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

White Brazilian

Help, please, for White Brazilian.

Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are German Brazilian and White Brazilian. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans.

User:Ninguém argued at Talk:White Brazilian (now mostly in Talk:White Brazilian/Archive 2) that the article was seriously defective. He was certainly not unopposed there, but on balance it seemed to me that he was more persuasive.

Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, User:Off2riorob reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment "[...] reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on:

I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.

So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old.

Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary.

As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits.

At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely asked about this.

Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits.

So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I might add that User:Lecen has politely chided me for indulgence toward Off2riorob's reversion and demands. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Lecen here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hoary's full protection of White Brazilian is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from Brazil, and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits.

As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words.

So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with User talk:Ninguém about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse.

The article's lead reads,

White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states,

The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.

So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?!

This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. Opinoso (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A degree of discussion has broken out on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits here and here seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're more or less repeating your earlier question, which I repeated above to see what others thought. I didn't say that I had no involvement; I'm disinterested but not uninvolved, as recent edits demonstrate. I froze the article. When time permits, I try to work out where the disagreement lies. This combination may or may not be proper. I asked here about it. So far just one admin has responded, and as he seemed to think it was OK, I continued. I'd be happy if he and others volunteered to look at the article and keep looking at it; I'd then happily leave. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes its the same question that I felt the need to repeat after your two discussion edits to the talkpage, it is confusing when you appear to be involved and also taking administrator actions on the article. I took from the comment from Ed that your actions were fine, but he also seemed to suggest that you get to one side of the fence regarding the article..either an editor or an admin, in the situation I think it is unwise to act as both there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment of yours here overlapped this further question of mine there. ¶ As you have said, I haven't edited the article for a long time, if ever. I've no desire to edit it. I don't care whether it concludes that ten or ninety percent of Brazilians are "white", or how it describes these "white" people. I do care that whatever it says is well-informed and well-reasoned, and I am willing to ask questions in order to clear up what appear to be contradictions or to find just what an objection consists of. I'd be much happier if others volunteered to do this work instead. And that's one reason why I asked here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ec.I am not finding this easy, admin Hoary has now gone off involving himself again in the content discussion asking editors if they mind if he asks questions , under the circumstances I would find it excessive if he was to take any more administrator actions on the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And in the last few minutes I've made other edits to the talk page besides that. Well, I understand what you are saying here. My administrative action on the article so far has been protection; tempted though I occasionally am to take the further administrative action of deleting it, I agree that this would be excessive and intend to resist the temptation. Have my edits to the talk page been improper? Let's see what others here think; and again, I hope that the unbiased among them will dive in to this group of articles and stay there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want it, but I am seeing that it's necessary a few coments of mine in here:

1. I stil do not know what is the issue in the article White Brazilian. Neither Off2riorob nor Opinoso has come with good reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. And when I say that, I mean that none of them brought sources that goes against Ninguém's edit. That is, "according to editor X, he says Y, while what you wrote means Z." All I saw was "I did not like your changes and for that reason I am reverting them and sorry, but I can't discuss with you why I did that because I am too busy in real life." That's the best way to keep the article locked and with the discussion with no end, which means that what they want is an article that can/will not be changed. If no one can change anything in the article unless he/she asks for permission from other editors (that is, according to both Opinoso and Off2riorob, it is needed a "consensus"), that is nothing more than ownership of an article.
2. So far Hoary has not done anything, I repeat, anything that could make anyone, I repeat, anyone, complain about his actions. He blocked the article because he feared that it would take to an edit war probably due to past disagreements in it that he witnessed by himself. And that was a correct action of his. Then, he pointed out what were Ninguém's edits and asked everyone to make comments about it. As a far as I know, trying to settle a dispute by bringing both parties to reason can not be considered a fault, and that was what Hoary tried to do. Off2riorob's insinuations, and that's what they are, insinuations of possible bad faith from Hoary as possibly taking sides is not only a huge mistake but also unfair.
3. Off2riorob complained that Hoary was one of the people who Ninguém asked for help to deal with matter, implying that Hoary was someone that Ninguém could be sure that would take his side. Untrue. Hoary is the administrator who has been dealing with issues related to such article for quite sometime and if he got involved in it it was to do his job as an administrator and also because he, more than any other administrator, already knows very well what it's being discussed.
4. Again, neither Opinoso nor Off2riorob has brought sources to oppose Ninguém's edits. Off2riorob has reverted good faith edits done by Ninguém without waiting for other editor's opinions in the talk page. And he reverted every single thing Ninguém did to a previous version that he considered "stable". To me, that is nothing more than ownership, again.
5. What should be done, then? First of all, Off2riorob should apologize to Hoary for the insinuations he did because wanting or not, they will harm his credibility not only among editors but also among his peers if they are not taken back.
6. Second of all, the article must be unblocked, reverted to the last Ninguém's edit and once both Off2riorob and Opinoso has time to discuss and have REAL reasons to oppose a change, they may ask for changes in the talk page and wait for other editors' opinions. Those are my thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind words about me, but it is indeed odd for an admin to protect a page and then to comment on aspects of content that may or may not have provoked the edit war. It's even odder when the protection was preemptive. And I'm not sure that Off2riorob has been insinuating anything. Certainly I'm not after any apology from anyone. I appreciate your amicable intentions, but let's avoid blowing this up further or making it more personal than it needs to be. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So here are my points:

1. Off2riorob was the one who started all this discussion.
2. So, he should bring reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edits.
3. Those reasons can not be his personal opinions. They must be something like "author X says Y while what Ninguém wrote says Z". Simple like that.
4. If he does not bring sources, reliable sources to where and why Ninguém's edits are wrong, the article must be unlocked and what Off2riorob reverted. Is that fair enough? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Off2riorob keeps saying that he wants to discuss the article, but is not able to point to any specifical disagreement. Also seems to be unable to understand either the article as it is, or the version he reverted; indeed, seems to confuse them, and attribute to one the merits or demerits of the other. Opinoso wants to discuss soccer player Ronaldo's race.

There is no reason for protection, I think. The reverted version should be restored, as it is uncomparably better than the protected one. Attempts to edit war at the article in order to restore the unsourced and distorted version should be watched for. Ninguém (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly in need of current protection, some kind of discussion about the article needs to be established before unprotecting, there are still two editors that totally object to the rewrite that was occurring by user ninguen, I have tried to discuss the article but this is the position that is being expounded Ninguen and the other involved editors, they support the rewrite and want to enforce consensus on the rewrite when there is not a clear consensus to support one. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no clear objection to what was written. If you can expose any, I am willing to discuss it, but up to now you haven't. Ninguém (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes, I have made a fair few good faith attempts to move forward with the discussion on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny they have been made in good faith, but they fail to clarify what you disagree with in the reverted version. Ninguém (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is plenty of reason for protection. I believe that the version that's protected (below, "VP") is inferior to the version as edited by Ninguém (below, "NV"). My reason for saying this is that problems with VP have been clearly described, and NV is the result of incremental changes that are described in summaries and seem to be improvements. But it's not incomparably better; comparisons can be made by editors who are openminded and levelheaded.

However, as I'm not able to read Portuguese and have limited reserves of time and energy, I must concede that I can't guarantee that NV doesn't have faults. Indeed, it probably does have faults: most good revisions do. These faults can be discussed rationally in due time.

So there's nothing inconsistent in claiming that the wrong version is protected while conceding that the alternative needs improvement. And it's normal in Wikipedia for the wrong version to be the protected one. This does not mean that the article is doomed to remain inferior after protection is lifted.

If protection were lifted today, I've no reason to think there wouldn't be a straightforward edit war between VP and NV (or minor revisions thereof), leading to blocks, accusations of tag teaming or even "sockpuppeteering", miscellaneous other drama, and speedy reprotection (very likely of VP). But in the end I'm just one editor. If there appears to be general agreement among the disagreeing factions that they want the article to be unprotected ("Give us enough rope; we want to hang ourselves"), I'll unprotect it.

And of course if another administrator volunteers to oversee this mess, I'll happily bow out. Which was my point in starting this section of WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but then we need some way to make discussion actually happen. Generalities about "the article should explain what is a White Brazilian" don't help, if it cannot be pointed what is lacking in the explanations given by each version. Diatribes on how Ronaldo is so wrong in self-classifying as "White" are even less useful. And up to now these are the only things we have. Ninguém (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I would think it as a disaster if you quit moderating the article. Up to now, you have been the only admin that made a serious effort to understand the ongoing disputes. But there seems to be some strange idea that to moderate an article someone should be "uninvolved". This is evidently impossible; without making actual decisions, it is impossible to maintain order in an article. And without understanding what is going on it is impossible to make actual decisions. Ninguém (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have passed by these disputes with only minimal involvement, but seen the scale of the task, I can only applaud Hoary for handling them, Hoary is to modest, even if a perfect job has not been done it is far better than not having an admin with a watching brief there at all, which would have lead to 3RR, blocks, bans, socks and arbs. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your appreciative words, but I'm hardly handling these pages. My attention to any one isn't close and generally comes with a complete lack of attention to any of the others. Off2riorob is within his rights in asking of me "could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here [or] as an editor in the way of dispute resolution"; the answer "a bit of both" probably breaks some guideline and is potentially if not actually problematic. So I hope that

• One or (better) more experienced, disinterested editors will attend to the dispute, leaving me to administer; or
• One or more admins will announce that they'll handle the administrative side, unprotecting the article when it seems appropriate, issuing block warnings and blocks when justified, etc, leaving me to argue with all eight cylinders (and of course render myself less popular and more blockable); or (best)
• Both the above so I can take a little break from Brazilian affairs.

Of course people tend not to want to dive into such imbroglios (other than for the wrong reasons, of course). I'd point out that although there's a great amount of irritation and frustration on display, all of the more active participants seem concerned to improve the article, and although there are apparent non sequiturs, naivity and tantrums from time to time, there's little or none of the shrillness or noxious racism for which articles on "racial"/ethnic (non-) matters elsewhere in the world are notorious. So you shouldn't be scared. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary asked me to help; I cannot help as extensively as he wishes, but i support continuing the present protection of the article, which is the only immediate question for AN/I. My reason is pragmatic: the dispute involves the structure of the article, not just the wording; in such cases it is essential to have a stable version to avoid confusing the discussion. I have made some further comments about the lede at the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the continued protection of the article. If Hoary wants another admin to take over the admin duties on this article, I'm willing to do so. The very topic of this article, White Brazilian, fills me with dread because WP usually has trouble with contentious topics that involve national, racial, or genetic issues. Since this article has all three, it's a triple whammy. I caution Hoary that my inclination would likely be to keep the full protection in place for a long time, until a clear consensus emerges on the talk page. If other editors at ANI don't agree that a long protection is wise then I'd withdraw my offer in favor of someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still don't know where to begin with. Editor Off2Riobob was the one who began all this discussion. With the exception of his complain that the lead is larger than it should, I have no idea what is the problem after all. I have requested him several (several, several and several) times what is wrong with editor Ninguém's edits and according to which authors they are wrong. Unfortunately, he hasn't bothered to answer me so far. You all want a consensus? Well, how are we going to find one if the editor that started all this hasn't told what is wrong, yet? --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If an objection really is unclear, the person who made it fails to answer requests to clarify it within a reasonable time, and nobody else clarifies it, then surely the objection can be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I appreciate your offer to administer, but I have to say that I'm unhappy with quite so much stress on protecting the article for a long time. Protect it until "consensus" (in the WP sense) emerges, yes of course; but if it looks as if it will remain protected "for ever" (for a longish time), then chances are high that at least one bellicose editor will move the war elsewhere. And there are plenty of potential battlegrounds: the article on each of the other "colors" (ugh) of Brazilians, the article on each hyphenated Brazilian, etc. I'd rather phrase the administrative talk in such a way as to encourage uninterrupted work towards an agreement. (Not that I can claim to have been, or to be, much good at such encouragement myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If I say that I'd like somebody else to take over the job of wielding the cluebat janitorial mop over these issues, I can hardly demand that they do so in the way that I happen to think is best: after all, I'm after a replacement, not an executive assistant. So I hand the job over to EdJohnston and wish him (you) the best.

I now consider myself freer to suggest what I think are improvements to the article. (Perhaps I too will need to be cluebatted from time to time.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus

In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.

A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.

User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".

All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also User:Rama/Fair use is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' [1]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term jocker, what he probably means is joker, in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct place to request restoration is WP:DRV. — Kusma ^talk 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See wider issue I commented about below @ 19:41. –xeno^talk 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –xeno^talk 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So what do you guys recommend I do? Kusma, should I go over to DRV now and request undeletion for this and/or the other images? Or will you guys be doing something? Should I wait? Thanks!. DR04 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think DRV is the best place for this. I won't do anything about it, though, as I am WP:VEGAN and don't touch non-free images if I can at all avoid it. — Kusma ^talk 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Working in this area is a pretty thankless job. I'm not sure that it's an area where local consensus can rule in any case. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –xeno^talk 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Wikipedia community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at User:Rama/Fair use, do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content, the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, only states that pictures of people still alive are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a personal interpretation that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --Jayron32 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect [add copyright information] (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Wikipedia is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own." The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Wikipedia permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --Jayron32 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. DR04 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did they give permission only for Wikipedia or also for possible reusers? "Only for Wikipedia" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — Kusma ^talk 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Wikipedia and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Wikipedia to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Wikipedia to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3" from Template:Db-f3. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free with permission}}. As you can see, permission for Wikipedia tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - [2] DR04 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor is consensus unanimity, especially in a binary decision. –xeno^talk 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that User:CBM consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. Dabbler (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Wikipedia, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to WP:DRV. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Wikipedia's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we could be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the WP:BLP policy, except that I think they have handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion.

I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --Jayron32 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of the two images (File:Nakheel Tower.jpg and File:Freedom Tower New.jpg) speedily deleted by Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on Rama's talk page), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on File:Chicago Spire.jpg. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Wikipedia editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. Astronaut (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days). –xeno^talk 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, well it sounds like Astronaut and I need to head over to WP:DRV to file some undeletion requests. DR04 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, based upon what others have said, we need to list the images Rama created as copyright violations. It is not my intention to upset him, but I am seriously concerned with creating images based on a copyrighted design and someone publishing them as their own work. This is something that could tick off Santiago Calatrava or Shelbourne. DR04 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the following:

• The "free" commons image Rama created be deleted because of a copyright violation (See: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chicago_spire.svg )
• The original image be restored per a deletion review (See: Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:Chicago Spire.jpg)

If you have an opinion on either of these matters, whatever it is, I would appreciate your input. Thanks so much. DR04 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• • If one admin can arbitarily delete something then another can arbitarily undelete it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

    I do wish people would use the adverb 'arbitrarily' more carefully in these discussions. I fully agree that if Rama were deleting images arbitrarily – "La di dah, I think I'll delete an image today. Ah! This one clashes with my wallpaper, it's got to go — bloop!" – then it would be perfectly appropriate to undo that deletion on a similarly lackadaisical basis. On the other hand, Rama's actions certainly don't seem to be arbitrary in this case. He seems to have acted on the basis of careful thought and extended reasoning. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning is open to discussion, but to imply that his action was whimsical or capricious and therefore subject to instant arbitrary reversal is a very disrespectful approach. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss his actions as 'arbitrary'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

    • Ten, I can't speak for Spartaz, but he might be referring to Rama's tendency to ignore other user opinions - something I have found to be very frustrating. It happened when the image was deleted the first time by Rama, it happened again when Rama tried to speedily delete the image again today [3] (this was after much of the discussion on this page was posted) and how he hasn't discussed his shape equivalent theory (as I introduced below) to this thread. It seems as if he detests talking with the community and consistently makes rash decisions. Again, I can attest how frustrating it has been for me, and probably a few other editors/admins dealing with these issues. I understand his perspective - and he might even be right, but won't he please just discuss things first? Sorry I'm done ranting lol. DR04 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As Spartaz commented, he has restored the copyrighted image. The commons page still needs opinion on deletion. Also, I have updated the fair use rationale on the copyrighted image. It should be more exhaustive in its argument now. DR04 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Language issue?

Looking at the discussion on Rama's talkpage, I'm wondering if there's a language issue here (Rama appears to be French-speaking from his userboxen). He is interpreting "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed ... " (from s120 of the US code) to apply in a situation where building work has not yet started, and he has interpreted Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria No Free equivalent: as Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use which is completely contrary to what the policy says, but may be based on a mistranslation??? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't think this is the problem at all. I think this admin could end up at RfC if things carry on this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The grey area

I wish Rama would have brought this up in the first place, this would have saved a lot of time. Anyway, as I brought up on the restored image's talk page (I mean the copyrighted one, not the svg), Rama will now claim that per commons:Template:PD-shape, we can just use a geometric shape of the Spire instead of a copyrighted image. In other words, if shapes were free equivalents we could delete the copyrighted fair use image as there would be an equivalent. I'm inclined to say it is not an equivalent. The entire reason that copyrighted images of buildings have been considered fair use in the past (and IMO should continue to be fair use) is because they are illustrations of the primary subject of the article. I agree, copyrighted images of living persons should not be considered fair use. A celebrity or famous person's appearance is not the primary subject matter of the article. However with these articles on proposed buildings, the structure itself, as illustrated by the architect, is the primary subject of the article and therefore fair use. Either the image is sufficient enough to show the work (the copyrighted image) or it isn't sufficient enough (a shape). You can't have it both ways - it is a contradiction. Either it is usable in the article as an image or it is not. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I do not believe an image of the shape of a building is a free equivalent. Other comments please? Agree or disagree? DR04 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago spire shape.svg, the example created by Rama does not even come close to serving the "same encyclopedic purpose" that the fair use image in question does. –xeno^talk 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite, juste like the photograph that we have at Marilyn Manson is not as "cool" as this [4].

Problem is, we do not do Fair Use to snatch copyrighted images that we fancy, without charge, to make our webpage nicer. We take the one precise image that we need because it is discussed critically, like on Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima. All the difference between stealing an honest work. Rama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was snatched here. The copyright owner gave specific permission. Furthermore, the analogy you make is a false one. No one is actually claiming that the picture is included for merely aestetic reasons. The arguement is that the picture you created to replace it is actually the more eggregious violation, because it is a derivative work created without permission, being used to replace the original work which DOES have permission for use. Furthermore, the image isn't merely decoration. The article discusses such issues as building design and location, all of which are uniquely enhanced by the picture. You appear to be inventing policy out of whole cloth here, without the support of the community. If you believe the foundation supports your interpretation, get the foundation to make a statement saying so. If you believe that the existing guidelines need to be changed to a more conservative view, then feel free to initiate those discussions. But to unilaterally decide that your own singular interpretation of policy is the only valid one, without actual support, seems to be particularly problematic here. --Jayron32 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that even admins who are generally quick to support the NFCC and remove inappropriately used free images are disagreeing with you here Rama. If I were in your shoes I might take pause at that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here!?!?

Does Rama have an obsession with deleting images? He really needs to gain consensus on issues like these - what is with the consistent, rash decision making? Rama can respond to this directly and so can anyone else - but is this type of behavior consistent with how an admin acts? If I am out of line, feel free to let me know, but this is getting really irritating, for a lot of people.

• [5] This was after admin User:Quadell kept the image in 2007, admin User:Spartaz restored the image yesterday, and after all the discussion here!!!
• [6] @ Line 776 & 787
• [7] See bdk's comments
• [8] this section
• [9] and this section
• [10] and comments like this

Again, if I'm out of line, let me know. I just find this frustrating. DR04 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked them to stop deleting files out of process and also noted to them that if this pattern of behaviour continues, an RFCU may be initiated to gather community opinions as to their approach. For now, I think we should allow the Commons process to run its course and that will inform our actions here as to whether this and similar images recently deleted by Rama qualify for fair use.

For now I would just advise you to take a step back and remember there is no deadline =) –xeno^talk 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and understood. I think it might be wise for me to take a break from these issues. DR04 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...and just as a point of order, we have no jurisdiction over the commons issues you mentioned. –xeno^talk 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep following the discussion on Rama's talk page. Somehow, lost in translation I presume, he has come to the conclusion that where the policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", the word ONLY means that fair use can only be applied in cases where there is only one IMAGE in existence and can only ever be one image (eg the Mona Lisa). I simply cannot persuade him that the sentence means that the rule applies where ANY image of that subject would be non-free. This is why he believes it is OK to allow the use of the Iwo Jima image, but existence of several architects drawings means that fair use can never be applied. This is almost moving into an issue of competency, but I think he's just dug his heels in. Is there a discussion area where other Commons editors would discuss this kind of thing that we could take this discussion to?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand

“ Nothing forbids using plans or schematics issued by the architect as documentation. The information that they carry is not, in itself, protected. Rama (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) ”

I find it hard to believe that someone who is so hot for Wikipedia's fair use policy (which goes over and above the law) is unaware of the copyright issue raised by this sentence in relation to his drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's confusing simple data with rendered drawings. For example, a basic table created in Excel is not copyrightable, since it has no creative element and data itself can't be copyrighted. An architectural drawing does not fall under this exception, obviously. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at [11]. Can someone explain to me why Rama thinks that s120, which has by now I think been quoted 3 times and says that the architect's design copyright does not extend to making images of a constructed building viewable from a public place, means that he can make copies of the architects plans. For someone so adamant about not "snatching" other people's work, why can he not see how badly his approach breaches US law. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[12] I understand the need to wait until the deletion discussions are over, but I seriously question how someone who doesn't think it matters that by making a drawing of a building that isn't built yet, based on the architect's drawings, he has breached the architect's copyright, can continue in a position of responsibility relating to deciding on the use of non-free imagery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted File:Freedom Tower New.jpg because of invalid license. What was there had no fair use, just a claim of permission to use on Wikipedia. Whether an email permission (should be OTRS) can override the fair use requirement for minimal use and size would also be an issue for the possible fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone re-uploaded it after Rama deleted it, but didn't add any fair use rationale. Also, isn't it instadeath for any file that only has permission to be used on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia cannot police its use? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We should still provide a fair use rationale even if we've been given permission "only for Wikipedia". –xeno^talk 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If anyone has the source for the image, I would be willing to re-upload it with a sturdy fair use claim - I've been getting some practice lately at fair use rationales lol. DR04 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image - please add the FUR asap. –xeno^talk 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FUR added. I also uploaded a lower resolution version of the image - the same resolution used in the article infobox. DR04 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems the correct course. That's what should have happened with the Spire drawing as well. It's not replacable until the building is complete and a photo or artists drawing can be made based on the finished structure. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, a final discussion point...

I don't mean to jump the gun, but it looks like (currently) there is overwhelming consensus, except for Rama, that the "free" svg image he created at commons is a copyright violation (8 deletes including the proposal for deletion (me) to 1 keep by the original uploader, Rama) and the same thing for fair use of the Chicago Spire image. Of course this thread can and should stay open for as long as it needs to. I'm just worried the commons discussion could close at any time (maybe within a few hours or weeks), and wanted to point out there was one important ancillary consideration (to this Rama discussion) I think deserves a fair amount of discussion. It will have a decent impact on so many other articles and copyrighted building designs on Wikipedia - and I didn't want this thread to be "resolved" as soon as the commons discussion concludes. And the question is -

At what point should copyrighted, fair use images created by architects be replaced by free photographs of the building? In other words, when would a "free equivalent" exist? When it is 25% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? When it is 100% complete? At some other point? Please discuss!!! DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• In 2007 I said about 25% complete (of the exterior) because that seems the point at which the design of the building can begin to be appreciated and understood. I'm not set on that and I've heard others here state that the copyrighted image should say up until the building 100% complete. I could understand that perspective as well, but there probably should be some consistent consensus on this moving forward from this lengthy discussion. DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• It depends on the scope of the architectural drawing. If the drawing represents an exterior view of the complete building, then it should be removed when an equivalent version of a free image becomes available. Whether drawings at other stages of construction (or other methods of representation) can be replaced depends on the availability of equivalent free images and the purpose for which the drawing is used. Nathan ^T 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• I am not convinced that any use of a non-free image is acceptable in such a case. If a building has not yet been erected, I consider that it is non-notable and therefore should not have a Wikipedia article. An exception muight be made in the case of a commercial disaster like the Bay-Adelaide Centre which achieved notability before it was completed, see

  

  Bay-Adelaide Centre stump

  . If other editors are not convinced by my argument, then any non-free image should be replaced by a free one as soon as the new building is far enough along in construction as to provide a recognisable exterior photograph. Dabbler (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Something doesn't need to be exist to be notable. If stories have been written about construction, whether it exists or not is immaterial to its notability.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• As soon as a useful photograph is available that gives some idea of the nature of the building (in other words, not just the excavation).Butthis should be an addition, not replacement, until the structure is actually completed, or so substantially completed in that the exterior is essentially identical. Buildings under construction can be notable, just as other incomplete projects can be, and even plans for such a building can be notable, again as other projects. It depends on the perceived public importance of the building, as typically measured by the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think that the most ideal situation would be some more unambiguous, comprehensive policy from the foundation which would clear up more of these gray areas in general WRT copyright. However, in this case, insofar as a free alternative cannot be created until such time as the building is completed (enough) to do so, I think that the copyright architectural plans can be used as a stand-in under fair use. Once the building is in a state such that a real, free picture can be taken of it, the fair use claim would then go away. However, there are notable projects that are cancelled, or delayed, or not yet complete, and I think there is a compelling case in THOSE cases for using the copyrighted work, since no free equivalent could exist. --Jayron32 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the licensing resolution is particularly unclear, but you're right that it isn't very specific. I'm not sure this is a bad thing; the issue for the Foundation isn't one of legal liability (that accrues to the uploader), but content that is reusable consistent with its mission. Within the guidelines of the resolution, each project (through its EDP) is responsible for making and enforcing its own specific rules. Nathan ^T 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The point basically stems from whether "built visible from a public space" should be interpreted as accenting "built" of "visible from a public space". I believe that the very question exhibits the magnitude of the absurdity that the "built" interpretation entails, leading directly to a Theseus' paradox. At the very least, assuming that the "built" interpretation is retained, which seems likely, we cannot accept arguments like "let's say 25%" proposed without the slightest reason. If we do not find very good and firm reasons to believe otherwise (which I doubt we would), we would have to struggle for safety and, thus, wait until the building is fully commissioned. Rama (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: of course, this would not be a problem for countries with Freedom of Panorama. Rama (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PPS: And I do not believe that "Fair Use" images can be used at all before that point. These images do not constitute the subject of the article, but merely depict the subject of the article. Furthermore they are not unique, but taken amongst a number of other images in port-folios, and clearly not notable for themselves. As such, they are not candidates for Fair Use. Rama (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Over at Burj Dubai the image used in the info box was finally changed from a computer generated rendering to this image from Oct '08, which showed the building nearing completion and included many of the major design elements which are discussed in the article. However, in light of this discussion, the earliest I think we could have changed the image, is perhaps to this one from Nov '06; at which time around half the concrete structure had been built, and it was large enough to show at least some elements of the design and the scale of the building. As for notability, I think buildings can be notable while still at the proposal stage, particularly if the proposal is for something that might make it into the tallest/biggest lists if built and it meets the general notability requirements. Astronaut (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rama has made a point worth further consideration here. The law is different in different countries - in the UK you can pretty much photograph any 3d item standing in or visible from a public place, and not breach the creator's copyright. So you could take pictures of say the Gherkin at any stage of construction that you could see from the street, or from an aeriel photo. In France, you cannot take a picture of anything for which the creator can claim a copyright, without permission of the copyright holder. It follows therefore that there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France unless the copyright holder chooses to release one. The specific exemption of US s120 appears in natural language to apply only to buildings that have a fully constructed exterior "that has been constructed" - I am not aware of any caselaw precedent for permission applying to images of buildings that are under construction. This means that the decision will depend not only on how much of the building is standing, but where in the world it is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"...there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France..." That's absurd. I can see it now, the French courts filled by the millions of tourists every year who have dared to photograph the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre Pyramid, the Château de Versailles, La Grande Arche de la Défense, etc... And Wikipedia would be in huge trouble with pretty much any image of a building in France. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, every single photograph of the Eiffel Tower lit at night is a copyvio under french law, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. Absurd, isn't it. To clarify the rest of the law, it does restrict itself to two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. Which probably means one is safe photographing the Paris suburbs! The issue as always with copyvio is not making the image but publishing it. In Wikipedia's case, I have no doubt there are some images of French buildings that are not free and consequently need a fair use rationale.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Can I propose a review of the recent speedy deletions by Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which fall within the scope of this discussion (see the list here)? Astronaut (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All the following images were speedily deleted by Rama as "F7: Violates non-free use policy":

• 
• File:Abraj Al Bait Towers.jpg
• File:175 Greenwich Street.jpg
• 
• File:Busan Lotte World.jpg
• File:China 117 Tower.jpg
• File:Interior of the DMC Landmark Building 2.png
• File:Interior of the DMC Landmark Building 5.png
• File:Montage of DMC Landmark Building views.jpg
• File:Interior of the DMC Landmark Building 4.png
• File:Interior of the DMC Landmark Building 6.png
• File:Exterior of the DMC Landmark Building 1.png
• 
• File:Gramercy Century City.jpg
• File:151 Incheon Tower.jpg
• File:Kingkey Finance Tower.jpg
• File:Lighthousetowerdubai.JPG
• File:Shanghai Center Dragon.jpg
• 
• File:Skycity design.jpg

Each deletion needs to be reviewed, in particular their Fair-Use rationales to establish whether their claim to Fair-Use is valid. Perhaps the easiest way to do that would be to restore the images, perhaps on a temporary basis.

Images deemed to be valid fair-use should also be restored to the articles where their fair use is permitted. That will need someone to go through the log of the ImageRemovalBot and any separate image removals carried out by Rama or other editors. I am, of course, happy to do some of this. Astronaut (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It'll need an admin though.

Of the last ten on the list, only four had plausible source data. That's six gone because having a valid source is absolutely critical and that isn't "I found it on Flickr". Two were of the same design which isn't minimal use of non-free content. That leaves three left for us to look at whether they have a valid rationale. Any that did would need to be re-uploaded in lower resolution. Seems like a complete waste of time. Anyone who really wants to use these sort of things should be begging the architects for a free image of the design. "Didn't bother to ask for a free version" is not a sound rationale for using non-free content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Angus, my request is in the last subsection at the end of a lengthy discussion. You might be interested in reading all the gory details before dismissing my request with "Seems like a complete waste of time". Astronaut (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO Rama has caused quite a mess here. While I'm sure some of these images deserved a speedy delete (no FUR, invalid FUR, no source info, no license info, etc.) I'm sure other images probably should never have been deleted and only violated Rama's own "policy". Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to reupload APPROPRIATE images and then put in with proper FURs, source info, license info, etc.? Going through each of these and restoring them, then nominating some for deletion then discussing this would be an enormous undertaking. DR04 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I don't mind spending some time on this. I would be happy to review the FUR, source and license info that existed on the images Rama deleted. I'm just asking for some help from an Admin to temporarily restore the images so I can get started with something to work on. I'll stick {{subst:rfu}} or {{subst:dfu}} on those I feel need further discussion or should be deleted again. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this need an RfC or what?

From Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chicago_spire.svg

Me: You based this drawings on the architect's plans, which are copyright.
Rama: More or less indirectly, yes, I do use the plans as the basis of my documentation. And per Article 120, this is permissible. You do the same thing when you photograph a building in the street, the building in a derivative of the plans, and it is copyrighted. Article 120 is all about bypassing this copyright.[13]

There seems to be no sense in which Rama is even prepared to consider for a moment that his bizarre interpretations of Wikipedia Policy or US Copyright law are wrong. If he was an editor persistently uploading content that had to be deleted, and refusing to conform to Wikipedia policies on fair use, someone would block him. Obviously, that's not what needs to happen here, but this is an admin who is speedy deleting and closing deletion discussions, and his understanding of Wikipedia policies and the underlying copyright issues is pretty much 100% wrong. What is the appropriate course of action, and who has the jurisdiction to oversee it?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my possible ignorance, but is the "real" Spire image having specific permissions being claimed as red herring that's misleading us, or is it instead icing on the cake to show we don't a free alternative? In this one case I'd even argue that the created free alternatives are dangerous, with dubious copyright nature and impossibility to claim geometric shape on a one-off building design which is continuously variable in all 3 dimensions. The solely 2-dimension profile is arguably defamation to the developer until construction. With permissions offered on the "real" and better version, why should we not use it? That doesn't happen much. Can we point to File:Freedom_Tower_New.jpg‎ as a very precise precedent to work in conjunction with this? Both are of issue currently. The content owner even extends permission the same way. They need consistency and whichever direction should be considered a reaffirmed consensus. Worth noting that the NYC building has no evil red templates on it. If copyright and fair use are being listed and 100% accurate in any way required, why does this drag on? That means either an RfC and/or change in policy. One has to bend. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

daTheisen, I love you man, but do you feed all your comments thru a Babel fish :):)? You're quite right, it is better to use the architects versions which they have released on terms acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation, than to mess around trying to make our own versions which may well infringe someone's copyright. Once the building is erected, it is possible to make a free image in many countries. In countries where that may not be possible (eg France, which has no Freedom of Panorama act) we can still use a photograph of the actual building with a proper fair use disclaimer. The only person who disagrees is Rama. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor - POV and COI

For some reason Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never been banned or restricted from Unification Church topics. He has been engaging in low-level warfare on these articles for years, and has recently been smearing and needling User:Cirt who has been attempting to get Ed to conform to the rules. I won't paste difs here at this point under the presumption that enough old-timers exist to know what I'm talking about - but will begin pasting them if necessary. I suggest that enough is enough. Ed spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia these days anyway. I don't remember the last time he made a truly helpful contribution to this site. I bring this here to gauge community feelings about a topic ban on all Unification church related articles. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some backhistory:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor: Ed de-sysopped.
• Ed Poor 2: A case involving Ed Poor. POV pushing and disruption. Ed Poor was party to two prior cases; the first was closed after Poor resigned his status as a bureaucrat, and the second resulted in his desysopping.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2)

From 2004 ArbCom elections - same problems we're seeing today, five years later:

2004 arbcom election opposes

Oppose. Engages in POV wars. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 06:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Shameless bigot. Creates articles to justify his bigotry. - Xed 12:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) Strong Oppose. POV merchant nonpareil. Sjc 08:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. The Cunctator 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Does not follow Wikipedia policies for stating credible sources for articles such as Demographics_of_terrorism. --Rebroad 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oppose Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. Ruy Lopez 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) Strongly Oppose. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above. Exploding Boy 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. 172 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) He is a hypocrite. Lirath Q. Pynnor Oppose Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --Axon 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Opppose due to POV-related issues. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Unification Church topics. Ed Poor (talk · contribs) habitually engages in disruption and violation of site policy on these topics, including violations of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. He makes unsourced changes and nonconsensus unsourced page moves [14]. He adds unsourced information about WP:BLPs [15]. Removes info from lede that per WP:LEAD is sourced verbatim later in article [16]. These are but a few recent examples. Regarding his conflict of interest, he has acknowledged, I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  If I were in violation of site policy, Cirt would provide evidence. Rather, he makes up his own interpretations of the rules. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against the rules, but Cirt just did it here. Announcing what side I'm on doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, as long as I can write neutrally. Give one example of me POV-pushing (rather than telling both sides where there are conflicting accounts), and I'll refrain from such edits in the future. Otherwise, ask Cirt to stop harassing me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  That's exactly the defense you used in the ArbCom case where you got banned from ever editing Intelligent design articles, isn't it, Ed? Do you really think everyone here is that stupid? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, I'm the only stupid one here if it's stupid to think that demanding evidence (rather than votes) would stop me from suffering an unwarranted ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Unwarranted? Au contrair. Your entire history has been POV pushing, Ed. Most recently as placed on my talk page at User talk:KillerChihuahua#Disruption by Ed Poor at his conflict of interest. Are you really going to escalate this? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This in an example of the sort of personal attack that KillerChihuahua and others have been making against me in recent months. First of all, it's not relevant what I do on other websites but it's false that I'm "rewriting the bible" at Conservapedia or anywhere. Apparently KC is trying to destroy my credibility for some reason known only to her. Please encourage her to stop this.

I have not smeared or needled Cirt, and IIRC correctly making an accusation like that without evidence is in itself a personal attack.

The reason I've never been banned from topics relating to the Unification Church is that I am unusually gifted at writing neutrally about it, despite my affiliation. Barring evidence that I am violated WP:NPOV with my edits, I suggest that KC and the others who are harassing me are (perhaps unconsciously) trying to get their own biased views enshrined in articles and to censor alternative views.

All I do is add information which I believe is true; I'm always willing to dig up online or dead tree sources to back up anything I add to an article. Hardly anything I write on other topics is reverted, despite KC's needling crack above; I suggest an official warning is in order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We're just tired of your bullshit, Ed. I think Cirt's tired of cleaning up after you. I pretty much gave up years ago. If we have to I guess we can go for Ed Poor AbrCom 3, but that's an awful lot of work. It isn't like it isn't well known that you mostly edit to push the UC POV. You've even admitted in, somewhere in the past. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you had any evidence of me POV-pushing, you'd supply a diff. Should be easy to find in my 30,000-plus edits if cleaning up after it is making people tired.

All I do is add balancing information to biased articles. Last time I checked, this was considered to enhance neutrality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from Unification Church topics. Frankly I'm surprised this is the only action being taken against this editor. Crafty (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you wish to suggest stronger measures, I would support that. As seen in the (now collapsed) 2004 ArbCom opposes, he's been a POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot since before I was even registered here. I would support up to and including a full site ban. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Now that the topic ban is in effect, let's see how he does. Breach it and be damned for all time - that sorta thing. Crafty (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Nod nod, quite agree. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from any article relating to Category:Unification Church and True Family, broadly construed. Long overdue. I am not familiar enough with edits in other areas to comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Remedies 1.1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans. I'm arguably involved enough in anything Ed-related, and Cirt is involved. Any uninvolved admin may ban him from Unification Church related articles and log it with no further steps necessary or indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've banned Ed from any article or talk page related to Category:Unification Church. Does that resolve the situation for the time being? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'd prefer Crafty's phrasing of "any article relating to Category:Unification Church and True Family, broadly construed" or else I'm concerned he'll just weasel his way around the edges. thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The diffs provided hardly justify any action. If they're the worst, they praise with faint damns. The rest seems quite ancient history. Absolutely everyone has a POV. Neutrality is a goal, not something anyone can perfectly practice, and COI is not a reason for excluding competent editors.John Z (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Please note I said "I won't paste difs here at this point" and by the time you objected that no difs had been posted, Ed had already been topic banned. He wasn't banned for any difs posted in this section, but for an overall history / continuing behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  I did not object that no diffs were posted and did notice you said you would not post diffs immediately. I was referring to the diffs Cirt had posted. I was opposing a topic ban which seems to me to have very little basis. The burden is on those desiring a ban to prove their case.John Z (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I encountered Ed at WP:FTN, where this left me deeply unimpressed. Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Kafziel's entry of the new topic ban of Ed Poor from both articles and talk pages related to Category:Unification Church. I'm aware of Cirt being a patient and methodical editor on contentious topics so I find Ed Poor's response to Cirt's well-sourced comment above to be very disappointing. COI situations are often negotiated and can arrive at a good outcome, but Ed's approach is going nowhere fast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As a long-time member of Wikipedia, I have a fair amount of respect & automatically extend good faith to three of the parties in this dispute -- Uncle Ed, KillerChihuhua, & Cirt. However, the diffs provided above don't support the accusations, & I wonder if this is a case where the actual conflict is due more to the parties reading intent into the edits where none is intended; Uncle Ed has never made a secret of his membership to the Unification Church. If I'm wrong, please supply more diffs. And even if Uncle Ed is not making edits to the detriment of Wikipedia, perhaps he could show some of that peace-making skills we long-time Wikipedians remember him best for & voluntarily stay away from Unification Church-related articles in order to promote harmony here. (This is the primary reason I stay away from articles relating to US politics.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:COI Ed should avoid editing any article related to this organization. The unfortunate fact that he has continued to edit these articles makes a topic ban the next logical step. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, clearly closely invoved in continued editing UC related article and pushing UC viewpoint as recently as 10 December, contrary to WP:COI guidance. . . dave souza, talk 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose COI is too often misused as an argument. As long as Ed does not make improper edits, COI is not really an issue, any more than having us declare that Jews can not edit Judaism etc. COI is far too often used by opponents of groups to discourage group members from making any edits, which is not the intent of WP:COI. The issue of "conservapedia" is quite irrelevant, and should not be here at all. Nor are comments from 2004 now utile. Any sanction should apply at most to Unification Church, narrowly construed. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin Requested: User:Damiens.rf multiple JPG deletions and related matters

Please bear on the length: this matter involves the deletion of many images, associated with the work of many wikipedia editors, and multiple violations of multiple wikipedia policies. Thank You !!!

Starting on December 6-7 this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damiens.rf has been the source of severe contention in various matters revolving the user's simultaneously singling out 12 Puerto Rico-related images for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#toc, plus the bringing into potental deletion 3 more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#toc. In addition there are probably more, many more, that I probably do not know about, as I happened to stumble on an additional one by accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG since it was an article I had previously contributed to. Plus I believe this user has targeted all of these additional Puerto Rico-related images also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7.

There are several problems here:

• 1. User User:Damiens.rf failed to follow civility protocol, failed to first contact the user(s) in question for dialogue before engaging in marking such large number of JPGs for deletion, thus unnecessarily precipitating an offesive/defensive, warring environment.

• 2. The amount of time the user allotted to resolve the alleged problems (7 days http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) for all the JPGs in question is unreasonable, it is not sufficient given the large number of JPGs the user marked for deletion in one lump batch.

• 3. The user appears not to be acting in good faith. There are several no-good faith concerns involving user User:Damiens.rf (Ex: See 2 such here: (1) see comment by Jmundo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#re:algo_raro. And (2) see comment by Cerejota: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7#File:Old_Pr_baseball_game_poster.gif)

• 4. The user's rebuttals to the lengthy responses of editors who attempted to address the alleged problems would seem to indicate user is not really intent on resolving the alleged problems user is alleging, but to simply run a show of sorts where user is not part of a team but some sort of an aristocratic patriach intent only on finding fault with others and putting them to do the actual work. See, for example, "try to discover what happened to the newspapers archive, or actually, to the archives copyright!" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG. On another occassion, which I just can't put my finger on right now, user Damiens.rf was directing an editor involved in one of the PR-related images to go to his relatives (that editor's relatives) to get the necessary copyright information. (this is how I vaguely remember Damiens.rf's rebuttal went). And, I am afraid I am not the only editor with this view (see, for example, Jmundo's "If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article, so fix it!. Maybe other editors from WP:PUR are busy trying to save the images you nominated for deletion." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG)

• 5. The user's sometimes sarcastic closings (see, for example, the context in which the user User:Damiens.rf used the closing phrase "See you." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring), though not exactly against policy that I know, leaves much to be desired from an administrator.

• 6. The user engaged in edit warring with several other editors and administrators (

User: Caribbean HQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalist_attack_of_San_Juan&diff=prev&oldid=330447097

User: Marine 69-71: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_history_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=next&oldid=330343664

User: AntonioMartin: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalist_attack_of_San_Juan&diff=next&oldid=330490630).

• 7. The user also involved him/herself in further lack of civility via name-calling (see "imbecile" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7#File:Old_Pr_baseball_game_poster.gif)

• 8. The user's behavior (which could be described as arrogant [you know the type where you speak as if you know it all ("That could come out to be enlightening for you." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring), where you set yourself up as the judge ("The article commenting about the image is a good start, and if worked correctly, can "save" the image." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG), or where you somehow operate as if you are above everyone else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_over_expected_FFD_vote-counting)]) is inconsistent with a community working together.

• 9. The user's overall intentions (note -- not necessarily as evidence but as an example to be taken with the rest of user's all other actions -- note the user's use of double quotes around "vote" in "I would "vote" to keep it" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) would appear to be un-democratic. That is, that regardless of the input, effort, and even correctness of the other editors responding, the user has already premeditated the files will be deleted (This is called "malice" in some places).

• 10. The user is not supported in the JPG delete actions for what appears to be most, but maybe all, of the files by any of the editors commenting (Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG). The only possible exception to this so far is an editor User: Rama previously unknown who has appeared seemingly out of nowhere, and who is involved him/herself in the same type of "nondemocratic", "I-don't-care-what-the-other-editors-think-say-or-want-I-will-do-it-my-own-way" type of behavior (see Rama's "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin:Rama_ignoring_previous_consensus.2C_refusing_to_gain_new_consensus)

• 11. The user's overall who-cares? attitude (see, for example, "Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring) is overall nonproductive, in so far as this batch delete project the user has undertaken.

The user's behavior of not showing consideration to the editors involved is clearly unwelcomed (given the negative feedback user has gotten from everyone (5-7 users) that has reacted to user's style just in the PR project) and, to myself, counterproductive, and I believe counterproductive to probably other editors as well (see for Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caribbean_H.Q.#Just_a_thought).

I don't doubt that something good can come out of all of this: sharper abuse management skills, a renewed review of wikipedia behavioral policies, more detail written into some articles, etc. If improvement is what the user seeks, there is no doubt there will always be room for more improvement - even after user gets done with this exercise. However, the user's methods violate wikipedia's community behavioral policies. The problem here is that the user's behaviour is resulting in more damage than good: edit warring, name-calling, threats, undue scrutiny of seemingly no-randomly selected images, in short, an athmosphere of distrust and low morale. The problem is that while a few of this user's comments might be helpful, overwhemingly they are not, and, even if they were all helpful, they come tainted with the indignant mark of that user's aggressive behaviour. The user has at this point damaged beyond repair his/her ability to operate civily in this Project.

• I petition that the user be banned from further work in PR images in question and in any other PR-related images in wikipedia.

• I petition that, at least while this matter is resolved, that all PR-related images user has tagged as nominated for deletion be hereby postponed beyond the 12/14/09 deadline. Thanks.

• I petition that a different, neutral, less intransigent editor or administrator with greater ability to get others to work in a collaborative environment be asked to review all the images in question and determine if, in effect, there is any problem with them, for follow up.

Regards Mercy11 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Damiens.rf --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really inclined to read through this wall of text and diffs (short messages are usually preferable), but making assumptions about an editor's personal life is unacceptable; please redact these statements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a quick read through. Damiens.rf has a history of nominating huge numbers of images for deletion at the same time, usually uploaded by the same user. Having to scramble through huge numbers of your contributions can be demoralizing and a huge time suck. Personally, I'd like to see him restricted in someway in regards to the number of uploads he can nominate for deletion in a 24 or 48 hour period. Also, he certainly doesn't do much to inspire a collegial environment around here, though that should be addressed at WP:WQA most likely.AniMate 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with AniMate) Damiens.rf specialises in non-free image cleanup. This work is often bound to get affected users angry, but that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Damiens has a lot of expertise and experience in this, and the huge majority of his nominations are soundly argued and usually find the consensus of well-informed image administrators. Yes, he can be brusque at times, but this seems to be a minor issue in the present case. So, in short: no, forget it. He will not be "banned" from doing this job, and the images he nominated will be reviewed in the normal way like all others. Mercy: your whole approach of making this a "Puerto Rico" topic-related issue, as if that country as a topic area needed some special protection from an "attack", shows you have gotten something fundamentally wrong here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor now... sorry but I'm starting to see a trend with some of the users who get involved in this particular bit of work on wikipedia, this may need a much larger looking at by the community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect: As you have addressed me directly, I hereby respond to your statement. You seem to have missed a major point altogether: I have singled out PR in my discussion based not, as you claim, on a belief PR deserves some special protection from an attack, but because that country is the home-base wikiproject (WP:PUR) for an article I had substantially worked on (Ponce Massacre) and which contains an image (Ponce Massacre.jpg)) that was NfD'd by Damiens.rf.

What is at the core of this whole discussion is, When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they forget about the human element of a collaborative work. Whether to-be-banned or not to be, is a secondary matter that can be handled as a second phase. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with both AniMate and Future Perfect, at least in part. As Future Perfect points out, User:Damiens.rf has accumulated a lot of expertise and experience in dealing with non-free images, and has provided much useful service by identifying problems with images. At the same time, I share AniMate's perception that Damiens.rf's nominations of images for deletion tend to have demoralizing effects on other users, the vast majority of whom are utterly befuddled by the rules on images. It appears to me that Damiens.rf intimidates other users with his(?) superior knowledge of image copyrights and fair-use justifications. I doubt that this intimidation is intentional -- it's just something that has happened. I'd like to ask Damiens.rf to take pity on other users who lack his thoroughgoing knowledge (i.e., most of the rest of us) by making a couple of changes to his modus operandi:

1. Instead of telling other users that their "fair use" justifications are incomplete or incorrectly formatted, assist them by revising their justifications (if they appear to have merit) or explaining to them what the problems are.
2. When dealing with an apparently non-free image that has been in use in Wikipedia for more than about 6 months, refrain from nominating the image for deletion until after contacting (on user talk pages) all currently active registered users who appear to have an interest in the image (i.e., the uploader, people who have edited the image page, and people who have made substantial edits to articles that use the image) to identify and explain the problem, listen to the other users' points of view, and advise on resolving the situation (if possible).

--Orlady (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I could hardly agree less. We have a big problem here, but it has nothing to do with Damiens.rf. The problem here is these other users, the ones you're wasting your sympathy on. Anyone who is "demoralised" by the removal of non-free content is entirely missing the point of what we're trying to do here. If editors feel that they are being made to jump through hoops to justify the use of non-free content, that's right and proper. Those who seek to retain it should work hard to justify every single piece of non-free content.

We should be ruthless, relentless and remorseless in removing non-free content. This is a free encyclopedia. Every time we add something to it that's not free and not absolutely necessary for our readers' understanding we can chalk that up as a failure. Every time we remove something that's not free and replace it with something that is, whether that's better-written text or some other sort of content, that counts as a success. Here endeth the lesson. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"We should be ruthless". Really? Are we in a collaborative project or a game? No wonder editors are leaving Wikipedia. You can enforce policy and be civil about it. I don't understand why he can't engage the uploader or the project before mass nominating similar images. --Jmundo (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be confusing ruthlessness and rudeness but I'm not. There are many thousands of non-free images on Wikipedia which do not meet the EDP. Deleting these is doing the Right Thing. And will ruthlessly deleting them upset people? Yes it probably will but we can't not delete such images just because someone might leave in a huff. We should try to avoid making things worse by being rude or aggressive but that cuts both ways. Experienced editors whose non-free images are sent to FFD shouldn't overreact either. It's not a personal attack any more than nominating "their" category or template would be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is why sometimes I whish WP:DRAMA still redirected here ;). I'll try to be brief but will fail.

1) Damiens specializes in a generally thankless, but important job. I agree with the comments that ask that we keep this is mind.

2) I have also tried to approach the matters with him in a civil and honest manner, including my unease at assuming good faith in this case. I have done some what in the deletion discussions, but mostly in his talk page. He has been generally civil, except one instance of borderline dickery - the usual trick of "am calling your actions 'imbecile' not you" etc.

3) However, the issue here is how he approaches this work. The massive nature doesn't allow - in spite of his denial - for a real nuanced approach to the fair use criteria. Damiens seems to use a general criteria that is his interpretation of global consensus. However, fair use doctrine is by definition a case-by-case one by which other than defining what it is *not*, everything else is open to reasonable interpretation. My discussion with him on his talk page illustrates this point, for example, he claims one image lacks any intrinsic

4) I think AniMate's comments mostly approach my experience. The problem is not the activity per-se, but the approach to this activity. Basically, in this particular case, he is targeting a series of articles actively maintained and curated by an active Wikiproject made up of a fair number of veteran editors and administrators. Rather than this meaning any special status, it means that common sense tells you that you should approach the matter differently. In fact, Tony the Marine deleted or changed the criteria for a number of images when Damiens' rationale proved to be unquestionable. Damiens, in other words, in failing to assume good faith.

5) Ultimately, the community except in speedy deletion cases, always prefers that people talk things out before going to third parties. It seems damiens sees this common sense community approach unapealing, and prefers a strict, policy based approach. I understand this is a debate with camps etc, so I am not arguing that he is doing something inherently wrong. I am saying that in my opinion, this is a highly unproductive way to proceed, that ends up in AN/I instead of fixing the article space and its images.

I think Damiens is well intentioned, but perhaps should trust the community to be able to learn the intricacies of fair use doctrine, and that it too shares his concern about minimizing the use of fair use images. However, he also shoudl have a little bit of patience:There is no deadline. --Cerejota (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will say this again, the problem is not nominating the images. The issue is the way that said action was done. The user was highly sarcastic in his approach to edits trying to fix the issues that he claims, calling the contributions either "jokes" or "idiotic [edits]". Mass nominating at once doesn't help either, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, in order to fix things we need to collaborate. By mass nominating dozens of pictures at once he is creating a massive backlog for a project, he can't really expect to have the issues resolved as fast as he is nominating, seeing that he seems to have limitless time to do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since I have been discussed here, I think that it is only fair that I express myself. This discussion is not about the removal of non-free images. Those that do not meet Wikipedia policy must be removed. Damiens' expertise is images and he is a good editor. I have had the pleasure of interacting with him over a year ago. I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that there some who have misunderstood what is really being discussed here and have missed the point of the issues involved, which are the mass nomination of one editors upload and the name calling which went on during the process.

1. I believe that mass nomination of an editors uploads is a unproductive stressing situation for the uploader and in some cases may give the impression that the nominator has agenda. It should have been handled in different manner. If the situation involves numerous images, the nominator could point out the situation to the uploader by a simple discussion, giving the uploader the opportunity to fix or find a solution to the situation. If that doesn't work then nominate. There are some nominations made by Damiens which I do not agree with, especially those which I consider historically significant, however I realized that others were within reason and I deleted them. I have to add that even though in some cases we did not see eye to eye, Damiens has began to discuss some of the images in my talk page with reasonable logic and as such I have deleted or replaced some of the images. Damiens has also helped in some of the image formats.

2. I found the name calling on Damiens part rude and offensive. It was uncalled for and as a result tensions rose. There is no need for such actions during the process. Discussions should be carried out without any name callings or offenses Even though I am an administrator, I am not a know it all. I have dedicated myself to the creation of historical and military related Puerto Rican articles and therefore I have kept updated in regard to changes in image policy. But, I am not an "imbecile." However, I also sinned by warning Damiens with a "block" for his conduct during the process, when I should have discussed the issue in ANI. The bottom line is that discussions should be carried out in a civil manner without what any words which any of the parties may consider offensive. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree w/comments by Mercy, AniMate, Crossmr, and Jmundo. I've looked at the diffs, and believe if people looked at them carefully they would reach the same conclusion. This isn't just a matter of someone civilly doing a good job. It completely uncivil. And unacceptable. The loading up on individual editors, when coupled with the incivility, does much to suggest that the presumption of AFG may well be rebutted by the behavior. There's not deadline here on wikipedia, as has been pointed out. Damiens should slow down and be civil. If we had to choose between "uncivil good work", and no contributions at all from his, I would go for the latter. I would hope, however, that with input from the community he can become a civil, helpful contributor. I should note, btw, that I've found his recent AfD judgment to be markedly poor here, which reflected a complete failure to do a wp:before nom review for sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this whole meme about "it's bad to nominate multiple images by the same uploader" just needs to be rejected. This has come up repeatedly, including Arbcom proceedings and RfCs, and the result is always the same: it's just not a reasonable demand. If an image reviewer comes across a whole group of images of a similar kind uploaded under similar conditions for similar articles by the same editor or small group of editors, of course the natural reaction is to try and deal with them all in one go. How else would one be able to go about it efficiently? Do people really think it would be a reasonable and efficient way of dealing with problematic images if you were obliged to just randomly pick one here and one there? And what good would it do to just "slow it down", as some have demanded? It would cause the same pain, and only spread out the pain over a longer period. Seriously, as long as the main objection against Damiens' work seems to be the fact of the batch nature of his nominations, I can't see any merit in them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but just because its a thankless job, or really hard, or whatever the excuse du jour is, doesn't mean they get a pass on civility, plain and simple. There are zero exceptions built into the policy that say "If you had a bad day..." "if you made 10 good contributions today.." "If you think what you're doing is for the good of mankind.." etc. I'll also re-raise the point that I feel there seems to be a trend with some users, this particular field of work and civility. As mercy pointed out I'd rather have someone who can be civil and only work at 50% of the speed than someone who works twice as fast but pushes you out of the way to get there.--Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To stay on track, the core issue here, as in my submission, is: When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? Said differently, What constitutes a good editor, one that has expertise in some area, or one that has expertise in some area and can behave civilly? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they start to believe that also earns them the right to be ruthless, relentless and remorseless with other editors. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really expect us to pick "civil but not so good"? If this was just about incivility, you wouldn't have needed such a huge wall of text to say it. No, the core of this thread is non-free images being deleted, and rivers being cried over it.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The core discussion is neither what Mercy says, or Atlan says: its about Damiens, using policy as his weapon, ignores other equally valid policy. Not being civil and not being collaborative is as against policy (not to mention harmful and as unproductive) as including non-free images with sketchy criteria.

That said, the only policy I really care about is that we are writing an encyclopedia.

I am troubled by comments such as Atlan's that seem to ignore the purpose we are here for, which is to write an encyclopedia, not enforce policies. Damiens work is needed, but it is not more important than advancing the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Justifying his behavior only serves to reinforce is mistaken belief that the way he is doing thing is productive. --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is not the deletion of images based on policy, but Damiens' aggressive tactics and lack of communication. He mass nominate images here and then goes to Commons where he doesn't notify the uploader. BTW, it was a simple request and he withdrew the nomination (1). When does it becomes pointy? --Jmundo (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I was merely answering the choice Mercy stated, which had poor conduct versus less good editing. It's a stupid choice. We shouldn't have to substitute Damiens' effectiveness simply to get him to act civilly. There's certainly a better way to do that, and I'm sure bitching about his (sound) image nominations for deletion is not going to make him any more forthcoming. You seem to believe uploading non-free content is "building the encyclopedia" and nominating said content for deletion is "enforcing policy" and somehow a bad thing. That's completely understating the importance of our non-free image policies and those that have the thankless job of enforcing them, like Damiens. Jmundo, if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated. It's not Damiens' responsibility to give the uploaders ample time to address each nomination. It's not even his responsibility to notify the uploaders.--Atlan (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not the only ones "bitching" (Sure, let's talk about civility!), it seems now that he has move to mass nominate Greek historical images as a new discussion was open below. --Jmundo (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not disruptive or aggressive to mass nominate images, when they're sound nominations. Get over it. The uploaders should spend more time properly uploading images and less time running to the drama boards complaining about their precious work being tagged. The only real issue is Damiens' sometimes brusque approach, which can set people off that are already annoyed by their images being nominated. That doesn't need admin attention. --Atlan (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. it is not like that situation didn't cause months and years of drama before.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this as an easy fix so at least people are on equal footing, while the patrolling editor can mostly continue behaviors:

• For images seen as largely from the same contributor, notify coming actions on his/her talk page.
• Turn off notifiy in Twinkle or whatever is being used.
• Keep a full list of everything a template is added to and post that to the user's talk page as well.

...Not so hard, is it? I would say it could be possible to nominate the list as a whole like occasionally happens with WP:GARAGE matters, but each image needs to be evaluated differently in some way and don't automatically group as precisely the same things. Really though, problems with those 3 steps? I have no doubts the patrolling is in good faith overall, but in respect to users who put a lot of time into things I can't see why a little politeness wouldn't be good. If this were articles being marked it would be welcomed for the nominator to help improve the article, which is a level of courtesy far higher than even the proposed above, so it doesn't seem like all that much. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Condensing notifications into one has been brought up before. Would it be possible for the scripts to autodetect previous warnings and replace them with a new warning that included a list of all effected articles?--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been brought up "here" but it has DEFINITELY been brought up; I know because I brought it up, back in the days of the Betacommand hoo-raws. I am certain SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE in this project has the technical expertise to write a bot, a script, a something, that can condense a series of pending deletions, sort them by user, and then post the LIST of items to be deleted on each affected user's talkpage, without evoking the recurring cries of "notice-bombing", without leaving room for operator incivility either real or imagined, and without anyone, on any side of this misery, being given any reason for driving out any sort of WAAAAHHH-mbulance whatsoever. Regrettably, I am not the person with that technical expertise; if that person were to come forward, I would expect he/she/it/they to find the Nobel Peace Prize in next year's e-mail somewhere. Or at least a nomination for sainthood.GJC 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN, to stay on track, this issue here is

“ When confronted with a choice between uncivil good work and civil but not so good, which choice will you pick? ”

— Mercy11

Second guessing me on this has lead to a distraction that, though among the valid "related issues", is best dealt via a separate thread so as not to fall off track again. Categorizing my statement above as "stupid" just shows how irrational behavior can quickly take over what is a discussion about civility and, in itself, shows the first sign of uncivility -- name-calling. I invite Atlan, who specifically refered to me by name earlier, to re-read my submission and note that civility is not only inherent in the title of my submission, but it's there throughout virtually all the bullets of my submission from bullet#1 to the last bullet#11. Please don't second guess me on my own submission.

Mass deletions were dealt with in bullet #2 alone. Is the subject of mass deletions important? -- yes, but in the sense that it provides a stronger case to the lack of civility, and in the sense that it adds the element of lack of good faith, both undesirable community behaviors (read uncivility again).

The problem is not in nominating the images, and the problem is not in mass-nominating the images, the problem is uncivility, bad faith, failure to seek consensus, unreasonableness of expectations, edit-warring, name-calling, uncivility, uncivility, uncivility. And this is why rivers are being cried over it both by those of us affected by the uncivility AND by those other insightful editors able to see the bigger picture of the consequences of letting this sort of behavior go unnoticed. Is Damiens above wikipedia policy? I do not share in the belief of some commentators here who support that. Obviously, editors don't just behave uncivilly for no reason at all; there is always a backdrop for such behavior, and this is why I mentioned multiple JPG deletions in the title of my submission: multiple JPG deletions is the backdrop for the uncivility. However, such backdrop (as noble as the underlying cause may be(read: attempt to follow copyright law)) doesn't justify the edit-warring, name-calling, and uncivil behavior, does it? Wikipedia has mechanisms to deal with questionable images -- and uncivility, edit warring, and name-calling are not part of that mechanism, or are they?

One word on the distracting issue of mass nomination: It is poor logic to say that "if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated". This ignores the significant fact that these so-called "mass uploads" (unlike the mass nominations) did not occur at the same time (nor in so far as I can tell, with malice or bad faith). Compare that with the mass delete nominations which were done on the same day and hour (minute?). Mercy11 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. I replied to a similar accusation yesterday in the now closed thread which I initiated. Accusing someone with "Mass uploading" when the uploading occured during a long time interval is wrong. Furthermore such uploading, done over a long time period, is within the range of human capabilities. Now compare this action to a machine assisted onslaught during which the human operator is flooded with warnings over a period of minutes. The robot-assisted operation undoes the months-long work of a human in mere seconds. This is the recipe for the extinction of human effort in Wikipedia, including reasoned discourse. For it is almost impossible for a human to keep up with the rain of robot-assisted ffds and try to defend all of them. If this were the Terminator series of films this would be the "Rise of the Machines" segment. Except it is happening in Wikipedia and it is unleashed upon us. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My two Cents Really, that block of text could be summed up in a paragraph or two. No need for the full brief, most people in ANI know what to look for anyways. I have noticed that the user in question has targeted images relating to Puerto Rico in large numbers, however I have not seen enough of him to know if he is just going topic by topic or has an axe to grind. Regardless, he tends to be right about 60% of the time. That's not high enough for my tastes. He needs to slow down, but not stop. Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions

At Scientific opinion on climate change, User:Tedder reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 [17] which resulted in a warning. I don't think Tedder should have been blocked (as I said) but he should withdraw the protection and withdraw from the dispute: he has become involved.

I am seeking review of his actions William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Tedder of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP is considered bad form. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He should either remove the protection or the tag, he can't have both. Unfortunately, he should be considered involved now. Verbal chat 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Tedder is involved. Being involved in a content dispute, violating WP:3RR and then protecting the page to his preferred version is not appropriate. Since he has become involved I would suggest the page be unprotected to the last version since his protecting and Tedder asked to not take administrative actions on this article. Basket of Puppies 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Contrary to his assertion on AN3 that he had not commented on the article,[18] his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position.[19] He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it,[20][21][22][23] and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version.[24] in blatant violation of the protection policy. -Atmoz (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not one of these diffs relates to anything but the war over the POV tag, which he originally mediated by blocking those who were adding the tag last week. The tag was removed, and a week later the dispute has not been resolve, so GoRight asked for the tag to be added from the same admin who enforced its removal. When he tried to do that, the other side edit-warred. Instead of blocking them (which he had every right to do), he reverted in the hopes that they would stop. They didn't and then they reported him for 3RR. Verbal and WMC should be blocked for warring with an uninvolved admin, just as GoRight was blocked last week. These games have to stop on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me. Tedder took a position on whether the POV tag should be in the article. He then edit warred to keep it in the article. Then locked the page in his preferred version. These are the facts, and they are not disputed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder's previous position was the opposite of his current position! He blocked those adding the tag last week, and when the dispute wasn't resolved, he decided it would be best to add it back in. He has never (as far as I can tell) been involved on the GW pages, and he only came here because of the edit war on the POV tag which was ongoing. That's not involved, that's following up on the dispute. By that logic, any admin who ever protects an article is banned from protecting it ever again. ATren (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. At that point, Tedder stated he would block anyone for adding or removing the tag. Less than 24 hours ago, he changed his position to endorse the addition of the tag.[25] That was when he ceased being uninvolved. If he was truly uninvolved, he would not have done any reverting but would have simply protected the page on the WRONG version. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, please review the diffs. Tedder reverted the first time as well when he blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5. In that case, of course, he reverted to your preferred version. So did you consider that an involved block? Because by your definition above, it was. Yet even though Tedder was "involved" back on Dec. 2, WMC saw fit to request more admin action from Tedder against ZuluPapa5. Why would he seek admin action on Dec. 2 if he was involved? Apparently, WMC didn't think he was involved on Dec. 2. It was only today, when Tedder took the exact same action against WMC's side of the debate did WMC suddenly cry "involvement". Sounds like admin involvement is a sliding scale for WMC. ATren (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder has not been involved on that page. There has been an ongoing dispute on that page for maybe a week now, and Tedder never made a single contribution to that debate. As the debate went on, the two sides were warring over the tag as discussion continued on talk. Tedder blocked two editors on one side of the debate and the POV-tag war ended, temporarily. But the dispute remained.

Fast forward to yesterday, when GoRight asked to add the tag back after a week of no progress in the dispute. Tedder agreed. The other side (Verbal & WMC) reverted him a total of 4 times. Tedder probably should have protected the page, but he has said he didn't believe those editors would revert-war on that tag. He's obviously new to the global warming debate, since this kind of edit warring is common among 3 or 4 editors on the pro-GW side.

In any case, the dispute is ongoing, and Tedder's argument was that the POV tag should remain until it goes through dispute resolution. I have been following the GW pages for a year now, and I've never seen Tedder on any of these pages. His only involvement was last week, when he blocked editors on the other side of the debate. ATren (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note WMC's comment on Tedder's level of participation in the debate, [26]. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. Edit warring the tag in was wrong, sure, we all see that; there is an active meta-dispute and if we can resolve that quickly - great. There is plenty of talkpage discussion, so I really could not care less whether we let the tag abide for four days or remove it now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "four days." GoRight's stated intent (in which Tedder apparently concurs) is to keep the article tagged until all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, up to and including an Arbcom case. That means the tag could stay up for six months or more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And why is that a problem? ATren (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out an error in the previous post, and did not state or imply that it was a "problem." You may want to consider not imputing things to people that they did not actually say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for misinterpreting. So, to be clear, is it not a problem for you then? ATren (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another thing that I did not say... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Four days is the length of the protection. It should also be plenty of time to determine whether the current tagging is an effort at genuine discussion or IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must have misinterpreted what "let the tag abide for four days" referred to. Apologies for adding to the confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I was unclear. On an unrelated note - has this thread been completely derailed from something AN/I can deal with? Four hours and a scant handful of uninvolved editors seems a little light, but I am tempted to ask that it be closed anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. My only involvement on this page has been to stop the edit warring that has been occurring over the {{POV}} tag after it was reported 10 days ago to WP:RFPP. My first involvement was to set up some ground rules to keep the POV tag from being inserted as that seemed the right thing to do [27]. I protected the page, blocked a few users who edit warred after my talkpage rule.

As ATren says, I decided the POV tag should be included when GoRight posted to my talk page, as the POV "issues" hadn't been resolved. I told GoRight to include it, then I re-added it after it was removed by various editors. I specifically didn't ask GoRight or others to undo these removals as the intent was to not have this turn into an editor-based edit war again. My edit summaries on the additions made this pretty clear: "unexplained removal of maint tag" after a SPA, likely "bad hand" account added it, " leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page." after WMC removed it, "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." after Verbal removed it, "as I said, don't edit war over this tag. See endless discussions on talk page." after Verbal removed it the second time.

I've purposefully tried not to be involved in this article, and I've repeatedly suggested it go through the steps on WP:DR, likely WP:MEDCAB. Hopefully this discussion will at least spur some interest from other admins, hopefully some that are better at untangling and resolving these sort of issues. I've given it the best effort I am capable of doing with my adminly hat on. tedder (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Without accusing either principal editor involved in this section, I would very much like to ask for more administrative eyes on the whole nexus of global warming/climate change/IPCC articles. Since the email disclosure incident, the onwiki climate has seriously deteriorated to the point where it's headed for WP:PLAGUE territory, with editors acting on the principle that things are right or wrong according to the effect that rightness or wrongness would have on their political beliefs, and judging other editors as culpable or blameless according to the advantage they perceive for some editorial side. Neutral intervention is very much needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Then, as debates over global warming often do, the discussion dissolved into incomprehensible shouting." MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is good discussion for Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change, please take it there. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What is purpose of POV tag there anyway? The scientific opinion on climate change is pretty clear. It is also clear that GoRight and a few others disagree with the scientific opinion. But unless you can argue that the article on the scientific opinion misrepresents this scientific opinion in some way, giving the wrong weight to some POVs, then the POV tag shouldn't be there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict) This is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute, as has been made clear. No one is disputing the scientific opinion or even how it is described. That is a red herring of the first order. The dispute over the neutrality of that page is, in essence but not limited to, the fact that there are public controversies related to that scientific opinion. The public controversies are being blocked from the page by mischaracterizing our arguments as we see here. If there are controveries about topic X those controversies are customarily described on the same page that describes topic X. This is clearly self-evident but our opponents simply continue to not hear that. This is the fundamental source of the issue and the reason that this issue was not resolved long ago. I made a good faith proposal, the others ignored it for days, so when I pointed out to Tedder that I can't resolve the dispute if the others refuse to participate he agreed to let me finally put up the POV template. "What is purpose of POV tag there anyway?" asks Count Iblis. Well if one reads what it says and follows up further to read the essay it directs the reader to, its purpose is merely to alert the reader to an ongoing dispute. It does NOT indicate that the article is NOT neutral, only that someone is claiming that it is not neutral. As the template itself states, it should be left up until the dispute is resolved. That's all we are asking, leave it up until the dispute is resolved. This seems perfectly in line with the letter and the spirit of the tag and its associated essay, yet these editors continue to edit war against its inclusion when there CLEARLY IS a dispute. I was reluctant to bring this issue here myself, see [28] and [29], because it appears to be a garden variety content dispute, although the use of the POV template and attacks on Tedder are an entirely different matter. So I ask the independent editors here, what is the purpose of the POV template if not for these exact situations? When is it appropropriate to put the POV template up on a page? What are the community customs and norms in this respect? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC) This review is an unnecessary escalations, I originally placed the tag, it should reasonably remain on during a dispute. Any admin can review the page and see a valid dispute progressing. The principal complainant has brought their edit war here and I pray for reasonable oversight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Is the neutrality of the article disputed because people have sourced information suggesting there is no scientific consensus, or is the neutrality disputed because people disagree with global warming? The first is an issue that the tag would be appropriate for, the second is not. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Neither, at least in my case. The neutrality is being challenged because discussion of public controversies specifically centered on the "scientific consensus" are being systematically blocked despite long standing norms on Wikipedia to include such discussions on the pages where the topic in question is described. We all know that the "scientific opinion/consensus" is controversial in the public domain yet we are blocked from using WP:RS to describe that controversy. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) As best I can tell, the main issue is that GoRight wants to change the long-standing scope of the article. For a long time (at least a couple of years), the article has restricted itself to statements by academies of science and other bodies of national or international standing. GoRight wants the scope of the article to be altered so that it includes most any individual or organization with a verifiable opinion on whether a consensus exists (e.g., "public controversies" about the existence of a consensus, etc. as he says above). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC (edit conflict)If such is the case, then said change in scope is inappropriate. If there exist overviews of scientific thought on the matter, then they outweigh individual reports, as including those reports would be OR by synthesis. Grabbing a few scattered reports and deriving statisistics regarding consensus is exactly what the creators of the large reports did, except on a much larger scale and without prejudice to individual POVs. Thus the official reports are more valid than an attempt at sysnthesis of a few reports by an individual editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Red herring. This is not what the dispute is about. --GoRight (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) So, do you agree that there is a disagreement on the content of the article, one which hasn't been resolved? ATren (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Simply disagreeing is not enough. You must provide sources that outweigh the sources already included. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) It is not a matter of comparing sources because the content is being completely blocked. There are no public controversies discussed on that page. I guess by default that means any WP:RS discussing the controversy automatically trumps the empty set. --GoRight (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Not necessarily a change in scope, as evidenced by the fact that Scientific consensus on global warming redirects to that page. If that page is not about the consensus, then as I said in my proposal the discussion on that page of consensus should be moved to the overlapping and competing article Climate change consensus and the redirect should be updated accordingly. If that page wants to discuss ONLY an articulation of the "scientific opinion" as documented by the statements of the academies I don't actually object, but then people should not be directed there either by redirects such as the one above, nor should it include any discussion of the issue of "consensus" as that would be out of scope. My position is simple. If an article is prominently utilized to represent the "consensus" as evidenced by redirects and wikilinks to that effect then THAT is where the controversies related to the consensus should be addressed. This is the long-standing custom for how to address controversies on wikipedia and this article should not be an exception. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Uh, how about leaving the disputes at the talk page for the article, and talk about the admin-level needs/admonishments here? tedder (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC) A fine suggestion but I still wish to have an answer to my questions about when it is appropriate to use the POV tag based on community norms as articulated by the independent voices here. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) That discussion is certainly valid, but AN/I isn't the proper forum for it. The purpose here is to request admin intervention regarding a particular incident, not discuss wikipedia policies. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) OK, I want to report an incident at Scientific opinion on climate change where WP:NPOV is being violated and it needs to be stopped. Can you please insure that the POV template remains on that page until such time as the on-going dispute there is resolved? --GoRight (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Community norms for placing the POV tag on an article What are they? Can uninvolved administrators please indicate their opinion below: --GoRight (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Administrators' opinions carry no special weight versus any other editor. You do not require administrative services; you appear to have a content dispute. Please choose from the dispute resolution menu, perhaps third opinion or mediation. Jehochman Talk 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you. This is as I thought, see my comment [30]. Please note that we were attempting to do as you suggest, [31], when the process was disrupted by WMC and Verbal. Please block them for edit waring after they were clearly warned not to and for disruption so that we can return to the task at hand. 55 hours seems to be the going time frame for this particular offense. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) You are best advised to take your discussion to one of the forums mentioned. There does not appear to be consensus that an actionable offense occurred. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it ok for admins to edit war to a version of an article they like, then protect that version? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks so, doesn't it? The question I'm trying to figure out is whether Tedder has acknowledged what he did wrong here. Guettarda (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder's reply to the 3RR report seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms. They seem to be working through the RFPP board right now, so make of that what you may. My position, basically, is that we need more admins working in controversial areas, and should try not to excoriate the ones we have without dire cause; I acknowledge the seriousness of the principle involved, but I still see this as a minor incident not like to be repeated; I further acknowledge that I have something of a vested interest in hoping that the community may forgive but not overlook any mistakes I will probably make working the same area. tedder was clearly not involved at that article before today; there are reasonable arguments on either side for involvement status after having expressed an opinion on whether the talkpage debate warranted an {{NPOV}} tag; I really wish that the sides of the present debate did not align so neatly with the battle lines drawn in the topic area of climate change generally. Personally, I lean towards the revert, admonish, and move on solution ({{resolved}}?); I advise against lifting the protection just yet unless there is an enforceable consensus here regarding the tag. Other not necessarily exclusive reasonable resolutions to this thread include: admonish but leave the tag; request that tedder not use the admin bit on that article; request that tedder not use the admin bit in that topic area or with those editors (to be defined more rigorously if necessary); and request that WP:WikiProject Meteorology or WP:WikiProject Environment open a discussion on the organization of these articles (see Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for the antecedent of these). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the POV tag is useful for articles that have only a few regular editors. In these cases, it draws the attention of other editors to possible problems. In the case of the many Global Warming articles and their related BLP's, there are already enough people representing many different points of view. There is really no need to advertise for more editors to get involved. On the other hand, it make sense to place some kind of indicator at the top of the articles to warn readers that these pages are very controversial. I believe that Template:Controversial would be appropriate for that. A better solution might be to create a special GlobalWarming template for these articles, in that way we could agree on less generic text AND provide a link to a page discussing the problems of producing a balanced NPOV article. (Yes, I am suggesting that it is time to have an article about the problems of creating good Global Warming articles. It may be OR, but it could be useful to people using wikipedia.) Q Science (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Controversial is a better template for this particular article than NPOV. That being said, I suggest we wait until some outcome to the current discussion is apparent before changing it, to avoid further muddying the waters. One issue at a time seems best here. As for the essay, that sounds like a great idea. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that {{Controversial}} is intended to be used on an articletalk page. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally posted to Tedder's talk page, but he has requested I post it here where I presume he will answer: Tedder, "As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks," Verbal chat 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr ... isn't that what this thread was supposed to do? 131.137.245.206 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this thread was designed so that the ususual suspects could argue about global warming. Actually adressing adminstrative misconduct was not the goal here, regardless of the fact that that waas the expressed goal. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the protection at Tedder's request. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Tedder to make the block himself, there was an edit war occurring, and there is still a lot of debate on the talk page, so I won't be undoing the protection. I also won't be getting involved in the dispute, so the wrong version will continue to stand as the protected version, and I will monotor for further edit warring after protection expires. You can more or less consider me the protecting admin at this point, as Tedder indicated to me on my talk page that he would not be taking any further action in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You declined to adress if Tedders actions were appropriate. Regardless of results, it was my understand that users were not to edit war, that admins were not supposed to protect favored versions, that admins were not supposed to protect articles they were involved in, and that admins were not granted the power to "bless" tags. Were my understandings incorrect? If they were, we need to update a few pages. I'll get right on that, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As you said, I declined to address those issues. I am not endorsing or condemming Tedder's actions or getting involved in this dispute. I was asked as an uninvolved person who regularly deals with page protection to simply review the protection and take whatever action I thought best, and that is what I have done, and all I will be doing. I think we can assume Tedder has got the message after all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit war was a direct result of Tedder's actions. He has yet to acknowledge any wrong doing, and the incorrect and justified result of his edit warring that he forced on the rest of us in violation of 3RR and WP:PROTECT, and without any discussion, despite prior notice, is still in place. I have placed an edit protect request to get the tag removed. I don't think we can assume all admins get the message, especially without Tedder saying he has got the message, we need a clear statement that this is not appropriate. Either he admits his mistake or is told with community authority that this should not happen again (no block, etc needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Verbal and his allies were warring long before Tedder came to the article - and Tedder arrived there as an admin responding to a noticeboard request. The insinuation that the edit war was a "direct result" of Tedder is completely wrong. ATren (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check my contribution history to that article, and their is no cabal. I have not editwarred. Do you dispute the fact that Tedder broke editor and admin rules with his action? Verbal chat 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please check my contribution history to that article ... I have not editwarred." - OK, [32] and [33] --GoRight (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just a continuation of a pattern of behavior on User:Tedder's behalf, as seen by his similar actions regarding the dispute at Crucifixion in art.Yzak Jule (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy by Tedder

Note that Tedder said above FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) . Thus is false. Tedder only asked for the protection to be reviewed. The admin he asked has specifically declined several requests to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I struck "tagging" per your request. That wasn't my intent. tedder (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

*Why* don't you want an admin to review your tagging? that is, after all, the controversial bit. Please invite an admin to review the tagging, just as you invited an admin to review the prot William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I invite (present tense) any admins to review my protection and tagging. I invited (past tense) an uninvolved admin to review my protection, as this admin spends time doing protection. tedder (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I invite you to review your own tagging of this article, and justify why it wasn't a clear violation of 3RR and PROTECT. Verbal chat 23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not adequate. You managed to find someone to review the prot; this is good. That same admin refuses to review the tag; you should *invite* a *specific* admin to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that Tedder has noted The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling [34]. I agree - it is telling. Where are the Admins who agree that Tedders tagging, let alone his breaking 3RR, were correct? Please speak up folks! William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please put down the stick? --GoRight (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Editwarred and protected POV tag

As is made clear in the above section, Tedder is only willing for his protection to be reviewed. However, most do not object to the protection. What is objected to is the editwarring engaged in by Tedder, who then protected the page so that it is stuck at his preferred version - despite being against the consensus, not being supported on the talk page, Tedder not engaging in discussion, and Tedder being warned that he was violating the 3RR. Tedder violated both 3RR and PROTECT, and has not admitted any wrong doing and has only "invited" review of the uncontroversial aspect of his behaviour. His only talk page response is to point people to this derailed ANI thread. What action needs to be taken? The POV tag should be removed to show that edit warring is not tolerated and that violation of WP:PROTECT and WP:WRONG will not be sanctioned. In addition, Tedder and admins in general need to be made aware that this is not acceptable behaviour in any forum, let alone such a controversial area where consensus is clearly against the action being forced. Verbal chat 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Tedder is imo a very good admin and editor. Looking at it from a technical point of view it does look a little bit like he got carried away, There is currently a lot of tension around the wikipedia regarding the climate change issue. I would say that there isn't a contentious disputed article on the wiki that you couldn't happily put a npov tag on, so why not just leave it there, to me it just says to the uninvolved that wikipedian editors are divided about some of the content in the article. perhaps it would be better if Tedder agreed not to act as an Admin on that article in future. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I think Tedder is a good admin too. What is needed is a clear statement that this was wrong and should not happen again, and this can be achieved either by an acknowledgement by Tedder or a reversal of the disputed and unsupported action, with a note that it was improper. Verbal chat 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed at all, the article has a tag and clearly the content is disputed and there is agreement that it needed protection, we are none of us perfect Verbal, really this is excessive commentary over a minor issue. The issue was at 3RR and only a comment there and now it is here and there is no support for all this drama here either. Quality editors should not be hounded for the occasional misjudgment..if that was the situation we would all be in trouble wouldn't we. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not minor, unless you are saying that 3RR and PROTECT are minor? If we make a mistake we should be told and admit to it if we are clearly in error. Verbal chat 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) The level of grandstanding here by Verbal and WMC is astounding. Tedder's only previous involvement with this debate was to sanction the editors on the other side a week earlier while changing the tag -- the exact same action he took here against WMC and Verbal. Yet, after that previous apparent transgression went his way, WMC was so impressed with Tedder's actions that he requested that Tedder take it one step further and institute a topic ban.

So, to review: Tedder arrives to this toxic debate as an uninvolved on Dec. 2. His action is to change the tag and block two editors. WMC is fine with this result and asks for more admin action. One week later, Tedder (having no involvement in the interim) sees that the dispute is ongoing, so he changes the tag back and protects the article after others edit-warred -- basically the same thing he did the previous week. The only difference is, this time WMC and Verbal didn't get their way. So all of a sudden, an action which one week earlier was commendable when taken against the other side, is now so controversial that it has triggered long, contentious discussions on at least three pages.

In fact, there was yet another difference here: Tedder blocked those in the initial conflict, but he chose page protection in the latter -- in effect, sparing WMC and Verbal a block. If he had done the exact same thing he did one week earlier to the other side, WMC and Verbal would have been blocked too. So, in effect, WMC and Verbal are raising all this fuss even though they got better treatment than the opposing editors did one week earlier.

There is irony, there is delicious irony, and then there is Wikipedia. ATren (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This "review" misrepresents the facts. Do you dispute that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT policy? If I was edit warring I should be blocked, however I didn't and wasn't. Tedder, on the other hand, clearly broke 3RR. Please don't pretend anyone was doing me a favour. Verbal chat 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't BOTH the 3RR and the protection now been reviewed by independent administrators? Why are you still talking about this? Please, put down the stick ... --GoRight (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, only the protection has been reviewed. The reviewing editor was quite clear about this. There has been clear admin abuse of tools and this has yet to be addressed or admitted (either would resolve this in my opinion). Verbal chat 16:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling

As Tedder put it [35]. So, to put a nice quick close in place - can we have a couple of admins come and OK Tedders breaking 3RR to insert the tag and then protect the article? Once we've got that, I'll shut up. Otherwise, this looks like the blue wall of silence because people don't want to embarass a well-respected admin William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope admins aren't avoiding commenting because they'll hurt my feelings or that I'm respected. My guess is that admins aren't commenting because it's a combination of a minor issue and they don't want to get dragged into the drama- look at the article talk page, my talk page, beeblebrox's talk page, and this ANI thread for proof of that. See MastCell's ELcomment, among other comments in this thread. tedder (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could help by responding to my query above, and giving us a review and justification of your own actions? I hope you asked MastCell before invoking him in support of your thesis. Note that the actions that created this "drama" were yours. Verbal chat 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See ATren's comment dated "18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)" for a decent review. The drama existed before I got involved in the article for the article through the RFPP process. tedder (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, that doesn't answer my question regarding 3RR and PROTECT and your violations of these policies. Secondly, ATren's review contains contains factual inaccuracies and clear POV (for example, I have not edit warred ever in this topic area, have barely been involved, and wasn't involved in this article until your edit warring). Please review your actions in light of 3RR and PROTECT, and the clear factual inaccuracies of ATren's statement. Verbal chat 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, there are better ways I could have handled it. I certainly didn't see any complaints when the original proclamation was up to keep the POV tag off and blocked GoRight (and others) for not following my rule against editwarring on the tag. I didn't see any complaints when I decided not to block WMC for ignoring that rule. I'm not going to get sucked the climate change drama any further- that includes declining your request to write up a TLDR justification for this.

To all- I'm done. Don't bring this to my talk page further, don't imply it's my responsibility to drag other admins into this, leave innocent admins like Beeblebrox alone. Keep it in this ANI thread or escalate if you feel it's necessary. But I'm not going to keep playing this game. tedder (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Verbal, if he had been consistent with his previous actions on that page -- actions which WMC endorsed -- both you and WMC would have been blocked well before it came to 3RR. Instead, he gave you 3 extra chances to comply, chances that he didn't give to GoRight on 12/2, and in thanks he gets lambasted by the two of you here.

In fact, WMC has promised to war on the tag again as soon as protection is removed, see this: "Without prot, there is no need to say "remove the NPOV tag". We'd just remove it." The "we" referred to here is WMC, Verbal, and the other 4 or 5 editors who own the GW articles. The use of "we" in this statement is telling, since it implies that WMC and his allies will edit war in tandem (as they've done previously) in order to get their way without crossing 3RR. That is exactly what happened in this particular case, when the uninvolved Tedder tried to stop the war and WMC/Verbal teamed up to stop him. Tedder should have blocked WMC and Verbal immediately. ATren (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is WMC's case with the tags [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], that should be under review here. This long ANI thread is testimonial to tenacious tag wars, with little care for folks to properly deliberate. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not have been blocked as I acted correctly. If Tedder had blocked me then it would have been quickly overturned, as it would have been a clear further abuse of admin tools (blocking someone you are in an active dispute with, especially after he had broken 3RR). It would have ended much worse for Tedder, so I hope we can lay that hypothetical to rest. The tag will likely be reoved as consensus is against it and it has not been justified. What we have here is clear abuse of admin tools, and the admin doing all he can to deflect attention away from his own abuse. Verbal chat 11:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you not complain when Tedder blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5, in the exact same situation, one week earlier? What's good for the GWoose is not good for the GWander? ATren (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't involved then. If you know of other relevant admin abuse please bring it here. Verbal chat 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to simply consider this matter closed

Shall we simply consider the matter closed at this point? --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support:

• --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Moogwrench (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• There's nothing to be gained from prolonging this. I'm convinced Tedder meant well though he could have handled things better. He isn't the first admin to have been led down the primrose path by GoRight, and unfortunately he probably won't be the last. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  Actually it was Verbal and WMC who baited him into this, not GoRight. ATren (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Even though I started a new section below, I support close. But if it must go on, I've expanded the discussion below to examine WMC's actions here. ATren (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

• I still think a review of Tedder's conduct is necessary.Yzak Jule (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tedder refuses to realise that he cannot break 3RR and PROTECT at whim, without justification. He was warned before so this was not a mistake. He edit warred the tag, and reverted to his preferred version before protecting the page. Both against the rules, and an abuse of admin tools. He refuses to justify his actions, which is against admin guidelines. He has endorsed a clearly untrue "review" of events (I was not involved there until GoRight tried to recruit Tedder as a meatpuppet). Tedder's conduct started off bad, and has gotten worse. Admins are not above the rules. Verbal chat 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Tedder. The lack of admin commnet on this issue is deafening. All we need to close this is a couple of admins to step up and say "yes, Tedder was right to break 3RR and then protect his version". How can it be that such a simple and (according to Tedder, GR, etc) obviously correct statement finds absolutely zero admin support? A second mystery is why Tedder is able to ask an admin to review the prot but for some reason unable to find anyone to review the tagging. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for WMC

WMC: your assertion is that Tedder "protected his version", which is essentially a violation of the rule forbidding admins to advance their position in a dispute, correct? If so, then why did you not report Tedder on 12/2, when he removed the POV tag and then blocked the two editors who were adding it? Isn't that the exact same violation? ATren (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Tedder hadn't violated WP:3RR in that instance, and didn't revert and then protect while editwarring. I hope you don't mind my answering. Verbal chat 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the infinitesimally thin line between great admin action and sanction worthy of a 3-pages long AN/I thread is that in the first case he blocked the users before their continued tag-team edit warring pushed him over 3RR, whereas in the second case he gave you and WMC more chances to comply? Is there any other distinction I am missing? ATren (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal. Also, in that case Tedder gave a warning first and GoRight violated that warning by putting the POV tag back on the article. Another thing is that the POV issue was and is under discussion (and Tedder demanded that we discuss the POV related issues). So you don't then need a POV tag. You also have to consider the fact that there exists many Global Warming related pages on wikipedia. There exists a lot of room for sceptical editors to write about issues they care about here on Wikipedia, e.g. in the Global Warming Controversy page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Two warnings from Tedder:

1. leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page. -- Verbal reverts
2. it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page. -- Verbal reverts again.

Regarding "Another thing is that the POV issue was and is under discussion... So you don't then need a POV tag." - from WP:NPOVD: "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

I stand by my original point: the only difference between this action and that taken 12/2 against the other side, is that Tedder gave WMC and Verbal more chances to comply. ATren (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To correct ATren again, I was not involved at that juncture and had no horse in that race. Whatever happened then is irrelevant to the issue now, which is Tedder violating 3RR and PROTECT. Note it has nothing to do with the content of the page. Also, warning by edit summary is not acceptable, and I had asked Tedder to justify the tag on his talk page and warned him about 3RR. The POV tag has still not been justified on the talk page, where the only dispute in evidence is the dispute of tag. The point of this discussion is to address the admin abuse of tools. If you think Tedder abused his tools in the past as well, that would be worthy of discussion here. Verbal chat 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, the question was directed at WMC, who WAS involved then. You took it upon yourself to intervene. I'm still waiting for WMC to respond. ATren (talk)

Copyright block extension?

• Henry Delforn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've just filed a WP:CCI on this contributor, whom I placed under a 24 hour copyright block earlier today. Corensearchbot tagged several of the contributor's articles within recent weeks, and I confirmed that the contributor was aware of copyright policy. The block was intended to prevent future vios, by reinforcing the need for familiarity with copyright policy. Further investigation suggests a much larger problem, and particularly concerning to me is the contributor's evident unwillingness or inability to recognize the issue. With respect to recent violations, he suggested that he was unaware that material could not be temporarily placed on Wikipedia while being constructed that was copied from other sources, but I have found a number of violations that are clearly not under construction. For an obvious example, see History of quantum gravity. I've also realized that he had a rash of articles G12ed in March of this year (see [41]).

Looking at the scope of this, I believe that this contributor should be indefinitely blocked, at least until there is some kind of indication that he understands and will comply with copyright policy. Currently, all we have is his statement that he believed that copyrighted content could be temporarily placed on Wikipedia—which does not explain older problems like History of quantum gravity and Deborah Gordon (transportation) and his evident belief that his copyright block arises from a vendetta he has had with an unnamed contributor: "i assure you that you and who ever else is involved in supporting this block are being (and have been) unknowingly manipulated into this action. This is absolute and without doubt. It is not worth my time to investigate and spell out for you exactly how Wikipedia admin(s) have been manipulated by the well-known user involved in you action." (For the record, both the tagging and listing that drew me were mechanical, by CSB and DumbBot.)

I have seen more than a few copyright infringers stop, once they realize what they're doing wrong. I just don't see how that can happen here, though, if he does not seem to recognize what he's done wrong and if he thinks that efforts to stop him from doing it are part of some campaign against him.

Since he's evidently concerned that my POV is not neutral, I would appreciate assistance determining if an indef block is warranted and, if so, application by someone whom he may recognize as uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... are you going to release a Cliff's Notes version of this novel?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fun read. Given at this point a number of other admins have looked it over on the user's talk page, the history of these problems, refuse to admit to any wrongdoings (ever), and simply blanking one's own talk page presumably when they get sick of reading unfortunate truths, I think that all qualifies as ongoing disruption. They were offered plenty of chances to make a case with diffs in a logical, well-formatted post... seemed to not be up to it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest we let the current block run it's course, and indef block if he persists once it is over. Copyright violations can't be ignored as they expose the Foundation to legal risk, and if this user is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that, then they need to be shown the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The only problem with that is it requires somebody to keep an eye on him. :/ His response to the latest communications was familiar. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User still has own talkpage rights... Normal process can be completed at some point, a month maybe? Do note he doesn't even seem to be disputing the process, just why his actions were justified. Actually, user should specifically be reminded they're being left talk page rights as a courtesy. *Shrugs* ... I guess the concern about watching the page would be valid, technically. Even if low risk it is the reason it gets taken away. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I support an extension of the copyright block to indef:

1. User was told about the copyright rules a long time ago (March 2009)
2. He continues to deny that there is any problem. He hints that others are persecuting him.
3. Instead of joining in a real discussion, he just deletes all the reports and comments off his Talk page
4. If he gave any hint of being willing to cooperate, it would be reason enough to lift the block. There is no such hint.
5. Dougweller and Beeblebrox have already declined his unblock requests due to the noncooperation

Under these conditions, we can have no confidence that he won't go back to the behavior noted at WP:CCI as soon as the block expires. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As a side remark, most of User:Henry Delforn's edits in mathematics and mathematical physics have been problematic, the principal reason being that he does not seem to be knowledgeable about the articles that he creates. He makes no attempt to give precise definitions or locate proper sources. A series of articles that he created, often with misleading titles, have been appearing recently at AfD. Some can be salvaged, but it is often easier to create the new articles from scratch with a more appropriate title. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As a block is intended to be preventative and not punitive, and since this editor has (perforce) not edited since he was blocked, it does not seem appropriate to me to lengthen his block at this time. The fact that he has blanked most of his talk page since his block is not truly relevant. It would, however, be wholly reasonable, if he again violates copyright on conclusion of his block, to recognise that he has no prospect of reforming his behaviour and block him indefinitely thereafter. He will need warning of this, which I propose to do now. He has blanked his talk page, which I see as irrelevant to the main issue. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my proposed purpose is not punitive, but preventive: I'm not interested in punishing him for the copyvios he's already placed, but stopping him from doing it anymore. :) The "next offense" suggestion would be fine with me, but, again, I believe we need somebody to keep an eye on him. I'm rather too busy with the daily load at WP:CP and the astronomical backlog at WP:CCI to monitor potential reoffenders. Would you or somebody else be willing to check in? While it's possible that Corensearchbot will detect issues for us, it is also (sadly) possible that it will not. There are about 340 articles to which he has already contributed that are already going to need scanning. I would hope to avoid arriving several months now to 340 more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

His block has expired, what he does next will be telling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Intent to Sue

Resolved

 – blocked and referred elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

I would like to announce that it is yet again the intention of several of my clients to seek an undisclosed sum in damages against the Wikimedia Foundation. I would be happy to forward a list of specific editors who have failed in their duty to prevent the spread of libel and misinformation about my clients, against whom legal proceedings are to be commenced. I have been instructed to watch this page and await responses from any persons wishing to discuss this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L Phillips QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.102.186 (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors and administrators do not handle legal matters. For that, contact this guy. In the meantime, you've been blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy again? Now I'm definitely calling troll. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was willing to AGF the first time, but this seems obvious. After being directed to legal, he comes back here? Troll.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You would think that a Canadian lawyer would know that both Canadian and American laws prohibit suing a website for content its users post. If I were his clients, I'd be asking for my retainer fee back. Perhaps, Mr. Phillips, you'd like to acquaint yourself with modern communication law. You seem as if you could use a refresher course. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why say "Canadian"? Both IPs geolocate to London, England. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I mistook "QC" to be the abbreviation for "Quebec". I realize that makes no sense whatsoever. It's day 3 of 7 of Nothing But Finals and my spare brain power is severely limitted. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No QC, is for Queen's Counsel, found within the Commonwealth, which of course includes Canada. NJA (t/c) 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, a quick google search shows one L Phillips, living in QC. --Jac16888^Talk 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the ips other edits were all vandalism, including posting a "notice of intent to wikistalk" on my talk page, this is obviously a block-on-sight troll only here for disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What "other edits"? This was the IP's only edit. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you're referring to his previous appearance, that IP also did not post to your talk page, nor anywhere but here and his own talk page. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The "wikistalk" post to your talk page was by 86.179.44.176, which geolocates to Bristol. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Grundle2600 and the Diane Francis article.

I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment[42] on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this[43], which was introduced by Grundle here[44]. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this[45][46][47][48] - and that he is rather proud of it [49](see edit-comment).

Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Wikipedia, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that we as Wikipedia have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we must avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is not however wikipedia's job to connect that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a very serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights [50], etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced controversial information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• That was my concern - BLP's basic philosophy is: Do no harm. And this has caused real world harm. And Grundle is proud about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's a relative term. It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as golden idols for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down really hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of WP:NOTNEWS and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to Tiger Woods and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of WP:BLP all around. etc ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: please explain how I have caused "real world harm." Who did I harm? What harm did I cause to them? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. Direct quotations are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a WP:SYNTH matter of tying two separately-mentioned topics together to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything wrong, we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Wikipedia articles on living persons WP:BLP. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics[51]. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and gluing them together to paint a picture of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to WP:BLPN. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc is referring to my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The people who favored my topic ban were afraid to answer my 7 questions about why I was being banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, just let this die. Arkon (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to hear Kim D. Petersen's explanation of how I caused "harm" to the subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Content dispute. Should be resolved. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's-Call-It-A-Night Proposal?

The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions:

• Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties.
• Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it.
• A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process,
• Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate.

Objections? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added

• Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced.
• Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith.
• Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution.
• Future participation of User Grundle2600 in any BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of this diff which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement.

I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Wikipedia's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[EC] You really need to add something about Grundle2600 using sources appropriate to BLPs. He's not new here; he should know better than to use junk like prisonplanet.com for anything in a BLP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considered and added more above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) Arkon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this biography and this article (synthesis) into this[52], stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, here, here here and here which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. Arkon (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow ?! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT, but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well - i will abide by all bullet-points, i just think they are about 180° off course about what the issue was. But oh well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over content

I urge the administrators look more closely at the conduct of both sides this edit war. There appear to be several editors on both sides of a content dispute.

The issues, as I see them, are

1. Is it permissible for the article to mention that the subject has two children, a fact that is stated on the subject's own web site?
2. Is it permissible for the article to describe editorials that accuse the subject of hypocrisy in advocating a one-child limit, since the subject herself has two children?
3. Is there justification here for departing from Wikipedia's normal policy of including relevant content supported by reliable sources?

According to one of the reverted edits (I have not looked at the sources), the subject had her children before 1981. If this is the case, that puts any alleged hypocrisy in perspective, since the subject's one-child advocacy apparently began about 28 years after she had her own children in a very different environment. Presenting all the facts, rather than suppressing them, appears to be the best solution, as it usually is.

William M. Connolley reverted 4 edits by Grundle2600 with the edit comment "rv: you can't use prisonplanet in a BLP". However, the revert also deleted statements cited to the National Review and the American Spectator. This appears to be a legitimate public controversy, and I don't see why Wikipedia's coverage of it should be censored.

PhGustaf reverted an edit that added the words "despite the fact she has two children", immediately after the statement about the subject's one-child advocacy, as vandalism.[53] The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock".[54] Participating in a content dispute is not vandalism, and sock puppetry should not be assumed absent some evidence. There were also some statements in the course of editing that were clear violations of WP:NPOV. However, the proper solution is to edit them to neutrality, not suppress the facts.

Please take a look at the situation and intervene to restore compliance with Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. Thank you.—Finell 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the principal BLP issue was resolved when Grundle moved Francis' (cited) family size to the lede and left her (cited) policy statement in a line by itself. Such issues as whether the policy statement passes WP:WEIGHT and whether editorial comments are notable could, I think, be worked out on the talk page.

I did flag two especially egregious drive-by comments as vandalism; this was an overreaction, and I apologize. PhGustaf (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What was so "egregious" about simply stating the fact that the subject had 2 children? What about the accusation of socking?—Finell 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. You're right. One was a simple statement, and didn't deserve "egregious". The other was pretty bad.[55]. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of[56] because I felt I had done enough reverting already. I've apologized for my quick finger already. PhGustaf (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've indef-blocked Grundle for his behaviour here, highlighted by this edit summary. It appears that Grundle, who certainly knows better, attempted to use Wikipedia to encourage negative public commentary on the fact that a BLP subject has two adult children. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion via Wikipedia, on a sensitive subject, via a clear WP:SYNTH violation (claiming that a 2009 call for a global one-child policy has anything to do with personal decisions to have children 30-odd years previously). I believe this behaviour constitutes an egregious violation of WP:BLP; of WP:SYNTH; and is part of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing.

Although I've indef-blocked here due to Grundle's long-term behaviour pattern as well as the egregiousness of this incident, I'm open to other length blocks, or to an immediate overturn without consultation if another admin thinks I'm way off base. My view is that if BLP is to mean anything, then an editor of this experience and with this history, should be blocked if not indefinitely then for a substantial period. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur in the block in that Grundle has shown a long-term pattern of behavior that is disruptive and because he has yet again brought up the "questions" that he agreed to not bring up as a condition to his prior unblock. MBisanz ^talk 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.

Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text:

“ By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British. ”

You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text:

“ By 1753 Genoese, Jews, British, Spanish and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. ”

You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntz reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).

Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as Gibnews openly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.

As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml [57]. I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see [58]. And again [59] and again [60]. Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see [61]. And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see [62]. Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See [63].

Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.

To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. Justin talk 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml (talk · contribs) seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAIT User:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Gibnews (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremallera (talk · contribs) seems to have formed a tag-team with Ecenaml, with the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern of editing on Gibraltar-related articles. They no longer seem to have discussions in Spanish on their user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, [64],[65],[66],[67],[68]. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. Justin talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So answer the question

Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Wikipedia Day. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish'plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (Marseille is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in Demographics of Gibraltar and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In Marseille, rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population by not noticing the word new. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is WP:UNDUE to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like Marseille, which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishes a couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. Justin talk 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that this has been resolved amicably by Justin, User:Imalbornoz and others on Talk:Gibraltar. Just a glance at Demographics of Gibraltar, the Archer source and what was in the current article on Gibraltar showed that something was not quite right. I think also the sourcing and content of the not unrelated article History of the Maltese in Gibraltar could be improved at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned editor continuing to come back to Wikipedia partly to harass

User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain.

Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by editor Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page (which administrator LessHeard vanU happened to be involved in). I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Wikipedia.

What should I do about this person in regards to Wikipedia? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Wikipedia. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."

Also, I state that Ravin in Orbit's user page should note that he is banned, and MiszaBot should be taken away from archiving his talk page. If I had not looked at his edit contributions some minutes ago, I would not have known that he asked to be unblocked earlier this year. I am unsure about whether to alert him to this discussion through his talk page, though, since he is banned. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a banned user is probably the exception to the "users must be informed rule." Will look this over and check back in a few. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined new unblock request, blocked latest ip sock, tagged user page as indef blocked. I couldn't find a banning discussion, if you could find it and link it here we can change the tag to indicate that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This link shows the day he was banned, with the reason why. The discussion before it also shows why he was banned. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That shows a block, no mention of a ban. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But after he's now added this really vile unsigned personal accusation to his talkpage, I don't think he should edit it any more. And then rollback, please? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't an indefinite block the same thing as a ban?

I did not get a chance to read that latest vile accusation, but I want to. Would it be okay for me to request a copy of it for record, through email? Flyer22 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BANNED: "Banning is different from blocking; a block is a technical measure to disable editing by a specific account or IP address, and is a restriction which may be temporary or indefinite. Banning is a social construct, and blocks may be used to enforce them. There are also different kinds of bans: Some are temporary or focused on a specific article or topic. However, in the context of this page, 'banned user' means someone who has been banned from the entire site." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So... are you or are you not an ephebophile?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot take that question seriously, IP. Jeez. Flyer22 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to. --Tom (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal ban

I was the admin who blocked him a year ago. To me, he is no different than the people in the Eastern European editing area who simply make accusations and name-call anyone who they disagree with. I do not understand the desire to engage him via some sort of discussion about the technical terms; it isn't relevant and it isn't important. For a not-so-out-there parallel, if he were into US politics articles and screaming that everyone against him is a member of Democratic party, nobody would find it productive to debate whether certain policies were those of the Democratic or the Green's or historically of the Republican's. It's just pointless. It is policy here that we discuss the content of edits, not their contributors. Period. If he has an issue, there was mechanism, and name-calling is not one of them. Nevertheless, as noted in policy, I could only block (not formally ban) and it was intended only to be until he learned to grow up and assume good faith. Most editors give up and are willing to do so. He however seems to have disagreed with that, and so remains blocked. The block evasion through IP addresses to continue to harass is unfortunate and the fact that we are now at oversighted edits is telling. So, to formalize, I would like to suggest that he formally be banned. This will only be helpful in the ability to revert his edits on-site and immediately block his IP addresses. This may exacerbate him, but honestly I do not care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• No change from a year ago, still making vile personal accusations with no sign of letup. I like to see the best in people, but I can't find hope for his peaceful and productive involvement here. Regretfully, support ban. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a point at which bans appear to be solely punitive and not an attempt at anything else. The person should be barred from the pedophilia articles, certainly. Using a ban on what is basically Jell-o should the person edit in other areas proves little. By having him use his named account, we can, in fact, keep better tabs on him than by forcing him to keep using IPs which are difficult if not impossible to keep tabs on. Since he has made apparently useful edits on Swedish topics (noting the lists of articles he has edited), there is no evidence of any vandalism etc. Collect (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Christodoulidesd disruptive in AfD.

Resolved

 – Both Christodoulidesd and OutlawSpark blocked as obvious socks Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to check it out. OutlawSpark (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Which AFD? What's the problem? What would you like done about it? Got any Diffs? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

QUACK! Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Something isn't quite right here. Really odd that Outlaw would have his/her 7th, 10th and 11th edits reporting someone on ANI, using terms like spambot. Outlaw, do you want to tell us who you're a sock of? Toddst1 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mdphd2012

Freshly back from block, personal attacks and disruption at talk:Proton therapy ([69], [70]), weird unpleasantness at my talk page ([71] (copy of my warning to the editor), [72]). Notified the editor of this thread. - Sinneed 02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, but I got a big kick out that "weird unpleasantness" on your talk page. It always amuses me when wannabe-administrators put "warnings" on other editor's pages.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe that only admins can issue warnings? Please point to any Wikipedia policy which supports this view. Woogee (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You can just ignore that ip, he's been blocked for disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now to the matter at hand: This is a civility matter, and unrelated to the previous blocks, which were related to WP:SOCK. I suggest you take this to WP:WQA, this is not serious enough to require admin action. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request review of my actions on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry. and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version^(tm). I followed WP:IAR and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A good call that is appropriate per WP:LINKVIO. NW (Talk) 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call as anon editors seem to be unaware of WP:ELNEVER --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my rationale as well, but as I'd protected then edited I felt it best to put it here for review by others. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion, my thoughts were that dissertations were always public. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realized we're talking about different articles. The same discussion is being held at Patriot Bible University. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On both Talk:Kent Hovind and Talk:Patriot Bible University, both the policies above have been linked and on the second page at least it has been explained that the content is copyrighted, copyright usually being held by the university. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now repeated the action with Patriot Bible University, where a similar situation has been occuring. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good call.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• To state that it's been leaked needs a reliable independent source that says it is Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per WP:C. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So strictly speaking, can one not say that it has been leaked on wikileaks, and then reference wikileaks to support that claim? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:ELNEVER says never - and with no exceptions. So no - you can't use that wikilinks page as a reference. I suppose you could reference wikileaks in general though. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as Guy has pointed out, there is no way to determine whether the document on Wikilinks is the actual document. One might be able to add a footnote stating that a document alleged to be Hovind's doctoral thesis has been posted there -- but just how important is the content of Hovind's work? I'd be more inclined, as a disinterested observer, to accept a mention of the document at Wikilinks if the article had some indication of the subject of his doctoral thesis. For all I know, Hovind wrote about how baseball is mentioned in the Bible. (It's true, didn't you know? In the very first verse of Genesis, in fact -- "In the big inning".) -- llywrch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Patrickjdwise User page & talk page being used inappropriately

Someone needs to take a look at Patrickjdwise user page. It looks like they copy and past Nip/Tuck and Prison Break and Smallville articles to their user space. --Zink Dawg -- 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this user intended to work on these articles in their userspace. Unless non-free images are being used in their userspace, there is nothing wrong here. What policies do you think are being violated? (It's a slow day at the help desk today) Intelligentsium 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, It looks like they copy and past Angel to their talk page. --Zink Dawg -- 04:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all the fair-use images, as you can't have those in your userspace. Other than that, if he doesn't put the images back, I have no other problems with his user page. @Kate (parlez) 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Why can't those images be in the user space, but are OK for the rest of wikipedia?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they are copyrighted and thus incompatible with the GFDL/CC 3. A perusal of WP:Fairuse should answer any further queries you have on the subject. @Kate (parlez) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And you cannot have categories either, I've removed those. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Read, WP:UP#COPIES. User space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of copies of articles. In other words. Private copies of articles that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be deletion.--Zink Dawg -- 04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Long-term archival? He created his page on December 7th.. last time I checked that was four days ago. @Kate (parlez) 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for bring it up. I thought it was wrong. I guess its ok to have articles on your user page and talk page.--Zink Dawg -- 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you still think there is a problem, the place to go with this is WP:MfD. LadyofShalott 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it accidental or deliberate that the talk page has been left at 70k but without content shown?

For these articles, I'd wonder why they'd be copying things at all since there's zero chance of future deletions. Only other things I can theorize would be dubious editing, but since it's on the user's page and not hidden farther in userspace that doesn't feel right. Well... they might be creating some sort of "alternate reality" for the article to see what its future would be if only they changed it. That doesn't explain the articles pasted onto user's talk page, though. Perhaps a 400k user page would have looked like overkill. All old versions are already saved on the server and edits are open to all, so just holding old versions seems silly. Copyrighted images and categories left on the article does give some creed to concerns, since any read of policies on use of userspace would make these things clear, but still doesn't give any explanation and were well removed. Has it been suggested that the user create articles within userspace to keep each one? So long as they make some changes in a sandbox-type style I think they're permissible there. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09

More eyes requested, thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, thats just weird. That's very similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme and although the one you have listed here has a great deal of input, the one I listed is languishing with almost no input. What is different in the two instances? What dynamic am I missing? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

These quotations under reference 1 as "unattributed" don't come up in a Wikipedia search as being anywhere but at that page. Thus, invented, somehow brought here before being deleted, or as memories of another account as deleted edits. Highly leaning at that last option. Could well be a classic puppet "good hand bad hand" case. Although Drolz09 was created nearly 2 years ago, it's only been active since the whole climate change email bit started. Those quotations and ANIs and all the other junk saved in there might have some meaning or way to tie in to another user. Since Drolz09 was posting at ANI as soon as becoming active, highly suspicious sock. I'll research it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: The aboutme was put up for CSD G6(?) without notification to the user. I objected with a hangon, only to realize you can't use hangon on talk pages even if it's about a talk page. Put text in a generic notice box. Again, I'm just speaking as a procedural angle or CSD category. Suggest it be looked over and removed if appropriate. I figured ANI incidents were trumped by a CSD tag, thus I wouldn't have removed it under any circumstances without more opinion. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

hangon and text removed. I usually self-impose a "virtual wheel warring" block on any template placing in general. Anyway, I'm going to keep digging into the GHBH puppet. That would end all the separate incident reports at once. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else I may be, I'm nobody's puppet; I don't suppose you've any reason to take me at my word on that, but if you do you might save yourself some time. Drolz⁰⁹ 11:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus PA warning from User:MBK004

After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page:

Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)

After this, User:MBK004 twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?)

My question is: Is this warning justified? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Wikipedia" unless they are destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to you? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(I did put a note on User talk:MBK004, as you requested.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to My Life Without Me got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning was OK, but a level 4i-only warning? I've seen worse attacks before... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been engaged in some IP-hopping edit warfare in the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and doesn't appear to be be a genuinely new editor based on their posts, so a high-level warning seems appropriate to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Didn't see that... WP:FROG err... WP:DUCK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"IP-hopping edit warfare"? My ISP changes my IP from time to time, why is this relevant?

You implication is that participation in an unrelated edit warfare is reason for sterner measures than usually called for?

I've never claimed that I was a new editor. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to My Life Without Me. There is no indication that his involvement in My Life Without Me is anything but WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on Varyag? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on My Life Without Me.

This should be about the bogus PA warning however. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Two articles have been semi-protected because 91.55.211.58 (talk · contribs) / 91.55.204.136 (talk · contribs) has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and CVN-79 if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on My Life Without Me, until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow WP:AGF, but I get the impression that you're past that.)

User:Sizzle Flambé: You should be ashamed! You should have known that disabling recalcitrant users is always more important than fixing Wikipedia's content. I hope you learned your lesson! --91.55.204.136 (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot one: 3RR was broken - but not by me. Do you propose any sanctions against User:BilCat? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's play a game: When User:MBK004 blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt.

Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies have shown that the wrong version is always protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, my edit summary noted that the official Sony website (which was already linked in the article) supported the plot description. However, just for you, I have added a second link to the same website, as an explicit <ref> for that paragraph (previously not reffed). Making a legitimate edit (which is all this IP user was trying to do) isn't disruption or vandalism. As for "disruptive IP hopping", are ISPs' dynamic IP assignments now to be blamed on their users? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we mark it all down to misunderstandings, note that tempers got heated, but try to cool them off and go on from there? That seems like the resolution with the best and fastest chance of happy outcomes for everyone. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All a ton of brinkmanship. "Destroying Wikipedia"? Um, a tad much. The later sections including the somewhat disparaging edit summaries from BilCat, including saying "I don't trust vandals" after harmless messages left suggesting a discussions merge. WP:VANDALISM is kind of picky about definition and evoking it is a serious matter. The warnings against personal attacks given from that seem 100% justified given a total ignoring what vandalism means-- actually, those messages were polite in that they suggested just walking away for awhile. Then to here. As to "who started it", IP user technically did but not automatically in bad faith, if not questionable. BitCat dragged on the matter with free-floating use of "vandal", to which any experienced editor would take offense to after feeling they acted in good faith. In hindsight, just a rewording of a few edit summaries could probably have prevented this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Case of a mutual open apology on "destroying" vs vandal; WQA vs ANI closing the matter? This is well within the range of inability to blame either party and since both parties know the bigger picture sanctions would seem kind of silly. 'Tis my suggestion, since no other resolutions proposed. At least one uninvolved agreement needed, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a glimmer of hope; will it spread? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Wikipedia and can seem a bit harsh to new editors. My first impression is a bit of storm in a teacup, the IP didnt explain the edit (no edit summary) and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I suggest we just leave it behind and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Read again: I used the word "destroying" as a synonym for vandalism after he wikihounded me to another article. He called my change there vandalism (and reverted me) without knowing anything about the matter. Turns out that my change was justified. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, what about User:MBK004's actions? Regarding the whole context, is this warning justified? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone involved came on too strong: "vandalism", "stupidity", "destroying", and "final warning". Now the question is, can everyone involved lower their hackles and make peace? Or are we stuck at hostilities? 91.55, having taken the lead to bring this up, can you take the lead to calm it down? As you did with Guerillero? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK didnt want to prolong this but had that point not been addressed by User:Sizzle Flambés first comment above. A 91.55 IP changed My Life Without Me without any explanation, it was Twinkle reverted as vandalism by user User:Guerillero, the 91.55 reverted with the comment Reverted 1 edit by Guerillero identified as stupidity to last revision by me. (If you don't know the movie, why don't you just keep quiet? User BilCat reverted the apparant vandalism again with apparent vandalism, and uncivil comments) which was again reverted by a 91.55 IP without explanation but then left a message on BilCats talk page Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?). BilCat removed the comment from his talk page without comment and MBK004 was probably watching BilCat's talk page (assumption) issued the personal attack warning on the 91.55 talk page. All looks reasonable to me an editor makes an unexplained change to an article and then attacks both reverters an admin sees the comments and issues a warning. User Guerillero and BilCat acted against unexplained edits which provoked comment from the IP which was dealt with by a warning from an Admin. All we need is to move on and the IP should use edit summaries in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are recommended but not required. Labelling 91.55's edit to My Life Without Me as "vandalism" was hasty and mistaken; his edit was not "blatantly wrong", in fact it was not wrong at all, let alone obscene or otherwise vandalistic. Things went downhill from that precise point, and got worse with each repetition of the "vandalism" charge. Now, are we done re-hashing this, and can we get back to the "peace" concept? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I could not accept the point that 91.55s edit was not blatantly wrong and the two reverters were in the wrong. At the time of the reversion it was seen as an IP making an unexplained change which is why two editors reverted the addition as vandalism a fairly common practice with any unexplained edit. After being reverted the IP still did not comment either in the edit summary or on the talk page but attacked both reverters. It was only when Sizzle became involved that the edit was deemed to be factual at no time had the IP explained the change. As for peace fine just accept what was done and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an unexplained change as vandalism shouldn't be a fairly common practice. If it is, the people doing the reverting need to reread WP:VAND and WP:AGF. The IPs response was rude, yes, but I think the edit summary says pretty clearly that they believed their edit to be correct and that the reverter must not know what he's doing if he's reverting the edit as vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite odd that you expected my to assume good faith, but aren't willing to extend the same to me! Per WP:DUCK, it looked like vandalism to me. Now I know I was incorrect, but at the time it appeared to be antoher part of unexplained edits by the same IP. Note that in my second revert I did say "apparent vandalism", expressing some doubt. As this IP is not a newbie, he should know to be using clrear edit summaries in his first edits, and to be civil in all of them. (Summaries are not required, but it is good sense; civility is, and that edit summary was not in any way.) I stand by my edits, reverts, and comments. While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here. And I have 3 and a half years of edits to show that I generally try to do the right thing on WP, as I've not chosen to hide behind an anoymous IP. My record speaks for itself. - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GeoCities

Geocities is now closed. I searched this site for geocities.com and found what must be hundreds of dead links. Could somebody run a bot to remove them? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's totally not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Linkrot. We could use archive.org for example, even though I cannot think of a single Geocities site that could be a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of heaving dead links? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you use archive.org, they may not be dead links. The Wayback Machine (as it's called) has archive copies of webpages you can link to, long after the originals have been taken down. PDF copies of old documents, for instance, that might now be found nowhere else on the Web. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's one of my favorite Javascript bookmarklets; add it to your toolbar and use it while you're looking at a "dead" link:
javascript:void(location.href='http://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href)
Label it WayBack! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length on various Wikipedia pages. Can anyone find a link to the latest views?   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest views of what, Will? The latest archive.org copies of any given page? Precede the dead-link URL with http://web.archive.org/web/*/ (which is what the above bookmarklet does), and that takes you to a list of all the saved pages archive.org has. But don't automatically assume the latest date is a good copy; archive.org may have saved a few "page not found" messages. Go back from the end until you find a good copy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WAYBACK suggests http://web.archive.org/web/2/ (plus URL) for "most current version"; is that what you wanted, Will? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine is a relevant page that goes through all of this. ThemFromSpace 11:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Including a nifty template: {{wayback}}. (glee, glee, glee!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive.org does pick up some of the geocities links, although it misses others. If an EL can't be picked up using archive.org it should be removed, as there's hardly a chance it will come back. If I had my way, a cleanup crew would go around to each of the geocities links and check if they have an archived history which is relevant to the article. That probably won't happen because link cleanup doesn't generate much excitement here, which is probably why noone was enthusiastic about the issue at the other related discussions. C'est la vie. ThemFromSpace 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As per this ANI report, User:Updatehelper was using AWB to rename all geocities links to oocities.com instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest views of what? Perhaps why there were hundreds of Geocities links to begin with might be a start. --Calton | Talk 12:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The URLs shouldn't be deleted simply because they are now dead; they should be deleted because they are Geocities links. Tan | 39 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the bot that kicks out facebook and myspace isn't targeting geocities as well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Geocities was the earliest free web provider on a large scale. Therefore some early adopters used them for publishing high quality information, and never changed later when web hosting became cheaper. I hope that's at least part of the reason we have such links. Hans Adler 13:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, since the reduction of geocities quality, many geocities links remained until more suitable replacements could be found. The trick now is to actually find more suitable links, rather than simply redirect to a new version of geocities. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Most geocities links aren't appropriate here and should be removed anywhere. Unless they could have been verified to have been written by the subject of the article, they weren't reliable sources and their usage as citation should be extremely limited.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. By now most reliable publications have now moved to advanced hosting and have a domain. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Up to a point; you shouldn't underestimate the contributions from dedicated amateurs who put in the legwork but don't want to make a point of it, still less turn their work over to a commercial host. Case in point is a source for many Fairport Convention albums, which is authorised by that band, but has an underlying "fansite.com" address, and fortunately has not been rejected by XLinkBot; it is mirrored by a credible site, but which does not allow the WPCite tool to link to it. Some care is needed in relation to such sites, obviously, but in the absence of other sources, we should be able to use them. Meanwhile, Geocities is being largely mirrored at Oocities.com, and at least one editor is updating the links, without prejudice to them being later found to be inappropriate; but at least we have them to look at, and find alternatives if they don't cut the mustard. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No sorry. When it comes to unreliable sources they're unreliable. WP:V is a core policy on wikipedia and we don't allow links to someone's random site because you can't find a better one. That is why the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Unless the link is to something created by the subject of the article they have no business being used as citations. You may think its reliable, but reader Y has no idea and simply assumes its reliable because it is linked from wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Geocities was simply a free web hosting service that offered a dummy-proof interface with lots of tools. While it hosted mostly stereotypical "personal web sites" of non-notable individuals (sudden evil flashback involving "Under Construction" gifs and blinking text), there were some exceptions, even in recent years. "Dedicated amateurs"? Yeah, mostly. But there were some dedicated professionals, too, (e.g., scholars who had republished their own peer-reviewed articles on their Geocities site), notable individuals and organizations of various stripes, and so on—i.e., legitimate external links in certain contexts. If there are still hundreds of Geocities links here, I have little doubt that many of them fall afoul of WP:EL, but I have no doubt whatsoever that not all of them do. Rather than shooting them on sight, trying to verify them through archival sites and then updating the url if they're legit might be a more constructive approach. Rivertorch (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive emptying of "People from" categories

Resolved

 – I's werkin' onit. I hope DuncanHill thinks a bit better of us admins next time.

See Special:Contributions/89.241.115.228. IP editor is emptying "People from" categories, without going through CFD first. I have told him on his talk page to stop, but he's done masses already so he needs mass reversion. I saw something like this about a week ago, can't remember if it was the same IP address though. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The other IP address was Special:Contributions/62.239.159.6. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to notify the IP. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Both now notified. Forgot that admins were incapable of helping out by fixing things that non-admins had forgotten to do. DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IP seems to have stopped upon notice of this discussion. And, hey, in our defense, us admins are really busy, important, people with lots of things on our minds. Particularly when we're in the admin lounge. Then, pretty much the only thing on my mind is Gigi, one of the waitresses, wearing her French maid costume. Particuarly when one of us stupidly drops something and she has to pick it up. But it is a good idea for everyone to do things up front, because us disgustingly important admins don't always think to check on such things ourselves once messages are posted here. We probably should have someone go through and revert the category removal though. Anyone up for it? John Carter (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it needs reversion in every case - he's emptying categories for villages in England, most of which have only one or two members, and proposing merging them to slightly larger administrative areas. What's the smallest area one should have a category for??Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful there John, your comment is dangerously close to a WP:BLP violation vis-a-vis Gigi. Oh, and  :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

He's emptying categories before any merge discussion. To John, I'll apologize for my bad temper. I was distracted from informing the IPs by a call from my mother, and given that oversighters have decided it's OK for them to make personal attacks on her I have no patience at all with unhelpful behaviour or attitudes from people in positions of power here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I had no way of knowing that. I was busy too, and since you aren't new, and there were two IPs to notify, I thought I'd just remind you. I didn't expect you to make a big deal of it. I don't know how this has something to do with me being an Admin as well as an editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an old ongoing wardiscussion about how specific categories should be as well as how many articles should be required for one to exist. Particularly in cases which these appear to be, dealing with categories for small areas with few articles, it could be argued that he wss being bold before proposing them for deletion. And, of course, there is the separate question as to whether anyone agreed to these categories existing in the first place. My own personal view is that, with few exceptions, we should have at least three biography articles in a category for it to be really useful. I Know I personally wouldn't object to refilling any such categories. Otherwise, maybe the easiest way to go would be to leave messages on the talk pages of the most directly relevant WikiProject and let the individuals involved there decide what to do with the categories. Anyway, 'xcuseme. Looks like I dropped something again. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My sympathies are with DuncanHill on this, in that the IP is unilaterally edit warring to remove articles from categories, then deleting all the info on the category page with the edit summary Suggest merging of category into xxxx due to lack of articles. In the case that drew this to my attention the category seemed valid and potentially useful, but without checking all the IP's article edits appears to have only had one article: I'm not an enthusiast or expert on categories, but guess someone who is should be deciding what to do about the IP's edits. Alternatively, we just let the IP decide, in a rather disruptive way. . . dave souza, talk 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Awright, awright alredy. I's goin' threw de IP's edits and changen the changes in categor...thingy. I wan' a ginentonic wen I get back. John Carter (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Silverije

Silverije (talk · contribs) continually vandalises the articles about Hungarian kings. He vandalised first the article of Ferdinand I Holy Roman Emperor, then Louis II of Hungary, Maximilian II, Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor and Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor. He wrote everywhere "King of Hungary and Croatia", although there are sources everyehere which prove that they were only Kings of Hungary. Silverije doesn't care about it, and once he simply deleted the source which proved that he faslified the article. Anyway Silverije is not the only Croatian editor, who always vandalises these articles with a nationalistic Croatian POV. Toroko (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Silverije (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it WP:VAN, but it is typical Balkan nationalist POV pushing/disruption, however the editor is now discussing on at least one talk page. Informed of Balkan warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember this Hungarian-Croatian kingdom stuff used to be a playground of some sockishness a while ago. Haven't looked into it yet, but it might be worth taking a bit of a look at the backgrounds of the present parties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

These guys come up every few weeks or so and rotate on the same edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again AlasdairGreen27

First of all I am not user:PIO neither my logged nicknames or IPs but in every case action of user:AlasdairGreen27 in article pallone is vandalism because version before suspected socks is this but not this disaster or stub! removing valid contribution of PIO who was banned by an Italian admin after these edits but for other reasons not pertinent this article regarding some Italian famous sports. I can develop this article because I have books and sources but I request your action against vandalism of AlasdairGreen27 who is notorious in Italwiki for his battle in meatpuppetry with user:DIREKTOR against all Italian and Serb editors in several articles of European history and this point I will report to you in future. Actions of admins user:Spellcast and user:MuZemike against my logged nicknames are nonsense. If you want, I can develop a lot of articles but I request unblock at least of account user:Vastaso. Last personal attack: read here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.195.151 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 December 2009

While I can't speak to the other issues, the supposed last personal attack was made by an account created for the sole purpose of impersonating AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs). I've blocked 72neerGriadsalA (talk · contribs) and deleted the user/talk pages that were created to mimic AlasdairGreen27's. Unless a checkuser is done to determine they are the same person, I see no reason to take any action against AlasdairGreen27. --auburnpilot talk 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems familiar. 'Bout a month ago an editor showed up on Wikipedia with his name a complete reversal of MickMacNee's name, trying to get Mick in trouble. Any connections? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia might have a mirror-bandit on the loose. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To IP 151.95.xxx.xxx: If possible, would you stay with one IP account? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked after admitting to get records changed

• Mistro12 (talk · contribs)
• Supercopone (talk · contribs)

• Supercopone removed information from University of Atlanta, stating it was not cited (example: diff. This removes also the information "The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991 ...".
• The information was checked 6 months ago, and available at the reference given, but the reference is now a dead link -> http://www.detc.org/downloads/Fall%202008%20News.pdf.
• I am sure the information is correct as I was involved 6 months ago. Strangely now two editors who 'seem' independent pop up.
• I confronted Mistro12 with this information, and he states "I will call DETC Monday and find out the correct date and have them update it on their Fall letter.". Apparently there was access to the document, and they know it is still wrong, though they don't have the document?
• After the block, Mistro12 pointed me to the document, which moved. strangely, the document does not contain the information which was there half a year ago. However, it still contains 'The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991', but on a different page.

Seen that the article has been suffering of promotional edits for a long time, I have blocked both editors, but I'd like to hear a second opinion on this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amithani/Archive.

Note1: Supercopone is requesting unblock. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone is a "sleeper" account that was created in February, a month before Mistro12 began his activities, but did not actually start editing until December 5, a week before Mistro12 popped up again after a 7-month hiatus. It's worth pointing out that Beetstra actually unblocked Mistro12 last spring after another admin had blocked him. Those two users appear to be either socks or agents of the guy who runs the school, and is/are desparate to suppress any connection with its predecessor school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Note2: The fact of the namechange to University of Atlanta as was in the DETC document is corroborated by several blogs and forums on internet (but they are not a reliable source for this information). This looks like a situation where someone is very busy 'cleaning' the past of something they don't like. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I should expand on this, indeed. Mistro12 has, via email, confirmed he is not part of the school itself, though has been working with them. His identity has been established as not being the other editors in the sock investigation, and I unblocked on that. However, it appears to be meatpuppetry in stead of sockpuppetry now, which is more a rationale for my re-block of the account. Also note that Supercopone did not edit all day, but appeared soon after I blocked him. Coincidence? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the DETC should be notified, to find out how that guy was able to persuade them to change the information. You might also want to capture a "before" on it and post it somewhere here so that it can be verified before he calls them on Monday.

As I recall from last spring, Amithani and his puppets basically wanted the article to either be the way he wanted, or to be deleted. He lost that argument, and is apparently now engaged in subterfuge of some kind, as you noted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's some discussion from last May.[73] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you, and others do what I did with the DETC document (now available here): save it to your harddrive. Its nice to see how sources change contents, and I think it is nicer to see that the reliable source is differing from what has been posted on several forums and blogs around the internet ("I'm told Atlanta is basically a resurrection of the former Barrington University!", "Dear Students, Effective March 15, 2006, Barrington University will adopt the name: University of Atlanta", "University of Atlanta (Barrington Univ) now DETC accredited"). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

An SPI is called for here, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Having followed the University of Atlanta situation for some time, I concur with Beetstra's diagnosis of meatpuppetry involving Mistro12 and Supercopone. I don't think these are the same person, but they are both WP:SPA accounts and they are definitely working together.

As for DETC, the University of Atlanta saga (wherein the DETC accredited this school at a time when the only other known evidence of the UofA's existence was the UofA website -- and posts on some online forums) and a few other recent accreditations had already raised red flags about its integrity and credibility as an accreditation organization (notwithstanding its recognition by CHEA and the US Department of Education). However, the evidence that DETC changed the text of its fall 2008 newsletter (after the fact) at the request of UofA leads me to think that I should be contacting CHEA, the US Department of Education, and my Congressmen about DETC. For Wikipedia, I have doubts about whether DETC should be treated as a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note that User:Supercopone is requesting unblock. NJA (t/c) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Also User:Mistro12, but via a not-enabled unblock template. I will recuse from the unblock decision and not take any further administrative decisions regarding the editors who are involved in U of A, though I still have many questions, and am still looking for more data on the U of A / Barrington. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Block requested for Cathar11 - Persistently pushes personal views in an article

Cathar11 (talk · contribs) adds personal analysis based on sources which do not mention the topic at all. He picks some off-topic sources about Honduras and attempts to link them to the crisis in Honduras.

1. I note that none of his sources talks about the crisis.
2. Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article.
3. I try to discuss on the talk page and wait several days. No response from him.
4. Cathar11 inserts his personal analysis again.
5. I kindly notify that he should participate in the talk page and remind him of no synthesis policy on his talk page (now deleted by him).
6. Cathar11 inserts his personal analysis again still without any participation in the discussion.

The user has persisently added his personal analysis, violating WP:OR. He also adds links to sites such as "http://michaelparenti.org/", ""DemocracyNow"" and "Marxist Thought Online" ([74]).

Could some admin look at the Cathar11 case? Perhaps a short block would help. Alb28 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also look at Cathar11's latest claim. Alb28 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alb28 deleted en masse external links the links he quoted must be part of them. He also deleted links to BBC Photos etc.see dif[75]

This is what he is calling WP:OR see [76] which was discussed on the talk page[77] and in the archive[78] and in other places in the archive and is backed by another editor as relevant. This is a new editor/sockpuppet which has engaged in a whirlwind of edits (130 most since the 7/12/2009) since he started on 11/29/2009 including BLP attacks, raising me twice here etc. While trying to believe in his good faith it appears he has a severe POV problem and an agenda. See Alb28 on ANI [79] instead of responding to this as a wiki lawyering attack and all from a "new" userCathar11 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I don't see anything wrong with removing many of those external links. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for verifiable ones. What kind of external links did Cathar11 remove? 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I didnt delete external links I restored themCathar11 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the subsection below for a defense of Cathar11 and my thoughts on the situation... Moogwrench (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A measured defense of Cathar11 and my thoughts on the situation

Look, I have had my differences of opinion with Cathar11 in the past (an example, for full disclosure). Goodness knows that the Honduras coup related articles generate a considerable load of controversy and diverse POVs. However, I can testify to the basic fairness and fidelity of Cathar11 to the principles of Wikipedia. As to the specific accusations against Cathar11 by Alb28, let me address them in a point by point basis:

• I note that none of his sources talks about the crisis.

A very general accusation which is patently untrue. I can choose one of several edits whose sources are intimately tied to the situation in Honduras, such as this recent one adding content regarding a meeting between Lobo and Zelaya.

• Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article.

OK, look if you are going to level an accusation, you ought to be a tad more specific than that, and provide a diff that shows a clear example of what you are talking about.

• I try to discuss on the talk page and wait several days. No response from him.

Barely two days have passed, not all comments receive an immediate reply (we do have lives in between editing WP), and edit summaries are also considered part of the discussion per Wikipedia:Discussion#Focus_on_content. Meanwhile, other editors such as I have engaged in reply to those comments as can be seen on the talk page.

• Cathar11 inserts his personal analysis again.

Well, as I have explained in talk to this editor, this content is the result of continued discussion archived from the talk page. For this reason it has been restored by Cathar11, as they indicated in this summary. I helpfully explained to the editor (in the above diff) that as a new editor to a set of articles, he/ would do well to reopen discussion on consensus content, rather than threaten older editors.

• I kindly notify that he should participate in the talk page and remind him of no synthesis policy on his talk page (now deleted by him).

Users have control over the content of their talk pages, and again, the discussion is not between just him and Cathar11, but the community. Whether or not the edits constitute synthesis or indiscriminate information is a consensus, not unilateral, decision.

• Cathar11 inserts his personal analysis again still without any participation in the discussion.

As I have indicated above, other editors and Cathar11 have participated in the discussion, both through edit summaries and regular contributions to the talk page. I would note that Cathar11 placed a comment regarding this content on the talk page on December 8th with this edit, 2 days before Alb28's above referenced thread--a comment, which as one can note from the talk page, Alb28 never responded to. So I find this continued harping on Cathar11 for not responding to Alb28's edit and supposed "no participation in the discussion" a tad hypocritical and in poor form.

Now Alb28, despite being a new user, is hardly a new editor, as is reasonable to assume based on his very first edit, a massive, multi-paragraph POV edit to a controversial BLP: Manuel Zelaya. His edits have raised the concern of multiple editors (see AN/I and BLP/N), and though we all are admonished to assume good faith (a behavioral guideline), we also have an obligation to make sure that articles, especially BLPs, are appropriately sourced (WP policy, an overriding concern). Numerous edits by this user have employed opinion pieces, blogs, and self-published sources to support controversial edits to BLPs, such as this one which utilizes the blog/ezine HondurasThisWeek.com to talk about Zelaya's nephew Chimirri (see About page for information on lack of editorial oversight) or have been completely unsourced or failed verification, such as that same edit which added information on "Los Horcones massacre" by Zelaya's father, which relies on one completely unclear source (Robert Gregory Williams) and one source that does not mention the event at all (www.cidob.org).

Add to that edits like this edit (reverted by Cathar11), which is a wholesale deletion of external links, some of which are valuable image, video, and analysis links--all acceptable under WP:External links. In any event, their acceptability is a consensus issue, and I would note that he has been reverted by others besides Cathar11 on this issue.

Alb28's suggestion of block of Cathar11, for what is essentially a content dispute, would be completely inappropriate. I would urge everyone to work together in the spirit of consensus, and try to find common ground on edits while still upholding the policies of WP regarding verifiability and Biographies of Living Persons. Moogwrench (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

78.148.83.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user has edited several articles changing "valley" to "glen" [80], [81], [82], etc. In fact, this is the extent (with a few wikilinks dropped) of their contributions. I have attempted to contact the user but have received no response. Is reverting in this instance a content dispute? I'm in the market for some advice. Thanks Tiderolls 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My read is that all glens are valleys, but not all valleys are glens, but in any event the word "valley" is in more ubiquitous use and is unambiguous. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP is correct in its usage of glen in every instance. The translation is not 'lost valley' it is 'hidden glen', for example. In Scotland, glen is the correct word for this type of valley. Articles about Scotland should I think by preference use what few characteristic words of Scots English exist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In at least two of the articles the IP is referring to the well known "lost valley" which is not known as the "lost glen" but is sometimes referred to as the "hidden valley".[83][84][85][86] Perhaps the IP doesn't like the common name of that specific place, but that's what Coire Gabhail is usually called by Scottish walkers and climbers. Not as simple as the IP seems to think. . dave souza, talk 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that the words 'glen' and 'valley' are used interchangeably on the scottish sites.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Showing that Scottish sources arenae very bothered about strictly using one term or the other, but you'll also note that the name used for Coire Gabhail is consistently the Lost Valley, and "Lost Glen" doesn't appear. Doubtless there will be some exception, but having climbed it [a few years ago] and been in Coe earlier this year, that's what it's consistently called. Wikipedia reflects the usage of sources, and doesn't try to change what people call something to what some editors think it should be called. Other glens or valleys may vary. . . dave souza, talk 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) [clarification] added 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to treat each edit on its merits, but the safe presumption is that the IP has been blindly making unnecessary and sometimes incorrect changes, so reversion when in doubt is reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If we had an article on Coire Gabhail there might be less reason to argue about the name. Did you know that the burn out of it is "is blocked by the largest single rockfall debris cone in Great Britain" [to quote Gregory, Fluvial geomorphology of Great Britain]. So there might even be a DYK in it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(Moved here) User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

 – frivolous complaint. Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting Abusive Administrator

This "complaint" was erroneously posted on: Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_response/Consensus. I have moved here here for appropriateness.   bsmithme  00:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The sysop User:Gwen Gale is making deletions of content she does not feel are socially important. That is not her job. Apparently if she has never heard of something she feels free to delete its page. This is inappropriate behavior and she needs to be censured and informed that it is not her place to decide if another country's culture is important enough to include. Her powers need to be curtailed before she completely deletes the entire wiki simply because she's in a bad mood and/or has never heard of a thing. At the very least her deletions need to be reviewed by a multicultural board before being allowed to go through as she is clearly out of control. In fact I would suggest suspending her privileges for at least three months to give her time to think about her abusive, bigoted behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.24.203 (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you either post some diffs or retract the accusation. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking over things, the IP apparently thinks Gwen deleted an article on a podcast. The fact that we never had an article on the podcast (at least spelled the way the IP has written) and that Gwen hasn't deleted an article since early November make me think our anonymous friend might be a little confused. AniMate 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's all Gwen's fault! Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd seen that days ago (at Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_response/Consensus) and did think of putting it either on that project page itself, or here, but then, I'd already answered on my talk page and thought it wouldn't be helpful or fair to draw attention on the IP, who only seems to have had some misunderstandings. As an aside, I'm beginning to think the ibanner at the top of my talk page about page deletions stirs up as much muddle as anything else, with folks who don't know much about en.Wikipedia stumbling upon it and thinking I'm the one who deletes pages from this website. I may take it down. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to do

What should I do in case of this? Btilm 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

His message may have been a bit abrupt but I think one can forgive Kangolcone for being slightly annoyed. Although not exactly a prodigious contributor he has been here for over three years at least and to see a templated message talking of something which he thought was helpful to people wishing to cite sources more accurately in encyclopaedia articles as if it were a random editing test, would have been vexing to him. It might have been better, bearing in mind WP:DTTR, to have explained in more detail why you thought Template:Cite list wasn't helpful to the encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of fairness to Btilm, have you looked at what was tagged with CSD? It consists of nothing more than a single URL; not exactly what I expected to find in something labelled "Template:Cite list". Maybe the template note did not make the impression Btilm wanted to leave -- I would have left a note to the effect of "This template makes no sense, & for that reason I have nominated it for CSD" -- but anyone, no matter what their experience level (or membership status in the TINC seket cabal), who created a template like that would provoke at least one "WTF???" -- llywrch (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Or he could have tried "Can I help you with this?" Oh, I forgot, admins don't do helping. DuncanHill (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF much? Toddst1 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I can bring mself to in the face of experience. DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, no one mentioned anything concerning admins here. Your comment simply makes no sense -- unless it is simply to find an opportunity to kvetch about your obsession. -- llywrch (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is because when he failed to notify two IP addresses that he'd started a discussion about them (because he got sidetracked, fair enough, that happens), I reminded him about it (because I was in the middle of something, didn't feel I had the time, knew he was an experienced user, didn't know he had a good reason for not notifying them), and he got all shirty about my reminding him and not doing it for him. Earlier I had noticed someone else hadn't made a notification and I did it for them, but who notices when Admins do something like that? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I've had to deal with one oversighter libelling my mother, and one of his colleagues not bothering to answer my email to her disagreeing with her decision not to remove the comment. I've had bad blocks, and I've had admins lying both to me and about me on Wikipedia - and don't get me started on two arbs who went bck on their word to me. I try not to use this page anymore, or to have any interactions with admins if possibly avoidable, but in the IP category case I had neither the time or the inclination to sort out the problem without assistance. For my request for help and extra eyes to be met with such a blunt response just served to confirm my suspicions about the unhelpful attitude of admins in general. Then we get this thread, where speedying seems to be considered to be preferable to an offer of help, so I vented here too. I'm sure now you meant your comment helpfully, but it didn't come across that way in the context of the behaviour of many of your admin colleagues. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I hope 'many' is actually a small minority, and am pretty sure it is. I'm probably not the only one who wishes he could do a lot more than he does do (and feels guilty for not doing more content building - I just found a box full of journal articles I really should be using to build up some articles, but will I ever have time?). I also know that my writing is usually terse (maybe I should say succinct). Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts?

Resolved

 – [87]Checkuser confirms they are all socks of Captaincold. Looks like NuclearWarfare got 'em. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Waltermelon (talk · contribs) is most certainly the same user as Meatwood (talk · contribs), Meatwod (talk · contribs), Afstuv (talk · contribs) and I think one more I don't remember. The editor has the habit of making a series of iffy edits (e.g. sloppy articles for non-notable episodes and characters), having those pieces turned into redirects, and then creating a new account to undo the redirects and then create more iffy content. Requests from multiple editors across his several talk pages asking him to abide by WP:RS and WP:GNG go unheeded. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, vote-stacked or anything -- but, this looks to me a violation of the spirit of editing under multiple accounts. Second pair of eyes, anyone? --EEMIV (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to file a sockpuppet investigation request The activities you describe are prima facie blockable. Yell if you need a hand with the template. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• forehead smack* Oh, yeah. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

66.177.73.86 question

66.177.73.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked, the 4th time in the last month. A user added the IP information and repeat-vandal templates. [88] The IP deleted them. I added them back, but I have some doubts: Who's in the right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or are these IPs who edit war to remove the SharedIP template from their talk page suddenly popping up left and right? Does anyone know of any organized online privacy campaigns or anything like that? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Solution to the problem. If it is a shared ID, grab a post-it note and write this down: "In two days, restore the repeatvandal and whois tag to 66.177.73.86" If its shared, the person who removed it won't be using this IP ever again. If it is static or semi-static, then you'll get the same behavior. Either way, this isn't a pressing issue RIGHT NOW. The best way to deal with this, if its important, is to let them win for now, and then just take care of it when it won't generate a silly edit war. --Jayron32 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it is not shared. The host name is c-66-177-73-86.hsd1.fl.comcast.net. By the naming convention used by Comcast, the "c" indicates Customer-premises equipment, e.g., their cable modem. It may or may not be static, but, the policy issues are (a) the "shared" IP templates should not be used, (b) one could use Template:Whois, (c) per WP:CMT, while shared IP templates are on the list of things that IP editors should not remove from their talk pages, non-shared IP templates (like whois) are not so listed, so can be removed.

• P.S. I did explain the non-shared nature of such host names to the editor who erroneously added this shared template here and to other non-shared IPs, but I did not succeed in convincing that editor. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Then it sounds like those templates should be removed, except maybe for the one about repeated vandalism, although it's not exactly vandalism, it's more like disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. As for Template:repeatvandal, my understanding is that it generally applies to those "repeatedly blocked", so I left it. 'Tis easy to remove, o' course. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski article again. Editor refuses to stop inserting information to whitewash case

moved from WP:AN Equazcion (talk) 06:41, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

This yet again. This was brought up before [89]. You have an editor, Proofreader77, who argues nonstop, filling up a talk page, bringing up the same things constantly, and refusing to follow consensus. See the talk page here [90] for him once again trying to edit the article to mention how old other people said they thought the victim looked. As I and others have pointed out a month ago, and several times already, Roman Polanski already said he understood she was 13, this in the Wanted and Desired documentary even, there no doubt whatsoever about this. To mention that she looked older has no place in the article, and continuously trying to re-add it for months now, and filling up one talk page after another arguing about it, is nothing less than an attempt to try to make his crime seem less severe. Can someone please block this disruptive editor from the article? Please look through the archives[91], he filling up one page after another with the same arguments time and again. Dream Focus 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the proper forum for incidents like this (asking for a block). On the other hand, Proofreader77 is pushing for this version of the article in the last link of his first post in this thread. The contentious sentence "On March 11, 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old (two weeks prior to her fourteenth birthday and described by the the police investigator as "looking between 16 and 18") Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.[43][52]" seems blatant POV pushing to me, because neither of the sources cited documents the quoted statement (of the investigator, i.e. "looking between 16 and 18"). It's reasonable to propose a topic ban of Proofreader77 from that article and the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case given his long term disruption that violates WP:V, and has a tint of pro-pedophilia advocacy. Pcap ping 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very, very careful about saying an editor is "pro-pedophilia". That's a pretty serious charge. It is quite possible to be a Polanski supporter and not be pro-pedophile. In any case, pedophilia is the wrong word here. The actual term is hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia, as pedophilia refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents, despite its more common denotations. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, struck that. I'm not an expert on deviant sexual behavior. Pcap ping 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am... err, ah... not, either. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Above is misleading allegations/aspersions including falsehood (slander)

( previous issue was another matter - which will be addressed at Arbcom or AN )

(Let's see how the election turns out. lol :-)

Links and diffs regarding current aspersions:

• Single edit added: Revision as of 20:09, 11 December 2009 Proofreader77 (→Sexual assault case: Due to cultural contentions of article (Jail Polanski! vs Free Polanski!)& efforts to cram more "Jail Polanski!' facts into short summary (w false allegations of whitewash), I will illustrate "counterbalancing" the cram)
• My next edit reverts Revision as of 20:20, 11 December 2009 Proofreader77 (Having saved the diff of the "counterbalancing" illustration, I undo it, BUT NOTING that every sentence can be sourced
• Archived talk re secondary sources Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_6#Secondary_sources_re_probation_report
• Ref for "between16 and 18" "looking between 16 and 18"

(Show us the diffs of where I "refuse to stop adding" what I have never left in, Dream Focus)

• Talk page discussion linked to was regarding article quality vs summary cramming (in context of NPOV contention)
• Strike slander immediately / wrap this slanderous topic up (Complex matter of contentious article and behaviors of specific participants to be addressed in due course with an accurate topic header in the appropriate venue)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only online source that contains that quote is from LA Times of Sep 20, 1977, and was not cited in the wiki article version you appeared to endorse. Further, the actual quote is: One of the detectives in the case described the girl as "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old [...] You've obviously {{cherrypicked}} the part that didn't suit your purpose (acting as though she were 13 or 14 years). Further, including that quote from a 1977-source that was apparently never considered worthy of reproduction in any other report since then is ridiculously WP:UNDUE, not to mention that it failed WP:V since you didn't cite the source. The fact that you first added that statement, and then removed it is a strange WP:POINT illustration, especially since you later seem to endorse the version because you did not put counterbalanced in quotes in the actual text of your talk page message, although you did put it in quotes in the edit summary. So no reasonable person reading the talk page could tell that you do not fully endorse that ridiculously POV version, unless one looked at the edit history of both the article and the talk page! Playing strange, duplicitous WP:GAMEs isn't going to convince anyone of your good faith, so don't expect any apologies from me. Pcap ping 09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Futher, reading this tl;dr thread makes it ridiculously obvious that you have been POV pushing for including the "looking 16 to 18" titbid in October, and you were also dismmisive of Polanski's under oath statement that he knew her to be 13. Your behavior there meets my definition of POV pushing: dismissive of the mainstream view, and giving equal WP:VALIDity to cherry-picked details. The fact that you switched to a passive aggressive stance after you couldn't get your POV through back in October, and continue to disrupt that article two months later is sufficient evidence for me that you need to be topic banned from it. if you're WP:POINTy enough people can take your illustrations for more serious disruption. (changed after reading answers to the two questions below) Pcap ping 13:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Proofreader77

Short questions for the alleged outlaw Proofreader77 (and his 100-word-max replies)

To all who gather in this saloon today/tonight, grab a beer and listen up: As all Wikipedia cowfolk now, ANI is often wielded like a pair of sixguns in *content disputes* — and yep, that's jest what we got right here, friends. Bullshit, and even outright lies, often ride in with such improper topics. But if we must turn our Christmastime fellowship into a barfight, let's not continue WP:TLDR. Now that I've presented my initial rebuttal, I will return to my "editing restriction" of 100 words per message. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to do the same. :-)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question #1: Could you elaborate on what you meant by "counterbalancing illustration"? I'm a little confused about what you were trying to illustrate. Are you saying the current version of the summary needs more balancing? The reason I ask is that if you don't see a problem with the current summary, and don't actually plan to add the stuff in your "illustration", then there's really no problem here and Dream's concerns are just misunderstandings. Equazcion (talk) 11:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you, Equazcion (appreciate question+length:). No, there's no intent to leave (let's call it) Polanski-defense-POV information in as "counterbalance" to Polanski-prosecution-POV (to achieve NPOV). That diff was to illustrate to those wishing to insert preferred Geimer quote (from decades later) into 1977 events paragraph (between grand jury testimony, and charges selected) what happens if you try to achieve NPOV with dueling information. That shouldn't happen in the summary topic in the bio (perhaps in Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). The "counterbalancing illustration" was a response to arguments quotes couldn't be excluded if sourced. You've seen my last version. That's good. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, that makes sense. You could have just stated it on the article's talk page instead of being WP:POINTy about it. It certainly gave me the wrong impression, especially since you previously attempted to introduce that full quote "for real". Pcap ping 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question #2: Do you think this recent sonnet you added to the talk page is anything but WP:SOAPBOXing? Pcap ping 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  Let us first note topic title (by initiator):

  "Purpose of this Wikipedia entry. (Claims of two sides, deleting content, mission of a BLP, asserting bad faith, unpleasant nature of the facts)

  That long (and rhetorical) title was followed by an initiating comment of 606 words presenting, yes, the POV of initiator. While rhetorical sonnets may seem odd, full analytic reply was not appropriate or a good idea. Almost responded, WP:TLDR, but instead invested time to respond POV with POV of Geimer's attorney's oral arguments (with links) from 10 December Appeals Court hearing. A rhetorical choice chosen for that circumstance. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, everyone is soapboxing to a certain extent in that thread now, but as a skilled editor, you should try to improve the signal to noise ratio. Pcap ping 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(note)

(offline/back@20:00) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the issue (plus a response to it)

Based on Proofreader's answers above, I just want to clarify this issue, because Proofreader is frankly (no offense) not making his intentions completely clear.

The edit that sparked this incident report was Proofreader's attempt to make a point, and he immediately reverted himself. The idea was just to have a diff to link to and show everyone in discussions. The point he was trying to make with it was that that the section in question, which is just a summary of the sexual assault article, would get messy and long if evidence that the victim "looked 13" and "didn't look 13" were both added (possibly in addition to other contentious issues). He's trying to say that such things should be kept out of the summary altogether. He's not looking to add them. The original poster here seems to have been confused about this. Equazcion (talk) 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

• The above having been said, if you're (Proofreader) going to use direct article edits to make your point, it's your responsibility to make sure no one gets confused about why you're doing it. Making a point by editing the article and then immediately reverting your own edit could prove to be a disruption, which would violate WP:POINT. This ANI report could be viewed as such a disruption. I understand what you were trying to do, and frankly I'm not sure there was any better way to do it. Nevertheless, I'd take great care in doing so in the future. Make sure to say explicitly what you're NOT planning on doing with the article. It might have allayed fears, for example, if you had said something like: "I am NOT advocating the insertion of any of the edits in my illustration. This is only an example of what COULD happen to the section if these kinds of edits are allowed to remain."

• As for the "sonnet": I think that response was in poor taste, and more of a violation of WP:SOAP than the original post to that section. You say you didn't want to invest the time to respond to something so general and dubious (that's how I saw it anyway), and I agree with you there; it was not worth responding to. However that doesn't mean a cheeky retort is warranted instead. If you don't want to respond thoughtfully to someone, I would refrain from posting any other type of response in its place. Equazcion (talk) 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

  I disagree that the main article should ever be used just to create diffs showing "this how a really POV version could look like by cherrypicking a source". Especially after the attempt to introduce (a superset) of the contentious information (for real) resulted in a whole archive page that debated just that issue. Add some sonnets to that, and you get more than enough soap bubbles to fill an AN/I thread. I have to stop here before my posts become equally cryptic and soapy. Pcap ping 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  On whether or not article edits should ever be used that way, I have no answer. They certainly shouldn't be used that way in common practice, but like I said, I'm not sure how else the point would've been better made. However, the purpose of the diff wasn't to show "a really POV version". It was to show a version where NPOV were observed by putting in equal amounts of contentious material from each side; which Proofreader is (rightfully) against. Equazcion (talk) 14:00, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

  I don't agree that the contentious version is NPOV. See my comment above about (1) lack of verifiability -- wrong sources were cited (2) cherrypicking the source from "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old" to just "looking between 16 and 18 years old". Furthermore, the 2nd paragraph is obviously meant to discredit Geimer as much as possible: except for one sentence, the paragraph pushes the idea that she doesn't remember what happened, she's just a repeating a story, the real culprit was the media, and that she doesn't want him to go to jail. Completely ignored is the fact that forensic evidence was damning, and the issue was statutory rape, so her recollection wasn't terribly relevant. The whole point of that 2nd paragraph is to make the reader commiserate with Polanski (a confused teenager is accusing him, but changes her mind later). After the reader is emotionally primed, he gets to read about Polanski's ordeal with the justice system, and endorse his flight. He evaded punishment (then) that he doesn't really deserve (now)! Together with the cherrypicking of sources mostly favorable to Polanski, this excellent narrative structure is aimed at manipulating the reader to accept the Wikipedia editor's POV. Pcap ping 14:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are two opposing strong stances there at Polanski, has been since the arrest, you could say that one side exists to balance the other, there is constant content creep of single words day by day to attempt to change the expression of the content, Proof is one one side and other editor is on the other side, personally I prefer it if the article was stable after the quite encyclopedic rewrite that Benjiboi did, but they keep at it...I would be wrong to restrict one side and not the other from the article as without proofreaders resistance you would soon see the article swing to reflect the Polanski is a perverted child rapist, kiddie fiddler who should be hung by his balls until dead brigade. I think Proofreader actually doing a good job there, if you restrict his access to editing there you also should restrict his opposite editor, User:Tombaker321 have a look at his edit history he only edits the Polanski article . Just have a look at the recent edit history at Polanski of the constant to and fro-ing between these two editors, as I said IMO it would be unfair and unwise to restrict one side and not the other. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Request ruling

• How old the victim looked should not be discussed CONSTANTLY, brought up time and again. Please take time to look over the long ongoing debate about that in the archives. [92] It is now being discussed yet again. The talk page is for discussing what should be in the article, some of the information previously put in there, but removed, and then debated repeatedly for awhile now. Can we get a ruling that since the director already stated he understood she was 13, that there is no possible reason to discuss how old others were quoted as saying they thought she looked? Other things keep coming up as well, which should not have to be discussed continuously. The rape victim previously had sex with her boyfriend(whether a rape victim was a virgin or not shouldn't be mentioned at all), its legal in some nations for a 13 year old to have sex(nothing to do with America), she had had alcohol previously, she had used the sedative drug previously, or how old someone other than the director thought she looked, should not be mentioned again. Bringing these things up constantly, and trying to get them in the article, is an attempt to make the crimes of Polanski sound less severe, and to do victim blaming or slandering of the victim. One talk page after another has been archived, in a very short period of time, filled up by two editors who keep mentioning these irrelevant things. Dream Focus 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would normally agree with this, but the accounts of this case, even in such sources as the NYT , do discuss these. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we add in every single thing the newspapers discuss? Does the information have any possible reason to be in there? Should we spend three months filling up one talk page after another(check archives, I'm not exaggerating) with the same argument? Dream Focus 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well let's face it that's your speciality. Windhover75 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Block of Samou4-memorial-point

It is a abousoutley disgraceful not only to User Mcjakeqcool's memory but also to Wikipedia and the worldwide web as a whole that Samou4-memorial-point has been blocked. For goodness sake this is just plain wrong we are talking about someone's life here and did any of you even know User Mcjakeqcool?! He was such a kind, caring, outgoing, bubly, outspoken & arrogant individual. 86.136.168.187 (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no more disgraceful than it would be to remove from private property a memorial that was placed without the permission of the property owner. It's possible to be completely sympathetic regarding a person's death, and at the same time remember that Wikipedia is not a host for memorial webpages. There are plenty of websites that exist to set up memorials, and you are always free to set up your own. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool's claimed death is not notable. DMacks (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Was there actually a confirmed death here? While I wasn't paying attention, this matter jumped from repeated socking to a memorial. Dayewalker (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No there hasn't been a confirmed death as far as I can see. And I don't want to be rude if there really has been, but looking at the Mcjakeqcool account and this IP, they share the same unusual writing style and edit summary usage. Mr Mcjakeqcool was blocked indefinitely last month for disruptive editing and then reblocked for sockpuppetry and several IPs were subsequently blocked accused of being Mcjakeqcool socking around the block, including 86.21.66.162 (talk · contribs) and 86.136.78.170 (talk · contribs), which is from the same ISP as the one this guy's using now. Also 86.21.66.162 (talk · contribs) was blocked twice in November as a Mcjakqcool sock and it was reblocked again today as Mcjakqcool after this ANI [93] There's been a lot of really strange editing and socking and disruption going on around this Mcjakeqcool account and I really think this is just more of it. Sarah 09:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a t-mobile IP involved as well User talk:149.254.49.33 who asked the current 86 IP to post the request to block Tan on ANI [94]Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the user page at User:Samou4-memorial-point be deleted. Is it a BLP vio to say someone is dead without any evidence for same? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the "death" of the userid Mcjakeqcool and his sockpuppets is not worth a memorial. I have no doubt that the person behind them is very much alive and well. If I'm wrong, then it's not my intent to be insensitive, however, this smells like a very middle-school ploy, and the writing styles are very telling. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the userpage as not only an unsourced death listing (BLP vio), but entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia user pages per WP:UP#NOT. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Xqbot

Xqbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Hi.. As far as I know, this bot was originally approved here, however, as you can see, the bot was only approved to resolve double redirects. It doesn't appear to have been approved for any other task, and yet, as their userpage says, it's task has been changed to fixing interwiki links. However, that is not all it is doing, it is also removing links to other versions of the page that are in different languages. Don't bots need to have new tasks approved before they are added? Also, I have notified the owner of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Xqbot is a global bot. WP:GLOBALBOTS allows the use of Global bots to update interwiki links --Xqt (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How is removing a link updating it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the linked-to article no longer exists in that Wiki? I haven't checked, but that would be an example. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We can marke this resolved, I just visited the relevant page, and it was up for CSD.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1 was. Many others aren't. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections

This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the final day to vote in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Update: The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 as advertised. However, that due to the configuration of the SecurePoll extension, the voting period may not extend to the previously announced time of 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009. The software developers have been contacted and we are working to extend the voting period to the full two week period. This message will be updated to reflect any such changes, but barring intervention, votes cast after 00:00 UTC on 14 December 2009 (midnight tonight) will not be accepted by the software.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sugarlover101 / User:LoadMeUp101

LoadMeUp101 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same person as indef-blocked user Sugarlover101 (talk · contribs). Based on User:LoadMeUp101's talk page, it appears an autoblock was applied to the IP address, and the unblock was denied because they were determined to be the same user. But User:LoadMeUp101 continues to edit. LoadMeUp101's recent edits have not been problematic (at least as far as I can tell; apparently Sugarlover's infraction was including copyrighted content, and it's possible LoadMeUp is still doing that.), but it still appears to be an indef-blocked user evading that block.

I contacted the admin who original blocked Sugarlover101, Skier Dude (talk · contribs). (See User_talk:Skier_Dude/archive/archive_Dec_09#Sugarlover.) Skier Dude replied to me here about my initial concern but didn't respond to my followup questions.

I appreciate any clarification of this issue. It appears to me that either LoadMeUp101 should be indef blocked like Sugarlover101, or LoadMeUp101 should be officially granted license to edit freely. Powers ^T 13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides the IP "coincidence", I think there can be little doubt that we have a block-evading sock here. A comparison of edit histories shows the same interests: lacrosse, Matthew Good band. I'm going to indef block with instructions to appeal at the first account if he wishes to resume constructive editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollingeyez

Rollingeyez (talk · contribs) appears to be here only to make a point. I've stopped short of blocking, but I suspect this is not this editor's first time here. Does anyone recognize this pattern? Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Block review please

I'd like a review of my blocks of Brianwazere (talk · contribs) who I blocked for edit warring on Lauren Branning: Edit war warning: [95] Reverts: [96],[97],[98],[99]. After the block, I got an uncivil and threatening email from Brianwaswere. Finding this rant on his/her talk page, I reverted, extended the block removing talk and email privileges. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems with the block here. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me and the contents of the e-mail would probably support that if you cared to make it public (which I presume you don't?). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Keith Bridgeman on wheels

Today, a lot of admins have been whacking socks of Keith Bridgeman (talk · contribs), better known as General Tojo (talk · contribs). If any available checkuser could find his range and block it, it will be much appreciated. Blueboy96 19:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)