comments here before I take any action, though... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see these comments removed without much fuss and bother. This same sort of thing happened with another user around this time last year, and I certainly hope the ensuing drama doesn't repeat itself as well. —Animum (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems pretty out of line. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

None of that text matters, and it can all be dropped. The email quoted could be taken as insulting; bringing it onto wiki could be seen as over reacting. Leave personal stuff off-wiki wherever possible. "Ask user to remove without fuss and bother, understanding why it's better to do so" seems right to me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had written a message to another editor in which my assumption of their inviolable and eternal idiocy had been so thoroughly oozing from every clause, both dependent and independent, then perhaps I would also have skin thick enough to survive having my snobbery and elitism picked apart, nit by nit, in a public forum. Personally, I agree that yeah, it should probably be taken down, civil civil, nice nice--but if we're talking about "out of line" the onus in THAT regard is most DEFINITELY on the author of the e-mail, not on the user who posted it. Gladys J Cortez 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gladys. What's particularly amusing (or infuriating, no doubt, to the target) is that the e-mailer is hardly the impeccable stylist he claims to be if one is to judge by "I've worked and earned praise from national-award winning writers" and the consistent lowercasing of "wikipedia," among other things. Deor (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone had thought to inform Flyer22 of this thread; I have done so. While anyone who uses "right you off" in the middle of a mean and belittling email lecturing another on good English almost deserves to have their classless attitude displayed for the perusal of others, it's not particularly conducive to a civil editing atmosphere, and it's over a year in the past, now. fish&karate 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this discussion on my Talk page, which followed this WQA discussion. Is Law Lord still trying to get Flyer22 in trouble? This is doubly disappointing, since I left a fairly clear warning to Law Lord to stop harassing Flyer22, and I know he read it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, I am not harassing anybody. I think I have the same right as anybody else to report something, which could be a personal attack. I have not written anything on their talk page, because I said I would not. --Law Lord (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence --Law Lord (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought something like that would exists. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 15:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Flyer22 to remove the text. I think I can find a less confrontational link, incidentally. So, having sorted that out, does anyone here believe it's just a coincidence that this editor is reporting that editor here, after reading the links I posted above? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JRG removing comments, deletion tag, deletion nominations

JRG (talk · contribs) has just removed more than 20 image deletion discussions from the ifd page[117].

When he once removed an ifd tag from an image[118], I gently tried to explain him why this was wrong and what was the correct thing to do[119].

He dismissed my message[120], and instead preferred to go removing my comments on the ifd discussion[121].

Again, I tried to gently explain him that this was wrong[122]. He again dismissed my message[123], did the 20+ discussion removal mentioned above, and left a block threatening message on my talk page[124].

I don't think I can deal with that myself. --Damiens.rf 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins might like to review the history of the user before they see Damiens.rf as the poor victim of my reversion (note I have only reverted two things). Moroever I object to being reported for merely protecting what should be the norm on Wikipedia - where editors don't get nasty comments levelled at them in IfDs for opposing an Ifd and where nominations are put for proper reasons like violation of NFCC, rather than spurious mass nominations for grounds like "eye candy" - or simply deleting an image which has been uploaded for non-use. Damiens.rf has been recently blocked for edit warring with User:Rebecca (see his talk page for more information). I removed the comments from the deletion discussion because they were abusive towards Rebecca, which Damiens.rf has already been warned to stay away from and with whom he persisted in edit-warring AFTER being blocked. He has also been warned about incivility and disruptive IFD nominations and I only reverted them because they are not done for sufficient reasons ("eye candy" is NOT a reason for deletion).

I have complained about him before and no one has done a thing about it - no one seems to want to help and thinks it sufficient to let disruptive idiots like the user above run wild. I haven't been able to do any constructive editing for months because I am always cleaning up his edits. I am seriously considering retiring from Wikipedia because I am so sick of nothing being done about disruptive edits. This user has had a LOT of valid images deleted from Wikipedia in a disruptive way and is able to abuse other users without even an ounce of scrutiny put into his editing (at least until recently). I have had enough. JRG (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've put the IfDs back. Whatever the merits of the nominations, you can't simply remove them from the list. I've had a quick look, they range from clearly deletable (fair use image of a living person) to relevant to the article. These should run to their end, and a debate about the user's mass nominations needs to take place via dispute resolution; here is probably not the place. Black Kite 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Kite. This one is a clear violation of the NFCC policy, but it seems like users are teaming up here. Either way (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That has been tried, and it always has the same outcome. The disruptive users are never dealt with. JRG (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, rather than JRG, is the disruptive user and deserves to be permanently banned, for the good of the community as well as the encyclopedia. Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens has been blocked twice in the past three weeks -- he got a 1 week block on Oct 26. As his talk page shows, in the short time since coming off it, he has edit warred, stalked Rebecca again, and started the current fracas. Looie496 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Rebecca as edit warred, and was blocked for that. --Damiens.rf 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she edit warred with other users doesn't mean that you have shown an ability to cooperate with anyone on the project. --Smashville^talk 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't get your point here. Yes, her edit-warring and my perceived ability to cooperate with anyone on the project are completely unrelated concepts. What suggests otherwise? --Damiens.rf 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his abuse, although falling short of a personal attack at Rebecca at various IFD pages. It seems that after coming off his block, he was borderline on stalking Rebecca's edits again. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JRG (talk · contribs) has removed more of my comments[125], and I'll have to put them back manually, since the "undo" feature is not accepting undoing that edit :( --Damiens.rf 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Jordan 1972 did that for me[126]! Thanks a lot! --Damiens.rf 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole situation is a mess...Damiens has been edit warring and following Rebecca's edits...Rebecca has been edit warring and following Damiens' edits. Other people keep getting pulled in by circumstance, which looks like what happened here. --Smashville^talk 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:216.220.16.170

Not sure if this belongs here, but the ip has made a threat about knowing where someone lives and threatening to "kick his butt" to keep him from editing an article. [127] [128] Seems to have a lot of vandalism history (see Special:Contributions/216.220.16.170). Again, not sure what to do. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take this as a serious threat of violence. There's nothing specific to go on, and it looks QUITE like this is some kids screwing around on the computers at school. Based on the timing and patterns of edits on the IP, I would say this is not a single user IP, its likely a school based IP, and as the edits are stale (6 hours old) there is no reason to believe that a block will accomplish anything at this point... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka’s ban of ScienceApologist and Martinphi from WP:FRINGE

Elonka (talk · contribs) has issued a 30-day page ban for ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) from editing the fringe theories guideline. Her alleged basis for this action is the concern expressed by "multiple admins" about the editing situation in this thread at WP:ANI. First off, a cursory reading of the entire thread shows widespread support of SA’s actions (with the exception of Elonka quickly calling for a block or ban of SA, of course).

Elonka has been repeated asked to disengage from her mucking about in Pseudoscience arbitration enforcement, and specifically been asked, both by SA and others, to let ScienceApologist alone, yet she refuses to do so. She popped onto SA’s talkpage to drop her banhammer after he made one edit to the guideline in question today, after a three-day break since the long discussion on ANI found that nothing more was needed than a reminder for SA to tone his edit summaries down, which he did.

I ask the editors here to answer two specific questions: (1) should the page ban be vacated, and (2) would you say that Elonka’s ban was even reasonable or appropriate to begin with, or executed in bad faith or poor judgment? HiDrNick! 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to condone allowing an editor to unilaterally declare that an administrator, carrying out actions with community consensus, or enforcing arbitration rulings, is disallowed from a talk page. That's a bad precedent. That SA was repeatedly warned, and repeatedly removed the warnings is one thing. But to ask that Elonka not post there? No. I have myself wondered if Elonka sometimes is a bit meddlesome and persistent, but in this case I endorsed the warning, and I endorse the ban as well. Martinphi I am not so sure about, as I have asked already at her page. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I am not sure I agree with HiDrNick's characterization of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist as "widespread support of ScienceApologist's actions". Rather I see some admins saying SA needs to tone down edit summaries and some admins (including myself) endorsing the warnings given. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Elonka's talk page and my talk page and this. I may have made a mistake, but seriously.... It isn't as if I'm unresponsive to criticism. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick, did you see this? _{(Didn't notice it was already posted.)} seicer | talk | contribs 03:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooof, I should have been more clear. The "widespread support of ScienceApologist's actions" I was refering to was in the superthread, which was the bulk of the discussion there and is in now in a colapse box in the archive. I aggre that no one suported the sort of edit summaries he was using there at the end, but clearly there was no consensus to block or ban there either. I haven't really reviewed Martinphi's contributions to the FRINGE page, and wasn't trying to leave him out per se, I just watch SA's talk page there. HiDrNick! 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

HiDrNick!, Elonka has been doing really exceptionally good work in general in the pseudoscience arena. I do not think that anyone should use this as an excuse to go after her. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. She just missed the mark a bit here with Martinphi. It happens... let's fix it and move on. Or we could have a long drawn out discussion in which everyone defends their positions vociferously and much hard feeling is engendered. It's up to Elonka I guess. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is noot an isolated incident. For instance, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive26#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. I was the last victim of his response to this: a mixture of outing, personal attacks, and attempting to get me banned. I shan't link because of the outing - e-mail me for details. This incident is comparatively minor, but I think that we have been very, very lenient with Martin, and that it is beyond time that something is done. However, every time something is done, he throws a hiuge fit, attacking the admin, or even person wh o has simply scriticised him - the attempt to get me banned was over me saying that that he probably shouldnðt be editing WP:NPOV in ways that increase its friendliness to his views while under a arbcom sanction for POV-pushing (well, soapboxing is the exact word they use.)

I don't like talking about Martinphi, because I get the strong feeling that he wants me to be his next Scienceapologist, so, whatever is said here, I shall say no more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems a far less wikidrama course of action would simply have been to protect the page for a time until concensus was achieved on talk. Drop the bans and lock the page to a version prior to the current warring. Vsmith (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Elonka's actions here. I see nothing out of order. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had considered protecting WP:FRINGE; discussion is occurring, but it seems to be in parallel with edit-warring, and a guideline should really be more stable than this. But I don't want to get involved anymore. I don't quite understand the immediate trigger for these page bans, though the long-term history is clear enough. In any case, 1RR might be preferable, but a page ban won't kill anyone. I would like to see more eyes on WP:FRINGE, as I find it populated almost exclusively by editors who are active and opinionated in the fringe subjects in question, whether pro or con. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely out of line. Protection would have been the standard practice and I see no good reason to do this. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that Elonka should stay away from everything related to fringe issues since her presence creates more disruption than it solves. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am ignoring everything Elonka says from now on including her "page ban". Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of risking a permanent block, I recommend that you start keeping a running tab of all the vandalism and POV-pushing and other junk that occurs on that page, and bring it up here or some other appropriate venue, and ask, "Who's going to do something about this?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally surprised that there is more "oversight" going on with the general discussions in a guideline page. If admins allow an edit war to continue in what hopes to be policyspace, no wonder we have problems in pretty much every sector of Wikipedia :-( Shot info (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You do so at your peril, I think. This is an ongoing discussion that will result in the ban being endorsed or overturned, but until that consensus becomes clear I view it as in effect. I'll enforce it, with regret, even if I happen not to agree with it (and I expect I'm not the only admin that will), if your actions are too egregious. So watch out for that. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Elonka should stay away from pseudoscience. Since she has decided to unilaterally implement her version of EP, the wikidrama has increased rather than decreased. It would appear that she hasn't learnt anything from her RfC nor her recall notice (other than she can pretty much ignore anything she perceives as "negative" as she has enough "positive" support....much like SA has in fact). I recommend that, if the fringe articles are not properly policed, then some other admins should jump in, rather than leaving it for Elonka to "do the hard yards". Per her RfC and her recall notice it is clear that a large minority of the Community disagrees with her actions particularly when they inflame the situation rather than resolve it. Lar, if you feel that SA has overstepped the mark, then I'm confident that the editors at the coal face would appriciate your more active admining in the necessary areas...rather that leaving it to backing up Elonka attempt to rewrite policy. Shot info (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. In my copious free time I'll try to see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shotinfo - My experience with Elonka is that she's always reasonable, unfailingly polite when people respect her efforts at keeping things orderly and civil, and completely no-nonsense when people don't. heaven knows she's called me on enough of my own crap, and I've learned to respect her opinion. the main problem in this case is that the signal to noise ratio is utterly dismal. I think you would withdraw your objection if you dug through all the drama-trauma and actually looked at bare facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, but OM I'm going to take on board Lar's comments below. Shot info (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree with that assessment, but it's immaterial. I think it's more important, here, to just stay confined to the narrow question of whether to endorse or overturn these actions. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Elonka has been doing a good job. I merely object to being treated in the same manner as ScienceApologist. I also object to the ban because at the very most I made a mistake with one edit (making it into an essay). However, that was just a reaction to what MastCell says above: it should be more stable if it is going to be a guideline. My revert (the other edit in question which was not the reason for the ban) was merely an "agree revert," along with two other editors who reverted first. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I've been trying to work with you across a number of projects, and I think we've made some sort of peace, despite our divergent views. However, I'm going to strongly disagree with your assessment of Elonka. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat... I think delving into the whys and wherefores of how we all feel about each other may not be the most productive use of our time. Let's stay focused on this action and whether to endorse or overturn it. Whether you come to bury or praise, save it. Not likely to be productive. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't often comment on blocks and individual incidents. But, speaking as (IMO, at least) a fairly "middle of the road" WP user with a primary main-namespace orientation towards category:philosophy and category:religion articles, side-by-side with a strong empirical orientation, I think this incident merits comment at the moment. ScienceApologist has for years been a diligent and highly valuable contributor to WP. Admittedly SA is often contentious w.r.t. issues he feels strongly about. And I recognize that a 30-day ban from one page is not ordinarily a :"great-big deal", The recent little brouhaha at WP:FRINGE, however, appears to me to be a very minor conceptual scuffle among good-faith editors with differing POVs about what the content guideline should be w.r.t. "fringe theories" (fundamentally a WP:WEIGHT issue anyway). I'm disturbed that SA is being painted as unusually disruptive, when in fact minor edit wars of the kind cited by Elonka happen very frequently with no more than a reminder to desist and discuss further on the relevant talk page(s). This block thus has the rather odd result of citing prior administrative action as a cause for further administrative action, with nothing else particularly out of the ordinary given in justification for this particular administrative action. The obvious implication is that future administrative action will threaten to draw also on this administrative action. I understand that there may be cases in which such gradual escalation of sanctions are reasonably deemed appropriate where users plainly are unproductive and additionally are chronic violators of WP policy. Here, though, we've got a fairly typical guideline disagreement about which SA evidently felt strongly in the face of edits by other user(s) who evidently also felt strongly about their preferred expression of the WP:FRINGE guideline page. I submit that the block should be immediately lifted and ScienceApologist excused here, at least absent much more extensive evidence that SA is being tendentious or disruptive in a way that can't be handled by the normal range of consensus process with which we're quite well accustomed in WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
..... P.S.: I hadn't noticed that Martinphi had also been blocked, or page-banned, or whatever exactly the case is here. IMO, no one should remain blocked under this circumstance. I've encountered Martinphi before as well, and as with SA, I've had differing POVs with Martinphi. IMO, somewhat similarly to SA, MartinPhi too is often contentious about issues he feels strongly about. But there's nothing here that can't be handled via the normal range of consensus process. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a supporter of SA, in general, but I know he can be direct in his language. Elonka probably is the wrong person to do something about SA's behavior, since Elonka seems to have appointed herself the policeperson of pseudoscience articles. She has unfairly placed blocks on users such as User:NJGW, while ignoring the misbehavior of other editors who might be honestly described as anti-science or pseudoscience supporters. This is completely unfair to SA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, SA has partially removed part of Elonka's post to his user talk. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I put it back, because I want to go on record as standing behind this action, until and unless consensus develops here to overturn it. I'm not a big fan of going to users talk pages and arguing about whether an action outlined on that talk page is a good idea or not, so even if I were to disagree, I construe this as enforcable until consensus develops that it is not. If SA removes it again, he's within rights to do so, and we can construe the notice as being given, but he doesn't get to say "admin so and so can't talk to me". That's ArbCom's job I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus does appear to be drifting towards a "drop the block and pursue normal page management practises" - which of course is being obscured by the normal amounts of commentary. Given that I'm prepared to be incorrect. Shot info (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing the same sort of very slow drift you do, yes, but there aren't a lot of different voices here yet, so it's hard to be sure it's a real consensus just yet. I'm on board in any case, whichever way it comes out. If I'm asleep, anyone else should feel free to do the needful (I'm guessing Elonka's asleep since she hasn't commented here once, despite being notified... odd, unless she is away) ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be sensible to lift both page bans and lock the main page until some consensus is reached on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also be available to block, and I've not been involved with the "fringe" page at all. Mathsci, I would agree with you, but we should not need to protect a page such as that when the primary disruptor is one individual whose prior histories give indication that he is unwilling to work with others. seicer | talk | contribs 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Partially resending my comment, I've went and protected the page for one week to see if SA and others are willing to work towards a consensus. If not... seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a large enough number of allies on WP, you can pretty much act with impunity and without fear of reprisal or sanction. Why should this incident be any different from any of the uncountable number that came before it? Dlabtot (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my feeling that the temporary page bans on these two editors are a justifiable minor restriction, which is helping to stabilize the guideline. To give a bit more background on this: I had warned both ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) and Martinphi (talk · contribs) a few days ago, for edit-warring on the guideline page. I also specifically told both of them to disengage from each other.[129][130][131] This is because they've been brought up in more ArbCom cases than I can even name off the top of my head, but try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience to start. ScienceApologist was particularly out of line because he was trying to force through major changes to the WP:FRINGE guideline, but hadn't participated on the talkpage for months.

So anyway, things were quiet over the weekend. ScienceApologist was offline, but other editors were engaging in good discussion at the talkpage, and consensus changes were being gradually restored to the guideline. Then today the edit-warring started up again, ScienceApologist came in and reverted everything back to his last version,[132] and Martinphi followed up immediately by trying to downgrade the guideline down to an essay.[133] That last was definitely against consensus since this was discussed extensively in July and the page's status as a guideline has strong community backing.[134]

The reason I chose not to protect the page, is because there are multiple editors working on the guideline, who do seem able to make incremental edits based on talkpage consensus. So I didn't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". It seemed that the best way to help protect the editing of the guideline was with a relatively minor editing ban on both ScienceApologist and Martinphi. After all, what does the ban limit? Both editors are still completely free to participate at the guideline's talkpage, and if the discussions there are productive, then other editors will agree, and those other editors can incorporate the changes into the guideline. All the page ban really does, is to prevent ScienceApologist and Martinphi from jumping the gun and making no-consensus edits. Which I see as a good thing. --Elonka 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and Ludwigs2 have just been asking for the guidelines to be completely rewritten "from top to tail", possibly in jest. seicer made a very fair decision in locking the main page to let things calm down and consensus to be reached. The WP:FRINGE page needs far more eyes on it. Mathsci (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Elonka's page ban of SA. He was edit warring, plain and simple. He felt his version was the best version and rather than engaging in the discussions going on the talk page, he chose to revert to his version with inflammatory/egocentric edit summaries. This is SA's modus operandi. We've seen him do this very tactic many times in the past. Skirting 3RR, by edit warring slowly. Given his history, a 30 day block from editing one policy is extrodinarily lenient, IMHO.

I think MartinPhi's ban is undeserved. Unlike SA, MartinPhi was participating in discussion and I believe he only made one revert to SA's four. MartinPhi's choice to downgrade the policy to an essay - while not a move which I would have made - was something which he discussed on the talk page and when it was reverted, he didn't engage in an edit war.

Mathsci, I agree. More eyes on WP:FRINGE are needed and welcomed!

As a final note, to my fellow American Wikipedians: Be sure to log off from Wiki land today long enough to vote! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What elections? Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that gratuitously non-neutral link was so relevant. I'm going to have to resist the urge to change it to link to that for McCain or maybe a third party candidate or maybe Cthulhu (why vote for the lesser evil?). JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Theres an election?? From media reports here (ie/ not in the US) it's sort of apparent who is going to win....much like in Zimbabwe :-) Shot info (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap. I was going to cast aspersions about Levine's character, intelligence and overall usefulness to the project, and he had to go and be an Obama supporter. But I do disagree with his opinion of Elonka's fairness.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OM, check out the The Tale of the Tape; you might be surprised what else I support or don't support. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka says:

"This is because they've been brought up in more ArbCom cases than I can even name off the top of my head"

I've been in exactly two ArbComs.

One "agree revert" is not "edit warring" in the negative sense, but common practice, BRD.

I explained that the downgrade to essay was only meant to be till the guideline resumed a stable form. Thus, if the edit stuck, good. If the edit didn't stick, it was at least a message to others to stop edit warring on a guideline. Again, good. That was my intent. For that I'm given a 30 day page ban? I was aware of the consensus to keep it as a guideline, and my edit had nothing to do with that general consensus.

The argument of "minimum force" is something I'll let others decide. I already addressed that on my talk page [135], as admin actions are not punitive. Exactly how was I disrupting the guideline such that allowing me to edit there would harm Wikipedia? I would like Elonka to explain just how "minimum force" required me to be banned.

She speaks of "these two editors." To equate me with ScienceApologist as if we behave in similar ways is incomprehensible. That this is being done is reflected in Elonka's sentence which I quoted above, though she does seem to draw some minor distinction.

Elonka notes that "things were quiet over the weekend." I was there over the weekend. Working toward consensus. Please don't equate me with ScienceApologist. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This page ban is far more than what Elonka says "All the page ban really does, is to prevent ScienceApologist and Martinphi from jumping the gun and making no-consensus edits." Rather, it is symbolic that our actions were so negative that we can't be allowed to edit the page. Certainly, it doesn't have much practical effect on me, though it does for SA. If it stands it is because the community is saying "Martinphi deserved to be banned for 30 days because of his edit." Is this so? I don't want this on my record. And particularly, I want the community to stop equating me with SA. Were our actions equal? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SA was edit warring. There is no doubt about that. WP:EW states:

uninvolved administrators may either block the involved offenders for a period of time or protect the affected page(s). Protection is useful when the involved parties will work to resolve the conflict. Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior

Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot/will not moderate their behaviour. It is clear wikipedia policy. SA was warned, and has been warned previously about edit warring. That edit warring continued, with his revert to back to his version. That shows that (s)he cannot or will not moderate the edit warring. Martinphi on the other hand, was not blocked for edit warring, but for disruptive editing. I'm not as sure that the downgrade to essay was clearly disruptive. Consensus definitely existed for it to be policy a few months ago, but as we all know, consensus can change - especially when the policy itself has changed to the point where people are edit warring over it. Overall, I definitely support Elonka's rationale for blocks instead of a page protection, and support SA's block. I am unsure whether Martinphi's block was appropriate, as I am unsure whether the edit was disruptive. DigitalC (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire situation is belittling to both editors involved, entirely inconsiderate, not to mention lacking in even the most fundamental hint of a clue regarding general human psychology, and can easily be read - with a slight amount of literary indulgence, mind you - as pure and simple bullying, with a mask of civility disguising the sheer contempt for those deemed "beneath" the grown-up alpha bully setting the rules. Business as usual from one of the most considerate, level-headed, uncontroversial and productive administrators who has ever graced this humble project with her exhalted presence. Badger Drink (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:-) - no support for blocks/bans of either editor. That was unnecessary and unhelpful. dougweller (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo the positions of OrangeMarlin, JoshuaZ and Dougweller. Elonka had no business banning/blocking MartinPhi, who was engaging in discussion and did not edit war. Her action was plain and simple abuse of admin powers. Her rationale that MartinPhi was involved in some Arbcom cases is ridiculous — she has substituted her judgment to that of the Arbcom. Furthermore, if we consider long-term positions, like Elonka's doing in the case of MartinPhi, then Elonka is not an uninvolved party in this case. Elonka has adopted conciliatory positions towards fringe theorists, like the recently indef blocked User:Ariobarza, who kept filling Wikipedia with his inane WP:OR, while she's shooting on sight editors that try to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. VG ☎ 10:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with OrangeMarlin, BadgerDrink, JoshuaZ, Dougweller, VG, et al. that this block is a bad block. Verbal chat 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this ongoing debates at multiple boards and watching just a few editing this page. I am an outsider to this whole thing and have no opinion of any of the editors per se. I think the blocks were unnecessary and caused more heat then light. I also think Elonka was aware that this would not be wildly excepted. What I am seeing are editors with strong views and strong headiness. Protection of the page would have brought things to a cooler level and should have been done to begin with instead of the warnings to just these two editor since there were more editors involved in reverting and just popping in to do the revert. Some just did the revert, popped a quick comment on the talk and left, kind of looked to me as a protection to prevent a block even though the action done was done because of which editor made the last edit. This kind of gaming needs to be stopped and now. I am not going to mention names, if you want to see the whole picture read the talk page and the last edit summaries when the warring really started. I have to also say that I do not believe Elonka should be patrolling these articles as mentioned by others above and I have stated this before. There is a lot of bad blood amongst editors with her and I would assume her with them since the RFC and the recall, which a lot was said. So, I am saying, if it matters to anyone, that both editors have there bans/blocks removed, the page stays protected for thirty days or until things on the talk page shows calmness, and other administrators do the patrolling of the different articles including this one. Are there other administrators that are not involved with this that can be useful to helping get better guidance and control over the pseudoscience area? I personally feel that at this point Elonka in involved with conflicts with certain editors or at least there is an appearance of this to make her cause more drama with decisions than needed. I am just trying to give the view of someone who has been watching things for quite some time now and this is how I see things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, Tim Vickers, Dbachmann, MastCell and Moreschi have a lot of experience with WP:FRINGE and are well aware of the issues involved. Why not be led by their experience? Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie's summary is very good and has some very good suggestions in it. I myself did revert, but quickly did a self-revert on realising there was a bigger problem. Verbal chat 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:NPA are essential policies, without which Wikipedia will eventually collapse in an ugly heap. So I am dismayed if edits like this can be made with impunity. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick two cents here: I had SA's talk page watchlisted when the ban came down from Elonka. I thought that, in light of the ArbCom rulings, SA was really pushing things, and I'm not sure I disagree with the ban per se. That said, if Elonka thought the ban was uncontroversial, she should have asked another admin to make it official. There is way too much history of Elonka taking aggressive administrative action against the anti-fringe crowd, and regardless of whether a given action is valid or not, it invariably leaves one with the impression of retribution, or at least conflict of interest.

SA's reverting was not so disruptive that it required immediate (as in <10 minutes) action. So it seems to me there was plenty of time for Elonka to find another admin lurking about, point out the situation and the ArbCom rulings, and have that admin institute the ban (assuming he or she agreed, of course). This just seems like a no-brainer to me.

Or does anyone here seriously believe that all interactions between SA and Elonka are impersonal at this point, hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

The page is now protected, so what is the point of continuing the problematic bans? Revoke or undo the ban stuff and nip the drama. Vsmith (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page with the hope that all parties will come together and discuss. So far, that really hasn't happened. The protection lasts for one week. If any of the parties continue to edit war after the protection, the ban will be enforced. I hope that that is not the case, so let's hope for the best. seicer | talk | contribs 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify: SA or anyone that was involved was not blocked. I don't know where people have been getting that at. seicer | talk | contribs 16:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be some confusion here, so to clarify, I have not blocked anyone. Neither Martinphi[136] nor ScienceApologist[137] has a new block in their logs. I instituted a very minor page ban, which in my opinion was even less restrictive than page protection. When a page is protected, no one can edit it. What I did was to restrict two of the editors on the page, but just from editing that one page, and nothing else. It's a very precisely-crafted restriction, as authorized by WP:ARBCOM, via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." Martinphi and ScienceApologist are not blocked. They are still allowed to edit anything else they want, except for exactly one of the 2.5 million pages on Wikipedia, which is the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. Meanwhile, they can still participate at the guideline talkpage. I have to admit that I'm perplexed as to why people think that page protection is a preferable solution here, since I see that as much more severe, affecting all editors, not just the two who were involved in disruptive behavior. --Elonka 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So now the page is protected you are rescinding the ban, which doesn't have universal support, per Vsmith? I think the block/ban distinction here (in this discussion, not in general) was just "lazy" language (or, more likely, not using wp admin jargon). The ban is a block from that page, and no one said block in this section. Verbal chat 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to lift the ban, especially with ScienceApologist making statements like this.[138] The editors who should be empowered at the page are those who are staying civil, participating in good faith, treating other editors with respect, and willing to work through the normal steps of dispute resolution. Currently, ScienceApologist does not appear to be abiding by expected standards of behavior; therefore his editing is restricted. If he continues with disruptive behavior, his editing privileges should be further restricted. This is not about punishing ScienceApologist, this is about reducing disruption to the project, and allowing other editors to get on with their work. --Elonka 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are no longer an "uninvolved admin" in regard pseudoscience, especially if you use the same version of "uninvolved" as on your agreement to be subject to recall. Fair is fair. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As the page is protected, the ban is useless - if, as stated above, it was for prevention of disruption. Maintaining a useless ban would seem "punitive" rather than "preventative". Seicer protected the page (indefinetly according to the log), so until he unprotects in a week or whatever, there can be no disruption on the page. Now, if you are maintaining the bans for other reasons: then state those reasons - else lift them. Starting to look quite bad for your "uninvolvement" stance. Suggest that you rescind the bans and back away - let other admins take action if disruption reccurrs following lifting of protection. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To Verbal: Someone mentioned block in the above section, not here. seicer | talk | contribs 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:G2K11

G2K11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest you view the userpage first, it concerns me the most. Other than that, I don't know how to go about this one. The user keeps removing comments from Jimbo's talk page, adding in thanks for not being a commie "barnstars", in the simplest of terms. These are the user's first contributions after creating an account not long ago. There is also a faint suspicion of sockpuppetry here, but as I have no past users to go off of that I know of, I have nothing else to go on but WP:DUCK.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they got a level 4 warning by an admin and removing stuff from talk pages is vandalism. So if they continue, report for blocking. If you think it's a sockpuppet, maybe you should try WP:SPP as well? Regards SoWhy 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Antarcticsuburbs and coordinate attack from skepchick.org

I'm not sure exactly where to report this, but...

Some folks at a forum site called skepchick.org are closely following[139] (and taking part at) a deletion discussion about some of their friends.

So far so good. We should keep an eye, but this is no violation per se. They do use nasty words and threats of physical assault towards me there but... whatever. It's their site.

But I think they crossed the line when someone at their forum suggested to add my e-mail address to spam lists:

“ Any hackers or merry pranksters in here? Maybe Damien might like to automatically be subscribed to every magazine that exists? Or at least a few hundred of them. ” — attack posted on skepchick.org

Followed by

“ I'm going to look around for that address. In fact, I just got an idea about how I can get it. I'll post it once I find it. If I find it. I think I'll find it. ” — attack posted on skepchick.org

And indeed, early today, some James Bond posted this weird message on my talk page asking for my mail addressed.

What do we do in such occasions? I personally don't think it would be a great harm to ban Antarcticsuburbs (talk · contribs) (MikeSmith on the attacking site), since he's not active anyway.

Again, I was not sure if this was the right place to report this or if it should be reported at all. --Damiens.rf 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd ignore the rather obvious phishing attempt (the email address even matches an earlier edit), but other than that there's not a lot more we can do. The AfD debate will stand or fall on its own merits, and if the threat of off-site harassment concerns you, you can report it to the group's Internet Service Provider or your local law enforcement agencies. In the meantime I've blocked the above account. EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS - it's often worth using throw-away email addresses for public online stuff (ie hotmail, gmail etc). If they get harvested by spammers, you can always abandon them and create another ;)

(ec) Given that the editor seems to be actively trying to carry out his threat rather than just joking about it, I do believe a block per Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats would be in order. This would be the case whether or not Antarcticsuburbs actually is Mike Smith, although the balance of the evidence does seem to suggest he is. (Anyway, on a tangent... just how stupid do you have to be to use your own non-disposable e-mail address while fishing for someone else's address to spam them?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already blocked ;) Per your other... :$ EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, EyeSerene. And everyone else as well! --Damiens.rf 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable block by an admin.

Resolved

 – CWii doesn't care. Move along. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Please have a look at this block log.

CWii mentioned on IRC that he had just "lost The Game" and was promptly blocked by DragonflySixtyseven.

Here are the relevant parts of the IRC log:

<CWii> I just lost the game.
<Dragonfly6-7> you mean the "don't be banned from Wikipedia" game?
<Dragonfly6-7> Okay.
<Vandalism_dstryr> game?
<Dragonfly6-7> Vandalism_dstryr - whenever people talk about "losing the game" around me, I block their accounts.
<Dragonfly6-7> there you go; three hours out

CWii raised in channel that he had been blocked and this is some more from the logs:

<JulianC93> What did you block him for? :O
<Dragonfly6-7> JulianC93 - he said he lost the game. I asked him if he meant the "don't block my account" game, and he didn't deny it.
<JulianC93> Oh
<JulianC93> Meh
<Crimedog> The :dont block my account" game?
<Dragonfly6-7> JulianC93 - every time people around me tell me that they've lost the game, I block their account.
<Dragonfly6-7> Crimedog - yep!

Please can we discuss what sanctions need to be taken against DF for this blatant abuse of his admin bit. ChaoticReality 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's unblocked. He plays games, I play games. DS (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Looks like a bit of harmless horseplay. The block lasted all of fifteen minutes, and was lifted by DragonflySixtyseven himself. If CWii has a problem, let him raise it himself. Incidentally, aren't IRC logs not supposed to be posted on-wiki? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, no harm done. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

...... DF67, please don't do that again. While this is relatively harmless, the admin bit is not a neat toy to goof around with.. I had a lot more concerns based on someone blocking on Wiki based on IRC, but I'll back off since CWii has said there's no big deal.. but again, the admin bit is not a shiny. Don't do it again, please. SirFozzie (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten: it was only lifted when CWii said in channel "Unblock me now or I'll cause drama". CWii has now said there was no harm done but I'm still concerned about the implications of DF just lightly blocking someone based on a throwaway comment in IRC that was nothing to do with WP. ChaoticReality 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I coulda sworn that IRC logs were not to be published on-wiki (as TenOfAllTrades noted). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's with this 'please can we discuss sanctions...blatant abuse' bit before we even have a chance to hear from either involved party? Ready! Fire! Aim! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, could we agree that everything about this thread stinks like open ass? We shouldn't post IRC logs ever, we shouldn't fuck around with the block function, and we shouldn't involve ourselves in business that doesn't concern us. If Cwii isn't complaining, how did this thread even get started? There's already a 10-fucking-page thread above that is basically about someone getting called a name at IRC... the more of this stuff that goes on, the more that admins as a class of users lose their credibility. For the record, this should not reflect on admins as a group, and it should only make those involved look like asses, but it does and I'd rather not be tarnished by it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Run along children, there ARE vandals afoot. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So now WP is just a kiddie's playground? Admins are supposed to be sensible and uphold the "policies" of the community, not fuck around like bored adolescents. If someone had blocked a controversial user (for argument's sake, let's say Kurt) for a few minutes, and then unblocked them when the user complained on IRC, there'd be an outroar (I think this has happened in the past but I may just be going mad), yet here, it's just swept aside. Why am I the only one annoyed by this? ChaoticReality 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin, I am terribly embarrassed to see a fellow admin blocking others as part of a game. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, ChaoticReality, you are NOT The only one. I believe that, when I said this entire situation "stinks like open ass", I was not paying anyone involved a compliment... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, but you said "and we shouldn't involve ourselves in business that doesn't concern us", which implies I should not have brought this issue up. When I started this thread, CWii hadn't said in IRC that he was happy with what happened, and even so, I still think the issue should be raised. It does involve me, as it involves everyone here, because people like DF are representing the site and community that we are all part of. I didn't raise it out of outrage on CWii's behalf, but out of concern that people with that sort of attitude have "power" on WP. ChaoticReality 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were not exempted from that statement. Merely because other people acted reprehensibly doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia is better off for us all knowing about it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Between this and the admin who was deleting things with IAR as a rationale, I really think something needs to be done to empower the community to remove the bit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No fucking kidding. I may have to oppose CWii just because he shows poor judgment in not being upset by childish behavior from an admin. It appears that Dragonfly feels Wikipedia is a game, and wants to flex his new "skills". He needs to be canned immediately. Go play WoW. I'm glad ChaoticReality brought this up. Plus, this is a person with poor judgment who has blocked 3848 users, and deleted 17493 pages. That is a ridiculous number. Do I want someone with poor judgment doing that? No. And how did DF67 respond? "He plays games, I play games". I guess I'm a bad guy for not trusting this guy, based on what I'm reading here. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DF and CWii should not be playing games together, especially in view of CWii's upcoming RfA. [140] Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that DragonflySixtyseven actually knew in advance that CWii had a sense of humor, and would take the block in the spirit in which it was intended. (Call me crazy if you will.) Had DragonflySixtyseven actually blocked someone 'controversial', I'd probably be calling for his head too, because that action would have demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement. Still, that isn't what happened. As it is now, the only problem that DragonflySixtyseven faces is a completely uninvolved third party calling for his head.

Look, has no one here ever thrown a paper airplane or played a Flash game in the office after hours? (Ye gods, I'm a scientist by trade. In my younger days my coworkers and I built bombs in the office.) I'll note that Dragonfly even had the good sense to disable autoblocks to avoid any risk of collateral harm. This is a tempest in a teacup, brought forward for no good reason. Doesn't anyone here have anything useful to do? (Taking my own advice, I will make no further comments in this thread.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing a Flash game in the office during working hours is not comparable to this. Sure, I've done irresponsible things like smoke joints in the bathroom, but somehow I don't do them now that I've graduated from college and have responsibilities to people. And the people who have done a lot of irresponsible things tend not to have any power -- for good reason. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but isn't there a bigger issue here? Aren't logs from #wikipedia supposed to not be posted, like... ever? JuJube (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I guess I'm not up on these 'unofficial' community rules, especially as they relate to IRC, since I try to spend my time adding references to articles rather than gossiping. If you bring IRC bullshit into Wikipedia itself, you should expect some Wikipedia attention. II | (t - c) 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I checked, it was in the channel topic that logs from the channel are not to be reposted. Maybe that's changed, though, I dunno. JuJube (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Teacher! Teacher! Doug said the f-word during recess! You're not allowed to say the f-word!" Badger Drink (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, who's the childish one? II | (t - c) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... the guy who's goofing around with a friend, making an inconsequential block on a website that a certain very vocal contingent of folk take far too fucking seriously for their own good... or the guy seeing this going on and racing to AN/I to get someone in trouble (complete with pompously overwrought text that would have Chicken Little in awe). Is... is this really up for debate, here? Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, under the circumstances, the name 'ImperfectlyInformed' is almost artistically apt. I...I may weep. HalfShadow 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. ChaoticReality and I are the children because we take a website which provides an indescribable amount of information to hundreds of millions of people, and which accepts money out of my meager income every month, seriously. And I always chuckle a bit at the irony who point out my username, especially when they misspell an easy word in spite of the automated spellchecker. I guess I better go back to playing with my little toys and leave the big boys to their toys, since I'm obviously too immature to understand what maturity entails. II | (t - c) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't use a spellchecker. Unlike you, I'm capable of seeing my mistakes when I make them and fixing them. Go away. HalfShadow 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

II, in this case it looks a bit like it. Also, "Go play WoW" wasn't exactly a civil thing to say. If you can't take the heat, don't comment at the admin gaming boards. Everyme 10:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Badger Drink, amusing, but not as good as "Ready, Fire! Aim" above, which gets my vote for comment of the month. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I just can't help but suspect that everyone here has already lost it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Sometimes I just can't help but suspect that everyone has lost this. iMatthew 12:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

user:71.72.244.82

71.72.244.82 (talk · contribs)

• This anonymous user is a serious problem. He regularly makes serious vandalism to Scott Menville, Brian Beacock, and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World, and despite warnings (including a final warning), he has yet to be blocked. Plus, his edit history shows that he believes his edits are justified because according to him, Brian Beacock is a... well, see for yourself. He seems to wait for a period of time between his edits, so I brought it here instead of WP:AIV. The range appears to be static and needs a long block. JuJube (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Given the pattern of repeately vandalizing the same set of articles, I have blocked for a week. Other admins are invted to evaluate the block. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed This IP is even on my Watchlist. No need for further evaluation, good block. -t BMW c- 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:GENIUS(4th power) and User:Programmer888

Moved to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Programmer888

 – ANI is not for advertising SSP cases. --slakr^\ talk / 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

---

GENIUS(4th power) (talk · contribs) Programmer888 (talk · contribs) A case has been opened here. You can comment there to try and come up with a consensus. I suspect GENIUS(4th power) (talk · contribs) and Programmer888 (talk · contribs) are the same person. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Was posting here needed? CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly not, but as long as Mister Alcohol is here: can you please reduce the size of your signature? It's quite large and distracting. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks! CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 05:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But the username is awesome! Everyme 10:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this could be Genius but would want to see more contribs first oh and yeah, Mr Alcohol, please littlefy your sig, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Is that consider personal attack?

Resolved

 – No personal attack. Kinda uncivil. -- Fucking Smashville^talk 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DanielTAR (talk · contribs) respond with the word "fuck". Is that the word "fuck" consider as civil? [141] --Aleenf1 08:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The response seems somewhat irritated, and probably not all that civil; but just because someone uses a curse word doesn't necessarily make it uncivil. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on how you use the word "fuck" as to whether it's a personal attack, uncivil, an invitation, or merely invective? -t BMW c- 10:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Fuck you", "Fuck me", "Fucking awesome", "Fucking Chelios", "Fuck it", "Phuket" and simple "Fuck" all have different meanings. The mere use of the word does not imply incivility. --Smashville^talk 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Chelios? He's too fucking old to be accused of being fucking Chelios. Just my fucking and fucked-up opinion.  :) Unless we're talking about another fucking Chelios. Then I retract my statement and beg for fucking forgiveness. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Smashville is a Predators fan. Every time Chelios whines about the hangnail on his pinky, it's more of a "shut the fuck up, Chelios, waaaaahhh, whaaaahhhhhhh", until they take him away in a Whaambulance. Chelios ... Chelios ... Chelios ... YOU SUCK! -t BMW c- 15:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can call this thread resolved. The use of "fuck" is not a personal attack, but in the fucking context it was used it was kinda fucking uncivil, but not a personal attack. Fucking Wikipedia is not censored. --Smashville^talk 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Need admin action ASAP

Resolved

 – Protected by Raul654, presumably per consensus @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#More_Obama-Drama. --slakr^\ talk / 15:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See my postings at this AN thread and my request for full protection of Barack Obama based on the combination of these viewing numbers and the prospect, nay, certainty of more edits like this. Also consider that John McCain is in fact full protect as of right now. Fully protect Barack Obama immediately. Any admin denying this will be personally responsible for letting the inevitable happen. Any admin who denies this or argues against full protection is personally responsible, exactly the same as if they had made this edit themselves. It's inevitable, it has happened today, hundreds of thousands of people are looking at the article today, and even if any such edit were reverted within a single second (it took longer than that) it would still be too much, much too much. Also, sorry for crossposting, but AN and RFPP is too fucking slow. Everyme 11:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama has gotten barely any vandalism since it was semi-protected, i see no reason whatsoever to full-protect, and comments such as "any admin who denies this or argues against full protection is personally responsible" make me want to even less.--Jac16888 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We make decisions on protection based on what has happened, not what might happen. Barack Obama is currently one of our most viewed articles, which means lots of potential new editors will see it, and some proportion may decide to contribute to Wikipedia. Preventing people from editing it entirely - for no good reason - goes against what Wikipedia is (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit). fish&karate 12:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is John McCain full protected? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the logs and history: For edit warring. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Certh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blocked for it, though. The article could probably go down to semi again. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone please unprotect. Not only do articles that are unstable make bad FAs, it sure gives a bad idea to potential new editors. Either we full protect both, or neither. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That's really the most basic thing to take care of: Protect/unprotect both articles on the same level. If the Obama edit I provided doesn't warrant protection, nothing that has happened on the McCain article does. Everyme 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, whilst I appreciate your good intentions your phrasing leaves much to be desired. Am I also personally responsible for not immediately deleting a grossly negative BLP article posted at 4:30 this morning? I am responsible for my actions, not my inactions as is every other member of the community admin or otherwise. Pedro :  Chat  12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stay out of it if you don't understand the issue at hand. That's all I'm asking of you, Pedro. Everyme 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PROTECT Preemptive full protection of articles is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and this policy. If you don't understand the protection policy I suggets you stay out of this Everyme. And I suggest you stop intimating any admin who does not fully protect the article is akin to a racist vandal. That's all I'm asking of you. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to favour full-protection. I recall last year in Australia where agents of politicians had registered accounts (not IPs) getting up to shenanigans on Australian political figures (need a link to that, anyone have it handy?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although valid arguments are made above. I resent any comparision to the McCain article though, each article has to be and will be protected individually if needed. There is no policy reason to have both articles at the same protection level and no sensible one as well. Barrack Obama and John McCain are probably the most watchlisted articles at the moment, so I think when needed an admin will be there to protect it fully in no time. There is no reason to think it won't be necessary after the first results come in but as long as there is not much happening now there is no reason for changes. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm against full protection. As a side note, Everyme's threats are out of line and ridiculous. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly Election Day. Emotions will run high all day today and tomorrow. Wikipedia, fascinatingly enough, seems to reflect general society in edits and editor behavior. Everyme's comment is understandably filled with anxiety—the kind I feel when I come across someone who doesn't feel like voting and I have to challenge them to fisticuffs! For this reason and the frenetic motivations of all kinds of editors, I'm for full-protection today when the magic point comes where most of the article's editors say, "This is nuts." --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that we should take things as they come. If stuff really gets out of hand, then full-protect for an hour or so. Same idea as normal TFAs, except substituting full-protection for semi-protection and semi-protection for no protection. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, folks. We shouldn't protect the article. Only a tiny fraction of the several hundreds of thousands of people who are looking up this article today will see revision like this, this, this, or this. There is no evidence whatsoever on more of that stuff coming it at probability 1. More specifically, the evidence holds no water as compared to the edit-warring that warranted full protection of John McCain. And finally, Obama's message is all about openness after all, right? Just like Wikipedia, right? The damn hypocrite should get rid of his security service bodyguards right now. Right. Everyme 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2006 hoax?

Resolved

 – Edits all checked. User blocked. either way (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, its hard to believe that anyone wrapping their userID in such a venerable garment as a toga could be here with less than serious intent. But I think I've spotted a hoax from 2006, either that or a Rhino subspecies is no longer extinct. There was also a hairy manatee edit from user:TogaParty which I suspect was also a hoax and several other edits many of which have long been reverted. Anyone into US celebrity spotting fancy checking out the remaining edits, and should this party be formally ended? ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it hoax as much as I would call it just plain vandalism. I'll take a look through the other edits to see if anything has "stuck" for 2+ years that doesn't belong there. either way (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've checked all the edits and fixed one that I couldn't find sources for, so I removed it based on his history. Every thing else either checks out, has been reverted, or the article is now a redirect. Thanks for pointing this out, either way (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Representative of university

Can someone look into the claims here. While it's nice to AGF the language used makes me hear quacking noises.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I call bullshit. No university rep would communicate by creating a transparent username and posting on WP. At least, I hope not (if I were at University with that chap, I'd have to rethink his hiring.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The language is wrong, the contextual understanding is wrong, the level of interest is wrong, it all scans wrong. Block and get him to verify (which I suspect is impossible because he isn't) via normal channels? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we have someone new to add to Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mod_objective, and perhaps someone to add to Category:Users who must think we're complete idiots as well. --barneca (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Uuh, the last one is a great idea. Might become a densly populated category though ;-) SoWhy 13:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tonyhenrique Last warning

Last warning was issued yesterday, user still reverts and warns all involved against consequences. Please see contribs: [142]. Also uses User talk:189.104.207.232. Needs a block. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User has not received level 2 or 3 warnings. I suggest a WP:3RR warning instead and a report to WP:AN3 if that does not help. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about User talk:189.104.207.232 which is the same user? History2007 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you be sure it's the same user? Stifle (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK-and-a-half. Seriously, spend <5 seconds looking at both contribs: [143] [144]. Both SPAs editing the same article, appeared at the same time, both use the same very distinctive tone and poor grammar in their edit summaries, and the IP's very first contrib has the edit summary "Think 2 times before destroy my edit again."

No comment on anything else in this dispute (I haven't read the edit war or checked for 3RR), but this is about the most obvious WP:DUCK I've ever seen... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And the IP Geolocates to Brasil, where User talk:Tonyhenrique said he lived on the talk page he edited. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If so, you should file it at WP:SSP. Unless there is positive proofs, we have to assume the editor in question to be different from the IP and cannot block them for the IP's actions. SoWhy 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. If an account an IP taken together violate 3RR, then a 3RR report can be made without a CU or confirmed SSP, assuming the degree of WP:DUCKness is obvious enough. I have seen it happen before, at least.

And dude... did you look at the contribs? Seriously? This is not a "Hmmm, looks suspicious..." This is a "user accidentally logged out and continued same conversation as if he was the same person". --Jaysweet (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Resolved

Readers of this board and other administrative-related boards probably have noticed the actions of Everyme (talk · contribs) today in regards to the presidential election. This has included mounds of incivility (more) and general combative tone (such as this), including what are essentially threats to administrators who don't do what he wants. I was on my way to warn him about this incivility and overall tone when I noticed this preload notice on his user talk page when you go to edit it. The last line of it goes way beyond the reaches of civility and acceptability on Wikipedia. I was utterly speechless when I saw this. I'm posting it here because I want others to take action because I don't quite know how to handle that myself. Thank you in advance, either way (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

High emotions for high stakes. No threats apparent. Take two days after election and a couple valium. For everyone. Admin action, as of yet, not necessary. Break for all mass media may be. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I come here with valid concerns and you tell me to take "a couple of valium"? This is utterly ridiculous, either way (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, to be clear I think everyone should, but I apologize for invalidating your concerns. I don't see the threats. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Moni3. Everyone should try taking a break until Thursday. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least look at User:Everyme/s for me, as I asked in the post, and see if you believe that the last line there is fine and acceptable on Wikipedia? either way (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

EveryMe may be a little chicken-little-esque, but nowhere need the requirement for admin action. I WP:AGF and believe they're TRYING to be overall helpful, so you might be on the same sky-is-falling side. So yes, it's going to be busy day on the election/related article front. Relax, and enjoy the ride. -t BMW c- 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it with this "chicken little" line? I'm not American, I'm not a native speaker, I don't live (nor have I ever at any point in the past lived) in an English-speaking country. Please, someone enlighten me. It sounded as if someone called me a coward or something. The Chicken Little link, which I briefly checked, didn't help me either and right now I don't have the nerves to find out myself what this is about. But it has been said the second time now. Everyme 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from a child's story popularly known as Chicken Little where acorns fall on a young chicken's head and he runs off screaming that the sky is falling, getting everyone in a panic until they realize it was only an acorn. --Moni3 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? I'm not working for ACORN, never have! And I personally think it's ludicrous to even insinuate they committed "voter fraud" in any way, shape, or form!!</kidding> Thank you, Moni, that explains it. I don't think that an edit that inserts --on election day, no less-- in 12em letters the word Niggershit into our highly frequented article on one of the presidential candidates constitutes an "acorn", exactly, but that is obviously in the eye of the beholder. No, wait. It isn't. It's still laughable to suggest, like some did, that our philosophy of openness is more important and a greater contribution to promoting the wiki ideal and Wikipedia than excluding the risk of letting even one person see that revision. Everyme 14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we're too jaded as Wikipedians who see that kind of stupid vandalism all the time. Or maybe we in the U.S. expect that kind of nonsense in such an historic election. I'm kind of surprised here in Florida I've only seen two displays of Confederate flags on election day. Maybe society does evolve... --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

<-This note from Everyme would appear to be irony or sarcasm. I'd be inclined to ignore it: it has been up for about a month. The threats were the "if you don't do what I say, you'll be personally responsible for the consequences". It was a line that failed to work and got short-shrift from all they used it on, myself included. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see "shut your fucking mouth, retard" to be ironic or sarcastic at all based on this user's general tone. either way (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my edit notice on my talk page you're talking about there. You're obviously not a golfer. And "Either way", I don't remember ever seeing you in the past, but rest assured that I will recognise you from here on out. What was your original account name again? I can't be bothered to make sure you don't simply hold a grudge.Everyme 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

Heh, I looked at Everyme/s the first time you sent the link, and I was like, "What's the big deal?" I had to look again before I finally caught the last sentence :D

<shrug> It's maybe a bit on the edge, but as REDVERS says, it's clearly sarcastic, and as per WP:CENSOR I'm inclined to tolerate the, ehm, somewhat offensive language. (Yes, I know CENSOR refers to article space and not talk space, but there's a de facto understanding that strong language in talk is usually tolerated too, depending on context) I suppose if somebody had a really big problem with the word "retard," he could be asked to change it... but I don't want Wikipedia to become the PC police, especially for something as innocent as that. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting use my own words on 'my' talk page edit notice. I daresay it's immediately clear to anyone who hasn't had a full lobotomy --and to anyone who isn't desperately trying to construe it as something different-- that it's well-intentioned, tongue-in-cheek humour. Metros is obviously not interested in assuming any good faith with me, simply because he doesn't like parts of formulations of some of my comments (and ignores the entire rest). LOL, gotta go. Everyme 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And this comment plus the veiled threat of "rest assured that I will recognise you from here on out." are perfectly fine and civil out of this just because it's a "heated day"? either way (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think he is actually threatening? He threatens that in the future he will recognize you and think you are an asshole? Oh dear me! :p Seriously, the "threats" you refer to, while IMO they make Everyme look like a bit of a blowhard, are universally not threats. He tells an admin he will hold them "personally responsible" if the Obama page gets vandalized but... what? So he's not going to like the admin anymore? Not much of a threat... we don't ban people for saying, "If you don't do what I want, then I'm gonna think you are a meanie!"

And yes, the comment above is perfectly fine. I more or less agree with him. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it, Jay. The greatest risk I entered when I said "holding responsible" was not to be taken seriously, which, now that I know the chicken little fable, did indeed happen. With "I'll remember you", Metros, I was working on the assumption that you're not an admin and the worst you can threaten the average non-admin with is to dig up every last shred of dirt in a future RfA. Since you, Metros, are an admin that point is of course moot. Ok, now I really honestly gotta go. Everyme 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not tooo far up the page we had a discussion about full protection. Consensus was no - there are enough good people watching those articles today (including you, I expect) that vandalism will be reverted ASAP. (and no, Chicken Little was not an insult in any way ... I was, in fact, defending you - in case you hadn't noticed) -t BMW c- 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know now and I tried to make up for it with my fake ACORN outrage in reponse to Moni's explanation. Metros/either way will no doubt take it at face value and decry my incivility again, but that's alright the way it is. Everyme 15:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "your" talk page, it is a project page that the project kindly allows you to use for purposes of coordination and discussion, provided it is not misused. There is absolutely no call to use the language you used, and I have removed two words. We have to work together on this project; "watch your fucking mouth retard" is an unacceptable escalation in the level of coarseness around here. Thatcher 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I am mixed on removing the word "retard" because we can argue that might be offensive to a particular group, but I see no cause for removing the word "fucking" from Everyme's talk page message. Saying "Watch your fucking mouth" to an individual editor is a personal attack and is incivil, so obviously that would not be okay. However, saying "watch your fucking mouth" to nobody in particular, well, explain to me how that is different from the page WP:DICK??? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's about basic standards of communication, decency and respect. Go ahead and say, "I appreciate polite and sensible conversation. If you come to my talk page to be rude and provocative, I will ignore you." The alternate formulation, "If you come to my talk page, watch your fucking mouth, retard" is not acceptable. Not only is the alternate formulation rude and uncivil, it is arguably a form a trolling, since the same message can be conveyed in a much less provocative way. If you can not see the significant difference between the two, then I have lost all hope. Thatcher 19:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well-observed, Thatcher. That's why put I said 'my' as opposed to my. I was just too lazy to link to the appropriate section at the userpage guideline. However, I am reverting your edit and I caution you everyone else not to do that again. I do not suffer humourless simpletons gladly. And it's not gratuitous "use of coarse language", either. It informs people about an important aspect of my personality, namely my outspokenness and my uninhibitidness towards strong language. I can only repeat myself: You have to be lobotomised to not realise the tongue-in-cheek value of those words right after the rest of the text. Stop riding me for not being a holier-than-thou civility bigot. Everyme 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive school project?

I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.

If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.

I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How about fixing the problem for good for the Win of all? A Wikiproject "School Projects" with good ways to proceed, sandboxes, curricula for secondary and college courses, and teacher guides? I mean, it would provide (a) a good frame in which school projects can be made good for the school and not disruptive, (b) encouragement for educators to perceive WP as a valuable resource and (c) training for future editors!

My training in education is minimal, but I'll give whatever help might be needed; I'm sure we can summon some enthusiasm and participation from educators for this. — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is such a project at Wikipedia:School and university projects, but it only works if instructors know about it and follow the suggestions. In this case, it looks like guidance about WP was lacking and students are unfamiliar with WP policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a course in media studies. Some of the hardest hit articles are Broadcasting. Social aspects of television, Telegraphy, Social determinism, and Technological determinism if anyone wants to do some clean-up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to leave a message on each of these students' talk pages asking them to get their instructor to look at WP:SUP? Better if he does that late than never. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope jbmurray won't mind (especially as I don't think it's finished), but his essay at User:Jbmurray/Advice should be required reading for all educators who want to integrate Wikipedia into their teaching. EyeSerene^talk 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Opcn evading block

Opcn (talk · contribs), that signs as "Brendan White" (e.g.: [145]) has just been blocked for 3RR violation[146] and a block review was declined[147].

Since them he has used at least one meat-puppet ([148]), and now there's an IP signing his name while supporting his opinions[149].

Is it possible to block on IP? What's the right thing to do here? --Damiens.rf 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism from User:24.140.104.139

24.140.104.139 (talk · contribs · count) This IP address has been used for several rants to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Although I can see their point in some of the rants, the tone has been quite "loud" with "fucking" appearing in all but one of the rants. I think that the line has been crossed in this latest rant [150]. The accusation that Jewish editors are Nazis (with or without the "fucking") is a recognised and highly provocative form of antisemitism and should be dealt with exctremely firmly.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP is guilty of attacking Jewish editors. I've warned the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies AdjustShift; while you were warning I was issuing a 24-hr block - I think the invective has reached an unacceptable level, and although I would have preferred to see prior warnings on their talk page, I think this editor needs a short break. Accusing people of being Zionist Nazis also betokens some confusion, I think... EyeSerene^talk 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block. We must not tolerate personal attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient block. His few edits are days apart. 24 hours won't even be noticed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't check the dates. Reblocked for two weeks, and thanks BB, good catch. EyeSerene^talk 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)