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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – As requested Tedder withdrew from the dispute, page protection was taken over by an uninvolved admin. Actions have been thoroughly reviewed. Rich Farmbrough, 08:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

---

At Scientific opinion on climate change, User:Tedder reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 [1] 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,[2] his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position.[3] He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it,[4][5][6][7] and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version.[8] 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.[9] 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, [10]. --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 [11]. 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 [12] and [13], 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 [14]. Please note that we were attempting to do as you suggest, [15], 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, [16] and [17] --GoRight (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If your implication is that two edits ever constitute edit warring, despite my asking Tedder to justify his action on the talk page which he explicitly refused to do, while he went to 4 reverts in 24 hours, after warning, and then protected his preferred version, then please feel free to report me to WP:AN3. However, I feel it will quickly be closed as frivolous. However, you several times pleaded for Tedder to edit the page as a proxy for you, which he then did. Do you acknowledge that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT? Verbal chat 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"If your implication is that two edits ever constitute edit warring ..." - Apparently I was unclear, so let me clear things up. I am not implying, I am outright stating that both of those reverts were edit warring and blockable offenses, especially after this was prominent placed on the talk page. And even if I give you the first one, the second clearly was after you got the following edit summary in response to your first: "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"However, you several times pleaded for Tedder to edit the page as a proxy for you, which he then did." - This is a lie, pure an simple. Tedder was never acting as my proxy.

"Do you acknowledge that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT?" - What I acknowledge, but you apparently refuse to do yourself, is that the 3RR was raised and reviewed at AN3 by independent administrators, and that the PROTECT has now been reviewed by BB, also an independent administrator. Any corrective actions deemed necessary as a result of EITHER of those reviews has already been addressed. It's history, get over it. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 14 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 [18]. 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)

[19] is NOT a review of the 3RR in your mind? --GoRight (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling

As Tedder put it [20]. 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 [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], 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)

• Please quit being silly. Perhaps Tedder made an error in judgement, but that's all. There's been little admin comment because nobody sees any need to do anything requiring admin tools, and nobody wants to read this whole absurdly long debate over one tiny action. Mistakes happen, the world is an imperfect place full of imperfect people. This whole subsection smells of sour grapes. Please, everyone remove your capes and masks and descend back to ground level. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Please quit being silly" is a great response. Did Tedder break both 3RR and PROTECT or not? He clearly did. Has he been warned not to do this again, or a general statement made that this is not acceptable? Not yet. It needs to be made. Verbal chat 07:55, 14 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)
• Boy, this crowd sure like the polling. The fact that Tedder backed away from this issue and asked for another admin to review his actions is a clear enough indication to me. What is to be accomplished by continuing to debate what is essentially a dead issue? There do not seem to be any admins willing to block Tedder over this, and I don't see any need for further admin actions in this matter. If you think there is a pattern here, and you can actually get the evidence together to quantify that position, then a user conduct RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, this is just flogging a dead horse Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Tedder protected it for a few days, not weeks, months etc. his protection was reviewed and upheld. Time to relax a bit and keep everything in perspective. It is a shame that the involved editors saw fit to edit war over the tag rather than engage in discussion. Unomi (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• It's also absurd for someone to argue that tedder somehow created this issue. What he did should be avoided, but if you want to yell at him, first yell at all the editors who caused admin intervention to be necessary in the first place. Enigma^msg 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think that Tedder took the right action in asking for admin review. He has obviously learned whatever lesson there is to take from this without any official warning. Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 15 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)

  I was wondering when you would escalate your rhetoric from merely referring to Tedder as a "proxy", now you are calling him a full blown meat puppet. I think you should apologize for that as it is clearly uncivil. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 14 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)

Tedder broke 3RR to edit-war his preferred version back in before protecting. This is the obvious difference, as ATren already knows - this section is entirely pointless. If ATren's bizarre alternate-reality version of events was correct, there would be admins signing up to the "yes of course Tedder was correct, close this thread" option. Instead we have people signing up to the "this is all too embarassing and Tedder is never going to admit error" close William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the take home message here is to simply block verbal and WMC when they start editwarring over tags. Fwiw I don't see the silence as censure of Tedder, but more as a sign that no one wants to get involved in the thespian antics of a select few who seem to have (hopefully only temporarily) chosen histrionics over constructive debate. Keep calm and carry on. Unomi (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to report me for editwarring, but as I have only ever edited the article twice and attempted discussion with the editwarring editor I will not face any sanction. Calling for bans is hardly "keeping calm and carrying on"Verbal chat 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If WMC's bizarre alternate-reality version of events was correct, there would be admins signing up to the "Tedder was wrong and should be punished" option. Obviously they aren't. --GoRight (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: WMC should be under closer edit war review. Seems to escalate issues with no remorse. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: based on the proposals, including the one below, I think the matter is more well-suited for RfC/U rather than ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: In this case Tedder probably should have known better to revert 4 times AND protect the page immediately after the 4th revert. Whether it warrants RfC/U, though, I'm not sure. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Tedder was in fact admnonished for the 3rr violation. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve issues

Statement of fact

Tedder broke both WP:3RR and WP:PROTECT by restoring the tag and protecting the version he had reverted to, without engaging in any discussion or justification on the talk page and despite a 3RR warning.

Proposal

Tedder is warned that this should not happen again, and/or a general statement is made that this is unacceptable.

Support:

• Verbal chat 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

* This I agree. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) On second thought, this is redundant as he was already warned. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Grundle2600 and the Diane Francis article.

I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment[26] on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this[27], which was introduced by Grundle here[28]. 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[29][30][31][32] - and that he is rather proud of it [33](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 [34], 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[35]. 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)

Your questions are goalpost-shifting designed to distract from the issue at hand (your behavior). No one's biting at the hook. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 14 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[36], 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.[37] The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock".[38] 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.[39]. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of[40] 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)

My comments were not directed at you alone. William M. Connolley reverted an edit that added 3 sources on the basis that 1 of them was not reliable. The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted an edit that added content as "vandalism" and accused the editor of socking. I'm all for being vigilant about BLPs, but calling a content dispute "vandalism" and accusing an editor who agrees with the "other" side a sock (apparently without any independent basis) is improper. We cheapen our policies and damage our credibility by throwing words like vandalism and sock around indiscriminately.—Finell 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef-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)

The edit highlighted by Rd232 is from December 11. The underlying content issue of whether and how to note that a commentator calling for a one child policy has two children appears to have been resolved with a reasonable compromise. There is no ongoing problem. So this is an atrociously disruptive block by an admin with a history of disruptive behavior on one side of political subjects. I think Grundle needs to do a better job of staying on the straight and narrow, but his impressive content contributions stand in stark contrast to the trolls harassers and baiters who haunt his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a block over PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The block looks reasonable. This is an editor with a history of tendentious editing with respect to political figures, and who is already under a ban on U.S. politics and politicians. Apparently, he has chosen to move that tendentious editing north to Canada. It is also worth noting that his insistence on yet again bringing up his 'seven questions' here is a violation of his extant topic ban. This editor does not, at this time, seem prepared to let go and move on. While an indefinite block may or may not be necessary, a minimum of a few weeks away might do him some good. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was resolved. It was a content dispute. Drudging up old issues and dragging people who we don't agree with to ANI is insidious and it's one of the most disruptive and bullying tactics employed on Wikipedia. There was no consensus to block. The clear consensus was that the issue was resolved. This is an outrageous block, and it shouldn't be gone along with because people have disagreed with the targeted editor in the past. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I post this diff of my comment to Grundle which explains slightly more my reasoning, and also the synth edit in question. I've also noted it in the BLP log [41] though that's no obstacle to amending or removing the block if there is agreement for that. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only person who keeps bringing up his 'seven questions' (in violation of his topic ban) is Grundle himself. Perhaps if he weren't so keen to refight old battles and dredge up old fights, then we wouldn't be discussing his block now. Further, your ongoing personal attacks and inflammatory remarks directed at other editors in this discussion are almost certainly not helping to get your point across. I've said my bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So the user is blocked indefinitely for the same thing he was blocked for back in November. Am I allowed to put the {{indefblock}} template on his userpage, or will I simply be reverted by William S. Saturn and be accused of "defacement" by Grundle? It would seem Saturn is accusing the blocking sysop on Grundle's talkpage of blocking Grundle over personal bias. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle has an unblock request pending, so I think the template would be precipitate. Let's hand on for a day or two and see whether a compromise of some sort can be worked out. (On Grundle's page, not here.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the indef-block template for the above reason, but don't mean to edit war over it. Let's wait until this is all done before blanking the user page, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This use just refuses to get it; the reason why he was indef'ed from political articles is for posting and re-posting the same stupid shit, over and over for months and months on end. And it always boils down to the same things; synthesizing several sources in order to create a particular point of view where none exists, or finding sources to show that it does exist but those sources are not within spitting distance of being reliably sourced. Grundle cannot behave in political articles, thus earning a topic ban. Now the same behavior extends to other areas of the project...where else is there to go but an indef? ChildofMidnight is here to, once again, fan the flames of faux outrage as well, which will not help matters any. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce block length

I disagree that there is nowhere else "to go but an indef": Grundle2600 has never been blocked for longer than 48 hours [42]. Additionally, indefinite blocks are categorically problematic: they encourage evasion by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction ever being imposed. In consideration of this user's light block history, there's every reason to believe that a longer, but time-limited, block might be effective. Therefore, I suggest reducing Grundle2600's block to one month. Andrea105 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the indef block, but am somewhat open to the possibility of some other outcome. While the block log does not look that bad, this is an editor who has been sanctioned by ArbCom, topic banned twice by the community, and indef blocked once before (which was then lifted pending a promise to improve apparently). This most recent incident is, in my view, quite egregious (a synth violation on a BLP, what one can only term a "gotcha edit" about someone Grundle apparently wanted to make look bad), and unfortunately it's part of a longstanding pattern (on political articles from which he was eventually banned, Grundle regularly edited in such a SYNTH fashion where one statement made by someone was put in contrast to some action (often misconstrued) as if to say, "look at the hypocrisy"—efforts to explain the problem with that to Grundle led to a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT replies from Grundle).

The only way any sort of change in the indef should even be considered would be for Grundle to acknowledge the problems with his behavior. I'm not talking about a forced apology (that kind of stuff is pointless), I'm talking about an acknowledgment/understanding that the kind of editing evinced at Diane Francis is not okay and absolutely cannot happen again. Even then I'm not sure that it's not more trouble than it's worth to let Grundle come back to editing. Too many people have tried to help this editor stay within community norms to little or no avail. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a reduction in length upon submission of a genuine mea culpa. Arguments such as whether it is "worth it" to keep an editor around are problematic, as it's really not too much trouble to indef should he reoffend. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts on bans and indef-blocks: While I'm not well-read on this specific case, my general thoughts are that bans and their associated indef-blocks should be reconsidered periodically, upon petition of the banned person, a promise to obey the rules of the wiki, and either an off-wiki demonstration that something changed or some type of short-leash parole for a few months along with a mentor if necessary on-wiki before they are allowed to edit without restrictions. In some cases, such as harassment of a given individual, or COI or POV-editing, long-term restrictions lasting more than a year before review may be needed. In cases where the editor has a habit of editing while drunk or some other episodic disruptions but is otherwise contributing well, other tools may be required. In cases where the person has a previous history of socking, even an old one, they may need a checkuser to be on standby until all editing restrictions are lifted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to expect Grundle2600 to behave any differently if he is unblocked than he has behaved all along. My sense is that we should take 1/100th of the effort spent in trying to coax something valuable and encyclopedic from him, invest it more wisely, and move on. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic behind the proposal up above is totally flawed. Rules have no teeth if they are not enforced. Saying that indefinitely blocking someone who has repeatedly been problematic is useless because there are no "more severe sanctions" is backwards, and insinuates that blocks are punitive, not preventative. If we operate under that logic we may as well stop blocking everyone and let Wikipedia become a massive spamhaus and attack site. As blocks are preventative, not punitive, editors who have repeatedly shown to break the same rules over and over and over again, ignoring editing sanctions, etc. should be blocked to prevent them from repeating the violations again. Promising to follow policy and adhering to editing restrictions eliminates the need to prevent someone from violating. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking about the main proposal to reduce the block on Grundle2600 or if you were talking about my general comment that blocks should be reviewed. There are several good ways to give an editor a second chance. The canonical one is to have him propose substantial improvements to articles or new articles on his user talk page then have an established editor who will take responsibility for the edit review it, and if appropriate, make the edit, repeating until there is a good comfort level that this isn't a snow job or an unstable personality on one of his good days. If the editor is unblocked, he can be kept on a short leash, topic-banned, banned from interacting with certain other editors, forced into involuntary mentorship, or under other editing restrictions long enough to make sure this wasn't a snow job, an unstable personality having a good day, or an editor who occasionally edits while intoxicated. In general, once an editor has been editing responsibly and frequently for over a year there is little use in keeping additional restrictions, unless there is the editing equivalent of an alcoholic, where the restriction is in place for the editor's own good to protect him from himself and the project from collateral damage. See Template:Second chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Grundle has demonstrated no capacity for change. Crafty (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment While Grundle's actions have indeed been problematic, and I support the imposition of a block, I don't think he has used his last chance. Keep the block in place and let him compose an appeal to Arbcom. If they decide to reduce his block, then keep him around on a short leash. The primary thing I've been trying to get across to Grundle is that we need to see a change in attitude and behaviour from him. If he's capable of making that change, then by all means let him edit. If not, then reimpose the indef. Either way, I think the best course of action right now is for him to take the appeal to Arbcom. Decline the unblock, and go from there. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is a last resort - the community would be expected to attempt to come to a consensus first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Indefinite does not mean permanent, so if he chills out a bit in a couple months, let him come back and request an unblock. Frequently, all that is needed is some time for everyone involved to cool out a bit. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I had to warn Grundle a few days ago for BLP violations on Tiger Woods and the article's talk page. Enigma^msg 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. --John (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth will not set you free on Wikipedia

Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."

That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when he was blocked indefinitely days later. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Wikipedia. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their "history", and hound them off the site.

The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy between her her policy statements and personal choices (something that's been reported widely on if not in the mainstream media).

Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement and so have others.

These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your treatise is based on a convenient fallacy. "Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment." Nope. Tan | 39 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is ironic, given CoM's section heading! Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be convenient for C of M to list out in full (I assume the above list is not complete) each and every editor guilty of one or more of the following Wikicrimes described above: "pernicious and persistent POV"; "hound[ing]...off the site"; offering "complete and utter bullshit arguments"; "consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC"; "hold[ing] our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt"; "abus[ing] this site"; "push[ing] their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree"; "harassment"; "biased enforcement"; "assuming bad faith"; "making accusations and going after them with full force and fury"; "disgusting hypocrisy"; and "[outrageous] censorship". Once there is a full list of all the editors guilty of these dastardly deeds I think it makes sense to proceed to a community discussion about banning the lot of us. Of course there's no need to provide even so much as one diff making the case for such serious accusations, rather we should just take ChildofMidnight's word for it.

Sorry for the snark, it's just that the endless fantasyland accusations from C of M get rather tiresome after the umpteenth time, even if no one pays them any attention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate CoM providing diffs to prove his assertion "These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing.". If CoM has proof of this, then this needs to be conveyed to ArbCom. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, perhaps CoM would like to create a user subpage with the diffs I refer to, and the list of editors referred to by Bigtimepeace. This could be used as an evidence page for the ArbCom case which I'm sure CoM is considering filing in the near future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you suppose Arbcom will do about it? All anyone has to do is to set up an "alternate account" (as admin socks are referred to euphemistically) and try adding notable criticism and balance to controversial articles. We are a community and we have to hold ourselves to high standards. Harassment, hounding, and the abuse of admin privledges to advance personal and political biases is totally unacceptable.

Grundle is an excellent editor who has added lots of great articles and content. Occasionally he takes liberties that aren't entirely helpful and these issues can be resolved amicably. If it weren't for the aggressive and abusive tactics employed by many misguided individuals here who use an ends justifies the means approach to advancing their personal preferences and opinions on others there wouldn't be a problem. It's time to stop the censorship and to uphold our core principles and values that notable perspectives should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incidents that require administrative action. What action are you looking for an uninvolved admin to take, and upon what evidence would you suggest they base such an action? If you cannot provide specifics on both fronts then I suggest this entire thread should be closed. No admin seems inclined to lift the indef block of Grundle, and it's probably for C of M's own good for this to come to a close lest he head off into Plaxico B. territory. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know by now that these claims made by ChildofMidnight are spurious and disruptive. Usually they are the sort of drive-bys as above, but the last time CoM was up for discussion here, he started a section about me titled "Tarc's relentless antagonism and trolling", which was so thoroughly debunked and discredited that someone apparently deleted the entire sub-thread before archiving, as I cannot see it in archive583, the only place I can find a trace of it is in my last comment there. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized." I think that neatly sums up CoM's complete misreading of the situation and of basic policy. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's now yet another unblock request on his talk. Enigma^msg 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment CoM, these kind of comments don't help when you've been the subject of several AN/I threads lately. I appreciate your defense of those who are otherwise undefended, but there's a line to be drawn. Perhaps if you focussed on defending those who have been wrongly accused, and stepped back from the personal accusations, the threads in question would cease. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM and Grundle are having an at-length soapboxing session discussion on Grundle's talk page about how unfair and biased Wikipedia admins and BLP patrollers are. Fine by me, but what's the resolution here? Is anyone willing to unblock Grundle? His userpage was tagged with the indef template by Hypicrite and quickly reverted by Wikidemon. I've re-added it since no admins seem willing to unblock and three requests have been declined. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that tag should be added until this thread is closed or archived. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I've further clarified my view of the incident on Grundle's talk page here. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 15 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 [43]. 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 [44]. And again [45] and again [46]. Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see [47]. And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see [48]. 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 [49].

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)

Hi, Mathsci. First of all, sorry for not having followed this discussion. Sometimes real life bursts into the wikipedia and a wikibreak is unavoidable. Family matters have kept me away and I must ask for your understanding. Just for the sake of understand your statement. Which is the point I was trying to prove. I've been said that many times and at the moment, nobody has been able to point out to such a point. In this specific issue, what is disruptive from my side? I understand that in articles with different point of views, conflictive editions are unavoidable. But, I can't understand (and I haven't understand yet) why perfectly sourced editions are removed leaving information factually wrong? The only reason to raise this issue here is because this edit war is absolutely stupid. Details are, as you appropriately point out "niggling". But the fact that my work is gratuitously removed is what brings this issue here. Come on, the information currently in the article is false. There were no Maltese guys in Gibraltar in 1753. This is not an edit war on divergent interpretations of a fact but a plain sabotage, not only against me but against the very Wikipedia principles. Again, please, which is the point I'm trying to prove. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, you're referring to "continued postings here". Considering that I was brought here when Justin provoked another edit war (when I tried to "make another point" including some notable Spaniards in the article of a town that was Spanish for several centuries), I can't see which continued posting you're referring to.

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)

Are you serious, Narson? "he /does/ have to talk to people". You possibly know that Justin has a different way of interpretation of communication among wikipedists :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, [50],[51],[52],[53],[54]. 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)

Considering that we are using those quotations (that you tried to delete) in the RfC, which are the co-ordination? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So answer the question [while we have some tea]

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)

Mathsci, Elen, thank you for taking the time in discussing this. I'd just point out some issues. I agree with the statement on the triviality of mentioning a specific census. There are plenty of information available for giving a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the population in Gibraltar for three centuries. That's what the article should include. I agree with it. On the other hand, and answering to Elen, I did noticed the word "new". The issue is that this Spanish population was "new", not the previous. Finally, Mathsci, agreeing on the necessity of having a good section on demographics, the issue remains: considering that your statements on the way to describe Gibraltar demographics are right, why should the article say that in the 1753 census there were Maltese population in Gibraltar? I remember to you that it was the issue I'm raising. The motivation of Justin to simply revert something that he simply does not about is beyond my understanding, but you've claimed that I wanted to make a point. So, in the end, fixing a mistake is making a point, and reverting it to a factually wrong version is OK. I don't understand it. Really. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 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)

No, it hasn't. Factually wrong information remains in the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: it doesn't explain why reversion is used as edit tool, something that Justin hasn't explained yet.

Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary. You continue to dispute niggling points by cherry-picking from sources. It's better to take a good secondary source and systematically summarise what's in it. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Now nationality isn't a factor here. It comes as a relief, to say the least, because I was growing increasingly uncomfortable to read the term "Spanish" repeatedly qualifying some editors/opinions (which usually happen to disagree with Justins'/Gibnews' point of view). As far as I remember, I've never described myself as a Spaniard. I do speak Spanish. I speak English as well, je parle Français aussi, e io capisco un po' di Italiano altrettanto (quantunque io non lo parlo). And yes, Justin, I know already that you are "half-Spanish". You say that all the time to avert accusations of bias but, as you might know "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". Gibnews and yourself are both British (and at least Gibnews is from Gibraltar). However, I've never pointed that out as relevant data concerning our debates, because I value your opinions, neither who you are, nor where you are from. I suggest you do the same, because proceeding otherwise smells like racism to me despite your alleged meta-ethnicity.

As for the reverts thing, whilst I've not participated in this discussion and I hold no opinion concerning the right approach to describing Gibraltar's demography, that certainly wasn't the way to go. Moreover when taking into account precedents like this one. Ecemaml's editions were referenced correctly, and a discussion in the talk page was in order. --Cremallera (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right I see, so is dragging up something from the past that was already resolved helpful in moving forward? See [55]. Something already explained at length. As regards my mother, no I usually bring it up in response to accusations of racism, usually of an anti-Spanish bias. The issue of race has only ever been raised to try and discredit the viewpoints of anyone that disagrees with certain editors, its not helpful and is designed to portray anyone disagreeing as unreasonable. Its offensive and I'm tired of it. If you don't want it raised, I suggest you have a word with the people who raise it as a red herring. I would also suggest you refrain from the bad faith attempt to spin it as an issue I raise, when you know that I don't.

Further, did you feel changing the date of WW2 was a helpful edit, or edit warring to keep the change? Diffs [56],[57]. If you were to perhaps equally condemn that sort of disruption, then to be blunt about it, you'd have more credibility. Just to make the point also, that if there was less of a confrontational attitude and turning everything into a battle, use of the talk page then people might not be so hot on the revert button. Just a thought. Justin talk 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here. However, in defense of my credibility I'll point out that I've addressed him whenever I've felt his comments inappropriate, in concordance with your remarks (!) or even looking forward to your participation in the debate. As for Ecemaml's alleged vandalism concerning WW2 dates, he explained his edition to you in the talk page, and you've read it already as shown by your response which ends stating "Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there". That was rich. Are you half-Argentinian as well? Whatever. Finally, attribute me "bad faith", lack of credibility, a confrontational attitude and the like, I'm getting used to it. But please stop addressing *any* editor by his putative nationality. Thanks. --Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism, no. Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism and the explanation was lacking in credibility or reason. I see the point about not raising the red herring of nationality has clearly gone straight over your head as you've done it again. I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation. I may respond inappropriately sometimes when wound up. Again if you don't want nationality raised, then suggest it isn't raised so often as a red herring. :"Are you half-Argentinian as well?", the word is Argentine, no. Somewhat ironic to raise it in such a confrontational manner given your subsequent comment. Don't you think?Justin talk 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism". Yes, that would have been vandalism... if true. However, I never changed the date of the start of the WW2 as you know and as I explained to you (you keep insisting on that in spite of knowing it's false and in spite of having received a duly explanation). For the sake of clarity and for avoiding your usual personal attacks, I'll explain it again (only for you not go on lying). I thought (and think) that 1940 is a better date for "the periodification of the history of Gibraltar" than 1939, as 1940 was the date of the evacuation of Gibraltarians, creation of the Force H, suspension of the City Council and mass-scale fortification of the town... I won't explain it again, although I know that you'll go on lying by saying something as stupid as that "I changed the date of the start of the WW2".

On the other hand, as you hasn't been able to explain yet why factually wrong information must remain in the article (besides your usual small talk, you've failed to explain why you use reversion as edit tool), I'll restore the sourced information that I introduced, along with the reference provided by Mathsci (and removing Spaniards and Portuguese, since its mention seems to be "problematic"). Of course that the section needs to be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out the information in that section starts in 1939 and it is specifically titled WW2, the date you changed was the date of the start of WW2. I don't find your explanation in any way convincing, particularly as you edit warred to keep it and since you only provided this explanation later it has all the hallmarks of something you came up with it after the event; you didn't mention it at the time.

Equally I've restored the sourced information for the ethnic groups you simply excised from the article, which you could have done. Often successive edits separate sourced information from their cites but as was pointed out to you, you could simply have referred to the Demographics of Gibraltar article and fixed it. You chose instead to cut out swathes of text, that removed useful information from the article. You were of course referred to that article, why you chose to ignore that suggestion to instead start an AN/I thread is a mystery to me. As is claiming to improve articles by removing information rather than correcting the source. That would probably explain the comments here, which acknowledge the POV nature of a number of your edits, not to mention your combative and confrontational style. Anyway this is wasting my time, so this will be my last comment. Justin talk 23:23, 14 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)

Support blocking Llywrch for that awful, awful pun. The subject of his dissertation is why Creationists are right and scientists are a bunch of big doodoo heads (I hyperbolize--barely). It's pretty central to his public persona, and stands as a fairly damning critique, on its own, of both his Doctorate and the institution that granted it. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m going to have to agree with Throwaway on that, Llywrch. Of course, I also plan to repeat the pun, first chance I get. The subject of the dissertation on WL is History of Evolution. Cliffsnotes version: Satan made it up before the fall to confuse humans, and has been pushing it ever since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support pun block, but only so there will be more time spent with wonderful new arrival. (Congratulations.) P.S. This in no way means I'm not going to drag someone to Arbcom ... after I see if I've successfully rigged the election. lol Meanwhile, happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean we can't use this in any way? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Ignores calls for pun-itive measures.) Okay, I spent a few hours yesterday following links discussing this alleged doctoral thesis of "Dr" Hovind, & the problem seems to boil down to this: is this matter worth arguing over BLP concerns? On one hand, there is no definitive proof that this essay is the one Hovind submitted to this diploma mill, although there are persuasive third-party assertions that it is. On the other, being identified as the author of this document is negative information, which is the doctoral thesis equivalent of the Z-movie Manos, the Hands of Fate without the MST3K commentary: it makes the person a laughingstock. I think it would be proper to link to a site (like this one, which is already cited in the article) that provides a summary of the alleged essay by someone who is a reliable source, but to repeat the point of my post above, until someone adds a summary of Hovind's thesis to Kent Hovind, I don't see a reason for the link to Wikileaks in the article. And as for linking it to the Patriot Bible University article, that's a clear case of undue emphasis: of course diploma mills are going to accept questionable material -- that's why they are called "diploma mills". -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 15 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)

That's what they all say. When an SPI is filed, the opinion of those accused is never a deciding factor in the case, unless they admit to wrongdoing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable. But I doubt there is much evidence of my being a puppet in any event. Drolz⁰⁹ 01:47, 15 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)

Neither edit summaries or editing as a registered user are required by Wikipedia. Seems to me Error in judgement implies something wrong. Nothing huge, nothing requiring drama, but a oops, messed up would be nice. Characterizing an anonymous editor as "hiding" isn't cool. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here."

I don't think there is anything to add to this. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the IP user is acting in good faith. Per the IP's comments here, and the baiting in teh post before this one, I am withdrawing from all discussions in which this user is involved, per WP:DNFT. Admins may contact me privately if they desire to pursue this further. Thanks, especially to Jimbo. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, if an IPs is impertinent enough to call an established and respected editor's lie, he's a troll. Figures. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The three IPs, including noew 91.55.230.143 (talk · contribs), should be blocked for disruption in their short communal period of editing wikipedia. See this example of forum shopping.[58] This is unacceptable behaviour. This user is wikihounding User:BilCat and has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia. Two pages are semiprotected due to their actions. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(It still gets better.) This entry here is about the bogus PA warning from User:MBK004. Look above to see me again and again trying people to focus on that.

Your link points to my Wikiquette Alert about BilCat's incivility. There is no room there to talk about a possible admin abuse.

Your problem is exactly what, that I use proper forums to address issues? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia but to cause disruption. Here is one of a series of personal attacks. [59] Their three editing histories speak for themselves. However, given their knowledge of WP:ANI and WP:WQA, they do seem to display prior knowledge of wikipedia. Possibly they might be a logged off registered user. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this would be an example of calling a spade a spade. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you not in fact call User:BilCat a "liar"? Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, after he lied.

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is a personal attack. Do you have a registered account? Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the warning was reasonable. Doesn't matter who started anything, each editor is responsible for their own actions. Gerardw (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A warning was reasonable; but jumping all the way to "final warning" (on the first warning)? That's the question 91.55 has been asking. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument that the final warning was premature but it seems like hair splitting to me. What is the implication of the question? That 91.55 should be allowed 2 more personal attack before being blocked? Gerardw (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We do have levels of warning, e.g. uw-npa1 / npa2 / npa3, for a reason. This was uw-npa4im, skipping three levels of warning. No such warning was given to those who made the false accusation of "vandalism", or to the user who followed 91.55 around to revert all his changes (which is after all what 91.55 was objecting to with his "destroying" comment). That does seem rather uneven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue beating a dead horse. Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:

• Break some policy (NPA and AGF seem to be the most popular).
• Watch that you are reported somwhere in WP:Dispute resolution.
• Ignore it.
• Watch other editors attack the reporter.
• Keep quiet.
• Watch other editors rush to protect dead horses.
• Carry on.

In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.

The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone ought to write Wikipedia:How to destroy Wikipedia, beginning with the fact that the only sure-fire way to do it is with a large axe & access to the server room. Accusing anyone of doing this in any other way (e.g. vandalism, POV-pushing, personal attacks) is an overstatement & one should avoid saying it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 15 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)

• It's not about the site, it's about the content and the process of fact-checking. If some well-known authority happens to host a site on a provider that also has masses of junk then that does not reduce the quality of the well-known authority. Where a site is almost exclusively unreliable (as Geocities became) it's fair to request a decent standard of proof that the content is reliable. Where a usually unreliable site is constantly linked then we might very well blacklist it and then whitelist any provably good content. In this case I have to say that I have never found a reliable Geocities link, but Geocities was never high on my list of sites for checking as new links were not really being added at any kind of speed (unlike most of the major blog sites, which are often a pestilential nuisance). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Going to archive.org may not be necessary. There are a couple "copy" websites for GeoCities. One could try ReoCities.com and just add end of the website to that. (Example geocities.com/example becomes reocities.com/example). Also there is GeoCities.ws and Oocities.com. Both work the same way, but ReoCities.com seems to be the faster loading and updating website of the three. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is a related conversation at the blacklist RfC, regarding the reliability of sources and blacklisting. Gigs (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Geocities archive sites

Ok guys, appreciate the good replies here. as one idea, let's post different suggestions or notations as to where Geocities.com content has now been archived. this can be a semi-official beginning to the efforts to keep links current. thanks.

Here's one site which I found. feel free to add to this list. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. reocities.com - devoted solely to geocities content
2. archive.org - as noted in discussion above, very sizable archive of past web content. geocities is one notable part, and received its own specific effort at this site.

Before someone expends no ends of effort re-doing the links, is there any serious contention that geocities is a reliable source for anything save its own (former) existence? It is (er, was) just a content host for any one who wants to have something to say - like a myspace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the above discussion covers that. Of course if you want to start checking though them yourself, no one is stopping you. Rich Farmbrough, 09:02, 15 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)

I think this discussion can be closed. Xqbot is a very active interwiki bot, and for this function does not need approval. The operator seems to be very competent. (He is a developer of the Python framework for bots and his talk page on de is very active with bot-related questions.) In this case the bot removed an interwiki to the Newari Wikipedia. (This Nepalese language has 800,000 speakers.) The target article was created years ago and has always been empty except for a category and lots of interwiki link.

If that's the only "problem" with this bot that has been noticed so far, I see no reason for further discussion. Hans Adler 12:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

interwiki bots removes empty pages as well as nonexistent ones. This was introduced in revision 405 (Jan 2 2004) --Xqt (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, even I'm out of my original iffy worries-- the only few links I found being existing articles were from edit summaries with mutiple things expressed and things abbreviated. An edit summary 2 characters long wrong once or twice? I apparently got really unlucky when I ran into that one. Actually, I'm damned impressed it can do both edits and deletes at once, listing the full wiki article sometimes and other times just abbreviating by the 2 letter code... at the same time. Ooh, and I don't suppose there's an actual robot doing the edits, or it is for a global English word to avoid confusion? :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is of cause the edit summary is limited. Changes on more then 3 sites will be abbreviated. And btw. there is a real bot running. --Xqt (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Range blocking for Rcool35 2

Hello, sorry for making a second thread about this subject but my previous thread did not get a response for my latest rangeblocking proposal. I'm just wondering if the IP ranges can be blocked since these are the IP's that he mainly uses.

• 76.193.170.00/76.193.255.255
• 76.197.170.00/76.197.255.255
• 99.140.180.00/99.140.230.255
• 99.147.180.00/99.147.230.255

I have constantly reverting his vandalism edits for a long, long time and it has not worked at the least bit. He keeps vandalising the pages even though after literaly a thousand reverts he would of given up by now. Protection does not work as he will literaly wait out protection, even if it is for 6 months or a year, the only type that'll work is infinite protection but that'll take certain cercimstances to get. I have tried talking to him but this guy is just so ignorant and pardon my language but stupid. Sure I can revert every one of his edits but I do not want to do this forever, I'm at the end of my ropes here. Taylor Karras (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize, but I'll restate my objections to a rangeblock of that magnitude: That's simply way too many IPs. Perhaps a C/U would like to investigate and see if AT&T uses dynamic IPs in Rcool's area. Vandalism of this type is usually a violation of TOS, and they might have better luck stopping it than us, particularly if we mentioned that the alternative would be to rangeblock the entire block of IPs. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this has a chance at working. Since a rangeblock is proven to be unviable, your solution might work. Now all I need to do is figure out what C/U means and if this is actually going to happen or not? Taylor Karras (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A c/u is a checkuser. They are editors with a special bit that allows them to look up personal details of editors. They are usually the people who deal with sockpuppets. If there are any checkusers seeing this, a response on the feasibility of my suggestion would be appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't think a checkuser can be done on him. First of all, the Dynamic IP's that AT&T issues and that Rcool35 uses expires within one day, so he'll be using like 365,000 IP's yearly and that'd be impossible to block, secondly Rcool35 has not had made a sockpuppet since Roccompaq01, a sockpuppet of his, was blocked so I don't think that a checkuser can do any good. But if we can figure out a way to call AT&T and inform them that a user has been violating the TOS by vandalizing wikipedia. That'd be great. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that'll do the trick. That's sarcasm, by the way. Seriously, though, does that ever actually work? HalfShadow 04:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it was worth a shot. He himself has proven to be an unbannable user in his own right in the fact that we cannot find a way to uphold the block that he was originally given, every method has been exhausted and yet he manages to outpace us all. Weird. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like dynamic IPs from a personal liberty POV, they really are bothersome in cases like this. He hasn't "managed" to do anything, he simply figured out /relese & /renew. Can we ban MAC addresses? Input from someone more knowledgeable in the Ways of the Wiki than myself would be appreciated here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MAC addresses work at the physical and data-link layers, they are not present at the network and transport layers, so no, MAC addresses can't be banned. Or more accurately, IP and TCP packets (which is how almost all of us communicate with en:wiki servers) do not have a field for MAC address, so there is no way for the server to differentiate based on it, and I'm not aware of any HTTP header field for MAC address either. However, the ISP would see the MAC address - but it's not all that difficult to change MAC addresses in software either. The ISP would have to care enough to match their log entries with ours and warn/disconnect the actual account holder. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the only problem is how are we going to contact the ISP? Taylor Karras (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Prods and removal of content from Christian film related articles by User:SuaveArt

I'm worried that User:SuaveArt is placing prod tags on Christian film related articles and removing content from them just to cause a distruption or because he is biased against such articles. He cut about half the content out of Courageous (film) and put a prod tag on it even though it was kept at AfD less than a month ago, and he has added the prod tag back after I removed it. He also placed a prod tag on Facing the Giants, even though it clearly passed notability guidelines (and was a former Good Article), and he's now cut a lot of the content out of it. He has also removed almost all the content from Alex Kendrick, Stephen Kendrick, Tracy Goode, Sherwood Pictures, and I think a few other articles and placed prod tags on them. Its possible he is really acting in good faith to try to fix what he sees as problems, but removing all the content from articles and then proposing them for deletion seems inappropriate, especially since several of the articles clearly aren't eligible for prod. Calathan (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The entire 'Courageous' article was one long promo before I edited it filled with encyclopedia trivia and Facebook and Twitter links. The AFD for the article also only had 4 users involved in it (all of whom are active editors of the article). You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy.

2. All of the other articles you just mentioned (related to Sherwood films) have little or no assertion of notability whatsoever (except for Fireproof, which grossed well, and Facing the Giants, which I removed the PROD tag for after doing some research). The rest of the articles mentioned were entirely promotional and full of trivia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. You should try getting a Myspace or taking these to a Wikia site for Sherwood films.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles that have been taking to AfD are not eligible for prod. Please actually read the prod rules. Also, I removed the prod tag from Facing the Giants, not you. Also, when you say I "should try getting a Myspace", keep in mind that I'm not an editor of these articles (other than to remove the two prod tags), am not Christian, and am not interested in Christian films. It just looked to me that you were editing in an inappropriate way. Calathan (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was saying that if you want to advertise these films and include paragraph-long lists of trivia, you should find a site like Myspace to do that. I stand corrected on the PROD for Facing the Giants, however that AFD did only have 4 users comment on it. Everything I removed from those articles did not belong there in the first place, because it was either unsourced or just completely promotional. --SuaveArt (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Calathan. This is clearly disruptive (not necessarily bad-faith though), and shouldn't have been handled this way. I almost reverted all the changes, but didn't want to edit war. All of the articles are clearly notable (with the exception of one or two of the actors, which I created a while ago). The articles should be restored and improved case-by-case (just have a look at all the sources available on Google News about it). Trivia should be merged into the article when sourced, or deleted otherwise. You don't just delete all the good content and PROD'd. I contest all of them. Next time, discuss first. American Eagle (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine but if the sources are all over the news, then you could have easily added them yourself when you created the articles.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly confused by this. You removed a sourced assertion of bestselling author status (with an edit summary that said, "rvmed promotional spam with no assertion of relevence") and then PRODded the article because "No assertion of notability outside of Fireproof (film), which has an article"? On the face of it, this does seem disruptive. If you were uncertain of the source (which seems fine to me) you might have verified it elsewhere. One of the top hits at google news archives verifies best-selling author status at The New York Times, and best-selling author status is a strong assertion of notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What on earth could have seemed like "promotional spam" in Stephen Kendrick? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the former contents on Alex Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick and am challenging their PRODs. While both of these articles could do with improvement, stripping them of sourced content does not seem constructive, particularly in the case of Stephen Kendrick, where as an outsider I see nothing that could be construed as promotional in the text. With Alex Kendrick particularly, I hope on reflection you can see that removing sourced assertions of notability from an article and then PRODding it because it does not assert notability may not seem like good faith, even if you meant well. Much of Tracy Goode was unsourced, and I'm unsure about WP:BIO myself, but, of course, regular editors to that article should feel free to contest the PROD if they disagree and to add any sourced content that seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content from a biographic article. It's an entirely a different thing to indiscriminately remove all sourced content, reducing the biography to a one-sentence stub, and then WP:PROD it for deletion. The later is simply being disruptive. I've restored some of the sourced content to Tracy Goode and Erin Bethea and remove the prod tag from Tracy Goode as his filmography shows that he could pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I considered the sources removed unreliable and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Like you said yourself, if there are mainstream sources for Kendrick's best seller status, then you could have easily added them yourself. Since your only source for his best seller status was "Christianpost", I considered this unworthy of inclusion unless you were able to provide mainstream sources such as the NYT to back it up. The reason I considered most of these articles "promotional" is because there was little notability for any of those persons out side of "Fireproof" (which mentioned them in its own article), and the articles contained unnecessary trivia and promotional links such as Twitter and Myspace.--SuaveArt (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But you didn't just remove Twitter and MySpace, you removed the company's logo and URL from it's infobox, categories, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, The Christian Post looks like a reliable source to me. Before summarily removing content sourced to it, you might find it worthwhile to check and see if others agree with you that it's "unreliable and irrelevant", perhaps at a venue like WP:RSN. Even if it is not, though, removing a claim to best-selling author status sourced to it and then PRODding the article because it does not assert notability seems like a questionable action. That particular article did assert notability prior to your removal of the content. If you think these articles are promotional, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to address that (and I'm still not sure about Tracy Goode, as I don't know that his roles are "significant", but I'm not familiar at all with his films). But you want to be careful to avoid even unintentional disruption. Our goal here is to build the encyclopedia collaboratively, and there are venues to get additional opinions if you think that contributors to certain articles may not be unbiased in their construction. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE and WP:BIO are not limited to "mainstream sources". For one, there is no way to judge that a source is "mainstream" and people will disagree on what makes something "mainstream", for example Fox News. WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and by extension WP:V, require are reliable sources. Removing reliable sources from an article is disruptive in most cases. The exceptions are usually related to relevancy to the articles subject or duplication. But the edit summaries you gave for why you removed reliable sources from the article ("spam", "self-promotional") are not acceptable reasons. You also removed links to the subjects' websites, and in a couple of cases removed the entire infobox and or flimography. The logical reason one can presume why you did this is to make it easier to delete the article or your simply engaged in a vandalism campaign. —Farix (t | c) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • SuarveArt, please realise that there is general disapproval of your actions. All I've seen is self-justification rather than any acknowledgement that your edits were disruptive. Please don't repeat such article gutting and inappropriate use of prods. You seem to be pursuing an agenda, which is not a welcome thing to do on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright/personality right problems at User:Kils#Students

Another possible problem related to User:Kils. It seems highly unlikely that this editor owns the copyright and has the permission for the pictures found at User:Kils#Students. Highly unlikely as the pictures are of a very low resolution, and given that they look like they were taken from a facebook, the kind most universities allow instructors to access. Pantherskin (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is ask if Kils has permission to post these images, I'm sure she does, just being "students" Secret ^account 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend nominating the images for deletion as they are unencyclopedic. We have no need for low quality images of non-notable people. I think a user can post some images of themselves to create a profile and improve collaboration, but creating a gallery of one's students is a step too far. We're not a hosting provider. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most images are 25 years old. They all have own Corporations in Dubai Monaco Caribbean. Most pay no taxes and have a different passport and look totally different today. All are extremely successful, some are dead. For the low resolution images all gave me the copyright. It is no fun anymore to work for Wikipedia with such users like cert. Now they are even destroying my user page. I have Webpages elsewhere, I dont need space on W. Uwe Kils 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have space on Wikipedia, your user page isn't to be used as personal webspace in that way. Plus we have no evidence you have the copyright for these, and they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd been wondering about the images for quite some time. Fair Use is a bit different on userspace, but no proof of copyright is still no proof of copyright. Saying they're from a webpage of some sort actually lends to a violation. ... and... *scratches head*, do see WP:OWN and WP:UP explaining why no one has carte blanche of web hosting here. CanterburyTrail is spot-on in the last comment, as well. For be in an encyclopedia, content needs to be encyclopedic and verified by third party sources. I believe the Uwe Kils article was significantly reduced since most all the resourced offered eventually lead back to the same educational facility. Having no tax, or being a company, etc etc., none of that matters... it's part of what we've been trying to explain during this all. I'm not sure how many more times we can link the same things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Use a social networking site for the sorts of things a lot of your user pages have. ::As a whole, this entire matter is ironic since this started with legal threats some 2 weeks ago now. Whatever the Foundation did that you felt wronged you, we're here to help. There's tons of information around and chances are someone might have advice, and if we draw a total blank you can be pointed to the right place. The Foundation is organized such that there's always a continuation of communication available, assuming conversation remains civil. If there's one lesson learned from all this, hopefully it's that Wikipedia is a community. Sometimes you might love it or hate it, be all are treated equally best we can, with the guidelines and policies of the encyclopedia applicable to all. 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested.

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

---

Resolved

 – Oh look over there! It's a rainbow-coloured pony!

I have blocked Dekkappai‎ (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for posting these remarks [60] [61]. I saw the comment "you people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. For the harm you are doing to this project, I hope you rot in Hell" and warned him, and then when it was repeated I blocked him. It seemed like a no brainer.

However, I've got some stick about it because apparently I'd !voted in the afd, and thus (I suppose) could be one of the hell-bound people he was talking about. Since I don't want to go to hell, I admit with hindsight, I may have had a conflict of interest here. So, can some people who are not kindling for hell please review my block and consider whether it requires lifiting, extending or otherwise.

Yours from purgatory, --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the block. The whole "OMG you posted something in the same forum you are an involved admin" is BS. Tan | 39 15:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you describing my objection, or is this merely a strawman? -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeap, I'm describing your objection. Tan | 39 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. I'll unblock him and reblock him myself if it makes you feel better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Our volunteers don't deserve to be treated as such over a content dispute. Such comments damage neutrality by driving off people with contrary points of view. Our policy is clear on this matter. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact it was a CfD (and one concerning pornography). Do I underestimate the delicacy of the sensibilities of those who choose to participate in CfDs? -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me that wielded the stick.

It's a CfD for Krampussakes. Not quite all's fair in XfDs, but many things happen. People get annoyed. They say things they shouldn't. You then tell them not to. They often say the same things again. You do not then block them for 48 hours, at least unless you've given them a pretty clear warning that (in this case) telling people they're bigots is a blockable offense. And you make doubly sure about this kind of stuff if you think you could be perceived as being in an editorial argument with the editor.

That, incidentally, explains why I'm not unblocking him. I think he deserves to be unblocked, but as he and I have very recently been chatting amicably about, inter alia, the awfulness of Spielberg, if I unblock him it might well look as if the reason is that he's a mate of mine. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Why did you block him? The user has been with the project since 2006, has made many productive contributions, and has never been blocked before. If they got bent out of shape about something, you should have shown a little sympathy and tried to understand why they were upset. It seems like you blocked him for mouthing off to you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)He was not mouthing off to Scott, he was mouthing off to everyone who disagreed with him by calling them bigots and hoping they rot in hell. I don't consider an admin involved because someone made an insult at a group of people that happened to include him. True, the user has been here for 3 years, they can be here another 3 years after the block expires if they want. Being here a long time does not allow personal attacks. While ideally someone not involved in the debate should have made the call, uninvolved admins have confirmed the merit of the block. Personal attacks do not need warning when they are particularly egregious and the user is already aware of the policy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block, but I think it would have been better to leave his !vote and simply excise the personal attack part of it, in terms of the CfD reverts. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • A user who has been here since 2006 has even less excuse. This is not therapy. If he's upset he needs to go and do something else for 48 hours anyway. I had no idea what his "productive contributions" were or were not, never having encountered him before. I see now he's written a FA, but sorry, I don't see how "productive contributions" excuse that. If you can't work on wikipedia without cursing people, and calling fellow collaborators "bigots", then don't work on wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • You should have figured out those circumstances and weighed them before blocking. Do you magically think they're going to stop cursing when they come back from your cool-down block? Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Hochman, if he's been around for three years with no block, seems reasonable to think that a few hours away will make him think about his actions and prevent recurrence. You may disagree, but calling it "magical" is not helping this discussion, IMO. Its needlessly dismissive of an alternate point of view. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you for pointing that out. People have been awfully dismissive of my point of view. They've been layering on personal attacks against me. This whole dialog is so despicable and mean, it takes great effort to avoid getting sucked in. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians". People have proposed that established/vested/excellent/long term contributors be treated differently in regards to personal attacks a few times and the community has rejected the idea roundly each time. The community does not want such a double standard and we should not be considering one. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which specific editor was targeted by the purported personal attack? To be a personal attack, the remark has to be personal. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that the sort of logic you will use in arbcom? He was clearly referring to those who were disagreeing with him by calling them bigots. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, when you call more than one person a bigot and hope that they rot in hell, the attack ceases to be personal and becomes impersonal. Tan | 39 15:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at anything else, 48h on first block is normally pretty excessive. I would've blocked for only 24 (or at most 31), and if 24 makes more sense, it has elapsed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block, which should have been longer or indefinite (i.e., lasting up until a credible promise not to do it again). Personal attacks and incivility such as this is not to be tolerated under any circumstance whatsoever. A block by an admin who contributed to the same discussion is not objectionable, because disagreement in an AfD does not constitute a conflict per WP:UNINVOLVED. I am very disappointed to see Jehochman, an ArbCom candidate, defending this sort of disruption here and assuming bad faith on the part of the blocking admin.  Sandstein  15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, your one-man crusade to attack anyone who has any tolerance at all for what you consider incivility is getting old. Jehochman is not ABFing, he's asking questions and making distinctions. Suggest you AGF a little yourowndarnself. Your escalation and change of focus is not helping resolve the question of this block. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• (EC x 2) A proper block, but 48 hours is excessive for a user w/ a clean block record. Suggest reducing it to time served, and leave it at that. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• While probably not something I myself would have blocked for, not a block I would dispute, either. Absolutely no objection on the grounds of "involved", that doesn't apply and even if it did this is not an "edit warring" block for which blocking might conceivably give the blocking admin a vested interest in blocking the editor in question. Endorse block, but suggest shortening length as excessive for first offense+ sh. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. That type of comment is just way over the line of what's acceptable around here. We're supposed to be a volunteer-driven project working for the good of humanity. Going around calling other editors (whether as individuals, or in small groups at a discussion) 'bigots' just isn't acceptable. If an experienced editor is making those sorts of remarks, a block – or some other sort of break – is probably necessary. Sometimes experienced editors get burnt out, and if they can't bring themselves to step away from the keyboard and get a cup of tea, perhaps we need to do it for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account his clean block log, and the helpful feedback from here, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. Indeed, I will be happy to unblock before that, given the slightest sign of contrition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time I'd recommend taking the user aside and say something like this, "You seem to be getting overheated. While this may not be your intention, your excessively strident remarks may put off other users. Could you please refactor. I'm happy to listen to your concerns and help you get them addressed, but first you need to stop cussing." If you're one of the people who's actions have been upsetting the user, you'll need to go find an uninvolved party to deliver this little lecture; otherwise it won't work. Our goal is to avoid blocking users when there are other means of solving a problem. Blocks are to be used as a last resort. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. That type of hand-holding wiki-philosophy is exactly what has exacerbated drama and encouraged people to push the envelope. It is better to say a firm "no" to certain behaviours. People who don't realise that things like that are unacceptable really, in the last instance, don't belong here. The type of social-work response you suggest is utterly counter-productive. Sometimes order, and a better working environment for all, are best maintained by putting electric fences around certain obvious "no, no"s. --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Will look forward to you blocking admins who engage in personal attacks in future. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If an admin makes a comment as inappropriate as the one this user did then please do. Consensus is that the prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. I agree with Scott, our first priority is to make a safe environment for our volunteers and tolerating personal attacks drives off good editors who don't like be called bigots or told to rot in hell. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoping people will rot in an imaginary place? 24hrs seems about right for a block. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The block is reasonable. The objections to it are not. Friday (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although I might have made a shorter block. I had a lovely attack this morning from an 'astrologer' on an article talk page, " I here by send out my prayer that such people including Dougweller personally be slaughter by God between now and Feb 2. ". Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits of the block, I do feel that deleting a keep !vote when you have !voted delete is out of order. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the block could have been shorter or have been preceded by a more overt warning, but such incivility should not be condoned. It is unfortunate to see it coming from a valuable long-time contributor like Dekkappai, without whom Wikipedia would not have such articles as Horse and Woman and Dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I don't care much about the petulant attack. But that many see his "contributions" as "valuable" is the disturbing bit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought Office Lady Rope Slave was particularly valuable. But it's hard to choose when there's so much outstanding content to pick from.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't know this user, and so I wasn't going to say anything in this conversation--but it really grinds my gears when I see editors snarking on other peoples' contributions and implying that they're "unimportant" or "trivial". I'm sure if I were to go hunting through the history of your articles, I could probably find something to laugh at too--and what makes it worse, the editor isn't currently able to defend himself. For god's sake, this is NOT--no matter how much it currently resembles one--a junior-high playground. Please stop with the "in-crowd"-style taunting--it's unbecoming of adults.GJC 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else suggested something similar on my talk page about "kicking someone when they are down" and I agreed. I offered to remove my remarks if Bali ultimate were willing to have theirs removed also. Apparently they are not, so there's little point in removing mine. That said, no one has ever mistaken me for one of the "in-crowd" here. I do not find articles about movies depicting rape and forced bestiality to be something to laugh at. I should have made may point without the sarcasm. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else (and if you think i'm part of an "in-crowd" you haven't been paying attention). I wasn't taunting, or laughing. I was pointing out what i see is a real problem -- a user who spends all his time, it appears, creating articles on obscure, non-notable, japanese fetish porn (much of it seemingly violent) with the salacious dvd covers to boot for the delectation of the "child in africa." Have a look for yourself. It isn't "encyclopedic content." That someone who churns out all that crap is seen is a "valued contributor" is a real problem. No laughing matter, at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block I'm not one to block for civility but pleeze how can anyone seriously object to someone who invites their fellow editors to rot in hell being blocked_ Despite being an almost lone voice in opposition I look forward to the theatre of Jehochman taking this to arbitration but honestly, its impossible to fault the logic of the block. Experienced editors have even less excuse then noobs for this kind of behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)Endorse block per Gigs, Penwhale, Sandstein, Dougweller, Goodday, Friday, and Spartaz. I think it's humorous that Jehochman (on his talk page) suggested blocking me, while he think a block should not have been imposed here. While blocks are to be used as a last resort, it appears that Jehochman does not appreciate the true nuances of sanctions. Scott was correct in taking this line of action here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback folks, I've taken consensus to be that the block was good - although perhaps a little long for a first time. I've thus shortened it, and don't see any serious complaints with the shorter block. Your discussion has been helpful, but I'd seriously suggest we don't as much as we can here, and that someone now archives this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this for now - although I agree with you, the possibility that some users will claim that users from a particular timezone could not participate are a problem. Leaving it open for a few more hours would probably make it more solid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the question though: does leaving it open longer simply give more drama than it needs? We had a situation, dealt with, discussed and adjusted ... further discussion is almost WP:STICKish, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is somewhat similar to yours...but we have to acknowledge (as a form of "fairness", even if it is merely procedural) that there may be objections within the next # of hours (maybe 10?), for reasons which we obviously cannot predict otherwise our rationales may very well have been different. Moreover, if there are developments that lead either Scott or someone else to unblock earlier, then it would probably need to be noted here anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is disproportionate to the treatment we gave so many repeat offenders. A single outbreak in my opinion, only justifies a warning. If people feel that need to make a statement that will be seem more unmistakable than that, even 24 hours is excessive ; I would have said 30 minutes would have made the same statement. I think there's overinvolvement here about it, and I am about to reduce it to approximate time served. I think Scott was absolutely wrong to do the block himself in the first place,since he was having an ongoing dispute with the editor. I'm glad he at lest brought his here, but i had I seen this early I would have unblocked immediately on the basis of his being an involved admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No not do that. There is a consensus here and you'd be moving against it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect DGG, does that not make it more of a cool-down block, or even a punative block, rather than true preventative? I'm just sayin' ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that consensus seems to favour 24 or 31 hr block, and Jauerback volunteered to make the involvement issue moot, there isn't a real principle to unblock on - anything that could reasonably be construed as a cool-down block cause just as many (if not more) headaches. That said, I would support an unblock if the user is ready to cooperate...DGG, can you persuade him on or off-wiki to address the primary concern? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Involved" is a stretch, regardless it has seen plenty of review by less involved folks. Please notice the user's utter lack of remorse on his talk page. The user returned the attack after it was removed, and now "stands by it". The preventative nature of this block is evident. The block has already been reduced per consensus here and to reduce it further to time served would be a unilateral action against consensus, please don't do that. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If Scott objects, I'm not going to do it. This would be my first fight over something like this here and it isnt intrinsically worth it. I almost never do blocks, except in connection with vandalism I encounter, and I rarely engage in such discussions here either--because i dislike the hypocritical way they are applied, and I cannot possibly try personally to try to induce change in every possible think I thing wrong about Wikipedia. (I do not mean I think them typically too long--I think they're equally likely to be too long or too short, and the question to consider is the editor's pattern.) As I see it, there is not all that much difference between a cool down block and a short block meant to prevent further harm: the editor cooling down is what prevents the further harm. The practical difference is that a very short block does not work to cool down adequately--if this is the key purpose, it does take something like at 24 hours. If the purpose is to prevent harm, by persuading the person that we take it seriously, a very short block can make the point--it's essentially a step 5 warning. If we find we need longer times to make an impression, then the length must increase; if we find the person intends to continue to do harm, then it should increase very rapidly.

As for involvement, I think it essentially to avoid anything that might be interpreted as such. An angry comment is just an angry comment, and once being punished for it, people do tend to get angry about the punishment and so things escalate. If someone said something like D. did immediately following my comment at a discussion, I would probably ignore it entirely; I advise Scott do so similarly. If it were so serious as to warrant action, or the person intended to continue the harm, someone else would do it. I can see regarding the reinsertion as an intention to continue, and had I seen it , I would have left a very strong informal warning that I would block at the next repeat of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring one editor attacking other editors is a bad idea. These other editors do not deserve to be attacked, and ignoring such attacks is a disservice to those who wish to engage in civil debate. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I think you've raised some very valid points that are worthy of further discussion - the trouble is convincing either you or others (or even myself) to do so, be it on blocking policy talk page, or whichever venue we should be discussing them to clarify the issues and reduce the likelihood of them arising in the future, if at all, like they may have here. But if you're ready to give more discussion a shot (which would be widely appreciated), then please don't hesitate to make a comment to that effect. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• 'Endorse block. Let's see. Editor posts to a talk page of a closed afd comparing delete voters to book burners [62]

McDonald removes edit, suggests editor take it up at DRV. Blocked editor responds with an edit summary of "kiss my ass" and adds "It should do many filthy, narrow-minded little hearts good to know that censorship at Wikipedia is getting to be so much easier." [63] . He then moves on to a related cfd where he argues that You people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. Rot in Hell. This charming comment being removed once [64] he sees fit to restore it [65]. He is blocked for 48 hours. His block is then reduced to 24 hours with a promise that it will be lifted if he accepts the comments were out of bounds. He responds, in part, I don't consider blocking for a harmless salutation like "I hope you rot in Hell" to be acceptable either... In as much as wikipedia has civility blocks, why do you think this was controversial dgg?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to speak up to support two notions mentioned above: 1) I think its inappropriate for an admin to block someone involved in an AfD or CfD that they have voted in, re a comment directed (in part) at them. That should be a bright line standard that admins comply with -- no matter how appropriate the block might otherwise be. Really, that just requires a modest amount of self-restraint. 2) I strongly second Duncan Hill's comment above. The lack of consistency in treatment that I've seen this past month is more than a little disturbing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This block once again demonstrates the corruption of the word civility on Wikipedia. The lack of courtesy to good faith contributors is disgusting, and it's carried out by the same cast of absuve characters again and again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm..rather than removing the posts wholesale (and inflaming the situation of an upset editor), I think just removing expletives from the original posts by Dekkapai would have been a better (and more calming) action, rather than escalating it. Once the exchange had started (and given that Scott had voted the opposite way in the debate and holds a very strong view about BLPs and had engaged in a mini-edit war with postings, then another admin should have definitely been the one doing the blocking. Anyway, this kind of admin action of inflaming rather than calming the situation is all too commonplace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Yzak Jule repeat personal attacks on homepage

I appreciate this is incredibly petty, but....a number of anon and account users have been attacking Tryptofish to the extent that his userpage has been semi-protected for several weeks. This follows extremely acrimonious arguments at Talk:Crucifixion and Talk:Crucifixion in art. At some point in that melee, someone made a truly out of order statement that included Tryptofish, Aspies and people with mental health disorders, and someone else put up a banner advising against that comment.

Yzak Jule, who had been blocked for his comments in the dispute, copied the banner and posted it on his user page. He then piped the Asperger's link to point to Tryptofish instead [66]. I took this down as a personal attack. Later, he replaced it with [67] which pipes "someone" to Tryptofish and is, in my opinion, still a personal attack, so I took it down again. Today, he has put it back up again [68]. Is the consensus that it is a personal attack, and if so, could something be done about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Elen for starting this thread, and I appreciate the concern on my behalf. I think it is worth providing additional information about this user's recent activities. Yzak Jule was recently blocked, and has resumed editing after the block only over the last two days. It is illuminating to observe how he has been focusing his edits in this short time.(1) He has gone to User talk:TJRC, an experienced and valued user who has recently become unhappy about editing, and expressed pleasure at the user's unhappiness [69]. (2) He has made transparent attempts to get back at the administrator who blocked him [70], [71]. (3) He has frivolously placed a 3RR template on Elen's talkpage for edits that were simply reverting vandalism by an IP [72]. (4) He has repeatedly blanked legitimate comments I have made at Talk:Crucifixion in art [73], and then frivolously placed a template about creating attack pages on my talk [74]. (5) And he has configured his user page [75] to be a parody of mine (for example: this user opposes the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative, etc.). One might hope that an editor coming back after a block would attempt to contribute to content improvement, but this has manifestly not been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've edited Tryptofish's comment to number his arguments for ease of response. (1)My comment that his and your actions in the Crucifixion argument has provoked similar feelings on the other side was an attempt to give you two some perspective so a consensus on the issue could finally be found. (2)As noted below, his actions in the two arguments were similar, and I felt it might be noteworthy that it seems to be a pattern on tedder's part and not an isolated incident. Cool Civil/AGF violation, by the way. (3)The IP was removing the material you added that a significant number of editors on the talk page have voiced as a poor source. Elen's actions were edit warring. (4)Per my arguments below, your comments were incivil. (5)Although I did first notice the Initiative on your user page, my concern is that it violates WP:COI and WP:Canvassing. There'd be no point in parodying your handful of userboxes, it's not constructive to the construction of an encyclopedia at all, just like this argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: for each of those responses, please look at them alongside the actual diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: This is the third time Tryptofish and co. have brought this petty argument to ANI without ever attempting to discuss it via user talk pages (and ignoring any of my own attempts to do so), and I'd like to get back to working on the encyclopedia and quit wasting your time with this. Yzak Jule (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this report, Elen did. There is a difference between trying to discuss on talk pages, and what this user continues to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yzak has a habit of considering anything to be a personal attack, removing comments from talk pages as well as their own userpage. Here are some examples: [76], [77], [78], [79], as well as aggressively going after anyone who has slighted themselves (including myself and Tryptofish, likely Elen too).tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Those first three clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:Civil, specifically sections 1C, 1D, and 2A. The last one you're correct in that I shouldn't have reverted it, although I feel Tryptofish is using Elen as a meat puppet for reverts in the Crucifixion in art edit war precisely to be able to make such arguments. I don't understand what you mean by "going after" you, since all I did was note that your behaviour in the edit war I'm involved in at Crucifixion was similar to the behaviour the above ANI thread is looking into. As for Tryptofish, he has clear issues with the WP:Own policy, in my opinion, and I'm still involved in trying to reach consensus on the page both of us are involved in, so it's unsuprising we're in the same places.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yzak has again restored the link to Tryptofish's page. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't see anything in WP:NPA it's violating and no one here sees fit to discuss that, instead unilaterally making decisions without consensus. However, in the spirit of cooperation I've removed it for now.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one can determine from the user's replies here the likelihood that the user will or will not improve his editing behavior in the future as a result of this report. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to improve my editing if someone would like to tell me what it is I'm doing wrong. The level of condescension in your comments as well as those of most others involved in this edit war (with the exceptions of Elen and Gary) is staggering and extremely unhelpful, and is why this is a continuing issue.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After this AN/I thread started, I note that Yzak Jule has made what appear to be a large number of in-policy vandalism reverts. Given his stated desire to improve his editing behavior, as well as his stated lack of understanding of why the complaints were started, perhaps a better alternative to a block would be some sort of mentorship? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"SA"

Note something non-Yzak related(?) is happening with those crucifixion pages from an off-wiki website- I don't know what, I've just seen it mentioned as "SA". tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the cuff, I'd guess Something Awful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what SA is. Just before Thanksgiving, they started a section called something about how Wikipedia is falling apart (within a section called "general bullshit") showing a screenshot of what was then at Crucifixion, and egging one another to meatpuppet here, amid a lot of hate-speech about persons with Asperger's syndrome. It has been morphing into egging people to come here and harass me and other editors who disagree with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs about SA: [80] and [81]. Not pretty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you seem to think this is some official "section" of SA. It is a forum post. Nothing more. And yes, they don't like the article. I've contributed to that thread, shared my feelings, and acted on some things they've said. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand that it's a forum. But that's really beside the point. The issue is what Elen, Tedder, and I have raised above. I already pointed out the SA thing in an earlier AN/I section, now archived, and it simply is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their points are valid; their methods, less so. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think it's worth defending, that's your right. But that isn't the issue before AN/I, in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. TLDR: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. Obviously it's a big meme involving Tryptofish and Anime, especially this Anime/Crucifixion article. What should be done about it? I'm involved, otherwise I'd probably block Yzak for disruption. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Much as I said above to Golbez, I think the SA thing just is what it is, and Wikipedia can't regulate what happens at other websites. The solution to meatpuppetry is to give meat-comments less weight. The user issue above is a separate issue, one that is not resolving itself (just got a whole lot more incivility at my talk), and I hope that is where uninvolved administrators are looking, not this side-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, exactly, how offering an olive branch, per the civility policy, is incivility.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an olive branch. [100], [101] --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Show over?

Yzak Jule has taken down the offending notice and done some productive editing. He's asked what he was doing wrong, and I've suggested on his talkpage that he needs to drop the stick. Suggest we can now consider this closed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that there is no need for a block at this time, while I also think that, based on what Yzak Jule said himself, some sort of mentoring may be more useful. If the drama stops, the AN/I matters can, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight ANI ban

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

Resolved

 – This discussion needs to be closed. There is no consensus for a sanction; quite the opposite. Further comments are an unnecessary diversion of resources from the project. If follow up is needed, multiple users have suggested WP:RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight (CoM) from WP:ANI, and possibly other WP:DR fora, for a period of 3 months, on threads where his name has not been mentioned by someone else. This excludes starting threads on issues that concern him, and excludes any existing threads he is already participating in at the time the ban is agreed (if it is agreed).

Reason: CoM consistently inserts himself into matters which don't concern him - with highly inconsistent results. Occasionally it is helpful, more often it is not. This behaviour was discussed recently at ANI, with a block of CoM under discussion; the conclusion was that an RFC would be preferable - but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remains a redlink. In lieu of an RFC, a temporary measure is a drama-reducing topic ban of the kind proposed.

Disclosure: The proximate motivation for this proposal is CoM's posts to a thread above, including this one [102], discussing an indefinite block I made of user:Grundle2600. This is merely the latest example of the way in which CoM's frequent interjections are based on a misreading of the relevant issues, with accusations of bad faith never far away. (I'm sure they will follow here, but I note that the terms of the proposal specifically permit further involvement in that discussion.) PS If it is felt that this ban is not appropriate at this time, could someone, please, take responsibility for starting an WP:RFC/U, which seems clearly needed. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Without comment as to the present case, I wrote an essay on this a while back (ironic that it was coincident with Child of Midnight's writing of the article-space equivalent), see Wikipedia:Don't be a rubbernecker. –xeno^talk 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support not so much as a way to reduce drama here (that seems a lost cause) but as a way to encourage someone who can be a useful contributor of content to spend more of his time doing that and wasting less of it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rd232's analysis seems accurate. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I hereby sign my name as placeholder for a profound defense of User:ChildofMidnight (if it is desired by CoM). ANI is currently an imperfect rhetorical space, with oft-occurring breaches of all kinds of propriety. From the fragments I have witnessed, CoM, on balance, can be counted on to inject, yes, "balancing" counter-force to certain situations which are not flowing fairly for whatever reason. This is no assertion of perfection — and I understand that CoM has been sanctioned by Arbcom itself (perhaps more than once). ... And, no I have not "weighed it all." ... But the glimpses I have seen of CoM on the rhetorical field (which, no, should not be a battleground, but we know quite well, sometimes are) ... makes be smile and even tear up from the beautiful power of ... integrity. (Placeholder registered.:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant support per the Grundle2600 diff above. While CoM brings a valuable perspective to AN/I, too often it's couched in inaccuracies like 'Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."' in the diff above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on general principle. I think there's a danger that proposals like this can be posted and passed due to irritation of the moment as opposed to being calmly thought out.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support its a good idea but it might not work. Im willing to support to some degree however.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose if interposing oneself in matters which don't directly concern oneself is grounds for a page-ban, then this page would be utterly useless. It exists precisely to get feedback from the uninvolved. The proposal could just as helpfully be made about half the admin regulars here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose As someone who usually disagrees with CoM on just about everything, I still find it abhorant to ban someone merely for being annoying or unhelpful. The idea that he "inserts himself into matters that do not concern him" is basically bullshit. EVERYTHING on this board consists of inserting oneself in matters that do not concern oneself. I am doing it right now by commenting here, you are all doing it. ANI is a public discussion forum, and all editors are free to give their opinions. That CoM does not often hold opinions that many other people agree with is a dangerous reason to ban him. Yeah, he's usually not in the majority, and his comments aren't usually helpful in establishing a consensus, but seriously, do we all want to decend into groupthink by demanding that only people who agree with us most of the time are allowed to comment. Seriously think what you are doing here. CoM is not disruptive, his comments can easily be ignored or discounted if you don't like them. Absolutely not. We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like. --Jayron32 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Absofuckinglutely not. This would be a very dangerous precedent to set. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think using 'oppose' will sufice. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support in lieu of an indefinite site ban. Crafty (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You what now? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm saying that since a community ban of CoM from Wikipedia is not on offer, this proposal will have to do. Crafty (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Don't have much involvement with him, but it's a massive overkill to ban him from this page when the whole point of this page is, as others says, to get feedback from others. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• PerfuckingMalleus. I would be willing to agree to a complete CoM ban before I agreed to this extraordinarily dangerous precedent. Tan | 39 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hear hear! and Amen! Proofreader77 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose ChildofMidnight is a reasonable guy, he doesn't need to be subjected to some big community roast via a ban. Can't we just ask him to avoid drama on ANI and other pages? I agree that more harm than good has come out of some of his opinions, but to subject him to a big, hostile community sanction is just bullying. ALI ^{nom nom} 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose . A wide variety of opinion is preferable, CoM is not overly disruptive here in my opinion, in fact he is sometimes imo, a voice of reason. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Consistent failure to add anything of value to discussions is a good grounds for being uninvited from such discussions. Friday (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. We cannot bind the hand of any editor who wishes to speak his/her opinion, even when that opinion is unpopular to others. There is no precident to do this. If COM is in violation of a particular policy, then by all means take appropriate measures, but to ban an editor from a page that is, by its very nature, going to have heated debates is absurd.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jojhutton. Evil saltine (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending an RfC. This may be necessary, but it's a severe remedy and shouldn't be taken lightly.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• AbsoStrongOpposeOlutely per Malleus Fatuorum. This would generally be a bad precedent. Discussion-page bans should be used only in rare cases, not counting times when they are part of a broader ban. Cases I can think of are intentional disruption/bad faith edits; chronic, ongoing inability to conduct onesself civilly despite good intentions; or the disruption is so profound as to prevent orderly operation. In any case, there should be no ban unless there is good reason to believe the behavior will continue if unchecked. In 99⁴⁴/100% of the cases, we can either live with it or encourage him to get a mentor to help him think about his edits before saving the page. I recommend "live with it" plus gentle reminders for 90% of editors who are mildly or moderately disruptive but are editing in good faith. Save mandatory mentorship for those whose edits are causing significant interference with the discussions, and save more severe restrictions for those who are acting in bad faith or whose conduct is, simply put, too disruptive to tolerate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Jayron and Malleus together put it well. Minority opinion must not be a blockable "offense". LadyofShalott 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This matter should be dealt with through an RfC first, the arbitration committee second, but not here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Extremely strong oppose Although I may not always agree with what CoM says, I feel that this would be setting a very unwelcome precedent - as per Jayron, Malleus and JBsupreme -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Setting horrendous precedents should not be done lightly. Ever. Collect (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per Davidwr's standards above, CoM has persistently assumed bad faith of other editors (particularly, but not exclusively, members of the admin corps), chronic incivility, and an ongoing tendency to inflame rather than to contribute usefully to discussions on this board. Re to Tan - this action would be far from setting a precedent. In the Everyking 3 arbitration, an administrator was banned from commenting on AN and its subpages for 12 months (save for discussions which directly touched on him or his actions) for a pattern of unproductive and incivil sniping. That was back in 2006; there have been several cases since where editors have been banned from process pages and encouraged to do productive article work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was ArbCom action, not a community ANI poll. There is a difference. Tan | 39 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as it's a slightly shorter version of the same topic ban I proposed in November. [103] I got flamed for that proposal, but it's well past the time that some sort of action was taken, and these types of topic bans are not unprecedented. For those who were around here two years ago, User:Gp75motorsports and User:Blow of Light were restricted to article space, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request input on topic ban and the following few sections) and they were not the first people to have such a limitation applied to them. (I don't remember names, and don't feel like looking, but someone else's memory may be jogged.) CoM doesn't contribute anything useful to project space, but he is a very good contributor in article space. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Compromize proposal: Appoint a mentor. On matters that don't directly involve ChildofMidnight, he can only comment on issues raised here after asking the mentor for approval. He has to briefly state what argument he wants to make. If that is seen to be a valid contribution, he'll be allowed to participate in the discussion. If CoM violates such an agreement (e.g. by trolling instead of sticking to the propsed arguments he wanted to make), then he'lll be banned form participating in AN/I discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just look at the section below for all the high quality discourse we would be missing out on. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• There is rather a lot of disruption here caused by this user. I think we could get the page length down considerably. Not sure if a ban is justified, but CoM is really trying to convince me with that drama mongering nonsense below this thread. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Compromise proposal - keep kicking COM until he's provoked him into doing something blockable. Oh, hang on, I see that's already been adopted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Pile on Oppose Sure, let's take away the first forum a user has for WP:DR. I see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is still red...why? Sure, CoM rarely if ever swims with the flow but clearly he's made more than one user step back and look at the situation; the ones who don't like that, well, that's on them. Grsz¹¹ 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Every time I see a post signed by ChildofMidnight in ANI, I know that I'm go to see a post that is trying to raise drama (the section below is a nice example). ANI is not for raising drama and it's not for complicating simple matters. P.D.: sorry, I edit-conflicted with the close without noticing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that I do not approve of anyone blaming me for the disruption caused by RD232's initiating a thread to try and have me banned from ANI after I disagreed with his indefinite block of a good faith contributor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone does. For the record, Jayron's remark "We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like." is of course correct; thanks to Horologium for pointing out the prior precedents for the proposed temporary ban. But OK, not at this time. Perhaps you'd like to take some reflection time, CoM, and tread a little more carefully in future. Rd232 ^talk 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why, why, why has no one made an RFC yet? This is like, the twentieth time it's been suggested. It seems to me that people are convinced they don't want one and just want a sanction approved here at ANI. Clearly this isn't happening. I fully agree that CoM's behaviour is disruptive, but as I'm not personally involved, I can't make an RFC. Those involved need to bother taking the initiative, or nothing's going to happen. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Probably because of the "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user" aspect of user RfCs. When a user's behavior is so disgustingly atrocious that they include and defend the inclusion of Nazi imagery on their user talk page to describe other editors, there is little hope of ever making a dent in such a person to the point where they become self-aware of their problematic behavior. ChildofMidnight has built a barricade for himself where he is absolutely convinced that he is right and each and every singe person who expresses an opinion otherwise, from ArbCom to admins to users, is engaging in a grand conspiracy to censor him. How does one deal with that? Tarc (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell it leaves one option. To bring the matter before the WikiSupremes. Crafty (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Which is why we probably need an RFC, since they generally don't hear cases without one of those first. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to ban any editor who attempts to censor Wikipedia discussions and content by aggressively pursuing those with differing opinions

let this drop. Please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – This is not going to help anything, especially not you CoM. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. These behaviors violate the spirit of our civility policy and are clear violations of our core Neutral Point of View policy. We can't allow individuals to abusively attack and censor those they disagree with in order to push their personal opinions and perspectives. This kind of intimidation, harassment, misuse of admin tools, and other bullying is unacceptable. Those who engage in this sort of disruption as a means of censorship should be blocked indefinitely until they show respect and toleration for other individuals, including those with whom they disagree. Support Bullying and intimidation are never acceptable and should not be condoned by this community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC) So... you're in favor of your own right to make noise, no matter how nonsensical it is? Why not do this on your own website? Friday (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC) To "make noise, no matter how nonsensical"? I don't think calling for our neutral point of view and civility policies to be upheld without bias is nonsensical. I think putting a stop to bullying and intimidation is critical to developing a healthy community that can build an accurate and well balanced encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PLEASE- No- Don't dig yourself deeper into this. ALI nom nom 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Textbook violation of WP:POINT. We should add it to that page. Tan | 39 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC) In your opinion, which guideline or policy he wanted to WP:POINT at? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Your anonymous trolling aside, that guideline does not require a specific target; the target is Wikipedia itself. Tan | 39 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Your pseudonymous trolling aside, I don't read that in WP:POINT. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Comment Surely this isn't the right forum for this particular discussion? This would be a community decision, not an admins' decision - and so it would appear to have no place on ANI. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) I'm darn close to suggesting we auto-block anyone who uses "censor" or "censorship" as part of a complaint. They're ignorant of the meaning of the word, and its simply abused here to mean "I want to be able to completely run my mouth about whatever, all over the site" or "I didn't get my POV in an article!". You're not being censored. Start a damn blog and bitch up a storm, heck, link to it on your user page. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I don't think we should punish those who point out instances of improper censorship, bullying and intimidation. That seems like an Orwellian approach worthy of Fahrenheit 451 that would be more in line with the authoritarian book burning and denunciations as employed by fascists. That doesn't seem to be a good model for building an unbiased encyclopedia. A more appropriate response would be to ask for specific examples and to give them careful consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Please look up censorship. Wikipedia, and its editors and admins, cannot, by definition, censor you. You may start a blog and say whatever you want. Link to it from your user page. Go forth and be verbose! But its not censorship if we don't want to host it or deal with it. If there is "bullying", I direct you to dispute resolution. We are not here to listen to someone kvetch, bitch and complain nonstop. Really. Pick your battles, get your terminology straight, and use the correct venue. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A few words on minority opinions

I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban, I'm commenting on the opinions expressed in the discussion. For all means, oppose the proposal, but absolutely do not use "he has a minority opinion" as a reason. That's a stupid reason that has, with no exaggeration, allowed stalkers to keep harassing others before. No editor should have protection from our policies just because they're the Designated Dissenter; the problem is invariably not the opinion but the manner in which it's disseminated. If someone is being victimised on ANI simply because of their opinion, I will jump to their defence. But their opinions mean diddly squat to a defence against a ban or a block they're editing disruptively, and even act as an aggravating factor if they're abusing their protected status to be disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. We also have no shortage of disruptive and tendentious editors who throw up the ink screen of "majoritarian persecution" whenever they are threatened with a block for their disruption. We have to guard against groupthink and against persecution of the minority because they are the minority, but willful (or inadvertent) confusion of disruption for discussion does more harm than good. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It also being said that there should be broad discretion to speak one's mind, especially at an inherently contentious page like this, where, very often, people's ability to edit Wikipedia is at stake.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a fun fact about Speaker's Corner in London: there's no statutory basis for its famous status. You can, in theory, be arrested for disturbance of the peace. But people are tolerant there because of that reason: it's basic human decency to allow people to speak their mind there, and the enshrined reputation of the place gives it a de facto protection from disturbance of the peace and obscenity laws. This whole situation reminds me of homophobic political campaigns in America: the basic human decency and the defence of free speech is wilfully exploited to say that, using my analogy as an example, gay marriage will infringe on religious freedom (for example, the lovely old canard about churches being forced to marry gay couples) when it would do no such thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a time, not too long ago, when criticism of a certain (now ex-)admin and bot-operator would result in streams of abuse and threats against those bringing their concerns here. To my knowledge, only one admin has ever apologized for the way in which well-founded concerns were treated. There is a very great danger of such a situation repeating itself if we start silencing the currently unpopular. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another problem with the "cry-wolf" crowd. Admins aren't a hive mind. I have no idea who you are talking about and have even less of an idea why I should apologize for them. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And another comment from the "call someone names often enough, then we can get him wound up and then block him" crowd. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Say whatever you like. I still have no idea who I should be apologizing for or why. Kinda ruins the fun of accusing me of covering up for them. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was making a general point about the dangers of silencing unpopular editors. I have no idea why you imagine the anecdote was directed at you personally, nor do I recall if you were one of the admins who spent so much time encouraging a (then) disruptive editor. He is now contributing positively, so I shall not be naming him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imagine it. I mentioned it because you said "To my knowledge, only one admin has ever apologized for the way in which well-founded concerns were treated", which implied that more than one admin had cause to apologize. Its fine that you don't want to name names, but it pulls the wind out of your anecdote pretty handily. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely. But we have a responsibility to keep trolls and malcontents from ruining the place. No technical limitation exists preventing CoM from bringing his opinion to any and all "admin related" dispute on these boards (or any other board, near as I can tell). What must be discussed is a social limitation. We can't have a reasonably discussion of that if it immediately escalates into "OMG Persecution" territory. We aren't interested in removing him from these boards because he has a heterodox/iconoclastic opinion. We are interested in doing so because he is disruptive, prone to escalation, and seemingly incapable (unwilling?) of restraint. Calm and patience are in short supply on AN/I. There is value in simply removing people from the equation who insist that every thing stinks. We did it with Kurt after a long and painful process and frankly there was more cause to allow him to continue to participate in RfA/AfD than there is in allowing CoM to complain at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Those were exactly the arguments used in the attempts to silence critics of the certain editor I mentioned. When you start silencing those you don't like, you will end up silencing genuine complints. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. That's a genuine problem with no easy solution. But we can't simply say "oh, we could silence some legitimate complaints, so lets never limit disruptions". CoM has a privilege to comment adversarially on issues at AN/I (or anywhere else at the wiki). We call it a privilege only because it is not literally a right, it is so close to our notion of participation in the community that it is in effect a right. We should vigorously defend that right/privilege when it is threatened. But we also have to establish some threshold beyond which that right (for simplicity's sake) is no longer being exercised but is instead being abused. What I (and Sceptre, to some extent) am saying is that we cloak disruption with this veneer or good faith participation wherever possible and it hurts us to do so. It hurts us because it truly debases discourse, because it gives people an incentive to avoid community discussions, because it turns discussion and compromise into an attempt to "poke the bear" (As you alluded above). Part of this is generated from furious hornet's nest stirring anytime a contentious decision is brought up here. Why do you think we talk about paralysis in community discussion? Why are we offloading more and more problematic issues to RFAR and AE? When does this stop? Protonk (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It stops when editors like you stop being offended by those who don't agree with you. Easy. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake, Malleus. Either you're being thick or you're deliberately missing the point. We're okay with someone standing on Speaker's Corner and spewing anti-war rhetoric. We're not okay when they then go into a bar full of soldiers, pull the same trick, and then complain about how the big mean men with guns hit them. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really offended. But I'm glad you found an easy solution. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We topic banned Kurt from the Wikipedia space? That's news to me. I mean, he's had two successive arbcom runs... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think geek social fallacy #1 is highly relevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the fallacy in the thinking in this particular subsection is that it's remotely of some practical possibility that disruptive users can be objectively distinguished from mere minority users. To extend the "bar full of soldiers" metaphor, the soldiers are only soldiers with guns because they hold the majority opinion. Anyone else automatically seems like a weaker unarmed pest. The dissenter is easily seen as a disruption despite how politely he presents his case. I don't have much experience with CoM, but I can be a rather unpopular fellow myself. The mental process of "Everyone is disagreeing with you, why are you not dropping this" is very prevalent, very dangerous, and probably very natural. I think it would be excessively optimistic to think we could write a "no taunting" policy that wouldn't be abused regularly. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:06, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm certainly not making the case that disruption can always and everywhere be objectively distinguished from disagreement. Such a distinction will be subjective, local and unique to the individual. What this little subsection is focused on is the prevalent and bothersome misapprehension that accusations of disruption are always pretexts for attempts to eliminate disagreement. Disruption exists. Disagreement exists. Often they co-exist in the same thread/same person. Where they do not co-exist, the solution is relatively easy: remove disruption, invite disagreement. Where the co-exist the solution becomes messy. Sometimes it is worth putting up with disruption in order to include disagreement. Sometimes it is not. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Our hypothetical anti-war protester didn't walk into his local and see some people fresh off the plane from Afghanistan, he made a conscious decision to go into a bar which he knew had several regulars who served in the Army, and annoy them about killing for oil and religious reasons. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh but more often than not you can indeed tell, but only over time. Eventually their motives betray themselves. A sincere person with a minority opinion will act based those sincere beliefs, an intentionally disruptive user(a troll) will eventually betray their motives with choices inconsistent with their faux-sincere motives. That is why some trolls get to disrupt us for months(or years for some folk), so that doubt can be removed and so that patience can be exhausted. The only question that remains is if that point has been reached yet.

It is also true that in some cases you cannot ever tell the difference between a sincere believer and someone intentionally trying to be disruptive. In such a case the end result is the same, either the level of disruption is tolerable or it is not and motives cease to be relevant. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly one doubt. Another is whether you're competent to judge. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The community needs to set its own standards. I am not a judge. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We're not the man in the corner of the pub seeing the soldiers beat down on the protester. We're more like the protester's old friend who we've known for several years. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hasnt this gone on long enough guys? Seriousy if nothing good will come out of this (which it wont) then why continue? CoM was saved this time (thankfully as I have realized that banning him from this page is a very bad idea) so theres nothing really left to argue about right? Cant we all just get along?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that with all lessons world history has supposedly taught us, it would be arrogant to think we can fairly "remove disruption" while still "inviting disagreement". This would especially be the case if the judges of "disruption vs. disagreement" were in the majority, as it seems they usually are. In fact, if you wanted to honestly mitigate such doubt, leave the decision up the the people on the "disrupter's" side of the argument. If they see a problem, there probably is a problem. Of course, there's the possibility of impropriety, since people holding the same opinion as the disruptor may want to back him up despite not agreeing with his methods; but then, the converse problem exists if the decision is left up to the majority: There's always the tendency towards slanting judgments in favor of one's side of the dispute. To make a determination that one can separate disruption from disagreement is to say you're so unique as to be different from everyone else who's been faced with a similar conflict of interest in history, and that you can be more trusted to make that call than they could. This is an arrogant supposition. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:57, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

But your missing my point. Since this is turning into a fight rather than a discussion. Why not end it before it turnes into another User:Coffee incident (see the WP:WQA archives for more)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a fight, just an interesting discussion that seems relevant... But I've been known to misinterpret such things in the past. Does anyone else feel like this is a fight? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:06, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point and well taken. But we don't move immediately from accepting that point to concluding that disruption can't be dealt with. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would, personally. Again people throughout history have struggled with these issues, and still haven't found a way that works. The US court system is basically one big approach to trying to get everything relevant heard while weeding out everything else, all while making sure the people choosing which-from-which don't have a conflict of interest. In other words, this very issue. We don't and can't (on principle) have a system anywhere near that magnitude, and theirs doesn't even always work. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:20, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think I would require more convincing. The analogy to the US government (and governments in general) helps, but elides a crucial difference. Assuming you believe John Jocke, the legitimacy of those governments stems from the willingness of the people to consent to their existence. And that consent stems largely from a need to develop a framework in order to protect some rights which cannot be protected without central authority. Obviously, the generation of that central authority emperils other rights. Hence the balance created through the minimal state. Wikipedia is not a state and holds no authority derived from consent. Wikipedia is a community of people working to build an encyclopedia. Obviously it is also an experiment in governance (As all open projects are), but do not confuse this with the pressures and obligations of governments in general. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of where their power derives from, the nature of the system itself is what I'm referring to. The comparison was to the court system itself, not what allows it to exist. Even if we were to assume hypothetically that a powerless community of equals got together and decided on that system, the point would still stand. Conflict of interest exists inherently and in our system can effectively be a factor, whereas in theirs there are at least checks and balances in place to mitigate it. If the point of this discussion is to say that we can form new rules to deal with disruption without having to worry about conflict of interest, my point is that it's been tried, and the volume of rules we'd need in order to come close would be impractical. We seem to do fairly well here, even with the existence of so-called "disruptors". They seem to create an unpleasentness at most, but I would contend that such things are necessary evils of any open and fair system. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:49, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Again, another fair point. but I'm not advocating a system of rules to classify every case. I'm acknowledging the intractability of that problem and stating obvious points: we have a threshold level of disruption on wikipedia, we have trouble distinguishing between disruption and disagreement (for reasons you mentioned and reasons I note here). I'm left to argue from those obvious points that we should be careful in determining that threshold, but that a common tactic among folks who have well exceeded the threshold is to "ink the waters" by conflating their disruption with some related (or in some cases unrelated) disagreement. On a related issue, my views are fleshed out here. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what system you are advocating then, but maybe you're not advocating anything yet (though I haven't read those links yet). Granted there may be people who use those tactics, and I've come across them myself. If it isn't blatant enough for nearly everyone to agree that it is intentional disruption, my stance would be to simply ignore. Granted there are individuals who will take advantage of this gray area, but as you say, there are certain rights that democratic governments emperile while Wikipedia doesn't, and the right to be a crafty pain in the ass might be one of them. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:17, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Well, broadly I'm advocating that we suppress the knee-jerk reaction to treat calls to restrict discussion as attempts to eliminate disagreement. And as a matter of empirical concern, we have no shortage of editors who mask disruption under a cloak of differences in opinion. One solution which isn't "ignore" (though that is usually the first-best) is to send disagreements like that to RfAr--something of a sign that the problems exist and that the community has failed to resolve them. Very specifically, we have been down that road before with this particular editor. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling them "attempts" might not be warranted, but to say there is a conflict of interest with a person on a side of the argument who would benefit from the proposed restriction is a valid concern, as is the restriction being called on someone who is generally unpopular. I suspect that the "attempt" wording is more a strawman characterization of the accusation than the actual word used in most instances, though it may be unintentionally so. What I would advocate is remaining fiercely, personally vigilant in not making any unilateral judgment calls that benefit you in the dispute, despite how objectively you feel you're acting (not talking about "you" personally, but everyone). Going back to my suggestion from earlier, if such restrictions need to be made, suggest that someone on the minority side make it. WP:JDI is also very relevant, and I think everyone should give it a careful read. Discussions don't need to be restricted if people don't feel the need to admonish a potential disruptor. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:41, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

We're probably going to have to leave it at that. We understand each other, but have a clear difference of opinion as to where the fundamentals of the discussion lead us. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Do editors think it's appropriate to have a whole article on Larry Craig scandal while braying about how outrageous it is that an editor connected a commentator's statement that all countries should adopt China's one child policy with the fact they've had two children themselves (widely noted outside of the mainstream media)? Is it really critical that we note that: "At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward"? Or is the BLP policy only for people we as a community respect?

Also, is it reasonable to remain quiet in the face of hypocrisy like Sceptre's lecturing us when he thinks that "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist" [104] is an appropriate edit summary? I'd rather someone offer suggestions on proper behavior who actually knows how to behave appropriately.

When Grundle starts using nasty edit summaries like that I will support his being blocked indefinitely. And if I start adding inappropriate content to articles, please let me know. But I won't apologize for pushing our admins and editors to actually uphold neutral point of view and other core Wikipedia policies. And we should all be calling out the bullies and censors. The civility policy and our BLP policies don't exist to be twisted into cudgels used by POV pushers against anyone who doesn't happen to share their beliefs (this is true even if those beliefs happen to be popular). And those pushing for civility enforcements should start showing some common courtesy. It all starts with collegial mediation instead of the score settling and mob rule cabalism we've endured for too long. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you're just acting as an echo chamber for Grundle's point-making, but didn't you stop for a moment to think before mounting the soapbox? There's precisely zero correlation between a person who pleaded guilty in a court of law and a journalist who, um, wrote a controversial (to some) article? Drawing a comparison between that case and this is just about as awful as Grundle's original problems with synthesis in the Francis article. Neither of you possesses the slighting idea of what WP:NPOV is and how to apply it. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. After all this is an encyclopedia we're building. So you support an entire article about any instance where a politician has pleaded guilty to a crime? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See strawman argument. Wikipedia supports articles where the content is referenced to reliable sources, and which cover material which meets the baseline inclusion criteria. You are making connections where none exists, hoping to invent the appearance of some sort of hypocricy, where also none exists. Try something else, because this isn't working. --Jayron32 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, you're quite mistaken that I'm making any sort of strawman argument. There are lots of subjects that are referenced to reliable sources and that meet the inclusion criteria that are deemed unacceptable and that editors even get blocked over adding. Just ask Grundle. Whether you choose to recognize the absurd hypocrisies that exist here is irrelevant to me, I'm content just to have a content related discussion instead of engaging in all the disruption above that is entirely irrelevant to encyclopedia building. Ultimately Grundle is being blocked over content issues, that's the origin of this dispute, and that's where the focus should remain. From your statement I take it that you think an article on Craig's foot tapping conviction is appropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I take no specific stand on any article except the locus of this dispute. Doing so is a redirection away from the issue in this discussion. If you wish to discuss another article, please do so at that article's talk page, and someone who is interested in that article will discuss the matter there. I only care about keeping the discussion from drifting all over the map, or to obfuscate the core issues regarding Grundle's behavior by bringing in unrelated issues, until we lose focus on what the discussion should be about. --Jayron32 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The locus of this dispute is over content. Grundle added the sentence you've noted elsewhere based on two reliable sources, but put the bits together in a way that was novel. It's also been noted in the National Review and the American Spectator, and he added those sources when challenged. When it was still objected to it was separated out in a compromise. But editors who disagree with Grundle's libertarian perspective and his article interests continued to go after him and he was blocked by RD232 well after the parties who participated in thread agreed it was resolved. I know many of our admins don't like to get their hands dirty actually investigating the substance of complaints, but that's the story. It seems a pretty thin problem to get all worked up over let alone to justify an indefinite block. Lots of editors make imperfect content additions. So clearly there's more to it. And I'm very interested in you and Tarc's opinion on other similar content of a salacious nature. So please don't try to obfuscate so you can weasel out of answering. Let's stay focused on content, BLP guidelines, and editing issues. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we're on the verge of making some real progress. Do all crimes by politicians that are reliably sourced warrant stand-alone articles? What are the other determining factors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to see the above users' opinion on this terrible BLP issue I recently discovered. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a keep for me Will. I think it's definitely notable and worth including. Merging the substance of it would unduly weight other articles. I'd also like to see the article on the pretzel incident restored (I have it in my userspace...). I think it was a notable that remains relevant and interesting. But I know we can avoid trying to block each other at ANI even though we don't agree on everything that should or shouldn't be included. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It is probably best to wait to see what happens when CoM's ArbCom Obama-related editing restrictions cease to apply on December 21. Just for comparison the indefinite sanctions on User:Abd (which can be appealed) state: "Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls." So editing restrictions on WP:ANI have been imposed before; but not by the community and never upon a devout bacon-evangelist. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we revisit Abd's sanction? What were the grounds for the restriction? When was it imposed? If he's been on the straight and narrow subsequently then it seems a good opportunity to reconsider whether the restrictions are needed going forward. We should always do our best to avoid punishing those who donate their time here in good faith. Working together collegially should always be the goal. Thanks for reminding me about when my restrictions will be lessened. They should have been reviewed long ago, (they're based mostly on a single trumped up edit warring allegation) but devoting the time to have the nonsense reviewed at Arbcom didn't seem worthwhile to me. Cheers. Make sure not to do any more envelope pushing as far as outting goes Mathsci. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

With contributions like this, CoM, ripe with misspellings and misreadings, are you surprised people see your contributions on WP:ANI as disruptive? They are not collegial, they are designed to WP:BAIT other editors and create drama. Nice try, though. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Please refactor "Make sure not to do any more envelope pushing as far as outting goes Mathsci." You can leave the smilie. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, Abd's case was mentioned to note that this sort of An/I banning has been done before, and is certainly an option on the table for you. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of tilting at windmills and going somewhat off topic I'll actually answer C of M's question, "Do all crimes by politicians that are reliably sourced warrant stand-alone articles? What are the other determining factors?" The answer to the first is, of course, no—when a city council member gets busted with pot and it's covered only in one local, small circulation newspaper we won't write an article on that. Larry Craig was a sitting U.S. Senator, the "scandal" was massively reported all over the place, and it directly led to the loss of his senate seat as he otherwise would have sought (and won) re-election. So the primary other determining factor here, and in most cases, was the fact that this was a highly notable incident. Additionally, there are concerns of undue weight (and BLP, the reality is 180 degrees from what C of M suggests) here as we could not allow the scandal to overwhelm the Larry Craig article, and as such a split off article discussed somewhat in the main article was a good solution per WP:SUMMARY (see also here, this, that, and the other thing—all full articles on sex scandals involving very prominent Democrats). I would also point C of M to the article Chappaquiddick incident about another (now deceased) sitting Senator and a scandal/crime involving him. Closer to our time, it would be appropriate in my view to create an article on the scandal/crime surrounding William J. Jefferson and that is being discussed on that article talk page apparently. Closer to the Larry Craig scandal in type (though I think no crime was involved), I think it's likely we would have an article on Bob Packwood's travails had Wikipedia been around in 1992 (it was a huge story at the time). All of this should rather go without saying, and of course the fact that Craig has an article on his scandal is not indicative of some kind of conspiracy among Wikipedians, nor is it evidence for C of M's ludicrous claim that "the BLP policy [is] only for people we as a community respect." If some sort of liberal cabal (or something, I have no idea what C of M has in mind) were running rampant surely the 3,000+ word article on the Chappaquiddick incident would not have been allowed to exist for three-plus years (in addition to the others cited above), nor would this have been allowed to stand for nearly 7 years now. Hopefully that puts a rest to ChildofMidnight's concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Technicality?

I cannot comment on this particular discussion, but on the general topic of "banning" editors from ANI, I find that to be of some concern philosophically, especially as the top of the page says, "Any user of Wikipedia may post here." As I understand "any", that means "any, without exception." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But the same applies to almost all spaces on wikipedia (with a few exceptions, such as archived pages, ArbCom PD pages, etc). Yet users are topic or page banned, sometimes conditionally, either by the community or ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover that provision can be altered I would think. "Any user of Wikipedia may post here unless prohibited by the Community or the Arbitration Committee." Or words to that effect. Crafty (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A late comment on freedom of speech - in a free country, a minority voice should be able to walk into a bar full of soldiers and cry that dropping bombs on children is a bad thing, and the soldiers should respect that opinion and do the guy no harm. Soldiers are after all sworn to protect the constitution, which enshrines (among other things) freedom of speech. If the soldiers react violently then they are clearly in the wrong. The minority voice then should be able to complain that he got beaten up by the bad men with guns, and all right-thinking people should then leap to his defence and protection. Anything else is mob-rule. At the end of that road stand crematoriums. Let's learn from history. Wdford (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a free country, it's an encyclopedia-building project. Mob rule has essentially governed Wikipedia from the start. We're not going to send anyone to crematoriums. Let's avoid hyperbole.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a red-herring issue, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, or any other website for that matter. The capability of anyone to edit anything in wikipedia is not a "right" but a matter of policy. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", is obviously not literally true. I'm just saying that I don't think any editor who's theoretically in good standing should be kept out of ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, except that wikipolicy forms the "constitution" of the encyclopedia, and the constitution seemingly does allow all to participate. Like any constitution it does limit free speech, but only in clearly defined circumstances for the common good, and the legitimacy of restrictions are to be judged by an impartial judicial process (i.e. NOT by a mob.) The issue here thus should not be "is CoM breaking the rules by disagreeing with the mob", the issue should be "is CoM breaking the rules by materially disrupting the project?" We need however to be careful to ensure that "disagreeing with the mob" does not become synonymous with "disrupting the project". If only the mob has access to argue at ANI, then that conflation has already happened. Wdford (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: ANI is a long enough page as it is. If we want to have a philosophical/policy discussion on banning users from ANI etc under certain conditions, that's a discussion that should take place elsewhere. It is not a novel idea by any means, and has been implemented several times before, so there is no pressing reason to discuss the principle here. Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Blatant canvassing

Could someone please make the necessary revert at Music of Final Fantasy VIII. I am sick to death of this rubbish already. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

An alternative solution occurred to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You have restored my faith in Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have put my recommendation on the article talk page. It's not what you want, nor is it what the other person wants. But it might be the start of a consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't really see what that has to do with anything at all. The issue is nothing to do with copyright law, and the size of the image doesn't matter with regards to whether it can be used in that context... J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Angusmclellan#You recently deleted EyesOnMeSmall.jpg for my rationale. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• The image has been reuploaded, and has been added back to the article, along with another. Could someone please do something? J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move/continue discussion to Talk:Music of Final Fantasy VIII please. This is more of an editorial issue and a policy-interpretation issue than a disruptive-editor issue. Several 3rd eyes would be very helpful in crafting a solution that meets both policy requirements and, if possible, consensus of all editors. Help is also needed in deciphering areas where policy lends itself to interpretation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected link to talk page davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Diplomacy is nice, but there really isn't any need for discussion here. Neither of those images should be in the article as it currently stands. How about I make it a behavioural dispute? Will that stop this bureaucracy? J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • We have a policy which the foundation endorsed and said could not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored". You came to my talk page and spouted off about rubbish which has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with guidelines and pseudo-policies which "circumvented, eroded, or ignored" real policy. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a rationale for using this non-free content which met policy. It's just cut and paste boilerplated word salad and that was supposed to have been killed off more than two years ago. What is there to discuss? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm...salad... HalfShadow HalfShadow 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• To all parties: If you want to continue this discussion with me, please do so on the article talk page, my talk page, email, or on your talk page, with notification to me on my talk page or by email. This is not the place any more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So you've said. You've also made it quite clear that it's legitimate for album covers to be in the article. You've proved my worst fears about these bloody noticeboards... J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction I have taken the article and the song-cover image off my watchlist - too much potential for this to drag on and on and I've run out of ways I can help solve the situation amicably. If you need me, give me a heads-up on my talk page or by email. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua issuing block threats during a dispute she is invovled in

Resolved

 – Still resolved. Issues raised have been addressed.

A couple of days ago I was involved in a content dispute with User:KillerChihuahua at New England Institute for Religious Research during which she was siding with User:Cirt, which she is more than welcome to do. An even more recent dispute with User:Cirt, which is tangentially related to that dispute, brought me to post at the RS/N regarding the matter. The specific book review under dispute, which is sourced to the Midwest Book Review at Twisted Scriptures is, as far as I know and no one has stated otherwise, only available on Amazon.com. For those who know nothing about The Midwest Book Review it is not a print publication itself, but an organization that prints other publications (under different names) and also writes reviews directly for the web. Anyway, User:KillerChihuahua soon appeared at the RS/N, sharing Cirt's opinion, which of course is absolutely fine once again. However, in that forum, as well as in the previous one, she has been engaging with me in a very uncivil manner from the beginning. Usually I have thick skin and don't go running off to AN/I about such things, but KC is in admin and she is now edit warring with me and issuing me block warnings. He, and Cirt, claim that I am "spamming" ("tendentiously" according to KC) simply because I reviewed some Midwest Book Review attributed Amazon reviews and posted them to the discussion in a subsection -- something I believe is completely appropriate due to statements made by the editor in chief regarding these reviews and the fact that the initial review that brought me to the RS/N can only be found on Amazon. It is the hiding of these reviews that KC is edit warring over and issuing warnings to me about. I tried suggesting, prior to her second warning, that she ask an uninvolved admin to step in, but she shows no sign of doing this. I find it completely inappropriate for her to edit war and and issue these warnings when she is involved in this dispute directly. Rather than escalate it there or edit war myself into a block I'm coming here to ask for advice/help. I will note that I have tried very hard to remain civil with KC over the past couple of days, striking any comment she has remotely taken the wrong way for instance, but it seems like she's out to get me or something. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m female, and those are standard warning templates. I have not bothered to ask an uninvolved admin to step in yet, because I am hopeful you'll stop stalking Cirt and engaging edit wars and starting tendentious arguments. There is no guideline against issuing warnings; almost all warnings are from "involved" people because they see the undesirable behavior. As you've brought it here, though, I request an uninvolved admin keep an eye on PelleSmith, whose actions regarding Cirt, and now myself, are questionable at best. Please note, for example, that I am described as "siding with Cirt" not "Cirt and KC held the opposing view in a dispute with me" or a similar non-accusatory phrasing. I for one am tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The male/female thing is a dumb sloppiness on my part and I apologize for that wholeheartedly.PelleSmith (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Went through and fixed this.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content dispute, I don't see how posting warnings is a problem. If you don't think the warnings are applicable then you can ignore them. While admins should not use their tools in a dispute, there's no rule that I'm aware of preventing anyone from warning anyone else of potential policy violations. It's common for involved parties to remind each other of 3RR violations, for example.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also without comment on the general issues of the dispute, imo it is totally ok that to warn other users that they are in danger of violating 3RR and any user can do it, and should actually, it is a good faith note . It is not related to KillersChihuahua Admin status. This seems like a content issue and dispute resolution WP:DR is your best location for action. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How does the other party in an edit war get to issue 3RR warnings? This is not about 3RR but about her interpretation that I'm spamming the RS/N, and using that as a rationale to hide my comment.PelleSmith (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can issue warnings of incorrect behaviour, if the "other party" is behaving wrongly then they too will face the possibility of a block. Your comments did seem to be extensively veering away from the purpose of the page, and your complaint would be better dealt with on the article talk page in my opinion. Evidently dispute resolution has been suggested, that's the appropriate way forward, not SNI. . . dave souza, talk 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not a 3rr warning. It was a spam warning. If there is consensus that I'm spamming that page please tell me. I'll apologize at once, but I don't appreciate someone on the other side of the argument hiding my comments because she interprets them to be SPAM, and then warning me for engaging the RS/N inappropriately.PelleSmith (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob, I have already suggested WP:DR to PelleSmith. He seems averse to the idea, I am sorry to say. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

KC can you please provide a diff of this. I'm have a hard time finding it. With the flurry of activity surrounding this in the last two days I don't trust my memory, in which I can't remember reading such a suggestion, so a diff would be appreciated. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at 3 or 4 articles so far, it appears PelleSmith (talk · contribs) is barking like a big dog. That needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur, and appreciate you stepping in. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can you please explain how I'm hounding anyone? Those pages are all related. The final one, which is at the heart of the RS/N dispute I arrived at first.PelleSmith (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Toddst1's talk page since I've been redirected here) -- Toddst1, may I ask you why you think I'm hounding him? Because I made one edit to one page that I noticed in his edit history? The other three on which we have engaged in the last few days are all related to each other and I got the first in a manner wholly unrelated to Cirt -- New England Institute of Religious Research. The other two pages are linked to that one ... or I should say the one directly Twisted Scriptures and the third Midwest Book Review linked to that page. He followed me to this third page and the the RS/N. Of course I think nothing of that since its all part of a related dispute stemming from the first page. But then again I'm no accusing him of stalking me either. Have you reviewed the entire situation carefully? I'm just wondering. I don't want to hound anyone, and this is all in my general area of interest to begin with. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, common practice on Wikipedia for edit warriors to issue warnings to the other side of the dispute. It's a piss poor approach to conflict resolution, and if you respond in kind a new round of accusations will start. A courteous note suggesting means of dispute resolution would be better practice, espcially from an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed where I mentioned it above, CoM - I did suggest DR. PelleSmith was not interested. This was well before the warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I might have missed it. I was commenting more generally on edit warriors issuing warnings to the other side of the dispute. I think it's an odious practice so I was disappointed to see it being condoned. I haven't had a chance to look into the underlying content in dispute in this case, it seems a bit droll, but I did notice that you accused another editor (who gives every appearance of acting in good faith and with some courtesy) of "stalking", "engaging (in) edit wars" and "starting tendentious arguments", in the same paragraph where you complain about being "tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor." ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree, as well as with some of your comments in the "close" above, but not enough to fuss about it. Merely noting here for the record. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't had a chance to look into the underlying content in dispute in this case". In that case it was "uncollegial" and inappropriate for CoM to close this discussion and to write such an "odious" and clueless closing summary. Mathsci (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Other disputes with CoM or general questions regarding his editing of AN/I aside I actually agree with his general sentiment regarding the appropriateness of my original post. I think dispute resolution would have been a more appropriate venue for me. I posted here because I felt frustrated and baited at the RS/N, not to mention intimidated since an admin was issuing me warnings. Posting to AN/I was a rash decision on my part. Regarding the WP:HOUND accusation I've posted a detailed followup question to the uninvolved admin who warned me about hounding. See -- User_talk:Toddst1#Still_wondering_about_hounding. If you want to move this here please do so by all means. I'm happy to discuss this issue further.PelleSmith (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Blockage needed

Resolved

 – Already blocked. Intelligentsium 01:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cheesenpizza. HAGGER vandal again. Intelligentsium 01:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; blocked by Gogo Dodo. Intelligentsium 01:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Court judgments: Primary sources, libel, or both?

Despite promising myself that I'd avoid the topic, I've somehow been drawn back into the David Ferguson (impresario) disaster of an article again.

In this instance, User:Devsdough revised the article to a version similar to this one from January 2009 (diff).

Shortly thereafter, User:Debora999 reverted that edit with a summary of "Reverted to revision 307690212 by Uwishiwazjohng; improperly cited; legal history section libelous."

The legal history section referred to can be seen here. Everything in it is sourced. However, as almost all of those references are to web pages created and hosted by the San Francisco County Superior Court, they're clearly primary sources—which is why that section had been removed previously.

Why bring this to ANI? Primarily, because No legal threats says libel accusations should be brought here. And partly, it's because User:Debora999 and I have had disagreements in the past (such as her accusation here of me Wikihounding her), so I'd prefer someone uninvolved explain WP:NLT and WP:NPLT to her. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, have you notified the other editor? Per WP:NPLT, it is probably best if we ascertain her intent. Frankly, it does not seem to be a legal threat, but perhaps the other user could be cautioned to use less charged language. As regards the content dispute, you might want to post at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that a straightforward listing of court cases can be libelous. I do see that a laundry list of routine commercial lawsuits involving a given business is generally a waste of space and utterly useless, and has no relationship to the subject's notability. But if they stay in, can I add a section to the UPS article about the Small Claims case I won against them? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Responding to both Wehwalt and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above: it's clear that I didn't word this as well as I'd thought, as in several places I'm not sure what you're referring to.

• I'm not sure which editor you're referring to as "the other editor," but I notified both within a minute of posting here.
• My perception of the word "libel" is that it's always a legal threat—when is it not?
• I'm not sure what you're referring to as a "content dispute."
• I don't think that anyone claimed "a straightforward listing of court cases" was libelous. I put links to all the lists of lawsuits (in the collapse box, above) for the convenience of those wanting to get up to speed, but there was no listing of cases in the article (or here, either). The legal history section that was in the article can be found by following the link where I wrote "The legal history section referred to can be seen here."
• I don't know what you're referring to as "a laundry list of routine commercial lawsuits." This is an article about an individual who is/was the proprietor of several businesses. He and his various DBAs have been sued more than 20 times, with at least ten of those being against him personally. The article covered this in about six paragraphs (which possibly fell under WP:SYNTH as well as WP:PRIMARY) to show a pattern in the subject's business style over the last 25 years.
• So far as I'm concerned, if the owner of your local UPS Store has been sued many times by many people over many years (including being found liable for large amounts such as in this case or being mentioned in a book—such as here—as the target of two lawsuits), then something about this could be added by a person without a COI—but not by you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed - "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims" - for example Doe was sued in 1993 by Roe for absquatulation. Clearly other policies need to be adhered to. 79.79.127.255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Closed an AfD, but can't delete the article

Resolved

 – Deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven. MuZemike 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I closed the AfD of The Lion & The Sail yesterday as delete, but when I tried to delete the article I got a Wikimedia error. I tried again today, and got the same error. I think it might have something to do with the special character in the name, but that's just a guess. Is anyone able to explain what is going on/delete the article? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Would someone be able to undelete this image File:Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Logo.svg? It was deleted via Wikipedia:CSD#F5, and I would like to return it to its original article at Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. Don't worry, I'll make sure it gets the care it deserves.--Blargh29 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please make use of it and provide a proper fair use rationale to prevent re-deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just added the relevant tags at File:Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Logo.svg, if someone wants to make sure I did it right.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a note you can post requests like this at Requests for Undeletion. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes languishing in AFD

Resolved

 – Deleted and blocked

Two obvious hoaxes (Christopher Hughes (politician) and Northeastern Theological Seminary) are languishing in AFD. Can we get an admin to close and delete soon? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Hughes (politician) for evidence of the hoax. I would also like to request a block of that the author of these two long-surviving hoaxes (User:CKahler)--Blargh29 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks!--Blargh29 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious concern

Resolved

 – /me resolves and archives thread early, leading to demands that thread be reopened immediately, edit warring over the resolved tag, (and more cries of "CENSORSHIP!") --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been no new threads on this noticeboard for 9 hours. This concerns me. Is everyone off doing something productive? Because if you are, this is a terrible development. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

/me blocks Daniel for 2 minutes for trolling (and in order to stoke some Drama to keep Daniel happy). ;~)--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm ftw. :) Daniel (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

/me starts endless thread arguing about the validity of the block, the definition of troll, whether "troll" is a personal attack or not, and make sure I include ADMIN ABUSE and CENSORSHIP several times. There, that ought to cover it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when users accept the invitation to have cups of tea and cup cakes. It all ends in tears. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009

Bah, just another blatant attempt to silence the "disruptive" minority. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:50, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived because... um... I#m an admin, I haven#t been very active recently, and I#m sure I will want to say something profound about this (or, indeed, any other) matter before Christmas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread cannot be closed until someone mentions WP:DEADHORSE. Truly disruptive, I call for the heads of any admins who let this happen! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread made my morning, sitting here w/ my coffe, laughing my ass off. Merry Xmas y'all. Thanks. Ps, CLIMB DOWN FROM THE REICHSTAG!!!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of process. You cannot mention Reichstag climbing on Wikipedia without also mentioning Spiderman costumes. I call for immediate sanctions and a posting on several other pages, per WP:FORUMSHOP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread is a copyvio of my IRC witticism. The nominator will be tarred and feathered for releasing zomg private logs. This decision has been made after a quick canvass and consensus of five 14 year old virgins on IRC and cannot be overruled.  Skomorokh  15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyio? I will sue you in a court of law in Trenton, NJ! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"This decision has been made after a quick canvass and consensus of five 14 year old virgins on IRC and cannot be overruled." -- Great line, I LOL'd :) Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm sorry, but you have forgotten to notify yourself all named and anonymous editors of Wikipedia of this thread, as you are of course required to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious insults! This person does NOT stop insulting me and he does not stop smearing my name with false accusations!

Resolved

 – Editor blocked. I will continue to watch the situation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have totally had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...

The most recent insults can be found here:

On the talk page of GKIF

• reverting my good edits, which I thorougly explained in the Talk Page and was agreed by NeilN. In the summary he calls my edits "vandalism" and accuses me of starting another edit war
• Same thing. A unnecessary revert with insults like "vandalism and speculation"
• accusing me of starting an edit war, after I removed an external link that has no business in the article (link did not contain the information claimed in the article
• A revert by Peter Lee, calling it "crap done by Mario Roering", where it wasn't even my edit, but that of a person using the name TenChiJin
• Again saying in the summary "Undoing Mario Roering's vandalism", whereas it was a contrib of TenChiJin, not mine

On World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation

• Read the summary! Reverted my edits. He calls it vandalism, but what I did is I removed disputed, unreferenced information that is from the point of view of ONE person only
• undid the changes by TenChiJin, then claiming that it was me! I am NOT TenChiJin!
• undid my edits, where I removed unsourced, false accusations in the article. Peter reverted it and claims in the summary that it's ME who is making the false accusations and spreading slander. Humbug! It's obvious that it's HIM who is slandering people's names and putting false accusations in the article(s)

On the talk page of NeilN

• On NeilN's talk page he again accuses me of vandalism
• here he is not just insulting me, but also another Wikipedian, NeilN
• Again, accusing me of starting edit war, claiming I have more than 1 account on Wikipedia, claiming I am TenChiJin (another Wikipedian) and many other insults that would raise somebody's hair!!!

And so on, and so on... This list is just a part of all the insults and false accusations I had to take for the last 2-3 weeks but really, it is endless!!!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!) There is NO end to it... Constantly insulting me and also other people, making false accusations and so on... UN-acceptable!!!

And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...

I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Wikipedia (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody please do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 13:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left them a final warning of sorts. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nods, and he hasn't edited since. I'm watching. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that that wasn't what Mario asked for, surely five years of this is a bit excessive and deserving of a bit more than a warning. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you're ignoring that I issued that warning before this thread on ANI, so I could hardly have known what he'd "ask for", and noting also that just because you ask doesn't mean I'm going to block without issuing a final warning. Otherwise I'd be really popular with the POV pushers, edit warriors and trolls, as a "block on demand" admin. No, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I originally spotted the original post on Wikiquette alerts and at that point no warning was on Peter Lee's talk page, so I assumed you'd just done this now. My apologies. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed: I don't always notice the date/timestamp myself. But your implication that ANI is a short-order drive through for getting blocks is a bit more worrisome. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this ever brought to ANI, WQA, etc before today/yesterday? Tan | 39 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, user issued block in the past [105]. Gerardw (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

May I kindly point out that the block mentioned above by Gerardw was for edit warring, not for his incivility, insults and false accusations... MarioR 16:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement of blocking admin was "To clarify, your conduct in this matter has been quite unacceptable, both in your engagement in an edit war and the extreme incivility in your edit summaries." Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_Lee_and_Mario_Roering and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#World_Genseiry.C5.AB_Karate-d.C5.8D_Federation. Both editors are here to push viewpoints but Mario doesn't overtly cross the civility line and has made some contributions to other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have just notified Peter Lee of this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations put forward by myself, are in fact defense against those attacks put forward by Mario Roering himself. I will refrain from putting an extremely long list of violations here done by Mario Roering, as I see it deserving no purpose. The fact is, that Mario Roering has dedicated his hole life to lying, defamation, accusations, slander, copyright violation and smearing my name and that of the Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation, our president, Kunihiko Tosa, and more. He has dedicated a great number of pages on his own homepage to reach his goal, and he has and is using free webhosting such a guestbooks, YouTube and other video sites, he has and is using sockpuppetry (on sites different from Wikipedia, shown and proven by indisputable evidence) etc. etc. Mario Roering's intensions are not noble in any way whatsoever. His contributions here, aside from Genseiryu related articles, are of no concern. Mario Roering is trying to portray himself as an innocent person, who is attacked for no reason by myself. That is not true either. I will here, once again, request, that you all are not taken in by his candy talking, decitful behavour and the like. He is not a person to be trusted. This is indeed my honest opionion, and no insults were intendedn. But if Wikipedia admins/sysops cannot or will not see the situation and the violations in its proper context, people like Mario Roering will be able to continue his manipulation and exploitation of good people here. In fact, Wikipedia is the only website on the Internet still making it an issue, where endless discussions has to be made over and over again. In my view, there is nothing to discuss, as the true intentions of Mario Roering and his violations are clear, not only violation of guidelines/rules on Wikipedia, but violation of regular legislation and law such as the penal code etc. If Wikipedia would stop Mario Roering in this regard, being civil, show good faith and show that I am wrong about his attentions, by completely removing any and all contents on the Internet dedicated to defamation on my person, then perhaps we could get started on a friendly talks. Before that happens, I will take no part in direct talks with Mario Roering, as he has shown on any and all occasions for the past 5 years, that he is a man of lesser moral, lesser ethics and no remorse towards breaking the law, violate my copyright etc. I hope that this sets things into perspective, and shows the true nature of this dispute?? Peter Lee (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, with advice to AGF, comment on content, not editor, accusations without difs are worse than useless, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results? –xeno^talk 14:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that results have been released yet. Just a lot of discussion on when they will be released and why there's a delay while votes are checked... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:OutOfTimer and bad faith

While trying to improve the Little Big Adventure‎ article, we have been faced with multiple bad faith accusations of vandalism and even sockpuppetry from User:OutOfTimer after attempts to warn him] and discuss the issue on the talk page it continues and it's getting a little tedious, edit war issues aside. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have protected this page for three days due to the edit warring. Rehevkor, it appears you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editors - you cannot keep reverting simply because you disagree with the edits (or that there's "no consensus"). That said, the reversion due to "suspected sockpuppetry" was also out of line. Bottom line - everyone at this page needs to chill the hell out. Tan | 39 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times. You can see on the talk page I was trying to bring up discussion on the issue long before I did any reverting, which I only did when bad faith accusations came into the picture. Rehevkor ✉ 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you violated 3RR; I said you were edit warring. I agree that there are "bad faith accusations", but I think the larger issue is the ongoing edit war. It needs to stop - by all involved parties. Tan | 39 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the issue here was my way of washing my hands of the article, I will no longer have any involvement in it. Sorry to have been of any inconvenience. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the well-being of this article as there are several editors that consider it a high priority. We will do everything we can to keep it in good shape. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for engaging in an edit war that ultimately caused trouble for the Admins. Even though I regret it came down to this, I believe there was a serious reason for my actions. User:Eik Corell is well-known for blind content deletion in various parts of the encyclopedia, which is prominently reflected by his talk page. There are dozens of instances of users complaining about his behaviour. It also seems to me that content deletion is at the core of his "contribution." In addition, neither User:Eik Corell, nor User:Rehevkor have sufficient knowledge of the topic of the article in question. Furthermore, it was not myself that first accused the latter party of sock-puppetry, which in my opinion implies that there were well grounded reasons for such an accusation. However, I do realise that this accusation is most likely far-fetched and want to apologise for it. Last but not least, I want to assure everyone that my only concern is providing accurate and valuable information to the visitors of our encyclopedia and that I have acted in good faith. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be sensible to consider locking Little Big Adventure 2 as well. User:Eik Corell engaged in content deletion in that article, too. The only difference is that I was not as determined to stop him and he only bullied other editors. I have to admit that having this edit war in dispute resolution is a shame. There are very serious problems discussed here (legal threats, for example), whereas we have a problem with a user that deletes content from a game-related article. Just sad. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eik's Talk page looks to me like only edit warriors keep complaining about his edits there. Have you discussed his edits on the article's Talk page and/or followed the procedures at WP:DR, or are you merely happy to keep edit warring to get your version of things into the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Wmcdan4479

Resolved

 – Indeffed by Tnxman Tan | 39 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wmcdan4479 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing cited material from Jane Krakowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I have been reverting and warning. User's latest edit summary contains an explicit legal threat. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's time for Wmcdan4479 to be shone the door. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Shown, and yes, at least for the moment. Already done. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)