::Arilang1234 is the one who should be perm banned, since he treats wikipedia as his personal blog, shooting off conspiracy theories on marxism, black panthers, vietnam and boxers, claiming that since Australian textbooks say boxers were anti imperialist that australia must be a socialist country, and expects to be taken seriously.[[User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ|ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ]] ([[User talk:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ|talk]]) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
::Arilang1234 is the one who should be perm banned, since he treats wikipedia as his personal blog, shooting off conspiracy theories on marxism, black panthers, vietnam and boxers, claiming that since Australian textbooks say boxers were anti imperialist that australia must be a socialist country, and expects to be taken seriously.[[User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ|ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ]] ([[User talk:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ|talk]]) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
*(13){{quote|Statement made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on the start of this ANI discussion:Comment by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on 21:52, 13 October 2010- "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources. They deliberately malign Cixi and Qing as corrupt, to further their communist ideology by making it look good"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)}}
On this statement, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is telling us that "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources", as if all Chinese government websites are Unreliable Sources, not to be trusted by Wikipedia. This statement of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is yet another solid proof of his biased and non-neutral personal agenda on Wikipedia, he is here openly defying and rejecting WP rules, especially [[WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight]], thus he should be barred from editing, to stop him from poisoning this encyclopedic building project.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Arilang1234|<font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang </font>]]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>[[User talk:Arilang1234|''talk'']]</sup></font></b></i> 04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, someone should give ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ a stern warning, and if he refuse to observe and implement WP rules, a topic ban on [[Boxer Rebellion]] would be good for him, instead of allowing him to impede other editors from building a better encyclopedia.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Arilang1234|<font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang </font>]]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>[[User talk:Arilang1234|''talk'']]</sup></font></b></i> 12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, someone should give ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ a stern warning, and if he refuse to observe and implement WP rules, a topic ban on [[Boxer Rebellion]] would be good for him, instead of allowing him to impede other editors from building a better encyclopedia.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Arilang1234|<font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang </font>]]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>[[User talk:Arilang1234|''talk'']]</sup></font></b></i> 12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Ganas is communitarian group in Staten Island, New York that has an interesting history to say the least. My concern is that over the past 6-7 months we have been having a string of SPA accounts most vocal being (Eroberer (talk·contribs)) who has strong dislike of Ganas. Eroberer's dislike of Ganas has resulted in alot of POV-Pushing, behavior is relatively civil with established editors but down right aggressive with any one they disagree with. The most recent incident was an outing that was just oversighted this morning (Well my time at least) where a new editor said made an accusation about Eroberer which amplifies my concerns. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors
I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much like for there to be additional contributors. The summary as I have it now (though could be reverted at any instant) is mostly my point of view, and I don't mind it being adapted to hold other views, but I think Eroberer's POV is too heavily weighted in this article. What the article needs is Eroberer off, and a dozen other editors on. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Δ has a troubled history for his habit of content policing (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ). He has been trying to get images deleted from Indonesian rupiah and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah on the basis of putative 'non-free content overuse', although in fact it appears that all images may in fact be free, and in any case the older ones most certainly are free.
I tagged images such as this one: [1] as public domain since it was published in 1952 in Indonesia, and according to Indonesian copyright law, the maximum copyright term is 50 years from publication. He has just reverted this with the intent that the files be deleted tomorrow: [2].
I notified him on his talk page that he is vandalising the encylopedia by tagging clear public domain images for deletion, see contributions: [3], and he responded by immediately deleting/archiving my notice and taking no action. He has been reported several times in recent days for breaching 3RR over his content policing actions, and I have no intention in getting into a revert war with him over this, so I am reporting here. Indocopy (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you refuse to listen, remove image sourcing and are disruptive you will be reverted. You replaced all of the information on the image description pages with a generic template. I could have gone through and tagged them all as no-source. I have not breached 3RR as you have been told multiple times before. Enforcing NFC is exempt from that. Calling me a vandal is a personal attack which Im brushing off. ΔT The only constant09:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came very close to handing out some blocks here - Edit Warring is a bright line Δ, you should know that! However - both pages are protected (one from a few days ago), please resolve the dispute on talk pages as to whether any of these images are out of copyright yet, or come up with a compromise non-free usage. --Errant(chat!)09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ErrantX, if non-free images are used without a proper rationale, then such a rationale should be provided before the images are (re-)included. Reverting edits without providing that proper rationale first is a form of disruption, and as such exempt from 3RR. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to include the images. I am sure that Δ is aware of the bright line, as is Indocopy about the regulations of NFC. You are right, the dispute has to be resolved on talkpages, or a proper selection has to be made - not by changing licensing information or reverting images back in without having proper rationales. --Dirk BeetstraTC09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to listen??? I'm not the one who just deleted comments from his talk page without action/discussion.
The template is not generic, it is one I personally created for these images. The content is more than 50 years old and is therefore public domain, and were correctly tagged as such 6 days ago, now you are reverting them in what appears to be an attempt to get free content deleted based on an 'unused non-free image' tag. This is vandalism, nothing more.
Your behaviour is highly disruptive, if you had a problem with my image tagging you could have notified me and explained any issues you had, but nope you just revert (after six days!) and don't say anything, and edit war over and over and over again.Indocopy (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rather disagree. I have a simple complaint here. I tagged numerous images as public domain, which they are unquestionably are, being older than the 50-year term, and this was reverted by Delta who refused to discuss the matter. It is not a copyright matter, it is a complaint about Delta's obstructive behaviour in (a) edit warring and (b) not discussing. Indocopy (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah I did that, that's why this is vandalism. I created Template:PD-Indonesia, in accordance with numerous (Category:Public_domain_copyright_templates_by_country) similar templates on Wikipedia, and then tagged the image accordingly, as I explained in my original post (above). The copyright law in Indonesia is clearly hyperlinked from the template and hence from the image that Delta disrupted reverted without cause and refusing to discuss it. Indocopy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not vandalism. You definitely need to stop using that word, which has a very specific meaning here, in this context. On a side note - the bank note in the photo was issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960? Does that affect things? This whole bank notes issue is largely unresolved. --Errant(chat!)14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no photos, only scans, there is an important difference in copyright terms, scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do.
As for 'the banknote in the photo being issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960?', nope I've no idea where you get that idea from, although equally I'm not sure what image you are referring to? The banknotes issue might be 'largely [or partly] unresolved', but when you take 50+-year-old images that are clearly in the public domain and you edit them such that they will be auto-deleted within 24 hours, and then refuse to discuss the matter, well I think it's legitimate to regard that as 'vandalism'. Indocopy (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do..."
Wait, what? Where do you get the assertion that a scan of a work enjoys different copyright status to a photograph of a work? Book publishers might want to have a word about that... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Indocopy; asserting a violation of 3RR because you believe you're right and Δ is wrong when there's been no consensus that you are right, in a situation regarding copyright is improper. As Dirk noted, the burden is on you. Fail that burden, and those policing your edits are not in violation of 3RR. Attempting to force your way by rampant reversions is not the way forward. If you can't convince a body towards consensus that a given set of images are free license/public domain, edit warring won't work either. Be patient, wait for consensus to develop, and stop edit warring. We've had enough blasts about this pattern of edits that are entirely avoidable if you simply choose to wait it out. We take copyright seriously here, and no amount of edit warring is going to change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, no, I disagree. This is not a case that unquestionably violates the free-content policy. The only thing that can be enforced in this case is common consensus (which seems to be slowly emerging). So both parties here are in violation of WP:EW and 3RR still applies. --Errant(chat!)13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Dirk noted, the burden is on the editor wishing to use the content. Failing that proof, we have to treat the images as non-free. NFCC applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-admin comment) NFCC states that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. A valid rationale was provided, fulfilling the burden of proof. Even if the user wishing to remove it has a valid counter-argument, it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, thus 3RR applies, so far as I can tell. - SudoGhost™14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SudoGhost is correct. I agree with these images removals FWIW, but there is nothing there that is valid as an exclusion under 3RR. Edit warring is a bright line with few exceptions. --Errant(chat!)14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No ErrantX and SudoGhost, there is not a rationale for using so many of these images. That qualifies as overuse, which we, per our m:Mission should try to minimise, as we are trying to write a free encyclopedia here. Someone has questioned the use of so many of them, so the burden of proof is on the person who is re-inserting them. Be it 1, or be it all. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding, if someone questions the rationale, then the rationale is not unquestioned anymore, and hence it can not be a valid rationale until those questions are answered - the burden of proof is on the one wishing to (re-)insert them. Its painful, but if there is a vandal making some silly removal of an image one would even have to answer that rationale - 'I think it does' is not good enough. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All true. However it still does not count as an exception. The proper response is not to edit war but to report the user rv-ing or to request protection of the article until matters are resolved. --Errant(chat!)14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate to request protection for an article when one user is acting against policy and revert warring in a way that violates our NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the other option is to edit war against them.... no, no it certainly is not. Where on earth did you get that from :) I'm not trying to be awkward - just pointing out that a less laid back admin might well have handed out blocks here. --Errant(chat!)14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Logical rationale has been given on the article's talk page that the images are PD (among other things), which means it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy. I'm not aware that a questioned rationale is not a valid one, nor of any policy that states that. Show me a rationale that is never questioned, because that seems unlikely. The talk page itself shows that it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, and there is an ongoing discussion as to that very question, with valid rationales being given by those who wish for the images to be used.
If you ask ten editors if it violates NFCC, and six say yes, but four say no, and give very good, logical reasons why it doesn't, that seems to be the very reason the policy says unquestionably violates the free-content policy instead of the other way around, images can be removed unless those images unquestionably do not violate the free-content policy. - SudoGhost™14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Totally unrelated. It is definitely not appropriate to use WP:BURDEN as a rationale to edit war, it is not an exclusion. That the edits failed WP:BURDEN is a matter for the talk page & other dispute resolution (i.e. here, RFPP, etc.) --Errant(chat!)15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, that PD is not that unquestionable I am afraid. That some thing is not under a copyright anymore does not make them PD. But well. Yes, bingo, SudoGhost: images get removed unless they unquestionably do not violate the non-free-content policy. I am sorry, there is no negotiation there, if they violate the non-free-content policy, or in other words, if they they violate copyright, then they have to go until the opposite is proven. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you might want to check out the Wikipedia page on public domain. 'Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired' Indocopy (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be glib. I am trying to helpfully explain a better process than edit warring, because all that will happen is eventually someone will be blocked for NFCC reasons (which in this case IMO are being reasonably questioned, though it looks like the removal will prove valid) and there will be a massive fucking fall out etc etc. Just use the right process. That is all :)
I think you misunderstood, I was saying the opposite. The 3RR exemption is not Removal of content that might violate the non-free content policy., but says Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. I did not add the emphasis to unquestionably, it's presented that way in WP:3RR. Seems to me the policy-writer thought that part important, for reasons such as this, I can't think of a reason to bold that word unless it was important. As per the policy as written, and the spirit of the policy, Δ violated 3RR. If he didn't, then who possibly could? That unquestionably certainly isn't there for giggles. - SudoGhost™15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point
In response to Hammersoft et al above, I did not come here to assert a violation of 3RR, I came here to point out that Delta has vandalised public domain images (being older than 50 years, in accordance with Indonesian law), and then removed my attempt at discussion, and given his past history was liable to edit war to revert them, so I had no alternative but to flag it here having exhausted other angles to resolve this.
There is no one 'set of images' here, there are many different scans of banknotes dating in publication date from 1945 up to 2010, and after earlier Delta-initiated dramas, he eventually conceded that those images published in the name of 'Republik Indonesia', 'Republik Indonesia Serikat' and 'Indonesia' are free content in accordance with Indonesian law, and these were tagged accordingly. Subsequently I also tagged scans of those banknotes published prior to 1 January 1961 as PD-Indonesia, since they are unquivocally public domain according to Indonesian law.
The status of those more recent banknotes is not the subject of this AN/I report, and I would suggest that be discussed at a different venue - I posted here ONLY because Delta vandalised the >50 year-old, public domain images and refused to discuss the fact that he had done so or to revert the same; accordingly the comments about NFCC/WP:BURDEN while germane to Delta's wider pattern of putative misbehaviour overcomplicate what is in fact a simple problem of him reverting valid PD tags on old images.Indocopy (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you've been told that vandalism is a very very specific thing here, and thats not what Delta did. When you stop using that term, maybe we can advance the discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to resolve this is to have someone with media copyright knowledge r.e. bank notes take a look. There are a number of issues which concern me that they may not be free images. But that is an issue for the talk pages - is there any admin action still needed? --Errant(chat!)15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh yes, the 50+ year-old images, which have been tagged for deletion by Delta tomorrow, which apparently I'm not allowed to call vandalism, should be reverted en-masse - I'm not sure how to do this, and would like it to be made clear that Delta should not revert these when his block expires Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indocopy I think I understand what the disconect is. You keep claiming the 50 year old images are PD, but you are not using 50 year old images. The bank note is more than 50 years old but what you are adding are the less than 20 year old scans. Bank notes are 3 dimensional peices of art work ( they must be scanned from at least 2 angles to show them in 2 dimensions) therefore the scans that you are useing are copywrited to the maker of the scans at the time he made them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadImmortal (talk • contribs)
My naive guess is that that would also apply to these copyrights, but do we actually know what the Indonesian law is for this sort of thing? I agree that there's enough of a reasonable dispute here that Delta cannot reasonably claim a 3RR exemption. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indocopy - to reply to your message further up the thread. The original image uploader noted that the scanned note (thanks for pointing out that) was issued between 1995 and 2008 (check the history). --Errant(chat!)15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to that specific image, the original uploader marked it wrong -- that note was not issued between 1998 and 2005 -- it was issued in 1953. See here : [6], looking for better examples. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I don't think for a moment that Δ is attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Wikipedia is pretty strict on what is considered vandalism, and accusing someone of vandalism when they haven't vandalized anything isn't the nicest thing, and tends to only cause problems. - SudoGhost™15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No that's true, it's a shame therefore that Delta, whose behaviour wih me from the beginning has been aggressive and obnoxious started off by inappropriately calling my Good Faith edits, made prior to registering, vandalism. [7] Incivility tends to breed the same, he uses abusive language [8] threatens people with blocks, destroys people's hard work and refuses to discuss the matter, has made only minimal contribution to the copyright discussion except saying 'no', and then wonders why he gets blocked and people accuse him of 'vandalism'.Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that 50+-year-old images are public domain in Indonesia is something that Delta refused to discuss, having previously reverted the correctly applied PD-Indonesia template. So er, no, no discussion elsewhere. Again, 'missing the point'. Indocopy (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is happening elsewhere regarding the images and their tags, and further your assertion of the inviolability of the 50+ year old images being PD has been contested. I'm sorry you've found people disagreeing with you, but that's part of the reality of a community developed resource. Regardless, WP:AN/I isn't the place to be determining the copyright status of an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I tagged the >50-year images as PD, and Delta reverted this without discussion, and then refused to revert and/or justify when asked to do so. That is not (or should not be at any rate) part of developing a community-developed resource. Hence AN/I was and remains the appropriate venue for signposting destructive behaviour.
Further, the fact is these 50+-year old images ARE PD in Indonesia, that fact is inviolable, and if you believe otherwise, well I suggest you, or indeed anyone else that might agree with you, cites something to contradict the copyright law of Indonesia, which was prior to Delta's destruction, helpfully linked from the images. Because there has been zero, just sweet FA, posted to say otherwise, so what this amounts to is disruption, it's disruptive to say 'x is not public domain' or even 'there is an ongoing debate about whether x is public domain', without providing anything to contradict the evidence that it is, but instead, disingenuously, claim that this should be discussed elsewhere, when there is in fact nothing to discuss.
Now, in view of the disruption caused, which has not been and cannot be justified, I have requested, and continue to request, that the reverts to these PD images be rolled back and we can move on. Of course you seem to be enjoying this pointless battle over a collection of half-century-old demonetised banknotes, far exceeding the attention paid to 99.99% of other images on Wikipedia, including many of much more obviously dubious status, so I daresay you will have a ready riposte???Indocopy (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Indocopy .. I, for one, dispute that those images are PD, and that the copyright is actually gone (the copyright document you linked to is unclear whether currency falls under the group that looses copyright .. or under a group which never looses copyright. And then still .. loosing copyright (or IP, as you noted elsewhere) does not automatically make things public domain). If it is disputed, then the original one may be more accurate. Maybe time to find a specialist to really solve it? And tagging such images wrongly is certainly not the way to go. Things are non-free until proven otherwise. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, indeed. Time to do something about it, Indocopy? --Dirk BeetstraTC09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the items are out of copyright, being 50+ years old, they are by definition public domain. This is really not rocket science, and I do apologise but I've had quite enough of being asked to prove that the Pope is Catholic - I am done here. Delete the images, trash the article, I care not, I will mirror it myself - not a problem, I should have bailed on this nonsense rather earlier, but never mind - it's never too late to say goodbye.
Repeatedly asseting something which others disagree with doesn't mean the they will suddenly sit up and say, "Wow, you're right." You need to find further evidence to prove your claim. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh .. no. First of all, I doubt if currency is in the category of material that loses its copyright after 50 years .. ánd there are other legal laws than only the copyright that protect images and make them non-free (see e.g. logos .. the copyright may be gone, or they may be too simple for copyright, but they are still trademarked and non-free). So I dispute the PD status .. but maybe a copyright expert should look at it.
Ahem. Without checking Indonesian copyright law, if an item falls out of copyright protection, it is public domain (at that time — in some rare cases, copyright protection is later restored.) Whether an item which is no longer protected under Indonesian copyright law is no longer protected under US copyright law is another questions, which the lawyers can debate, but if "Indocopy" is correct as to Indonesian copyright law, the images can properly be uploaded to commons:, and be linked here with little question. Personally, I think Δ is probably correct, but his actions are not exempt from 3RR, and he should be blocked if he's violated 3RR. — Arthur Rubin(talk)04:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, no they are not. Copyrights expire, but trademarks, if protected properly, never do. While there are some restrictions, they are in the Public Domain like patents. Trade secrets are not copyrightable as they have not been published. — BQZip01 —talk14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also can't trademark a picture. An object contained in a picture, such as a logo or design, may have a trademark associated with it, but the picture itself is only subject to copyright. And copyrights, as has been already pointed out, do expire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures with trademarks in them may have trademark restrictions and they may have copyrights as well, but you have to take into account the concept of de minimus (if a Major League Baseball logo is in the distant background of a family photo at a ballpark, Major League Baseball doesn't suddenly own the copyright on the photo). — BQZip01 —talk14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many. Most Wikipedians manage to interact over these issues without generating such drama and animosity all the time. I don't know the answer to the underlying copyright issue, but it's clear, as noted above, that these images were not "unquestionably" infringing, and yet Delta repeatedly reverted their restoration by multiple editors instead of proceeding with a discussion. So I agree there was edit warring here.
The underlying problem is Delta's approach is, and has long been, authoritarian across the board. It's "be bold, revert, discuss", not "be bold, revert, revert, revert..." Believing that your own interpretation is the correct one does not entitle you to unilaterally impose it in the face of legitimate disagreement. And there are few concerns on Wikipedia that are so urgent that they need to be addressed before a discussion takes place.
I get rather tired of seeing the same problems over and over again with editors who do little (if anything) outside of deletion-related activities and can't do it without pissing a lot of people off. So what's the final solution here? My own judgment is that anyone who repeatedly (and justifiably) gets hailed to AN/I over the manner in which they conduct deletion processes should simply be banned from participating in deletion processes. Let the multitudes address those issues who can do it without raising hackles and wasting time. Why not simply ban Delta from image removal and deletion? postdlf (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key question is not "Are these images more than 50 years old?", it's "were they in the public domain in Indonesia in 1996?", to which the answer appears to be an unambiguous "no". Because of this, they are copyrighted in the United States for another 40 years or so (see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, section "Works first published outside the US", footnote 20, and List of parties to international copyright agreements). Since Wikipedia needs to follow US copyright law, the fact that the images may be in the public domain in Indonesia is irrelevant. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no it isn't. If it is PD in Indonesia where it was published, it is PD in the US (that's one of the reasons we signed the treaty in the first place...to make PD in one country PD in all; copyrighted in one=copyrighted in all). — BQZip01 —talk15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As I understand the Berne Convention (disclaimer: I'm a photographer, not an attorney), if examining a copyright in one country when it was granted in another, the copyright is deemed to expire at the earlier limit between countries. If Indonesia says 50 years but the US says "death of creator plus 70 years", the copyright is deemed ended at the 50-year mark, even in the US. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indocopy I think I understand what the disconect is. You keep claiming the 50 year old images are PD, but you are not using 50 year old images. The bank note is more than 50 years old but what you are adding are the less than 20 year old scans. Bank notes are 3 dimensional peices of art work ( they must be scanned from at least 2 angles to show them in 2 dimensions) therefore the scans that you are useing are copywrited to the maker of the scans at the time he made them. Copyed from above to a current conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadImmortal (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bank notes are 2 dimensional (that they have a front & back is irrelevant). As mentioned above, a scanned in version does not attain a new copyright. — BQZip01 —talk16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, derivatives of copyrighted (or previously copyrighted) works do not attain a new copyright. Otherwise, anyone could just take a picture of the Mona Lisa and claim copyright. - Burpelson AFB✈17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Wikipedia got in some trouble about doing just that (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/). The issue is fairly simple - is there any creative work in making the image of an object. If you paint a car, then your painting has creative work in the use of style, perspective, colour, and so on, even though the car itself also a work of creativity. Equally, if I photograph the Mona Lisa, it's probably not going to look as good as a professional photo, even if we both use the same equipment - again there is creativity in lighting, choice of angle and so on (although I believe under US law there is no secondary copyright - this is a UK Law). That said, sticking a banknote or even something '3d' like a coin under a scanner has no creative force whatsoever, anywhere, and such images are public domain if the item being scanned is likewise public domain. 86.173.175.206 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative works of copyrighted works do create a new copyright, assuming the changes are sufficient to be considered "creative". Atempts to create accurate reproductions of copyrighted works do not create a new copyright in the US (see Bridgeman v. Corel), but the situation in the UK is unclear. As a concrete example, L.H.O.O.Q (a derivative) was copyrightable in the US, but File:Mona Lisa.jpeg (an accurate reproduction) is not. --Carnildo (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think a couple of the notes date back to 1945 so were PD in Indonesia in 1996. Also, there's a possibility all the notes were PD right from the start, see Commons:Commons:Licencing#Indonesia. I certainly think the date of any photography or scanning is irrelevant. But are these issues being discussed in a copyright forum? Certainly, for this forum, no one should have been edit warring. Commons is a less vulnerable host for these sort of images, I think. Thincat (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why are there all those 'public domain in [country]' templates in use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, taking advantage of the shorter terms? 86.173.175.206 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is because international copyright matters are too complex to be comprehended by the human brain. On Commons, where people are more thoughtful than here and where there is less marauding, see Commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works but even there you will see the templating policy is not coherent. Just to avoid any doubt, I am unable to understand these matters, just like everyone else. Thincat (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Flying Fische vandalizing templates despite three warnings and two previous blocks
Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates [9][10][11], and despite two previous blocks for this offense, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today [12]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't "vandalize a template", he removed it. No way that deserves an indef block. Seems like you're both accusing each other erroneously of vandalism. Calling him "old boy" and "old chap" is condescending. How about you try discussing this with him reasonably and not stalking his article creations? Fences&Windows18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, he seems to be editing in good faith, but has run up against overzealous speedy deleters who don't have the ability or patience to improve articles or talk to new editors, so instead he's faced a series of rather robotic speedy deletion nominations and harsh template messages. Fences&Windows18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides seem overly zealous, particularly given the insults and vindictive defence of various biographies. Mephtalk19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is neither a content dispute nor a personal one, but strictly a policy issue. He has been warned several times about removing templates he disagrees with and he has been blocked twice, with increasing duration, for those offenses [13][14]. If his behavior was sufficient to merit two blocks from two different admins, and since his behavior is continuing despite every warning and every block, then he certainly merits a more serious block at this time. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the canvassed admins, I note that the edit at issue is not vandalism, and the cleanup tag Flying Fische removed had little merit to begin with. I see nothing patently objectionable in Flying Fische's recent edits and suggest that this request be dismissed. Fences and windows has given Flying Fische useful advice about notability and such. Sandstein 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further note. He's deleted another template since I opened this AN/I [21] and is contentiously bragging about it [22]. I wish somebody would help with this problem. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding! George Taylor (botanist) is massively notable (FRS, knighted, director of Kew Gardens, lots of coverage), to suggest that his removal of that notability tag is wrong is bizarre. Tags are not holy objects. There's nothing contentious about that removal, and if you insist there is perhaps it is you who is being disruptive. Qworty, please try to help improve articles rather than tag bombing them and trying to get them deleted regardless of their potential. Fences&Windows01:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But from someone who doesn't know anything about the Royal Society or Kew Gardens, the article says he's a botanist who seems to have held a job at some gardens. The refs (at the time, before the obit) where to a paywall protected Who's Who article and a single line citation on a related organisation's website. I understand about stubs (but tagging stubs with how to improve them is surely to be encouraged, not punished or be abused for doing so), I understand that maybe if you don't know about the area, then don't question the experts, but surely the answer is to STATE IN MORE DETAIL WHY HE'S NOTABLE - ie what he did, awards he won etc etc, not just remove the tag with an abusive edit summary. Fix the problems, stop attacking those who think that the articles are still lacking. It was a notability tag, not a CSD A7 tag - there is a big difference. The-Pope (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Something to him. Yet again a problematic editor might get away with it because those who try to clean up the initial mess don't do it absolutely by the book. User:Flying Fische is best described as the boy playing soccer who picks up the ball or the basketballer who decides that he doesn't have to dribble. When a foul is called, he abuses the refs, pointing to the goals he's scored doing it his way. He has to learn that being mentioned in Who's Who, Debretts or being related to someone famous does not automatically equal notability here, and it isn't some Thatcheritic attack on the elites.(That's what he said!) By all means warn those who are "forum shopping", but it isn't worth a block and don't think that two wrongs mean that the first wrong can be ignored.
F&W's offer of mentoring is a good idea, but I've already tried a couple of times[25], [26] to discuss it with him, outside of templated warnings, with no acknowledgement or change in behaviour. If FF didn't swamp us with multiple articles on largely unreferenced barely notable people he wouldn't have been swamped with deletion or cleanup tags. If FF didn't respond with insults and borderline abuse everytime he saw one of those tags, most of us would have moved on to editing other articles by now. Which is what I know intend to do. The-Pope (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty's complaint regarding Flying Fische was made with respect to his recent edits, not actions taken a week ago. Is there any evidence that he's still creating bad articles or removing legitimate maintenance templates? Chester Markel (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Flying Fische's recent comments at AFD and in edit summaries have certainly been less than civil. He could certainly be blocked, for a limited period of time, for that, but Qworty would have to be blocked as well for the same reason. Chester Markel (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors who were previously involved in the issue can be notified of discussions without it being canvassing as we will make up our own mind as to how to respond. If I had seen an improvement in FF's editing behaviour, then I would have said that here. Continued bleating about canvassing appears to be yet another tactic of deflecting blame away from the originator of the problems. The-Pope (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose 72 hour block
Canvassing administrators, and grossly misusing BLP unsourced and notability templates on an article with several reliable sources while accusing the editor removing them of vandalism [28] is ridiculous. I gather from the discussion above that this isn't the only case of Qworty's maintenance template misuse, or frivolous vandalism accusations. A short time out will hopefully promote better behavior. Chester Markel (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are not punitive. Simple, courteous warnings would be sufficient and probably produce the desired effect. Mephtalk03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but this doesn't invalidate my response or indicate that I wouldn't have commented here otherwise. Pointing this out isn't helpful or meaningful. I've been watching Flying Fische's behaviour for some time regardless. It seems that as more people become involved in this dispute, the more bans are requested.
On WP:CANVAS, the guideline states: 'The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing.'
Qworty's campaigning has been noted here, and appears inappropriate, but no request or warning placed on his talk page. Mephtalk04:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it's literally true that Qworty hasn't been warned on his talk page, he's been warned in the thread he started in this noticeboard [30][31][32][33]. Unfortunately, the simple, courteous warnings didn't work [34][35][36]. In my opinion, it's now time for a sterner approach. Comments by people Qworty canvassed certainly do not indicate a lack of consensus to block him for canvassing (or incivility, and misuse of maintenance templates.) Chester Markel (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any block of less than indefinite length is premised upon the belief that it will promote better behavior upon its expiration. It does not therefore follow that any time-limited block is a "cool-down block", or that an angry user cannot be blocked. The policy you link actually states that
Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.
In summary, time-limited blocks in response to persistently inappropriate behavior are acceptable. The community does not need to wait until an editor either tires of disruption, or misbehaves so badly that he is blocked indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meph is correct - it was remiss of me to fail to post an informative message about canvassing on Qworty's Talk page, and I'm happy to accept it as having been in good faith but misguided -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A block would prevent disruptive tagging &c of new articles and prevent Qworty scaring off the better kind of new user in future. Yes, there are barbarians at the gate trying to add all kinds of crap to the encyclopædia; but when somebody starts making decent good-faith contributions, we don't want them beaten down with tags and accusations too. The canvassing and forum-shopping suggest somebody who wants to get their way at all costs, rather than someone willing to compromise and go along with consensus if the community doesn't agree with them. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing/admin-shopping was totally unacceptable. However, since it was done quite openly I can only assume that the editor did not realise it was unacceptable. That being so, to block without previously having warned would not be reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the actual topic
In the 36 (?) hours since this ANI was openned, FF has made over 200 edits. In amongst those generally acceptable edits, however, have been about 5 or 6 article creations, with only one having more than offline/who's who/paywall protected refs, a warning for a contentious page move and a few abusing/insulting edit summaries and talk page comments ie [37] so he still doesn't fully accept WP:NPA or WP:V and still believes that we should just trust him and trust in inherited notability and that wikipedia should be a genealogy tracking site. However this edit is the most concerning and shows he has little regard for WP:BLP either. So, do we continue worrying about canvassing or try to fix the real problem? I note that his only response to the F&W mentoring offer was to attempt to use it to stop those trying to fix the problem, not any acknowledgement that he's done anything wrong. The-Pope (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also had some issues with Flying Fische's edits and have just been informed of this ongoing discussion. He has been adding what I consider to be genealogical information to articles, and re-adding it when challenged. I put it on the talk page and had advised him of the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_T._Barlow . But rather annoyingly, he is listing any edits he does not like as vandalism. I have not removed the contentious information as that would run foul of the 3RR. However I feel my stance is justified by consensus and would like other input.--Dmol (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is poor behaviour all round. Flying Fische is creating far too many articles, which are clearly selected because the subjects are descended from Charles Darwin (have we all heard of him - just checking) or Mervyn Peake etc. They are sloppy & often do not express well the notability of their subjects to the uninformed editor - and unfortunately he has now attracted a posse of pretty uninformed and AFD/tag-happy editors who follow him around, which must certainly be very irritating. Also unfortunately, the articles he develops the most are on the least notable subjects, & a couple have gone at AFD. I suspect that when he knows the subject is indeed "massively notable" he only does 20 words & stops. And he has a ratty attitude, mostly expressed in edit summaries. But I suppose he still counts as a newbie, and he is being bitten. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newbie?? He's been here for 5 months, made over 800 edits and created over 50 articles. Have a look at the first few messages on his talk page, back in January [38]. A welcome, a "please supply references", a "abide by the MOS" and a general question, then his first "dispute/edit war", about not following the Dab page MOS. He completely missed the point of the request, completely arrogantly dismissed the other editor's concerns because he simply believed that he was correct. If this discussion was being held back then, then sure, we're biting the newbie. But now, it is a simply case of the fact that he doesn't believe any of the wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines apply to him. His bizarre comments on many AFDs concerning "liberal idealism", "social conservatives" and Thatcher's policies, coupled with his reliance and wish to duplicate Who's Who and use of genealogy tend to indicate that he sees his edits as holding up part of a class war. Or is this just my convict/colonial/republican background talking? The-Pope (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the situation is exacerbated by inappropriate SD tagging of biographies that do assert a credible claim of notability, e.g. a significant award. Granted, the sources may need improvement. However, the moment I tagged a non-notable organisation for deletion, a wave unfortunately followed. Flying Fische reacted with an attack: [39]. Mephtalk18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas
After [40] and then [41]Terra Novus (talk·contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".
Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [42] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism.
Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy'sblog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes."
I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement-- NovusOrator01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing of Trinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )
This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making falsepromises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process. – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance. – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept mentorship and support unblock per above conditions. Could Sarah possibly clarify whether she is seeking an immediate unblock (ie time served), or the month block she also mentions, which would be June 9 or thereabouts? --John (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been uninvolved in this dispute entirely up until this point, but I am highly concerned about the statement in her unblock request which states "Given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists." Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the "English" as a monolithic, anti-Irish people is exactly what got her into trouble in the first place, and the fact that her unblock request contains a dig at the inability of anyone English to edit neutrally regarding Irish nationalism seems to me to show that she has no desire to change her ways. Indeed, if she can't avoid commenting on the English in negative ways even long enough to make a simple unblock request, I don't hold out hope for the change in her demeanor necessary for reintegration to the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to place a bold !vote here, but I am very concerned that she has not learned her lesson. --Jayron3202:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must comment here before this gets any further hyperbole added. I read the statement differently Jayron; to say it is difficult for an English person to be neutral about Irish nationalists in light of the implied reference to the Troubles and earlier conflicts is not prima facie as you wrote "treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" at all. It simply acknowledges that neutrality, one way or the other, is difficult to maintain in discussions regarding the two countries together among persons on either side. Your characterization of her calm observation of the situation as overly prejudiced and judgemental is exaggeration. Sswonk (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is difficult to maintain in articles about nationalist conflicts, on all sides. The fact that she singles out the English as being the problem is the issue here, and it is an issue because of her prior background. Every person does not get to start every day of their lives as a tabula rasa. She has a history that must be considered when trying to understand her statements. I'm an American of French Canadian and Blackfoot ancestry, I have no horse in this race, and I have never commented on nor been involved in any meaningful editing or discussion on the topic at hand. But she is not any random person making a random statement on the difficulty of editing in nationalist debates. She a specific person with a specific history of making specifically inflamatory statements about a specific group of people (the English) and that her unblock request itself makes another statement about "The English" specifically is a specific cause for specific concern in this specific case. The fact that she has a history of being unable to avoid making derogatory comments about the English means that statements she makes about the English needs to be understood in the history of her prior behavior here at Wikipedia. --Jayron3203:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In nearly all contexts past and current her beef has been with the acts of the British Empire, not with the current population of English people. That is why I mentioned that your reaction seems exaggerated, what you are writing is not what she meant. The statement that garnered the most attention before was about the application of the concept of being a "British Isle" in light of the history of famine, plantations and so on that is widely remembered in Ireland. She spoke specifically about the word "British" in that context, not about people. That situation is kind of like the fight against flying the Confederate battle flag over the SC state house that was fought by the NAACP and others, but not really comparable just reminiscent of the types of long held resentments that were evident in the US South where rebel symbols were used. The Anglo-Irish situation can and will be resolved, the visit by Queen Elizabeth certainly has been an encouraging sign of the prospects for reconciliation. At any rate, I still submit that you are misconstruing her words, I do not see anything like "she singles out the English as being the problem"; rather she acknowledges that as many others have here her block, described as "infinite" by the admin, has some issues when it is made by someone who prominently displays the English flag on his page. I don't see that as an indictment of or a "singling out of" all people English, but a statement in appeal to others to not judge her as she felt she was at the time the "infinite" block was made. I and others successfully argued that she was not to be characterized as a "racist" in the block log summary. Surely John has advised properly that she might consider NOTTHEM, I just hope to explain to you that again, she is being misunderstood and is not a one-dimesnsional bigotted, hateful person as that blocking statement seemed to say. Nothing like it, in fact. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. You'll find that I already pre-agreed with you there; which is why I was the one who changed the blocking statement to remove the word "racism" from it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#Sarah777_log_entry_reason for some background and check the block logs (Floquenbeam later changed my change accidentally, not because he disagreed with me but because he essentially edit conflicted with me). So don't tell me that I am treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person as noted in the first blocking statment since I was the one who changed it to remove the word. Before you tell me that I hold an opinion, could you let me know so I can actually hold it before you give it to me? That would be great. In the future, please become informed with the details before you accuse someone of the exact opposite of what they have actually done. --Jayron3204:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is another example of what I am still concerned about, which is that you seem to make negative assumptions about people fairly quickly. Not only, Jayron, did I know that you had been the first to alter the statement, I also know the rest of what you are trying to lecture me about. Nevertheless, I am somehow ignorant and accusing? I need you to shout in bold letters at me that I don't know the history of this sorry case? Your change was from "racism" to "nationalism", please point out to me exactly how simply being nationalist is blockable. I am repeating, there is a distinct and important difference between "she singles out the English as being the problem" and what she wrote. "The English are the problem" is not what she wrote. To me, it was more like, "I don't think a block against me which used such hyperbolic terms as "racism" and "infinite" came from someone with a neutral stance, and given the history between the countries it is understandable this person is not demonstrating complete neutrality with those exaggerant words." Several other people have noticed the same disconcerting and obvious facts, and some implied that a block by a non-English person who wrote calmly would have held much more water. How you or anyone can write things like "Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" equals what Sarah777 wrote in her unblock request, and then in the same thread claim you are under attack by me when all I did was point out your characterization is a fairly substantial exaggeration of what she wrote, escapes me. I am not interested in making people lose their temper. If that is what the truth does to you, there is nothing more that can be said which would make me interested in discussing this with you Jayron. It is as kneejerk as the original block summary to paint me as accusing you of anything, I did not "tell (you) that (you are) treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person", but that I don't want anyone else to do that based on what you already misrepresented above. Please for your sake read and read and re-read what I wrote so you can see that I do not want exaggeration and misunderstanding of words to be accelerated here. Period. I will leave it to some of your colleagues to get you straight on that, I am done. Sswonk (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself highly sympathetic to Sarah's position, but I read her response exactly as Jayron32 and I agree with his assessment and share his concerns. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point. I would argue that HJM's block gave an appearance of possible bias, but per NOTTHEM Sarah's unblock request should mainly concern her own behavior, something she has clearly made efforts to do. I think I would favor her serving the month's block then returning under mentorship and editing restrictions. I've made a request at her talk that she refactor the block request. --John (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree as a non-involved user. If she's unblocked, the topic ban should be "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Let her write about African heads of state or cheese or automobiles; she's a very good writer and there are many topics that could use her talents. --NellieBly (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the topic ban would need to be more precisely delineated than "in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Otherwise, there will be arguments over whether particularly expansive interpretations are appropriate, such as the claim that the ban extends to the United States as a former British colony, or China because of the Opium Wars, or the Hong Kong situation. Chester Markel (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What of the proposed editing of automobile articles? I assume that fully British brands such as Jaguar or Rolls Royce would be covered by the ban. What of an article about an American or Japanese manufacturer that discusses its sales in the UK? Is the entire article off limits, or just the portion about that particular market? Chester Markel (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a limit on "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed" would probably be to broad and over restrictive. Sarah777 should be free to edit on areas where any feelings she may have towards Britain will not be tested. Areas that should be off-limits imo should be "Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed" with the added restriction on the named pages (inc talk and project pages) above and any others that her mentor feels appropriate to add. Mtking (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend that any unblock includes an undertaking to not comment (good, bad or indifferent) on the nationality of any editor or group of editors; nor to characterise any edit as being motivated or otherwise influenced by race. While she has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past, I think her main problem in this area is that she doesn't seem to understand which statements will cause offence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with Sarah777 so I can't rule out that she has made "undeniably racist statements in the past". However, in the present situation there have been no such statements, and the accusation is a pretty damning one. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I must ask you to provide diffs. HansAdler17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For evidence of previous racist statements please see the large number of diffs discussed at length in the several previous discussions about Sarah777. Those comments are in the past and have all been dealt with at the time. I am explicitly not making any new allegations against her, because she has not made any recent racist comments that I have seen. This was the point I was making. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vague pointing to past discussions will not do in this case. I searched the AN archives for "Sarah777" and "racist", and could not find anything relevant. Given that in this case she has been accused of racism for the flimsiest of reasons, it appears necessary to be very careful. You may have noticed that I have not !voted below. It is important to me whether Sarah777 is actually a racist, or whether this is yet another case of British or Irish editors being unable to distinguish between nationalism in the Anglo-Irish conflict and racism. A racist is historically someone who believes there are distinct human "races"; in the modern sense the term also implies the belief that some such races are in some sense superior to others. Which "races" has Sarah777 distinguished, and which does she consider superior or inferior? HansAdler19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While what you describe is definitely racism, as has was discussed recently (although not necessarily on this page), "racism" is also in modern usage applied to nationalities as well as just "races" and splitting the two was last time described as "wikilawyering" (although not by me, I agree with the sentiment). When one person engages in behaviour or speech that is excessively nationalist and denigrating to the Irish that is rightly described as racism, and so is the same when the target is any other nationality or race, including the British. If there is a term in common usage in contemporary British English that describes the same behaviours as racism against race as applied to nationality then I am not aware of it. It is this latter in which Sarah has previously engaged in. Relevant diffs are in previous discussions, where they were relevant. They are not relevant now as this discussion is regarding whether, and if so under what conditions, Sarah should be allowed to return to editing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously furious about this response. While I strongly disapprove of both nationalism and racism, there is still a huge fucking difference between them, and referring to over-the-top anti British rhetorics by an Irish editor as "undeniably racist statements" is not much better than the nationalist rhetorics itself. Yes, you are right about what this discussion should be about. Into this discussion you have introduced a serious accusation to which you declined to provide concrete evidence, and now you have admitted that you can't provide evidence because it's not actually true. The word undeniable was a lie, apparently, because most people would deny, and for good reasons, that anti-British sentiments by Irish people are a form of racism. It was seriously misleading: Up to this response I seriously considered the possibility that Sarah777 is actually a racist and I just missed it. I guess I could now call you a racist for considering British and Irish people to be different races (as Sarah777 denies that they are different races the idea must be yours)? And I guess it would be wikilawyering to insist that I stop? HansAdler23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin. They all come under the heading of incitement to racial hatred or race discrimination, both of which can be translated from the legal to layman terms as "racism". The lack of distinction of the two is for many reasons, one of them being that the term "race" has no agreed meaning, and is often considered a discredited concept in itself. To disparage an entire nationality is racism in this sense. I suspect the U.S. has a different concept, and seems more concerned with defining "race". To describe Sarah's comments as racist is therefore reasonable, although I accept it is also reasonable to say they are not racist by other definitions. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This response is so stupid that it almost left me speechless. For discrimination laws in the UK, see List of anti-discrimination acts#United Kingdom. For hate speech laws in the UK, see Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom. If you actually follow the links, you will see that the latter are a subset of the former. Even if you meant "race discrimination" it's still two different though related things. And both of them are different from, though related to, nationalism and racism, so it's not even clear why you felt the need to bring them up. Here is a very simple exercise. Associate the example sentences with the correct characterisation:
(A) "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (B) "According to your resume you grew up bilingually in English and Spanish. Unfortunately this does not fit into our company philosophy, which is to use the English language exclusively." (C) "I hate Canadians because they are all liberal atheist bastards with no respect for our flag." (D) "In terms of intelligence, the Jew is comparable to the Ukrainian, which makes him more dangerous than the nigger."
(1) Nationalism. (2) Racism. (3) Hate speech. (4) Discrimination.
Only a moron could get any of these associations wrong. This is as elementary as distinguishing between houses, tents and camping vans. HansAdler00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could be annoyed by you calling me a moron but your post is so idiotic it's more funny than anything. The issue is not the consequence of the categorisation (discrimination, "hate speeach" etc) it's the lack of distinction between "race" and national identity prior considering the complained of act. I don't need to look up the WP articles you cite - it's my day job. Before touching the key board you need to get a better understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really claiming you can't do this simple exercise? Presumably I must believe you now that the UK legal system is conflating these four different terms because you say you are an expert. But how far does this go? Suppose you got William Wolfe as a client because someone persistently called him a racist. Would you tell him he doesn't have much of a chance in court because everybody knows he is a member of a nationalist party? Here we are not in a British court of law, arguing highly technical legal points. (The Race Relations Act specifically defines the term "racial group" as "colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins". This is a legal definition and far broader than the natural language meaning of the term. It does not define "racist" and "racism", but instead uses less common word combinations such as "racial discrimination", to which it also gives unnaturally broad – from a natural language POV – definitions.) Here if someone writes that someone else is a racist, the majority of readers will understand it as saying that the person distinguishes between human "races" and discriminates or hates on that basis. I would not want to work in a project in which it is considered OK to label Irish nationalists individually as racists without making it clear that one is using hyperbole, in the same way that nobody should be allowed to label a specific editor as a Nazi for parading the English flag on his or her user page. And in the context of a ban discussion about a user who cannot defend herself because she is currently blocked this is particularly egregious. HansAdler15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My God, I think you've only now just got my original point: "This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin." You don't like it; you think that's not what "people" think racism is. I don't agree and the evidence I gave is how this is treated in law in UK (and most of Europe). I'm done here. And next time you think to call another editor a moron make sure you've understood the point first. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose her request. Her apology is limited to "the Nazi flag/union flag comparison" and "the pointy edits made on the contentious BI naming dispute". She doesn't apologize for her other crude anti-British remarks made at the time, which is what really got her into trouble in the first place. It seems to me this is either half-hearted or she's missed the point. She then adds "given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists", which confirms she's not going to change IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rules for Sarah - WP:TL;DR on the rest of the commentary above (sorry; I've read other threads before) - but if the editor is unblocked, I stipulate that she must submit to ban on anything to do with The Troubles. The comments made by her were flatly unacceptable. She was entirely manic concerning the subject (I have Irish blood in me, but seriously, can we chill out a bit? The whole thing is bad enough to make Polandball cringe). Additionally, Sarah must not ever mention the citizenship/nationality of another editor if it is either British, Irish, or somehow related. She must not speak derisively of the citizenship of any subject whatsoever, broadly construed. She must not bring her battleground to Wikipedia, broadly construed, enforceable as a block by any non-involved admin (and not to be overturned without significant community consensus). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock Sarah has given assurances and has apologised for her transgression also the mentorship by John who is an admin in good standing can only be a plus to the project as Sarah has made thousands of good edits on articles not related to The Troubles. Mo ainm~Talk09:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock, with the restrictions already described, and a great mentor. I think Sarah is a productive editor with positive intentions, but is (justifiably) angry about the way her people were treated by Britain in the past, and sometimes that anger has spilled over in some places and some ways in which into Wikipedia editing, where it is not justified. Regarding the comment about it being difficult for the English to understand the way Irish nationalists feel be properly neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists, I did not read that as an attack on HJ himself. And though extending it to all English was too much of a generalization, I think it is at least in large part correct - most English, at least, most I've discussed the issue with, don't seem to me to really understand Irish nationalist feeling (and that's not any denigration of them - it's something that can't really be grokked unless you're close to it, and we did get decades of one-sided media coverage about "The Troubles" in England). As a disclaimer, I'm part English and part Irish, with family in N Ireland, and I have both unionists and republicans amongst my friends (though none is strongly in either camp - most just seem to want some kind of peaceful life) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct my representation of Sarah's statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC))(editied again, for clarity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The pages and disputes that have got her into trouble recently are not about history, but about naming issues, that essentially revolve round COMMONNAME etc, and trying to balance worldwide naming in English with the particular concerns of some Irish Nationalsts. Encouraging her to bring her "anger" into these matters is not helpful at all, not that she needs any encouragement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting anything remotely like that, I'm saying exactly the opposite - that bringing real-life anger to Wikipedia editing is *not* justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if any are the conditions of her unblock? they need to be clearly laid out here before users can comment - personally imo her presence in any English, Northern Ireland, Great Britain or United kingdom associated article only adds to the battlefield mentality and she should be edit restricted from any of those articles. note' - Irrespective of this discussion and any additional conditions imposed here. Sarah is already indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, for this [43] (and surrounding sequence of edits), and from British Isles and its talk page for this [44][45], which was pure POV trolling and baiting. Additionally, for the persistent pattern of battleground rhetorics and hate speech displayed in edits like this - and blocked for one month[ from Template:British English for one month. diff. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock. Although the unblock request contains exactly the sort of attitude (albeit toned down) that got her blocked... topic ban & John as a mentor get the thumbs up from me. --Errant(chat!)15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock with the conditions - topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and John as a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock but also agree that the conditions must specifically include the current indefinite bans as well as the specific areas mentioned by off2riorob (even if they overlap). Without that I don't agree to the unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to unblock as long as the topic bans are strictly enforced. (I'm not saying "support" because I'm unwilling to go that far, but this may be taken as a non-objecting opinion.) Heimstern Läufer(talk)16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the fist unblock request goes, the backhanded attack on HJM shows she still doesn't get it. The broad brush attack on the 'the English' shows she still doesn't get it. Her personal/political prejudices are irrelevant, nobody here is interested in them and nobody has to be subjected to them. It's not her playground frankly. She needs to state clearly and without ambiguity that she accepts as a truism that on Wikipedia, having a particular nationality does not mean you are incapable of making neutral admin actions, or of writing neutrally about any topic. This has been her problem forever frankly - a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of 'writing from the NPOV'. Her beliefs would disqualify even Jimbo from contributing to an Irish article (he once said that if he hadn't been born American he would have liked to have been British). Also, on the whole issue of a topic ban - check, and double check, the proposed wording. Her suggestion of "anything that comes under the Troubles" is completely insufficient - she is the person who once even turned the issue of how we disambiguate Irish and British road articles into an alleged part of the anti-Irish Wikipedia conspiracy, flinging out all the usual attacks and smears. I suggest any restrictions be focused on simply the issues of undesirable behaviour, not just banning her from certain topic areas (although that also will clearly be necessary for several basic article sets). As she notes though, she doesn't tend to edit much outside of Irish geography, so a 'broadly contrued' topic ban on Irish topics would simply be a complete ban from Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported an unblock under strict conditions (topic banned from everything to do with Britain, Ireland, British Isles, British Empire widely construed) but I cannot support unblocking a user whose own unblock request should've resulted in her talk page access being revoked. User:Sarah777 was blocked and topic banned from anti-British remarks. Her block was extended indefinitely because she made further personalized anti-British remarks. And now her original unblock request[46] repeats the same behaviour. Sarah777 has had years to learn how to communicate civilly and appropriately, and I see no benefit to community in unblocking Sarah777 until she recognizes that behaviour as unacceptable herself--Caililtalk21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she has done, or else I would not have supported the conditional unblock (ie a return to the status quo before HJMitchell's inflammatory block). I also think it's a little disingenuous of you (or did you genuinely not notice?) to talk about Sarah's original unblock request with the adjective "now" when it was made at 01:38, 21 May 2011, your post was made at 21:02, 21 May 2011, and yet at 15:59 Sarah had responded to my request to refactor her unblock request. So, let me get it straight. You are opposing unblock because you didn't like a post that she has already refactored, thus implicitly recognizing that it was inappropriate, right? I would disagree with this, as blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If you feel that she deserves punishment nonetheless, perhaps this will be assuaged by her submitting to a month block, indefinite topic ban and mentorship? --John (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are beyond the stage of implicit acknowledgement of her past failings and future obligations. She needs to be explicit on both. Even refactored, her current request leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, aswell as in the specifics like the boundaries of this topic ban which she seems to think would only be "anything that comes under the Troubles". As I said above, this leaves questions like for example does this prevent a recurrance of her past misbehaviour in completely tangential areas such as road article naming? The last thing we need is a situation where she starts making some edits in an area she sees as completely uncontroversial and nothing to do with her definition of the Troubles (and thus, not pausing to clear it with you as the proposed mentor), and someone else reports her. The ensuing 50 pages of wikilawyering and accusation/counter-accusation is the exact kind of Sarah777 centric nationalist drama we do not need frankly, and which is what HJM was trying to put a full stop on due to her past record showing that no, she's not going to change. He's not daft, he knows he cannot impose 'infinite' blocks, but he also deserves the basic respect of having his concerns properly, and crucially explicitly, addressed, before anyone else unblocks her. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John don't mis-understand me, I am not outright 'opposing' but I cannot support an unblock request from Sarah777 that she needed to be told should be refactored. She has had 4 years to get the point about incivility in general and anti-British remarks specifically. Maybe I'm being a bit of a wonk here but in my view under the Fameine RfAr ruling on Sarah777's conduct her talk page access should have been revoked and the request declined because of that. But I'm not going to labour the point - I'm certain she will be been unblocked conditionally here, but I wont support requests from Sarah777 that are anything less than explicit (from their very first posting) in evidencing that she's 'got it'--Caililtalk15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unblock I have been reading Wikipedia a lot longer than I have editing it. In the early days one source of constant amusement were the low level hoaxes and "in-jokes" weaved into many articles on towns & villages in Ireland. I noted that it was User:Sarah777 dilligently clearing these up time after time. It would take a lot of convincing that this editor is not an asset to the project, although by the same token I'm sure she wont be missed on the handful of articles mentioned above (...sorry Sarah). Since User:Sarah777 made her comments, the Queen has laid a wreath and bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance, a memorial garden in Dublin dedicated to the memory of "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom". I am sure everyone will lighten up in the future. MacStep (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The history and politics of the aforementioned countries
All topics occurring in, on, or around the group of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe
Note: Common sense applies; a violation of this particular restriction will be handled via a warning first, as it is somewhat open to interpretation.
The dispute regarding the geographic name of said islands
Sarah makes changes to her own behavior to reduce the battleground environment
Sarah ensures all her editing is conducted in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion.
Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.
Needs tweaking in several areas. Topic banning her from "Ireland" broadly construed is, as has been pointed out above, effectively equal to banning her, and history isn't really where she's had the issues. See my alternative proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah is free to change mentors subject to the agreement of both mentors. Any change in mentor should be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page and on WP:AN/I.
Sarah is indefinitely topic banned the following articlespages: ["articles" changed to "pages" 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
Sarah's mentor may add such pages to this list as they deem required. All such additions must be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
Sarah is also indefinitely banned from the following topics, broadly construed:
Anglo-Irish relations
The naming of the group of islands comprising the islands of Britain, Ireland and geographically and politically associated smaller islands.
The political status of the islands in the group collectively or individually
Irish nationalism
Sarah ensures all her editing is in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and explicitly agrees not to engage in battleground behaviour
Sarah agrees not to comment on the nationality or race of any other editor
Sarah agrees not to comment on any perceived national or nationalist motive for any edit.
Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.
All editors are reminded that the pages and topic areas listed above may become contentious and are cautioned that standards of civility and policies regarding assumptions of good faith and no personal attacks will be strongly enforced. All editors are further reminded that civility is a two-way street and any and all behaviours that are seen as "baiting" another user to break rules will be dealt with firmly, up to and including by long-term blocks in cases of repeat or egregious cases. [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
I'd be more in favor of a broader restriction and then slowly chip away at it as she shows a willingness to edit in accordance with policy, but this one might work, as civility is the primary issue, and she seems to get into civility issues on the topics listed here. My concern with allowing her to edit such things as Irish roads is she'll use them as a platform to get in digs against the topic-banned areas, and additionally other editors might bait her into violating her restrictions, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence I would prefer to remove her from the entire topic area. If she can focus on her own behavior she has a chance, if not I suspect she is close to exhausting community patience. N419BH18:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I debated including something about the naming of articles where there were similarly or identically named articles in the UK and Ireland (which was the issue I saw with regards roads) but couldn't come up with any decent wording. I wouldn't object to adding that in if you can come up with something suitable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see two changes before I could support :
Yes I agree with them and have added them above, making a couple of other minor consequential changes, all clearly marked. I've also added a paragraph at the bottom that is intended to incorporate the sentiments of the #Community context section below. It might be of benefit to develop a template (a specific version of the contentious topic template perhaps?) with a similar note and place it on the talk pages of the relevant articles? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here done that with Sarah already. On 27 May 2008, Sarah was blocked indefinitely for similar issues. She was unblocked on that occasion (after a similar period to now) after after promising to undergo mentorship. Despite this, it was necessary for the community to employ topic ban restrictionsfor any article that Sarah "disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Now, there we have the latest fuss. Her behavior means that she has lost the confidence of the community. For this reason, she should be indefinitely topic-banned from areas where is cannot collaborate with others.
For those reasons, I propose the following for Sarah:
Two-month block (from the date of the original block);
Indefinite civility mentorship;
Indefinite topic-ban from British-Irish and Troubles-related articles
However, Sarah's behaviour is not unique. There is a common thread of incivility and nationalist name calling on British- and Irish-related article. Addressing Sarah alone demonises her but does not address the wider culture of incivility and of dividing editors in to nationalist camps. It is that culture that escalates to the kind of behavior we have seen from Sarah. The community needs to take action on that culture and a decision on Sarah needs to address that context in order to genuinely address the problem.
Therefore, in addition, I propose that the community make a statement against incivilility and all forms of nationalist labelling and name calling on Troubles-, British- and Irish-related articles. Editors who engage in repeated incivility on these articles or who engage in nationalist labeling or name calling should receive similar escalating blocks, civility mentorship and topic bans.
We need to make it clear that this kind of behavior is a serious breach of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Civility is not optional. Maintaining and developing collegiate relationships between editors is essential to the project. Sarah's behavior damaged that. However, she is not alone and this behavior needs to end. --RA (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are proposing is a community-enacted 'zone' (for want of a better term) of zero-tolerance of incivility, with this zone extending to all topics in the field of British-Irish relations, specifically including the The Troubles, broadly construed. Am I correct? Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In effect, yes. This is an area of heightened tension (but not the only one). It is crucial that editors maintain civility in this area because otherwise things can quickly get out of hand. I have seen editors become increasingly lax towards civility on these topics. In fact, some editors strike me as not even trying to be civil anymore. Eventually, this blows up into mayhem as tension builds up and ill-feelings fester.
It is also extremely off-putting to editors who want to contribute to these areas of the project but are put off by the combative nature of the area (even on sometimes the most innocuous of things).
The community recognizes that topics relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland can present particular challenges to editors. In particular, the community acknowledges:
Their fraught nature
The diversity of perspectives among editors and reliable sources
The personal importance they have for editors
The significance of words and symbolism in describing them
However, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and requires the efforts of many editors to be written. Contributing to Wikipedia demands that editors work in a spirt of collegialism and with mutual respect and civility. Incivil, uncollegiate and/or disrespectful behavior is damaging to the project.
Therefore, the community enjoins editors contributing to these areas to:
Maintain a high civility when interacting with others
Show respect to other editors and to other points of view
Work in cooperation with other editors
At all times, avoid making comments that can be seen to divide editors into opposing camps
In particular, editors should avoid remarking on other editors' own perspective(s) on issues of nationalism, identity, etc.
Editors who breach this community sanction, should first receive a warning on their talk page from an uninvolved administrator. On subsequent infringes, any uninvolved administrator may impose any of the following restrictions in an escalating fashion:
Civility restriction
Probation
Topic ban
Editors are expected to be able to demonstrate that they have attempted to amicably resolve incivility issues through contact on talk pages before reporting breaches of this sanction. The venue to report breaches of this sanction is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Administrators responding to reports of breaches of this sanction are enjoined to treat breaches of it with seriousness.
Restrictions imposed under this sanction may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All restrictions imposed under this sanction (including warnings) are to be logged at: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/UK_and_Ireland _incivility_log.
It's a big long-winded and I'm not precious about the precise sanction or the wording. It is the enforcement of a spirit of collegialism and civility in the wider community context that I am interested in. --RA (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the justification for an arbitration case and has many things that sound like arbitration remedies and procedures, just without the case having happened. I see absolutely no plausible benefit of this community sanction, given it doesn't contain anything that isn't already basic policy, and isn't already actionable after being reported to ANI or having been properly passed through other DR venues. I personally have seen many such reports just shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action, or even no substantive independent comment at all, save the usual meat puppets turning up to say the usual unsurprising things. The one such area of specific community sanction recently, BI naming, has had a very distinct game/lawyer-tastic flavour to it, while doing absolutely nothing to further the goals of ensuring a quality & respectful editing environment about which you speak of, let alone ensuring basic NPOV is respected. I simply don't see how this is going to change that, or focus people's minds any further than they already should be. It's not news to anyone, not least the admin corps, that the area of this topic is an ongoing source of dispute & policy violation. I for one agree that certain editors have been guilty of most or all of the above in this topic area, but you'd probably be flabbergasted to learn that I think one of them is you. I'm having a hard time getting you to acknowledge basic things like how un-"cooperative" it is for you to be making a proposal, recieving valid & detailed objections, and not responding to those in anything but the most policy lite personal opinion assertive or accusatory terms, and then simply returning to make the same proposal 6 months later to see if the 'consensus has changed'. The only way forward is either increased admin oversight in the areas, or an arbitration case, which if it found evidence for any of the above as a general theme, would punt violations into the field of arbitration enforcement, which is shall we say, a rather less volunteer driven process as regards getting someone to actually say yes that's a violation, or no, go away. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On your point that none of the above isn't actionable already, I wholly agree. Unfortunately, like you say, "reports just [get] shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action". At this stage I, personally, wouldn't even consider reporting some of the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith that I (and everyone else) receive. Nothing would come of it. If anyone did respond, I think I'd just get told to grow a thicker skin and stop coming to ANI with drama. And that's the problem: incivillity goes unchecked and consequently it is rampant and endemic.
That is the point of what I am proposing: no more shuffling off into the archive in the sky. Civility matters and these issues need to be addressed. I'm not precious about how it happens and at least the two of us agree that something has to happen — whether it is increased admin supervision or (another) ArbCom case as you suggest, or something else. --RA (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incredibly wide ranging proposal - there are probably thousands of articles that are in some way connected to the UK and Ireland - 99.9% of which will never see any sign of Troubles or British Isles naming nonsense - to wave a vague threat of sanction over all these articles and all the editors who edit them is not helpful - are you going to ban someone for making an edit to say The Goodies (TV series)? The behaviour of the few editors who cause this problem should be dealt with by normal admin means - not by punishing everybody else.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nigel Ish. And furthermore this is veering off topic. Consensus above is to unblock per the conditions laided out by Mting. RA, proposals like the above are not going to fly. The vast majority of users on wikipedia understand and abide by WP:5 and need nothing else. The minority who can't need to learn how to, but if they can't it's their problem--Caililtalk00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I protected a version of a page that Kronikerdelta (talk·contribs) did not agree with. This often happens, per WP:Wrong Version. When I replied informing the user of this, his response was to make a threat diff.
I am not a sock and the only threat I made was to go to other editors to get a page fixed correctly. But f*ck it, no one here gives a damn about the truth. If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest, however since you have been informed of the truth and have not taken corrective action that does not bode well. δiji.broke.it.05:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Which individual are you, Kronikerdelta, refering to? Because I have done nothing one way or the other here. I'd like to be able to look through this case as a neutral observer, but you, Kronikerdelta, haven't informed me, Jayron32, of anything. I still haven't looked at anything, but have you tried to provide sources to back up what you are claiming in this case? Because Wikipedia is quite interested in the truth, insofar as the truth can be verified because it is reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not so interested in The Truth, which is usually reserved for information which is The Truth because someone asserts that it is The Truth. So, which is it: is this verifiably the truth, or is this The Truth? I'd like to know before I invest time in trying to help you if it would be worth my effort. --Jayron3205:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wow... I was about to come back here and say something to the effect of "give the guy a chance. It seems like he's just peeved about having the page protected."... and then you post this. Oh well. Hasta la vista. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by Kronikerdelta, in combination with the original response cited by Cirt, appears to be a legal threat. I suggest that Kronikerdelta be blocked indefinitely, per common practice in this situation. Chester Markel (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Someone saying they will "take action" could be interpreted various ways (e.g. simply bringing it here), but the one you cite (you beat me to it) leaves no doubt. Block him and explain the NLT policy - but also check and see if he has a legitimate beef. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor also made this much clearer legal threat: [48], I've asked them to retract the statements or risk being blocked for violating WP:NLT, and also warned about the civility issues this editor seems to be having. Dreadstar☥05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I blame the damned page loading problems...and now an ec as I was posting this: "I see my diff is a dup of one mentioned above, I'm thinking it's blockable..." Dreadstar☥05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kronikerdelta now states that he won't retract the legal threat, because his comments never constituted one[49]. Making legal threats on behalf of third parties, such as his "I'll tell the school, and they'll sue your pants off" claim, still seems to violate the policy. Chester Markel (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about the block. I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between someone making a legal threat along the lines of "I will sue you", and someone informing/warning editors that an article contains libel which may result in someone else taking legal action. While the first diff posted by Cirt was closer to the former, even though there was no mention of it being a legal threat (just that the editor "will take action") the last diff ([50]) wasn't - he clearly stated that he was not in a position to take legal action, but he would be informing the school of the situation.
Part of my concern was that the article did contain libel. It made an incorrect statement about the institution, which was specifically denied by the source as it currently stands. And given the nature of the statement, the institution could have potentially lost a considerable part of their income if the Wikipedia article was believed. It has been corrected, but the version that was protected represented a real problem. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is allowed to post here. OK, so the alleged "libel" was an apparently incorrectly sourced statement about restrictions on the school. Obviously, it needed to be corrected. That does not excuse the tone of the user. Legal-sounding threats are forbidden because they're an attempt to intimidate. If there are concerns about facts, those concerns can be stated without raising a legal threat. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the region, libel can, or so I understand, cover more than individuals. But I don't like the term, anyway. The real point is just that the material was quite serious in regard to St Matthew's, as stating that people who complete their degree there will be unable to practice in the UK was a big deal. While I generally agree with you, in this case it wasn't incorrectly sourced, so much as a false claim, that could have significant impact on the institution, and one which was denied by the source being used. Thus I can see why the user was so upset, especially if they were in some way connected with the organisation. - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Bugs: Just making sure it's not just for admins to mostly offer thoughts. Lol, my dad (a corporate attorney) sees fit to remind me of the definition of libel as well as defamy every time I mention a controversial topic I am editing xD (I saw the previous edit, and yeah, I know that's for everyone, but just sayin'). Yeah, he really could have tried a much softer and more friendly approach. That last bit seemed to me like "alright, you won't do what I want, so I'll get these guys to make you do it." Very rude imo. Though he was right that it could have been damaging to the school's ability to get med students from the UK as most people would probably look the school up here first. @Bilby, well doesn't Wikipedia go by the laws of the state of Florida? Yeah, the UK is especially a big deal as this uni is in a dependent territory of the UK (Cayman Islands), and so probably relies on the Home Island for the bulk of their students. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a side comment, but I've recently had to enquire about the legal status of additions here. Although you're right, it's worth remembering that individual editors operate under local laws. So if I added illegal content, the Foundation might be safe, but I wouldn't necessarily be. Anyway, this is a bit of a diversion, and I'm not really concerned about whether or not the material, as posted, was legally actionable. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't release the identities of editors unless they had to though. =p I think if worse came to worst, a representative would just contact Wikipedia about the error. I don't think you'd have these guys take the Foundation to court over it (unless they could prove that it had actually harmed their ability to get students, they had a good legal team, and the Foundation didn't have a good legal team to get them to settle or just go away). So that whole issue has been corrected then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!09:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation will release the identity of an editor when ordered to by the court, as would any such organisation. Nevertheless, I'd rather not rely on pseudo-anonymity to allow editors to post illegal content, whether or not they could get away with it. :)
The article has been fixed, so yes, that's great. My concern is different, though. WP:NLT is good policy. But in this case, the user didn't seem to be personally threatening legal action, but trying to inform editors that the information was libellous. Indeed, he specifically stated that he was not threatening legal action, because he was not in a position to do so, but that he would be informing the institution concerned - and it was that last statement for which he was blocked. His actions were understandable, his annoyance was understandable, and blocking him under those terms (and only then fixing the problem) seems like a bad sequence to follow. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, back to the article, please? I think there's a legitimate complaint here that's being overlooked. The source cited ([51]) has two listings, one is Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Belize; another is Primary medical qualifications which may be accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Cayman Islands. Since this school we are talking about is on the Cayman Islands, why exactly are we restoring - and protecting - a version with a highly questionable statement? T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Bilby, Kronikerdelta originally stated to Cirt: 'Cut the crap and get this factually correct or I will take action against you and the other editor. There is no debate, this ends now,' which is unequivocally a specific, directed threat. Certainly, he later qualified this statement to suggest that he merely intended to inform the institution, but he also went on to accuse several editors of lying and malicious editing.
My point is that the first comment wasn't necessarily a legal threat, and, as you point out, he later qualified it to say that it wasn't. At which point he was blocked for making a legal threat. There is a problem here - if we are going to interpret "making a legal threat" as "making something that we could interpret to be a legal threat, even when specifically denied by the user", and rely on that interpretation to make blocks rather than address the problem raised, then we have a significant problem with how we're using the policy.
We need to think about it from his perspective. He corrects a serious problem in an article, is reverted, told that he inserted false information, is immediately taken to an SPI case based on the one edit, and then at every point he is stopped from fixing it by people who continue to focus on his growing annoyance rather than the problem causing it. I'm not surprised he overreacted. The best way of ending this would have been to fix the article before it went too far. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your points, and agree that it could've been fixed earlier. However, Kronikerdelta asserted that material was defamatory, and would've resulted in legal action if s/he were to inform the institution ('If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest' and 'I'm going to inform the administration of the school that this foundations representatives (namely you) are acting in bad faith in producing libel about them.'). S/he thus qualified their initial complaint, and suggested instead that a third party would take action, with their assistance. This assistance simply reaffirms the actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. Best, Mephtalk12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume good faith, looking at this from the editor's perspective, both statements are reasonable. There is significant incorrect content, that the user is being prevented from fixing. So the first point is valid. When no one does anything, but instead attacks the editor though AN/I and an SPI case, it is clear to the editor that no-one will tackle the problem. So the obvious next step is to inform the institution of the problem. If we continue to react by blocking upset people when they have a valid concern, rather than looking into their concern, on the grounds of making legal threats when they haven't actually done so, then we have a long-term problem. I'm not sure what I want done. But I'd like to think that next time this arises someone will speak for the editor before it reaches this point. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question the guy was making legal threats. NLT is not about whether a threat is "legally" a legal threat - it's about an attempt to intimidate other editors. And that's exactly what the editor was doing. Very appropriate block. He has the constitutional right to bring legal action or to try to get someone else to bring legal action. But there is no consitutionl right to edit wikipedia, and if someone threatens legal action in some way, shape or form, they are not allowed to edit wikipedia until or if they fully retract their threat. Meanwhile, if the source about the school's restrictions turns out to be a good and valid, i.e. verifiable source, then it can be used in wikipedia, whether the school likes it or not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs is 100% right here. The spirit of NLT is "Editors shall not use the threat of taking action outside of the confines of Wikipedia to force others to accept their preferred version of articles" or perhaps "Editing decisions should not be made under threat of actions to be taken in venues outside of Wikipedia". The issue with this user is they resorted to these external threats "If you don't change the article to read like I want it to read, I will take some action outside of Wikipedia", a clear threat he made immediately before his block. Editorial decisions should be made for editorial reasons, not because someone is willing to take extraordinary means to force through what they want forced through. Whether or not the editors preferred version is "right" in the end is irrelevent; NLT is about behavior, not content, and this editor's behavior was clearly over the line. It was a good block. --Jayron3219:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where do you draw the line? If someone says "this is legally actionable, and I think it should be removed before a third party, not connected to me, takes action", is this a warning, or a legal threat? Your reading is that it is a legal threat. Mine is that I'm damn pleased that someone is taking the time to try and explain why it should be removed. Had someone listened, rather than attacking the editor, the editor would never have felt that it needed to be brought to the attention of the institution.
This is creating a second chilling effect - any mention of the possible legal consequences of editing an article can be seen as a legal threat, and someone can be blocked accordingly. At least next time could someone try and address the problem first, rather than watching it escalate until they feel justified in making a block? Blocking instead of fixing the problem damages wikipedia. Fixing it would have improved things, and maybe gained a contributor. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mention of a potential legal risk is not actionable ... but their statements was that "I am going make the schools administrative staff aware of the problem." [52] That is not "mention of the possible legal consequences", but instead direct action to facilitate legal actions.
It is a clear legal threat. Whether threatening to take action themself, or threatening to take the issue to someone else who can take legal action - the intent was clear: either do it their way, or else legal action will be taken - it was legal intimidation directed at other parties in a content dispute. See WP:NLT#Rationale for the policy - it's clear that their actions had the intent to cause the specific problems the NLT is intended to avoid.
Had someone told them about standard DR processes, maybe they would have. But thats's not what happened. Your reading is viable, but taken from a different perspective there is a completely different interpretation of what was said. At any rate, there is nothing to be done. It's just disappointing that we chose this path instead of addressing the problem, and only addressed it after the event. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Venting after being treated that way was, of course, a massive surprise and in no way understandable. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a particularly fair argument. Again, all I hope is that next time we consider finding a solution before we seriously upset and block a user. There was a better, and simpler, approach to this, but we didn't take it. Something I was pleased to see you supported above, so thankyou, and I respect your view - my wish was that we could have checked for a legitimate beef first, because if it was legitimate and fixed, the editor would have been more inclined to step back. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a little light reading, here's a related, interesting link with information about Wikimedia's stance on the defense of editors: [54]. Dreadstar☥22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user Kevorkmail constantly enters war of editings on article Yerevan. War occurs because of the area and the population of Yerevan city. I give the area and the population given гоорода with fresh sources, that is the information of 2011. And Kevorkmail cancels my editing and spreads the version which is displayed in a following kind: At the city of Yerevan the population ostensibly 1,111,300, and the area 227 km2. That information and that source about area of Yerevan which gives Kevorkmail, concerns ten years' prescription. Logically even it is possible to understand that for 10 years the square of the city can increase several times. And its source into the population account concerns 2008. It is possible to understand that for 2 years some thousand children and the population because of it can be born can increase. And my source from National Statistical Service of Armenia for 2011, in which it is said that the population of Yerevan makes to 1 121 000, and a area of the city 300. Kevorkmail for similar infringements has repeatedly been blocked, but after its unblocking, it has again begun war of editings. We discussed it on page of discussion of article Yerevan, but it all the same continued to do vandalism. And even after him has warned Shadowjams, he continues to do war of editings from others IP 78.100.17.127, you can be convinced of it on the basis of last editing of article Yerevan. I ask to block Kevorkmail is termless and to make recoil of its editings to my version. ArmOvak (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edits are not vandalism as Wikipedia defines it; this is a content dispute. What you need to do is discuss the matter with the other user on the talk page of the article and decide which sources are the best and the most up to date, and then use those sources to update the article. There have been no edits to the article talk page since January and I can find no record of a discussion. Please do that first before you come here asking to have someone permanently blocked from the site. Please note you are required to inform all parties that you mention on this discussion board. I have done it for you this time. --Diannaa(Talk)14:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just those sources which are inserted by me, are the freshest, and what inserts Kevorkmail, at these a source prescription of 10 years. I think not difficultly even logically it to look. On page of discussion of article Yerevan is available theme User ArmOvak, see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmOvak (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it. But as I already wrote, we discussed it with it on discussion page under a theme "User ArmOvak". It hasn't helped, it continues to do unreasonable editings. ArmOvak (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes, concerted effort
Hi. In response to an OTRS ticket (ticket:2011051110017164), two articles have been deleted as hoaxes: Bam Bamm Shibley (which copied content from a legitimate article) and Dancer (band). The latter was created by Feelgood4life(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log). The former was created by Ladywords(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), who also contributed to the hoax on Dancer, editing the article and uploading a copyvio image of Stryper that s/he mislabeled to represent this band. I have cautioned both contributors, Ladywords more strongly, but I wanted to bring it here for review in case my handling of that was not deemed assertive enough. I'm inclined to think that deliberately undermining Wikipedia by placing fraudulent information is about as disruptive as you can get. I don't know if the hoax was perpetuated by a desire for fame or fortune; evidently, there has been a drive to place fraudulent information at LastFM on the band to drive up their profile, with their chief editor there now banned from the site. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you handled it just fine. But it looks like there might be more...
Stairway to Heaven (band), edited by Ladywords (added Bam Bamm Shibley on drums, amongst other changes) - created by User:Ilovewordstoo, which is a suspiciously similar name (currently PRODed) -
Note: The Ladywords/Ilovewordstoo connection might be false - other than Ladywords adding Bam Bamm Shibley to a band article created by Ilovewordstoo, there seems to have been no other overlap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warning might not be good enough. :/ I popped in on a few random articles when I left the notices and saw what looked to be some constructive activity; I didn't notice the evident vandalism in other articles. Some of the edits that seemed constructive on first view are now questionable: this spelling change is a plausibly legitimate mistake, since somebody had already misspelled it elsewhere in the article, but this one is just wrong...and it's been wrong for almost a year (now fixed). This may have been a self-corrected editing test; this edit seems to have introduced an error; as did this ([55]). I can't tell if perhaps sneaky vandalism was going on long before the hoax. Fraudulent use of Wikipedia is always going to be concerning; it raises the question of how we can trust anything that the contributor will do or has done. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, I looked at those edits too, but as they weren't obvious vandalism/hoaxes, I just assumed they were probably constructive - but clearly not. It looks like there's just about nothing else left, and nothing we can trust - I think we'd be justified in a vandalism-only indef block, especially as it has been going on since August 2010 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a major issue with User:DragoLink08 (talk), one which he will never respond to and one that has resulted in his being blocked in the past. He keeps tweaking college sports' templates' color schemes to try and make every one of them have white text, even when white is not a school color. There is no policy on all navboxes' titles needing to be white, and doing so makes the color schemes inaccurate. He also has a history of making a school's secondary colors its primary ones, and vice versa. He had been told to stop many times, refused to do, never acknowledged anyone, and then been blocked (see his block log) to try and force his hand at responding to gain community consensus. Instead, after the block, he created the account User:Dranzer13 (talk) to try to make it appear that he was a new editor who'd never been blocked. I brought the Dranzer13 account to a Sockpuppet investigation which resulted in that account being permanently blocked.
User:Killervogel5, the administrator who blocked DragoLink08, said this to him while doing so: "If you are able to actively participate in discussion about your edits, you may use your user talk page to do so until your block expires. I sincerely hope that this short block will clarify things for you and ensure that you discuss your edits in the future, especially when requested to do so. If you come back and continue to proceed as before your block, the level of block can escalate, and that's not something we want to see. Take a day or two off and come back with a productive attitude. Thanks."
DragoLink08 has been warned by me many times, other editors numerous times, and a blocking administrator that he needs to stop unilaterally altering college teams' navboxes. A very pertinent coincidence worth pointing out is that the IP 131.204.254.72, which is registered to Auburn University and was blocked on April 28th for disruptive editing, shares an eerily similar edit pattern as DragoLink08 (e.g. sports' teams coach and squad navboxes, Power Rangers-related articles, etc). Now that school is out, DragoLink08 has been more active getting back to his old habits.
I've run out of ideas with this user. What he's doing is more disruptive than beneficial when it comes to college coaches' and college teams' templates, because WikiProject College Basketball and WikiProject College Football have spent thousands of man hours creating and standardizing these to be uniform. Going in and screwing with a basketball template will make it dissimilar from its counterpart football template. He won't respond to anyone, ever, and will just keep carrying on as if he's just trying to "outlast" anyone who cares. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a short blurb from me. I have reviewed this user's edits several times, and it looks like a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. His template-space edits exceed his article-space edits, which worries me considerably. Readers of that link will also note that his edits to talk pages of any type total, at the time of this writing, nine. For someone who's had so many messages left on his talk page, it appears that this is a user who's unwilling to discuss his editing patterns; I won't speculate on a reason why. Disruption by template is not an uncommon theme around the English Wikipedia, and I think this is a classic case. As I'm previously involved I'm declining to give any further input, but I do believe that the user is choosing not to hear, or not to respond to, the concerns raised by others on his talk page. I also hope that this is not a case of WP:DEW in any case. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the sheer number of articles involved, or potentially involved, and operating on the presumption that the editor in question will likely work through a dynamic IP pool, I don't see too many options available for pre-emptive defense of the articles. In fact, only two come to mind at the moment: build an edit filter that prevents non-autoconfirmed users from making the described changes, or Whac-a-Mole(tm). Anyone else have ideas? I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a larger issue here as well, which is that adding random colors to articles or templates means that the color choices can no longer be over-ridden by personal choice using css preferences. Random colors are at odds with wikipedia standards as outlined at WP:COLOR and WP:Deviations. Bad color choices have an adverse impact on people who are color blind or are using a screen reader to read the text. --Diannaa(Talk)17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to now mention that I let DragoLink08 know about this ANI on May 21 at 14:44. He began editing again on May 22 at 02:28, and has since edited another sports template with no justification for his action. An administrator needs to take some serious action, and soon. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I have no problem with this -except he is also removing them from BLPs without any discussion. In many case, FR will have been set on a BLP because of serious libels or complaints, and administrators and others will be watching edits to the articles to prevent further trouble. If someone wants to remove FR from the article, and it has been set for BLP reasons, then there needs to be discussion FIRST to ensure that we don't suddenly expose living people to libels (particularly where the article may have been sensitive - or have been protected due to a valid complaint).
I need administrators to help me go through the recent removals and replace flagged revisions on any BLP from which it has been removed, until such times as we can be sure that it is safe to remove it from that particular article, and in particular at least until the protecting admin has a chance to comment on the article.--Scott Mac17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at the RFC was that FR's was over and no longer available as a protection option. People have been removing it for a while now, usually replacing with semi-protection if appropriate - this appears to be what KWW is doing... so I'm not sure what the problem is? --Errant(chat!)17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that per the RfC pending changes would be rolled back in general starting today, howeverNewyorkbrad also noted that removing it from BLPs without a good look would be irresponsible[56], and I have to agree. I would hold off on removing protections from these articles without a thorough look, which glancing at Kww's contribs does not seem to be given to each article. Semi-protection may not be an effective replacement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at the aforementioned page is for PC to be removed. For BLPs a careful look is needed and it either needs to be replaced with semi-protection or left unprotected. N419BH17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like I'm using a bot or anything here, people: I look at each article one at a time, review the history, and look at the protection state before the trial started. If I see the anonymous edits during the trial have been getting rejected or it was indefinitely semi-protected before the trial began, I'm semi-protecting it. If things have been quiet, I'm unprotecting it. Can people disagree with individual judgments? Certainly. Feel free to change an individual mistake to something you think is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At very least, if an article has been flag-protected for BLP reasons you must contact the administrator responsible. Often semi will do the job. But FR may have been applied for specific reasons, and that needs explored on a case-by-case basis to see if there is a suitable alternative. Don't assume that you can't have missed something with a look for a few minutes.--Scott Mac17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The consensus is to remove BP from all articles. The consensus is to not retain PC on any article for any reason, including failure to contact the administrator responsible, failure to explore on a case-by-case basis, or any other reason. You can keep coming up with new reasons why it is OK to violate consensus all day and the answer will be the same. All articles means all articles. You are required to abide by the consensus or step aside. This is not optional. Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PC: Blocked
Unfortunately Kww has persisted in removing FR from BLPs. I've asked him to stop and others here have expressed concerns. A discussion is needed. I have blocked him for three hours as a preventative measure. He should be unblocked immediately he sees the need for discussion before continuing with a controversial use of admin tools wrt BLP protection.--Scott Mac17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock I don't see the problem, if he's just implementing the RfC, he shouldn't be blocked for it. Disclosure: I've worked on articles with Kww and sponsored his RfA on an earlier, unsuccessful attempt.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above. Serious concerns have been raised with lowering the protection on BLPs without discussion of the effects on a particular article. Kww has persisted without that discussion been concluded. This is not to do with a trial being over, but of a responsible way of changing protection on BLPS.--Scott Mac17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked per his talk request, but urged him to discuss before continuing. After all, his talk page isn't the place for a discussion on the merits of a WP-wide issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that I have been discussing. I've discussed it with Scott on his talk page. I've discussed it above. I've discussed it at the RFC. It's very simple: the RFC concluded that pending changes needed to be removed. Many admins have been stepping through and doing it. I've been reviewing articles individually, and making appropriate judgments. Scott seems to believe that I need to have an individual discussion on each and every BLP and that an individual admin's judgment is not sufficient. I pretty much reject that in it's entirety: it seems to be one more method of heel-dragging to prevent this trial from being switched off. If there's any article that I unprotect that others feel requires semi-protection, go ahead and semi-protect it. If there's an article that I have left semi-protected that requires full-protected, feel free to apply full-protection. That's the available set of choices. When I started this morning, there were 260 articles to get taking off of pending changes. Now there's 172. We can make Friday's deadline if we move efficiently. Individual per-article discussions in advance of each change is not the way to go, nor is not doing it a blockable offense in any reasonable sense of the word.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no individual discussion with admins when semi-protection was removed from BLPs and replaced with PC, and there doesn't need to be any individual discussion now either. The RfC was clear that it ought to be removed, and the admins doing it are looking at each case individually to see whether semi-protection is needed. There's no need to refer in each case to the admin who added PC, who may not even remember doing it. Everyone is equally able to look at the history and make a judgment. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good unblock. Blocking admin should be admonished. Kww should never have been blocked to begin with, especially by the complaining involved admin with a tin ear for the wiki-editors that have !voted. The overwhelming consensus is to remove PC. There is no consensus currently for its use. The trial is over. R. Baley (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid doing that. Kww - I'm sure either discussion here, or an arbcom case (though I expect that to be declined), will resolve how best to deal with pages under PC, at which point we can go back to removing them. Prodegotalk19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is rich. "Not listening". All I asked for was some discussion before mass removal of protection from BLP continued. I was only asking for some listening. I have filed an arbcom request.--Scott Mac19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Scott the following question on his talk page:
"The consensus is to remove BLP from all articles. There is no consensus for leaving PC on any article for any reason, including 'removing PC in a reckless way without proper consideration.' Are you willing to follow that consensus?"
He responded that he was not willing to follow consensus.
Newyorkbrad's close specifically mentioned "that there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible". I don't see what the hurry is for removing PC from articles, and why there shouldn't be time for discussion between stakeholders. Let's do this in an orderly fashion, with due diligence and care for the BLP issues involved, rather than hurriedly. --JN46623:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad asked a question about whether there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible. The answer he got back was crystal clear and the consensus overwhelming that no such article exists, and that in even the worst imaginable case replacing PC with full protection would be just fine - not irresponsible at all. Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PC: Interim Measure
How about all PC'd BLPs are semi'd until the protecting admin makes the final determination. PC is no longer a protection option until community consensus is established with regard to its implementation, and KWW is right to remove it, though I share the concerns with leaving BLPs unprotected. I agree that BLP concerns require protection to be fully examined, though I wonder why we're relying on a specific admin to memorize the reason and don't have a log of this somewhere. N419BH17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This issue of dangerous BLP's; a problem does need to be demonstrated here (i.e. show us some of them) by Scott. I have a quick flick through some of the unprotects and they all seem fine. Requiring that the protecting admin be contacted in each case is pointless beurocracy; in most cases the admin probably won't even remember! Sure, care should be taken of biographies, but I can't see evidence that this has not been the case. Does Scott have an example of a specific problem caused by kww's actions? The block was extremely poor judgement. --Errant(chat!)18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Errant here. So far Scott has claimed that it could be problematic but they did not actually shown any example where it was problematic. Blocking another admin you disagree with like he did deserves a huge {{trout}}, even if Kww could just have stopped doing it for a while. But the consensus at the RFC does not require any admin to check with the previous protecting admin nor to semi-protect all BLPs. We can discuss such requirements of course and if there is consensus for it, we can implement it. On a side note, Scott didn't even leave Kww a notice about this discussion as far as I can see. Regards SoWhy18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection does not monitor all edits. I have two articles which I've been monitoring all edits for BLP issues, Kww removed the monitoring without discussion of the merits of doing so on those articles. With BLPs we don't wait until someone can show a problem, we exercise extreme and particular caution. Simply removing protection, without discussion some attempt at discussion on a particular article is reckless in the extreme. You need to establish that other methods will do fine. That needs at least a check with the admin who set the protection. This is a bare minimum. If you can show that there's no higher risk by an alternative means of protection, then fine. But you can't assume that.--Scott Mac18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure nobody's going to die if a page is unprotected for a little while. RFPP exists for a reason, and everything can be undone. Hell, we even have revdelete now. I don't see why you're making a big issue out of nothing, except maybe you're annoyed that PC is going away. If that's the case, that's something you're just going to have to drop. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to die either if PC is removed from an article on Wednesday rather than on Sunday. --JN46623:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been ten months already. Three more days, then seven, then two more weeks... Where does it stop if we don't stop it here? Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the phone. This is not some trivial content issue to be shuttled away to some obscure page. It has been made clear, countless times, that BLP's are of very high importance. This so-called "consensus" seems to mock that alleged importance. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same issues are discussed at the talkpage of the linked sitewide, heavily-advertised, just-closed-with-firm-consensus RfC. And had those opposed to Kww's actions been paying attention and participated there, we wouldn't be throwing this drama party. Skomorokh18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did you stop beating your wife? Your reply bears no relation to my comment, which is simply asking people to keep the discussion in one place so as to forestall chaos caused by admins trying to enforce contradictory conclusions. Skomorokh19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Baseball Bugs has a BLP concern, he can address it by removing PC from all BLPs and replacing it with full protection. That would prevent any possible harm to the BLPs while still following the clear consensus. It is unacceptable to propose a limited-time trial of PC and ask people to approve it as a limited time trial, only to refuse to remove PC after the end of the trial because "BLP concerns are of paramount importance." It is even more unacceptable to ignore the clear consensus - a consensus that carefully considered the BLP issue in detail -- for those reasons. BLP concerns existed long before the limited-time trial, and nobody has ever made a case that PC is the only possible way that BLP concerns can be addressed. There is a clear consensus to not leave PC on any article for any reason, including the reason given above. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly lists the exceptions that supersede consensus. "BLP concerns" are not on the list. Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment. My question is, How does consensus apply here? Are BLP's important, or are they not? I've always been told that BLP overrides consensus. On that basis, it is not appropriate to even conduct a vote on the matter. It has to stay - unless BLP is suddenly no longer a priority. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a handful of people decide that BLP applies does not mean it does. Yes, BLP can override consensus, but just because a single admin (or a handful of people) think that BLP applies, does not give them free rein to do as they please when nearly everyone else disagrees with their actions. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, this is pathetic. If you want Jimbo's opinion why don't you go and ask him? But I'm sure his opinion will be the same as always: That this (PC) is something for the community to sort out among itself through consensus. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case where I could detect any BLP concerns, BB, I increased the protection level on the page. The BLP argument is a red-herring. There are good arguments that PC can make addressing BLP issues simpler, but we had WP:BLP around long before we had any implementation of pending changes.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of bios on my watch list, and I might miss something. The PC is a red flag that lets you know someone has changed it. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose PC other than laziness. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the RfC, you won't have to imagine why the consensus is what it is. BTW, the consensus was to remove PC from all articles with no prejudice against reinstating it if there is a consensus to do so. I personally am very much in favor of PC and will vote for it if it comes up in a RfC. It is the violation of consensus that I object to, and the concensus is to remove PC from all articles - no exceptions. Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like a citation for the "paramount importance" claim. Is that an official Wikipedia ppolicy?
An individual editor is not allowed to completely ignore consensus just because in his opinion and his opinion alone it goes against this alleged "paramount importance." Just asserting "paramount importance" without showing that any BLP would be harmed in any way does not give you a free ticket to to unilaterally violate any and all Wikipedia policies. Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hard telling who you're talking to. I'm thinking back to when Wales created this category called "Living people", whose purpose presumably was to raise some heightened awareness of BLP's. I've also seen countless discussions, here and elsewhere, where the bottom line was that BLP violations are not tolerated, regardless of any "consensus". The Flagged Revisions stuff is probably not needed for things like Madonna's latest record album. But it's very useful for Madonna herself, as BLP's are constantly subject to random vandalisms, no small number of which could be considered libelous (and hence could potentially damage the wikipedia foundation) if taken seriously and if not removed quickly. By no longer flagging BLP's, you're making it less easy to observe changes to BLP's. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that's a good thing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment
Whoa! I've worked with a couple of you before and frankly can I state that the behaviour of all admins involved in this discussion is regrettable. Its not a good reflection of the principles of wikipedia. When PC was set up it was made implicit that it was a TRIAL that would need to be removed following the end of the trial. Consensus was established that PC needs to be removed by the given deadline. Challenging those who are working to uphold the consensus sends out a bad message to non-admins and new editors. How can admins then block others for edit warring or failing to uphold consensus when they are seen to be unable to do it themselves. It makes no sense. If certain admins feel that Kww's actions are incorrect then a new discussion should be opened about the application of the removal of PC from bio articles. But the fact this has gone to ARBCOM is a bad reflection on all those involved. I hope you've all got your suits ironed and your boots polished. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]20:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just flabbergasted that this debate is still going on. Again and again, people have said, this trial is over. There are no policies for patrolling PC - there's no policy to say who gets to be a reviewer, or what a reviewer is supposed to do or must not do. Other than the RFC, there's no policy about when articles would be added or removed from the system. And there's no plan for a further test or for full scale implementation. Which makes me wonder when I read Talk:Dustin Diamond and Talk:Barry Chamish, which both say:
Please do not remove pending changes from this article without discussion. It was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article. I am happy to discuss whether this is the best approach for the article, a pragmatic approach to a BLP needs to take precedence over whatever general experiments and discussions are currently happening over FR.
This article has had major BLP issues, and has ongoing problems with edits. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits. The scenario is liable to long term, so absolute prevention methods like protection or semi-protection are undesirable, but the traffic is low enough to scrutinise all edits. I use common sense and the available tools to do what I can for specific articles, and I'm happy to change from this pragmatic approach if someone tells me how using this tool is detrimental to the article in question, or to the goal of encouraging people to improve such articles.--Scott Mac09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now bear in mind that both these articles are subject to Level 2 Pending Changes, where only "reviewers" have the right to accept an edit, not long-time Wikipedia editors. Also bear in mind, as discussed at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt and previously at Talk:Pippa Middleton, Scott Mac has claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from a person who accepted an edit containing reliably sourced material, because he felt that material was "trivial" and not appropriate content for a biography, despite news coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times and other non-tabloid newspapers. He in fact claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from me, simply because I expressed a different opinion of how BLP articles should be handled on the talk page. I don't see that per se as something I could call a violation of policy on his part, because, as I said, there's no policy for how reviewer privileges are given or lost, and I was given them just as arbitrarily.
Nonetheless, the effect now is that we have two articles that Scott Mac seems to be saying that only he, and people whose opinions he is willing to accept, can make changes to - and those changes apparently would be based not on what is verifiable, but some subjective criterion of what is trivial or appropriate that I don't understand. This goes to a whole new level beyond WP:OWN. And I have to say, from what I've seen as Pending Changes winds down to its bitter end, I'm becoming altogether convinced that it was intended as a censorship scheme rather than any kind of legitimate curb on vandalism.
God only knows why I'm replying here, but... I've been a witness to Scott Mac's previous hissy fit on this issue, and now there's this one. Can someone please get arbcom to take his bit now? To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with biographies. For whatever reason Scott is just not stable when it comes to this issue, and we're letting him run roughshod over all of Wikipedia. You can't work with the guy, since he polarizes everything that he seems to be involved in to the point where everyone has to take sides. Maybe once he's out of the way we can actually do something about referencing BLP articles and improving our content some. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons
By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.
The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:
Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.
As noted by a few arbs, this does not prevent admins from subsequently, even the same admin immediately after, consider in their own appreciation which level of protection is needed, with all due regards to the specifics of the article and in accordance with WP:PP. The reason arbcom doesn't mention this yet acknowledges it unofficially is because they want to appear tough on BLP issues. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Porgers attempting to crack my account
Apparently a user I have previously blocked has been attempting to crack my Wikipedia account. I received emails saying that someone from 67.193.59.152 (talk·contribs) has attempted to reset my password twice. This 3NNR report links that IP address with Porgers (talk·contribs). Normally we don't block random IPs for these attempts, but since this is a known user that has been blocked by me, I thought I should bring it here for discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am providing further evidence that Porgers (talk·contribs) is the same person as 67.193.59.152 (talk·contribs). At User:Porgers reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius you will see Porgers drawing our attention to two User-reported Alerts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see old revision of this page at 18:50, 18 May 2011). Porgers tried to use these alerts as evidence in his favor. By doing this, he admitted that his earlier identity was (and still is) the anonymous 67.193.59.152 . Porgers clearly thought these alerts were relevant to the 3RR case being made against him.
Both these alerts were ill-prepared (just a smoke screen by a disruptive troll = 75.47.157.136) and for that reason some admins just rejected them, which was to be expected. These alerts happened around the time that other suspicious activity by 75.47.157.136 was going on at my Talk Page and at pages where I had differed with Porgers/ 67.193.59.152 . The IP address 75.47.157.136, that made the vandalism complaints against IP 67.193.59.152, has since been found to be an imposter, trying to make it look like I was using a sock puppet. --Skol fir (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is ticklish. My 2p is that before dropping the heavy end of the hammer on anyone, a checkuser should be brought in to verify the connections as a matter of prudence. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, your assumption that Porgers (talk·contribs), as 67.193.59.152 (talk·contribs), was making "constructive" edits—"Looks more like constructive editing to me, based on the articles' Talk pages." (old revision of this page at 18:50, 18 May 2011 -- Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism)—is based on misleading edit summaries that he made, pretending to be following the Talk Pages at those relevant articles, when all the time he was not at all. I know because I read all the Talk related to those issues, and this disruptive editor was just trying to stir up the pot. He had no intention of following any consensus, or of making a positive contribution to Wikipedia.
You should also be more careful in your own edit summaries. Replying to a legitimate concern by Toddst1 that a blocked editor was trying to compromise his account, you used the words “Danger, Will Robinson!” That seems a bit thoughtless to me. I hope it was meant purely in jest, because it appeared to be in poor taste, considering how this investigation has unfolded since then. --Skol fir (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed misread the edits. However, I looked at the actual edits, and in context (and not knowing the source material well), they appeared constructive to me. Please note my use of the word appeared. I cannot interpret intentions, only respond to actions, and those responses must be dictated by what I see and what I've learned in the past. Am I always right? Great Ghu, no. Goethe said it best: "Man errs, so long as he is striving." The best I can offer is to learn from my mistakes. As far as my own edit summary goes, yes, it was intended as humor, and it apparently missed the mark. On the positive side, though, it did cause at least one other person to look more closely at what I'd actually written in my comment, which is a lesson a great many users of Wikipedia besides myself could stand to learn. With all this said, it appears the issue is now resolved, so there's nothing else for anyone to do except apply what's been learned. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying to my comment, Alan. I realize that someone who does not have all the information can misjudge a situation. This issue with Porgers was very clear to me as soon as I saw his pattern. He made edits that he knew would get a reaction, like blanking whole sections already under discussion, ignoring the decision reached by other editors at those discussions. He also made blatantly false edits, pretending he had consulted the Talk Page. In one example I read the entire Talk Page and no mention was made of the issue he had raised with his edit. He had more tricks up his sleeve than most of these pests. As you know, I was immediately aware of the link between Porgers (talk·contribs) and 67.193.59.152 (talk·contribs) because he had been "stalking" me since earlier that day, and I tried to reason with him by reverting edits that were against Wiki policy. That was why I was surprised when you questioned all my evidence pointing to Porgers being a sock puppet of 67.193.59.152. Anyway, I have also learned from this experience. As for your edit summary about "Will Robinson," I did see some humour in that remark, but at that particular moment I was not in a laughing mood. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that as soon as 67.193.59.152 decided he was getting nowhere with me using the anonymous IP, as I had just finished correcting a mistake he made at David Miller, he suddenly created a new account as Porgers. In an edit summary by Porgers, he even referred back to having made edits to the David Miller article. You will see from the contributions of Porgers, that he never edited that article under the name "Porgers." This is more proof that he is a continuation of 67.193.59.152 . I am the editor who has had to put up with his disruptive tactics, and it has been most annoying. --Skol fir (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm Porgers is the IP. Toddst1, you'll be happy to know that he also sent an email to OTRS claiming to be you and saying your account had been compromised and asking to be blocked. I've blocked User:Porgers indef for disruption. --Versageek18:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Geekster! It's clear that this "newbie" is a veteran that knows his/her way around WP if s/he got to OTRS. I wonder what the other socks were. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an infrequent event to find someone so adept at throwing a boomerang, while also being able to take careful aim at their toes with a firearm - it seems that this individual managed it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The miscreant is still at it - now trying to crack my account at Metawiki. Is there any way to put a global autoblock so that he/she can't log in from the IP address? Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone clarify (a) whether or not this is a personal attack – ie. who is it attacking, or is it just an analogy used to make the point that people usually evaluate advice based on its source? – (b) whether or not it is appropriate for it to be removed as per WP:TPO and (c) whether or not it is appropriate that the people removing it are the person who considers themselves to be being attacked and an admin who has previously declared themselves INVOLVED with regards to myself? I am particularly concerned because the only uninvolved admin to have looked seems not to have been too concerned. I would like to clarify that I am not drawing comparisons between Edokter and a terrorist. I was simply using an analogous situation. If the conclusion is that it should not be removed, I would appreciate it being restored, since it is currently deleted. If the conclusion is that it should be removed, I would genuinely appreciate advice on what is wrong with it, and how WP:INVOLVED does not apply, so that I am aware for the future. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implying that someone would like to take advice from bin Laden is a personal attack in most situations, yes. Can you explain how this isn't an exception?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how it would be construed as suggesting one would take or value advise from bin Laden. Personally, I wouldn't have zapped your post, but that's because very little offends me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have further added an apology if my remark was mis-interpreted, but as I have stated, it was only intended to be an analogy. Interestingly, Sarek seems to be treating it differently to Edokter, who says he thought I was comparing him to Bin Laden. Neither was my intention, I assure you. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My God, Treasury Tag, could you just please not argue and fight and complain and wikilawyer and snipe and push the boundaries all the fucking time about everything? When you're fighting and arguing with everyone you come across, and finding the need to start ANI threads about everything, eventually it should occur to you that maybe it isn't always everyone else's fault. Even when you're right, you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care whether you take me seriously or not; that's your choice, and doesn't affect me. You might find it is to your advantage to take me seriously, however, because I have a gut feeling that I am less inclined than many others around here to severely limit your ability to continue to disrupt everything you touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please have a complete topic ban on TT starting these incessant 'requests for clarification' sections on ANI which, shock horror, always turn out to be anything but. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. The recurrent drama achieves nothing - apart from consuming other editors' time, which is a valuable resource on this project. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's either an attack or terminally uncivil, take your pick. It should never have been said, and certainly not re-added. In any case, I agree with Floquenbeam and Mick above. Incessantly arguing about disruption is even more tedious than merely disrupting. Dayewalker (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely support any measure that would reduce the amount of drama-laden threads Treasury Tag starts in order to air their Grievance of the Day against [insert random editor's name here]. My patience, which I used to believe was nearly infinite, has finally warn out with regard to TT's near incessant complaints. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban on me starting ANI threads. I am not aware of any other editor subject to such a restriction, probably because it's a ludicrous idea which prevents the free and fair exchange of views and can only cause more trouble. If people object to me starting threads complaining about the stupid behaviour of some other editors, then they would probably waste less time by (a) not reading them, and/or (b) not typing long comments complaining about drama. Paragraphs such as those which Mick produce do not reduce drama. They increase it. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's everyone's fault but mine". There is indeed a reason that there's no other editor "subject to such a restriction". Can't you even get the slightest hint from all the adverse coments against you every time you open one of these threads? Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a personal attack, it's definitely uncivil and inappropriate, and I don't much care who redacts it as such. Banning TreasuryTag from ANI is an overreaction in my opinion. I'd suggest a WP:TROUT instead. N419BH19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A more adult way to express a dislike of the frequency with which any editor complains about things, is to ignore him, as you would in real life. You don't tape over someone's mouth, you walk away and he either shuts up, changes his behaviour or goes and complains to someone else. It doesn't consume anyone's time if they just ignore it. Note that I am not making any comment on TT personally, I am talking generally. It works for me - I ignore a number of editors that p**s me off and they just go away. If we're going to block idiots, then it's going to be a long job. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake of course is to comment on the general case, whereas all the people commenting here about TT, already know through experience that none of what you said applies to him, or the drama threads he starts here. Even you commented in the thread, to tell everyone to ignore it. If that's not wasting everybody's time, I don't know what is. And while everyone else gets to ignore this nonsense, that's not the case for the 3 people he specifically notified of the important thread he started that involved them. That's not the case for people monitoring this board for replies in threads which do actually matter. This is an admin's noticeboard for dealing with specific incidents. It doesn't exist to simply host an endless stream of pointless crap where TT seeks feedback about an issue he's never ever going to accept anyone else's interpretation of except his own in the first place, and will only make sarcastic reply after sarcastic reply, lawyer point after lawyer point, until yet again someone finally comes to put a bullet in its head and forcibly archive it (often having to close it two or three times as TT won't accept the conclusion). Even if everybody ignored it, that's still a hell of a stupid way to use the Foundation's server space. If you stopped ignoring him and started watching him, you'd see how hilarious it is to suggest that either his behaviour will change or he will just shut up, if we all just pretended he doesn't exist. It's nonsense. The guy is addicted to this sort of timewasting self-centred drama. A topic ban would be like an intervention frankly, a way to save him from himself, rather than ensuring this board remains an efficient incidents needing action board. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing things here inappropriately as a way of continuing to express insults is so totally inappropriate, that I think a block might be in order. In my view this certainly counted as a personal attack, and I certainly am willing to block for personal attacks when they become disruptive. This one was. It's appropriate to stop continuations of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a personal attack at all. It was just a potentially (I didn't examine the full context) valid point explained with a drastic example. TreasuryTag is one of those editors who are definitely causing more trouble than they are worth, and starting this section was a bad idea. But as the TT's complaint is basically justified, this is not the occasion for proposing an ANI ban. HansAdler20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
God, not another one from TT. Per Floquenbeam and MickMacNee et al., TT should be topic banned from An, AN/I, WQA etc. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban on TreasuryTag opening AN/I, AN and WQA threads, support block the next time he makes uncivil comments like the one he's advertising here. Fences&Windows22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TreasuryTag, telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack. That you came here to argue about it tells me you should take a long break from the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I see a number of normally quite intelligent people claim incivility by completely misreading a harmless contribution to a debate. (Not just you but also several people above.) It is pretty obvious that TT was merely arguing that to some extent it does matter who advice comes from. Using an extreme example to drive the point home is hardly criminal. This is one of the few things about which I agree with TT: I am quite unlikely to take any advice from TT seriously, ever. I wouldn't mind an ANI ban for TT, but I don't understand why this can't wait for a better occasion when it doesn't have to be justified with a pedantic, anti-intellectual civility extremism argument. HansAdler23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the context of the discussion. I certainly recognize and acknowledge that one can argue both sides; that TT's comments are or are not personal attacks based on this and that is of course debatable. However, TT's comments were taken as a personal attack by Edokter who expressed his displeasure. TT's comments were made just after telling Edokter, "I don't value your advice in the slightest, nor do I trust your judgement". After this comment, Edokter reminded TT to stick to comments about content not persons, at which point TT told Edokter that he probably valued advice from Osama bin Laden, ignoring the fact that Edokter was simply restating NPA, and it didn't matter who repeated it. Hence, the conclusion this is a personal attack. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re "telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack". TT did NOT tell an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he did, and he did it in the context of ignoring the advice of someone reminding him to avoid personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the very first diff in the beginning of this entire thread. I encourage you to read the entire discussion in its original context. The irony, is that it shows TT saying he won't abide by Edokter's advice to adhere to NPA. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that, but "I am assuming, perhaps unfairly, that you would not value advice from Osama bin Laden," does NOT say that the person in question DOES value advice from bin Laden, and I have read and (I think) understood the context (the "perhaps unfairly" clause may be a little provocative, but it does not necessarily imply your conclusion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated – and apologised for that matter, though everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that – that I did not mean to compare Edokter to Bin Laden (which is the offense he took from it) nor to say that he took advice from Bin Laden (which is the offense Sarek took from it on his behalf). I intended to make a very simple point, in response to Edokter's bizarre suggestion that one should not evaluate advice based on its source. My comment has obviously been misinterpreted, which is unfortunate, and I have apologised, but since I am guaranteeing that its intention was not to be a personal attack, I'm not sure why such linguistic analaysis of it as is being done just above is necessary! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin) Perhaps in part because you apologised after you opened this discussion? The words horse and stable door may be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, I apologised immediately after opening this discussion but before anyone commented (so it wasn't really a discusssion...!) because I was drafting both comments at the same time. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban on starting or commenting on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and WP:WQA. TreasuryTag's uncanny talent for escalating non-issues into dramalanches is disrupting the project by wasting people's time. ReykYO!00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, this ban obviously would not apply is TT is the subject of a thread started by someone else. He would clearly have the right to speak in his own defense. ReykYO!00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure if this is in TT's defense or not, but I would not call his comments attacks. Then again, that is simply because TT takes great care in adding a level of ambiguity to his comments in order to be able to claim his statements are not attacks. Kind of like if I were to say "I'd say you're an idiot, but of course, that can't be possible" (not nearly as refined as his efforts in this regard, but you get the point). On that note, TT, when having not gotten his way and run afoul of others, has, on at least one occasion, admitted to being willing and planning on "WikiStalking" (note the parens, TT) at least one other editor[57]. There is definitely some pattern of behavior here, which I've seen numerous times throughout ANI and TT's TP edits or edit summaries, but I would be hard pressed to define them. With hopes this doesn't add me to his "stalking" list... ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that I would be carefully checking that Sarek didn't abuse rollback (which is a violation of policy) or make inappropriate blocks (which are in violation of policy). Tracking an editor's contributions for policy violations is not wiki-stalking, as clearly specified at WP:AOHA, where it is also noted that false allegations in that regard are a serious personal attack. And don't worry, you're not going to get onto my stalking list for the comment above. You'd have to do something far worse ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a one-year ban on TreasuryTag's participation on AN or ANI, except in threads started by others in which he or his actions are directly involved, or if he wishes to draw attention to an undeniable emergency situation. I do not believe I have ever supported a similar action against anyone, but TreasuryTag's overall pattern of participation on the noticeboards renders them significantly less useful for their intended purposes. (I will note that I have probably had more than my share of disagreements with TreasuryTag on here over the years, so my view can be discounted appropriately.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban from AN, ANI, WQA unless they are named in the thread. Reyk words it well just abovr, these "dramalanche"s are tiresome to wade through. As to the original post, it's wrong anyway, 'cause if you intended to commit a crime against humanity, you would definitely want to think about asking Osama bin Laden for advice, of course you would. Oh wait now, so the analogy being drawn is between TT accepting Edokter's advice and Edokter accepting bin Laden's advice? Which Edokter would only do if he intended to commit what crime? That is an extremely offensive nnalogy and as such constitutes a personal attack. If such continue, then blocks should follow. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The number of TT's ANI threads and the tenacity with which he prosecutes them contributes to the unnecessary overhead here, and have become in essence disruptive. I can't recall one of them ending with a compromise acceptable to all parties, a good indication that it's TT's intransigence -- the only factor they have in common -- which prevents any kind of amicable resolution from being achieved. (When there is an actual issue, that is.) Instead, TT just rails away until everyone gets tired and leaves. TT himself realizes that his ANI complaints never achieve what he started out to do, since he's begun complaining that (paraphrasing) "I don't know why I post at ANI since it always becomes about me." Well, I don't know why he posts either, but it would sure be nice if he was stopped from doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When trying to improve Giulio Clovio biography I was immediately attacked buy one of editors here [58]. This attack was supported by administrator EdJohnston here [59] where EdJohnston, in his warning, throws pointless accusation If you continue your program of 'Italianization' you will most likely be warned under WP:ARBMAC, which covers nationalist editing on topics related to the Balkans. By the reverts I've made I supported Prof. Davide's (Sapienza University of Rome) contribution. My (at the level of a university professor of the European medieval history) full explanation of reasons for support is explained here [60].
The same way EdJohnston attacked Prof. Davide's (Sapienza University of Rome) on his talkpage [61] based on accusations [62] launched by two editors AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 both of which are college students (mathematics and philosophy respectively). Both editors AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 followed tactics of arguing, ridiculing, denying Prof. Davide’s academic approach and knowledge. The same foul language was used against me here [63] and here [64] where we were called idiots and my academic credentials ridiculed most primitive way.
The attitude common to AnnekeBart , Philosopher12 and EdJohnston is based on false accusations against me and Prof. Davide, then on no reading and, even worse, misquoting and misinterpreting the references particular to this topic. Which was fully exposed here [65] and here [66]. My attempt to talk to EdJohnston failed here [67].
The consequences of this irrational acting of EdJohnston are:
undermined credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (‘knowledge’ = invented names(Julije Klovic), use of bad references or references proving opposite to the claimed)
forcing people of high academic credentials to retire (Prof. Davide)
As far as I can tell, EdJohnston's advice is entirely correct, and you should heed it. In particular:
Repeated reverts are prohibited even if you are right, see WP:EW.
Nobody on Wikipedia cares about your, or anybody else's, credentials. That's because we don't engage in our own research here. All that matters is the quality of the sources you cite.
Repeated reverts to change the nationality of something or somebody are indications of an intent to misuse Wikipedia for promoting a particular nationalist point of view and are, as such, normally sanctioned even more harshly than other acts of edit-warring. (That's my practice, at least.) Sandstein 21:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Sandstein for his comments, which I agree with.
The two users whose edits at Giulio Clovio suggested a nationalist agenda were:
As you may see from the ANI thread, Davide41 was edit warring to make Giulio Clovio be an Italian painter, and removing evidence of his Croatian connection. (He was born in Croatia, and there are modern scholarly sources which give well-balanced comments on his nationality which would help us make a neutral statement of the matter). There was no admin action against Davide41, since he made an agreement to stop editing the Giulio Clovio article. But I did block Luciano for 72 hours per the 3RR. When he first began editing at Giulio Clovio I was concerned he might be a sock of Davide41, but I no longer think that. It is possible he is a colleague, because he resumed the same fight and started re-making the same reverts there. Warnings of both editors have been logged in WP:ARBMAC, a case which is intended to cover nationalist editing related to the Balkans.
Luciano continues to object to anyone besides an art historian making any edits at Giulio Clovio. As you see above, he is unhappy that mere undergraduates are allowed to work on that article. I would welcome his continued edits of that article if he showed himself willing to work with others to reach consensus, and would respect Wikipedia's sourcing rules. He should also stop the personal attacks which you can see in the ANI thread. Some of the people on the other side used bad language as well, and they have been reminded of the need for civility. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions that Ed has been attacking anyone by informing zealots of ARBMAC and posting related warnings are just plain silly. His conduct throughout this matter has been in every way exemplary. He's due our sincere thanks for again demonstrating his usual exacting standards of fairness, civility, patience, and calm enforcement of policy. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend closure of this thread. Luciano di Martino appears to be a new user who could use some help. This whole debacle appears to be a major misunderstanding on his part. In my experience, OhioStandard is a good "people person" and I wonder if he might take the time to work with Luciano and help mentor him. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most disturbing thing to me is the fact that all those above defending blindly EdJohnston behavior are refusing to see the facts
foul language used against us (me and Prof. Davide) where we were called idiots, ridiculed our credentials, etc
un-scholastic and false use and selection of the references, primitive understanding of ethnicity, use of forgeries and producing forgeries and attributing them to the well-known historic sources.
lack of basic knowledge about history of medieval Italy and her civilization and culture
arbitrary and irresponsible interpretation of the (Wikipedia) editorial rules
As to the above 'I wonder if he might take the time to work with Luciano and help mentor him', makes me laugh. Looks like, as a university professor, I should accept mentorship of dilettantes who were capable of coining a few meaningless phrases about something completely unclear to them. My students will be acknowledged about this 'discussion' in order to understand why Wikipedia is not more than an uncontrolled garbage collector.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No harassment - I've only always seen EdJohnston act fairly even when others disagree with him. Frivolous report. Your own point #4 about editorial rules on this site is of utmost concern if this isn't to be considered an uncontrolled garbage collector. Doctalk00:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luciano di Martino, do you understand that your attitude is not conducive to clear and effective communication nor getting the result you desire? Si pigliano più mosche in una gocciola di miele che in un barile d'aceto. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No true bill. EdJohnston is enforcing policy; that is not harassment. The block was for Luciano di Martino's actions which are separate from any content dispute and any actions of other editors. As an aside, Luciano di Martino's has not been apologetic about his characterizations; compare to frustration and apology of AnnekeBart. Glrx (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed this section heading since section names are supposed to be neutral and aren't supposed to contain wikilinks. I see from our excitable friend's user page that he's reiterated his attack there, saying, presumably of those who've opposed his wishes here, that Wikipedia is "controlled by people without ethics, knowledge, and responsibility." He also says there that he has "retired" but I think the userpage remarks merit someone taking away his Spiderman suit indefinitely. He can always ask on his talk page to participate again if he changes his mind and is willing to quit being a ... contemptuous person, let's say. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 8 other sections whose titles make specific accusations of misconduct against named users. Why was this the only one you felt it necessary to change? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An "other stuff exists" objection? If you're implying that I made this section heading conform to policy because I've reviewed EdJohnston's conduct in this matter, and believe it to be beyond reproach, and because I felt indignant that the section title chosen by the person bringing the complaint was prejudicial, you'd be perfectly correct. So go do your part: Change the other seven non-compliant section headings to make them neutral, as our policy requires. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question is not an objection. I asked, you answered, thank you for that. Please do not attempt to instruct me what my part in Wikipedia is. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is clearly no longer productive. I've changed the section title to simply the username and am closing this thread. Sandstein 13:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had various unhlepful discussions with wikipedians about unblocking the Macula Risk wiki page
The wikipedians in questions are (in no particular order): Presidentman , John of Reading
, MacGyverMagic
I have sent request from the arcticdx domain to unblock this page and am met with obscure-wiki language that I do not understand and that it too dense for me to learn at the moment. How can you help
Gbelgraver, if you want to recreate the article within Wikipedia policies, probably the best way forward is to write the article in userspace, then request that the article title be unprotected and move the article to that title. However, you first must assure us that you will not recreate the article with the copyright violations that it had before. The fact that you have a stated conflict of interest where the subject of the article is concerned is concerning but not disqualifying. All things considered, Wikipedia prefers that articles about products and companies be written by people who have no interest in promoting those products and companies. However if you want to take a stab at it, let someone know and they'll explain how to do it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post Scriptum I don't really understand why you were advised to e mail anyone for permissions, but I honestly don't see how that would get you any closer to getting your article written. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see now, you were told to e-mail to establish that you had permission to use the copyrighted text from your website. Well, permission or not, I don't think that's a good idea. Creating a Wikipedia article about a product by copying and pasting text directly from the website established to promote that product seems way too promotional to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John,
I have taken a look at pages related to Avastin (generic name- Bevacizumab) and Viagra (generic name- sildenafil) and do not see a difference between the text written there and the text I had placed on the site. Viagra and Avastin are very succesful drugs, and owned by large companies (Roche and Pfizer). Can I please request that you banish their sites too since there is a lot of information there that seems promotional to me? It would be the beginning of a very long list. I only referenced independent academic studies outlining the genes used in an assay, that was described first by an academic (Dr. Seddon in IOVS)
You appear to be saying that the because the text is very similar to a commercially available website, it is promotional. This is the exact same behaviour your colleagues enagage in, and reminds of Kafka-esque behaviour common in Western Europe (and the reason I am so glad I dont live in Holland anymore). You have done something wrong, but we're not going to tell you what it takes to fix the problem, we're just going to tell you it's wrong. It's almost Orwellian, but I digress.
Can you please outline what issue you have with what piece of text? I can no longer see the text (banished like lady chatterley's lover...). I can E-mail you (and explain to you in laymans terms) exactly what each article means. NONE of the text in the articles was ghost-written by corporate writers (a common practice in health care)
It seems easiest for me to create another identity, and just re-write the entire text by sprinkling a few and's, if's, and therefore's in there to obfuscate the issue? Shall I go ahead and give that a crack? I am trying to provide balanced, un-biased information regarding an issue that is needed.
(EC)::There's no reason to block me. I label WikiProject Atheism a hate group based on the nasty, confrontational userboxes proudly displayed on its page. I don't much care whether SnottyWong is blocked, but it's certainly worth noting he's accusing me of something I have not once done. Keepscases (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this insult was issued in an atmosphere of widespread scorn and derision of the views of Keepscapes, at an RfA, which makes this insult needing some kind of immediate action. I don't see a pattern of such uncivility by Snottywong, but I don't like the idea of waiting a day for a retraction/apology. I hope that he would be unblocked quickly upon apologizing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "attacking" or "insulting" anyone, and I certainly won't retract anything. A project with multiple hateful userboxes is a hate group. Keepscases (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I find nothing attacking or insulting about any of the wikiproject atheism userboxes. If any god is real, they will not suddenly do harm to him/her/it/them. Nor do they promote, offer, incite, or suggest violence against any who believe in any god. They (the "worst" ones) claim that all religion is myth. Most have been deemed as such. No true evidence has been presented to the contrary about any; past or present. To claim a userbox calling any religion a myth is an attack would mean one must call any userbox promoting religion an attack against those who are either atheists or believe in a different religion. Keepscases, your comment, OTOH, is of an entirely different nature than the content of the userboxes. Don't try to control other people's beliefs - whether you realize it or not, that is what you are trying, and doing so by improperly "labeling" the wikiproj atheism stuff as attacks. Sorry, atheism exists. It's not an attack. The userboxes sum up atheist beliefs quite nicely. That too is not an attack. Believe what you want. Let them believe what they want as well. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN00:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is welcome to believe whatever they like. "Please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" et al is another thing entirely. Isn't there some rule about not being a dick? Because that userbox is about the most dickish thing I've seen on Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could we focus on the insult left on the page.
"No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in, and nothing could be further from relevant when voting for adminship. No one likes people who constantly refer to their religion, push their religion on others, or publicly announce that the decisions they make are based on their religion. If anything, it makes you look more like an idiot."
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, I have no axe to grind. KS was not violating any religious views as one could argue that "atheism" is not a religion. Furthermore, he was not attacking an Atheist, rather WP ATHEISM. SW on the other hand, blatantly attacked KS and his religion.--White ShadowsStuck in square one00:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about KS' comments. If you have beef with that, create your own ANI thread. Furthermore, SW has had a history with rude, unwarranted and insulting comments on RFAs and relating to them. This is just the latest in a string of personal attacks.--White ShadowsStuck in square one00:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then some administrator should take some action, like leaving a stern notice on SnottyWong's user talkpage or blocking him immediately, especially given this further history of insulting behavior (of which I was unaware). Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) White Shadows: It's about both to me... it's one combined incident. Also, Keepscases labeled them a hate group. I am sure you probably know, but WProj Atheism are a group of people - which is to whom Keepscases was referring to. If I say "the Navy is a bunch of asshats", one cannot in any honesty claim I am not talking about the people in the Navy. Same applies here. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (lost in an edit conflict - to keepscases) I strongly disagree. Even numerous sects of Christianity agrees much of the Bible is myth, parable or example not based in reality. And various sects even dispute Jesus is the son of god (or real, even). If various sects of Christianity believe such and have the same opinion, why can't atheists? Nor is it directed specifically at Christianity anyway. It's directed at ALL religions. You, OTOH, simply wish to censor other people's beliefs and thoughts based on your religious beliefs - your comments were worse than any of the userboxes, but you claim you've no reason to apologize. That's attempting censorship of any view that is not your own so you are free to attack while they are not free to present their views. Again, atheists (rightly or wrongly) believe your god is a fairy tale. That's reality. Live with it. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@Kiefer, here's one from an RFA last summer. This is where freedom of speech has a very fine line here. We all know that SW's comment was blockable and should be retracted or under WP policy, he is to be indef'ed. KS' comments though, are indeed insulting but that is not a good reason to say "don't block one without the other". KS should, if he knows what is best, remove the comment and apologize. Hopefully he does...--White ShadowsStuck in square one00:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really now, Robert? Where have I indicated I want to censor anything? What exactly are my religious beliefs? You are making up what I believe, and then arguing against it. Nice. Keepscases (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (to keepscases)Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you claimed nothing wrong with your attack on human beings who 'are WikiProject Atheism and have no intentions of retracting your statements - BUT, on the other hand can bash others lack or (or different) religious beliefs over their heads as grounds for... whatever? Does that sum it up correctly? It has to work both ways. There's nothing wrong with a single userbox or SW's comments if, your worse comments, also have nothing wrong with them. In you choosing only one side ("they are wrong, I'm not and dont need to apologize" (paraphrased)), you are trying to censor, whether intentional or not, what they can say. You are both wrong, or this isn't an issue. Those are the only two choices I see. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose they are Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism? No-one can accurately claim they are a sect of Christianity and disagree with those things stated in the Bible...but this is still irrelevant...--White ShadowsStuck in square one00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KS isn't trying to censor anything either. He's stated an opinion, not a personal attack. I can say "The holocaust was a myth" and not be blocked...no matter how offensive (or wrong) is it...--White ShadowsStuck in square one01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo WS (the ones you listed), as well as various sects of Mormons, and others who do claim they are Christians. But... (and the "Bingo!" part) now we all see... the userboxes AND the beliefs in question are not relevant. Both sets of posts can be construed as attacks. Both editors should be dealt with accordingly. Now, hopefully we've closed the userbox, my religion is right, no, atheists are right section of this and can deal with the actual subject at hand. Thank you for helping me with that. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm going to be frank here. I call "BS" on that whole comment. None of those religions claim to be Christian....they are totally separate (though partly related in some ways). I was never arguing Atheists over Religion...at all anyway...and once again..this is still irrelevant.--White ShadowsStuck in square one01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(OD) Folks, I think we've gotten way off track here into a theological debate. Calling an editor an "idiot" is unacceptable, and so is referring to a Wikiproject as a "hate group." Warn both editors sternly, and close this thread. If you want to talk religion, do it on a user's talk page. We're at the point where nothing's going to be settled here. Dayewalker (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last bit: I think that stating someone is wrong for having religious beliefs is rude and wrong (A, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God or gods as any objective person will tell you; B, just like any other religious belief, Atheism should not be forced on others), and calling them an idiot in that context is even worse. It was an NPA, but both have walked deep into the muck now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom!01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)This ANI report is misplaced, or at least citing the wrong user as its subject. Insinuating that Lady of Shalotte is a member of a hate group is a blatant personal attack, even if carefully contrived to appear to be indirect. Using RfA to voice such an opinion is totally inadmissible and bordering on trolling. In Snottywong's comment I see a legitimate but off=topic comment that religions may not be based on historical fact, and one more of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar complaints about Keepscases. Where is the alledged personal attack, and who was it directed at? Have I missed something? I suggest we leave Snottywong alone to continue with the work he does for Wikipedia and drop the tone that suggests punitive blocks, in any case: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they should not be intended as a punishment. By contrast, Keepscases' participation at Wikipedia appears to exist solely for the purpose of making a mockery of the RfA process, it has been subject to several discussions already, and it's time for the community to focus on the real issue: either topic banning or blocking Keepscases for constant attempts to disrupt Wikipedia processes and gaming the system with his rebuttals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly I will state that I feel a personal attack was indeed made against me. Also, refraining from comment upon a ridiculous claim is not equal to being unoffended by said claim. LadyofShalott02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Against bans here
I would invite all of you voting for these bans to review Lèse majesté. Are we so opposed to a free and full dialog that we ban people for silly insults? I myself am a Christian and I see some insult in the Atheism project banners, but you might take a look at what the page says -- "Related userboxes - Not officially adopted by this project." Now if we want to get technical, we should go after each person who contributed a supposedly insulting banner, ban them and dunk them in water until they recant, and then permit them back in. If I recall, this is the behavior of a corrupted age gone by in the Catholic Church, among others. Now we see history repeating itself here, where people can't simply disagree, they have to be forced to recant and make up before we permit them in our midst. This is apalling. Why are we taking steps back, in the name of righting wrongs, when those who are most involved aren't even offended? Take a look at Lèse majesté... maybe we need to implement this kind of thing for any perceived insult, I'm sure it can only make Wikipedia tons better. (yes that last line is sarcasm) -- Avanu (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. SnottyWong has not been involved in any ongoing disruptive behaviour and so there is no call for a block. He made a snarky comment in response to a bit of silly overreaction from Keepscases, and you want to make him grovel over it. Not going to happen. Also, I don't think SW has been online while this thread has been open. It would be more fair to give SW a chance to respond to concerns before jumping the gun and going straight for an indef. Seriously, this would have to be the stupidest indef block request I've ever seen. ReykYO!01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. My position is unchanged. The NPA policy says that extreme' personal attacks are often grounds for a block. Note the words in italics. Low-level snark does not in any way resemble an extreme personal attack. A block is unnecessary, and is motivated entirely by vindictiveness and not through any desire to preserve the encyclopedia from disruption. ReykYO!01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have requested similar action against political attacks on Lihaas and David Eppstein: The ethnic/anti-semitic/political attack on Eppstein was immediately blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Also, re-read the NPA policy, paying attention to the word "or".[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is. Surely "often grounds" means that a block is optional and not mandatory. And I do not think it is anywhere near necessary. ReykYO!01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of being motivated by vindictiveness. On the contrary, I have a record of asking for NPA to be enforced when there are personal attacks based on politics or religion, etc. My argument for an immediate ban was based on the derision at RfA, and the community's need to protect a religious minority who is alreay standing alone from being insulted because of his religion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained why, when the NPA policy sets out a range of remedies including merely asking the editor to retract, you insist on going for disproportionate retribution as the first resort. You still haven't explained why any action at all is necessary when neither editor in question seems particularly bothered by it. It's bad enough when editors appoint themselves civility cops over the rest of us without them then immediately agitating for harsh and extreme punishments for the most minor infractions. Perhaps "vindictive" isn't quite the fitting word, but I cannot think very much of an editor who carries on this way. ReykYO!02:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is not an "extreme" attack than saying "I hate all jews and the holocaust never happened" isn't either. This is one of the worst personal attacks I've ever seen on Wikipedia...--White ShadowsStuck in square one02:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You don't see any difference between "I hate all jews and the holocaust never happened" and "I'm not interested in hearing about your imaginary friend"? Huh. FWIW this post did not warrant an instablock, so it's hard to argue what SW said deserves any kind of harsh punishment. ReykYO!02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - other than blocking them both until that happens, this is the best answer. And really, on this subject, things will always get inflamed above and beyond reason... this seems the best solution. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP policy needs to be followed...KS may very well need to retract his comment as well...at least he deserves a warning. But letting SW go (once again) is wrong under WP policy.--White ShadowsStuck in square one01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 3
Proposal Indefinite block on User:Keepscases, which can be removed once Keepscases apologizes for attacks against WikiProjects Atheism, and specifically Lady of Shallote, and commits to improved behavior on his user page and RfA.
Perhaps you should re-read the exchange. He criticized her because of her affiliation with said project, then it's project members for their beliefs (and displaying such). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment: "Indefinite block on User:Keepscases, which can be removed once Keepscases apologizes for attacks against WikiProjects Atheism, and specifically Lady of Shallote, and commits (on his unblocked user page) to improved behavior." Kiefer.Wolfowitz01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Kepscases has been a disruptive element to the Wikipedia for long time. His sole purpose, under any pretext, is the disruption of RfA as a process, and it's time he learned his first lesson. Blocks are intended to prevent disruption. Disreuption also includes doing anything that precipitates ANI reports like this, which is what Keepscqses has done yet again. (Snottywong's comments were simply a reaction to it). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 4
Is this really worth the time? Neither the editor who was supposedly attacked, nor the one who supposedly attacked is hurt by this or particularly offended. Rather than go through a lot of spilled digital ink trying to enforce a politically correct dogma of 'all views are equal', let's allow some degree of freedom here and maturity, and just say "bad dog!", spank with a newspaper, and move on. Legalistic battles like this are fundamentally censorship and grown ups can disagree, even sometimes impolitely, without other editors needing to pull stuff like this. This business about banning and blocking people because they didn't follow some policy *might* matter if those who said and received it were offended, but they aren't. Sadly those two are displaying more honesty and maturity in this debate than the editor who filed this complaint. Let it drop, and simply ask people to censor themselves out of common courtesy, not because you are able to wield a ban hammer against them. -- Avanu (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - SW said something that was patently offensive (describing religious belief as belief in a fairy tale) but I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve here.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Indefinite block on User:Keepscases, which can be removed once Keepscases apologizes for attacks against WikiProjects Atheism, and specifically Lady of Shallote, and commits to improved behavior on his user page and RfA. AND Indefinite block on User:Snottywong, which can be removed once Snottywong apologizes and commits to improved behavior on his user page. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Snottywong does not have a case to answer to (no personal attack made), and even if he did, an indef block would be totally out of proportion and irresponsible. Punitive blocks are out of the question and cannot be used as a threat to force an apology. If SN feels he ever needs to apologise to any individual for anything, I am fully confident that he would do it off his own bat. Keepscases on the other hand has a history of being obtuse and uncooperative and should either be indefinitely blocked this time, with a minimum of one year, for continuous disruption, personal attacks, and POV pushing, or at least topic banned from RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 7
Proposal CLOSE this until either editor (or both) who was supposedly attacked decides that they feel the attack warrants some sort of action through this venue. (not just that they feel it is an attack - BUT that they feel it warrants action) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I agree. People getting upset on behalf of other people and demanding teh banhammerz is unproductive. There is nothing to be done here. ReykYO!02:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can attest that this thread isn't personally helping me build an encyclopedia, can't speak for anyone else though. —SW—yak02:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion.
I wish to bring the attention of admins towards the racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion.
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, the "racist" term refer to your uncalled for bring up of an issue which had been discussed and settle. See comment (3) at below. Arilang talk03:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nope- Arilang1234 claimed that there was " racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", as if I was posting racist comments on the talk page or article- what I was doing was pointing out Arilang1234's record of hurling racist insults at the Manchu people, and Arilang1234 twists it so much he is bordering the edge on outright lying, claiming I am exhibiting "racist....behavior".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to Arilang1234 on what exactly User:Seb az 86556 said- ("Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around.)
Again, Arilang1234, if why did you title this section "Racist... behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", when you were also warned not to accuse others of being racist? Not only that, you offered no evidence of my alleged racism. Wheres my edit where I made racist comments? You titled this thread "Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", accusing me of engaging in racist behavior. As far as I can see, not only have you not offered and proof of that, you were also warned by Seb az, who said Both of you to stop accusing each other of being racist.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 is bringing up straw man attacks and red herrings, and not only are they are straw man and red herring attacks, they are false straw man and red herrings.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[75] From the above diff, it is very clear that I was trying very hard to get editors to join the discussion on how to improve this article under the guidance of WP rules, and how to keep this article neutral. Instead of providing positive feedbacks, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ tried to bring up racial sensitive topics which had been fully discussed and resolved in the past, here.
nope. what Arilang1234 was bring up recycled (unproved and therefore deleted) ad hominem attacks and straw man claims on the Boxer rebellion article, claiming that the communist party was creating a positive portrayal of the Boxers in Chinese high school textbooks. over here, and even claiming that it was marxist, bringing up the black panthers and vietnam war
Benlisquare's comment:"I notice that a lot of your articles have a few language issues here and there," see here, it shows that I am not the only one who had made offer to help improve your English, even though my own English is far from perfect. Arilang talk00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following are ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's combative and un-cooperative remarks:
(1)"very strange that Arilang1234 is suddenly so concerned about wikipedia policy, when he violates wikipedia policy all the time":Quoted from [76] A personal attack against me, because (a) not only Arilang1234 should be concerned about WP policy, all the editors should do so. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is again making false accusation against me, "violates wikipedia policy all the time", when he could not produce even one evidence.
(2)"claiming australia is a socialist country based on his own original research when wikipedia says NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH":Quoted from here ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is bending and twisting WP rules to serve his own purposes, when he knows that WP:No Original Research do not apply on talkpage. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is inventing his own WP rules, a disruptive behavior.
(3)"claiming people are "salvages" (whatever that is), are "stupid", and that entire ethnic groups are "barbarians":Quoted from here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ again tried to stir up sensitive racial issue which had been fully discussed in great depth in 2010 and had since been resolved, see here, and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ had been firmly warned by User:Seb az86556, see here, yet ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose to ignore it.
(Remarks by User:Seb az86556:Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around./Dungane, are you going to stop?)
Again, Arilang1234, why did you title this section "Racist... behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", when you were also warned not to accuse others of being racist? Not only that, you offered no evidence of my alleged racism.
(4)"Arilang1234 himself inserted Mao Zedong/CCP's POV into the Taiping Rebellion article, Arilang1234 tried to make the taipings look like heros fighting against the "evil" manchu qing,":Quoted from here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is trying to distract other editors by going off-topic, when he knows that Taiping Rebellion has nothing to do with Boxer Rebellion.
(5)User:John Smith's commented that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ does not understand the meaning of WP:OR, see hereUser:John Smith's's comment:"You keep demonstrating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's original research policy."
" Quote:"The article actually cuts down too much on what the sources say about the imperialism and exploitation of chinese peasants." End of quote. See here
I fail to see what the Cold war in any way has to do with the definition of imperialism, or with the Boxer rebellion, which happened 45 years before the cold War. This is another ad hominem and straw man attack, by bringing up the "cold war" as ths straw man/attackee in ad hominem.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(7)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ has a habit of spamming talkpage with irrelevant trivial, see here
(8)See here, quote:"several anti China Users" unquoted, another example of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ using bias, non-neutral, Cold War style political epitaph to attack editors he dislike, to turn other editors away, so that he can have monopoly control of the editing.
(8)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ made statements like "the foreigners were paranoid", "they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded.", "trigger happy marines", see here, these statements are 19 century old style anti-foreigners rhetoric, is biased and non-neutral, do not belong on wiki talkpage. These kind of statements only serve to create more non-neutrality. Arilang talk00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, first Arilang1234 accuses me of putting in communist party propaganda, when that was disproven, and didn't work, Arilang1234 now accuses me of engaging "in century old style anti-foreigners rhetoric"- classic example of "throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks"
the following- "they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded", is a factual statement, not an opinion. If a high profile bank robbery occured in real life, and a reliable source stated that "the robber killed all xxx people in the bank", on wikipedia, we would right "the robber killed all xxx people in the bank". We don't sugar coat facts here on wikipedia, if we did, many articles would get deleted. see Wikipedia:Not censored.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit Arilang1234 pulled out, I was talking about a specific section othe article- "Peaceful Chinese Intention", which was sourced by the book "Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling", if we look at the book here, we can see I was using the source when I made my statements about the foreigners being trigger happy, shooting at all chinese near the legations, and being paranoid-
(9)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ made statement like:"(the book claims)that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies", which has a strong anti-Christian overtone, in itself is a biased and non-neutral statement. Arilang talk00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(10)When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ again completely disregard WP rules, he went on to paint a dark picture of then multi-nation foreign diplomats and Chinese christian converts taking refuge at the foreign legation, virtually calling them "terrorists", "invaders" and "bank robbers", see here. When ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ has such a extreme biased attitude towards then Peking multi-nations diplomats, when ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ called them invaders and terrorists, there is really not a slim chance that he would be able to contribute any neutral material on WP. Arilang talk02:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 again has engaged in cherry picking edits (and is therefore lying in his claim that I ignored John Smith's complaint about neutrality, by not showing my actual response to John smith- I addressed his assertion that the article was not neutral, by pointing out there was already a section in existence about chinese atrocitiesand that I contributed to that section. If you go look at the talk page now, at Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section, you can see I clearly responded to User:John Smith's about the article being "not neutral". John Smith's then did not raise any more question regarding neutrality, he then said that it was the organzation of the article that was poor. per WP:DUCK, since my response to John smith's was in plain english and clearly visible in the same section, I will assert that Arilang1234 is a liar, since he claimed I did not discuss improving the neutrality of the article when I did, and falsely claimed that I called diplomats and chineese christians bank robbers and terrorists ( first of all, I was saying that as an example, and second I wasn't even talking about the diplomats or chinese christians, I was talking about the relief soldiers who entered Beijing after the end of the warΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heres a fact- real life is indeed not neutral. I wasn't being sarcastic, unless someone shows me otherwise, real life is indeed and never will be neutral. A sarcastic remark would contain information that the user does NOT believe to be factual, If say, I was insulting a musician, and i thought he was horrible, I would make the comment, "What a fine musician you are! You played so great you shattered my ears!"
If I was being sarcastie to User:John Smith, I would have said- "And sure, real life is neutral, just like it was when the Turks did the Armenian genocide and massacred armenians. Both Armenians and Turks were responsible, were they not?" that would have been sarcasm, since I would be using ridicule and mockery to disprove something which I DO NOT believe.
Since I do believe real life is not neutral, I was not being sarcastic, I was being serious.
I recommend that Arilang1234 look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary or look for an example.
Can arilang1234 prove that I was talking about the legationers? When in fact, I was referring to the relief expedition forces (from the Gasalee Expedition), and not the diplomats or chinese christians. Again, Arilang1234 is bordering on the edge of outright lying, no where did I mention Chinese christians and legationers, nor did John Smith, he was talking about the alliance troops on the relief expedition who committed rapes and massacres against chinese, not the legations" User:John Smith brought up this section- Boxer_rebellion#Alliance_Atrocities, all of which had NOTHING to do with foreign diplomats or chinese christians I was taling about the Alliance relief troops raping and killing chinese? Where did I claim that diplomats and chinese christians took part in it? ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(11) ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ said:"the origins section is vague... because we don't know", see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is not telling the truth, because there are many reliable Chinese reference books on the origin of the Boxers, and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ had decided not to use them, books like (Chinese:庚子國變記), (Chinese:拳變餘聞), (Chinese:西巡迴鑾始末), and File:Boxerspamphlet.png. Is there any reason why
I posted adequate english langauge sources on the article, books by authors with academic credentials from western universities (Paul Cohen (historian) is professor of history emeritus at Wellesley College and Associate of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University ) (lanxin xiang has american citizenship and american degrees, not chinese)- [77][78]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on Boxer Rebellion talkpage on 19 May 2011: is the fact that the crimes of Chinese christians and foreigners, per the sources, aren't explained in even more detail, with every aspect of how they robbed chinese peasants of their land and how chinese "christians" were actually bandits who converted to avoid prosecution.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It is clear that here: ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is claiming that "chinese christians were actually bandits", and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is into adding more detailed and every aspect of "chinese christians robbing peasants" into Wikipedia article, in blatant violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. At the same time, it looks like ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is using Wikipedia as a political platform to advocate his anti-Christian agenda, thus he should be given a indefinite ban. Arilang talk02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 is the one who should be perm banned, since he treats wikipedia as his personal blog, shooting off conspiracy theories on marxism, black panthers, vietnam and boxers, claiming that since Australian textbooks say boxers were anti imperialist that australia must be a socialist country, and expects to be taken seriously.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(13)
Statement made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on the start of this ANI discussion:Comment by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on 21:52, 13 October 2010- "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources. They deliberately malign Cixi and Qing as corrupt, to further their communist ideology by making it look good"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On this statement, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is telling us that "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources", as if all Chinese government websites are Unreliable Sources, not to be trusted by Wikipedia. This statement of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is yet another solid proof of his biased and non-neutral personal agenda on Wikipedia, he is here openly defying and rejecting WP rules, especially WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, thus he should be barred from editing, to stop him from poisoning this encyclopedic building project. Arilang talk04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, someone should give ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ a stern warning, and if he refuse to observe and implement WP rules, a topic ban on Boxer Rebellion would be good for him, instead of allowing him to impede other editors from building a better encyclopedia. Arilang talk12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this thread is a false personal attack, Arilang1234 has yet to show a single racist comment I made, not has he adequatly explained how it is "cold war" style, mentioning the cold is in itself a straw man/ad hominem attackΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 is the one who constantly brings up ad hominem attacks and straw man attacks about the communist party of china and marxists on the boxer rebellion article, claiming, without offering proof, that the article's content is "chinese communist party propaganda", when every single source used in the article is a western source by an academic with a degree.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 should be warned and topic banned.
I can't believe this is happening again, and I grew tired of the back and forth bickering by both parties on the Boxer Rebellion article. I think it's time for a mediator or third party intervention. This issues, particularly Arilang's editing behavior, were noted in at least two ANI posts earlier this year, [79][80] in which he was given a stern warning. At the time, I hoped that Arilang's edit behaviors would improve in due time, and he did put effort into cleaning up several copyvios, but I'm saddened to see the some of the addressed problems continuing. On the otherhand, I had no problems with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's editing outside of the Boxer Rebellion article, and I've see him putting considerable effort into editing and expanding articles such as Ma Fuxiang and other regarding Kuomintang and Islam in China.--PCPP (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On here user Smallchief made a comment on ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, quote:"Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. " unquoted, the comment was made on 25 April 2011. Today is 21 May 2011, nearly a month has passed by, yet ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose to ignore the comment. This comment is a serious accusation against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's bias and non-neutral editing, why is it that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose not answer it and try to clear his name, is it because ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is guilty conscious, he knows that he cannot provide user Smallchief a satisfactory explanation, so he chose to bury his head in the sand? Come on, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, we are still waiting, patiently. Arilang talk15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is serious. Arilang1234 linked directly to smallchief's specific edit rather than the section, which would haveshown my response, out of bad faith, since users would not be able to see that I did indeed respond and disprove smallchiefs accusationsΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith accusation in my opinion. I don't see how Dungane has done anything wrong at all, and I think the fault is on the part of Arilang. Even if Dungane is partially at fault, this does not make Arilang exempt from having made an absurd tu quoque argument. In other words, Arilang is the pot calling the kettle black.
Arilang has demonstrated on many occasions to be WP:SHOPPING for policies and whatnot to bolster his arguments, even though sometimes they don't fit in. He tries to bend the argument by arguing that he is the warrior of justice upholding Wikipedia policy, and that other editors are at fault for breaking said policy; the "policy" arguments he makes are generally thrown porkie pies, having no logical backing at all, and appear to be used as a distraction to bring attention away from a point or topic. (example diffdiff2) Arilang also has the habit of making WP:KUDZU clauses whenever he can fit one in.
He makes non sequitur arguments by drawing irrelevant conclusions, and then ostracizes other editors when they show that they have no idea what he's on about. He frequently attempts to have editors stop making criticisms towards a certain position by repeatedly using the lines "I'd like to warn other editors that they cannot place their POV here in this discussion; if this continues, I will bring this to the attention of an admin, and you will be topic-banned", or something like that. I see this as Arilang's tendency to engage in WP:WIKILAWYERing. (example diff)
Arilang has the tendency to make threats in retaliation for criticism against him, usually something along the lines of "calling an administrator" or something similar. (diff)
I suspect Arilang's WP:COMPETENCY ability; he has shown on many occasions that he has no idea what he is talking about, and that he is playing the expert. He claims that Australia is a "socialist country" (diff), i.e. akin to a government system found in the Soviet Union, Socialist Republic of Vietnam or German Democratic Republic, despite the fact that the Australian constitution confirms that it is a constitutional democracy with the Queen of Great Britain as head of state, and that the current political party voted into power has nothing to do with the type of government that forms a country. He also somehow associates anti-imperialism with Marxism and WP:UNDUE, and claims that "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", arguing that anti-imperialism in a 19th Century topic is a "minority view". Arilang is quick to make assumptions in topics that, I assume, he has little knowledge about. This only furthers my suspicions that Arilang is not taking the Wikipedia project seriously.
Arilang shows behaviour that is borderline WP:GAME, almost akin to trolling. He is quick to ignore the words of other editors during discussions, and goes off all sorts of strange tangents, which gives the impression that he is playing with the patience of other editors.
Arilang has been in incidents that has brought him to ANI before; these incidents were based on his POV pushing on Qing Dynasty and Boxer Rebellion related articles, that the Manchus were horrible barbarians, and that the Boxers were horrible barbarians. If I recall, there was an agreement made where Arilang pledged not to start such disputes again. These recent actions by Arilang seems to me like he's quick to forget what he's promised.
TL;DR: Arilang is trying to twist things into the way he prefers it to be, by shopping for policy and then acting under the pretense and justification that he is doing everything for the sake of upholding said policy. He doesn't use logical arguments to justify his beliefs, and instead uses all sorts of attacks and lawyering to make his stand, and it appears that rather than doing everything for the sake of Wikipedia policy as he claims, he seems to show an WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance towards the article content.
No, Benlisquare, you have recalled it wrong. The previous ANI was about name calling and racist remarks, and the admin decision was 1-3 months of moratorium on sensitive and controversial content editing, which I have fully complied with, with plenty of help from User:Ohconfucius. Now this ANI discussion is not about sensitive and controversial content editing, nor about any racist remarks, instead, it is about enforcing WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and all the other WP rules, especially the Neutrality of all articles. Arilang talk16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Benlisquare, this is the wrong place to have a go at me, instead, any criticism should be done on my talkpage, unless you are trying to distract or disrupt other editors. Arilang talk15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you understand. You are a part of the problem; henceforth, I by all means am free to give an explanation of what I have personally seen. Also, see exhibit B directly above: a perfect example of WP:WIKILAWYERing, especially the line "unless you are trying to distract or disrupt other editors". He has done this quite a lot during other discussions as well. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail15:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I very well know that there were 2 ANI against me in the past, however, I have changed completely since then, now I am a strong advocate of WP rules on every wiki articles, I am going to enforce Neutrality on all the articles, how do you like to comment on that? Arilang talk16:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. I'd like to let the diffs and the talk page discussions to speak for themselves. I think the situation is shown quite clearly already. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang's edits show otherwise, that he has not "changed" at all.
note, that marxism is an integral part of communism. he is, effectively repeating his earler (false and disproven) claims that the boxer rebellion article had material from the "Communist party propaganda books", not onyl that, he offers absolutely no proof for his accusations of chinese high school text book and marxist propaganda.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to build a better encyclopedia through cooperation of all the editors, under the guidance of WP rules, shouldn't we all discuss nicely with each other to achieve consensus, instead of using harsh words to heck at each other? Arilang talk16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 spams the talk page desperately trying to link marxists, black panthers, and vietnam era protestors to the Boxer rebels, I don't call that "building a better encyclopedia. Such accusations come from people who use tin foil hats.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in this very discussion you attacked me, and referred to me as a "well known biased editor", and that my opinion is no concern.--PCPP (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 claims he has "changed completely since then". Arilang1234 has a history of offering insincere apologies. He pushes his insolence to the limit, and then suddenly "apologizes" and backs down when his account is on the verge of being reported and blocked. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians Arilang1234 first went into hate filled rants against Mongols and Manchus, not just calling them barbarians, but personally attacking editors like Madalibi, accusing him of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action", of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!),
Note, this "apology" was BEFORE his recent ANIs about his incivility and POV pushing, accusing other people of communist party propagandaΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang, Here we go again about the distractive comments. I don't understand how on earth you can talk about "building a better encyclopedia", when a large portion of your contributions have been based on a particular motive, an intention to pursue a certain POV or standpoint? You've made edits critical of the Manchus last year, critical of the Chinese Communist Party the year before that, and then created an article claiming superiority of the Chinese language or something-o'rather the year before that. Rather than continuing with the fluff talk and attacks against "well known biased editors", are you willing to listen to what other editors have to say? Also, an WP:ADHOMWP:ATTACK is an WP:ADHOMWP:ATTACK. Going on and on about the FLG enforcement on PCPP is an irrelevant argument when we are not discussing FLG. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you hear that? over 150 bizzare and incoherent edits, not just childist vandalism, but non mainstream ranting opinions on the article, had to be reverted
Disruptive behavior of Arilang1234 on talk page of boxer rebellion- ad hominem attacks of marxism and of alleged chinese propaganda, which is what i was responding to
First of all, Arilang1234 has a history of disruptive behavior at the Boxer rebellion article.
a couple of years ago, he inserted personal opinons, insults, and rantings into the article, in which he claimed that the chinese communist party propaganda textbooks were creating positive portraits of the boxers.
Its suggestive of his mentaliy- editors who add content which he doesn't like, in his opinion, should be forced out of wikipedia.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insincere claim by Arilang1234 that his "Behavior" has changed since his past two ANIs, and direct false accusation that I never ansered Smallchief's accusation
note, that marxism is an integral part of communism. he is, effectively repeating his earler (false and disproven) claims that the boxer rebellion article had material from the "Communist party propaganda books"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outright lying, blatantly false accusation that I did not respond to another user
this is serious. Arilang1234 linked directly to smallchief's specific edit rather than the section, which would haveshown my response, out of bad faith, since users would not be able to see that I did indeed respond and disprove smallchiefs accusationsΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note- I do not like to call people liars or engage in this accusation, but my response to smallchief was standing right there in plain english, and Arilang1234 blatantly, and falsely claimed that I did not respond to him, when in fact I did, and not only that, disproved his accusations, and he was the one who did not respond after my second response, I'll call a duck a duck, and say that a liar is a liar.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second False Accusation/Lie That I did not respond to another user
Arilang1234 again has engaged in cherry picking edits (and is therefore lying in his claim that I ignored John Smith's complaint about neutrality, by not showing my actual response to John smith- I addressed his assertion that the article was not neutral, by pointing out there was already a section in existence about chinese atrocitiesand that I contributed to that section. If you go look at the talk page now, at Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section, you can see I clearly responded to User:John Smith's about the article being "not neutral". John Smith's then did not raise any more question regarding neutrality, he then said that it was the organzation of the article that was poor. per WP:DUCK, since my response to John smith's was in plain english and clearly visible in the same section, I will assert that Arilang1234 is a liar, since he claimed I did not discuss improving the neutrality of the article when I did, and falsely claimed that I called diplomats and chinese christians bank robbers and terrorists ( first of all, I was saying that as an example, and second I wasn't even talking about the diplomats or chinese christians, I and John Smith's were talking about the relief soldiers who entered Beijing after the end of the warΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on the Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians, We don't "invent" atrocities by the circassians to the Russians, to make the article "neutral"- we the report the facts from cited, reliable sources- the Russians commmitted ethnic cleansing against the circassians. Would that have been a better example? I never said or suggested that #1 the people in the boxer rebellion were equal to bank robbers and terrorists, I gave that as an example for a situation where we report on what the sources say, not what neutrality demands. #2, the specific people me and John smith's were talking about were the Eight Nation Alliance relief soldiersin the Boxer_rebellion#Alliance_Atrocities who entered Beijing after the war, not the diplomats or chinese christians in the legations.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can arilang1234 prove that I was talking about the legationers? When in fact, I was referring to the relief expedition forces (from the Gasalee Expedition), and not the diplomats or chinese christians. Again, Arilang1234 is bordering on the edge of outright lying, no where did I mention Chinese christians and legationers, nor did John Smith, he was talking about the alliance troops on the relief expedition who committed rapes and massacres against chinese, not the legations" User:John Smith brought up this section- Boxer_rebellion#Alliance_Atrocities, all of which had NOTHING to do with foreign diplomats or chinese christians I was taling about the Alliance relief troops raping and killing chinese? Where did I claim that diplomats and chinese christians took part in it? When did I say Chinese christians and diplomats were banks robbers and terrorists in my comment?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 titled this thread- "Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion", and says- "I wish to bring the attention of admins towards the racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion."
Note- he has not offered any proof of any racist remarks by me
Dungane, calm down for a bit. It will do you good if you can take a breather before going any further. I recommend you take some time off the project, and then coming back when you're feeling more relaxed. Editing with a hot head can't do you or anyone else any good. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail01:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your criticism and executing it in a polite manner. I hope Arilang1234 learns to receive such criticism instead of brushing it off as he did here.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not again
I gave up trying to edit/copy-edit the article into some sort of consistency after spending some time trying to muddle through all the convolutions, not to mention reading through and trying to make sense of the fighting on the talk page. I've interacted with Arilang before on the talk page but not with Dungane. I've also read through the previous threads involving these two. If things cannot be worked out it might be time to impose a topic ban or an interaction ban. --Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just an ordinary mistake, or slip up by Arilang1234. My response to Smallchief and John Smith's was right there in plain english- and Arilang1234 deliberately went into the edit history to select and post specific edits I made before I responded, to make sure users were unable to see that I did respond to their concerns later. If he had posted a direct link to the section as it is now, all the users would have been able to seen my responsesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang asked me to look at this thread. Irrespective of whether or not he should have done that, I'm here and to be honest it's what I've come to expect. These guys honestly cannot get along and to be honest I think that they should both be banned from editing the article. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ even took their dispute to my talk page, when he should have complained on Arilang's talk page. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 was engaged in WP:CANVASS, and where canvassing occurs, is where it should be warned. If we do not bring up WP:CANVASS where it is occuring then that would signify that it is tolerated.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I largely left the boxer rebellion article to User:CWH who was doing fantastic job cleaning it up, I only added a few minor details recently, I will agree to leave to to CWH to fix it.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't raise concerns by continuing a dispute on someone else's talk page. This is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about, you can't help but argue with each other.
You're being really immature and are doing yourself no favours. The dispute over the inclusion of a single source has nothing to do with this ANI report. Moreover, I received six blocks over a period of a bit over a year, largely due to the disruptive behaviour of a now banned editor. I would say I'm doing quite well given that I haven't received a block for 3.5 years.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in as far that I didn't think you were entirely to blame for the arguments between you and Arilang, but I see now that you have a massive etiquette problem, in as far that you can never assume good faith as soon as anyone disagrees with you. Raising my edits on other pages is again irrelevant. There is also no reason to topic ban me because I don't scream and rant at people if I have a disagreement with them.
This ANI has to do with POV pushing on the Boxer rebellion talk page. Arilang1234 tried to link marxism, communism, the black panthers, vietnam era protestors, and the chinese high school text books to the boxers. As far as I can see from your edit history, you have a long history of trying to push your POV on chinese communist related articles, Mao Zedong, Jung Chang, Mao:The Unknown Story, and push anti China, not just anti communist, POV on Nanking massacre. As far as I can see, both you and Arilang1234 are on the same page, and I'm the only one on the other side. So if you throw Arilang1234 under the bus and get us both banned, you would still be free to push POV on the article.19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk)
It doesn't matter is a user is sly and polite in pushing POV- its still an offence and breaking of the rules, you don't scream and rant, but you have said obnoxious insults regarding authors you don't like, when you disagree with them- calling them "nobodies", saying "why should we care?", in short, any author who is not against China, is a "nobody", and subjected to "why should we care" by User:John Smith's. But authors like Jung Chang, who have absolutely no credentials in Chinese history, no degrees in history at all, are lauded as reliable by User:John Smith, since they put out anti China POV. I don't see how you are a neutral third party at all.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember holding myself up as a paragon of virtue in terms of "neutrality" (how can anyone be neutral if they ever come down on one side of an argument?). But the fact you think I'm anti-China because I don't love the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong to bits rather shows your bias and why you have trouble getting on with people. I've tried to get on with you, but you repeatedly created problems in the past. Again, I tried to assume a bit of good faith in as far as I didn't hold you purely responsible for the problems with Arilang. But you're still deciding to poison the atmosphere here.
I haven't edited the Boxer Rebellion page for some weeks, yet you believe that I'm ready to pounce as soon as the time is right, such as if you can't edit the article. You also just contradicted yourself because earlier on you said you weren't going to involve yourself with it again much and would let CWH do it. You can't have it both ways.
Oh, and no offence, but I don't see how you can complain about canvassing given that you've left messages on other users' talk pages complaining of this and asking for their assistance. Even if you think they're "neutral" it's still canvassing. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have edit warred on Senkaku Islands and Nanking massacre in favor of the Japanese, the Nanking massacre had absolutely nothing to do with the communist party or Mao Zedong, and the Senkaku islands are also claimed by the Republic of China, which is not communist. you are deliberately conflating Mao/CCP with China when I specifically said-"and push anti China, not just anti communist, POV on Nanking massacre"
I also revert junk edits/vandalism, keeping off the article means not adding content. Such as inserting unreliable sources. I canvassed people who have nothing to do with the Boxer Rebellion, except Benjwong, who has reverted mass vandalism done to the article by Arilang1234 a few years ago (calling people salvages and stupid), thats not against policy. read WP:CANVASSING to see that Arilang1234 breaks policy since he is deliberately selecting users I have had disputes with and therefore biased, why didn't he ask User:Blackmane to come? Is he afraid that a neutral third party user would take a look at his edits as well?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this just be closed? Arilang1234 did not bring a specific administrator action he wanted against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ. The title of this section ("Racist, Cold War style combative...") has not been substantiated. This thread is just a rallying point for everyone who has ever had a content dispute with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ to reopen old wounds, knowing that he feels he has to respond to every allegation, no matter how far-fetched. If I would recommend any action, it is that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ be recommended a mentor or written guide that can teach him when and how to write concise replies. Arilang1234's behavior in this thread should be reviewed in light of Arilang's previous ANI problems around this subject area. Quigley (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Quigley's comment:(1)"Cold War style combative" is the correct and fitting adjective describing ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's heated and knee-jerk responses on this ANI. (2) Looking at all the comments made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on this ANI, it is clear that he is firmly into rejecting the principle of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. It is amazing that an editor can be so openly and blatantly rejecting WP rules, yet still carrying on attacking other editors unpunished. (3)I am fully aware of my editing shortfalls which were the subjects of 2 past ANI, but I have made a complete change under the mentor of User:Ohconfucius, and I am no longer into content dispute nor name calling, I am into implementing WP rules, and you can confirm it with User:Ohconfucius. Arilang talk01:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's quick responses are to be expected when you are accusing him of very serious things on this board, where bans are doted out liberally. There is a fundamental disingenuity that permeates this discussion, starting from your calling ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ racist for pointing out your past anti-Manchu comments. And there is absolutely no connection to the Cold War here. The core content dispute is about the Boxer Rebellion, a conflict in the 19th century. This fascinating leap in logic to the Cold War seems to start from your perceiving ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's position to be anti-Christian missionary, and therefore anti-Western, and therefore pro-Chinese, and therefore pro-Communist. The logical fallacies in this line of reasoning number by the dozen. Perhaps we should stop thinking in such a binary, battleground way? I am glad that you have a mentor, but your comment here, which is the nexus of this thread, was unnecessarily provocative, much like this ANI complaint itself. If your primary concern is for the neutrality of the article than to do holy battle with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, then you are better located at the Neutral point of view noticeboard than here. Quigley (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang1234 says- "ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's heated and knee-jerk responses on this ANI"- so, I have responded to every single one of Arilang1234's accusations on this ANI, and disproved them, and Arilang1234 is unable to respond to my responses, so he goes and calls them "heated and knee-jerk responses". I answered all his allegations. where is his response?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let us note, Arilang1234 lied twice, claiming I did not respond to User:Smallchief and User:John Smith's complaints on the Boxer rebellion talk page. I did respond, I proved in the above sections posting links to my responses. this is a deliberate malicious accusation by Arilang1234, who posted direct links to the past version of the talk pages, only including User:Smallchief's and User:John Smith's challenges/questions, rather than the current version of the talk page, so that Arilang1234 would make it appear as if I did not respond.
per WP:DUCK I will say that Arilang1234 is lying, this is a serious allegation, so I have taken the liberty to create a link where I can prove he did it.
It looks now as if ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ did respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. Therefore, Arilang's two-time accusations that he was unwilling to engage in discussion are not true. Whether Arilang1234 "lied" or not, only Arilang1234 knows his true intentions. However it is not likely that he simply glossed over ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's replies, because he continued to write messages on the Boxer Rebellion talk page after ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ replied, and because in preparing diffs for ANI, Arilang1234 should have seen the talk page in its current state or the article history. The whole premise of this thread is based on Arilang's multiple misrepresentations of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's behavior. If there are behavioral issues to be discussed here, they belong to Arilang1234. Quigley (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This incident concerns User:Raw4815 and the application of a COI tag on the article Raleigh DeGeer Amyx. Based on edit [81] and comments on my talk page I applied a COI tag on the article. User:Raw4815 has removed the tag mutiple times and has denied any affiliation with the subject of the article in teh edit summaries when removing the COI. I cannot add back the COI without creating a warring situation and do not wish to do so. I am also concerned that the article is not only a coi, but that the article is possibly being used for self-promotion. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one objection to the merge, by user:JPG-GR, here, because according to him Fox Kids "was treated as a separate entity" but no source provided to back up the claim, despite me repeatedly asking. Since no reliable source was forthcoming, and since WP:RS say otherwise, I waited the requisite seven days required at WP:MERGE, then began a merger of the two articles. I based the merger on reliable sources, and began fixing dates according to the source provided. Only a few minutes into my work, user:JPG-GRundid the merge with no edit summary. He apparently feels that two unsourced lists are better than one sourced list. I can't continue my sourcing when sourced work is being undone in favor of unsourced speculation. I'm notifying the user of this discussion right now. Firsfron of Ronchester04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laughable. Reducing a rather lengthy list to a redirect to a list less than a third of its size is not a merge. As this isn't BLP-related and there's no deadline, I fail to see how essentially blanking the list because the one source you've found doesn't cover the history of Fox Kids is a preferable. JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit misleading to say only that "There was only one objection to the merge" as JPG-GR's comments were the only response to the proposal. As such, the merge shouldn't have gone ahead. I'd suggest asking for input from the appropriate Wikiprojects and using the dispute resolution procedures if that doesn't work and you feel strongly enough about the topic. Both of you really need to stop throwing insults around as well (it's only a list of TV shows). Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not thrown insults around, and I have tried asking for JPG-GR for sources. He doesn't provide any. The two are separate because he says so, sources be damned. (Edited to add: any reasonable objection ("source X says such-and-such") would have convinced me to open a wider discussion. "It's separate because I said so" isn't any sort of argument).Firsfron of Ronchester04:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, continue to summarize my arguments to suit your needs - it only makes things easier on me.
Anyway... the list of Fox Kids shows is quite lengthy - combining them into the greater Fox list is needless as a a link to the Fox Kids article in the greater list would suffice (which I suggested - a suggestion that was ignored). And, for the record - I'm all for sourcing the information, I just do not have access to any sources off the top of my head - all I have is my memory of having watched the Fox Kids lineup for the duration of its existence while younger. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Fox Kids shows is lengthy, mostly because it's not accurate. Quite a few of the series listed therein are actually syndicated, not Fox/Fox Kids programs, as shown in reliable sources. I was going through the article, sourcing, when you blindly reverted the merge. "Your memory" is not a reliable source, nor would your local Fox affiliate have explained to you which shows were syndicated and which were Fox network shows (they don't do that). Television historians have covered this material; that's why we use their books for sourcing, instead of "JPG-GR's memory". Firsfron of Ronchester05:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the history of the page shows no evidence you were sourcing anything on the Fox Kids page. You converted the entirety of it to a redirect. Secondly, I do not claim to be a reliable source or an expert but I do know the difference between a syndicated children's show and a show airing as part of the Fox Kids lineup. My familiarity with Fox Kids may not beat a reliable source, but my familiarity with Fox Kids is almost certainly better than yours and better than most. Source the article if you like - you have my support. Blank the article again or attempt a "merge" which removes 75% of the list, and don't be surprised if it gets reverted. End of story. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:SOURCE#Burden_of_evidence. You restored the incorrect and unsourceable (unsourceable because it's wrong) content. The policy states "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." You were asked repeatedly to provide sources which back up your statements. You refused to do so. Your memory is not a reliable source. Firsfron of Ronchester06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron, that's exactly the kind of unproductive comment I was talking about. I don't see the need for any admin intervention here - please seek other editors' input on the proposed merge and use dispute resolution if that doesn't work. I'd also suggest that you be very careful with the quote marks when discussing other editors' comments as well - I can't see anywhere where JPG-GR wrote "It's separate because I said so" and you didn't provide a diff (I presume that you were summarising how you view his or her comments, but this needs to be done with caution in forums such as this as it could be very easily be misunderstood). Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(cross-posted from Nick-D's page) I wish you hadn't done that, Nick. WP:MERGE states, "In more unclear, controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." You moved the request from WP:AN to WP:AN/I and then marked it as resolved. I was attempting to seek consensus by doing what is advised at WP:MERGE. Moving a request made at the right forum to the wrong one, then marking it as resolved, certainly will not solve the dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we may want to reword WP:MERGE so that it doesn't state that in controversial cases, the discussion can be taken to WP:AN. You are right that there's no rush (the incorrect data has been up for years, and it's now been restored), but trying to "discuss" something with someone whose only "proof" is his own memory can be frustrating after a week of asking for Reliable Sources. Firsfron of Ronchester06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue to beat the same dead horse rather than consider (or even respond to) my proposal and/or make any attempt to source anything in the current Fox Kids article. Methinks you are arguing with yourself and that is frustrating because you haven't responded to anything I've said in days short of saying the same thing over and over. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to source in the List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids because Fox Kids was not a broadcaster. It was programming block. I'm really sorry you're frustrated. Understand that I am, too. I asked you seven days ago to give me a source... the only source you provided was your memory. I searched in vain for a source myself. I can't "source" something which is contradicted in reliable sources. You restored this terrible content. I'm not about to add "sources" which don't verify the content. I'm not about to add a link to an article which has so much ncorrect content. Firsfron of Ronchester06:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No frustration here - I find the situation more amusing than anything (as intense arguing on the internet is always a weird concept). Let me get this straight - you are saying because Fox Kids is not a broadcaster, that there is no reliable source for programming that was shown on Fox Kids? Or are you implying that the name of the article itself is improper? I could get behind that argument... how about List of programs broadcast as part of Fox Kids or something not-as-oddly worded? And, once again, the only restoration of content I did was restoring the page to it's previous version before you essentially blanked it by turning it into a redirect. There are likely items on the list that are in fact not Fox Kids programming, but there are also items that WERE that are currently NOT part of the Fox "mother" list. JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you would state that "that is frustrating" and then state "No frustration here", but whatever. I wish you would have proposed List of programs broadcast as part of Fox Kids seven days ago instead of the "it is separate because my memory says it is" approach you've used for the past seven days (including just above). The content as it stands is unverified and unverifiable (unverifiable because it's wrong); I was going through the Fox article line by line adding sources to the content before you reverted the merge. The fact that content was not yet brought in from Fox Kids is immaterial; you reverted within minutes of the redirect, and you reverted to content which is quite clearly incorrect and which still remains unsourced. Firsfron of Ronchester07:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The frustrating comment was referring to you being frustrated, not me. I didn't mention the article name change previously because I had no reason to dig my feet in for a debate in which no one else was participating and we weren't going to agree - i.e. consensus wouldn't be on the side I wasn't on. As for the FK article, I reverted to content that has been there for months - if it is "clearly incorrect", fix it. And, I question why anyone would completely blank a page into a redirect BEFORE merging data rather than after. I find that to be very odd. JPG-GR (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You stated "Methinks you are arguing with yourself and that is frustrating because you haven't responded to anything I've said in days short of saying the same thing over and over." That's not an example of me being frustrated, but whatever. You reverted content which lacks reliable sources. Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Since you want this material included, you must source it. That is the policy. If it is not sourced, it must be removed. Firsfron of Ronchester07:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest that you guys break off this too-and-fro for a while (say, 24 hours) and then resume the discussion on the article's talk page after inviting other editors to comment? The current discussion here is misplaced and not terribly productive as you're repeating yourselves. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion is misplaced, it is because you moved it here. Why move a discussion to a place which you feel it does not belong? I started a discussion at WP:AN at the advice of WP:MERGE, not here. And, actually, already another editor has weighed in on the discussion, so it seems there are benefits to bringing the discussion to WP:AN. There's also the matter of this revert by JPG-GR. Editors are warned, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." It's also troublesome because it is restoring unsourced content without attempting to source the content in any way. The onus is on JPG-GR to source this content, per WP:BURDEN, which is policy. Firsfron of Ronchester10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(also originally posted on my talk page; I'm not sure what the benefits of conducting this discussion in parallel there and here are) Given that there wasn't either a consensus to merge (one editor proposing the merge, one editor disagreeing with the merge and no evidence of any attempts to seek wider input) or evidence that the results of the discussion were either unclear or controversial (beyond you and JPG-GR trading rude comments), I really don't see any need for admin involvement. This is basically a content dispute, and you need to seek wider input. If you like I can close the discussion on the article talk page as 'no consensus', but I don't think that that's the best option. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Admin Observation Get a wider consensus from the involved wikiprojects or open a RFC. Creating multiple very deeply threaded discussions is not how you build consensus, it's how you destroy a collegial editing environment. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with uncredited and machine-translated versions of foreign language Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia:Translation states in bold text (presumably to stress the importance of the points) that machine translations of foreign language Wikipedia artiles are worse than having no article at all, and that any translation must be appropriately credited back to the original foreign language article. With that in mind, what should be done about Lapierre (bicycle) and Winora, both of which are a largely unmodified copy/paste of Google translations of the German language originals? No attempt has been made to correct the machine translation, and no credit has been given to the German language original articles. I have nominated both at AfD, but wonder if in fact these should be speedy deleted, and if so under what criteria? Help from a knowledgeable admin would be welcomed. I already reverted a machine translation of Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co by the same editor (Degen Earthfast (talk·contribs)) because an article already existed at Hercules (motorcycle) - the editor had blanked the original and redirected it to his machine translation, but everything on that article is back as it was. I have left a message on the editor's talk page pointing out the translation policy. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it isn't sorted. Degen Earthfast just blanked and redirected the original Hercules (motorcycle) article and left a stroppy message on my talk page (dif) saying he is going to undo the deletes and telling me to "deal with it". --Biker Biker (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to speed, I reverted it back to a redirect. Obviously if you think it still needs speedy deletion then go ahead. b.t.w. The same "deal with it" message came in the edit summary of that article from 71.162.161.175 (talk·contribs) who I'm guessing is the same editor. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it very pointy to delete an article under G12 when the copyvio can be fixed by attribution using the standard interwiki links, and a comment in the edit summary. The sort of mMachine translations that are discouraged are ones that are not even minimally rewritten to fix the obvious grammar faults. Wikipedia has many acceptable articles that started as machine translations. I've done some of this sort of revising myself. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You consider just about any deletion to be pointy, honestly. We shouldn't have articles that look as though they were run through Babelfish; drop these rough translations into userspace first, then move them when they are readable. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, how can iI consider "any deletion pointy when I've made over 13,000 of them myself, and when about 1/4 of my AfD !votes are for deletion? I go article by article; in my experience, most articles sent for deletion at speedy, prod, and AfD, should certainly be deleted. True, I do not interpret "most" to mean "almost all" DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Biker Biker pointed out, there is a strongly worded advice note that "machine translated" article creation is to be avoided, and the very pertinent point that copy and paste translated pages - without referencing - is in violation of WikiMedia's requirement that proper attribution must be provided. Of course any number of editors could rectify these issues by copy editing the content and researching and adding the links and attributions, but this is a volunteer project and in the interests of both compliance with requirements and maintain standards it is often quicker to delete the content. Of course, this does not stop an editor continuing to work upon presenting a compliant and comprehensible article in the meantime. Further, and I suppose this is where your raising of WP:POINT applies, it discourages editors such as Degen Earthfast from dumping bad content into the encyclopedia - as it disappears from their contribution history. It is a consequence that I feel the project could live with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet outing me
This new account [82] is a sock of the blocked:[83]
Like the previous sock, he goes around reverting my edits and links to an old account that I previously had before I registered this one, I have previously explained that account here:[84], It was an account I used before I registered this one, I wasn't active at Wikipedia and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules and when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again I just registered a new one, full explanation is at that discussion.
Talk about taking quotes out of context...that suggestion was made when the page was full-protected by a highly involved admin, and I suggested that the case be taken to ANI for a swift unprotection (which was rendered moot when the admin unprotected the page in response to a message I left at their talk page). It was certainly not intended to suggest that all disputes with respect to the redirect be taken to ANI. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did not specifically suggest to request an unprotection at ANI, you simply stated that "WP:ANI is probably the best venue here" - if I was a less-experienced editor, I would have come here as well. GiantSnowman23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here, as in the particular set of circumstances raised in the drv nomination? If someone drv's a 3-year-old xfd, drv's typical response is "just take it to afd". Does that somehow imply that all future drvs of that article should be taken straight to afd as well? Context is everything. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across another naive article move. Could an admin copy the contents of Display size into Two-dimensional display size and then move that article to have the name Display size? That would keep the article history.
Both IP's are repeatedly adding [[Category:Discrimination]] to Compulsory voting. The addition may have a reason but I can't see any sourced text in the article to justify the addition and the IP's refuse to discuss. Help? --NeilNtalk to me16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to take Tauhidaerospace (talk·contribs) to 3RR but as he is, I think, editing in good faith, thought I'd take the issue here as I believe this editor really needs mentoring rather than blocking. I don't think he understands 3RR and he certainly doesn't understand our policies on sources, original research, etc. He posts to talk pages of both the article and editors but then for some reason seems to ignore responses. I've been posting to his talk page asking him to read our policies and to the article's talk page in some detail about his use of sources, etc. I'm hoping that somehow we can harness his enthusiasm constructively. The article was a terrible mess before he got there, by the way, so it didn't provide much in the way of a good example for him. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problems on British National Party Page
There have been problems on the British National Party page for a few weeks now. These are as follows:
Constant Vandalism i.e posters calling the BNP 'racist idiots', 'Nazis' etc.
- In some cases users who make these dispruptive edits get a warning posted on their page (one was only done less than half an hour or so ago - check the history of the page, i won't list names). However if you look over the history of the BNP article for the past month or so, there are many vandals who get no such warning.
The BNP article is literally controlled by self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) and far-leftists (mostly users with "I'm a communist" etc userbox graphic on their page) who won't allow anyone go near the article to edit it more appropiately. Please look for example on the talk page [[85]] where for the past few weeks i have been politely discussing how to improve the article, but most users there instead have no interest and just attack the BNP or their policies. Anyone who wants to improve the article from a more neutral perspective is then smeared as a 'nazi' or 'racist' by these self-titled "anti-fascists".
Reverted edits.
- There is a huge problem with other users reverting others edits. In fact that's all that happens. There are 5-10 or more reverts basically each day. No one is allowed to contribute or edit the article as the self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) then revert peoples edits or call them 'racists' (see [[86]]. These same self-titled "anti-fascists" then say when they revert your edit, to take it to the talk page. Then when you go into the talk page, they reject your edits, call the BNP nazis, racists etc (see [[87]].
Biased posters.
- The BNP article is dominated by self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) who won't allow anyone near to edit the page. I've already mentioned this, but it's the main problem. You only have to look at whats in their usernames to see how biased they are (i won't list specific users, but one has "multiculturalism" in his name, and the other "commie" i.e communist. These users are clearly biased against the BNP and clearly its a problem that these sort of people are allowed all over the BNP article. As i have stated they have virtually all the controll. Anyone who isn;t an anti-facist or far-leftist and just wants to edit or update the BNP page from a neutral perspective in then abused or has their edits reverted (see [[88]]. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with this users comments. The tag teaming , and bias against that group by experienced contributors most of them easily recognizable through their contributions as supporting groups opposed to the BNP is one of the worst examples I have seen in all my travels around this wikipedia - without even looking I could name who the users are. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I noticed that while there is one edit summary by RolandR (talk·contribs) to Alexandre8 (talk·contribs) saying "Please keep your racism to yourself;" Alexandre8 had posted "Get your stalinish/nazi (no difference) sympathising bullshit off my user page, " on RolandR's talk page.. Other than that I don't see any accusations of racism in the last 250 edits. Some of Alexandre8's other edit summaries are also dubious. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well that article is going to be a powder keg of anti-BNP sentiment :S The talk page seems to be full of pretty pro/anti-attitudes which are simply not appropriate, hence a cruddy article. I doubt AN/I will be able to sort it ;) --Errant(chat!)20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A major issue with an article such as BNP is that the sources available are nearly always going to be fervently pro or anti the subject matter - and of the two only the anti brigade are likely to even attempt an critical evaluation. The same goes with the editors of the article, there is most likely a dearth of "neutral" contributors since it is an issue where most have very strong opinions - although it may be hoped that there are those among them who are capable of editing in a NPOV manner. The other major drawback is how NPOV is defined, since what may appear to be npov to a pro Nationalist editor may not be so to an editor with an anti fascist mindset - and vice versa. To point, I am a little concerned that you seem to have an issue with someone who proclaims a "multi culturalism" sympathy by means of a username, and those who have Socialist/Communist userboxes on their page and refer to them as "those sort of people" and infer that their bias make them incapable of permitting what you consider as neutral edits - while having a username that commences with "Anglo" and has userboxes noting that you are English (rather than a British citizen), support nationalist politics generally and the British National Party specifically. It might be that the counter claim of your proclaimed bias effects your ability to neutrally review the contributions of editors you have determined - by reference to their usernames and userboxes - to have a contrary viewpoint. Ultimately, whether or not an article is written neutrally depends on the Reliable Sources available and how they are incorporated into the text. I would point out that very little of your complaint, if anything, refers to whether sources are being incorrectly referenced or being deprecated according to the viewpoint expressed. If you can provide instances of WP:UNDUE weight being given to some sources, and of others inappropriately misrepresented then you can initiate dispute resolution processes, and if necessary make complaints about specific editors who are hindering the proper use of editorial input. Moaning about the commies and pinko's "controlling" an article is not sufficient when there are policies in place (for instance, WP:OWN) to ensure an open editing environment. All you need do is use them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't noticed that Anglo Pyramidologist states he supports the BNP. That makes it hard to take seriously some of his comments unless he is also suggesting that he recuse himself from the article as having too much of a conflict of interest. Which of course I am not asking him to do. You can be pro or anti the BNP and still edit the article from a neutral point of view. I agree that the focus here, if we are to actually be expected to do anything, should be about actual edits, policies, sources, etc.
I'll also note the comment made in the context of AP's topic ban: "Please also be aware that senior administrators and arbitration committee members have indicated that your behavior has come very close to justifying an outright indefinite ban on editing Wikipedia in any form, going forwards. I advise you strongly to stay away from topic areas and forms of discussion in which people have complained that you were being abusive or hostile." [89]. This might apply to his editing in this area. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware, myself, of the fact of a topic ban and those comments - I felt that AP's comments were only "tainted" by the bias upon the subject that they might have, and that in the main that their comments were not inflammatory but only prejudiced. The issue as regards neutrality and the subject matter is such that we might only deem we have a neutral article when both sets of biased editors equally dislike it (although for differing reasons). Whether or not AP should have been commenting, and in this manner, there is possibly some issue as regards OWNership of this article - however, that is not an admin concern. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin who enacted the community topic ban (AP banned from evolution related topics) and left the additional comment Doug quoted above. Doug left a message about this thread on my talk page and I'm responding.
There are a couple of long-time editors/admins above who are agreeing with AP that they see a problem on the article. I have not studied the article and talk page history on my own in depth, but I am inclined to take Off2riorob and Errant's reviews at face value.
AngloPyramidologist has had a spotty history with engaging very controversially in topics, hence the evolution topic ban. That said - we don't ban editors for holding controversial views (with the sole and notable exception of pedophillia). If he is materially contributing to the disruption on the article then that may be worthy of further inspection. I don't see that here on first light inspection.
Another user has proposed edits which will remove the biased content of the article: [[90]]. The other problem regarding biasness is that the self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) are adding posts made on facebook about the BNP. I have repeatedly pointed out content posted on personal user accounts on facebook do not reflect the BNP, their policy or position however still the inappropiate content about facebook is all over the BNP article. I'm sure no other political party on wiki has people posting links to what was posted on facebook. Any attempt to remove these invalid sources however and you find your edits reverted by the "anti-fascists", in the last few hours there have been more than 5 reverts on this subject. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the proposals have already been rejected by the "anti-fascists" on the talk page. Last week i spent 3 hours digging up legit sources and posting them, but they were also rejected. The "anti-fascists" don't even read them, they aren't interested - they just want the article to remain inaccurate which demonises the BNP. Currently the article claims BNP members are sexist (with the only reference to facebook), holocaust deniers etc etc which is completely inaccurate. Its insulting to members or supporters of the party as it doesn't fairly portray them. Also remember this is the first or second link you get when typing BNP on a search engine. Ten's of thousands of people click on it to read that the BNP are sexists and holocaust deniers, it costs them potentially thousands of votes - all diliberatly set up by the "anti-fascists" and communists (view their user pages) who oppose the BNP Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be paying much attention to the comments above, so I will ask you in light of them; where are your sources that define the core beliefs and stance as regards the BNP? While primary sources are allowable as far as indicating what the BNP might say is their ideology, can you provide RS for that? Further, you should be reminded that WP operates a "verifiability, not truth" policy - and if there are RS that there is a belief that BNP are white supremacists, a neo fascist organisation, are inherently sexist, or even holocaust deniers then such viewpoints may be included per WP:Due weight. You may have a valid concern that there is an over emphasis on one viewpoint in relation to the RS available, or even the definition of RS in relation to this issue, but you need to start providing examples. Unless you do, then your references to other editors political and cultural preferences are personal attacks - and you really do not need to get into that area again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article must be based on reliable sources. The fact that AP believes that these sources are unfair to the BNP is not something that we can correct in the article by for example providing parity to BNP views. TFD (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see all the sources i posted here already about non-indigenous members of the party: [[91]] Yet despite these sources, the article has not been updated in over 2 years on this issue and the article is very inaccurate. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are currently engaged in some quite obvious pestering of Ghmyrtle and Snowded, who spotted the St John's Jerusalem alleged hoax.
Neither user have much edits but an examples of the meat/sock puppet is that Trumpkin — a "veteran Wikipedian of 5 years" according to his page but with actually only ~50 edits since 2006 — re-stared editing directly after Earlymorningcans opened a spurious SPI on Ghmyrtle and Snowded. The edit was to express support for Earlymorningcans in defending the St John's Jerusalem against Ghmyrtle and Snowded.
Note: Trumpkin is using the sig Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) --RA (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also completely untrue to assert that I supported anyone against Ghmyrtle and Snowded in regards to St John's Jerusalem. I wrote on User talk:Earlymorningcans to express my gratitude for his edits to improve the article following vandalism by Stellas4luncha and Bobadillaman: "Can I thank you for your recent edits to St John's Jerusalem, it certainly makes a start to undoing the vandalism the page has sustained over the last month." - I don't know what I have done to inspire such hatred against me by this user but I am patently innocent of all trumped up charges. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an SPI which has been endorsed which could do with a hurry up. Worth noting that we have had sockmasters on these pages who use proxy IPs so behavioral evidence may also need to come into play --SnowdedTALK19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whose sock this is, but it's someone's. Also, he's obviously trolling. Earlymorningcans blocked indef, the SPI can continue to determine if the others are socks too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to be dragged into what looks like a long running dispute started by some vandals. I just happened to agree with them in my first edit and had not realised that they were trolling! Can I clarify by saying that I am not supporting them and are not in this situation. I am sorry for the confusion caused by my single edit and lack of follow-up. Thanks Hellohenry57 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advise for Trumpkin: Shorten the alternate appearance of your moniker. Its length ("Grand High Most Supreme...")is a tad annoying. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wgfinley has blocked Neutralhomer for 24 hours for "Improper reversion and warning of disputed content as vandalism" on WMAQ-TV. Neutralhomer requests to be unblocked because he believes that Wgfinley is too involved to make this block. I agree with this assessment, though not for the reasons given by Neutralhomer, but because Wgfinley has twice removed (15 May, 22 May) the content that Neutralhomer edit-warred to re-insert, which makes Wgfinley an involved party to the edit war.
Another block reviewer, FisherQueen, has declined the unblock request because she considers that the block is correct on the merits as a block for edit-warring and frivolous vandalism warnings, with which I agree. I'm starting this thread to get more opinions as to whether the block should be undone as procedurally flawed, or upheld as materially correct. Sandstein 19:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that FisherQueen, totally uninvolved, has endorsed the block then it seems fine to let it stand as upheld. I dislike overturning blocks on a technicality like this. Wgfinley is undoubtedly involved, and we should discuss his actions and perhaps sanction/chastise him appropriately. (I'd probably have supported an unblock, except Neutralhomer doesn't seem to "get" the problem with using the vandalism revert in his unblock request) --Errant(chat!)20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that I made an error; I thought Neutralhomer was edit-warring to remove the content, and now I see that he was the one adding it. My bad. Either way this is not vandalism, but I did look at it a little backward. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock I regret to say that this is an egregiously bad block, not only might the blocking admin be involved in editing the article, and did so to revert the editor they have blocked, but they are also apparently acting in a mentor capacity to the other involved party to an edit war, and they have used the technicality of sanctioning for one editor for misrepresenting the other editors contributions as "vandalism" - when the blocked editor had already made the argument that as the edits were being made in bad faith that they were correctly labelled as such (I am offering no opinion on whether this statement is based in fact, let alone accepted). Even if an uninvolved admin were to take over the block, I would suggest that it is still inappropriate to sanction one side of what appears to be an edit war. Under the circumstances, I think NeutralHomer should be unblocked and final warned for edit warring, User:TVFAN24 also so warned, and Wgfinley cautioned regarding the correct application of distance in regard to an issue they are involved in and an editor they have a relationship with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock immediately. Disclaimer: I consider NH a friend. This a truly atrocious block. The blocking admin is so unambiguously involved that it is difficult to fathom what was going through his mind when he made this block. The block is not preventing anything that wouldn't have been prevented by telling NH to go for a walk or invest his energies in a different part of the wiki for a while. But even if there was emrit to the block (and I objectively don't think there is), to then revert the editor you've just blocked in the same edit war is gross miconduct. With possible exceptions for vandalism, copyvios and BLP issues, it is never appropriate to revert an edit in an edit war that was made by an editor you've just blocked. You don't even have to read the policy to know that. I have little doubt that the blocking admin wasn't trying to get the upper hand in the dispute, but the appearance of impropriety alone means that a swift unblock, with appropriate annotation in the block log that it was a bad block, is the only appropriate thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have voluntarily unblocked this user. I agree it could be construed that I am WP:INVOLVED as I previously mentored TVFAN24. However, this user has done nothing to state he will change his conduct. I hope this will at least draw some attention to that. --WGFinley (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reblock pending: Neutralhomer has repeatedly mislabeled vandalism and reverted using Twinkle, and he's repeatedly promised to stop. I've asked him to renew his promise to not do so again, and if he does not then we need to look into removing his access to Twinkle. Will Bebacktalk21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted before, Nh has forwarded the notion that the other parties edits, although apparently compliant, are being made in a bad faith manner - which constitutes WP:DISRUPT and is thus vandalism. Having Nh agree not to mislabel edits as vandalism might be argued as not applying in this issue. I thus suggest a more specific undertaking in this instance, that Nh will follow DR process in trying to resolve the issue and not reverting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LessHeard, while I would always have thought it made sense to label intentionally disruptive edits as vandalism, they actually are not. Interesting, huh? Within certain definitions of disruptive, I wouldn't mind seeing that change, but alas, this isn't the venue for that. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't block NH, but I am putting him on the Twinkle blacklist. There have been numerous complaints over the years and he only retained his TW access by promising not to use it to label edits as vandalism. If he can go a year without mislabeling vandalism then he can get the tool back. Will Bebacktalk03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: I do understand the policies and guidelines on it... there's a line of common sense in determining whether disruptive editing is vandalism. Thus, what I am trying to say is that simply because the editing is disruptive, one cannot label it as vandalism. And in this case, one would be hard pressed to do so. Nonetheless, that still leaves either war or 3rr. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RockSound on MOMK
RockSound (talk·contribs)
Ok, yes, it's the Murder of Meredith Kercher article again.... things were going fairly smoothly with editors discussing issues on the talk page. However a new editor, RockSound, started editing the article the other day. Generally the edits are ok, some are contentious and some go against pre-discussed consensus (consensus we worked really hard to get compromise agreed). I've been trying to get him to participate in the talk page but instead he is claiming things like The cabal needs to stop with this censorship and harassment and on his talk page there is a rather unfortunate pro-innocence rant. I can't get him to participate in the talk page, he simply does not seem to want to engage, if his edits are reverted with requests to discuss he simply ignores it and reverts back (not really edit warring, more just consistently changing things over and over) :( I'm not sure what else to do; could someone have a strong word to try and iron this out. Some of his changes shouldn't be reverted, but not discussing the issues isn't helping get his content kept. --Errant(chat!)23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Wales has been involved in this article as reported in the news media. Many people are upset that there is a clique of pro-guilt editors who have a lock hold on the article and won't allow any changes unless approved by the clique. Mr. Wales was served with an open letter now signed by hundreds of people complaining of the pro-guilt bias in the article which violates BLP since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not been finally convicted of the crime. Mr. Wales needs to come back as he promised to help make this article more neutral and less of an advocacy piece to pursuade the public of the guilt of the two students. Wikipedia is being abused by these people who are using it for their own agenda.
There has been a lot of media coverage of Mr. Wales trying to straighten out the problems with this article, but no follow up.
RockSound - Wikipedia operates by open consensus, and strives to find a neutral point of view. If you will not cooperate with discussing your issues with the article with other editors, on their talk pages or the article talk page, you're intentionally disregarding the whole method Wikipedia uses to resolve conflicts and deal with questions.
If you edit disruptively and will not discuss issues on talk pages, no matter what your background or particular problem, you will be warned, and if you continue can be blocked from editing.
I doubt that the user is a sockpuppet. However, I agree that RockSound needs to demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in talk page discussion, rather than throw around accusations of a perceived "pro-guilt" bias whenever their failure to engage in talk page discussion leads to their bold edits being reverted. SuperMarioMan00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a whole lot of people raising this exact same issue of pro-guilt people having total control of the article, with the same style and interests. Everyone is accused of being a sock or some other misconduct so that they can be immediately banned and the real wrongdoing ---violation of BLP--continues. The problems with this article being used as an advocacy piece for guilt are outrageous and Mr. Wales needs to come back and follow up as he promised. And all those who were banned by those trying to silence those who did not support a view of guilt need to be unbanned, like PhanuelB for instance. It isn't simply a problem of not discussing on the Talk page. It is a problem of a pro-guilt POV having control of the Talk page and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" “I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion,”
This is what Mr. Wales said in April. The situation is still exactly the same. Virtually everything I tried to add was deleted, even the most tiny, neutral of edits that should never have needed discussion.
For those who may be interested, there is a Petition to Mr. Wales now signed by over 300 people complaining of serious problems on this article. It is at this site petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html
That does not absolve you of the responsibility to participate in community discussions going forwards.
Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia that everyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. If you are not willing to cooperate with discussions and the community consensus process - i.e., go to talk pages and discuss issues there in good faith - you are not going to be welcome to continue editing.
This is not a "Stop having an opinion and go away". This is "You need to participate in the community discussions in good faith along the way".
This is not optional, regardless of what Jimmy Wales may eventually say. You HAVE TO participate in discussions here.
Rocksound, in terms of the Meredith Kercher murder article, Jimbo Wales is just one voice, one editor. He has no more and no less of a say than any of the rest of us do. Please stop holding up his participation as some sort of bright-line gospel that we are failing or not failing to live up to. Editing here doesn't work that way. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Wales is the owner and founder and a very important person on this website. I certainly value his opinion as do most people on here. I am entitled to value his good judgment and opinion if I want to. He makes a lot of sense and I happen to admire the fact that he seems like a very principled person. If he says there are problems on the Kercher article, and he has said that, that is good enough for me. I will see if he will follow up, as it is quite needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs)
"No help here"? I see plenty of help. Suggestions to engage in discussion on the talk pages, which is always the first way to resolve disputes. Having been involved in disputes where discussion on talk pages is not fruitful, I can understand that it is not always a panacea, but the evidence suggests you haven't even tried. Other dispute resolution suggestions were given, and I see no response form you indicating whether they have been tried and failed, or even acknowledging their existence. It looks to me like you think you can convince Mr. Wales to support you, so why bother with the usual routes. Jimbo is quite interested in ensuring that articles are neutral, and do not promote one side over another, but he is also (I believe) a fan of following normal dispute resolution processes, at least until they are shown to fail. I don't see evidence you have even tried. My hope and expectation is that Jimbo Wales will urge you to at least try. (Disclaimer - I'm not familiar with the incident discussed in the article, and had not viewed the article before today, Even now, I merely glanced at it to see if I knew the incident. My comments are based solely on the exchange in this forum, in which I see no evidence of an attempt at dispute resolution by you.)--SPhilbrickT01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just another data point on how advocacy has rendered the atmosphere there highly toxic, and counter to improving the article. Jimbo's involvement has been well-meaning and even in some regards helpful, but by encouraging those who have an ax to grind to believe that he is on their "side" he has made life harder for those of us who believe there should only be one "side", and that should be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Wales has to cop the public blame for the misdeeds of the editors, which makes him much more than just one voice and one editor. Editing together makes us all responsible. Community consensus is not a panacea. If there are public allegations that an article is gravely flawed, and the editors working on it are ignoring reliable sources, then that should be concern us all, and should be investigated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to learn more about the problems and attempted solutions on the Kercher article, these two sources give some of the background and this is all reflected in the archived pages of the discussion pages. It seems that out of long frustration and disappointment a whole lot of people resorted to the petition route and finally someone responded, Mr. Wales. But there has been no follow up. I understand that he is very busy, but maybe he can squeeze the article in soon. I will also send an email to the email address on the petition to see if I can learn anything further from them, and maybe they would like to talk to him too. Then maybe Mr. Wales and everyone could go back to using the discussion pages on the Kercher article. Talk to you later.
-
- petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html
-
- "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?"
- http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/—Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2011
SlimVirgin userspace page on Poetlister
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.
One of the interesting things about SlimVirgin is that she attacks incessantly, and largely by digging into your history (not that she gets the facts straight). Eventually, when somebody does this, curiosity prompts you to dig into theirs.
In lights of all the BLP purism flying around, SlimVirgin's huge page attacking a single editor named "Poetlister" is interesting. Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM y'know, that's why you can be blocked a single sentence criticizing someone. (But if an admin wants to write an entire attack page, that's OK):
"The man behind the accounts has been named on Wikipedia Review as a middle-aged British civil servant who stole photographs of attractive women so he could pretend the accounts were run by them. The prettiness of the women consolidated support for him....He has a history of impersonating women elsewhere....He flattered and flirted with BlissyU2 (User:Zordrac)....The two most damaging aspects of this affair are, first, that Poetlister was supported by at least two members of the ArbCom (Charles Matthews and FloNight, both of whom pushed for him to be unblocked), and Lar, a steward; and secondly that one of his sockpuppets managed to gain access to the global checkuser mailing list....On Wikipedia, the man behind the accounts ran Poetlister, RachelBrown, Habashia, Bedivere, Taxwoman, Newport, Londoneye, Yehudi, Osidge, R613vlu, Holdenhurst, Simul8, and Runcorn, an admin. Poetlister's WP account was recently renamed to Quillercouch; he claimed to be G______. H_______., 26 years old, who lived either in Hertfordshire or Essex.....The writing was also either very masculine and pompous, or too feminine, or rather it was what some men might suppose is feminine — simpering, flirtatious, and childish....There were also some edits that few women would have made e.g. to Fucking machine. It was pretty clear that the writer was male, probably an older man, and very likely someone who had issues with women and little experience of close relationships with them." [96]Mindbunny (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page criticizes a number of editors by account name, including yours truly. Since it has been around for so long, someone probably needs to slap the speedy delete tag on it per WP:ATP. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss the merits of the page in question, if necessary, at another time, but I think this particular post is a WP:POINT violation related to a pending request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. The single thought "Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt." is a blockable BLP-violation (when written by a regular, peon editor). An entire attack page is defensible (when written by an admin). If you're going to invoke WP:POINT you should explain exactly what is disruptive. Somebody should write a guideline WP:LAZYACRONYMUSE for those who just poop out WP:MEH everytime they want to dismiss an idea without doing the work of open-minded analysis. Mindbunny (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's your particular stake in this particular essay that was written several years ago? It looks to me like documentation of a harassment case that's important and needs to be retained, not censored. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. What we do not tolerate regarding those who are not part of Wikipedia's community (attacks on BLP subjects, etc) is sometimes necessary for administrative purposes here.
That is not to say that we must and always do retain every item, but cases that resulted in real-world harassment need to be memorialized in ways that prevent us from accidentally letting unrepentant abusers back onto the project. We may at times blank pages out of courtesy but deleting abuse records is a questionable suggestion.
Mindbunny, you are pushing buttons that have consequences associated with them. You are approaching the threshold for disruptive here. Once you've started an Arbcom case filing, you (and everyone else) is under heightened scrutiny, and expected to be on their best behaviors. This is not an example of best behavior. We have a WP:BOOMERANG essay for actions that come back to bite poeple who thought they'd "get" their perceived enemies on Wikipedia. Please lay off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is so wrong, and the fact that you think it is so right sums up everything: "What we do not tolerate regarding those who are not part of Wikipedia's community (attacks on BLP subjects, etc) is sometimes necessary for administrative purposes here." If you want to boomerang those who try to "get their enemies," explain why you aren't boomeranging SlimVirgin. Oh wait, is SlimVirgin....an admin?
There is no custom of blocking for off-hand criticism of living people, and we all know it. Unless....it is part of "getting your enemy," and you're an admin. This community is pathetic. Permanently ban me, you fuckheads. Mindbunny (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Indonesia_1952_5r_o.jpg&oldid=428749460){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Indonesia_1952_5r_o.jpg&oldid=429693236){kind=link}
