Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Santaria360 (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 23 February 2009 (→A question about a disturbing discussion between two contributors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Foie gras

    Sko1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is once again an edit war going on at that article, being instigated by the same guy, User:Sko1221, a single-purpose account focused on POV-pushing on that article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The image has been in Foie gras controversy for a long time; I don't see a major problem with it existing in this article and it could be argued that removing it is also pushing a POV. It's certainly more encyclopedic that the image of the bottle of wine ... Black Kite 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is alleged to be a photo of a duck being force-fed. Prove it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hard-pressed to think of an alternative reason why a duck/goose in a battery farm should be having a funnel put down its throat. Come on, be realistic - it is a duck being force-fed - compare [1]. Black Kite 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My purpose for wanting this picture to be included is that i know people don't usually read every word on a Wiki page, we usually skim the page. I am adding this picture for those people who want a fair, informational story but want it fast, without having to read each word. There are probably good paying jobs for those who want to create an ad for foie gras, but this is not the place. Thanks, Sarah 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a pure content dispute with no admin action really needed, and consensus here and at Talk:Foie_gras#Images seems to agree that the image is what it claims to be (a duck being tube-fed to make fois gras) so there's nothing for an admin to here. rootology (C)(T) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The single-purpose, POV-pushing account wins the battle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please discuss this on the talk page of the article; there's no battles to be won, and I had an outstanding question for you on how a visual representation of a physical action described in the article is any kind of a POV push. rootology (C)(T) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's to try to "prove" that it's cruelty to animals. A photo provides better shock effect than simply talking about it. Meanwhile, the guy who originally raised this issue, and claimed Sko1221 is a sock, has stayed away from this for the time being. It's more his battle than mine, as I don't like POV-pushing, nor do I like liver. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Sarah here, SKO1221. I have not stayed away, i am not a "sock", i simply forgot to log in so did not show up as SKO.

    Never been to either article, just saw this in passing. I would tend to think that an article on Foie gras should concentrate on only the subject matter itself, and not the controversy. That is why there appears to be this separate Foie gras controversy to cover the issue of why people are against this product, rather than the product itself. The Fur clothing article does not contain images of bloody animal pelts, for example. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article already has a section on fattening. The image is hardly comparable to bloody animal pelts, it is merely an image of a duck being fattened up to illustrate that section of the article. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it has arguably a POV-fork that focuses on the controversy, which is where the picture came from. And the SPA / IP wants the picture in this article, too, as "it's a huge part of the story". [2] Maybe the solution is to put the whole "story" into a single article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just read the controversy article and it reads fairly neutral. It's kinda long to put into the foie gras one. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does the picture need to be in both articles, other than to further push the "cruelty to animals" viewpoint? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone has removed the picture again, after going through this process of resolution.SKO1221 Sko1221 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    News flash: It ain't resolved. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring is still ongoing here, now, with another undiscussed reversion. rootology (C)(T) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What you've got here is a single purpose account that turned up in the last day or so for the express purpose of trying to push the "cruelty to animals" angle as much as possible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's all well and good, but we don't block to win content disputes. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    i thought this had been resolved. suggest reversion to resolved edit and lock. Sko1221 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest blocking the single purpose account for POV-pushing and edit warring. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocks for the other editors edit warring, as well? Regardless of their "original" intention, when more people reviewed it, a consensus seems to have formed/is forming on the talk. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Page locked until the disputes are resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    suggest blocking baseballs for un-resolving resolved issues.

    Here's a suggestion - lets not block anyone. Lets have everyone go to the talk page and put their arguments forwards. Kinda novel idea I know. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What protection is there for a resolved issue (other than the temporary locked mode of the page) from edit warring when someone is very POV toward foie gras, as we have seen here? Sko1221 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What? Let it rest. Don't think for one minute that because some admins happen to agree that the picture should stay that we cannot see that you are in fact the most POV editor on the page. You editing history speaks volumes. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes sense, thanks for your help. Sko1221 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest blocking Theresa knott for cruelty to otters over an extended period (no one believed your excuse). Meanwhile, this really does look like a content dispute that should be resolved using dispute resolution techniques. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am innocent! It's not my fault that I came across a sinking otter, what kind of otter cant swim? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was force-fed; stuffed with wholly mackeral, to give him a fish oil sleek coat. Alas, he slid under. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone take another look at the image source[3]? It looks like it is copyrighted which would make the matter moot. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They require attribution, so does CC-by SA and so does the GFDL doesn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested the owner of the image (Gaia) remove copyright. Will let you all know what i hear.Sko1221 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread was vintage Baseball Bugs. Tan | 39 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was obviously an issue that needed to be raised, although the user who originally turned in SKO to WP:AIV the other day (without success) has kept quiet on this subject today. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Until now. He has posted a good-sized argument on the article talk page reinforcing what I said, namely that you all have let the PETA-type POV-pushers win this one. Congratulations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Gaia regarding photo copyright can be found on discussion page. Sko1221 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What does everyone think of the idea that Prepared Foie Gras (& Accompaniments) have it's own separate page, just as "Beef" and "Steak" do? Might this help to end the battling going on on the Foie Gras page?Sko1221 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)68.13.134.213 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since you raise the question, I have what I think is a sure-fire way to end the battling there. But you might not like it, involving as it does a topic ban for you. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm wondering who exactly 68.13.134.213 is.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SKO1221, Sarah. As i have said, that is the IP address that shows up when i have forgotten to log in. I have discovered the "keep me logged in for 30 days" button, so you should not see my IP address for the next month.Sko1221 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Soliciting off-wiki pressure on editors

    I recently posted about the above user's threat to publish inflammatory material if other editors didn't back off. [4].

    Same editor has been in direct consultation with an organisation mentioned in the article: "I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing."

    Now this statement from said Trustees has appeared off-wiki, repeating unproven claims about the affiliations and hostile motivations of editors here *, as well as making heavy hints about what the article should say about this organisation. Apart from such close communication being probable COI, this smells of attack-by-proxy. Does it come under WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: oh, apparently not here, since (despite precisely matching what he said was discussing with them) the statement doesn't mention Wikipedia by name. Must be some other user-editable "online encyclopaedic resource" with exactly the same dispute then. FX: rolls eyes Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like the kind of editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, having no caring about our policies and community ethos. Such people often have a short but turbulent career on Wikipedia. Does WP:BATTLE apply, do we think? as an aside, the article scriptural reasoning needs a complete rewrite or nuking; right now it reads as an unholy mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could possibly add that slogan to the policy guidelines. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could possibly be slightly more subtle HalfShadow. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion, should this user be indefinitely blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [5] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cameron Scott: there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group. The other editors appear to be editing well within WP:NPOV, but it's very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Beautifully put, thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ←And on the 8th day Jimbo (and/or Sanger) did createth the wiki. And thine policy shall stateth: Go forth and propagate thine web with great "sum of human knowledge", but be not vain in your efforts. Thou shalt push neither negative, nor positive OR, but rather provide great NPOV. (ohhh I hope the big guy upstairs don't get mad about that post!) — Ched (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole thread is just great. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the posted document, it is not just a matter of propaganda in favor of this religious group, but a question of there being two rival groups, the one that posted the message, the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its sponsor,the "Interfaith Alliance UK" (which cooperates with a loosely associated US organization, ""Interfaith Alliance"; and on the other hand the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its "Cambridge InterFaith Programme". The matter at controversy is the relative importance of the two, and also whether, as the SRS claims, the term "Scriptural Reasoning" is generic for reading the scriptures of various faiths in parallel. Given all this, I would therefore not make any assumptions about which edits to the article are the fair ones. I of course do support the present block, and it is possible that other editors may need similar attention. In any case, i would not disparage any of them, & I think the two immediately preceding comments ought to be retracted. Obviously, as dougweller says, people from outside both must do the editing here. DGG (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is indeed reflected in the edit history of the article, and the WP:SPAs who have edited it. So, should we banninate the primary warrior here? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I approve of the indef block as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Toddst1 has just left a notice on my talk page about this discussion and directing me to it, so not sure whether I am supposed to post here, but he has posted. I have already posted details on my talk page about this incident [6] so not intending to repeat at length.
    Given that that Trustees have clarified that they were informed having received a telephone call from someone from the "Inter Faith Network of the UK" of which the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" and "St Ethelburga's Centre" are both affiliated member organisations (both are also part of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and both have been critiqued by me in past edits of Scriptural Reasoning) ---- the question arises exactly how did this happen? So who exactly put the "external pressure on a Wikipedia editor"? You might therefore want to clarify this from the other users on Scriptural Reasoning since with the exception of Gordonofcartoon they are all stalwarts of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and Thelongview works for the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which is a nice coincidence.
    Also a nice coincidence is how on 27 November 2008 and immediately around that time, after 20 months previously of quiet and low activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden Thelongview (at that time Nsa1001) arrived and immediately concurrently Mahigton and Laysha101 (new user to Wikipedia), all three of whom admit to knowing each other and are part of the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" group. Not long thereafter, other brand newly registered users, all very familiar and supportive of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" position -- and all editing together. External pressure?
    The article Scriptural Reasoning has been a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning and exaggerated the practice's importance and originality (SR is nothing original nor practiced by thousands), and as DGG there is a dispute between the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which claims ownership of SR and the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford Group) which claims that SR is just a name for something loads of others have done.
    I'm not all that bothered about being "banninated" so do go ahead. But what I don't think is acceptable is for others who have been rather cleverer and less stupidly open about what I think and which of my friends I talk to, to get away with a biased promo article for Scriptural Reasoning. In fact to save you all the hassle....I shall delete my account...so happy jolly days chaps...and tatty bye...(arseholes)

    --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has requested that their user talk page, User talk:Scripturalreasoning be deleted under CSD U1, but U1 does not apply to user talk pages unless RTV is invocted, but given the above, I do not think the user talk page should be deleted; I especially don't think it's right that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is to be thrown in my face when I question the deleting admin's deletion of the page.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored it as being part of an ongoing dispute, it can be nuked once this has all died down. I don't think the deleting admin was made aware of the controversy in which the user is embroiled. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins inappropriate comments in this thread

    A number of administrators / other responding parties violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL using comments such as "fuck right off".

    It is entirely possible to respond to abuse cases such as this one without insulting the party who caused the problem. Using insulting and abusive language violates Wikipedia's policies and degrades the quality of participation in the community and the communities' values.

    This is not acceptable behavior here or anywhere else. Please do not do it again. HalfShadow is getting a warning - others should consider your own actions and participation in the abusive subthread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps they were not setting the most open mood possible, but I doubt those comments constituted WP:CIVIL vios, and certainly not WP:NPA violations. It was indirect speech anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity. HalfShadow 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Charming to respond to a WP:CIVIL notice by violating WP:CIVIL again. It's times like this I wish I had admin powers. THF (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They're (the admin powers) not as cool as they sound. Sure, they help us impress chicks, but that's about all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's one other possibility, but he types too well for that to be likely. And it's times like this that I wish I had a unicorn. There's never a wrong time for a unicorn. HalfShadow 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between simply using the (cover your ears, children!!) f-word!!! and an actual incivil personal attack - in much the same way that there's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between a painting of a knife and stabbing somebody in the face. It may take some deep rumination, but I'm confident that you - and others who enjoy being the first to fling around wikilinks to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - can grow to understand it. =) Badger Drink (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The civility and personal attacks policies are not a black and white spectrum. The original abuses above were neither as blatant nor as specific as many in the past.
    However, there is a renewed emphasis in policy circles that the policies are real, serious, that we mean it (from Arbcom at the top through normal admins and editors), and that the at times and in places rampant abusive behavior on wiki especially in admin forums has to stop.
    There is nothing in this thread that required or justified rude language or abuse of the problem account.
    HalfShadow's initial behavior was across the line but not horribly abusively so. His choice of responses to the initial warnings was most unfortunately less ambiguous. His behavior has a problem - he needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fwiw, please count my !vote in support of the block given by GWH, though I won't be participating in the ensuing wikidrama. THF (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Complete overreaction. Block should be undone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. And even if a block was warranted here, GWH should not have been the one doing it. J.delanoygabsadds 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking on the original issue would have been a complete overreaction. A reasonable discussion (which Deacon, to be fair, started) as to whether the original conduct warranted a warning or not is fine. An edit summary suggesting another editor is insane and a comment suggesting another editor is insane are however evidence that HalfShadow has a problem with civility and NPA. As direct responses to an editor warning them about civility... He proved my point.
    Admins are not conflicted out of taking admin actions on the grounds that someone they warned (after no prior interaction or conflict) turned around and got abusive on them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed as well. The use of "fuck" in this thread was problematic, but certainly not blockable of itself. I see nothing else here that shows that HalfShadow should have been blocked, it looks purely punative for the use of salty language, and I see no evidence of it being warrented. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. HalfShadow wasn't blocked for saying "fuck." He was blocked because he insulted two editors who asked him to be more polite. If we're going to take WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously, it needs to be enforced. There's no excuse for repeated abuse of experienced editors, and we don't do enough to cut it off at the pass, which is why so many editors burn out. THF (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that no one really took note of or had much of an issue with the usage of the word fuck and such, til this admin decided to blow it up into a subsec of the existing discussion. Sometimes the waggling of the "thou shalt not" finger does more to inflame than the original act could ever manage. All in all, an egregiously bad block if I have ever seen one. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ::Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) Striking out inadvertent extraneous text. Not sure how that happened. THF (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HalfShadow is quite often uncivil and left cynical and unhelful comments here, so I don't wonder he is blocked for his incivility.--Caspian blue 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see HalfShadow's comments here as being largely satirical. However, when the targets of that satire don't see the humor in it, then it can be time to... "walk right off" for awhile. Before someone else makes you take that walk. On the other hand, if one is having a bad day or week, then in being compelled to take that walk for a short time (24 hours, for example), there is no real harm done, and it can be therapeutic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he has to take the walk for 24 hours from here. Not bad decision.--Caspian blue 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments here can be read that way now that I reread with that in mind. His responses on his talk page don't indicate that to me, though.
    I don't want to step on people just being satirical, but if that was what he had in mind he should have said so after the warning, or at least after the block, and he's instead defending himself on his talk page saying that the block was inappropriate because I was in conflict with him (because I warned him once??). I would think that he'd be likely to have explained himself then if his original intent was satire. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going strictly by what he said here, and I gather he doesn't always know where the "line" is. I don't always know either, and that's when I've been blocked. If I were him, I would do as I have done when I've been blocked: find something else to do for 24 hours. It's Saturday. Go to the movies. Go shopping. Help the economy. Wikipedia will likely still be here upon expiration of the block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you plan on commenting on his talk page, per request? seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did with the block warning. He deleted that from his talk page, along with previous warnings by me and THF, as he is entitled to do under the userpage policy. I generally try to avoid interfering with an unblock request from one of my blocks that's active - that's for other admins to decide.
    If there a specific other request up here for me to ask him / talk about? I don't have a problem with engaging in more discussion with him on his talk, if he will actually discuss something and not just delete it again. What do you suggest I ask or suggest? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    civility break 1

    Without commenting on the comments or the block at this point.... I remember responding to a WQA sometime ago that was filed against HalfShadow mid-last year. I'd initially suggested that if there were still problems, that it went to RfC, and that a friendly reminder would be enough - but based on his responses to that reminder (which were plain - not satirical), I ended up closing it as "stuck - hopefully the incivility would cease" and advised the filing party to bring it straight to a noticeboard the next time there was a problem. This may be irrelevant given that it was so long ago, and I can't find the link, but wanted to note it just in case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Google, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:HalfShadow. THF (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a fuss about nothing - "fuck right off" just means "go away", it's not aimed at one particular person. And in that sense, many people should fuck right off in regards to their conduct here - the block was pathetic and should be overturned immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As is noted in the block message and above, the block was for insulting other editors (violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Kcowolf (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • George is right: rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some, so we are asked to keep it out of anything that might be construed as an "official" procedure or discussion. Even I have worked that one out by now, and I am pretty dense in that regard. I always italicise right anyway. Yes, we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse the block on its merits, too, though it would be better if someone other than one of the insulted users had issued it. Because admins are prohibited from blocking users they are in a conflict with, I'm granting HalfShadow's unblock request, but I'm also reinstating the block as a block of my own.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse the block...when writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. This brings into play the issue of swearing on the talkspace. Swearing, not by vandals, but by editors to make a point or give emphasis. But it (swearing) brings with it its negative connectors and responses and the conversation starts downward. Dignity is required in this process; we should seek to engender goodwill and approval, co-operation, not the opposite. This is an adult environment, not a saloon. There is really no good argument to the contrary. Administrators should convey propriety not bad examples. BTW... fuck right off means fuck right off. If he typed Go away it would have required fewer keystrokes and would have been less agitating!--Buster7 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we fucking serious? We blocked half-shadow for that? (the two diffs noted on his talk page). Come on. I'm not inclined to think that what he wrote there was appropriate, but we have to accept that multiple perceptions of these boards exist. Some people think of them as places akin to a judge's chambers, where arguments and positions are presented in a semi-official manner. Some people feel that they are simply a mechanism for notification of admins and interested editors. Some people feel that they are a watering hole. These have subjective interpretations have varying levels of acceptance and legitimacy, but we certainly don't need to engage in some heavy handed nonsense in keeping the "f-word" off of them. Unbelievable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No comment on the block, but there is far too much unnecessary sarcasm and snarky commentary on WP:ANI, and oftentimes it crosses the murky line into incivility. I would put HalfShadow's comments in this thread into that catchall category. Poking fun at another productive contributor is not appropriate (i.e. comments on Georgewilliamherbert's sanity). Wikipedia is not censored, and WP:ANI is not censored, but it's not appropriate to stop by WP:ANI just to leave a snarky one-liner aimed at someone else. -- Samir 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a matter of censorship. If someone is claiming censorship, they need to reexamine the evidence. I don't think half-shadow is being "censored" in the sense that someone is using authority to control content or discussion. We are just (rightly, as you note) trying to avoid cynicism and sarcasm in our forums (which project poorly w/o extra-textual clues) and we went too far in conflating "bad language" with malign intent. I don't think half shadow was intending to lower the discourse or demean another person, I think he was intending to be funny and blunt (or funny by way of being blunt). Was it poorly received? Clearly. Was it a bad idea? Probably. Was it something so wrong as to prompt a somewhat officious "warning" which devolved into an inappropriate block? NO. Suggesting that someone has taken leave of their faculties in leveling a warning is uncivil (borderline, IMO), but not a personal attack (again, IMO). Doing so in an edit summary on your own talk page is relatively harmless (honestly...). Doing so on AN/I is not harmless and half-shadow should have known better. But the impetus for the block ("fuck right off") was an unneeded minor panic over a word used more gently than a former vice president used it with regards to a sitting united states senator. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody was blocked for saying "fuck." (And if Dick Cheney spent a trillion dollars on a fruitless war, would you do so just because he did?) THF (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "fuck" is not blockable (and that comment is not the trigger of this block). But insulting others repeatedly ("you could burst into flames spontaniously", "I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity") is. WP:NPA is policy, and there is never an excuse for violating it. See, generally, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#How to raise the tone of the wiki.  Sandstein  23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, THF. You'll note the sentences I spent on the two diffs cited in his block. I referred to the use of the word of curse as the impetus for the whole display which has played out here. And as for sandstein, I understand that NPA can't be violated but we really should treat things in perspective. This whole thing escalated too quickly for stupid reasons all around. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on 2 secs...someone says "Fuck Right Off" to nobody at all, which is not uncivil. Someone says "you could be nicer" and he gives a little sarcastic reply "and you could spontaneously burst into flames", which is NOT an attack, it's sarcasm, meaning "um, not likely". Someone wrongly gives him a warning, and he got a little pissy, and then he gets blocked? A-B-C anyone? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Boy this whole thread sure went to hell in a handbasket. Suggestion: Everyone just take your hands off the keyboard... and back away very slowly - then look around at the real world. This has gone way off-track. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Handbaskets are fun. Hell...not so much. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya know, I'm familiar with the lol cat that says "I iz adminz" and "this iz serious bizniz" and all. But this is supposed to be the big boys board. Self-importance doesn't belong here. This whole thing was about a religious posting, and how to handle it. Somehow everyone seems to have lost track of things. Wikipedia: The objective is to be "objective". geesh. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block per Sandstein. If this was the first time HalfShadow's civility was an issue, maybe a block would be an overreaction in the absence of trying to talk to him (eg; through WQA or other methods). But that's just it; this isn't the first time - attempts to discuss it with him have been unsuccessful. Per Guy; rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some...we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't contesting the block, just the blocker. And vocalist take heart in the knowledge that your thoughts and opinions have no value to me. That goes for THF and Caspian, too. HalfShadow 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    HalfShadow, if one is blocked for making personal attacks on an administrative noticeboard, it is unwise to return to the same thread with more personal attacks. I was about to re-block you, but I don't want to sound like a broken record, so I invite any other administrator who concurs with my assessment to do so.  Sandstein  18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a 'personal attack' to state an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is 'wanted' or not. Calling them a name would be a personal attack. Suggesting their intelligence is flawed would be a personal attack. Simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value to me isn't; it's simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value. I have nothing more to say on the subject: I simply do not care. HalfShadow 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also fail to see the attack. Yes, HalfShadow could perhaps be a bit more civil. However, other people could just learn how to appreciate sarcasm instead. I see nothing in this discussion that was a clear personal attack (meaning that it was malintentioned). The way I see this thread, HS was being sarcastic, people got pissed, he responded with more sarcasm, people got even more pissed and warned him rather than WP:AGF, and then he understandably got a little upset about it. All in all, this doesn't seem like an issue that we can't move past. Firestorm Talk 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blogging4truth SSP

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive for the details. It's a mixture of BLP vios, trolling, spamming and socking so I am posting here. The case just closed as it seemed that no one could agree on how to proceed or what was necessary, but there is a distinct pattern to the edits and an obvious intent to self promote and inflame. The final recoemmendation was to bring it up here. It seemed clear to everyone who commented in the case and outside of it that the sockpuppets are clearly him and that the contributions were all both predictable and highly undesirable. There have been no edits since the SSP case was opened but there has never been any discussion from the editor(s) and from the wide range of articles edited in the past it will not be obvious where he will appear next without following his blog to see what the next topic is. There is a WPSPAM case on michaelcrook.net too. Mfield (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks are blocked and the last spammed site added to the blacklist (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#michaelcrook.org). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive74#User:Anotherblogger and his threats against Wikipedia, Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive_4#New_Website, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination). Have I missed anything? I think we should characterise this one as banned, over two years of self-promotion, BLP violations, block evasion, sockpuppetry and spamming.
    Did I miss any? Guy (Help!) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not wrong. Words like truth, justice, freedom and so on are very often indicative of people whose time here is short but turbulent. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you guys - "for truth" nearly always means "for The Truth™" - it's a damn reliable indicator of tendentious POV editing. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean this seriously rather than just rhetorically, no, I can imagine someone naive enough to use it in good faith. DGG (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can imagine it too. Be nice to know if it has ever happened... Guy (Help!) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there are more, we can always reopen the case, and request a CU. Synergy 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A few observations. The name is painfully reminiscent of User:Kossack4Truth, one of last year's most disagreeable sockpuppets - although the editing patterns are not at all similar. If there is sockpuppetry, and it is all designed to promote Michael Crook, considered by many to be an "internet agitator",[7] then it is best to know about it and may be useful deal with it in organized fashion. Speaking of that, why is the Michael Crook article salted? The reasons for deletion were invalid at least in light of what we now know (he is real, he is notable,[8] and has been involved in well reported lawsuits raising Internet privacy and DMCA copyright issues).[9][10] Like it or not you can self-promote your way to notoriety off-Wikipedia, and that notoriety may well make a person notable for Wikipedia purposes. The COI editing and sockpuppetry are a different matter, one we should take seriously in light of the person's being in the profession, apparently, of creating Internet scandals about himself.Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't be necessary to CU, these are all blindingly obvious - his MO is to cite himself, link his name and add links to his blog or other blogs quoting him. Our old friend the Canard Abuse Detector is probably adequate to the task for now. The consensus at the last deletion debate was that any notability (or more accuratley notoriety) was passed; the rate of comment on him was low and appears to me to be tailing off. Michael Moore he ain't. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So then we assume it's all sockpuppeting by the person in question? The !vote was 9-7 in favor of deletion (7-5 if one discounts the contributions the closing administrator stated as discounted) but the entire process was problematic - canvassing, sockpuppetry, manipulation, and it would be hard to say that the decision was made on grounds of notability. Notability doesn't diminish over time - either the subject is notable or he is not. He does formally meet WP:BIO - full articles / segments devoted to him over a span of years on a variety of subjects on CNN, Fox News, and some less significant publications. Most of that coverage came after the AfD, so it is not controlling. There's no policy reason why the article cannot be recreated. The salting seemed to be out of frustration.Wikidemon (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm actually proposing to do it... I think the ratio of encyclopedic value to wikidrama would be very slim, plus I try to only recreate controversial deletions[11] when I know I'm going to succeed. Wikidemon (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    issue

    I have been told to talk in english on the english wikipedia on all times - a few times I have talked on a talk page in serbocroatian too. Anyways, one user is telling me that I am not allowed to talk on my own talk page with someone about matters unrelated to wikipedia in our language. Is this true? Why is a personal discussion banned? If it is not please tell the user AlasdairGreen27 to stop harassing me on my talk page. Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

    Your talkpage is for discussing matters related to Wikipedia. The internet is filled with places to carry on conversations not related to Wikipedia. Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, it is proper to carry on conversations in English, so that others who use it may understand what it is you are discussing. There is a Serbian Wikipedia and a Croatian Wikipedia; which may be an appropriate venue to discuss articles in serbocroatian. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If two Croatian editors choose to use Croation between themselves to speed communication on their own talk pages about matters related to Wikipedia then we usually cut them some slack, but there is certainly a general presumption that English is the right language for talk page debates and user pages and a general presumption against using Wikipedia as a general chat or discussion forum in any language. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know one anothers emails or other stuff like that. Therefore I and many other wikipedians like to exchange some short convos on the talk page now and then. I don't get why this is wrong. We are not littering articles or talk pages of articles. (LAz17 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
    This is the English wikipedia, and every editor has the right to know what every other editor is saying on the talk pages and articles. If you want to talk Croatian, go to the Croatian wikipedia. Or use the e-mail feature here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editors at the Barack Obama page

    Resolved
     – Complaining editor and his socks blocked by admin. "Plaxico" strikes again.

    The following editors are going around starting trouble for anyone writing anything the slightest bit outside their tastes on the Obama page and causing general chaos on the talk pages. ACORN is a big story concerning Obama as he personally worked there as a principle and this story was carried by all the networks in prime time repeatedly. Anything I or anyone else writes on the story is either deleted with blocks on the writer, done immediately within moments without warnings or archived if consensus is seen to be had. The discussions there have been turned into a rat's nest due to these continuous disruptions.

    Further user "User:Brothejr" seems to pop out of nowhere, threatening me and others with messages that never end up at my userpage or anywhere to dif. I have missed key discussions with other editors on sourcing because they deleted pertinent discussion on this in moments of it being put up and this has warded off other editors trying to work with me. I have to dig into deleted scrambled mess to to see what they are talking about, it's very annoying. They wrongly interfering with proper editing and some are using profanity such as user User:Sceptre in the Voter Fraud section (which should have "ACORN" in the title but this is guarded and immediately deleted). It is presently effectively blocked by "archiving" in talk which is ridiculous and I don't know how to dif an archive attack but it is there under "Allegations of Voter Fraud".

    The ACORN case is not a "fringy" issue but front and center in Obama's personal, direct election activities now being investigated by the FBI and current. Attacking of anyone and threatening editors talking about it with "this is your only warnings" threats is highly disruptive. One editor working with me: User:Die4Dixie has "retired" from Wikipedia due to all this. Other editors finally went into a rage and were blocked, such as user User:Ratttso. I request that these editors set forth below be blocked so I can edit in peace if they cannot stop their disruptive actions and edit in good faith and they appear not to be stopping this major disruptive activity no matter what [12][13]

    Disruptive editors: User:Wikidemon User:Sceptre User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper User:Brothejr

    -- Larrry2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More POV-pushing by the conservapediacs who can't stand that they lost the election. Pay it no never-mind. P.S. Looks like I have to start watching the page again, so he'll probably add me to the above list. So it goes. P.P.S. I don't normally mess with other users' comments, but he had the names posted incorrectly and hence uselessly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was here for a couple of days spouting racist bilge before he was blocked as being a block-evading sock. Hard telling who he was a sock of. I can see one possible clue, but I'll leave that to the experts. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The complaining editor doesn't appear to have actually edited the Obama article with this account. The diffs provided don't seem inappropriate to me; this is a BLP, there's forum-type discussion in the removed posts with some potential problems included. Without specific diffs for the claims, I tend to agree with Bugs that this is just a continuation of the usual problems there. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No edits under that name, anyway. Again, that's for the experts to consider. Ironically, Die4Dixie leveled some strong criticism at Rattttso's approach [14]. As far as any admin action to take... well, they could start by blanking Rattttso's pages and taking away his ability to edit said pages, as he is using them only for soapboxing. As far as Larrrry2 is concerned, his activities probably bear watching. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in any case, material about ACORN doesn't belong in the Obama bio page. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the Obama campaign page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pretty obviously Ratttso when not signed on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly enough, 71.114.8.82, who is just coming off a short block, made the same mistake in his unblock request [15] of failing to put "User:" in front of the user name, that Larrry2 did when he initially posted here: [16] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a common newbie mistake. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, he made 3 edits in July, then nothing until today, at least not under that name. It's pretty clear that these three editors are either all the same guy or they're working in concert on the same topic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, Larrry2 admits to being 71.114.8.82. [17] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to see here, the usual noise from editors who would be happier working on the conservapedia version of this article (and if you have never read their version, you should, it's a perfect example of the difference between here or there). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably obvious already, but Larrry2 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be Ratttso (talk · contribs) and Cc2po (talk · contribs). IP hardblocked. -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're way ahead of me. As noted above, in this edit, the IP tacitly admits to being User:Larrry2: [18] Meanwhile, edits like these (tinkering with each others' edits) suggest that the IP is also the indef-blocked User:Ratttso: [19][20][21] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh...I contacted the helpline to speed things along. Blocked problem editors need to be given as little time as possible, because the longer they get, the more damage they cause (and of course, the more of a problem they are). Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, that's cheating! Good work, though. :) So with any and all due respect to the other editor, NOW there's nothing to see here... unless the complainant has further socks lurking, and if so, I'm sure they'll make their presence known soon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And another one goes down - see User:RadioShack1234. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's another case of a sleeper that was created in June, did a few edits, and then went dormant until today. I wonder how many others there are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's this other character called AvantVenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who go blocked for being a sock of a different character Fraberj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given this comment [[22]] I wonder if this is really all the same guy, or at least a "team" who are focused on certain articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NEWS FLASH: Conservapedia "Tells the Truth" And thus the IP address (whose life has been ruined by this three-month block) promises [23] to continue vandalizing. In other news stories, we'll reveal who's buried in Grant's Tomb. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bugs, maybe you can take a minute to enlighten me as to what this is about? It's OT here so on my talk page maybe. Are the cons claiming that Obama's election was nearly as fraudulent as Dubya's first? That would be quite funny given the size of his majority. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ACORN is an organization that was active in recruiting new voters. A lot of them apparently voted Democratic, as previously disenfranchised voters often do, and some Republican supporters are trying to... well, I'm not sure what they're trying to do. They're not going to overturn the election. So basically they're just trying smear Obama with what is essentially now a dead news story. And as you say, where were they in 2000 and 2004, when the shoe was on the other foot? Pushing for Bush's election and re-election, of course. So these guys are just using wikipedia as a partisan playground, trying to get away with as much POV-pushing as they can. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order

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

    The IP posted a lengthy ACORN-related diatribe on his talk page, which I reverted. [24] Should the talk page be cleared and protected? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably just cruising for another block. Grsz
    Nevermind, just talk page. Oh well. Grsz11 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want to know is whether clearing it over and over is a 3RR violation. Normally I wouldn't care, but the ACORN rant could be argued to be a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fatimah and administrative abuse

    Resolved
     – The IP is warmly thanked for putting his head above the parapet and standing still while the snipers drew a bead. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fatimah was recently protected by an admin who is a main party in the dispute that has been surrounding the article since 2006. Sunni editors, namely User:AA and User:Itaqallah, have been removing large amounts of heavily sourced material representing the Shi'a Muslim point of view concerning the death of a historical figure central to Shi'a Islam.

    At first, the websites initially used as references, namely Al-islam.org, were deemed by the AA and Itaqallah as polemical, though the websites are operated by the media office of the foremost religious authority of Shi'a Islam, Ayatollah Sistani, and are ideal to represent the Shi'a point of view. For the sake of compromise and at the request of Itaqallah, after extensive and time-consuming research, the sources used by these websites were located as well as the passages that narrate the incident and these were inserted in the article. Itaqallah then proceeded to repeatedly remove the Shi'a point of view along with the references, arguing that the sources are primary sources. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Religious_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources, these religious sources are considered secondary sources and Itaqallah, I just noticed, deleted the passage concerning religious sources in the manual of style earlier this month.

    Unless I'm mistaken, AA's protection of the article is a dangerous misuse of administrative tools and his behavior, as well as that of Itaqallah, should be dealt with accordingly and the issue should be resolved once and for all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.80.63 (talk • contribs)

    I smell a Plaxico...(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll also want to look at a few the edit summaries of the IP(s) that caused protection to begin with (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    shame on Bwilkins for stealing Bug's "plaxico" comparison. ;) — Ched (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I graciously grant rights to the "Plaxico" metaphor to any and all wikipedia users. Unless the real Plaxico shows up, in which case ... byeeee. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, if the real Plaxico shows up, you're safe unless you're somewhere near his groin. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Me? No. Mongo straight! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although another good metaphor is the one hinted at by JzG/Guy, which is the punchline of a joke: "Is that you, Stosh?" "Yeh!" KABOOM! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More disruption at Wikipedia flora

    Two editors disagree both with the naming policy and with each other. They have been disrupting Wikipedia flora editing for over three months now.

    User:Philip Baird Shearer has been tagging the policy as "disputed" based on his unique interpretation of Wikipedia naming policies.[25] He has been asked repeatedly to stop disrupting Wikipedia. He is not discussing the issue with other editors. Instead he is repeating the same points that other editors have refuted on numerous occasions, but he will allow no arguments against his pointed and disruptive unsupported declaration that Wikipedia flora naming conventions are in violation of the naming convention guidelines that refer editors to Wikipedia flora naming conventions for guidelines on naming flora articles.[26]

    His arguments may make sense to him, and this appears to be the case, that he believes he is making a supportable argument, that the general guidelines that mention using the specific guideline are being violated when you use the specific guideline that general guidelines refer the user to. However, it is not possible to discuss an issue when what a user is drawing inferences that are not supported by what he claims.

    He continues to revert and tag policy[27] while making his unsupported arguments that the policy doesn't say what is says. I asked that an administrator ask him to stop inserting his personal grudge in the naming conventions policy. In over 3 months he has gained no support for his stance. It's time to stop allowing him to play games that have rules written for only one person. --KP Botany (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the other half of the section above, #User:Born2cycle - disruption at WP:NC (flora). Two policy warriors, falsely insisting beyond all reason that the long-establised flora naming convention violates the core convention, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, demanding that it must be rewritten in accordance with their demands, denying the existence of a strong consensus against them, arguing incessantly, edit warring on the convention page, FOR THREE F*CKING MONTHS!
    The amount of plant editors' time that has been wasted by these two is simply unforgiveable. It is a shame that Wikipedia is not very well equipped to deal with this kind of disruption. As I expected, posting to AN/I is pointless; these complains only end up in the too-hard basket.
    Hesperian 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's really a three-month-long problem and if it's been wasting people's time, then it could be worth the effort for someone to open up an WP:RFC/U against one or both of these editors. You could request a topic ban from certain policy and Talk pages, if you believe such a remedy is justified. I think most admins would need to see more evidence of genuine disruption (than what is given above) before taking any action. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? 3 months of reverted edits on multiple policy pages isn't disruptive? Since when? And the response is to give them more of our time so busy administrators can multiply overdeal with easier issues? Hesperian's always right. --KP Botany (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what RFC is for, I think. Of course it's disruptive at some level, the point is that it needs to be sorted, and in a way that establishes in a way everyone can get behind, which answer is right. I don't think we can ride in with the banhammer swinging and somehow sort this, it is not that kind of dispute. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    At the moment KP Botany is involved in another conversation on this page.[28] that includes comments by KPB:

    • Who would even read that notice? I couldn't get past the first two lines. ....
    • No. I simply can't read it. It's drivel ...
    • Let me define drivel instead: "saliva dripping from the mouth." If the person doesn't have a napkin, hand them one. If they have one already, don't stare. (06:27, 22 February 2009)

    This is par for the course. For example this posting to my talk page informing me that he had started this ANI:[29]

    I have posted about this at WP:AN/I. Go play there for a month or two. (22:03, 21 February 2009)

    I'll let other administrators decide if a complaint from a person who is makes such comments to other editors is likely to file a complaint that has any substance to it. --PBS (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As for Hesperian's comment I suggest that rather than repeat the debate here, that interested parties look at WP:NC and WP:NC (flora) and the talk page and archives of WP:NC (flora) and make up their own mind as to which point of view is the correct interpretation of policies and guidelines. --PBS (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy I would be all in favour of an RFC, but please read the debate, there has already been efforts to get the debate opened up by posting to the village pump, and other forums such as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. One of the complaints against Born2Cycle in a recent ANI, was that he was forum shopping over this issue (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive516#User:Born2cycle - disruption at WP:NC (flora)). --PBS (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a content dispute. It is one editor disputing Wikipedia policies/guidelines. He's spent three months trying to get anyone to agree with him, and no one has. It is disruption. --KP Botany (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Plaut

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason, our new SSP page is locked out. To cut a long story short, Special:Contributions/Clownsfield is Plaut, who is toast. Terminal block please.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked. Let us know if more surface. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    White Latin Americans Talk page

    Here: Talk:White_Latin_American#New_picture_for_Argentine_section

    An editor is trying to discuss this image:

    And is being asked for sources on these girls being White...

    Is there something that can be done about this? Donadio (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things can be done: the people who are advocating for the picture can provide the references that are apparently not available and end the dispute on the talk page; or you can go to dispute resolution and get more editors involved. There's nothing administrators can do at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you mean one actually needs a source stating "these girls are white"? Donadio (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone challenges your statement, yes, you need to get a source. See WP:V. Grsz11 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, before you get upset and think that we are attempting to enforce some ridiculous standard for verifiability, please understand that we do so because claims made without evidence are rarely done so for face value. "We", that is, the pseudonymous and anonymous contributors to wikipedia, have no idea what constitutes "white" in argentina, what "all-white" connotes there or what importance the label carries. Even in the US, white has meant different things to different folks over the years. I could argue that "white" means only anglos or only anlgo-saxons (excluding southern europeans and people on the iberian penninsula). Parsing that terms is a testy business for people who have some qualifications, and "we" (again, those editors to wikipedia) have none. Apart from that is the problem of due weight. Why is it important that an encyclopedia note that these girls are or appear to be "white" (assuming we can settle on a definition)? Why is it important enough to note in the article and yet not important enough for a single reliable source to mention? What are we insinuating to our readers about the basketball team? the problems are myriad. The solution is simple. Just find a source or remove the description. And as Tony says above, this isn't an issue for admin intervention. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    At least a couple of them look Hispanic to my eye, which indicates that calling them "white" is original research or personal interpretation. The picture's description doesn't say they're white kids, it says they are kids in a Celtic dancing class. That description seems to square with the photo, so it would be reasonable to use the photo in an article about Celtic dancing. Asserting that they are "white" is inappropriate not just because of the subjective nature of drawing conclusions from a photo, but also because "white" is a colloquial term lacking a strict definition. In fact, if "white" is taken to mean "caucasian", then everyone in Argentina is "white", except for those whose ancestors are aboriginal peoples or who intermarried with aboriginal peoples. In short, lacking further evidence, the picture shouldn't be used as an illustration of "White Latin Americans". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Random tiny "d" on welcome page

    Resolved
     – Fixed. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the Wikipedia main welcome page ([30]) there is a very tiny, lowercase letter "d" in the upper left corner. It's not highly noticeable since it is very small, but it is annoying to know it's there once it's spotted. I have not kept up to date on recent changes to Wikipedia so I am not aware if it is supposed to be there for any reason. I glanced through the html code of the page and I didn't see anything related to it, although I didn't scour through it. I've also made sure it's not simply my computer or browser, as my friends can see it too. It's a slight blemish if it shouldn't be there, and so should be fixed by someone who has the rights to edit that page.

    If this was not the proper place to report this issue, my apologies. I wasn't entirely sure as to where I should post it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantboy1 (talk • contribs)

    It's the very last character in the source code after the </html>. I assume the people at meta can edit that page and fix it? Somno (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, apparently I forgot to sign when I posted. Is this something I submit to them (or someone else does)? I'm usually not involved in stuff like this so I don't know what goes on. Plantboy1 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's now fixed by the Meta people. Somno (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Donadio using account for disruptions

    • Donadio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to leave Wikipedia and reverted all the "contributions" that he did to old revisions[31] arguing: "The editor who started this article no longer believes Wikipedia is a viable project. For this reason, he is removing all of his contributions <...> Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way".

    However, this user keeps posting at Wikipedia and is now attacking other user at talk page of White Latin American. He wrote:

    "Well, I don't like it. "Not truth" has gotten dangerously important here. But, because I don't like it, I'm leaving; this way, you are going to be free to continue your byzantine game. Good luck. (..)Grimshep, don't lose your time. This isn't serious; it's a power game about enforcing rules against their spirit. So, let me understand this. Do you guys make up a team? A team whose business is to make editing Wikipedia the nastiest experience as possible for other editors?"

    This user decided not to contribute for Wikipedia anymore, and even erased all his contributions for Wikipedia, but is now using his account for disruptions and to attack others users. He sould be definitly blocked from Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • He cannot do this - check the box above the edit summary - it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." - his contributions are not excepted. Exxolon (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week pending some explanation or understanding of the problem. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Death Threat/Death Wish

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked threatener, an oversighter got the threats, all done here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request immediate blocking of User:Bulletin des Lois (suspected Sockpuppet of User:TomPhan) for these edits to my user page/talk page: [32][33] and removal of said postings. This is an indef blocked user with an hostile history. — BQZip01 — talk 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked.
    For future reference, please don't use red highlighted headings here - the "Death threat" information will get everyone's attention as quickly as anything can. Use of extra formatting here is strongly frowned upon.
    Let us know here if they return with another account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: edits were also oversighted by others as I was applying the block. Marking resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. For the record, the alteration of the headline was in the spirit of WP:IAR and I deliberately broke the rules naming conventions to attract attention. Now that the issue has been addressed, I see no reason to keep it in that format. I realized this matter needed to be handled in an expeditious manner and I felt every little bit helped. — BQZip01 — talk 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The big problem is that non-text markup in section headings can break navigation by section anchors, such as the table of contents. That's probably not what you want -it makes your section harder to navigate to, and less likely to be read, not more so. The annoyance factor of colored headings (which is pretty large) is much less important than that. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    96.231.69.49 at Patrick Syring

    The disruption is not nearly as bad as it was but it is continuing. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sri Ram Sena

    There appears to be an issue reguarding the Sri Ram Sena article. User: Sathishmls is attempting to make the article conform to his view of the group, based on personal beliefs. He is disputing the edits of various editors, and seems to be of the opinion that Wikipedia must not present the information that is Verifiable, but that he "will not allow people to have a wrong impression of Sri Ram Sena", and other POV edits. I understand his feelings, and several editors have tryied to work the issue out, but he is persistant. :p There is no open edit war or 3RR breaking, I believe this is the best place to ask for help. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sathishmls needs a lecture on What Wikipedia Is NOT. --KnowledgeHegemony talk 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    'user talk page rules', possible civility violation

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

    User talk pages are usually used to communicate with others, should a particular problem arise in their editing behavior, or there is a current situation regarding what they are editing, say either edits they are making violating policy, or the article they're currently editing getting promoted to feature status. Either way, they're not supposed to promote a poisonous atmosphere, as such would be caused by banning people from one's talk page. I may be wrong, but I've seen that general consensus was that such sections should be removed; now, I may be wrong in this case, but the talk page of User:Tarysky seems like either a civility violation, or one that is walking dangerously close to that line. Opinions please?— Dædαlus Contribs 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as can be seen from the user's block log, this user has made civilty violations before.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how banning someone from one's talkpage creates a poisonous atmosphere; it would seem more apt to say that would discourage the interaction of antagonistic editors. It is not an uncommon practice. Skomorokh 05:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, unless you're shopping to have the user blocked or their talkpage deleted, this discussion would be better suited to WP:WQA, WT:TALK or WT:USER. Skomorokh 05:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is telling someone that you're currently in conflict with they aren't allowed to edit your page not poisonous? I don't know about you, but it gives off a bad air when anyone starts trying to dictate something that isn't theirs. Yes, I see the small 'disclaimer' at the bottom, but the way I see it, such a thing is rather pointless; the "stay the hell of my talk page" order is still there. Poisonous may not be the right word, but the way the user has said such things certaintly isn't civil. I've seen such "rules" deleted as being uncivil before. I probably have the page watched, let me see if I can find it.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not shopping in the least, I don't want to see this user blocked, I just want a warning given, and the section removed. I've tried to several times, warning him of it, and he's re-instated it several times. He obviously doesn't want to comply.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought; would you mind moving this thread, per McBride's initiative to disperse this page? Skomorokh 06:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's his talk page. Just unwatch it. If he refuses to discuss matters anywhere, that is a matter for dispute resolution. Also, you reverting him on his (just assuming male pronoun here) talk page places you in the wrong. Users have a wide latitude on their own talk page. I'm not thrilled that the page has "rules", but some users do that. IMO, I've found that you are better off ignoring people who insist on turning their talk pages into fiefdoms. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't his talk page, it's WM's talk page. As to what he may have on it, I've seen that general consensus is that banning users is not allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not that I have a general problem with the rules themselves, it is more of a problem concerning the following statement: Certain users are not allowed to comment or removed anything from this page. These users know who they are. So if you are one and know you are, stay off this page. No controvesy is needed. Currently, there are 3 users. Telling people what to do like this is out of line in my opinion concerning matters of civility.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would even read that notice? I couldn't get past the first two lines. Most of the stuff discussed on Wikipedia can be discussed on article talk pages or policy pages. If you need to post a warning on the user's page, just post it. The user can then revert if he/she wants, established he/she read it. That's all. Wikipedia has plenty of useful contributors who are very young. This sounds like one of them. Don't get too bothered by a child acting like a child. There's not really any necessary interaction. --KP Botany (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that was the case, the secion on Theology's page would have never been removed. Did you note the "rule" which I had a problem with? I ask because you noted that you couldn't get past the first two lines.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I simply can't read it. It's drivel. --KP Botany (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Define can't please.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me define drivel instead: "saliva dripping from the mouth." If the person doesn't have a napkin, hand them one. If they have one already, don't stare. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (OD)I'd just ignore him, Daedalus. If you have something that needs to go on his page, post it there. Him removing it means he's seen it, just like the rest of us. If he wants to spend a few hours making rules no one else has to live by, that's his waste of time. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the editor specifically "banned" by Tarysky because I initiated a previous ANI which led to a short block. I haven't had any interaction with this user since, although I will say his less-than-civil attitude remains unchanged and the amount of inappropriate copyrighted images he has uploaded to Wikipedia is reason enough to keep an eye on him. If he wants to "ban" me from his page, it doesn't bother me... if I feel that it is necessary to discuss one of his edits or leave a message or warning on his page I will do so anyway. - eo (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's just acting like an immature child. Don't mind him.--Pattont/c 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    without reference to these particular circumstances, when i come across users with a policy or removing & not archiving material, I tend to wonder what is in the page history. DGG (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In view of [WP:OWN]], users do not have the authority to "ban" anyone from leaving comments on their user talk page. Such "bans" should simply be ignored.  Sandstein  18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your first sentence, but I can't agree with your second - one shouldn't feel constrained by such bans, but neither should they be ignored, if ignoring them would just cause dispute, disruption, bad feelings, point-scoring, etc. without improving the encyclopedia. Use common sense in dealing with such things - that may mean walking around a bear's den rather than yelling "This isn't prohibited!" into it. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it bothering anyone what I add to my talk page. Other users add things to there talk page. User:Daedalus969, you need to stop acting childish. Other users add things to there page so can I. Tarysky (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A question about a disturbing discussion between two contributors

    I have been monitoring on the Korean cuisine article for a good time now and seen (and participated in) quite a bit of drama over this article. I recently have encountered a conversation between two editors, Melonbarmonster2 and Santaria360, who are discussing contacting people outside WP in order to force their views on this article.

    The comment I am referring to is here.

    Furthermore, there is an issue of improper and uncivil comments on the article's talk page as well as derogatory statements towards a major contributor, Chef Tanner, made by Santaria. Additionally, another contributor, Badagnani, has expressed concerns that Santaria's account is single purpose account that is being used expressly to push a specific POV, to which I agree. Complicating the issue is Melonbarmonster has been repeatedly blocked over this issue, and has been feuding with other editors as well.

    I am unsure what should be done in this situation as this is a clear violation of the policies of WP, as well as the spirit. Considering my history with this subject and these editors I am asking that an uninvolved Admin please take a look at the situation and respond as needed.

    --Jeremy (blah blah 08:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would say it is ignorable. It's a content dispute, and a pretty minor one. If he wants to email people who are experts on Korean food then let him do just that - the more experts we get the better. Yes it does look like he's trying to push a POV and is being resisted, but Badagnani has been around long enough to know how to handle this. Thanks for the heads-up, ut I don't think this is actionable right now. Have you let Badagnani know, though? Guy (Help!) 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to disagree. He's not planning to recruit more experts, he's planning to recruit more disruption. Building up public pressure through national mass media, and pressure not only on the content of the article, but explicitly also on individual opposing editors. (The term "meatpuppeting", in this context, sounds a bit weird though, doesn't it? Anyway...)
      This is also not a "minor" content dispute. It may be lame, but it's been one of the hotspots of Korea-related ethnic feuding for years. I have long maintained that we must follow a strict zero-tolerance policy on ethnic battleground behaviour in this domain, with blocks and topic bans at least as quick as in the Balkan topics. This warrants, at the very least, a very stern warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      (P.S.) it occurs to me Guy may have misunderstood a part of the message there: "send an email to Chosun Ilbo" is not "email people who are experts on Korean food". Chosun Ilbo isn't some guy who knows stuff about food, it's a mass-market Korean newspaper (which has been known to have incited meatpuppet campaigns through its coverage of Wikipedia issues on other occasions, if I remember correctly). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I notifed the two users. I'm curious. Is there a link to where Melonbarmonster2 is also discussing contacting people outside of Wikipedia? All I see is a comment from Santaria360 but nothing in reply. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to drop the conversation, but if everyone here is in agreement that dog should belong along with beef, chicken, and pork in Korean food section, can you please explain to me why? Why are you so adamant on dog being mentioned with those other staple meats? I can go on and on about other countries’ weird diets and how it’s barely a blimp on Wiki, but I’m going to focus on Korea for this argument and I’ve stated my case in the discussions. I acknowledged that dogs do get consumed in Korea. I looked up statistics that says approx. 10% of Koreans have tried dogs in about 6,000 restaurants. Even if that’s not exactly accurate, to me 10% or even 25% is small minority and that does not warrant dog being in same class as beef, chicken, and pork. Also, when someone “tries” something, that doesn’t make it part of their normal diet. Beef, chicken, and pork on the other hand are a major part of Korean diet (I would guess 90%+) and they are readily available to buy in Korean grocery stores. Dogs are not. You can’t buy dog meat at a grocery store, or even a butcher store. Originally, I wanted the whole dog being part of Korean food removed, but I’m willing to find a middle ground to develop “controversial food” section and put dogs and live octopus (san nak-gi) there. But the current editors are not willing to budge and they are not giving me any reason as to why. Even they would agree that dogs are not even close in numbers of being consumed to beef, chicken, or pork, but what’s the insistent on being in same category?

    As I’ve stated in discussions, Korean food is a doorway to our culture and is something Koreans are very proud of. As busy encyclopedia to topics around the world, Wikipedia should present an article as though they are explaining it to someone with no knowledge in the matter. When you look at Korean food section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_food), dog is listed in the same category as other staple meats and the editor uses words like “The most popular…” which insinuates that particular soup is very much consumed by mass Koreans. This is not true and it’s misleading. Dog consumption itself is a controversial topic in Korea because it casts negative image of a culture we are proud of. On Yelp (http://www.yelp.com/biz/chosun-galbee-los-angeles), there are comments like this by user on Korean restaurant review:

    “Pierre T.: Excellent. Not too sure what I should expect in a Korean restaurant but the golden retriever stuffed with a bichon frise stuffed with rotten cabbage was exquisite.”

    With the way the Korean food section is currently written, are you able to tell me that it’ll not give neophyte to Korean foods a wrong impression and warrant responses like these?

    Also, some of you accused me of just pushing my POV. If that’s the case, how is what I’m doing any different than what the current editors are doing? The current editors are pushing their POV that dogs warrant a mention in the same category as beef, chicken, and pork without any justifications. They are not experts. In my previous conversations Badagnani’s claim to expertise in Korean food is that he eats it a lot and has a lot of Korean friends!!!

    Please! I would like to hear your excuses on why dogs warrant a mention in same sentence as other staple meats. Fish and seafood is a major, major part of Korean diet, but the dog section is longer than that section and it doesn’t even list any Korean seafoods!! Santaria360 (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, yes. Chosun Ilbo is a Korean mass media known for their sensationalism and sometimes blind nationalism. I may or I may not write to the ops editor to look into how two Americans with very little knowledge in Korean Foods has the key to gateway to our culture. Editor may or may not look into subject at matter and write about it, but if all of you think the article is currently written without a bias and without controversy, then I don't know why it matters that I would do what I can to bring the issue to national media... It would only make me look stupid Santaria360 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Santaria, this board is not for pursuing your content dispute. That belongs on the article talk page. You are being discussed here because you were contemplating trying to build up external pressure on Wikipedia, and on your opponents personally, by soliciting external protests through non-Wikipedia channels. Don't even think of it. You are not going to get your opponents banned simply for disagreeing with you, but you may very get yourself banned in the process. Let me make it unmistakably clear: if any shit should come our way solicited through fora like Chosun Ilbo, you'll be gone in no time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a causal reader of Wikipedia. I don't know how the whole process of editing works, but I know what's currently on Korean Food section is biased and inaccurate and two people controlling the contents are incompetent. I like Wiki and I don't want to do anything to hurt the site or bring negative publicity that brings free content of information to billions, so I rather learn and try to resolve the issue with current editors. But at the same time, the threat of being banned from this site isn't enough to try to bring to light what I think it's unfair and if more people know the issue at hand, it's really up to them to decide what course they should take. Again, this isn't any kind of threat to you or Wiki or any kind, like you are doing to me, and my intention is try to have it settled between disputed parties only. My comment regarding Chosun was geared toward particular person in heat of debated moment and that's not the course I want to take. So, I apologize for raising alarm and at this moment, only thing I ask is for you to direct me to a policy for arbituation process to dispute contentSantaria360 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the question of why dog meat is discussed in the article when it isn't eaten every day, we have many items and dishes that are mentioned in the article, including very rare and special dishes that are only prepared and eaten for certain occasions, and perhaps eaten a few times a year at most. The reason we include them because we aim to be as encyclopedic as possible and thus include any and all items that are notable and of interest to our readers--and certainly dog meat is notable and of interest to our readers. Most of the contents of the section, in fact, were removed a few months ago by consensus, with most editors believing that an overlong discussion of the topic was disproportionate to the article. The question of why dog meat is mentioned when it isn't eaten every day has been addressed extensively and I did let the editor asking about this know, twice already, that such discussion may be found in the archives, yet s/he continues to ask the question repeatedly, apparently without having first read the archives. Please do that first, before continuing to raise questions that have already been answered, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the whole point. It's not whether dog is eaten every day or not that's a content of my argument... Beef, chicken, pork, fish, and other seafood isn't everyday. In US, people don't eat pizza and hamburgers everyday either. The argument is the dog eating is a minority and not a staple food. It is also a controversial topic even in Korea, which other food dishes you mentioned are not. No where in the article currently even mentions that dog eating in Korea is "very rare". It just says vaguely"...but is not as widely consumed as beef, chicken, and pork". If your intent is to bring "interest to our readers", how come there's no link to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat). Also, it's innappropriate to go to Korean food site to learn about dog meat. I'll stop posting here for content dispute. Santaria360 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing the point, and that is we seek to provide a neutral point of view and do so in such a way that presents the data as scholarly as possible. By seeking to push your point of view, you are disrupting WP. By seeking to swarm the article with people who are here only to push that point of view you are violating the rules and spirit of WP. These actions are not appropriate. That is why we are here. Again.
    --Jeremy (blah blah 02:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll only respond to this and we can talk about it in the Korean food discussion section. But how is it that I'm the only one "pushing" my POV by saying that we should create a subcategory in the article and the current editors are not "pushing" their POV saying the article should remain the way it is and not responding to my inquiries? Doesn't all argument have at least two sides and two POVs? A lot of people, the people that's been here awhile editing, talk about the spirit of WP and what WP is all about. I thought wikipedia is a continuous revisions to make sure all the articles are free from bias and sufficiently relevent. And I'm pointing out that the way the article is and it's use of the words like "Most popular dish..." is not neutral in it's content (though maybe done intentionally). And the fact that lack of description in regards to seafood, which is HUGE part of Korean diet, makes article less relevent to those that want to know.
    When you read the past archives of discussions, it's filled with arguments back and forth between those that want to remove dog meat and those that wants to keep it (which from reading some of the posts, you are latter). So how is my suggestion that we SHOULD keep it, but explain with greater background some of the controversies surrounding it a not what WP is all about??? You may not agree with my suggestion to alter what's currently there, but to blindly accuse me only of "pushing" my POV when the opposition is doing the same with their lack of response and stubborn firm stance is itself very disturbing as to what your motives are. I said i'll refrain from outside involvement (that issue should now be dropped) and I apologized for some comments i've made, but who are you to stop any attempts to further improvement? Santaria360 (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Child's personal information

    There's a child revealing personal information at User:Bea0015. Thought it would be best to bring it here. Readro (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You likely won't get a positive reaction from the editor by describing them as a child - teenagers can get proper surly with such stuff. I shall have a word with them on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    15 is not a child, it's an adolescent. No 15 year old thinks it's a child. Unfortunately, no 15 year old thinks it's a mortal being, either, and they often reveal information that could potentially put them in danger. (Of course, that doesn't explain Michael Phelps.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, point taken, however my main concern was raising the point. Apologies to all teenagers. Maybe "minor" would be a better term for next time? Readro (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jailbait" ummm....I think "young adult" is the pc term - speaking of which, a great many of our pc using editors and some sysops are young adults. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they still use the term "San Quentin Quail"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically Young adult would be more 18-24, wouldn't it? That being said I don't think there's much of a concern with him giving out his first name and city. -- lucasbfr talk 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was a copy paste from something else, nvm ><) -- lucasbfr talk 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)I thought a Young adult was 20 - 25. His last name is also there but I'll doubt that he has a mobile phone (IE: he wouldn't be in the white pages) in his name (Next to his age) so I wouldn't be overly worried but it's up to Wikipedia's policies (Not sure if there is one about this type of issue). Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that "child" can cover anyone up to 13, and "young adult" beyond that. That said, it's not based on anything, just my personal feeling! And if it's just first name and city, then there's nothing to worry about! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of lines down he gives his full name and date of birth. Readro (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think we need to mother contributors who are 15- I was editing under my real name with the name of my village on my userpage when I was 15, no one ever saw fit to attack or mother me, and so I'm still about. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "young adult" may have its origins in publishing as it was instituted to describe popular literature for teenagers. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Only as an aside, I think it's untowards to call anyone over 12 or 13 a child unless their behaviour straightforwardly calls for it. Far more fit terms, I think, would be (depending on what's being talked about), underage person, minor, teen, young person, young adult and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mysticshade back again

    User:Dundean19 has just been created and is starting to repeat the disruptive insertion of photographs for which Mysticshade was reported and banned yesterday. Changes on Irish People, Dublin and Dundee illustrate this. The pattern is too similar for it to be a coincidence, we may have a serial sock in the making (some aspects of Mysticshade has aspects of serial sock WIkipiere about the language and mixed celtic/Mediterranean claims. If someone could nip this in the bud it would save several us a lot of time!--Snowded (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My first thought was the huge similarity between User:Dundean19's edits and those of a serial sock called User:Nimbley6 (adding images, changing picture sizes, fascination with Scotland and any area tangentially related to Scotland). Looking back at User:Mysticshade their edit summaries seem very similar to Nimbley6 - this edit summary in particular is "classic Nimbley6". Just an observation, but I wonder if Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a better guess, the childish language etc would match that and the Scottish link (although it started with Irish articles). Wikipiere and Nimbley6 waste more time than I care to think about for you, me and others. Whatever I'm pretty sure its one of them! --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is obviously Mysticshade as well, I have already asked for an admin familiar with this on Commons to block his new account there. O Fenian (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Don't know if you saw this above [34], but all the edits of Mysticshade and Dundean19 fit into the pattern, and blatantly if you ask me, of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked for socking in sock drawer quantities. I could bring it to Sock investigaions, but really, it looks blatant enough to deal with here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Addition) Of course, Historian could just be an account in the chain of accounts of a previous sock as well. (Sorry, I missed the earlest contributions of one of the accounts above) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ⬅ and we may have another User:MarshVeld just created, picture edits on Northern Ireland and several POV edits against consensus (Ulster flag etc). --Snowded (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd guess not Nimbley6 - discussions on talk pages aren't Nimbley6's style. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost identical response on my talk page to that of Mysticshade, language and all. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken this to Sockpuppet investigations FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A cup of coffee and a quick invigorating stroll later and it seems CSI:Wikipedia [[35]] thinks MarshVeld == Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Historian19 with a few other old socks added. (Oh, come on, I can't be the first to do the CSI:Wikipedia joke :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rowdy the Ant

    Resolved
     – Blocked user indefinitely due to disruptive editing per apparent consensus here. — Aitias // discussion 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'm totally unsure about what to do about Rowdy the Ant (talk · contribs). I get the impression that they want to help but really, very few of their edits have been helpful and they show a pattern of blatantly ignoring policies and consensus. These include a move without consensus, placing a block template on an IP talk page, attacking and badgering an admin in attempts to gain rollback. Another particularly troublesome batch is first making a merge without consensus, then closing the merge debate even though there was clear opposition, then removing my comment after I undid the closure, then re-doing the merge that I just undid with an edit summary of "not funny". They also closed an AFD on an article that they wrote, only minutes after the AFD opened. This user has told me that they used to edit as 68.34.4.143 (talk · contribs), an IP that repeatedly added trivla and removed maintenance tags without addressing problems. They also created two userboxes and wanted to place logos in them, and after several reverts by Treelo, Rowdy still insists on putting logos in the infobox even after being told about image use policies. The user seems blatantly unwilling to learn the policies, and while I hardly expect anyone to be exemplary after only 17 days (their first edit was on the 5th) their track record is hardly promising, and despite nearly daily warnings they show no attempts at change and have constantly repeated mistakes. I don't think a block is quite in order yet, but may very well be warranted should they continue with their pattern of unhelpful edits. Meanwhile, I would like to know what to do about this user, if anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My reaction would be to indef the account, the new ones that would inevitably follow, and the ip's that would then attempt to circumnavigate the block(s), until they grow up and get a clue. I really don't see much potential for this editor becoming a useful contributor any time soon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence of IP socking, since the IPs haven't edited since the account was registered. If a block is warranted, then just blocking the account should be enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience with these kind of accounts is that they will sock in a misguided attempt to continue "improving" the encyclopedia. That said, they don't seem to have nominated themselves for adminship yet, so maybe they don't follow the rules... J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They did nominate a user for adminship without asking first. Is that close enough? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was intimating a possible (series of) consequence(s) of blocking this account. Had I come across this account independently I would have indef blocked, but since it has been brought here I thought I would comment and suggest what might then happen - other folk may have other suggestions that are better at diminishing any (potential) disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving Wikipedia. So please leave me alone. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd when disruptive editors decide conveniently to "leave" Wikipedia just before any administrative action is to be taken against them. Block and be done with it, this character clearly has no intention to cooperate or learn from their mistakes. treelo radda 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're honestly leaving, wouldn't a block be overkill? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the McLean Stevenson tactic - when the guy says he's leaving, help him to stick with that decision. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments after Rowdy the Ant blocked indefinitely

    Usually yes but this sort of editor is looking to escape scrutiny, not because it got too hard. Anyway, Aitias has doled out an indef so it's a case of waiting for an unblock request and see if they reform or not should a unblock be granted. Personally I reckon that they'll just move onto socking with new accounts and IP addresses so it's not like they're really gone. treelo radda 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I still don't think he should be blocked, but you've got a point. If he wants to play by the rules, he'll request an unblock. If wants to play against the rules, he'll sock. I'm willing to unblock him, but it's got to be the former situation, and he has to make the request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As somebody noted above a potential IP associated with this account, I wanted to add 98.218.94.104 to the list. SpikeJones (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    93.180.72.128

    Resolved
     – blocked for 3 months, with account creation enabled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This goes beyond the "simple, obvious" mandate of WP:AIV, but not by much. 93.180.72.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a static IP dedicated to vandalizing music articles. Changes chart positions at random, adds unreliable charts, invents sources. I couldn't find a good edit in the history. Edits only on a weekly basis, so a 24 hour block isn't going to do anything. Can someone please hit it with a one-month soft-block so that there is actually an effect?—Kww(talk) 17:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing for 7 months, with every edit reverted? That's got to be a record. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    190.157.247.148

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 1 month The Helpful One 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per CheckUser results could some admin block 190.157.247.148? It's being used to evade blocks, see the contributions for more details. Best regards. --Dferg (w:en: - w:es:) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats by 66.99.218.13

    Resolved
     – Extended block, enabled the “cannot edit own talk page” block option. — Aitias // discussion 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Was already blocked for vandalism and posted death threats to own talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats on the internet: serious business. If we're not careful he'll...type mean things at you. (In retrospect, that doesn't seem very threatening, does it?) HalfShadow 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUND by new? editor User:TWilliams9

    TWilliams9 (talk · contribs), a new? editor has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) following me to various articles. He "arrived" on Feb 13, and by Feb 14 was editing articles I had recently edited. ([36], [37]) By the 15th he was reverting old edits of mine on one article, and trying to insert my username into another.([38] [39] [40] [41]; Note this edit in particular) Yesterday and today he tagged 18 stubs I had created on synagogues for deletion or merger. I've reverted his edits on the stubs, and brought the issue here for further discussion. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's obviously a previously blocked troll and should go back to blockland. Wikipedia is not a battleground and not the place to take out grudges.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since no one brought this to my attention I am glad that I noticed it after realizing my requests for condensing were deleted. I think it appropriate to borrow a recent quotation from another wikipedia user. TWilliams9 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Here's my advice Brewcrewer. Become an extremely prolific and influential editor; get admin and checkuser powers; keep your edits fiercely nationalistic; keep your policy rationales variable, specious, ad hoc, and contradictory; work on developing a more peremptory, imperious, and papal tone toward editors who disagree with you; make hair-trigger edit-warring as basic to your idiom of self-expression as iambic pentameter was to Alexander Pope's; and most importantly, make a 100+ edits a day to dozens of articles on all aspects of the Middle East conflict. Make yourself ubiquitous in that area, and take up any partisan angle you can find within it, no matter how silly. Then, if in your ceaseless, vigilantly ideological patrol of that extensive beat, you find yourself having a number of arguments with the same editors, you'll be in a position to accuse those editors of "stalking" you; with any luck, a fool or two might even believe it.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    Brewcrewer doesn't ned your advice, G-Dett, and I do not see wha your comment has to do with this incident. I assume you are supporting Jayjg's complaint as you haven't offered any explanation for a disturbing pattern of stalking. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The G-Dett quote was added by TWilliams9. Addressing G-Dett is entirely to miss the point; he or she is probably unaware of this teacup-storm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's G-detts' quote. Although she would probably be insulted that it's being put to use by some troll/sockpuppet. TWilliams9 (talk · contribs): What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Slrubenstein, I assume you are supporting Jayjg's complaint because you got all worked up you forgot to actually read the posting I made. Brewcrewer don't get your pantys all up in a bunch. As far as this tempest in a teacup I have been editing a lot of IP articles since I joined, so a person could think I was hounding Jayjg. I don't have any prior experience editing on wikipedia but have followed some history of wikipedia by reading the site wikipediareview. I don't think that site is looked kindly upon here but whatever, and there is sort of a go-after-the-new-guy mentality by some here. Ive been learning a lot this week of the ins and outs here, and if you edit articles others are attached then watch out boy! Reading up on wikihounding and then looking at this complaint, I was probably on the border of that for merger request for the Temple articles, I didn't realize that looking at a particular editors contributions when determining who made all those stubs was against the rules here. My proposals of merger were worthy of a discussion, and it is unfortunate that all of those proposals were deleted by the articles creator for an unrelated reason. Also, I was not trying to subtly put Jayjg's username into the CAMERA article, I was trying to expand the description of the events, you can see my discussion of the CAMERA on the discussion page Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and it is disingenuous to take one edit as an example of hounding. For the Labor Party donation scandal i added a source I knew of, someone reverted that. TWilliams9 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder to everyone involved to adhere to WP:CIVIL, especially on an AN page. THF (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry THF and Brewcrewer. I'm was frustrated that editing IP articles from a different world view but trying to stick to facts gets words like Troll thrown out at you, but that is no excuse for my comments to Brewcrewer, and Brewcrewer I am sorry. Just to get a clarifying on hounding, is it hounding that THF probably followed me over from the Talk:Eden Natan-Zada‎ article, or is that okay? TWilliams9 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I put some direct and related questions to TWilliams9 on his talk page yesterday and he replied. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would this be an example of hounding by Wikiwatcher, because I doubt he wound up on this article by any other means than looking at my edits or talk page? I have no disagreement that I looked at some of Jayjg's edits. My edits have been focused on the content, not the contributor, and that is apparent in my edits. The edits have all been to better help the project, not trolling as Brewcrewer put it, but positive edits that I have defended in discussion pages. TWilliams9 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

    has been deleted by User:William M. Connolley, despite a deletion discussion that ended with a keep, see [42]. He claims that there is to much edit warring going on and that all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order, see [43]. That is absolutely not true, as several editors, including me improved the article and tried to enforce Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and neutrality. And since when is edit warring a reason to delete an article? Does this mean that I can get an article deleted by just edit warring on the article? Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got to be kidding. Connolley's account must be compromised. I would suggest blocking the account pending further clarification.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assume you that I'm still the same me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain where you come off deleting an article out of process, when the AfD resulted in a 'keep'. NoCal100 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a POV fork. Process is not really as important as our core goal of neutrality. I did not see neutrality mentioned in the delete reason, but is sure is a good one. There is always WP:DRV. Chillum 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    did it not strike you as just a bit ironic to be suggesting to take this to the process of DRV, having just declared that process is not really important? why bother with AfD, if any admin can just delete articles he doesn't like? NoCal100 (talk)
    Same happened with the article Pro-Turkism, also triggered by a 3RR report, see [44]. Afroghost (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't delete P-T William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I just rechecked WP:3RR and WP:DP, just to be sure, and no, neither of them say you can delete an article to deal with an edit war. I see no way of escaping the conclusion that an administrator has violated Wikipedia policy and abused his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where has the article gone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a dreadful POV fork - amongst other issues - which probably shouldn't have been kept (precis should've been merged into the main article), but even given the ridiculous edit-war magnet that it's become, William shouldn't have deleted it over an AfD. That's what we have DRV for. I have restored it and fully protected it for 3 days to give some breathing space. Can editors please suggest some way of sorting the problems out on the talk page? I am prepared to extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should no more have restored it without DRV than William should have deleted it without AfD. Lets not have any more back and forth with this, I hate it when admins go reverting each other without a decent attempt to come to agreement first. Chillum 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no. DRV is for review of in-process deletions and deletion discussions. This wasn't one. Black Kite 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRV is only for "in process" deletions? Where is that written? What is process anyways? Chillum 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not always happy with Connolley's decisions (two to be exact), but then again I think he makes these difficult choices in order to retain neutrality, so I commend him for that. It is true the article is an edit war mess, we have had 2 AfDs. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of people voted keep yet most of them were not involved in the article and related articles before and after the AfDs. I do think Jalopenos and Afroghost have made an effort to fix the article but the article is a POV fork, it would be futile to salvage it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is a POV fork, it's reasonably sourced but 80% of it is a litany of news stories. I'd suggest that editors urgently look into merging a summary of the article (most of it could be condensed into "Anti-semitic incidents were reported from many countries") into the main article. Black Kite 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks BlackKite for the swift action. I completely disagree though with your claim that this is a POV fork. As it has been discussed during the deletion discussion, ending with at best no consensus whether it is one or not, I am not going to start this discussion again. This is not the right place for this discussion. And it is definitely not up to a single admin to make this decision and to delete (and in fact his reason was just edit warring). Doing so was a blatant abuse of admin powers, and the willingness to accept this abuse means that from now I will stop editing here. I tried my best to insist on good sources and neutral wording, and as my edits show I was willing to delete any edits regardless from which side they were if they did not conform to this policies. Good luck with your project, I am done. Bye. Afroghost (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish Wikipedia had the solidarity to keep obvious violations of neutrality out of here. Even the title makes it clear the article seeks to espouse a particular point of view and the content only supports that idea. Often these things are quickly and correctly deleted, but you get enough people arguing that it is a legitimate point of view and we are stuck with it. I got news, the only legitimate point of view here is the neutral point of view, that that article ain't even close. It is not a neutral presentation of ideas, just one that has enough support to let the vote override policy(which is should not). Chillum 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm Afroghost is going on a vandalism rampage. He is blanking random article pages. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Black Kite 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At least that one problem in Wikipedia has been swiftly dealt with. Afroghost has been blocked. Chillum 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, Afroghost should not be permanently blocked. All he needs is a cool down block for say 12-24 hours. I kinda understand why he went a little nuts. An article that he has worked so hard on gets deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? If something permanent should be done it should be the removal of admin powers from User:William M. Connolley, who with a horrific display of power abuse deleted an article that survived two afd's because he decided it was a POV fork.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I indeffed, but I'm sure an unblock would be granted if he came back and said "sorry, got a bit pissed off there - won't happen again". I'd rather not limit it to a short block just in case he is so incensed he does it again. Black Kite 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock the guy vandalizing and desysop the admin who deleted a POV fork? good luck with that campaign. That being said if the user is apologetic, then indef does not mean infinite. Chillum 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bkite: That might be reasonable. But am I missing something here? An admin just displayed the most egregious abuse of admin-power I have yet to see here at Wikipedia and noone is saying peep? I must be missing something here. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dudes, VfDs are not real votes or even polls, they are certainly not binding on admins. An admin has to use his ro her good judgmen in deleting an artcle. The importance of the VfD is not any vote, but a mechanism for eliciting reasons for keeping or not keeping it (a good reason that has one vote carries a lot of weight, a bad reason - I mean interms of policy - that gets 50 votes has no weight; it is the reasoning, not the quantity of votes, that matters) an artcle. Why would anyone thing this is a compromised account? Can we calm down and focus on policy here? A POV fork should be deleted practically on spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not deleted as a result of an AFD, rather a violation of 3RR?!! Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is true that Admins get to use discretion when closing an AFD. However, the AFD was already closed as keep by another admin. Connolley came in after the AFD was closed, and went and unilaterally deleted it anyway despite the consensus to keep. It is a flagrant abuse of the tools, and although I usually agree with the decisions he makes, this is not something that can go unnoticed. I have seen William confirm that it was him that did it, but I have not seen him provide any sort of justification for going over the head of an AFD. Yes, it may be a terrible POV fork, but we have processes for dealing with that. Unilateral deletion overruling an AFD is not the way to go about fixing it. I agree that some sort of sanctions should take place. Maybe not permanently losing the tools, but something needs to happen to prevent such a flagrant abuse form happening again.Firestorm Talk 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately or unfortunately, we can not desysop without arb com involvement. I would suggest asking for it only in the admin involved declines to make a commitment to avoid such deletes in the future. DGG (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometime things get closed wrong. Sometimes things that should be deleted are restored. Sometimes Wikipedia has non-neutral articles as a result. If an admin tries to fix that and then gets reverted for being out of process, it is not a failing, just a good attempt. Chillum 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    of course an admin can try to fix non-neutral articles-- just as any other editor-- through editing, the talk page, RfC, and the rest of dispute resolution. But he has no power as an admin to do anything about it, except to enforce what the community decides to do. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order: the deletion policy technically doesn't disallow unilateral deletion. I actually applaud WMC for taking a more proactive stance in deleting NPOV-violating content such as this. We need to be more proactive. It's all fine and good saying there's no deadline, and that all NPOV problems can be sorted through editing, but I always felt that was too optimistic. Sometimes, you just can't fix something. Sceptre (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If unilateral deletion of articles for AfDs that closed as keep is okay, then I hope unilateral restoration of articles even if an AfD closed as delete is also okay. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Yo.Li.Ha.Gu.Is.Ba. signing as other editors

    New user Yo.Li.Ha.Gu.Is.Ba. (talk · contribs) has left a couple of trolling messages, signing them as other editors: here and here. I've left a warning but this looks like a likely vandalism-only account which may need to be blocked so I thought I'd alert folks here. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh. Clear trolling account, so I went ahead and blocked it. Call me a rouge admin if you will. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, any username that has "Is Ba(ck)" in it is almost certainly a returning blocked editor. --Rodhullandemu 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Can someone introduce Axmann8 (talk · contribs) to the wonderful world of a block? He just dropped a legal threat on my talkpage.[45] He's also been attempting to add a WP:BLP violation to Talk:Barack Obama and announced his willingness to edit war over it's inclusion.[46] Thanks!! --Bobblehead (rants) 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear violation of WP:LEGAL; blocked until threat is withdrawn. Going to go pour myself a glass of wine and watch the Oscars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FQ, you just blocked the victim, not the person who made the statement. I suggest you apologize. Black Kite blocked the person who made the threat. -MBK004 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I suck. Let the floggings commence. I apologize immediately and wholeheartedly, and bare my head for the inevitable trout-slapping. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry - last time I did a legal threats block, I made an even worse hash of it. Black Kite 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He just got started on that Oscar wine a little early. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for the addition to block log. I had a really good laugh.;) Either that or it's the Jack and cokes I'm having while watching the Oscars. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, tonight's host is supposed to be a huge Jack fan. Or something like that. Meanwhile, the guy says he's withdrawing his legal threat, but he apparently still thinks the 1st Amendment grants him the in/on/unalienable right to edit wikipedia. (It does say so, ya know, in the fine print. The four fathers anticipated the internet.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=272641435"