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

Images used in Intelligent design covered by Non-free content policy?

Some editors of Inteligent design are teaming up and overcoming the non-free content policy to use non-free book covers and magazine covers against site-wide policy and consensus.

I'm about to violate WP:3RR since I have to deal with a whole team of editors that insists that people wanting to enforce the policy are just "NFCC regulars" that, unlike them, can't understand the topic of "Intelligent design".

It's well established, and derived from WP:NFCC, that we don't use non-free book-cover images in articles that just happen to mention the book. We use it in the book's article or in any article that discusses some topic that couldn't be fully understood without seeing the specific image. This is nothing special about book or magazine covers, but something valid for all non-free images, according to WP:NFCC#8.

A recent discussion on the article's talk page faded away after the image proponents turned it into a discussion about how bad our policy is. --Damiens.rf 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and protected the wrong version (in this case, I actually think that it is the wrong version, since I agree with you on our non-free image policy, but I'm not going to enforce it after protecting the page). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've warned those who were edit-warring in breach of policy. Happy to block if need be. Let's hope it won't be necessary. --John (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You warn me for edit warring? Since when is one edit edit warring? Completely uncalled for. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative of notifying the other editors you warned of this report. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the venomously misleading title of this section (The thread was originally titled " == Inteligent design editors teaming up to abuse non-free images ==", and subsequently changed here and again here to its present section title), I'm now not at all surprised to have received User:John's note on my talk page. At the moment, I'm glad I'm not an admin-- I might have fallen for that myself were I not already familiar with the situation. Here's the problem in part: Those editors that choose to frequently file and/or participate in FFDs and who hang around WT:NFC and related pages are not the only users capable of participating in the consensus process to assess whether a given file meets the NFCC. The editors who've descended upon intelligent design in the past week or so appear to be under the illusion that they're the only ones capable of making this assessment. Guettarda's comments immediately below give some perspective on what the arguments ended up being about. In terms of the NFCC, the argument ended up being about the often-subjective and highly debatable assessments called for in NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) and the especially subjective NFCC#8 (significance). These are not the kind of criteria that are appropriate either for a CSD assessment or for any other kind of purely ministerial action by an administrator. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of these images is in keeping with our fair-use policy. Rationales have been made per WP:NFCC#8. No one has bothered to address the rationales for inclusion under NFCC#8. There is no abuse of policy here. John, on the other hand, is making threats which constitute an abuse of his admin privileges, including issuing "warnings" in which he made no attempt to explain what policy he claimed was violated. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No Damiens, the discussion never addressed the issue. It didn't peter out because of "how bad our policy is", it petered out because the only argument that was made against inclusion of the images was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only argument was "because I said, that's why" and and dismissal without consideration of any argument for keeping the images, and any editor who disagrees is part of an abusive gang. That is not fair. This is a content dispute period. And there is absolutely no consensus to delete the images. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fair Use guideline is consensus. We don't have to reach a new one for each article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "The Fair Use guideline is consensus." : So is the definition and description of the proper scope of a "guideline" in WP:Policies and guidelines. Please go refresh memory about what a guideline is, by consensus, within Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The content part of this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The editor conduct issue can continue to be dealt with here. If a consensus is reached in the proper venue that these images meet our policies, this issue will be resolved. If editors edit-war to restore stuff which breaches our policies, they will be blocked. Straightforward stuff, I would think. --John (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the thread at NFCC says to go to Talk:Intelligent design. [Disclaimer: I should be blocked for this edit.] siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with John. The discussion on WT:NFC#Use of book covers in intelligent design has been short, superficial and in violation of WP:AGF (denigrating the WP:CONSENSUS on Talk:Intelligent design as "another case of majority rule ILIKEIT"). The issue has been done to death on Talk:Intelligent design. The regular editors on that article (including myself) believe that there is a long-standing consensus for the inclusion of this "stuff", no contrary consensus has been formed, and there is no objective evidence (only subjective back-and-forth arguments) that it "breaches our policies". It therefore follows that any blocks to enforce one side of this debate would be unlikely to be seen as "uninvolved". YMMV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite User:John's excellent suggestion that I take this up at NFCC, apparently there already is a discussion there explicitly shunting all further comments to Talk:Intelligent design. There is a pronounced lack of consensus at the latter discussion page, to which I have contributed. Presumably further discussion should occur there as well. Under the circumstances I have just described, a block threat seems to be particularly unjustified. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for John re his warning on my page ... he seems to have missed the quid pro quo and gone for the qui. Sad, really, but, well ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NFCC policy

1. No free equivalent. We meet that criterion
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. We're good there.
3. Minimal usage/Minimal extent of use. Not a problem.
4. Previous publication. Yep.
5. Content. Yep.
6. Media-specific policy. Looks good.
7. Significance. Case made. Nothing beyond IDONTLIKEIT has been offered to suggest why the case is flawed.
8. Restrictions on location. Not a problem.
9. Image description page. Got that.

No policy is being violated. The case was made for #8. Once that was done, the discussion petered out. No one pointed out any flaws in the rationale. Inclusion of the images in the article appears to be consistent with the NFCC policy. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't justify an edit war. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying it did; do you? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a heck of a lot of people making excuses here, yeah. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...for removal? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of people talking about how the photos satisfy (or do not satisfy) policy. That doesn't really matter, as far as ANI is concerned. Even if the images were public domain, nobody has the right to edit war to keep them in the article. And it's not urgent to remove them, either.

Policy can be debated by any user; the only action here that calls for admin intervention (which is what this page is for) is the edit war. I'm with John - I'm willing to block anyone continuing it, on either side. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why did John only threaten those on the "wrong" side of this debate? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a warning, not a threat. Warnings are good things. If you're getting warnings, that means you haven't been blocked yet. Which is always nice. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so threats are a good thing. But still, why was only one side threatened with a block here? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I didn't warn only one side. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you have said that you are "with John", without (apparently) bothering to examine what "John is with". siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. Nobody's interested. I know you've got a smart-ass answer for everything, but it's obvious what I meant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

John's threats seem to have sewn a bit of bitterness. Charges regarded horses and asses do not seem to defuse this situation. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t. John's warning(s), I tend to think he might have been misled by the opening gambit and the title of this thread. (The thread was originally titled " Inteligent design editors teaming up to abuse non-free images", and subsequently changed here and again here to its present section title.) Obviously he thought he was enforcing clearcut policy and as such his approach, rendered against only one side of the dispute, is somewhat understandable to me. But the fact of the matter is, as I said above in this thread, the assessment of whether the images at issue meet policy is not anywhere near that simple, and the only credible "policy" issues being asserted by Damiens.rf and several others are based on NFCC#8, interpretations of what are debatable, subjective editorial decisions, not by any means clearcut policy-based decisions. Advocates of removal of the images also took a couple shots based on NFCC#1, though these were highly stretched arguments that free-licensed images of the authors should be used in lieu of the cover images, and, as should be obvious, there are no legitimately free-licensed replacements for the cover images themselves. I should add that in October 2007 the article was featured on the main page with these images present in the article, as well as withstood two WP:FARs, so you can dependably bet that many admins have seen the images in intelligent design before, the consensus among admins being that the use, while not bulletproof, was reasonable. Perhaps needless to say, several admins have also disagreed with this assessment that the images' use was reasonable under the NFCC, notably NV8200p and CBM. ... Kenosis (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The entire conversation above shows why use of non-free images of enwiki is out of control. It is the same every time someone tries to enforce WP:NFCC. Standard timeline;
  • Images removed per NFCC
  • Images replaced
  • Edit war (optional)
  • Goes to talk
  • Regular editors of article claim they have "consensus" to keep the images
  • Alternatively, a "rationale" is cobbled together which is claimed to "meet NFCC#8" (it almost never does)
  • Edit war (optional)
  • Either stalemate, RfC, etc, (or editors eventually see that images aren't viable)
  • In the meantime, those seeking to enforce WP:NFCC will often be subject to random violations of NPA and CIVIL (this hasn't been the case so much this time, but is normal otherwise)
  • And we wonder why enwiki's use of non-free material is is such a terrible state?

Black Kite 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's run Black Kite's comment from the top from a slightly different perspective:

• The entire conversation above shows why policing of non-free images of enwiki is out of control. It is the same every time someone tries to enforce their view of WP:NFCC. Standard timeline of an NFC raid on Intelligent design (there've been multiple);
  • Images removed in spite of existing rationale and consensus
  • Images replaced
  • Edit war (apparently compulsory)
  • Goes to talk
  • Self-appointed NFCC enforcers dismiss pre-existing consensus
  • Self-appointed NFCC enforcers dismiss pre-existing rationale on NFCC#8 -- which inevitably goes nowhere as the criteria is completely subjective and quite vague.
  • Edit war initiated by NFC advocates, taking any pause in conversation to being an admission of surrender
  • Either stalemate, RfC, etc, (or self-appointed NFCC enforcers regroup to try again in a few months time)
  • In the meantime, those seeking to defend legitimate content will often be subject to random violations of NPA and CIVIL
  • Rinse and repeat
  • And we wonder why these self-appointed individuals have a reputation for precipitate and non-consensual behaviour?

It really depends on who's telling it, doesn't it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the phrases "self-appointed NFCC enforcers", "NFC raid", "policing", "pre-existing consensus" and "non-consensual behaviour" proves my point exactly. Thanks for endorsing my posting. I don't think I need say any more. Black Kite 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the phrases "claim" & "cobble together" proves my point exactly as well. And I am amused that you would take umbrage at "enforcers" "raid" & "policing" given your prior use of "enforce". As to "pre-existing consensus", you and your fellows were pointed to archive giving exhaustive detail on previous discussions. And I believe "non-consensual" is pretty accurate for unilateral deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Foundation has tasked us with only two areas to keep control of on WP: WP:BLP and NFC. BLP is heavily policed (evidenced by the number of ArbCom cases over it, along with numerous ANI postings), but when it comes to NFC, that seems to be second bananas. Adherence to getting to the free mission goals of WP is not optional. Anything that can be done to reduce non-free use has to be done, with the understanding that some non-free use on en.wiki is needed to help with articles. --MASEM 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it surprising that we still have people who work on the thankless task of NFCC compliance (given how "significance" is rather subjective, it is impossible to get right). I don't think that non-free images are worth the trouble they bring (a clear decision "only free images" would be so much simpler than deciding where the border is), and they are certainly not worth compromising our mission as a free encyclopedia. In support of wikiveganism, Kusma (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that we don't have many people working on it, because they end up going to work on something else when they get sick of the abuse and tendentiousness that they encounter. The real issue is that many enwiki editors play lip service to the idea of a "free" encyclopedia, until it's "their" articles that fall foul of NFCC. More worrying recently is that there have been a number of cases recently (I'm not talking about ID here) where admins have been amongst those agitating to keep images in articles against policy. IMHO, those people really need to consider their position as so-called defenders of policy. I'm coming round to the idea that we either go one of three ways. (1) No non-free use, per de-wiki (2) tighten up NFCC severely (3) allow all non-free images and call ourselves "The Encyclopedia". We wouldn't keep a BLP violation in one of our articles because a few editors banded together and declared it "consensus" so why do we appear to allow it with NFCC? Black Kite 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually I think we should have no one working on NFCC compliance. That time would be better spent writing articles or lobbying the Foundation to drop support for projects that are not committed to a free-content-only principle. Kusma (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I vote we frame that comment as a perfect summary of the problem. Somebody tries to enforce the policy, they get trolled to hell and back, they give up, the insidious creep of unfree images continues unabated. Are we actually serious about enforcing that policy? If so, we should adopt a protocol which makes personalising the issue blockable, because that is the root of 99% of NFC drama, IMO. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And I fixed your way too common mistake. --Damiens.rf 20:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheese. This of course largely negates my statements in partial defense of John's response to the thread, as well as my description of the tone of the thread. I'll go make "note(s) to reader" where appropriate. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the images are obviously non-compliant, and need to be removed. Editors that may restore them should be apprised that intentionally violating NFCC is an offense that can result in a block.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are, but do you see the problem now? I haven't edited that article at all, but say I was to block someone restoring them - I haven't got time to respond to the ensuing RfC, because this article appears to be "defended" by a number of senior editors. I mean, ID is a featured article, it's a really good article, and it doesn't need to stamp all over one of our policies. So good luck on that one. Black Kite 15:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the problem, Black Kite. And it is a shame ... it's a good article that doesn't need to be tainted by policy violations, and the violation is so flagrantly obvious that there really shouldn't be any controversy at all in enforcing it here. Blocking any editor that restores the images after warning is the obvious move, and, in a perfect world, would be able to be done without blinking an eye.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but... While I recognize the importance of keeping the NFC to a reasonable minimum and the importance of the work of those who parse through the many--many-tens-of-thousands of NFC files as a housekeeping matter, in reality usages such as the three in intelligent design are most certainly not a problem except to the extent that those who choose to focus on removing NFC choose to make it into a problem, to make it into a poster child or example of some kind. Remember please that the NFC is a guideline. What works for comic-book covers, album covers, stamps, etc., as a general guideline does not apply here even as a guideline. What works for book and magazine covers as a general guideline may apply here to some extent, but again is a guideline that should properly be treated as a general guideline-- read that: "inherently flexible". Among the various arguments rendered by those who've targeted these three cover images (originally four), only one is a credible policy argument, the highly subjective "catch-all" criterion NFCC#8. The use of these cover images is by no reasonable stretch of imagination a "blatant" or "clear" or "obvious" violation of any policy. To the contrary, they are completely reasonable, thoughtful, minimal uses that are well within both the letter and the spirit of WP's Exemption Doctrine Policy (WP:NFCC). The consensus for their inclusion among the many participants in the article, many of whom became fairly well exposed and familiar with WP's EDP, was, and remains, virtually unanimous that the uses were minimal, reasonable, and significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic. As to justifications based on the idea that WP's mission is to be a totally free-content project, the argument is fair enough but not consistent with the existence of the many tens of thousands (I believe it's over 100,000 but correct me if I'm wrong) of NFC files. Again, there's no need to make a posterchild of these images, as their use is entirely reasonable and well within WP's EDP. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that the EDP is a frequently-waved straw man. Let's look at WP:NFCC#8. The question that arises is simple - is the reader's understanding of the subject of Intelligent design significantly increased by being able to see the cover of a book about it, when the contents of the book are discussed in the article anyway? Answer: clearly not. And that, really, should be it. However ... Black Kite 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's EDP is the NFCC, although WP:EDP presently redirects to the guideline page, WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence my specific reference to NFCC. Resolution:Licensing policy redirects to NFC, but that's just a guideline, NFCC is the policy (even though it's transcluded into it). I've found a need to be precise in the past... Black Kite 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proposed Compromise Cut down WP's coverage of Intelligent Design by about 90% and lock it. Tell ID supporters to go edit articles on religion and critics to edit ones on science. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say that this is one of the most destructive proposals I have ever seen. Remove 90% of coverage of a notable topic from Wikipedia? That's insane. And besides, this isn't about the validity of ID, this is about whetehr some images come under fair use.--Patton^t/c 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please consider the immense scope of WP's articles on this fairly minor topic, and the waste of time, talent, and energy involved in their upkeep. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess another major component to this is that the policy is (or at the very least seems) subjective. Is there anyway a community wide discussion could lead to the policy becoming more concrete? Do we purposely leave it flexible, even though it leads to conflicts such as this one? Is there anything we could do in terms of policy/guidelines to make the issue more clear for the future, or will this not lead anywhere because any policy based changes would mean one of these sides would loose, and the sides are too polarized as it is? Would those wanting to include the images on this page be willing to give that up if the policy was changed to make it clear those sorts of images in that usage was inappropriate? Would those wanting to remove the images be willing to give that up if the core policy behind all this was made clearer so that a case like this was unambiguously acceptable? -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to subordinate my personal judgment to policies and guidelines, and, if I think they are wrong, discuss that issue on the appropriate discussion pages for policies and guidelines. If there was a policy that said "Book covers can be used to decorate articles about related subjects", I would leave them be, but lobby pretty hard to change that policy. This really isn't an ambiguous case where the subjectivity is causing problems, though. It's more a case of editors that believe having an attractive article is more important than following guidelines and policies.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The authors of that article clearly believe they are following guidelines and policies. They merely interpret those policies and guidelines differently than the WP:NFCC regulars. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith in as much as I think they have an honest belief that NFCC prevents them from producing the article they think is best, and are attempting to evade it on that basis. I don't see any evidence that they believe they are following NFCC#8, as they have never been able to answer a straightforward question: what aspect of intelligent design is it that a reader might have difficulty grasping, that, having viewed the book cover, they would then find easier to grasp? When faced with that straightforward, simple question, one receives replies about how humans are visual learners, the nature of correct graphic design, comparison of the use of the book covers to album covers, claims that consensus is required to remove the material, but never an answer to that question. Unless that question can be answered, a defense of an image in terms of NFCC#8 can't even be mounted.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The question kww proposes, "what aspect of intelligent design is it that a reader might have difficulty grasping, that, having viewed the book cover, they would then find easier to grasp?" , is not the policy w.r.t. NFCC#8, but rather is made up by kww. The policy, NFCC#8, states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This question has repeatedly been asked and answered, addressed at great length by at least ten editors in at least twenty or thirty places, most or all of which were recently linked for convenience on the article talk page. And Guettarda and others including myself have outlined at significant length some of the benefits the images confer to readers in the current set of talk threads. The response among those who've come into the article with no significant purpose other than to advocate deletion of the cover images has been, essentially, "no they don't" and "that's not the way we use cover images" and "our goal is to create a free-licensed encyclopedia". I don't ordinarily draw on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it's just an essay, but if the goal is to make the encyclopedia completely free-licensed, then argue at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC to make the EDP simple-- no NFC allowed, and delete all of the 100,000+ NFC files. But until such time as there is agreed to be no NFC in Wikipedia we have an exemption policy in place' (an EDP) that explicitly allows NFC on the wiki, specifically WP:NFCC. The NFCC are designed to allow NFC on the wiki within reason, with reasonable restraint, and with reasonable justification as set forth in the NFCC. The images at issue have unquestionably satisfied NFCC#s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10a, 10b and 10c, and quite reasonably satisfied the very subjective and always debatable question in #8. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please, here and now, put this to bed by using those "twenty or thirty" comments you mention and actually answering the question - How is the reader's understanding of the subject of Intelligent Design significantly increased by being able to see the cover of a book about it, when the contents of the book are already discussed in the article anyway?. Then we can mark this resolved and all go to bed happy. Black Kite 00:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm back, briefly. The links were given on Talk:Intelligent design. I'm not able right now to grab every significant diff and list them here. I am willing, though, to go over them and give a reasonable sampling of them as well as a re-recitation of the substantive arguments in support of the proposition that readers' understanding is significantly enhanced by the use of the cover images in that article--as soon as I have an opportunity, which will probably be in a day or two. I'll post them on the article talk page with a link-to on this page. Fair enough?... Kenosis (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite and Kww, I've been called to "real-life work" that needs my undivided attention for several days. I need to attend to that first, then get back to collecting the numerous diffs spread out among many threads giving reasoned substantive support to why readers' understanding is significantly enhanced by the images under discussion here, then time to organize those diffs to present for the scrutiny of all concerned users. So it'll probably be a few more days. My apology about the delay, and I'll post them in a reasonably organized fashion ASAP-- most likely several more days. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for trying to frame the issue in a concrete form that made it easy to evaluate whether you had any rational basis for your position. I don't see how you can satisfy its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding if there is no aspect of intelligent design that is made simpler to understand. Can you explain that to me? If there isn't an aspect that is difficult to understand without the image, the absence isn't detrimental, and if that difficult thing isn't made easier to understand by the presence of the image, then the image can't significantly increase the reader's understanding. You appear to be dodging the question by claiming I made things up.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no dodging of any kind going on here. You've framed the question incorrectly, because making simpler to understand is only one of a number of ways to significantly enhance readers' understanding. Fact is, they do make the iconography used by the "intelligent design movement" and by Time magazine simpler to understand. But they also add information that can't be properly conveyed with text, important visual information that significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic. Please see also my note just above in response to Black Kite's last post. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it puts the discussion in context, by making visual referents to things the reader has previously seen, to arresting visual statements made on book covers, to classic related images. Communication by images is as important s communication by words--and for topics where emotion is involved,is often much clearer. DGG (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But not when it is other people's copyrighted images. As a free project we don't do that. --John (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

John, the NFCC are not "we don't do that", they're "we do that only when it significantly enhances understanding" (with other technical criteria). As DGG just argued in broad terms here, and as I recently argued in more specific terms on Talk:Intelligent design, in this instance they do in fact significantly enhance understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the argument you, DGG, and others are presenting is not specific to these images. The argument Articles with pictures and images are easier to understand and digest than articles without them is a hard one to refute on a general basis, and I wouldn't really even think of trying. The question is whether these individual images have characteristics that increase the understanding of this specific topic, and people aren't providing concrete arguments in support of.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the comment I linked to above, did you? It was very specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly did. You argued that presenting images of various milestones in the topic served to draw you in, and would possibly persuade you to read text that otherwise you wouldn't have read. That isn't an argument demonstrating that those particular milestones needed to be illustrated and that no text could have explained the occurrence of those milestones. "I wouldn't have read the text" isn't an argument that says that text couldn't explain the pictures, that's an argument that says articles should be attractively laid out and contain pictures to draw the readers eye.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I argued that the specific pictures had the specific effect of significantly enhancing my understanding, and that the text did not. I don't know why you bring in arguments like "that no text could have...": it's not a hypothetical, about some article that doesn't exist and some reader that doesn't exist, it's my actual reaction to the article as it now exists. If that doesn't meet WP:NFCC #8, then that criterion is meaningless and we might as well simplify WP:NFCC to "delete all unfree images". I realize that some ideologues might think we should delete all such images regardless, but by WP:AGF I'm hopeful that you're not one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? is part of NFCC#1, which intertwines a bit with the need for the absence of the image to significantly detract from understanding: if the image could be replaced by text, it's hard to argue that the absence of the image is detrimental. No, I'm not really an NFCC extremist, but I do believe firmly that the arguments for using NFC should be strong and in support of that specific use of that specific image. I don't argue against the use of book covers in articles about the books, or pictures of stamps in articles about stamps, for example. I think the need for images in this particular article could be covered by things like File:Flagellum_base_diagram.svg, illustrating one of the key contention argument points of irreducible complexity faction of the ID movement. If there was a fair-use image of the bone structure of a panda's thumb, I'd probably support inclusion of it, because without it it's hard to explain to laymen how the panda became the poster-child of the ID controversy. There's a real need for images in this article, and a lot of images that would actually enhance it. Stuffing book covers in it as a substitute isn't the way to go.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "There's a real need for images in this article, and a lot of images that would actually enhance it" : You've presumably become more familiar with the topic in the course of your analysis. In support of your statement, kindly point us to a couple such images that are free-licensed, or even just one.... Kenosis (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, I'll take part of my statement back. the flagellem diagram is a good illustration of the debate about irreducible complexity, though may be overly specific for the intelligent design article. IMO, there's a good argument to supplement the Behe book cover, though it would not be an equivalent replacement for the presentation on the cover of Darwin's Black Box because the cover shows how the ID proponents have publicly framed the debate in part with their misleading use of iconography (plenty of RSs in support of this). I'll bring it up on the article talk page, if someone else doesn't mention it first. Good catch. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You should watch your assumptions ... I'm intimately familiar with intelligent design, and have been debating and arguing against creationism for decades. Dig through the talk.origins postings archived on the web, and you will find that some of the earliest archived postings are from "Kevin W. Williams".—Kww(talk) 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Then I trust you're familiar with the importance of the slick cover presentations and other approaches designed to manipulate the popular mind and to foist their philosophy onto biological science. As you might perhaps have realized, without the elements of various manipulative or misleading presentation, "intelligent design" would hardly be controversial to the extent it has become in the United States. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis, I'm interested in reading about the ID movement's techniques to foster their point through iconography and the like. Can you point me some books and articles (no self-published stuff, like webpages, please) covering the specific topic? Thanks! --Damiens.rf 11:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are already at least several such sources in the article which include this kind of information, scattered throughout in the footnotes. There are almost certainly more available. I myself will be mostly unavailable until the weekend, except for very brief periods of time. I'll find some then... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I was recently in a large Barnes and Noble bookstore. They had a whole row of books on science and also a whole row of books on astrology, spiritualism, and other "new-age" topics; ironically enough the rows faced each other. However there was not one book supporting creationism or intelligent design. Are these books really that influential to the public mind? And wasn't the Time magazine cover an attempt to sell magazines? Every Christmas they do a cover story on Jesus. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Look in the FICTION section. Actually, I would think you're most likely to find books on so-called "Intelligent Design" in the same section with books by Oral Roberts and the like, i.e. possibly somewhere near the Christianity section. ID is most assuredly not in the "New Age" genre. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip. I was looking for Icons of Evolution. I have never read any ID books. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive enforcement of non-free images guideline

As I've made clear at the outset, this has blown up at a time when I'm heavily involved with other matters, but a quick statement to give my opinion that what could have been a reasonable discussion over subjective opinions in the rationale for image use has been quickly escalated into a disruptive dispute by uncivil behaviour aimed at forcing through a partisan hardline interpretation of image guidelines which looks like policy creep and appeal to the "spirit of the policy" rather than accepting that the policy does allow well reasoned use. The episode started with an editor deleting images and at the same time making a talk page statement showing a failure to even examine the rationales which had been correctly provided to meet image use policy,[1][2] then edit warring to remove the images.[3] An admin demanding removal of the images has issued peremptory warnings to editors opposing removal, making a threat "If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you" without even showing what policy is allegedly infringed,[4] causing severe distress to experienced and valued science editors and not even giving them the courtesy we extend as a matter of course to persistent blatant vandals. There has been a willingness on the part of subject editors to discuss and put forward requested rationales, and to reconsider image use to the extent of agreeing to removal of one image, but there has been too much unexplained "Idontlikeit" in response along with the claim that such bald statements override a carefully established consensus. With more courtesy and patience I'm sure that an amicable solution can be reached, but a reasonable willingness to properly consider subjective criteria is essential, and those seeking to enforce policy must show more courtesy in future to meet normal standards and avoid such useless disruption. Won't be able to comment much for a few days, so can't promise quick responses to any questions. .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The "carefully established consensus" that you speak of is illusory; there hasn't been any real consensus on these images for a long time. However, I want to respond more directly to the idea that enforcing the NFCC policy is disruptive.

There is typically a very small group of admins who follow NFCC issues closely, and their work is often described as disruptive because they appear to arrive out of nowhere to remove images. However, enforcing NFCC has become an established practice. In some cases, especially on lists of albums or lists of characters, we have even permitted admins to remove images and then protect the page, to prevent editors from re-inserting the images without a consensus to do so. My main point here is that administrators enforcing the NFCC policy are no more "disruptive" than editors who remove text that is a copyright violation, or who remove libellous material from BLPs, or editors who bring a page into compliance with the Manual of Style. They are performing important work, and they receive far too much criticism for doing it.

Claims that the NFCC policy is "subjective" are true in a sophomoric sense ("everything's just an opinion"). But we have a well established practice regarding the use of non-free images of album covers, book covers, etc. But (as with the Manual of Style) different pages are in different states of agreement with the established standard. The intelligent design article is just one of the slower articles to meet our NFCC practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'd only add that this section and Talk:Intelligent design make it very clear why the pool of admins willing to work on NFCC is so small. Black Kite 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points: (i) What you call "established practice", many would consider to be self-created and self-fulfilling 'policy creep'. (ii) In order to maintain an equilibrium between copyright and fair-use, some degree of countervailing influence is needed to NFC-removal advocacy, particularly given the level of aggression that this advocacy often exhibits. Otherwise an equilibrium solution turns into a boundary solution (i.e. no NFC at all). However, as far as I can see, the NFC-removal advocates treat all who disagree with them as benighted heathens in need of enlightenment by the true faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The balance that has developed is not in favor of zero non-free images. For example we almost universally permit a cover image on an article about the work with that cover, images of art on articles about the work of art, etc.

A somewhat common response by editors who are faced with the need to comply with NFCC is to attack the policy itself. If you'd like to be an influence on NFCC, participate on that page; if you'd like to be an influence on the manual of style, participate there. Simply ignoring the Manual of Style does not make one an influence against it, nor does ignoring the NFCC requirements make one an influence against them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not about an "equilibrium between copyright and fair-use", it's about an equilibrium between fair use and our free-content mission. --Damiens.rf 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would usually agree that book covers etc should only be found in article specifically about the book, but the 2 i see at Intelligent design seem appropriate and have good rationales. Not perfect, and certainly arguments can be made against their inclusion, but it is not so clear cut that removing images aginas t talk page consensus is warranted. It may be that editors of the page are too close to the subject, but even so the images should be left until a consensus is formed amoungst neutral commentators (eg a RfC), or until the guideline is made more clear. "Complying with NFCC implies there is only one interpretation, which is clearly not the case.Yobmod (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The opposite is true. Non-free images are not used unless there's a consensus to keep them. So, they shouldn't be "be left until a consensus is formed". --Damiens.rf 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. What was dave souza saying at the top of this section about policy creep? I don't see anything about a presumption of guilt in WP:NFCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"...it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created." - WP:NFCC, --Damiens.rf 15:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Providing a valid rationale is almost completely unrelated to forming a consensus of editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And what, if not Consensus, is to determine if a given rationale is valid?

What we're discussing on Talk:Intelligent design is exactly the validity of template rationales like "...its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" blindly pasted to File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and File:Time_evolution_wars.jpg, and I assure you there's no consensus (on the article's talk page discusion) so far. --Damiens.rf 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shahak article

Issue:
1. Deletion of other user's posts. I can't find any explicit policies on deleting other users' posts from talk (not his talk, article talk), but it seems like a very bad thing to do. See here.

• edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments states, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."

2. Escalating revert war between User:Jayjg and: myself, User:Dynablaster, User:Nishidani and User:PalestineRemembered at Israel Shahak

a. each and every change we make, he reverts with wikilawyering, and outright dismissal of consensus opinion.

For example, he refuses the consensus opinion of some CAMERA articles aren't appropriate for use in the article due to our acceptance "EI's propaganda spin" - that CAMERA is an absolutely trustworthy WP:RS. Oddly enough, he states that, "CAMERA was attempting to do was to bring some of the more egregiously anti-Israel articles in line with Wikipedia policies" - to which the evidence seems to be directly the opposite.

b. additionally, he seems to dismiss Israel Shahak's writings and readily accepts any criticism on the basis that "Shahak was likely knowledgeable about chemistry, but he was a non-expert when it came to the works for which he is most famous, his polemics on Judaism." - while there is no policy on this, it seems to be disingenuous to involve oneself in an article to which one cannot maintain a neutral stance.

Before this escalates any further, I ask for an administrator to intervene. The chances of a calmly discussed consensus being reached, seems to be nil. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from my view the wikilawyering seems to be entirely the other way. For example, you keep insisting that you can insert original research into an article because you are simply stating "FACTS AS THEY ARE". I've brought up that very issue on the NOR/N noticeboard (Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Shahak_vs._Jackobovits), only to be followed there by PR, who, not content to insert irrelevant soapboxes onto the article talk page, insists on inserting them on the NOR/N board as well. Perhaps you can explain how a two and a half year old discussion which mentions neither Shahak nor Jakcobovits can be, to use PR's words, "on just this topic". I defy anyone, in fact, to explain how PR's comments are actually on the topic of the article, which is Israel Shahak. In addition, I object to your mis-stating my positions on, well, practically everything. I did not, for example, state that CAMERA "is an absolutely trustworthy WP:RS"; rather, I pointed out that EI's spin on CAMERA's motives were not fact. In any event, I'm not seeing where this rather standard type of content dispute has become an administrative issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not personalize this, though there is a problem with the way Jayjg has consistently defended the extensive citation of worthless smear sources against Israel Shahak on that page. I'm not interested in edit-warring, and have advised that each improbable smear be analysed according to standard criteria before we actually work the page. But the page does have a troubled history. We have managed to keep pages on other controversialists in the area, such as Norman Finkelstein, relaqtively clear of poor partisan smears, yet this has invariably failed with this page, and many editors havce given up on it. I understand why the Israel Shahak page is so subject to special treatment: he wrote a critique of totalitarian tendencies in a certain vein of Judaism, and this is sensitive stuff. But the way to handle this is not to trivialize the subject by citing extensively gossipmongers with their lethal rumours, but to look for criticism by competent scholars of where Shahak's scholarship is wrong, if wrong.

There is almost nothing on what he actually thought, but a lot on innuendoes, smears, patent lies, and deliberate misinterpretations of what he thought, by agitprop specialists of mediocre credentials, such as, to cite one example only, Rachel Neuwirth. There is no reliable source I know of which says Shahak was an antisemite. Many critics of antisemitism were his intimate friends. Yet this rubbish is consistently defended. The result is an unbalanced page, thick with suspicion, and short on intelligent NPOV material on his thought. I simply would like clarification from administrators and fellow editors on how much of these 'trashing' polemics by non-notable polemicists without a knowledge of Shahak's life, and without his kind of academic formation, is allowable. That he is hated is obvious. It should be noted. I however fail to see why patent smearing by non-notable people who have a clear agenda to continue a whispering campaign against him should be given more than passing mention, with a few references to the mags that print their hackwork.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would actually "not personalize this", rather than claiming you don't wish to, then proceeding to do so. Shahak was controversial in a way that Finkelstein was not, in that Shahak wrote polemical books about Judaism, while having absolutely no expertise in the area. His works on Judaism are comparable to Robert Spencer's on Islam, except for the fact that Spencer has a degree in a relevant field, religion, whereas Shahak did not. It is for precisely this reason that Shahak's views have been considered antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My not wishing to personalize this meant, in context, that the problem is not immediately 'you' personally, but the fact that the page is a mess of smears from quarterbaked POV warriors in the war over national images and ethnic honour. That you happen to be a longtime defender of this rubbish is secondary. The former is what I should like to be addressed. As to your remark about no expertise, Shahak read Talmudic and rabbinical literature for 40 years, and, secondly, closely followed the development of fundamentalism in Israel. That Shahak is not an authorized authority on Judaism, which you repeat ad nauseam, is wholly immaterial to the issue. Shahak is famous for a book he wrote on one current of Judaism, as Karl Popper is famous also for a book on Plato's thought, though he wasn't a qualified classicist. The page on Shahak therefore must deal with that critique. I'd be more than happy to see good sources from within the academic mainstream on Judaism cited in their deconstructions of his interpretation. We don't have that. We have a ragbag of smears about an ostensible antisemitic attitude by the usual bunch of tabloid warriors in the lowermuddle brow level of the commentariat, skewering him with smears and insinuations that are palpably wrong and trivial. As for your view that 'Shahak's views have been considered antisemitic' because he wrote a polemical book on Judaism, I'd like a source for that.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"That Shahak is not an authorized authority on Judaism, which you repeat ad nauseam, is wholly immaterial to the issue." Wow. And yet you wish to use him in a "Criticism of Judaism" article. Right, then, let's toss out WP:RS altogether. Time to take it to WP:MFD? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Nishidani, I did not realise that the views and publications of an Israeli professor (and probably one of the very most notable "critics of Judaism" in the world, ever) is excluded from a Criticism of Judaism article - I wonder whether non-specialists such as Ayaan are excluded from Criticism of Islam?

No, I see they're not. There are 4 "approving" mentions of Ayaan and a referenced article of hers. (On top of numerous other such critics). If we go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's own article, she is (approvingly?) quoted saying "Violence is inherent in Islam — it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder." I wonder why the hate-filled views of this critic of Islam (who has admitted on television to lying even about her own name and date of birth) are considered worthy of inclusion in at least two places, while the views of the respectable Shahak are not considered worthy of inclusion anywhere.

(Before there is another stinging attack on me for daring to comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's reliability and interference with this message or a block on me with false claims of BLP, I should state that I respect and appreciate Ayaan, and I think it entirely proper that her views are aired). PR^talk 11:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am one of many, many who has totally given up the Israel Shahak-article. We can only note that no critic is too insignificant to be noted on that page. However, strangely, Israel Shahak´s own views are all apparently "non-notable" on Wikipedia. Have fun. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, yes, Shahak's polemics on Judaism aren't reliable sources about Judaism. Why on earth would you imagine they were? Do you really think, given the hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles, that we should be quoting the works of chemists? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, rrright, but anybodys polemics on Shahak is a reliable source about Shahak? I recall how hard I had to fight to at least keep neo-nazis like David Duke out from the Shahak -page. As for the "hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles" written on Criticism of Judaism; hmm, no, I don´t know about them. They are certainly not in the article. Why don´t you add them, Jayjg? Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the quality of sources one will find on Shahak will in any way approach those you will find on Judaism? Are you really suggesting Shahak's writings on Judaism compare in any way to those of the hundreds of actual scholars of the topic who have written about it? Absurd! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not answering my question: if there are "hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles" written on Criticism of Judaism; why don´t you add some of them? And for most of us it is not an absurdity, but a hypocrisy, to demand another standard of notability on Shahak-article -sources, than say, on Criticism of Judaism-sources. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Huldra, it is you who is not answered my question: "Do you really think, given the hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles, that we should be quoting the works of chemists?" Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This TalkPage contribution does not concern the conduct that is the subject of this ANI, it does not concern the article where the conduct is under scrutiny and it does not concern any of the 3 policies (WP:TALK, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) that the author is accused of breaching. It adds no information concerning the subject of the article, or any peripheral subject. In fact, it concerns a different article entirely - or rather, not even that, but the refusal of another editor (so far) to be dragged into an off-topic discussion. PR^talk 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment from PalestineRemembered was precisely on-topic, but removed by Jayjg. I fail to see how its removal was justified - he's simply using a previous NOR discussion to communicate that NOR is not a black and white issue. The only reason I can see for Jayjg removing it, is that it presents a strong case that his wikilawyering on NOR isn't as watertight as he makes it sound. Instead of allowing PalestineRemembered's observations to weaken his stance - he summarily deletes them from the discussion.

Or has it suddenly become policy, that it's OK to delete other user's comments just because one doesn't want others to see them?

As for his edit-warring, Jayjg simply reverted a large number of changes - citing only WP:SELFPUB contention in the discussion, but completely ignoring the extensive comments in history, where the changes were justified. It seems Jayjg is far more interested in stonewalling the other editors, than discussing changes and improvements that the article is in dire need of. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment from PalestineRemembered was precisely on-topic, but removed by Jayjg. - and there you have it. A comment by PR referring to a 2 1/2 year old discussion which nowhere mentions Shahak is somehow now "precisely on-topic". As for the material I restored, I explained in a number of different areas on the Talk: page why I disagreed with the various edits. And yes, the removal of Cohn because he was somehow "self-published" in Israel Horizons, a magazine with which he has no apparent affiliation, was one of the more ridiculous of those edits that I reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think editors imagined that anything that was worth writing and true 2.5 years ago is still true and valid and useful - and some were startled to discover that messages were being deleted and important information was being concealed from him.

Of course, if the rules have changed since you explained the exact meaning of "Original Research" back then, then it's most fortunate we have you to explain the new system to us. PR^talk 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayg seems to have completely missed PalestineRemembered's quote, "The debate is about whether the disputed edit constitutes "analyzing and arguing with," as some here assert and assume but do not demonstrate; or whether it constitutes "summarizing and paraphrasing," as others here have demonstrated exhaustively" - no, it's not about Shahak, but it's quote precisely on topic for the question of WP:NOR - but Jayjg simply deleted it out of hand. PR didn't try to bring up the Finklestein debate - he simply used it as a reference on the question of interpretation of WP:NOR guidelines. I fail to see how that's completely off topic. I can, however, see how it might threaten Jayjg's position and he'd want to delete it, and hope nobody calls him on it. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you really think that a 2 1/2 year old debate, about an entirely different topic, using entirely different sources, will actually be able to shed light on the discussion here? Or rather, is it another example of an attempt to re-hash an old debate, one which in no way can have an impact on the current issue? The latter, of course, which is why I removed it, as opposed to your insulting assertion that it might "threaten Jayjg's position". The only thing it "threatened" was wasting everyone's time with irrelevant material; no fear, however, you've ensured it has done that anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the 2.5 year old discussion was highly relevant to the removal of "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim, and Shahak did not deign to respond". That's why I brought it up. I'm sorry that you're ashamed of what you were saying 2.5 years ago on the subject of OR, but my bringing it up short-circuited the wiki-lawyering that has been so prevalent at this article. It was valuable to other editors, as indeed were each of my other messages (listed below). Do you have an objection to writing articles to policy? PR^talk 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The whole WP:SELFPUB argument is moot, by the way - the discussion had gone on to WP:WEIGHT - I questioned whether or not such an amateurishly written review, in an obscure little magazine, really has a place in Shahak's article. But Jayjg completely ignored the development of the discussion and arbitrarily reverted the change (and all others). I think this is quite telling that he's edit-warring and not trying to discuss points of contention to reach a consensus. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole "SELFPUB" argument was only "moot" because you were called on it. The only "telling" thing was that when your original rationale for removing the material was utterly refuted, you then moved the goalposts, and suddenly declared that the real issue was "WEIGHT". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, while I don't think it was a good idea for Jayjg to delete this comment, (i.e. the first diff given by GrizzledOldMan above; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments), I note that he's called it "soapboxing". At the moment I don't know enough about the discussion to know whether it was soapboxing or not. If it was on-topic for that article talk page, it must have had some connection to article content. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what suggested change to the article that comment was connected with, and how, or give me a diff of a comment that explains that. You might want to use the article talk page or my talk page to avoid taking up too much space on this noticeboard.

I've added the article to my watchlist but am not sure whether I'll have time to get involved in editing it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how I can respond without again being accused of SOAP-BOXING. Even this ANI is now being interfered with! PR^talk 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All honour to Jayjg for trying to keep reasonable perspective in this article. I fail to see any reasonable reason why the edit conflict should be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard... -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, deleting other editors' comments in talk, edit-warring against four other editors? You applaud that? Seriously? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first and third clauses there describe your own actions. I note that your edits have been reverted by six editors in whole or in part. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Without advanced tools enabling others to identify all these reverts as being on edits of GOM then your evidence is worthless. What I'm seeing is insistence on including personal abuse of the subject, such as "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident".

One of your reverts concerns the removal of a qualifying statement "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim, and Shahak did not deign to respond", which is exactly comparable to the discussion that sprawled across 15,000 words here on the inclusion or otherwise of accusation of antisemitism levelled "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial.".

Now, I can understand why you don't wish the GOM and other editors to read what you were saying about OR 2.5 years ago, but it is totally and completely wrong of you to interfere with messages that inform him of policy. Not content with interfering with the TalkPage, this ANI, concerning your conduct, has been re-titled to make it appear as a content dispute. PR^talk 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not appropriate for this board. Take. It. Somewhere. Else. Thanks, all. IronDuke 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a content dispute and does not belong here. By the way, the fact that Jay is willing to take on four edit-warring editors at the same time is not a bad thing; it shows his dedication to making sure articles comply with Wikipedia policies. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate for this forum. This is clearly a conflict dispute. bad faith here seems likely.69.242.115.186 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"you then moved the goalposts, and suddenly declared that the real issue was "WEIGHT""? Did you bother to check the discussion thread? I didn't move the goalposts - the discussion had moved on from that. The goalposts didn't move - you didn't read. If it doesn't belong here - then

• 1. Where does it belong - since Jayjg is completely refusing to accept consensus, and simply edit-wars hos POV to death?
• 2. Where does the comment removal issue belong, if not here? If it's pretty clearly against policy to remove comments without VERY good reason - where should that behaviour be discussed? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interference accelerates, even ANI not safe This ANI concerns interference with my messages.
Here were the messages removed, material from me that intimately concern policy (Bogdanor is non-RS and CAMERA is non-RS and Moshe Sharratt quoted by neo-Nazis and 15,000 words on OR and editors defending subversion of WP). All removed as "irrelevant".
Rather than the ANI deal with this blatant interference, the problem has now accelerated to an even more absurd degree - because this ANI, which is entirely about Jayjg innovative style of OWNERSHIP has been re-titled from "Jayjg" to "Israel Shahak article" (by the subject of this complaint in two stages here and here).
I hesitate to offend every administrator in the project, but if you cannot strike down behavior this gross, then what are you doing here, what do you think you're protecting? Does honesty in conduct (and with it, honesty in articles) have any place in the project? PR^talk 09:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think, as I said on the page, that the page is a disgrace, and it needs some administrative attention. That Jayjg's excessive control of it is problematical is neither here nor there. The page has languished because of edit-battles, evidently stands in need of oversight, and Jayjg, though an administrator, is certainly too taken with his own particular dislike of Shahak and his works to exemplify the neutrality of judgement this troubled page requires. So 'Israel Shahak' rather than 'Jayjg' is a reasonable change, even if Jayjg himself is responsible for the alteration.

I see ref to 4 edit-warring opponents of Jayjg, as if he were cornered by mugs and valiantly holds out in defence of NPOV. Name them, by all means, but check the record to document that they edit-war in each case. Secondly, this is not simply a content dispute. Jayjg has, see above, consistently moved the goalposts by repeating that Shahak is not a reliable source on Judaism, when no one is arguing this. He has arrogated to himself the role of judge in a tribunal on the merits or lack of them, of Shahak's book, and thus in saying implicitly that he, as a wiki editor, is an authority on Judaism, and we must take his word for it that Shahak's book gets things nwrong, is 'a non-notable screed' as he puts it.

Jayjg is entitled to his private opinions. Since many scholars, published by University presses, do cite Shahak's interpretation of one fundamentalist vein of Judaism, and since this is not an article about Judaism, but about Shahak and his interpretation of a variety of rabbinical thought, it is totally inappropriate for Jayjg to hold the page to ransom because he does not like Shahak or his book. The only work he does there is to keep in trashing comments by the usual suspects, virulent kibitzers from the partisan activist commentariat. All efforts over two years to try to bring the article up to snuff, as NPOV, have failed before his obstructive behaviour. That is problematical, though I don't know whether this is the appropriate forum for air the issue. It is certainly appropriate to note here that Jayjg should be asked to drop his endless mantra about Shahak and Judaism. Judaism, like Christianity or Islam, is subject to endless interpretations from many angles. There is, unlike Catholicism, no one given interpretation as to what it is, or isn't, and to come to the article with an animus against one scholar with a Popperian approach to part of that tradition, and declare it 'unreliable' is to assert an authority that is arbitrary as it is in violation of what editors are supposed to do, keep their own views from influencing their decisions as to what is relevant or of qualitative value in describing something or someone to NPOV requirements.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but usually threads initiated on AN/I involve some sort of violation of WP policy that can be improved by administrative attention. Just what is the problem, aside from you are not happy with the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a violation of Wiki policy for an administrator to revert references invariably to a scholar and his work on the single grounds that in his personal opinion, that scholar is unreliable, despite the fact that the said scholar and his books are widely acknowledged. Isn't it a violation of some rule to rule the roost, ride shotgun over an article, and for several years show hostility to the subject of that article, and rigorously defend the inclusion into that article of every piece of slanderous garbage editors can find by trawling for scuttlebutt over the internet?

My problem is that I have an academic background, know nothing of the wiki rulebook, use commonsense and the probative intelligence in editing articles required at a university level. And yet I find that this approach is held hostage by endless wikilawyering on key articles by people who wish to trash Israeli or Jewish intellectuals as liars or antisemites simply because they are exercising their democratic right to dissent. I'm sure were I a practiced pettifogger, that I could annotate the gravamen of my objections to the way that page is edited by an extensive recitation of nuanced passages in the wiki lawbook. Fundamentally my objection however is to the despoiling of the reputation of a scholar by innuendo from poor sources that insinuate he was an antisemite simply because, as Allan Brownfeld of the Jewish Council for America wrote that Israel Shahak was rebuked, spat upon and threatened with death for his defense of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. That this trashing abounds in a certain scurrilous world of scaremongering by second-rate minds can be noted in a line or two ()Ecco. Jayjg's refuses to accept that all this crap on the page violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, since it also is gossip that comes from fringe purveyors of sensationalist smears (WP:FRINGE). That it is untrue need not be noted, perhaps, even if the American State Department, Washington think tanks, and organs like the Jewish Council for America would never have extended their hospitality to Shahak had he been, as Werner Cohn, Bogdanor and Rachel Neuwirth assert without a skerrick of proof, an antisemite. But editors like Jayjg should lay off defending undefendable smears on that page. His position there is an attack position. I don't think editors who attack a page should be on them. I dislike Alan Dershowitz, and consider him to be . . . Precisely for this reason, I never edit that page. Call it ethics, even though the extensive wike rulebook has no place for them.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The violations are clearly stated at the top of the thread. Your confusion with this being a content issue is the fault of someone changing the title of the section. The issue which we have been arguing, is Jayjg's behaviour. The connection to the content of article is secondary - sparked by others' attempts to make changes.

Despite Wiki policy against deletion of other users' posts, however, I've yet to see a single administrator criticize the act. If the policy on this has changed recently, please be so kind as to explain it, so that we might at least settle part of the dispute. There's plenty of "soapboxing" posts I could clean up from article chats to help streamline the Wiki project - not to mention simplifying debates where "irrelevant or redundant" comments are posted which I do not feel are worthy of inclusion in the chat. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See [5], which says "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once more, then hopefully I'm done: people who post here with complaints that are purely content disputes (and therefore frivolous for the purposes of this board) run the real risk that future complaints will be ignored. Try an RfC on the article, for starters. But please take it away from here. IronDuke 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is a content dispute. It involves deletion of other people's posts - which seems to be a violation of wiki policy. Also, edit-warring between Jayjg and the rest of the editors - which, unless reversion-warring is acceptable practice - once again quite relevant to this thread.

The issue isn't over the content itself - that can be discussed in article chat, if people don't simply go revert-warring when there's a disagreement. The issue is the behavior of Jayjg - which I was led to believe from my limited understanding of wiki policy, were in violation. If edit warring and deleting other user's comments] are not violations of wiki policy, then please confirm so and we can be done with the thread. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Off topic posts can be removed, however removing a post from an editor you're in dispute with is probably a bad idea. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing comments does not violate policy. It could theoretically violate a guideline, but in this case probably hasn't. Even if it had, this would not be the place to complain about it. Way too minor. As for edit-warring 1) No, it is not relevant to this board. There is a board for it but since 2) You are certainly one of the edit-warrers in question, you would essentially be asking for someone to block you. Is that what you want? IronDuke 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically there's 4 wanting to change the article, and 1 blocking it - so I am 20% of the problem. Since the that's been answered, then it seems I'm done here - any article talk comments I deem to be spurious - poof. Edit-war and just keep it under 3RR. Righto - gotcha - understood. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the entire discussion yet, but just replying to this last comment: you make it sound that when 4 editors edit-war with one, it automatically makes the one editor wrong. This is incorrect, as all five editors are wrong for edit-warring. However, on the one hand we have one editor who has been on Wikipedia for years as an admin, checkuser and arbitrator, while on the other we have several users at least one of whom has a long block history and constantly displays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy; so numbers aren't always the most important. If the edit-warring becomes serious enough, I suggest protecting the article temporarily while the disputes are resolved on the talk page, and ask all editors to post short and on-topic messages, with no soapboxing which is so prevalent in I-P articles. I will post more as the issues becomes more clear to me. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that Jayjg would be accused of going against consensus for disagreeing with four editors who essentially edit as a bloc rather than individuals and likely coordinate with each other off-wiki.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, find myself in disagreement with user Jayjg. Let me say clearly for the record that I have not conversed with any of these editors before today, and certainly not in private. Please consider withdrawing your remark. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the entire discussion yet, but just replying to this last comment: you make it sound that when 4 editors edit-war with one, it automatically makes the one editor wrong

Ynhockey. I haven't checked others, but for myself I haven't edit-warred on that page. Grizzly mentioned this, and it was mentioned further that four edit-warred with Jayjg. Whoever asserts this should check and see who is edit-warring, and get their diffs right.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a very strong presumption against removing talk page comments by generally serious contributors. If anything, one should be more cautious in doing so when the contributor in question is one with whom you have a scholarly or political disagreement. If you think such a comment is irrelevant, it's a lot better to say so than to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment #2: after reviewing the page history more carefully, I can't help but ask why the original ANI poster made this report. This is clearly a content dispute, and not one editor edit-warring against consensus. In fact, it appears that there are several editors on Jayjg's side, and actually less editors on the other 'side'. But all of that doesn't really matter because disputes like this should be solved in talk. I suggest protecting the page temporarily and addressing the immediate issues on talk, removing any soapboxing which seems to appear here and there. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, several things are worth noting in response to your posts:

1. The "several editors on Jayjg's side" (Malcolm Schosha, Brewcrewer) are all resolutely nationalist editors who arrived there today, after this AN/I report was filed.
2. Jay, who regularly claims he has "won" debates he has actually lost, was indeed edit-warring against consensus here.
3. Jay has an established history of seriously harassing the editor whose comments he inappropriately deleted in this case.
4. The Israel Shahak article appears to be a trainwreck of NPOV-violations, with Jay's familiar talk-page games currently preventing its improvement. Jay, moreover, has an established history of using any negative sources he can find for the subject of that article, no matter how badly they fail WP:RS.

That Jay "has been on Wikipedia for years as an admin, checkuser and arbitrator" is a fact worth reflecting on, but it does not alter these other facts listed above.--G-Dett (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all of the above is either misleading or outright incorrect. It's funny that you accuse certain editor of being 'resolutely nationalist', which is a severe bad faith accusation, and also ironic because the editors appear to be from North America talking about a Polish-Israeli, and I don't have to comment on the nationalism and POV tendencies of the opposing editors. Your personal attacks against Jayjg are also out of place, as there is no evidence that he did any of those things, and if there is, feel free to present it here (if relevant). But again, my suggestion is to protect the article and work out the dispute on talk. I don't think there's any point in arguing with me about the editors involved, or even the content, if my suggestion is not addressed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to substantiate any of the facts with which Ynhockey is unfamiliar; interested editors should post to my talk page. I don't want to clog up this page with what is generally known.--G-Dett (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

This is a content dispute that has now spilled onto AN/I. It is not appropriate for this forum and this discussion should be closed and the involved parties should follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartily seconded. IronDuke 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you decide that what's happening on that article is largely an ordinary content dispute rather than systematic disruption, there still remains the issue of Jay inappropriately deleting talk-page posts by another editor. That's an issue even if you don't agree/aren't aware that Jay has a record of seriously harassing the editor in question.--G-Dett (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, even if Jay had done that inappropriately (and I see no evidence that's true), it would be, at worst, a guideline violation -- not for this board. IronDuke 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to report that, then report that. You and nearly everyone else related to this thing have decided that ANI is the appropriate place to debate who did what to whom, despite multiple outside commentators trying to tap you with the cluebat. Due to the complexity of the debate it is extremely difficult to impossible for anyone interested in investigating the propriety of that aspect of Jayjg's behavior to do so.

Anyway, I'm not too interested in having a meta-debate about whether this is appropriate for AN/I. It looks like just about everyone who tried to make heads or tails of this thinks this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion, so if you have further complaints about Jayjg and you want to see something actually done about them, you should either resubmit the report with the content focused on something that is related to the legitimate purpose of AN/I or take it somewhere else. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I want to report that, I should report that? Good G-d, Ryan. Here's a little gentle tap of the cluebat: the first sentence of this AN/I report was "Issue: 1. Deletion of other user's posts." Partisans jumped in with impressive alacrity to obfuscate this, a move you summed up as follows: "just about everyone who tried to make heads or tails of this thinks this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion." With you at least, they succeeded.--G-Dett (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can decide if you want to make it easy or hard on the people who might want to help you resolve this. If you make it hard, you will always have your story about how unfairly you are being treated and how unreasonable everyone else is, but you won't get the result you want. That's all I have to say about it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts.--G-Dett (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask, since so many people are saying ANI isn't the place for it:

• 1. Where user post deletions should be discussed?
• 2. Continuing edit-war using whatever means - what _IS_ the place for it, then? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported & discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Let me repeat what IronDuke wrote above - as you are certainly one of the edit-warriors in question, you would essentially be asking for someone to block you. Is that what you want? NoCal100 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1. When you refer to "user post deletions", do you mean these pointy ones?[6] [7] [8]
• 2. When you refer to "Continuing edit-war using whatever means", are you referring to yours and Dynablaster's reflexive reverting of any edit I make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the admins believe my actions are deserving of a block, then I'd accept that. I did not contest that. So long as the blocks are handed out impartially and in proportion to the number and gravity of the violations - then yes. I'm fine with that.

If I posted in the wrong forum, then I extend my apologies to all involved. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue #3, The ultimate layering. As pointed out earlier, the original post was entitled with a user name and one specific talkpage deletion, which he had made. It originally also included a edit warring charge against consensus of other editors, which could be content specific. But, then things really changed[;] when that the same user changed the TITLE of this section, and thus its Framing (social sciences), of the issues for discussion[. As noted by another user[, this appears to have been done] in two stages here and here. This is the worst appears a much worse kind of violation on top of the initial ‘incident’ and [seems] a significant one. The fact that the user is also an admin and that this specific action is was not fully discussed [since it occurred before 'motion to close'] is amazing; absolutely amazing. Does this [or any] user/admin get earn some kind of Teflon shield [with which] to deflect his specific actions of to an article where it originally developed? [T]his [seems an] absolute violation of the intent of AN/I. This is subterfuge getting a free pass, despicable quite appalling, [and with] no [a seemingly limited understanding of] ethics, as noted above by others. Hot Not as cool as when I started. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider refactoring your post and removing some (perhaps even all) of the incivility? It would be appreciated. IronDuke 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was willing, and did re-factor the comment, as anyone may see. I note however, that this effort apparently had little positive effect concerning discussion of the removal/editing of talk-comments on AN/I, particularly changing the TITLE. But, I note that as long as I continue to question the 'motion to close', the sweep it under the carpet archiving BOT is ineffectual. If the above-stated 'incident', which I am pursuing is not of import as an 'incident', then tell me so in unambiguous terms with a reasoned wiki-why, and I will sheath my sharpened pen and return to productive editing. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, CO48, it is much appreciated. To answer your question (which I think I may already have done above), the issues of changing the title and removal of comments, and the merits thereof, would not usually be handled here: neither was a violation of policy -- and indeed, there were strong arguments for both. You might try Wikiquette, that's probably closest for this sort of minor kerfuffle, though I suspect you will find no catharsis there. IronDuke 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation

This is newly repeated tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation (here).

Dicklyon recently nominated Feminine essence theory of transsexuality for deletion, a nomination which was defeated nearly unanimously [9]. He immediately followed-up by filing an RfC [10], which also failed to provide support for his POV about the page. Apparently displeased with these outcomes, Dicklyon multi-tagged the page [11], with the edit summary “a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article.” Those apparently being insufficient, he added more: [12][13].

To fast forward a bit, the mediator has referred to the issues about the page as "water under the bridge" (here). Now apparently displeased with that, Dicklyon added to the page another dozen or so dubious-tags, who-tags, and cn-tags (here). (He has inserted more tags than the page has sentences.)

I am posting this at ANI instead of the at the vandalism noticeboard because, in my opinion, tag-abusing a page for which one is already in mediation and for which one has been forum-shopping for opposition is a very different issue from regular vandalism. Dicklyon has a substantial history of blocks [14] and topic banning [15].

Although Dicklyon has every right to disagree with the page and to accuse me of any of many things (and he does), this is not how to participate in dispute resolution.

I have notified our mediator here, and I am making this ANI post because it's not quite appropriate (to my mind) for the mediator to perform anti-vandalism and other admin actions for the same case. Finally, because I am also in the mediation, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to revert the page on my own.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I reverted it as blatant tag-abuse. LOL^thulu 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline someone could point me to that defines tag abuse? I ask because of a totally unrelated article, but it may help in could be looked at. Thanks ;) — Ched (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's described at [[WP::Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism]] — James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)

In this case Ched, wp:POINT is exactly what Dicklyon is broadly guilty of. Look at #10 under the 'Gaming the system' for a more specific clause. There may be more guidelines we could cite, but Dicklyon himself said "a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article." Because of the repetitive nature of this issue, WP:STICK also applies. NJGW (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon just reverted the vandalism right back onto the page [16].

Thanks anyway, LOLuthan. Dicklyon used the edit summary "That was a complete revert and gave no idea which aspects of my calls for discussion of dubious claims were considered inappropropriate." Personally, I think that's just doing what WP:civility calls "playing dumb" and "Taunting or baiting" to pull you into a dispute with him. I think an admin's look is necessary. (The mediation broke down, by the way.)

— James Cantor (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet again. [17]
His edit summary this time: "Reverted 1 edit by NJGW; These tags are not pointy; they are serious; please address on the talk page".
— James Cantor (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's now at 3rr. I mentioned that on his talk page, and started a talk page section to discuss how to continue. NJGW (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Cantor had mentioned this on my talk page; I missed that before, as another item came in after it. My point with the tags was to more specifically point out the assertions that are dubious, in the sense of being made up as opposed to being supported by the sources that Cantor cited. This can also be addressed in mediation, assuming that resumes, but to help the issue along I felt it appropriate to indicate those specific aspects of the language that are dubious, or, in actuality, quite absurd and unsupportable. If there's a better way to do this, someone please let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Feminine essence theory of transsexuality#Dubious I've add three subsections on the first three dubious tags; I want it to be clear that each tag had a serious intent, and that I was not intending this a pointy tag abuse; but I can see why it might have been taken that way by some not familiar with what James Cantor has done with this article. I invite your comments on the talk page. James has also not approved moving forward with the new mediator, after he gave the old one a vote of no confidence, so it's not clear how he thinks this is going to get resolved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid user:Dicklyon has added another seven tags to the page again. [18] Although he added seven tags, his edit summary is "first three dubious tags, corresponding to the discussion sections that are open on the talk page," bringing his current total number of tags on the page to 12. In addition to the vandalism itself, I don't know if that counts as an official "fourth revert" (being 28 hours from his first revert), but to me personally, this smells like a violation of the spirit.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick made 2 edits in the past 24 hours, only one of which is a revert. He is also discussing this on the talk page. This is a content dispute, not a 3rr issue/Incident. NJGW (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't regard adding so many tags, some to already "fact" tagged sentences, as disruptive? It may not break the letter of any rules, but is certainly against fostering a collaborative spirit. The first time may have been good faith, but repeated additions are unecessary/pointy - the points should be discussed one at a time. For a typical editr this would be no big deal, but during a formal mediation it indicates a lack of self-control. (Although i'm not sure why fact tagged sentences are allowed to remain if any editor disputes the sentence, but that is another matter).Yobmod (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat/report from blocked user

Resolved

 – WP:RBI. –xeno (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to be totally without merit, but since the consensus here seems to be that we forward meritless threats and reports to the authorities, I'm posting this report of a suicide attempt made after an unblock request was denied. It is likely someone reading this thread will be willing to contact a checkuser and get a hold of local law enforcement to make sure he hasn't actually killed himself. But I'm not going to. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems ignorable to me. John Reaves 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same user who posted these unblock requests:[19][20]. —Snigbrook 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just do it. If it is serious then you've done a good thing. If it isn't - then the local law enforcement will have strong words with them about wasting their time. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And if worse comes to worse, he'll cease to be an issue. It's a win-win situation. HalfShadow 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a disgusting comment. DuncanHill (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't refute the logic though :) --WebHamster 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is banned User:Hamish Ross. Just ignore. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, that's the point. I have at most 0 interest in doing it. Hell, I probably have a strong disinterest in doing it. If you are interested in doing it, you may. That's why I posted it here. I didn't, in fact, post it here so that someone else could tell me to do it. If I had, I would have said "Here is thing XYZ that I am on the fence about, please tell me whether or not to do thing XYZ." If you feel it is important, you can contact a checkuser and convince them to locate the IP, you can find the number for the police in that area and tell them the IP address, time, and originating ISP. My philosophy on this stuff is simple: the internet is not your friend and the internet is not your mom. If there is some serious, credible threat (suicide or TOV), then I don't have a problem forwarding the information. If it is anything less than serious and credible, I can't be bothered and I feel strongly that others should avoid panic as well. However, I have seen that past discussions on this noticeboard and AN usually result in the rough consensus (misguided in my view, but w/e) that the correct answer is to post the threat here before removing it. That means that my first instinct--roll back the edit and protect the page--could have caused displeasure among those who see any threat as sufficient cause for action. Rather than engage in that debate post hoc, where I would have to endure moralizing hypotheticals and bizarre statements about culpability, I just posted it here. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Suicide notes wrapped in <big><big> tags hardly seem credible. I don't think anyone would've faulted you for runs batted in here. –xeno (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Incivility: ThuranX

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite having this block log, with a recent block for incivility just last month, it seems there's still a problem. Administrators need to step in.

First he suggests that some editors at Obama are mentally unstable ("Can't these people just stay on their pills?"), then he specifically attacks someone as "illiterate", then his edit summary quite clearly specifies that he was trying to be insulting [21], then refers to another specific editor as "an asshole" in an edit summary [22], then goes to that editor's talk page and leaves this message "DO NOT FUCK WITH OTHERS COMMENTS WITHOUT GOOD FUCKING REASON.", then blames someone else for his incivility in his edit summary "nonsense. if one hadn't done what the other accused me of doing, none of this would've happened.", and then finally, makes assumptions of bad faith that filing a Wikiquette alert are "intimidation tactics". Then specifically referring to someone as a "coward" isn't civil either.

Something more needs to be done, because WQA cannot do enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked prior to this thread. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh...resolved then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: Given the past block log of this user, IMHO it would be prudent to make note of this instance, and in the event of continued violations of this type, refer this up the line to the RFC -> ARB levels. Edit Centric (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing for the other involved editor who likes to say Obama is not a legal president, and sparked off the behavior? Oh wait, that's content. My bad. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are better ways of handling those characters. Don't get mad. Get even. Follow the example of Hedy Lamarr in Blazing Saddles: "Maybe there's a legal president... Haley vs. United States... Haley 7, United States nothing." You see, it can be done! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know ... that's what I preach over in WQA LOL. Provocation can be just as bad as retaliation, but we (just like in basketball) punish the retaliatory action first. Sure, maybe ThuranX suffers from "short fuse syndrome", and takes very little provocation. But is passion a bad thing? When what might be an SPA continues to insist that Obama is not a legal president, and is harming an encyclopedic entry, and someone is trying to fix it (and becomes exasperated)...is there no second look at the provocateur? People have been insisting that George W. was not a legal president (at least his first term) - how was that dealt with that then, or were we even around? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That kind of thing is why I have kind of backed off from the Obama pages. But the conspiracy theorists can be handled civilly. Speak softly and carry a big block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You helped make my point. From what I can see, we blocked the retaliation, and left the provocation untouched. You rock! LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins asked if passion was a bad thing. I would humbly submit that passion unbridled has the potential to be that. OTOH, passion that's tempered with tact and civility is much more palatable when attempting to accomplish anything in-Wiki. Edit Centric (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I could not agree more. As noted, this is what I preach in WQA. I'm looking more at what action are we taking with the provocation? If none, then that's rather uneven. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda agree with this block, i sent some friendly advice to Thuran's talk page, hopefully he'll read it this time. Elbutler (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he'll be happy with that unwanted lecture. He's well aware he's crossed the line, which is why he hasn't contested his block. Striking, as apparently he was just asleep.--Atlan (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats too bad, Thuran needs to learn this lesson before he gets forcibly shown the door. His outburts tend to be disruptive and unhelpful in collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. ThuranX know that gross incivility will not be tolerated. If I do see a WQA on ThuranX, I'd like it to be nothing more than frivolous. If it's valid, then he'll be greeted with nothing but the response that he should've expected - as was the case here. This project cannot function on bare content alone; it requires, at the very least, a minimum standard of civility and conduct too. He needs to display that standard if he truly wants to better this project. My impatience with problem editors is notorious, but it doesn't mean I engage in such rhetoric - the same goes for many others. If there was provocation in the sense that it violated one of our policies or at least one of our guidelines, diffs would certainly be helpful. Otherwise, this is done and dusted, and he (or someone else) will have to rid the problem editors like everyone else - using our dispute resolution mechanisms, admin noticeboards, and any other available remedies (like Obama probation). NOT through incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but this is the response to the unblock template and my advice, it's swear central. Maybe Thuran will never change, i think we need to make it so Thuran so can't edit his talk page. Elbutler (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity; until he can control his anger and civility, he may need to stay blocked. I would go so far as saying he needs a mentor before he can return to editing. If, after this much time, ThuranX is incapable of ridding a problem editor without resorting to incivility, then I'm not sure why he's here. I'm living proof that you can rid problem editors without resorting to incivility, but he'll never accept that. He'll refuse to use what everyone else, inc. myself, has to use; article RFCs, RFC/U's, admin noticeboards, and even the new arbcom (that pledged to handle problem editors). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. While he has legitimate points, his gross incivility and personal attacks is causing a severe rift in the project, and extended blocks -- if this continues, will be in order. seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What content in the Obama article needs correcting, if any, at the moment? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I am the editor to whom Thuranx is refering, It seems that most everyone has taken what he has said about me at face value. I keep being unfairly refered to as a problem editor on this thread, yet I challenge anyone to show proof that Thuranx is correct in his misrepresentation of my editing. None of what he has said about me is true. I only now come forward to defend myself because one editor feels I need to be blocked as well. I chose not to challenge the statement here [23]. It was my choice not to comment on his accusations at that time, but it seems now that I am being villified now, based solely on that ealier accusation. Thank you for your time a patience, I just wanted to help set the record straight.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we do have the problem of blocking the person who flares up rather than the person who quietly provokes the issue, but this isn't really the best test case. Right or wrong, Thuran needs to remove the vitriol. The right answer to someone pushing the laughable (and it is laughable) notion that Obama is some secret muslin/Kenyan/whatever is to dismiss it out of hand, over and over again. Not get angry, not point fingers or call names (although both of those will feel good, temporarily), but do just say "None of those theories are remotely credible and wikipedia should cover them only insofar as reputable news sources do and only in proportion to their significance in a biography of a president. But Thuran was over the line and he knew it--being "right" is no defense. Protonk (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok now, which one of you has suggested that Jojhutton be blocked? I know that my point has been that we overall continue "punishment" of any retaliator, with little repercussion for a provocateur. I have acknowledged that provocation is not an excuse for action, but it is a reason for it, and therefore often needs further investigation. Using terms like "villified" and "defending myself" are more WP:DRAMA than anything, as there have been no warnings or even threats of blocks by anyone on this forum...although it starts to sound like "methinks thou do'est protest too much" (aka "Plaxico Syndrome"). A concern was raised, the matter dealt with, the discussion has moved on to overall policy - no need to plead here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.. I must have been mistaken when you said, on at least four occasions, that the provocation was not punished. I interpreted that as a block for me, but it seems that I was mistaken. Yet you did comment that you think that I was pushing that Obama was not president [24] and that I was harming the encyclopedia in some way. It seems that you may have read this [25], and took at face value, without determining if it was true or not.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arrgh! I never said that you were the one pushing the statement about Obama. I was speaking generally about whoever pushed ThuranX to a point where he struck out with vitriol at the closest and/or most recent target. I do think it's time I look back at exactly why he chose you now. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Some things won't change. He needs a mentor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor redux

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor Special:Contributions/Stunt_Airman_Amaha is to a near certainty Manhattan Samurai and is being a little more disruptive than his more recent socks (starting AfDs, making lots of edits that are difficult to assess from a utility/vandalism standpoint). However, given his stated intent to fill the encyclopedia with fiction, best to head him off at the pass. This edit [[26]] was the clincher (he nominates for deletion a comprehensive list he wrote but is now angry that he can no longer own).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew MS was lying when he said he wanted forgivness, i think we've found another Bambifan101. Elbutler (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Occcws

Resolved

 – Warned.

Subject user has a clear grudge against the Orange County, California Sheriff's Department and its sheriff. He/she has vandalized Orange County Sheriff's Department (California) and Sandra Hutchens and violated WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP on both. These are his/her only contributions. Requesting block or ban. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? I'd advise that you take it to AIV. I don't see this as something which needs the attention of the ANI community as a whole.Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Welllll.....user has been warned, I see, so I would let this one sit for a while. If Occcws comes back and starts the same shenanigans, then I'd post to AIV. (May I mark this one resolved?)Edit Centric (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please leave more verbose warnings to explain what policies are being violated and why. Templating for simple vandalism is one thing, but this case requires notifying them of WP:BATTLE and other policies. I have left a more detailed explanation now. Next time please do so yourselves... Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Tom Lennox

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48h, hopefully the user will think about future conduct as some edits are good. Black Kite 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Tom Lennox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ... as you can see from his talkpage and contributions, he is becoming increasingly disruptive. He referred to someone as an "asshole" in an edit summary, and has continued to act in a similar manner since being warned. Users have provided policy to no avail. Your action/assistance is appreciated. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: this was originally a WP:WQA incident yesterday. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as he is now activly vandalising Wikipedia by blanking pages and not jsut being incivil I think we can block him. For the convinience of anyone who doesn't want to dig through his contribs, here is an edit sumary in which he labelled someone an idiot.--Patton^t/c 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever is insisting that the Silence of the Lambs is a "horror" film is a bit ridiculous, but that is no excuse for the incivility in his reverts. It does make the decision-making easier when the incivility is so blatant, at least. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a "horror" film... Garycompugeek (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You do a lot of editing on Circumcision ... now that would be a horror film...a real hack and slash. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronic problems with overzealous reverts, BITEing

Moved to WP:WQA#Chronic problems with overzealous reverts, BITEing. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced genre on Within Temptation

Resolved

 – discussion to continue on article talk

Please feel free to move this elsewhere/ask me to if it's in the wrong place. I've never been clear on where to actually go with cases like this. It isn't actually breaking 3RR, but I don't want to end up breaking it myself.

1st: [27]

2nd: [28]

3rd: [29]

4th: [30]

User:Ada Kataki continues to remove the "gothic rock" genre from Within Temptation, despite it being sourced. The source in question is allmusic. The user has been told that allmusic is a reliable source, and that if he disputes this he should take it to the noticeboard. The user refuses to accept this and continues to revert. I don't want to get into an edit war over it, but I don't see that there's any need for discussion either: Allmusic -is- a reliable source, that's all there is to it. Note that he doesn't remove allmusic full stop: he only removes it where he doesn't agree with it (see diffs).

Is anyone willing to help in stopping these reverts? Prophaniti (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory look around various archives, it appears Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source, but when it comes to genres it's generally preferred that it's not the only reliable source. This discussion should really be taking place on the talk page. I suggest you invite Ada to discuss the issue on the talk page and try and find another reliable source listing "Gothic Rock" as a genre - if you can then I can see no reason it can't go back into the infobox. About the only thing administrators can do here is lock the page to stop a potential edit war or issue brief blocks for 3RR violations if applicable - they have limited ability to deal with content disputes. If you have no luck, try dispute resolution. Exxolon (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Exxolon. The problem is, I don't see any need for discussion in the first place: Allmusic is considered one of the most reliable sources there is. The only circumstance I could think of where it shouldn't be used is if it's outweighed massively by other sources. In this case it isn't. I doubt discussion would go anywhere, given the user's hostile manner, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Prophaniti (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on the Music Wikiproject asking for assistance (and I've notified Ada explicitly they are being discussed here) - if you get no joy, try mediation or an RFC. Exxolon (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is all music, a web-based, non-genre-specific music data bank, co-operating with the music industry. It's definitely not a reliable source for genre definitions. Reliable sources are genre-specific publications such as books. Books about Gothic rock. Within Temptation (and also Lacuna Coil) is a METAL band. They've nothing to do with the basically style elements of Gothic rock. Gothic is a POST-PUNK genre and definitely not an outgrowth of METAL music. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take any further discussion to the talkpage - if you cannot reach agreement, use the WP:DISPUTE processes. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Jienum

Moved discussion to WP:NORN#user:Jienum. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Future albums/singles/movie sequels

Moved discussion to WP:SPI#Future albums/singles/movie sequels. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem

Moved discussion to WP:AN/EW#Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem (proposed result: SeP?). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppetry, multiple voting at AFDs - Gmatsuda

Moved discussion to WP:SPI#Apparent sockpuppetry, multiple voting at AFDs - Gmatsuda. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, MZMcBride, I appreciate the effort you're putting into moving all these threads to more appropriate specialized fora. I think it's making this board a lot easier to digest. So, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mehran Mangrio

Mehran Mangrio (talk · contribs · logs)

This editor has been inactive recently, but created a bunch of images with copyright problems, created questionable articles, restored them multiple times, etc. What should be done? Could an admin (or a few admins) go through his contributions to look for problematic edits/uploads? Thanks very much in advance, Enigma^msg 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have nominated most/all of his images for deletion previously. A few may remain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (2nd nomination)

We got some major problems over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (2nd nomination) and would like some admins to look in on this. We first have what it seems to be a bad-faith nomination followed by a flood of disruptive SPAs and meatpuppetry at the least (I am not sure about socking, as the IPs are in separate locations after looking at their WHOIS information). We also have said users trying to improperly tag the article for speedy (see [31], [32], [33] as well as make inappropriate closures on the AFD itself [34] and [35] and [36], in which Ofew19 (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for doing both. MuZemike 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Help please?

Hope I'm doing this right. My friend said this was the place to go with Wiki problems. To put it simply, someone named Collectonian is undoing my edits. He/She has accused me of being a sock. I'm not sure what that means, but he says I'm blocked, and he's undone edits I've put a lot of work into. I feel like I'm being attacked, and I don't know what to do. He's also posting mean stuff on my talk and user page. I politely asked him not to just undo my edits and create a discussion or post on my talk page if he has a problem, but he won't. Is there something I should do or can someone handle it? I'm still a bit unfamiliar with the policies here. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's an example of an edit he/she reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Higurashi_no_Naku_Koro_ni_characters&diff=269942224&oldid=269942148

UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239... Can you say "shameless"? Erigu (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And now Collectonian has reverted every single edit I've made! Someone please do something! This can't be okay... UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another sockpuppet of User:Fragments of Jade who was here just the other day as User:+20 EXP attacking Luna and making the same proclamations . Has already been reported for AI/V to have this one blocked and a checkuser requested for an underlying IP block. Faster attention would be great to get this guy blocked (yet again). And yes, per the banned editor policy, all of his edits (none of which were actual useful anyway) have been reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Was she (as she's female, for the record) actually banned though? Blocked over and over again, yes, but banned? I'd say she should be, but...? Erigu (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In the last SI, it was noted that the main Fragments of Jade is considered banned as no admin would ever unblock do to their history. Not sure if that was considered calling community banned, but certainly all socks are being blocked on site which I believe alls under the banned editor policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true! I don't know what you're talking about! How can you just attack someone this way? And my edits were not useless! I corrected plot and grammer errors, added lots of character info for characters that had none, and was even trying to create a page of the characters of a game whose article was getting cluttered because there were to many profiles on the page! You're just being mean! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you attempted to create a character list in an attempt to get your way over your dislike of there being spoilers in the Umineko no Naku Koro ni, per your own repeated arguments that spoilers should be limited to a non-existant character list, and you added excessive details on minor characters in another list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true! I was trying to create a character list because there are over thirty character profiles on the main article for the game, and that's too many! Higurashi has it's own page, so I thought it was about time Umineko got one too! And the details I added were for the main characters of the manga arc, who had essentially no descriptions at all, in comparison to all the other main characters. I also fixed grammer and punctuation mistakes, removed plot errors, and so on. Please stop lying about me! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like someone just recently turned immediately to calling people liars as soon as they were found out. I can't recall who it was, but I'll bet if I could, it would be worth...oh, probably twenty experience points. Dayewalker (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a lie! What else can I say? You are all ganging up on me with accusations I don't even completely understand! My edits are being reverted, people are being rude to me, and I've done nothing but try to improve the articles here... UnitedRhapsody (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

UR, then stop calling people "liars" and posting frivolous AIV reports, and just sit tight until an admin takes a look at this. If it's as you say it is, it'll all be cleared up shortly. In fact now that I think of it, it'll be cleared up soon regardless. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Note: he's also now attempting to file retaliation reports at AI/V against me[37]. Admin warned him, and he put it back.[38] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And put it back again[39]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a right to defend myself! And there's nothing frivolous about it! Revering another person's edits just because you don't like that person has to be vandalism! And I can't just "sit tight". I'm being attacked left and right, while you guys are going around undoing edits I put a lot of work into! Why did you do that, instead of just sitting tight and waiting like you just told me to? You're making accusations, and before anyone has confirmed them as true or false, you're already reverting perfectly good edits, saying things that aren't true, and just being generally mean! UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My rabbit ears sense yet another "Plaxico" in the making. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, did he shoot himself in the crotch? Dayewalker (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, +20 did, the other day, and if UR turns out to be a sock, he will have done likewise. Two Plaxicos for the same guy in one week might be a new record. However, it could all be an innocent misunderstanding that we'll all be laughing about together someday as we sip our Kool-Aid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WhenTheyCry, IceQueenAvril, 76.120.153.223, MiyakoKajiro and Lamiroir were all blocked in less than five days, so she has yet to break her own record, actually. Erigu (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about merely getting blocked, although 5 socks blocked in 5 days is fairly impressive. I'm talking about the situation of coming here with a complaint and ending up as the one who gets indef-blocked. That's the "Plaxico" metaphor - bringing a gun to defend oneself, and ending up being one's own victim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what 20XP also did? It's like FoJ is writing a book on how to sock obviously. Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The funny part is how perplexed they appear to be that they get found out so easily. The many socks of User:Pioneercourthouse are one example. The sad part is how much time they end up wasting, as every minute spent dealing with them is a minute not spent doing something productive. Which I'm sure they take great glee in doing, as it's basically a game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I think she's being dead serious about this. Which makes the fact she doesn't realize how transparent the whole affair is even more perplexing (and she did get blocked after posting on AN several times last year, actually... how should we tell her that it's not working?). Erigu (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of games... Yahtzee! [40] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you tell the user that it's not working? I don't know. How many examples will it take? It reminds me of the stubborn mule that was really smart but you had to whack it over the head with a 2 x 4 to get its attention first. How many 2 x 4's will it take with this user, or with Pioneercourthouse, etc.? Beats me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And now, we're back to the good old "unblock requests" part of the cycle... Yeah, that should work, too. It usually does! Erigu (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just 4 minutes after the block, the user posts an unblock request, protesting innocence. I say it's a game. It's a trolling game of a particular type. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Always strange how a new user with no concept of sockpuppetry picks up on filing an unblock request in a heartbeat, isn't it? Of course having said that, I'm sure the next iteration of socks will file incorrectly, and pretend they don't know. Dayewalker (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this time around, we had the added flavor of "my friend told me", "according to my friend", etc, just in case somebody accused her again of being too familiar with Wikipedia for a "new" user.[41][42] She's trying. Not even close to succeeding, but trying. Erigu (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request declined, user disabled from editing talk page. Game over. Until the next time. Yeh, those mysterious "friends" often come to the aid of socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Trusilver is now looking into this case, so things should be moving right along. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, there is sufficient reason to believe that UnitedRhapsody is a sock. His/her knowledge of Wikipedia procedures alone is fairly compelling. But the editing patterns and history are also a little bit too close to just laugh it up to coincidence. Trusilver 06:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing funny about bullying new users. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And he's blocked, thanks to Luna. Bon voyage, sock. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Likely another sock, from a CU perspective, behavioral cues pretty much seal the deal. I've gone ahead and blocked, unless anyone has any objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember Fragments of Jade's first sock like it was yesterday *wipes away a single tear*. They arrived on the scene and their second or third post was "I have read the entire thing with you guys and FoJ, and you sure were not fair", and went on to lecture everyone, including those of us who tried to help. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then again, like I explained there, even Fragments of Jade was just her latest sock at that point... It's "funny" to see how things were exactly the same two years ago. She even accused an admin of photoshopping evidence, back then.[43] Erigu (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no accounting for the persistence of vandals playing this trolling game. One of the most persistent was at Rick Reilly, where it went on for like 4 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose a checkuser could help block the underlying IP(s)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread at WP:AN shortly after the 20 EXP sock incident proposing a community ban on FOJ. It's there's quacking, there's going to be reverting, at least in my view. MuZemike 15:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The community ban wouldn't need to explicitly be on socks; all socks should be treated as that of the one banned user anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Mihai cartoaje at Peter Breggin

A long-standing situation needs to stop. I have had little to do with this article, but I have noticed a pattern usually seen when COI editors or subjects edit their own articles without understanding our rules very well. I don't think this user (MC) actually is Peter Breggin, but the editor is acting like an ill-behaved meatpuppet. Here are some relevant links:

• Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Article: Peter Breggin

• A section to start with: Talk:Peter_Breggin#Text_deletion_by_User:Mihai_cartoaje

MC is misusing BLP to delete whole paragraphs of properly sourced material for various reasons. Edit warring and possible 3RR violations are the order of the day. One of MC's most absurd arguments for deleting well-sourced negative material is because some of them are "opinion". Well, that's what we do here, we document opinions and facts using V & RS. Deletionism and removal of all negative material is destructive, and the editors who are doing the editing need help and more eyes on the situation. A large cluestick needs to be wielded, followed by short blocks (2-3 weeks), topic bans, and then banning if necessary. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to add that Mihai cartoaje uses completely inappropriate arguments when interpreting sources, as documented on the talkpage and in the edit history of the Breggin article ("they don't believe what they say",[44] "he was paid by Lilly to find this, otherwise nobody would ever have seen it",[45] etc). --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This spat is about a remark made in an article in Forbes which states that Breggin supported children having sexual relations, and that he later changed his position. Breggin himself (as User:Peter Breggin) complained that the Forbes article is misleading on other points. So, this is fairly controversial. If the article on Sarah Palin said something like that, you'd have an army of editors trying to remove the statement as coming from an unreliable source or other WP:BLP reasons. I've edited that statement on Breggin's page to give proper attribution. I have to say that User:Crusio, probably due to his professional bias, attempts to lampoon Breggin a bit too much on Wikipedia. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The long discussion is about this: [46]. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write all that you're attribting to me. Stop twisting facts. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) On the Peter Breggin article there are users whose only activities at that article are to denigrate him. Since there aren't enough neutral editors willing to spend time keeping out BLP violatins, the article is regularly turned into an attack page with BLP violations. Even the bio subject has complained about it. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osli73

From my talk page:

What's up? Can you stop Osli73 from using IPsocks: User:79.102.103.78 & User:212.73.169.196, or if you could tell me how to start official request or smth? thanks! Historičar (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I seems to me Osli73 you have been a naughty boy. Both these IP addresses are ones that you could use indeed the history of 212.73.169.196 shows that you have used this IP address in the past to edit the Bosnian mujahideen article.

Because of edit warring over Bosnian mujahideen Osli73 is restricted to one revert a week to the Bosnian mujahideen article (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#December 2008 - February 2009) and because he spent several months editing that article with just IP addresses the article is protected from editing by new and IP addresses.

This is not the first time that Osli73 has been in this sort of situation. I think it is time that Osli73 is either blocked from editing Wikipedia for a time or under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions he is banned from editing any articles concerning the Balkans for a time. However I would like to hear what other administrators think and give Osli73 a chance to speak in his own defence. --PBS (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a duck quacking. We could get a CU to confirm, perhaps.

It looks like he's violated the 1 revert per week in any case.

Is there a reason we don't permanently semi-protect the pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR is only a restriction on the Bosnian mujahideen article (i've altered my first post to make this clear) --PBS (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS, thanks for giving me the heads up on this discussion. To all above I would like to make the following statement:

1. I am a little baffled. I realize I (inadvertedly) broke the 1RR limit in the process of editing parts of the article. However, this was not my intention.
2. the basic problem is that since I first wrote the Bosnian mujahideen article in 2007 it has been constantly either deleted or the text replaced by, what I believe to clearly be unsubstantiated, unsourced, (Bosniak) nationalist POV text.
3. I believe I have been very patient in engaging editors in discussions and I have initiated at least one formal mediation process.
4. the problem is that the Bosniak editors are either unwilling to engage in discussions completely or disregard sources.
5. again, I am more than willing to participate in formal mediation processes.
6. even better would be if more outside (ie non-Balkan) editors were willing to engage themselves in editing the article since it now very polarized between myself and a large group of Bosniak editors (who in my opinion are more interested in using Wikipedia articles as a means of promoting their view of the Bosnian wars of the 1990s, creating a heavy POV slant).Osli73 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone pls explain what I am doing wrong here. I am sorry about the recent breaking of the 1RR rule for the Bosnian mujahideen article, I was editing sections at a time, which I believed was withing the bounds, but apparently broke the 1RR rule in the process of doing so. Bastically, I believe I have been very cooperative regarding this article, including extensive discussions on the Talk page and initiating at least one formal mediation process. However, given that the article has been either repeatedly deleted or, as is now the situation, filled with what I believe to be unsubstantiated and clearly POV nationalist

Osli73 is using IPsocks in Bosnian war and Alija Izetbegovic article in order to avoid 3RR, AGAIN! - User:79.102.108.221 Historičar (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osli73 see WP:STUFF "or engaging with two or more accounts in an edit war.", it is not your editing of Bosnian mujahideen but your alleged interlacing of IP addresses with your own user name when editing pages like Alija Izetbegovic. Do you deny that you made this edit? --PBS (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin - OR / misinterpretation of sources by User:Uruk2008

I'm having an insertion of factually inaccurate information / original research and novel synthesis / sterile revert problem with Uruk2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on several articles:

• Nuclear weapon design - Uruk2008 inserted factually incorrect information [47] reverted it back in twice [48] [49]
  • Un-responded-to discussion on article talk page with details of what he's interpreting wrong (novel synthesis / NOR) and misstating from what the reference sources actually say Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#Fourth_generation_weapon_information_-_hypothetical_vs_real
• (same topic on Nuclear weapons) - [50] [51]
• Thermobaric weapon - twice removes a accuracy disclaimer on a claim he inserted [52] [53]
  • Un-responded-to discussion on article talk page with details of the problems in the claim: Talk:Thermobaric_weapon#Extent_of_damage_claim
• 1998 United States embassy bombings - [54] [55]
• All reverts above were after note and then warnings left on user's talk page: User_talk:Uruk2008#I_believe_that_you_mean_well...

See discussion on: Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#Fourth_generation_weapon_information_-_hypothetical_vs_real Talk:Thermobaric_weapon#Extent_of_damage_claim User_talk:Uruk2008#I_believe_that_you_mean_well...

I AGF but he's inserting information which I know and have sourced as being inaccurate. As I am an involved party I would like to request that an un-involved admin take a look at it. It's not quite completely sterile reverting on his part - he finally left some edit comments - but he's not addressing the factual problems in what he's saying. I believe he has made a whole bunch of factually suspect or outright wrong claims in recent edits and something needs to be done.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable spam on user talk page

Resolved

 – Not an issue that requires admin intervention. SoWhy 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following appears on the top of this user talk page. Of course I clicked on new messages whereby I was sent to an off-Wikipedia page. Spam.

You have new messages (last change).

I have not tried removing it nor asking for it to be removed, as an earlier request (on another matter) to the same user got no response. I am hoping that an admin who agrees that this is unacceptable will take action. Thank you. - Hordaland (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You got rickrolled. MER-C 12:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it, thanks. But I still think it's inappropriate here. - Hordaland (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the user has been asked about this message bar before. In fact it looks like he added this bar only a day ago. ^LeaveSleaves 13:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope by now someone has asked this to be removed. The orange bar brings attention to new messages and thus this will be hit a lot by editors who go to this page. I agree it's totally inappropriate, it needs to be removed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like harmless fun to me. How about asking him to remove it, instead of crying foul of it here, without his knowledge?--Atlan (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the removal of the orange bar here. Let see if action is taken, if not someone needs to take action imho, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh well, I was bold and removed it while you were posting that. Meh. //roux   13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people have this banner on their talk/user pages. I've seen some point to practical joke on WP, other times to other WP pages, YouTube, a personal photo, etc. Don't you think you are getting worked up about something incredibly minor?--Tufacave (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:USER is relatively clear about not using simulated MediaWiki messages, for what I think are tolerably obvious reasons. //roux   13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:USER says they are frowned upon, not forbidden...and if there has been consensus either way in the past, it's been to allow them, even if they are incredibly stupid. --Onorem♠Dil 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SMI (the direct link to the section) actually says they should be avoided except for testing purposes; you forgot that bit. They're bloody stupid, they serve no purpose except to annoy, they should be removed on sight. The point of the MW system messages is to provide alerts to users. Faking those messages dilutes the utility of the alerts. //roux   13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't forget that bit. I ignored it, since every discussion that's been had about this has led to the same conclusion. They're stupid, but not forbidden. Speaking of bloody stupid...here's a bunch of time wasted discussing what should be a non-issue. --Onorem♠Dil 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And exactly what kind of administrator intervention is required here? Lectonar (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, to quote ThuranX from a couple of years ago: "i'd say that if they lead to a potentially offensive article, or off-site, then there might be grounds for asking for a more appropriate link and then Admin intervention, ..." (found on page linked by Onorem above), and this one led off-site. I hadn't heard of WP:SMI, and am glad to know about it, thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What a great way to discourage a productive editor who's been here since 2004. Well done, people. yandman 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest at The Big Issue

For a long time now (since well before I edited the article), there has been an editor using several IPs (mostly 212.159.25.129 (talk), also 77.101.244.143 (talk), 79.173.141.42 (talk) and 149.254.224.147 (talk)), to repeatedly insert a "response" from The Big Issue's publications department into the Criticisms section of this article. (See, for example, this most recent instance.) Other users and I have left messages on the talk page explaining why this is not appropriate ("Wikipedia is not TBI's soapbox" and such), and I have left COI notices at the editor's main IP, but the editor has continued (I've switched over to leaving vandalism warnings, and he's on level 4 now). I have actually reported two of the IPs just now because they're active, but for the most part these guys are only active at long intervals (every couple weeks or so), so in the long-term I don't know if temporary AIV blocks will be helpful (although, if it's any consolations, these IPs have been SPAs lately; it doesn't appear that anyone else is using them, so maybe a longer block would be warranted). I'm just wondering if there's anything that can be done about this (other than me reverting over and over again). Thanks, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised they are pissed off - the whole section is based on a single article in a student magazine which looks at homelessness in a single city. Needs a re-write and hopefully we can engage with the publication department of that magazine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten it. Thanks for the comments. For now I'll just sit back and see if the new section appeases them; if they do continue, though, is there any action that can be taken? rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonstop OR from Rktect (talk · contribs) despite 3 1/2 years of editing including a ban and blocks

I am here to ask for help from the community in dealing with this editor, who for 3 1/2 years has constantly posted OR both to articles and to talk pages (which at times he turns into virtual mini-articles. In 2005 he was banned from all articles to do with weights and measures (metrology) and he has been blocked 6 times for breaking the ban, OR, 3RR, etc, the last time being a month's block last September for Disruptive editing: Persistent insertion of original research in articles. This seems to have had no effect on him and he has continually received comments from other editors on his original research and soapboxing on talk pages. Since mid-January I count perhaps 8 editors commenting on his talk pages on his original research User talk:Rktect/archive 5 and User talk:Rktect - most of his past talk pages seem to have vanished.

Rktect considers himself to know a lot about the ANE, the Bible, and hieroglpyics. This may well be the case and perhaps a reason that most of his edits are using his knowledge to create original research. In articles which involve hieroglphics hs often inserts edits based on this knowledge, including his own new translations such as this one of the Merneptah Stele [56] which I note he has also inserted in our article on the Shasu [57] (I see he has recently created Shashu as a stub). His explanation for this is here [58] and the reaction of two other editors here [59].

Recently he also edited Chedorlaomer to claim that the name is Akkadian (see talk here [60] where another editor says it is original research), that the name Pi-hahiroth is Phoenician -- see this version of the article [61] and the discussion on his talk page here [62] and added the claim to Asherah pole and Asherah also - all on the basis his own research.

Some other examples of edits and comments on talk pages are [63], [64] (where he was trying to turn on article about the biblical story of the passage of the Red Sea into something on Red Sea trade -- I think, it's often hard to tell what he is doing).

He disagrees as to what is a primary source also. Eg, he thinks that the Bible is not a primary source, see [65] and [66].

Wading through his edits and talk page comments is, I'm afraid, tedious as he tends to add a lot of his own knowledge and references to it rather than references that directly discuss the article in question. Some of this may look like content dispute at first but I feel that enough other editors see it as original research that it is worth bring here. I've also just found this while looking for his missing talk pages: User:Rktect/Doug Weller. I'll put a notice on Rktect's talk page about this. dougweller (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New university project or keen undergraduates?

See the following new articles: Computer science at strathclyde and Livingstone Tower (where said department is based), and the following users who have contributed: User:Group5cis, User:CSgroup7, User:Cs104group7, and User:Smilers.

The new users and their names and editing topics are suggestive of a group effort, and it's my view that the department is not notable for an article. Anyway, I thought some people here might like to investigate and take any action they deem appropriate. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also University of Strathclyde CIS Department (which may actually be a good article), Strathclyde Personal Interactive Development and Educational Resource and User:CS104Group11, User:Kimscottross. Verbal chat 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you feel the articles aren't notable you should deal with them in the usual manner. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't the reason I brought them here, it is due to usernames suggesting group editing as part of a course or project. Verbal chat 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, they look like they could be group accounts so a note should be left about our policy on that. Looks like uxepat has left a message to them. –xeno (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention group accounts though, maybe I should go back and add that. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done  – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made a complete mess of trying to notify these accounts, so if Ukexpat could continue his sterling work I'd be grateful. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original notice. Verbal chat 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Titian

I've temporarily protected this page, as editing of it has become newsworthy. Discussion welcomed in this section at the Talk page. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

194.203.158.97 Titian and the Conservative Party (UK)

194.203.158.97 (talk · contribs · count)

It is being reported by the BBC that Titian has been vandalised by Conservative Party Central Office. I have identified the IP address used. Looking at the talk page there is a warning about an edit to Tosser but that edit does not appear in the account history and the link to the diff is dead. Was deletion, oversight used to remove the edit? In which case why is the warnign still visible on the user talk page I suspect that Wikipedia-literate journalists may already have noticed things. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are three deleted edits to Tosser in that IP's deleted contribution history. Warnings aren't automatically or routinely removed simply because the offending edit has been deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC report here. – ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This might explain why David Cameron is under "attack" by numerous IPs, including someone from an IP at the Daily Express changing his date of birth. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Birthdaygate --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps David Cameron should be semi-protected? If the press is going to vandalize, let them at least sign in :) - Nunh-huh 17:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the vandalism is coming from one IP that I've already blocked - if someone were to ask at WP:RFPP I'd be inclined to say User(s) blocked. _Gb^T/c 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)