Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned from a one-week block[1] for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again[2] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[3][4][5][6][7] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I coined that phrase and other editors and administrators have warned you that you attack me by using such dismissive language as disruptive. Your action of reporting people here does not give you license to attack people. Your previous bleating behaviour about me and shrill attacks are unacceptable, as well as your psuedo-officious talkpage warnings are passive agressive behaviour. Her is one for you: Continue to engage in your antisocial behaviour, and it will be you who will be blocked. Consider yourself warned and nough of your meritless gaming the AN/I system to attack user as you did me.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[8] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy",[9] and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before[10], and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.[11] He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me. Wikidemo (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor is continuing,[12] so at this point I have deleted part of his comment[13] and asked him to stop.[14] I don't know what else to do. Wikidemo (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Time out

I would like the opinion of uninvolved admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a single-purpose agenda account, one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been blocked 4 times in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a strong suspicion that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at Talk:Barack Obama - note 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on Bill Ayers election controversy describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as George W. Bush (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and Tony Blair (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and their single purpose and their agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke WP:BOLD and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of John McCain in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a coatrack for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. Agenda-driven single purpose accounts are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further uninvolved commentary is invited. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at John McCain, try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this here, but the Keating Five were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only "Obama campaign volunteers" are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at Hillary Clinton. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky scandal" (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other investigations" (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of George W. Bush. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you were losing the argument in rather spectacular fashion and you knew it was only going to get worse. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) All due apologies. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit more uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention the article devoted to this controversy briefly in the body of Obama's article, with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. II | (t - c) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

The several previous ANI discussions about editorial conduct on the Obama page clearly do not resonate enough, and problems have still not ceased. I think we as a community have had enough of this drama. I propose the following restriction be enacted:

The Obama pages are subject to article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Obama pages and/or closely related topics, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Obama/Community_sanction#Log.

Need community consensus to impose this. If it needs any tweaking, let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of article probation are already in effect. Admins Gamaliel and Rick Block are participating on a regular basis now; they're "involved" but they can call for other admins very quickly. What we have here, NMCV, is a group of editors who have developed marvelous expertise in what Die4Dixie accurately describes as "disagree/ provoke/ report" and what ThuranX described as one editor "revving up" the newbie so that others can report him. They engage in a constant stream of low-level provocation and baiting. False accusations are being used as substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. Every trick and stratagem in the book is being used to block anything negative about Obama, and get rid of any editor who seeks to introduce it.

Don't reward this behavior.

One of them gave up an account of several years because he was afraid he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party operative. I suspect there are others who differ from him only in being more careful about concealing their Democratic Party links. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. You don't get to level accusation after accusation against other editors based on nothing but your own imaginings. If your present behavior is any indication, your previous problems were entirely because of your reaction to normal Wikipedia interaction. If you want to be a positive presence on Wikipedia, you must learn to play well with others, even if, especially if, they disagree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I heartily welcome such attention to the article. As someone who has been repeatedly berated by the involved editors as a "whiner", liar, etc., for participating on this noticeboard in a non-administrative capacity, I ask that we clarify that good-faith, plausible reports of editor misbehavior, SSP and checkuser requests, and other are not impermissible assumptions of bad faith, but that taunting editors for their good faith participation in administrative discussions is considered disruptive. Non-admins can be honest dealers too. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, casting aspersions (assumptions of bad faith) has been, and continues to be a major problem in this area. It is unacceptable for editors to continually make accusations in an attempt to besmirch another's reputation. Engaging in tendentious argument is also futile. Any concerns should be raised in the appropriate forums, if at all. (Eg; sock-puppetry accusations go as a checkuser request or to WP:SSP) If users have concerns about the continual filing of reports against an individual (should that happen) as if it were an act of harassment or something else, then they should pursue WP:DR. Accusations, attacks and the like are not to be scattered through article talk page discussions, as it further contributes to a toxic environment. The proposed article probation is intended (in spirit, if not by the letter) to tackle these sorts of issues as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support any measure that encourages users to play nice, but I'm wondering why we need probation for the article and why we don't just impose it on the particular troublesome user. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first user who has been troublesome there, and been subject to lengthy ANI discussions, blocks etc., and for some time to come at least, won't be the last one either. I think the proposed/new scheme should be more effective in dealing with any other problems/problem-users, both now and in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I support this suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this suggestion as well, although how it differs from current practice will clearly need to be explained on the talk pages. I suggest we apply this to both the McCain and Obama pages. There don't seem to be quite as many problems on the McCain pages at this point but applying this to only the Obama pages would no doubt be characterized by some as evidence of a pro-Obama slant. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. About time. Please give a warning first, except in egregious cases. I hope that at least several administrators get involved in this. Editors should understand that baiting/taunting/goading by someone else will not be considered an excuse for their own behavior. As FT2 has been saying recently, we're each responsible for our own behavior. I expect monitoring administrators to set a good example in their own communications and follow procedures to the letter -- otherwise you may start repelling good editors from the articles. Noroton (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I support (as noted, I'm not an admin). Gathering up thoughts from the above discussion could we include some or all of the following? "Except in egregious cases editors should receive at least one warning, or must otherwise be clearly aware (1) of the terms of this article probation, and (2) that their specific conduct is deemed problematic, before any administrative sanctions apply. A heightened standard of civility applies: editors should not on the talk page post comments that disparage or make accusations regarding each other's alleged biases, veracity, editing ability, conflicts of interest, status as legitimate editors, and so on, whether directly or indirectly, by name or by reference to groups or edit history. All commentary about editor behavior should be directed to appropriate dispute resolution forums, or a sub-page created to discuss edits on the talk page, which reports if made reasonably and in good faith are not considered to be in violation of the article probation." - Wikidemo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees

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

---

User:Zero g keeps undoing a merge with which he disagrees:[31][32][33][34][35] As per talk page at Richard Lynn (where the article was merged), a straw poll was taken to get the opinions of editors. Zero g is the only one who actually disagreed. When the straw poll had become inactive for over a week, it was closed with a 5-1-1 verdict in favor of the merge. Zero g so strongly disagrees with the merge that he keeps up a slow edit war by reverting Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations to the pre-merge version, even if the other editors continue to object to it. Can an admin take a look at the situation and take whatever actions may be necessary? I will candidly admit that I am the one who keeps reverting Zero g's reverts, based on the belief that one cannot single-handedly undo a consensus decision relatively as important as a merge, so I am not by any means an uninvolved party, but I would like someone with more experience to advise on what to do in such a situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you've been around since 2005, I'm probably less experienced than you, but have you requested page protection? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been advised, since there is significant opposition to the merge, I recommend that the book article be sent to AfD to get more opinions, and that will put the matter to rest. If there is genuine consensus for the merge, it will show up at the AfD. Either way, please stop edit-warring about it. --Elonka 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Elonka could provide diffs to support her case, particularly for the first sentence. "As has already been advised, there is significant opposition to the merge". There were 5 for, 1 against (Zero g) and 1 abstention (Richard001). This has not changed. As can be seen from User:Zero g's talk page, Elonka is now following his edits and providing him with tips on editing, for reasons best known to herself. Possibly she still regards some of those voting for a merge as a "lynch mob", the words she used when opposing Cailil's recent successful RfA. Her own intervention on the talk page of Richard Lynn [36] came shortly after Zero g's [37]. Without apparently looking at any background, she made an odd suggestion as an ordinary editor and failed to engage in subsequent discussion, thus causing a certain amount of disruption. Could Elonka please be more careful to distinguish between her roles as editor and administrator? Elonka seems also to be misrepresenting User:Wsiegmund, who was responsible for the merge. It would have been appropriate for her to have made her remarks one or two weeks earlier when the merge of this article was suggested and discussed in detail, but certainly not when she actually intervened with such disdain for other "junior editors"[38] by refusing to enter into discussion. (The article on Lynn actually contains far more material on the book than the subsequent fork, which apart from a list of contents, contained a synopsis of the book which as WP:OR would not have survived.) If at the appropriate time, Elonka had herself proposed an AfD for the article on the book, to debate a merge/deletion, that would have been fine; but not how and when she did it. That seems to be the problem/wikidrama she has helped create here. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and the consensus has little value in this case. The way the merge is carried out is mutual to an article deletion, hece the AfD route should be taken. It also appears that Ramdrake's goal isn't as much to improve Wikipedia, but to delete and erase anything he does not like (from what appears to be an extreme liberal pov), whether it is properly sourced or not. Just a brief glance at Ramdrake's contributions shows his main activities on Wikipedia appear to be reverting, minor edits (often mentioning a certain somebody has been called "racist" by some liberal source), endless talk page discussions with the opposition, and wiki-stalking. --Zero g (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is based on consensus editing. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires an AfD to be produced every time a merge is proposed; that would be pure and simple red tape. Please don't confuse your non-acceptance of a consensus with the absence of consensus. Unfortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On WP:RPP, Zero g has written

Ramdrake and four other editors (who appear to form a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias) refuse to put the article up for deletion, and instead try to silently burry it by merging it into the Richard Lynn article

Could Zero g please explain how this "pov cabal" functions and how it applies to both reviews of the book presented in Richard Lynn? Could it in fact be the case that these are simply editors who independently happen to disagree with Zero g? As I've said before, I would actually not be against having the very recently created article put on WP:AfD to discuss a merge/delete. So far its notability has not been established by normal academic criteria, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviewers agree that it is a valuable source of data. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The cabal functions by canvassing, another editor of the group will soon show up whenever there is something going on.

They generally don't try to have the same opinion, but share the same deletionist attitude. For example User1 wants an article or chapter gone for reason A, User2 wants it gone for reason B, and user3 wants it gone for reason A and B; though amazingly, favoring alternative C slightly more.

It should go without saying that the stuff they want gone is properly sourced. When there is opposition to the removal of sourced content, they'll make sure they have a reasonable amount of support and have a 'consensus vote'. They always vote in favor of their group, and if they manage to get enough votes in, have one of them start edit warring claiming to have 'majority consensus'.

When this doesn't work, Wikipedia after all is not a democracy, they become rude and start wiki-lawyering (you're not AGF! etc), taunting, and having long tedious (soapy) talk page discussions that go in circles and never go anywhere because they don't desire a consensus (they have 'majority consensus' after all). Not before long they'll report the offensive user to Ani, or some 'neutral admin' - who is in fact part of the clique and sympathetic to their viewpoints - though not editing the article in question (but often editing one or more related articles). --Zero g (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Mathsci's request that Elonka's statement of a "significant opposition" is pointless, unless she herself now objects, intervening as an editor rather than an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, the "significant" opposition is limited to a single editor who cannot accept a 5-1-1 merge verdict, and if we let this go by, we indeed demonstrate that a single person can significantly derail Wikipedia's processes and indeed act as it they owned an article without opposition, and indeed be supported in this disruption. Indeed, I wouldn't have objected to an AfD at all back when the merge was being proposed. However, seven editors expressed an opinion, 5 of those being in favor of the merge, and when no opinion had been registered for a week, the straw poll was closed. Then, after one week without anyone objecting, Zero g (the lone original dissenter) comes back, and starts reverting the merged article (which had been stable as a redirect for a week), even though most other editors have voiced their objections again to undoing the merge. Also, although I won't delve in them, Zero g's contributions also show a pattern of editing which demonstrates a kind of slant not normally accepted at Wikipedia. Just the fact that he calls such articles as Dysgenics and Race and Intelligence "hereditary articles" should give people a hint as to his leanings.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to review your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that more people oppose the merge than agree with it does not mean a consensus is reached. If there are valid points being made for both solutions then these need to be addressed. I highly recommend an afd or rfc as suggested above. I also remind you to assume good faith objecting to a merge is not disruptive, but claiming a false consensus and trying to 'railroad' a decision is. --neon white talk 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the link I provided above, the decision was 5-1-1 in favor of a merge, with no overpowering argument against the merge, except one which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not saying that objecting to a merge is disruptive, but single-handedly, repeatedly undoing a merge which has been in effect for a week because one disagrees with it certainly is disruptive. Also, if you are thinking that more people oppose the merge than agree with it describes the situation either you are mistaken about the situation, or you are privy to information which nobody else has. If the latter is the case, please share with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am part of the "cabal" Zero G refers to ... I can only appeal to my fellow editors to judge what follows based on the contents and not my identity. The question is, why do we have an article on a book about population genetics, when the author has no expertise in population genetics and the book is not taken seriously by population genetics? Does the book really need its own article, or can't it be discussed in the article on the author of the book (the author is clearly better-known than the book in question)? Above, Elonka states that there is significant opposition to the merge. She elides two different meanings of "significant." It is true that Zero G is really opposed to the merge. However, it is not true that many editors are opposed to the merge. In fact, this proposal has been discussed extensively and as Ramdrake observes Zero G is the only person who objects. In the context of this discussion - of a discussion of how to resolve conflicts on the article talk page, and how to improve the article, one objection is hardly "significant." Zero G is coming very close to the kind of POV warrioring that Wikipedia must strongly and decisively reject.

For those who are not clear on the nature of the dispute, it is this: there is a body of evidence that Blacks on average score lower than Whites on IQ tests, at least in the US. There is considerable debate as to why, and researchers have put forward a range of explanations. Richard Lynn, a psychologist, claims that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites i.e. their inferiority is genetic. Richard Lynn is not a geneticists and has done no genetics research, and his view is considered fringe by all trained professional geneticists. This is not an "extreme liberal POV," it is a "scientific" POV meaning the view of geneticists about genetics. Most of the editors who have argued against Zero G - I will name Ramdrake and Alun - have never argued on political grounds and have only argued on the grounds of identifying notable versus fringe views amond different kinds of scientists.

There is at Wikipedia an article on Richard Lynn, and his views are aired here at Wikipedia. No one has argued that his views be deleted from Wikipedia (so much for some liberal POV!) However, Zero G is systematiclly inserting Lynn's views everywhere he can, including creating new articles to repeat the same views. I view this as straightforward POV-warrioring. Does this make me a liberal? Well, skip what I just said and do what we Wikipedians are supposed to be good at: scholarly research. Look at the literature by trained professional geneticists on this topic, and see how many geneticists support Lynn's views. When it comes to complying with our NPOV and FRINGE policies, this is what matters, and not the enthusiasm with which Zero G pushes his own POV.

This is a set of conflicts that has plagued this article for a long time. you would have thought that a couple of RfCs would have been sufficient to resolve the issue, especially since they all overwhelmingly went in the same direction (the direction Ramdrake, mathsci and others are following). But Elonka and Zero G apparently are not satisfied with the RfC process, so I urge other editors to give this matter serious consideration. Let me close by observing that the race and intelligence topic is highly controversial in the US and I would think the articles on this topic are among the ones many people judge us by. Screw politics: let's focus on NPOV, FRINGE, V and other policies, as well as our responsibility first and foremost to write a high quality encyclopedia that provides readers with an accurate and proportionate account of current leading research on scientific topics. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not Race and intelligence again. Can't we just ban Zero g and any other SPAs in the closet from this set of articles/topic? They're doing no good here, unless you count persistent WP:FRINGE violation as "good". Zero g has been doing this since 2006, so he really should have learnt the rules by now. Looking at this, incidentally, he looks to be of the far-right Dutch type that crop up again now and again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth a lengthy ANI thread. Just file an AfD. If no one is sure how to file one, see WP:AFD, or ask for assistance. If there's a genuine consensus, it'll show up at the AfD, there's no need to insist that a limited conversation on one talkpage "proves" consensus. --Elonka 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Talkpage discussion is how we do merges. AfD is for deletion debates, not merge debates. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think we may be losing sight of the real issue here: a merge was proposed by the book (i.e., following Wikipedia processes). The merge proposal remained open for 2 weeks, during which time it received input from 7 different users. The proposal was closed after 11 days without any activity. The proposal was closed by the book, returning a verdict of 5-1-1 in favor of merging. This is no different than several merge proposals and XfDs which I've seen, which are rarely if ever unanimous. Now, the lone dissenting editor keeps reverting the merge, arguing that Wikipedia is not a democracy (nobody says it is) and that either there was no consensus because he didn't agree to it, or that consensus doesn't mean anything (it is a major editing policy of Wikipedia, on the contrary). The remainder of this situation is basically wikidrama, and hides a simple, plain fact: one editor is consistently acting disruptively by refusing to accept consensus (or even denying it exists), and reverting a merge that was done in full compliance of Wikipedia policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can file an AfD, they don't need to have "consensus" to do so. It appears that Zero g wants an AfD, but he's unsure how to file one. So I recommend that someone who does know how to file one, please do so. An AfD will put this matter to rest, once and for all. --Elonka 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that merge discussions are not supposed to be decided at AfD. That's what the talk page is for. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion is also sometimes a deletion discussion, as it involves the deletion of one sub-article that is then merged into the larger article. There is disagreement about whether or not the sub-article should be deleted, so an AfD is appropriate. I think Zero g would have filed the AfD himself, but he's just not sure how.

My own participation in this situation is as an uninvolved admin. I personally don't care if the merge is accomplished or not, but I do care that it's handled properly. From what I see, the merge discussion that is being referred to at the talkpage, was not handled "by the book". It was started by Wsiegmund on June 2,[39] and then closed by the same editor on July 13.[40] It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion. Further, there was no "announcement" of this discussion. No RfC, just a small discussion on one talkpage, with primarily the same editors participating, just as they have in multiple other articles in that topic area. Then once they'd "closed" their own merge discussion, they declared consensus, and proceeded to edit-war to enforce their view, and even went as far as opening this ANI thread to deal with their "opponent", Zero g.

I strongly disagree with this approach. To make it truly fair, there should be an open RfC, or an AfD. An AfD is probably easier, but either method would be acceptable. The point is, that this kind of a decision should not be railroaded by a small group of editors that are already working together in other areas of conflict. The current merge discussion at the talkpage, even though it looks like a formal RfC, is not.[41] So, I still recommend a wider community discussion, or at least the opportunity for one. If there is a genuine consensus, it will show up that way. So, in terms of disruption, we could continue wrangling about this on ANI, or we could just file an AfD, and then there's an organized mechanism to put this issue to rest. So revert this edit,[42] file an AfD, and then we can close this ANI thread and let the normal community discussion process handle the rest. --Elonka 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, there are several inaccuracies in your assessment of the situation:

• A merge proposal does not require anything else than the proper template being placed on the merge-from and merge-to articles' talk pages, with a link to a single discussion space on either talk page (so as to avoid duplication of the discussion). It does not require special listing as for XfDs and RfCs.
• As per WP:MERGE, there is nothing preventing a nominator from closing their own merge discussions, after a reasonable amount of time has passed (I would say several weeks qualifies as a reasonable amount of time). In fact, the very wording of WP:MERGE seems to imply that it is indeed normal for a merge nominator to close and archive their own discussions.
• By allowing the strong objections of a single editor to override a closed merge discussion process, you are in fact allowing him to railroad the intended process. This is not even the case of be(ing) railroaded by a small group of editors, this is the case of a single editor being allowed to railroad the process.
• Your analysis seems to confuse a merge discussion with an RfC discussion. Please be aware that these are not the same process, as per WP:RfC and WP:MERGE.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of WP:MERGE. The nominator is only supposed to close their own merge discussion if there is a "clear consensus" or silence. However, if "the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers." So, was this particular controversial merge listed? Because I did not see it. Was there an RfC? I didn't see that either. If there was some discussion or notification of this merge, outside of the specific article talkpages, I would be happy to review the links, thanks. --Elonka 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: 5 people were in favor of the merge, 1 against and 1 neutral. At the time of closing, the merge discussion had been inactive for 11 days. I do not see any signs of controversy here; there is just one editor opposing the merge, and then letting go of the situation for 11 days. This was not a controversial debate until Zero g started making a fuss about it and reverting the merge repeatedly several days after it had been done. Please note that posting to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is not a requirement, just a suggestion. There wasn't either a requirement for an RfC. As per WP:MERGE, the specific requirements for a merge discussion were met, and the merge wasn't a controversial one until Zero g made it so, several days after it was done.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I am wary of misusing AfD. Each time we do that we send out the wrong message about what AfD is for. At bottom AfD is for telling admins when the community thinks they should use their "delete" button. Right? But a merge does not involve deletion. It involves redirection, which is not a matter for administrators to resolve. That's a matter for the community to sort out, on talk pages. I get really cheesed off when someone comes to AfD saying "I want this merged", because a merge is something anyone can do, anyone at all. It does not require admin buttons, and hence AfD is not the right process. Talkpage discussion is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides - Elonka? All this dysgenics/race-and-intelligence-connection material Zero g is pushing is really fringy. And he's been doing it since 2006. Without doing anything else, hardly. I think he's the underlying problem here, not his opponents. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, thanks, and I understand your concerns. And I agree that talkpage discussion is fine, as long as there is adequate participation. It's just that in this case, I am not sure that there was sufficient participation. To fix that, I still think an AfD is easier, but an RfC would be fine too. As for Zero g (talk · contribs), he's been an editor for two years, but also note that he's got fewer than a thousand edits.[43] But even with limited participation, he has still managed to work on a variety of articles, and he has made many valid edits. So I don't think we should just label him as "Fringe" and ignore what he has to say. I'd be more inclined to abide by WP:BITE, meaning that if he wants to challenge the merge, instead of us labeling him a troublemaker, we should patiently explain the Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms, and show him how he can best participate on Wikipedia. Remember, just because someone is proposing a non-mainstream view, doesn't mean we should kick them off of Wikipedia. Instead, we should welcome them, if they can participate in a civil and constructive fashion, since their participation helps us to create neutral and well-rounded articles. So I recommend that we work on this from an angle of teaching, not punishing. --Elonka 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a lengthy merge dispute that was quickly resolved by taking one of the articles to AfD, described in more detail at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mergers at AfD. The situations may or may not be comparable. Flatscan (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS, Elonka. Unfortunately, no matter how civil they are, there's a limit to the compromises we can have with someone who holds a viewpoint this far out, and who pushes it on Wikipedia, which aims to reflect academic consensus. If Zero g refuses to understand that then there will be consequences. There have to be. And his viewpoint is fringe. WP:SPADE. The same holds true for our Hindutva pals or Neo-Nazis or hardcore Afrocentrists or whatever. See also the the quotebox here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block/ban of Zero g in this case is excessive. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I wasn't proposing that. Please check again as to what I did propose :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think Elonka's defense of Zero g is a bit disingenuous. Two years, 1000 edits, and maybe 97 percent of those edits look in some way to be related to Eugenics, even the ones to not-obviously-related articles like social justice. Again, WP:SPADE - that's a single-purpose account, I'm afraid. WP:TIGERS points out very nicely that eugenics articles do not have to be written via endless controversy between editors representing mainstream science - Ramdrake, Slrubenstein - and the hardcore right-wing element of Dutch politics, where I strongly suspect Zero g fits in. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) For the record, I don't oppose moving this to AfD, even though I think it should have been done weeks ago, as it now looks like a violation of WP:PARENT (having been overruled in the merge discussion, Zero g seems to want a change of venue to get a second chance). I do, however, object to Zero g's repeated reversal of the merge, followed by telling the other editors to "start an AfD". If he wants an AfD, he should start one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through Zero g's contribs, and to my knowledge he has never filed an AfD. It can be a daunting prospect for someone who has never done one, so I'd recommend that one of the more experienced editors do it. Or, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and file it, just for procedure's sake. I truly do not care if the book article exists or not, I just want to make sure that dispute resolution procedures are followed. --Elonka 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, Elonka, you have proven that ZeroG has not petitioned an AfD, as perhaps was his prerogative. Swell. But ou have also said that an alternative would be an RfC - and it has been pointed out to you several times that there was at least one RfC on the matter. Elonka, it is time for you to come clean. The integrity of Wikipedia depends on this: What is your motivation in derailing the prope following of the merge-article process? Everyone save Zero G, a single-purpose editor, supports it, and other editors have been following Wikipedia policies. Why do you want to derail wikipedia policies? What is your interest in subverting the process here? I honestly do not understand it. AGF insists I take your comments as constructive but please, can you explain to me what constructive suggestion you have forwarded here? All I see is an attempt to derail a pretty standard Wikipedia process. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether Elonka might please stop acting as Zero g's alter ego? Her experiment in mentoring his companion editor Jagz was a signal failure. Now she seems determined to continue it with Zero g. If Elonka wants to file an AfD, please could she do it herself? It seems quite improper for Elonka to act as a behind-the-scenes advisor for other editors, suggesting the actions she would take if she were in their shoes. She says there is a dispute to be resolved. However it is in fact a careless disruptive edit of Elonka herself that has created this whole wikidrama. Could she please carefully reconsider her behaviour on WP in the future and when intervening on a page take some time to review what has been going on. That way she will not waste the time of good faith editors as she now is doing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? This issue of whether to merge a book/author has probably been discussed hundreds of times before, so there should be plenty of good yardsticks lying around, and maybe even guidelines. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As per this diff, Zero g is still unmerging the article and asking me to put it up for deletion. Can someone make him understand that if he wants to unmerge the article, this would be solely for AfD purposes, and that the onus is then upon him to put it up for Afd? Otherwise, that becomes just plain and simple POV-warring for the sake of POV-warring, and that's a blockable offense.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That diff is not what I asked for. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, indenting error, that never was meant to be the diff in question.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Randrake, Slrubenstein, Mathsci - can I ask why it is we keep seeing the three of you show up in places together and the threads quickly degenerate into snippy comments and personal attacks? "derail wikipedia policies" "integrity of Wikipedia depends on this" "wasting the time of good faith editors" -- c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that? You guys need to take a breather and try to come at your editing on race related articles in a much more calm and civil fashion. If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary. Several people suggested actions here, such as requesting protection and community discussion forums - is there any reason not to try that? Why do all of the threads started by this group end up looking like they're out to get another editor? If an editor is that much trouble, there's pretty standard methods of dealing with it through user RfCs and ArbCom; roasting them over ANI isn't really a preferred method (though sometimes tasty). Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why I haven't gone the AfD route myself, primarily because I believe the article is notable so putting it up for deletion would be WP:POINT.

Regarding talk accusations, I guess he isn't well read on the subject matter, Ramdrake and Co have failed to provide notable sources that state that Dysgenics is considered a fringe science. And given there haven't been any public polls that I know of, the 'assumed' public opinion, unfortunately, cannot be added to these articles. The edit conflict actually began when Ramdrake started to remove properly sourced content from the Dysgenics article. I've never tried to push a pov on wikipedia, as an editor I've grown and learned to properly source my edits, and to respect sourced edits of other editors. Ramdrake on the other hand more than once removed sourced content, and has tried to add content that wasn't backed up by the sources he provides. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that he doesn't seem motivated to improve his editing behavior.

I'm also not particularly fond of the 'hey you're a nazi! - lets ban the nazi!' thing. I'm a libertarian and I'm quite aware that many people would vehemently disagree with many of my viewpoints or motivations for my viewpoints, but I wasn't aware that people can get banned on Wikipedia for a suspected political belief. --Zero g (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Zero g's request, I have started an AfD, which is available at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. I have also added it to two delsort categories, for "science" and "social science". I now recommen d closing this ANI thread, since the AfD should now be the primary point of discussion. --ElonSpecial:Contributions/Elonka 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Shell (I am on European time). I did not choose to bring this to WP:AN/I. Since my carefully sourced addition of the book reviews precipitated the forked article, it was quite normal that I should participate here. I don't quite understand why you have adopted the tone above. Certainly what you write does not seem particularly accurate (my recent participation here was concerned with now banned users User:Muntuwandi and User:log in, log out). This thread would not have come about if yet another of your friend Elonka's "experiments" hadn't gone wrong. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who brought things here, the three of you seem to have developed a nasty habit of drama building that includes feeling personal attacks are appropriate. I believe you also seem to have a particular penchant for taking swipes at Elonka, which you've been warned for multiple times and you're here doing it yet again. Zero g has made mature and thoughtful posts to this thread, while you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein aren't holding yourselves to quite the same standard. Zero g took it upon himself to try one of the methods suggested to resolve the issue; you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein did not. I know its tough to really take a step back and look at your own actions, but when people keep saying the same things to you in multiple places, please consider that they might really have some merit - and if nothing else, please don't try to deflect concerns about your behavior with attacks on other editors. Shell ^babelfish 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, please step back a moment. I have not been uncivil. I have merely criticized Elonka's tardiness. Moreschi is one of the few people to have recognized the problems with editor Zero g. His contributions have not been "mature" - his reference here to a "pov cabal" was unhelpful. The tone you are adopting is equally unhelpful and your observations, particularly about the belated AfD, do not seem accurate. Elonka suggested and initiated the AfD, not Zero g. Why not, like me, do something constructive and go to the AfD page where I have already expressed my thanks to Elonka for its creation? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Mathsci, I really didn't comment just to get into another long debate with you where you feign ignorance of any of your (and your cohort's) behavior and pretend I'm being somehow rude. Your comments here have clearly not remained civil; you've managed to call Elonka an alter ego to a "bad" contributor, characterize her edits as careless, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time [44] and even accused her of being the one to create drama [45]. You have been asked very politely before to stop commenting on Elonka since you've said that you're unaware that you're making personal attacks in reference to her.

Aside from the "pov cabal" comment you mention by Zero g, I don't see anything of concern during this discussion. I think, give the behavior I've seen during this thread, that Zero g may have a point, even though it could have been more civilly phrased. Perhaps Zero g behaves differently elsewhere, but again there's a proper avenue to handle things if that's a concern. As far as the AfD goes, I'm going to guess that you just overlooked the "Per Zero g's request" part. Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to dive into the issues surrounding the race related articles at this time. Since you appear to be content with handling things there, that should clear up the concerns for this thread then, no? Shell ^babelfish 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I am the one who started this thread at ANI, based on a simple, objective set of facts: Zero g kept reverting (and edit-warring to keep the reversion) a merge which was done fully according to the rules (at WP:MERGE) several days ago. He was also the only one to object to the merge when the merge proposal was active. On top of this, after reverting, (and mostly denying the existence of a consensus even though it did exist) he kept insisting that other editors should file an AfD if they disagreed with his reversion. To me, that's not really acceptable behaviour. This situation got further inflated when Zero g started throwing around accusations of a POV cabal (or whatever) and gradually escalated from there. From what I see, your comment only further inflames the situation, even though I'm pretty sure that's really not what you intended. I would really appreciate if you would let this situation de-escalate. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you write, "c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that?" Before you accuse me of either being defensive or offensive let me explain because I am not trying to throw out some casual insult. But you have questioned my good faith and you seem to base it on a comment I made here. Do you know that there has been a series of ongoing disputes centered on Race and intelligence and adjunct articles over the past two or three years? If you want to know what kinds of comments I or others "throw out," you need to look at them in the context of the whole conversation. If you look at the talk pages ofr R&I and other articles you will see a great deal of reasonable, constructive discussion by myself, and others you have maligned. In fact, Alun in particular has added hundreds of kilobytes or more to talk pages on these subjects in which he has gone into painful detail about the current state of scientific research, detailing various sources, discussing their notability, and how they could be used in articles. Yes, you should take us very seriously, because of the valuable content we have brought into the articles and into discussions. And you should take us seriously because of our commitment to Wikipedia policies. The question you should be asking is, why do several editors who are clearly not single-purpose accounts, who have contributed to a variety of articles, who have clearly done considerable research relating to articles, disagree with an editor who apparently has no expertise in science and whose edits all have in common the pushing of a single point of view? The only way a responsible editor can answer this question is by looking at the contents and the research behind it. Zero G is promoting as mainstram science a scholar who argues that people are poor because they are less intelligent than people who are not poor, and that "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." Do you really believe these views are mainstream science? I have read through a good deal of the mainstream science on intelligence, genetics, and poverty, and I know that Ramdrake and Alun have as well; Matchsci has also demonstrated that he has very well-grounded knowledge of the sciences. This is why you should take us seriously. Now, you want us to take you seriously, I suppose. How much time have you spent researching the mainstream science concerning these topics? Have you done any research at all? Or are you just taking Zero G's side against several editors because ... well, why? Is it just that you agree with the views he is promoting? Or are you opposed to Wikipedia's FRINGE policy? Or are you opposed to mainstream science? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to. I honestly wasn't trying to take a "side" and my remarks weren't intended to lend any weight to any kind of content issues that may be underlying the posts here. My comment was only about the behavior of editors in this thread, the language used and the general incivility. You may well have been in this mess for so long that you're very frustrated and its coming out in your posts, for example, asking if I'm just "opposed to mainstream science" is actually pretty offensive - if you genuinely feel that by pointing out that you may need a breather, I'm aligning with fringe somehow, you may want to re-think they way you're handling this area right now. Your response to my comments in general underscores the point I was trying to make - you, and several other editors involved in the dispute, seem to be taking things a bit personally at this time and may not realize that you're coming off in a rather defensive and incivil manner. But hey, its my opinion, not law and didn't come with any "be nice or else" type nastiness, so if you really feel I'm off base, you can just ignore the friendly insights. Shell ^babelfish 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Shell, I appreciate your clarification that you are not trying to take a side. I realize that this is going to sound defensive but the fact is that some people have responded to this report by disparaging my character. The facts: There was a poll taken at talk: Richard Lynn to merge the two artciels. The results were 5-1-1, the one opposid 9the only one opposed) being Zero G. Zero G and those involved in the merge got into a revert war and Ramdrake posted the notice here, which seemed to me to be appropriate. At that point Elonka characterized the opposition to the merge "significant;" on Moreschi's user talk page she characterized the dispute as a small group of editors ganging up on a "newbie" (except he has been active - as a single issue editor - for two years) and calling whatever they believe to be "consensus." Elonka is wrong to assert that there is significant opposition to the merge, and she is wrong to question the good faith of several very well-informed editors who have challenged Zero G's edits on substantive grounds. It is frankly perverse that Elonka says we should disregard WP:FRINGE in this case, and that the view of one single-purpose editor is considered "significant" and the five very well-informed editors who disagree are a cabal who are creating phony consensuses. Let's be very clear about what is going on: the biological basis for social inqualities is a controversial topic, and it is especially important that we comply with NPOV. NPOV requires that we distinguish between significant and fringe theories, and this distinction is especially important to the quality of the encyclopedia, which is the whole point. And this means taking seriously editors who are committed to serious research, and being careful that our editorial choices are well-informed. And that is exactly what happened when, after much well-informed and thoughtful discussion, five people voted for a merge and only one person opposed.

Now, Shell, you cannot step in and basically lump myself, Ramdrake, and Mathsci as some kind of gang of disruptive editors who should not be taken seriously, and then claim to be offended when I question your motives while you also admit that you have not gone over the actual content of the dispute. You write, "If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary" - huh? Please now tell me why I should take you seriously, when all you have to do is read the opening of this thread and you will see that Ramdrake DID document the crap going on factually, and with no drama whatsoever. Or are you now denying that Ramdrake presented the facts, or claiming he did so in an inappropriate way? Are your insights really friendly, and my reaction "taking things personally," when I was responding to your comment which basically was your saying: I do not take Ramdrake, Mathsci and Slrubenstein seriously - especially when it is we who keep asking people to look at the facts, look at the content, look at the substance behind this edit war. No comments for Zero G? Really? Are you sure you are not taking any side? You write, "I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to." Well, it is easy to sit back and pass judgement on your fellow editors when you make it clear that you do not intend to take the time to investigate the situation. You want to know why there are a few people who pay careful attention to race-related articles and take firm positions when science is misrepresented? You will have to open your eyes and learn something about both race and science if you want to know the real answer to your question. As long as you refuse to look at the contents, of course you will misunderstand. I won't take that personally - and I am just offering you some friendly advice Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, Moreschi's identification of Zero g as a single-purpose agenda account was correct. But notice how easily the thread got derailed when Zero g was able to be relatively more polite here than Ramdrake, Mathsci, and Slrubinstein? I can sympathize - anyone dealing with Jagz for that long is bound to get frustrated - but you have to realize that Elonka and Shell are not The Enemy. From my experience in looking in on these articles, I would support Moreschi's idea of a topic ban for Zero g, but I don't think it's going to fly - because any admin looking at this thread without a familiarity with the lengthy history on those pages is going to conclude that you guys are going overboard. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What substance? Your only contributions seem to be to the article talk page discussions, most notably voting in "polls", and reverting. Then there is also the social networking. [46] [47] --Zero g (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HEY! THIS IS LEFT FIELD! The Topic is up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Kindly shut the hell up and go fight elsewhere, ALL OF YOU. You're embarrassing yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I hope you are not responding to me, because if you are I have been unclear and apologize. i have not called for any block or ban against Zero G. My first comment was a protest against Elonka's inappropriate re3sponse to Ramdrake's AN?I post, and subsequent posts were meant to defend myself and others from outlandish accusations of POV-pushing. I also intended to makie a more general comment that no one can adequately resolve such disoutes without an awareness of the contents itself. That's as far as my comments went.

I asked serious questions of Elonka and Shell, both of whom are dismissive of my views about enforcing WP;FRINGE and my commitment to research. Neither of them have responded yet. But I see no enemies: I see a typically contentious argument over a controversial issue. I am strived to explain my views clearly and do not like being told I will not be taken seriously because I care about race related articles and have given tem serious research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, one of my own concerns about your style here, is that you tend to make personal attacks at those who disagree with you, and you do this with comments that are extremely repugnant. In my own previous discussions with you, you have accused me of "tolerating trolls", of trying to delete WP:DNFTT, and even of supporting racism,[48][49] which is simply absurd. You have made your opinion clear that you see my actions as "corrosive" to Wikipedia,[50] and that you wonder about my "priorities as an administrator."[51] Here in this thread at ANI, you have continued with these kinds of hyperbolic accusations, implying that "the integrity of Wikipedia" depends on my motivation, and accusing me of trying to "derail the merge-article process" as well as other Wikipedia policies.[52] You have also effectively accused Shell Kinney of agreeing with extremist views, and being "opposed to mainstream science",[53] which, again, is absurd. So, if you truly desire to be taken seriously, I recommend that you adopt a better standard of rhetoric, and get away from these kinds of bizarre accusations. Especially as you are an administrator, other editors do look to you as an example. I would be more comfortable if you were able to present your thoughts in a more measured fashion, without all the excessive accusations. --Elonka 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. I hope that you might also appreciate that it was not very helpful posting remarks like this on Moreschi's talk page:

My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me.

Might you have privately communicated similar remarks to Shell before she appeared on this thread? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, after Zero G implied I was part of a liberal POV-pushing cabal, I wrote my first entry to this thread on 12:39, 20 July 2008. And I refrained from all the contentious comments you so quickly identify me with. Really, I maintain that my July 20 comment was a resonable and civil response to Zero G's comment, which called for a justification of my views. Then you (on Moreschi's talk page), Neon White, and Shell all jumped on me, basically supporting Zero G's accusation that my edits and views just reflect my being part of a POV-pushing cabal. I think when my good judgement has been so quickly dismissed it is fair that I ask why, and ask that the explanation be based on a thoughtful consideration of the substance of the dispute. As for my comments to you, I would just ask others to read them in the context of our earlier discussions rather than your misrepresentations. Be that as it may, the main purpose of my 20:37, 21 July 2008 was to clarify to MastCell and others that I had never called for a ban or block against Zero G. I also stated that while I did not like the way you and Shell are so quickly dismissive of my views, I do not view Zero G, you, or anyone else as an enemy. Somehow this triggered an outraged response from you. I am not going to sit here and parse my 21 July remark to figure out what kind of rhetoric is so outrageous to you, but I really am baffled as to clarifying that I do not support blocking someone is so provocative.

A final comment - you seem to think I am an example for others because i am an administrator. I find this reasoning anathema. And to be clear, Elonka, I am not insulting you, I am disagreeing with you. I think this one thing you wrote is wrong and dangerous, but that does not mean that I think you are a bad person or dangerous. I have no opinion about you personally, and I just assume that you have done good work here with good intentions. But you have written something - indeed, you have repeated it several times - and I think I have a right to explain why I believe it is wrong and dangerous. Wikipedia is a relatively anarchic community. It used to be more anarchic, and we realized we needed some structures to function, but always with some concern and regret about moving away from our original anarchic ideals. The ideal is simple: any one can edit, any time. There is no hierarchy here. No one is above anyone else. The only possible exceptions are Jimbo for legal reasons, and ArbCom in situationally specific ways as part of a dispute resolution (but not legislative) process. Administrators are certainly not above non-administrators. We are given certain tools that help us perform necessary maintenance on Wikipedia - we are like maids and janitors, servants of the community cleaning up messes. I hope some people are grateful for the many little chores we do but no one should look up to us simply because we are administrators. If anyone looks up to me, it should be for one reason, which is the same reason any editor should look up to any other editor, whether they have made 100,000 edits or five edits: they have done serious research and are making substantive contributions to the encyclopedia. I do not think Alun, for example, is an admin. And we have had big arguments - big, wopping nasty arguments. But I look up to him because I know he knows far more about genetics than I do, and he takes research seriously, and only makes edits that are consistent with his serious research and Wikipedia policies. In fact, we need more editors like Alun (and several others who have beeninvolved in the articles under discussion here) because the future of the encyclopedia depends on them ... and not on us admins. Editors, I ask all of you to look up to any other editor who is committed to serious research, as an example. No one at Wikipedia should be given more respect, or be looked up to more, than well-informed editors who comply with our policies to add well-researched verifiable and NPOV content to articles. If it is not clear already, these are the standards Ramdrake, MatchSci and others are defending. I look up to them because I value these standards. I hope it is clear now why anxieties about some thuggish cabal are misplaced. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, all we're asking is that your defend it without the nasty personal attacks against people you disagree with and anyone else who happens to wander into your path. That's it - there's no hidden agenda against science, Wikipedia or productive editors in general, just a pretty simple request to tone it down. A request that someone be civil isn't the same as (or even similar to) supporting their opponent. Shell ^babelfish 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, then, please look at Zero g's first and second posts in this thread. Nobody's pointed out that these are indeed grievous personal attacks. I guess everyone here could learn from taking criticism, but when one side in a dispute is criticized in kind for their words, while the other side, making accusations that are just as grievous (and maybe more) are left to their own devices as if this sort of commentary was normal, some sense of one-sidedness seems to exsude from the exchange, wouldn't you say?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have gone over my 12:39, 20 July 2008 comment (my first comment here) several times and I just do not think it violates WP:CIV. My next comment is I agree more assertive, but still I do not think uncivil. Elonka argued that WP:FRINGE should not apply to this situation - a dangerous proposal in my mind because that could undermine NPOV which is our one non-negotiable policy; she also insisted that AfD is the appropriate solution to this conflict which, as Moreschi pointed out, takes some power away from the community and puts it into administrators' hands - a potentially dangerous proposal in my mind because we should always be very wary of concentrating power or authority among admins here at Wikipedia, concentrations of power undermine the wikicommunity. Ramdrake called attention to one editor who kep reverting a decision made through discussion on the talk page of an article. I think it is reasonable to ask admins to pay attention to a brewing revert war, but to say that the decision (merge two articles or not) should be left to admins rather than the community is at the very least curious if not alarming. And I asked Elonka to come clean about her own motives. I do not consider this uncivil. You and Elonka have and others have not simply asked me to be more civil. You and Elonka have challenged my motives and those of Ramdrake and others. Now, when an admin argues we should ignore a very important guideline (FRINGE) and also take from the community the right to make decisions about mergers and put it in the hands of admins, I do not think it is uncivil for me to ask what agenda these admins have. It doesn't seem to be about supporting policy, since in one case the proposal weakens a guideline and the other, a policy. It doesn't seem to be about encouraging community process, since it rejects a virtual consensus. I guess you will just keep claiming I am being uncivil for questioning your judgement. I sincerely apologize: I did mean to question your judgment; I did not mean to be uncivil. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this post by Alun (aka Wobble) makes him an editor to look up to. [54] Wikipedia isn't a political platform where you edit solely based on an ideology or pre-conceived notion, which is what Alun seems to be about if his posts are an indication. Manipulation of the casual reader aside, I also don't think the praising of fellow cabal members is going to add much substance to this dispute. I would use a different word than cabal, but that is what it appears to be.

Regarding the claim of being great editors, take Ramdrake's edits for example, an astounding 40% of his edits are reverts or revert like in nature, 50% is talk page, and the remaining 10% of his edits are minor/copy edits. The other editors show similar patterns with more talk and less revert. I'm not sure how they believe they contribute - they certainly don't seem to add well referenced content, instead they prefer to remove it. [55] --Zero g (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Zero g, calling people a cabal and trying to minimalize the contributions of other editors isn't going to help you work out this dispute. I'm sure we've all said or done things we regret, but that does not make Alun anything less than a stellar contributor. Please stop. Shell ^babelfish 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this, I however, have given up any hope of ever editing productively alongside the core members of this group of editors (on the so called R&I articles), because they simply refuse to work toward a reasonable consensus. As some may have noticed, I've been phasing out my activities, and the recent AfD has shown me that the principles of Wikipedia only apply to non political and ideological articles - apparently the scientific evidence supporting the dysgenic hypothesis is too threatening to mainstream egalitarian convictions. So I'll take a short break and work on articles unrelated to heredity or psychometrics which should solve this particular dispute, hopefully without being wiki stalked. --Zero g (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that "40% of my edits are reverts"? The specific edit of mine you referred to removed a slew of differential fertility research papers which had been cited to support the dysgenic hypothesis, when they themselves never even mentioned dysgenics. As such, I just removed a whole bunch of OR. That's all. And if you think Alun's talk page comment was about ideology, it just goes to show you haven't read 90% of his comment, which is entirely about pure, hardcore science. Please, stop this. I'll assume good faith and won't accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting our edits, but in this case it looks like you're direly misinterpreting them at the very least.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked your last 100 edits and there were 40 revert like edits. Regarding the removal of sourced content, the sources used the term dysgenic which is an adjective of dysgenics and was clearly used in that context in the sources - many of the sources even used dysgenic in the title. While you are correct the sources didn't use the term 'dysgenics' your removal of the sources on that basis... and now once again claiming to remove OR... well, I don't really know how to describe it other than calling it extremely tendentious. Hopefully it gives people an indication of how incredibly frustration it is to deal with this kind of behavior when trying to do some serious work on an article. --Zero g (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitting that your numbers were made up by you. Also, looking at the article, a total of 18 references were removed, 15 of which did not contain any reference to "dysgenic" or "dysgenics" (which is why they were removed - their authors never inferred that their results suggested something like a "dysgenic trend" - and leaving them in would be OR). The last 3 were either already duplicated in the article, or were reintroduced. I won't push the insult to making the same ad hoc "analysis" on your edits as you did on my edits. Also, I would strongly suggest you just stop this line of attack, as Shell has already suggested; it won't get you anywhere.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Five sources that directly addressed dysgenics in fact, and sources can be used more than once, so deleting sourced content of a previously used source doesn't make it any less disruptive. Nor were the other sources used to claim something the sources didn't state, they were used to add more context to the article and show the historical scientific interest and findings regarding intelligence and fertility.

Anyhow, I'm done with this. You're clearly much better at this than I am. --Zero g (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also just noticed that your "diff" is in fact hiding no less than 10 intermediate diffs of mine, which carefully explain why I did all the changes I did:[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]

So, please be more careful next time you accuse people of "just reverting stuff".--Ramdrake (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has made further remarks on her claimed "lynch mob" and "pov cabal" on Moreschi's talk page and has threatened to mount a case against them [66]. I find it quite sad that, unlike Moreschi and most other administrators, Elonka seems unwilling to distinguish between established good faith editors like myself, who add mainspace encyclopedic content in a variety of different disciplines, mostly academic, and a single purpose account like that of Zero g, who since 2006 has only edited articles connected with eugenics. (To my knowledge I have only interacted with Zero g once on the talk page of Race and intelligence some time back over whether Richard Lynn was connected with the extreme right group American Renaissance, which is documented as having hosted talks by him.) It does not seem that Elonka has the support of the community in adopting such a maverick position, judging by the current state of the AfD page - as good a barometer as any of community opinion. BTW I am quite willing to wash my hands of making what have only been very occasional carefully sourced and neutral edits to articles related to Richard Lynn, if only to avoid getting entangled with single-purpose administrators like Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions

I've been looking at some articles by User:Wilhelmina Will who is running a race for DYK and other awards on her vanity page. Her articles have tremendous problems, they're largely copied from single sources, generally blogs, they're factually incorrect, she mixes up geography (though on a lesser scale than a recently indeffed editor, New Mexico for California), the links are broken, they include spam links, she's copied wholesale from copyrighted internet sites. Check my edit history for some of the articles of hers I've had to edit and tag. I bring up the other example in this because, like CS, it appears that most of this editor's contribution should be removed from Wikipedia.

I assume, as usual, I will be attacked for this. But, it is nice to see that some editors care about quality on Wikipedia, though, and thank you to all those editors who did not feel it necessary in my case to shoot the messenger.

However, again, this is fair warning for when this comes back to haunt Wikipedia: this editor is copying material that already has copyrights, and having Wikipedia copyright it as Wikipedia material; she is creating articles that are wrong (like one article uses a source that is all about a turtle not being a crown group sea turtle, and she calls it a crown group sea turtle in the article, obviously not understanding the technical article at all); she is copying from blogs to build articles and sourcing them to the blogs, she is copying huge amounts of text from IMDb, etc., etc.

She appears, like CS, to have created hundreds, if not thousands of problem articles. I've only looked at ones that appeared on the main page in DYK. They are all bad in unacceptable ways. I have alerted the folks at DYK who will be watching her contributions more carefully to address this one issue. The other issue remains, what is to be done with her existing articles, potentially all of which are seriously problematic from the sampling I've taken?

--Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's human to make mistakes. Fix them if you see them. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a helpful comment coming from you Will after you didthis - by fix do you mean removal? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every article she has created that I have looked at has mistakes in it. When I confronted her the first time she got belligerent. Should I review her hundreds and hundreds of articles and correct all of the errors, like the sea turtle article based on a misreading of the primary source she created? I've looked at half a dozen articles, all are almost completely useless for some reason. How about somebody find one article of hers that isn't completely useless, rather than have her continue to contribute wrong, copied, and bad articles? --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blechnic - are all of her articles copyvio issues, or are a lot of them just cleanup problems? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Her list of created articles is here. I note quite a few BLP articles in this mix, and there are several hundred of them. I only looked at a couple, and though they were not horrible, they weren't well sourced and there were at least minor errors in them. Both that I looked at quickly were borderline as to copyvio, so I can't answer that conclusively. I'm going to start working from the bottom up if someone else would like to start on some of the others. Risker (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom of the list. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, Ctenochelys, she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links.[67] Nothing about the one reference in this article says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about.[68] It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

Good start, Fritzpoll and Risker. She might be willing to learn how to do it properly, also. --Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The science articles are going to be the problem, if you don't know phylogeny something like someone saying it's a crown group when the article is about it no longer being considered one might not jump out at you. This whole article is so off, but so convoluted, I don't know what to do about it. I personally think Ctenochelys should just be deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let other admins respond to this one as well, but it depends on the scale of the problem - I'll see how many science articles there are. But I'm not sure what CSD criteria could apply Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I got up as far as Morawanocetus from the bottom, and have made a note of the scientific articles on the way. I need to go to bed. Mostly so far, I have no direct copyvios, but some very poorly sourced articles. I suggest someone contact the author and offer to mentor her through the next month or so and to point out the lack of importance of DYK. She seems motivated, but in just the wrong direction at the moment. I hope she will reply here soon Fritzpoll (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the User:Orbicle case? This is how we handled it, with User:Gmaxwell's help. He queried the database for all new pages by the user, listed them in alphabetical order, and we had a team of about 10 (look at the page history) go through the list to check sources, and then we crossed them off when they were done. Some were copyvios which we re-wrote, others were fine as is. When there's a long list, this can be an efficient way to approach the problem.

Wilhelmina gets her articles from Articles for Creation. I haven't checked to see if she copies directly from there, but it is possible she does, assuming good faith on the part of the people who post there. I feel a certain responsibility here because I've been supportive of her efforts, have encouraged her, and she has often come to me for opinions about notability and sources -- but I haven't checked her work for copyright violations. Seeing as copyvios are a serious issue, I think we need to go through these, and of course if Wilhelmina herself would help that would be best of all. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree, for what it's worth. Many seem to come from Articles for Creation, but created without actually reality-checking the proposal (for instance, Oaaa, where the source was one unverified answer at a Q&A site). The cryptozoology articles are pretty bad too - articles like Issie, Cressie and Batsquatch sourced from various personal and non-scholarly websites that well fail WP:V standards. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she is a AFC regular. A bit of good faith is required here - she AGFed on the IPs being able to not copyvio or use unreliable sources. When I accept articles at AFC, I rarely deviate from the IP's submission. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good faith issue. I helped there for a while, and even assuming good faith all round, the practicality is that many (most, even) AFC proposals are by newcomers who've not gone through the small print of Unregistered users: Submitting an article, so it's wise to check the sources for copyright/reliability issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You really can't afford to blindly accept AFC submissions. When I was helping out there I found that the largest majority of articles posted there were copyvios. I always double checked every article before I posted it and I would encourage others to do likewise - it only takes a couple of minutes to Google a couple of choice sentences. Sarah 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has she been notified of these proceedings? Beam 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by a couple of editors on her talk page.

• Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Blechnic (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone alerted her to the exact problem with copyvio as well as the issue of writing poor articles? Beam 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having worked with/pseudo-mentored User:Wilhelmina Will on the Iggy Arbuckle pages, I'm inclined to think it was an honest mistake from not checking the AFCs before doing them. She does go overboard on the non-free images, but I think its just from a lack of full understanding of the policy, which some long term editors no longer always have a good grasp on due to the changes earlier this year. I think a more formal mentoring relationship would be very beneficial in helping correct these problems and help her become an even stronger as I've found her to be fairly open to corrections, willing to learn, and to have a desire to be a good editor. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the severity of the problem (factual inaccuracies, and admission on my talk page she doesn't understand the scientific article she wrote incorrectly, bum links, links to viruses, plagiarism, hostility in response when it's pointed out) I suspect this editor is worth working with. Please don't anyone underestimate the level of the problem with her existing articles, though. Underestimating the problem will not do her or Wikipedia any good. Maybe she could get some guidance and learning while fixing the problems she created. --Blechnic (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, initially I agreed that while its a big problem, its fixable with some guidance. However, it seems like she is very deliberately ignoring all messages on her talk page and this report and continuing along with her usual edits. That, to me, does not bode well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, with Durova's comment below, and how long Carol Spears was allowed to go on even after it became apparent that something was seriously wrong with her contributions, probably just ignoring this and continuing to plagiarize and create misinformation is the way to go from the viewpoint of the one creating the problem.

Someone elsewhere said this would be the most effective means of vandalizing Wikipedia: getting a few other editors who support you, then just writing random crap all over the place. I agreed then, I see it even clearer now. Everyone can spot the Gawp's who can't handle (or find) their cocks, but it takes perserverence to deal with editors like this, and Wikipedians rather more to the former, than the work necessary to deal with the latter. Something needs to be done about all of her edits. Meanwhile, she's creating more. I looked at a few, they were just one line stubs, though I haven't looked at all.--Blechnic (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be more circumspect with real people's names

I've done something blockable: I've altered Blechnic's thread title and opening post above. I'm also invoking IAR; made the changes to partially redact a real person's name who is not involved in this thread and is referred to as a negative example. Let's remember that sort of thing can have a real world impact via Google hits, etc. If a username is Fuzzyduckling22 and has no real world connection to anybody, then turn it into a meme if you like. Please be more circumspect with real human names. Durova^Charge! 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what is a real person's name or not on Wikipedia, and when editors use their real names they have already conceded to allowing a real world impact via Google.

It was an expedient way to make it clear what I was talking about--what is appearing to be a common editing style among plagiarizing editors: factual inaccuracies, sloppy links, gratuitous references, overall bad editing.

I don't have an issue with changing the title of a thread, though. Why would that be blockable? Don't answer! --Blechnic (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What would really be better is if we treated copyright more seriously around here. After all, the Wikipedia community doesn't have the power to overrule real world legislation. If an editor is committing bright line copyright violations, he or she should get a limited number of warnings before an indefinite block. And then--as with legal threats--a retraction and pledge to stop creating problems should be necessary to get an unblock (with mentorship if needed). When we as a site treat the law less than seriously, we open the door to difficult editors making an open joke of it. That's a risk to the Foundation and to our site's credibility, and ultimately to the names of those difficult editors if they use their real names. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this lack of response to copyright violations and plagiarism. It stains everything Wikipedia has accomplished, imo, to see these little DYK articles with content copied and pasted from all over the web. This week was the first time I read all of the articles on a DYK and did not suspect a single one of a copyvio. This copyvio/plagiarism stains all of the hard work done by editors who write excellent articles, by editors who use sources properly, by editors who contribute to featured articles and good articles (the ones without copyvios, that is). Yet editors continue to attack me for pointing these problems out. These issues put Wikipedia in ugly company. Do the big print encyclopedias plagiarize hundreds and hundreds of pages off of the web (to Carol Spears alone, and, now, it appears the same to Wilhelmina Will--this is just two editors)?

Yes, it attacks Wikipedia's credibility, and it makes it harder to justify contributing, and it stains the hard work of good editors by pulling them down into the cesspool.

And these bad editors are the ones who are going to draw attention and headlines, like that guy who lied about being a Ph.D. What's so bad about saying you have a Ph.D. in comparison to saying the words are your own when they're not?--Blechnic (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've worked all my career in the RW trying to educate people who honestly and in good faith think that writing and research is a matter of finding places from which to copypaste--if they're sophisticated, adding quotation marks and some sort of references. At least in the (US) higher education system there is an emphasis on originality in doing one's work, and it is fairly easy to explain how originality is incompatible with such a technique. But for writing what is acknowledged to be a tertiary resource like Wikipedia, where originality isn't merely not-required, but prohibited, it's a little harder to explain why intellectual effort beyond that of an OCR system is needed. I suspect good parts of many or perhaps most of our articles are prepared the same away as these, though not as erroneously. The use of misunderstood references based on abstracts is inevitable when people use the free summaries in databases without attempting to find the actual articles. (See Open access for at least one part of the true solution to this). The solution is not to ban those who do it the most conspicuously, but to educate, one at a time, as suggested above. Yes it's tedious. But people can and do learn, and working here can be a good opportunity to remedy the missing parts of someone's education. DGG (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A recently-concluded siteban demonstrates that we err entirely too far in the direction of education and lenience. The result is an enormous cleanup job for several editors and the near-loss of Blechnic, who endured unfair accusations of wikistalking as "thanks" for her efforts to remove bad citations and copyright violations. I do not propose that we ban editors routinely. It's very easy to get a legal threat indef lifted. This is a legal matter too. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Having said what I said, I suppose what I do now is offer to help in the education if she stays. DGG (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would help, as she is, right now miscopying with a new article she is working on. She does not, like Carol Spears, read scientific sources well enough to be able to use them accurately. This is hard to understand. I don't write articles about topics about which I am ignorant. Today I edited a link from the main page featured article, but only after some serious reading and research to make sure I understood what a whaleback ship was. Even then, I asked other editors to check it. I write mostly outside of the area of my formal education, but I am very careful when writing Wikipedia articles to source what I write, no matter how well I know it, and to write from sources I understand fully. This is why I cannot understand how people think they can write articles about topics about which they are ignorant in five days or less. It takes me a day to put up a sentence about topics in my area. I'm reading about a well-known Egyptian geological formation. This is my area, stratigraphy. I've been reading about it for days to add a few sentences. This is because an encyclopedia requires sourcing and referencing.

Please help if you can, as I suspect this editor will listen and is capable of learning. --Blechnic (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:XxJoshuaxX page moves

Would someone care to check out what appears to be disruptive editing from this user in moving pages based on faulty premises? Check the talk page for examples, specifically moving articles on books, films and songs with "Over" in the title to pages with a small "o" in the word "over", contravening the actual titles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this editor operates more like a vandal, wikilawyering, quoting MoS to suit purposes, and working entirely against consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Isn't this the same guy as Big T.V. Fan? If so he just changed his username last week after way overstepping the bounds of [[WP:3RR]. I had to file a CheckUser even. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Same guy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is in order in that case. Chafford (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is someone going to implement it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this was a legitimate renaming of an account, not sockpuppetry. Still the page moves he's doing are absurd. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin be bold and undo the editor's page moves? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved the Cuckoo's Nest novel, play & films back. Do we have consensus for a block here, or would a severe warning be enough? I'm leaning towards block myself, given the consistent disruptive editing and accompanying incivility... EyeSerene^talk 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the MO established, I would first favour a "highly descriptive" warning before resorting to the ACME hammer. FWiW, I think this is a very young person who probably is well-meaning but then again, his actions are highly problematic... Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

I moved those pages because "over" is a presposition. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

However, when dealing with the title of someone else's work or the name of another entity, it should be rendered according to their intent, including any grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization errors. Or perhaps the article on the hit song should be He Is Not Heavy. He is My Brother. And the article for the toy giant should be Toys Are We! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh,I get it now. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But I feel like a total idiot now. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)Someone to Watch over Me (film) still needs to be moved back to Someone to Watch Over Me (film), as does the disambiguation page Someone to Watch over Me and all the pages linked on it, all of which have been moved to pages with small "o"s in "over". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I'd got them all. Done. Any more I've missed? EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's history, there are a number of other moves which may be problematic, if they followed the same procedure of elevating grammar and Wikipedia naming conventions over the actual titles of things, but most of the rest of them involve songs and musical artists I'm not particularly familiar with, so someone else will need to evaluate the moves. In the meantime, I hope the editor takes to heart the lesson here not to override the names of things, and to initiate some discussion before making potentially contentious page moves. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I went through many of them earlier, but didn't have the time to go too far back. If someone else wants to have a look...? EyeSerene^talk 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)I'm concerned that User:XxJoshuaxX is still doing numerous page moves, some of which seem pretty dicey on the face of it. I think it would be a good idea for an admin to take a close look at his edits and give him some advice. It might be a good idea for him to hold back from doing page moves for a while. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And now another editor has moved the "Someone to Watch Over Me" articles back to "Someone to Watch over Me". This is really ridiculous, can't some admin do something about this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved them back and fixed the redirects. It looks like a simple misunderstanding - no big deal ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

analysis and suggestion for administrative action

Actually, after saying above that he got what was problematic with his moves, he made only two moves, and both seem correct, but he gives wrong reasons for them:

• He moved Who's The Boss (album) to Who's the Boss (album) saying that it's because "the" is an article, but he should have said that it was because the original title of the work uses "the" uncapitalized.

Sorry about that one,if I could edit my summary,I would. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• He moved T.O.S. (Terminate on Sight) to T.O.S (Terminate on Sight), removing the dot after "S" saying that there is no dot on the cover, but the cover doesn't have dots, but asterisks. Also, it's obviously an acronym of the title, and acronyms do have a final dot. Amazon uses the dot [69], and so do all sites selling the products (see 4 links at the end of this page[70]). Of the 10 music reviews linked on the infobox, 6 say "T.O.S." with final dot (including 2 print magazines), 2 don't use the acronym (HipHopDX and DefSounds) and 2 use "T.O.S" without final dot (B-inside and G-Blender), however B-inside liks to the amazon page with a final dot. Their official page spells the title without the final dot, so that move was also correct.

Yes the cover uses stars,but stars are prohibited,so we use dots instead in this case. And even if it's acronyms,the actual title surpresses that. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, please some admin undo the T.O.S. move and then leave a warning on XxJoshuaxX's talk page to not make more moves, and instead just suggest them on the talk pages so other editors can check them and make them if they agree. provide better rationales for his moves. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My move of T.O.S. was correct,per my above explanation. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, I replied at Talk:T.O.S_(Terminate_on_Sight)#final_dot_on_title, as this is more a content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive image tagging

This post is in reference to recent mass tagging of images for deletion by User:OsamaK. I've tried to talk it over with him here but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).

The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, this one. The subject died 201 years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about this one? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... It has been discussed so many times before. See HERE, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, these images are clearly PD, regardless of their lack of sourcing. Someone with automation tools needs to undo these tags, which should never have been placed. Losing all these images will be detrimental to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How to discus while you undoing my edits?--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I have to undo all of your undoing. Stop now!--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The first couple I checked, I don't think it's disruptive, I think it's a fair cop. No matter the age of an image, it still needs a proper source, and those items didn't have one. No image comes from thin air. Maybe threatening to delete in 7 days is a bit much, but the rules are what they are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, George Dawe will rise from the dead to sue Jimbo and Wikipedia over Image:Aleksey Arakcheyev.jpg. You are free to believe this, but please don't flood my talk page with this useless clutter and loud deletion threats. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not likely, but you still need to provide a source. I've been told this many times about images regardless of their age. Maybe it came from a website, maybe from a book; but wherever, it did not come from thin air, it had to come from someplace. You need to provide a source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need a source in that sense. You do need enough information (author or publication) to verify public domain status, though, and being really old isn't enough. If someone was born in 1840, took a photo in the U.S. at the age of 10, never published it, and died at the age of 100, we have an 1850 photo that's copyrighted until 2010. --NE2 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but really, how likely is that? At some point (pre-1900?) we ought to err on the side of assuming PD. Requesting source information is fine, but threatening to delete within a week when they've sat there for 4-5 years with no problems is rather counterproductive. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I stopped arguing with these guys after they deleted the equivalent of Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 058.jpg because "the uploader needs to prove that it is a rembrandt" and not the work of a modern forger. I suddenly realized that browsing the web archives for a website where I had found the image years ago was not worth the effort: they will still find something to torment me with, say, that the attribution of Rembrandt paintings is highly uncertain, or that a reproduction may not reflect the original color scheme quite faithfully, or something else. In short, I can't prove that it is a rembrandt to someone who is determined to expose what a cheat I am. Let them have their way. I still firmly believe that the activity aimed at sourcing=deleting obvious (and in many cases hard-to-find) PD-art stuff is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

extreme view. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a copyright extremist. I (and many others) just read Wikipedia image policies and try to apply it. Simply, because it is our interest. Well, if Mr. Biruitorul ,or anyone else, think that image source policy has to change, I'll discus, and I may agree for better image hosting, but it is not my job! I think currently policy is fair enough. It is ugly to say: "a troll", "extreme view" or "Definitely disruptive". It is not my mistake when I try to apply Wikipedia policy.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never accused you of trolling. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, you did not.--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that documentations tell us to note you by default. It is easier to skip you and others, and tag image page only. Once, I had a problem in Wikimedia Commons, I filled some inactive user talk pages with these notes, which makes my browsing so slower. I taught about skipping all user talk pages. After few days, an user undid all of my edits and my hard work lost! For that reason, I note all users. Read this documentation for more.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If an image is so old it's OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY in the public domain (say, photos of people that weren't alive at any time when a copyright would still be valid), no source for the image is needed. It's trivial. Doesn't matter where it come from, no matter how or when it's public domain. Tagging countless images we have a perfect right to use to be deleted based upon stubborn kneejerk adherence to a policy just adds countless hours of work for people to go through and try to fix them all for no good reason, assuming they get caught before deletion. Blind adherence to a pointless policy when someone knows that it's considered bad behavior is not even an attempt at good faith anymore, it's just being stubborn. If OsamaK wants to help Wikipedia he'll voluntarily stop doing these things. If not I think he should be temporarily blocked so he gets the idea that what he's doing is wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

you cannot say that yourself. you cannot even block me for a minute or less. you cannot reexplain the clear policy to be compatible with your view. People in everywhere delete unsourced images since image policy created; here, in Arabic Wikipedia, and in Wikimedia Commons (at least). Please be civil.--OsamaK 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from seperate section below

Ed Fitzgerald doesn't stop removing my image tags without discussion or even change the default edit summary. I asked him three times (one, two, three) to stop doing that, and he didn't respond and still redoing. last moment he undid Image:AR Sevier Ambrose.jpg and Image:Apelles.jpg. I want someone note him to stop doing that for last time until the end of discussion above.--OsamaK 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookin' at his contribs, that looks unhealthily like stalking. It's only in the last 50 or so edits, so it's not a major problem right now, but I'll go have a word with him. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this section up into the main thread from a seperate section below. The problem is that this editor is tagging obviously PD images because they are in technical violation of a absolutist reading of policy, and if they are not untagged, they will be deleted, at a detriment to the project. The editor has had this explained to him, and continues in his actions, so no edit summary is necessary on each seperate revert which, because I do not have automation, I am doing by hand. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a copy-paste edit summary, then; it'd be rather easy to hit tab after editing then paste it in. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just one side. I'm talk about losing my time without discussion! We have a week to get a solution.--OsamaK 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to wait a whole week if a solution is presented before then. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been discussion -- just look above. Your actions may be in strict adherence to a dogmatic reading of policy, but they're not helpful to ther project. You really should stop and help to undo the tagging you've done so far. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no one! He is removing my long time tagging, he is ignoring and breaking above discussion! He is explaining the policy as his personally view to it and trying to impose it on others? Note: I stop tagging ages ago!--OsamaK 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You say you stopped tagging ages ago but, actually, I see that you reverted Ed's removal of your tags about an hour ago: [71]. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean ages. Last new tag was this one, on 19:30, 21 July 200.--OsamaK 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. You're losing your time, I noted you many and many times, I stopped tagging last 36 hours at least: I'll undo all of your undoing.. If any admin wants to take an action, (s)he should review his edit first. This is a stupid game.--OsamaK 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a stupid and disruptive game and you're playing it. Consensus here is clearly against you, and yet you continue to waste the time of a number of editors by reverting. Since you seem to be unable or uninterested in discussing the issues (as opposed to complaining about other's actions), and you've now upped the ante by using Twinkle, the only solution may be for an admin to block you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:). I asked you many and many times to stop it. I'm not here for playing. You will not put the ball in my court, I have more comments there than you, Can not I discus? So, in your view, you can undo all of my edits with invalid reason, but I cannot restore them. Are you kidding? --OsamaK 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning the images were as they were, then you came along and tagged them for deletion. People objected to that, began a discussion and removed your tags, returning the images to their original condition and that's how they should stay while the discussion continues. if the discussion goes against you, the images are in the condition they need to be in, if the discussion goes for you, you can revert the untagging which you have been doing anyway, so it's no additional work for you. This is the reasonable and proper procedure to follow. You seem to want to have the discussion continue while the timer ticks down on the images and they get deleted, meaning they would have to them go to deletion review, more work for everybody.

So, yes, the answer to your question is all of your tagging edits should indeed be undone, pending the outcome of the discussion -- which, incidentally, is clearly going against you -- after which they can be restored if that's the consensus. Please use your script and remove your tags, and avoid the necessity for others to do it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by alnokta

Jello,

Can we please get over with this issue? I don't see any harmful behavior by Osama here. he is just following the current policy, whether you like it or not. you should be thanking him for applying the policy not blame him. any image needs a source, how hard is that? if you don't like the tagging, provide sources, search the web and provide sources. or the other way around, go change the image policy regarding sources for public domain images. stop the game of reverting please.--Alnokta (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

fair enough :)--OsamaK 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. Yes, sources for images are crucial. But when a picture is obviously PD, we do ourselves a disservice by deleting it and not simply requesting a source. There's no legal benefit to be derived (since no one is going to sue), and no ethical one either (since the copyright has almost certainly expired). Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean?--OsamaK 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an essay, not policy. And anyway, since strict interpretation of the source requirement is in this narrow instance (obviously PD images) a hindrance to improving/maintaining Wikipedia, we can safely ignore it. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. but the question is: Who governs successfully of politics? Anyways, I think we're in a loop!--OsamaK 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant edit warring

OsamaK has now reinserted a tag on Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg for the sixth time since July 17. Argue respectfulness towards WP:3RR all you want but this is blatant revert/edit warring. If it wasn't disruptive before, it most definitely is now. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so unfair. Let me be honest, before undoing the tag there, I reread WP:3RR to check if my restore is legal or not (Is 3rd or 4th illegal?). The policy says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts". For that reason, I restored it last time.--OsamaK 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's under discussion here, and it's obviously controversial, I'd strongly recommend not tagging at all until the issue is resolved. You're essentially telling everyone here trying to discuss the matter that it doesn't matter what they say, you'll continue to edit in a manner considered disruptive by some here. And that's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is simple as 1-2-3. Stop undoing, Stop tagging; I stopped tagging since 19 July (Lazy to check), but Ed doesn't care about that. There is no stopping unilaterally, and if so, this is unfair.--OsamaK 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not unfair. If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I conceded that you did not breach 3RR but I do consider your reversions on the above mentioned image as constituting an edit war. 3RR does not need to be breached to constitute an edit war. And also, I think it's very condescending to other involved users to continually argue semantics about how you stopped tagging 3 days ago when you're still restoring the tags that were removed after you. There is no difference between adding a tag for the first time and hitting the "undo" button after someone removes your tag. You need to stop re-adding those tags until someone here starts agreeing with you. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, We're in loop. It is unfair, because I didn't start it. and what about Alnokta, who agrees with me? I believe that there is no AIR with copyrights issues, and then, no one should restore my edits before ending of discus because he is ignoring rules (Wow!), they even want to block me as a troll, becuase they ignore rules!--OsamaK 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We're only in a loop because you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your actions. Under your theory, your tags would remain in place while discussion takes place, until, finally, the clock ticks down and the images are deleted -- this is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the proper procedure, since your tagging is conroversial, is for the original status quo ante (meaning the images in untagged condition) to be preserved while the discussion proceeds. If the discussion goes in your favor, then you can reapply the tags, and the images will be deleted. In fact, though, with one exception, the discussion is going against both your actions and the necessity or advisability of your tags. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Breaking tagging every time, everywhere is a well known story. Dear Ed. If you really want to change, open an issue, write a 'bata' policy and it may applied.--OsamaK 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With the Tschaikovsky picture, it's indeed possible that a 20-year-old photographer in the 1890s could have been alive late enough to renew the copyright. For the Sterret picture, though, it's not physically possible for a copyright to be in force. Hence, tagging it is disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in his latest round of mass reversions (using Twinkle), the editor has accused those who are removing his unwarranted tags of breeching WP:POINT. Of course, no "point" is being made here. What is happening is that editors are attempting to prevent useful images from being lost to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't using Twinkle, it was using my own script. Anyways (let me skip POINT issue), Let us have a cup of tea in #wikipedia-en. Could you come there?--OsamaK 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC):

I don't do IRC. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my view will be discounted because I take a relatively liberal position of the use of NFCC in interpreting the rules--while accepting them, of course--but it does seem to me that Osama is not in the right of it here, and is taking an over-literal view of things--as is easy to do when using any sort of automated tool. In any case, to insist on large scale tagging over multiple objections is disruptive, and should not be continued until there is some consensus that it is being done appropriately. DGG (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your option. Wikimedia policies are illustrating each others. In Wikimedia Commons, we delete all unsourced image no care if it is (PD-old, PD-art, etc..); Everyone knows that. Are we taking an over-literal view of things? No for sure! Another point: Our policy says clearly about source for all images, and we must apply it to be compatible with Wikimedia Commons' one, do you believe that problem when bots uploaded many PDs from English Wikipedia without source? That's illegal in both policies.

Finally, I think we had a long discussion there about this issue, and we may have to deep think about wider discussion to review image policy, I think some people there cannot understand it well.--OsamaK 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I Think we've hit the crux of the problem here: you're applying Commons' methods to Wikipedia, which you should see by now is not going to work. If you want a wider discussion on that, go to Wikipedia talk:NFCC. In the meantime, please stop your tagging as it is disruptive on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. I just give an example for the answer of a question from DGG. Please, read my reply again. Another point, you have to understand that these images are NOT NFCC and we cannot discs them in your former link, note that not I who started the long discussion there. Last point, I have frieze my tagged since 19 July.--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that a strict and dogmatic reading of policy is overriding both rational decision making and what's best for the project. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to be a repository for policy, policy exists to make Wikipedia better, and if it's not doing that, then rational consideration of the situation needs to prevail. If an edit, of any kind, is not helping the project, then it's hurting the project. The project would be diminished by losing the use of those images, which are clearly public domain, and therefore enforcing the strict letter of the law is detrimental and should not be done. We are not here to enforce policy, we are here to make an encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Images lock like Public Domain, but for more trusting, more verifiability, and better academic usage policy requests sources, this is not a bad read of it! I want to note all people there, that Biruitorul has a very great contributions for fixing sources. Just take a look for these as examples: Image:Bellayguillaume.jpg and Image:AnthonyWayne.jpeg. We're all believe that sources is well needed, let's try to fix all of them rather than long boring discussion, that will improves trusting of our wiki (That anyone can edit!).--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like there's only one solution that will make OsamaK happy. Delete every PD image from Commons and Wikipedia, and let him relocate and find all of them, and replace them. He won't of course, leaving us with a dearth of objects, and the continued insistence that PD needs attribution. It doesn't, per the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision quoted ad nauseum in prior similar situations. This is simply a copyright activist gaming our rules to make a point. He should be charged with personally replacing every single image he tags and succeeds in deleting, and if he refuses, banned from the project to preclude further disruption. ThuranX (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really :), And we should do the thing makes project better, not OsamaK happy! An image + clear source + correct licenses = Good information, Kept; That's making me happy, making the project better. I'm very clear from first, and you're trying to put the ball in my court, and showing me as a troll. You still revolve around a single wrong point, called "Ignore all rules, always".--OsamaK 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I havent' called you a troll at all, but that I managed to SHOW you as one makes me feel like an amazing success to hear you admit it without any prompting from me! However, this notion that every image is not really PD because of titanic counterfeiting conspiracies whose sole aim is to discredit Wikipedia is asinine. Unless you've got proof that most PD images are actually copyrighted counterfeis, I think you really should find other goals in life, maybe not on Wikipedia, because the amount of blatant and disgusting BAD faith you are heaping upon every uploader to the project is a serious issue, as is your constant disruptions to wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, inncludig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, inlcuding basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin. How technically possiby can I be blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity?--Moldopodo^talk 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HERE IS THE WHOLE STORY

OK, so where's the beef? Biruitorul ^Talk 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you were not blocked for filing a request, you were blocked for your racism, your ranting, your edit warring and your failure to get the point with, well, everything and anything. Whether others warrant a block has nothing to do with your block, which was fully justified. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, your prevous statement is a classical example of slanderous statements. None of what you say is true, more than that - it is a lie and you do not even address all the numerous diffs and explanations I have provided on my talk page.--Moldopodo^talk 22:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I find talking to you and pointing out why I believe you are wrong about as fun, interesting and useful as stabbing forks into my eyes. As such, I am not going to go through the motions of requesting that you shut up and actually do something useful, nor am I going to be pedantic and point that you are actually talking about libel, not slander, and that people are even less likely to take you seriously when you are wrong. What do you want done? Blocking all these nasty evil slanderous people? It's ironic that in this report you haven't provided a single diff, when your arguments on why you should be unblocked tend to revolve entirely (over the course of about eight pages) on how no one has shown you any diffs. And what are you talking about, I haven't read your essays and reviewed your diffs? I don't have to do that, and I don't see any point in doing so anyway. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Negligent reverts

User:Baseball Card Guy has made numerous reverts to pages in which he has made quite a few errors. I had corrected a number of problems with regard to data as well as notability and image violations. I have given warning here. I have also tried to discuss the issues here. It does not appear to me the individual is interested in correct and verifiable information. I have previously asked the individual not to make frivolous reverts out of spite. Libro0 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the errors, or how are we to know that they really are errors? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing argument between these two over technicalities about the articles in question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of 1980 Topps for example, you will see a source cited. This book contains all of the data for the listed sets. This individual has a habit of undoing my edits frequently and in so doing has made mistakes. The sizes are listed in # x # inches. They are from the source in fractions. He changed them to decimals and in the process of redoing them all, had slipped up on a few. This also goes for errors made in quantity(of cards) of a given set. I have also had to clean up spelling and grammar that he refuses to allow me to correct. It has become clear to me that he does not have any of the source material. Libro0 (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you two the only ones editing those articles, or can you recruit help from others who also have an interest in the subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had considered this but here is the problem: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy. Furthermore, it is a children's hobby and thus attracts the younger crowd. When I said that I did it as a 'scholarly pursuit' I was laughed at. Nevertheless, I stand by the fact that I did it to introduce both a notable company with roots in a popular hobby and the national pastime to the encyclopedia, and I did by providing verifiable material with sources that are considered the industry standard. The pages are not 'for me' or 'to my liking'. They were designed with wikipedia policy in mind. I would greatly appreciate assistance with these pages without the trouble of sock puppets or people wanting to decorate it with 'all their favorites'. This is not a selfish pursuit but I feel that for the above individual, it is. When I make the articles, I have the reader in mind. Libro0 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 20 I made a number of edits. On the 22nd he reverted all of them and had no grounds for such action. This is clearly a personal attack. I have tried to work with him but all he does is work against me. Libro0 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of expanding the pages and Baseball Card Guy is impeding that progress. I expect that any more edits I make will meet with an immediate revert by him. I don't believe he has anything constructive to add to the project. His goal appears to be to prevent me from contributing. Libro0 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei

Tenmei (talk · contribs) has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are destroyers, other sources say they are helicopter carriers and other sources say they're aircraft carriers). As is shown on Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks), [77] and [78]). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times ([79], [80], [81] and [82]) but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order. However, I have fully protected Hyūga class helicopter destroyer due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads WP:TLDR. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Most of the points on that process have now been tried, however. I will continue to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, where hopefully this can be resolved. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do sympathise with your difficulties there - there's no doubt that he's disputing the consensus reached on the talk page, although I don't really understand what he's continuing to argue against, since you've mentioned the naming issues in the article. He's been warned over the reverting; that's currently not a problem now the page is protected, and if it continues once protection is lifted then a block from an uninvolved admin should follow. Maybe just ignoring him might be the best option for now? EyeSerene^talk 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Abuse?
The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record: (1) Nick Dowling is an administrator; and (2) Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≥ Nick Dowling
This record, consistent with WP:AGF, demonstrates my continuing efforts to bridge an identified gap. Moreover, this record shows the repeated identification of Nick Dowling as non-responsive.
12 July

• Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, ...[t]he exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why? .... --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps the following outline from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:

• 1 Focus on content
• 2 Stay cool
• 3 Discussing with the other party
• 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
• 5 Turn to others for help
  • 5.1 Editor assistance
  • 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
  • 5.3 Ask about the subject
  • 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
  • 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
  • 5.6 For incivility
  • 5.7 Request a comment
  • 5.8 Informal mediation
  • 5.9 Formal mediation
  • 5.10 Conduct a survey
• 6 If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
• 7 Last resort: Arbitration

... Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

13 July
To his credit, only Bellhalla showed any willingness to grasp that I was trying vainly to focus on something non-trivial, as evidenced at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier? How else is it possible to construe the following?

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

My patience was frayed by this point, but I was still proceeding underthe assumption that this impasse was the result of a difficult-to-pierceveil of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≠ Nick Dowling
Disingenuous is a polite word for lying, for fraud -- dishonesty. What did I do when confronted with clear, specific, and astonishing evidence of Nick Dowling's lying, fraud, dishonesty? My words remained seemly, appropriate, correct.

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.

Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence ....

Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
• 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
• 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
• 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
• 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
• 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I also sought help from the WP:Mediation Cabal ....

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

__________________________
AND YET, these not inconsiderable efforts to stay focused on ensuring an enhanced encylopedia content were unavailing and, turning insult into a noteworthy threat, Nick Dowling instead chose to make a complaint about my "personal abuse" in this WP:AN/I venue.

It doesn't bode well, nor augur well. In the context of this record and WP:CIV#Should established users be treated different?,

• WP:AGF ≠ trust
• WP:AN/I ≠ trust

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how could I become better informed? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center" again

Special:Contributions/128.197.130.249

I posted something about this in the past. This IP is going through this list of people and adding "His/her papers are housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University." to the articles about the people.

This is, at best, a completely inconsequential detail and unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. At worst, due to the sheer size of the list of people, there is no way it would be physically possible for one institution to house the papers of all those people. Can an administrator issue a warning to the IP, and can I have an endorsement to go through and rollback the IP's contributions? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rolled back and blocked 24h pending some explanation as to why it is relevant, or any kind of acknowledgement fomr the user that what he is doing is disputed. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's an odd one. It does look like good-faith editing, but I certainly take issue with adding such a generic comment to all those articles. From a quick browse of your external link above, 'papers' in some cases means a single letter or similar. Since the IP is now blocked, I think given the unhelpful and misleading nature of the sentence, rolling back the edits is fine. If the IP wants to add more specific information in future though... EyeSerene^talk 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, the previous occurance of this issue that J. delanoy mentioned happened with 128.197.130.145 (talk · contribs) on July 11. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the second time the same thing has occurred? Corvus cornix_talk 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.197.130.145 Corvus cornix_talk 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Urmph. I see SWik78 beat me to it. Sorry.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the bulk of someone's papers are in a particular archive, such a mention is highly relevant content; for a truly notable person, it is in my opinion helpful to list all significant collections, preferably in a separate section of the article. This is key source information, as important as listing printed sources--especially due to the accessibility of an increasing amount of this content on the internet--and by no means all of it indexed by Google et al. But obviously judgement must be used--the situation is essentially similar to the addition of external links. (and, in fact, an external link to such sources is another good way of doing it). But when they are added without discrimination, then we the situation changes. People connected with such archives should rather suggest the sources on the article talk page to avoid giving the wrong impression if the importance isnt obvious--and especially when adding it wholesale..DGG (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Husond

Husond is involved in a naming discussion over Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson, for whom the anglicized Thorvald Asvaldsson is far more common in English; there is substantial evidence of this on the talk page. In the process, he has three times reverted to the repetitious text:

Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson (Icelandic: Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson) was the father of the discoverer of Greenland,...

removing all mention of the common name from the article. So far, so good; this is a content dispute; I do not care for his tactics, and I am not encouraged to like or trust him, but I would not bring this here except for the following.

• He sent me a warning describing this content dispute as vandalism;
• He reported it to WP:AIV (and did not notify me) after three exact reverts.
• When Parsecboy labelled it a content dispute, he argued that this was disruption.

All are welcome to chime in on the content dispute (is there a compromise?); but this borders on an effort to settle it by use of admin powers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article hasn't been moved yet, although from the "survey" its headed in that direction despite Husond's opposition. His view that it doesn't make sense to change the version of the name used in the article until the article is moved is fairly sensible - certainly, when the move discussion is going your way, it doesn't make sense to edit war over it. I imagine that Husond won't be using his admin tools in this situation, and a declined report at AIV isn't something that can really garner admin intervention. What would you like to accomplish through this report? Avruch ^T 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What would I like? To remind Husond to separate admin powers from content disputes hereafter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'm with Pmanderson in being rather disappointed with Husond's behaviour; he ought to know better. Of course, everybody involved ought to know better; it's not as if the Great Icelandic Thorn Battle was a new phenomenon. The obvious intermediate wording solution that solves both Pmanderson's legitimate complaint about redundant redundancies (which redundantly repeated the same information twice) and Husond's legitimate complaint about inconsistent inconsistencies between article title and lead was probably just too obvious for anybody to find in the heat of battle... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reality check. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Pmanderson is good at distortion, but I've seen better. Here's the facts:

1. The article in question is Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson. On Wikipedia, the first mention of the subject of an article must conform to its title, regardless of any ongoing proposals to rename.
2. Pmanderson insists in changing the first paragraph so that the article starts with "Thorvald Asvaldsson", which does not conform with the title of the respective article.
3. Pmanderson was informed about #1 and still defiantly proceeded to revert to his preferred form.
4. Pmanderson's actions are clearly WP:POINT, not a raw content dispute or edit war. Persistent WP:POINT violations are often dealt no differently than vandalism. The fact that Pmanderson is a well established editor should not entitle him any special leniency.
5. I fail to understand what exactly Future Perfect thinks I ought to know better.

Sigh. Húsönd 23:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly never treated a POINT vio as vandalism, and it strikes me as an exceedingly bad idea to do so. Vandalism is simple and clear-cut, POINT not so much (it involves a judgment of the intentions of the other editor to a much greater degree than vandalism). AIV wasn't the right place to handle this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I like to think I know Husond pretty well. Prior to our reconciliation, I truly did not care for his tactics of using his admin powers to resolve content and personal issues. However, I know for a fact he always does it to "achieve what's right", at least in his eyes. Even though it may not be the right thing, with good faith, you can usually see how he thought it was. In this case, where no blocks were given, I don't see any immediate action needed by an admin. Beam 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PMAnderson was one of the antagonistic parties in the recent dispute over tennis player naming, which centred on the use of diacritics and the use of foreign characters as two separate issues, and which reached no ultimate resolution. I think there's some campaigning going on here, especially if the article has been at one location for a fair while. It has been at the present location for approximately 2 years, and before that was located at a similar name with one of the contested characters. Orderinchaos 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Husond is doing what seems to him right for the encyclopedia; have I said otherwise? I disagree with what seems right to him, but that is what makes this a content dispute. I support looking, in these matters, at what English actually does with a name (and have therefore disagreed with both sides of the tennis dispute). Accordingly, I did not propose this move, but I do support it, now that Erudy has found evidence on the matter; I also support Haukur's suggestion of a merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Banned user Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is running amok with an army of socks, Mr. Muntuwandi (talk · contribs), Monsieur Muntuwandi (talk · contribs), etc. etc. Need help with this. --dab (𒁳) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn blocked one IP recently, but I don't think that's going to fix it. He'll get tired eventually and go outside or spend some time with his family. In the meantime, are there any pages you'd like me to watchlist to help block the socks as they appear? MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn blocked User:Muntuwandi180 and I just blocked User:2005 munthuwandey. I wish the user creation log understood wildcards. —Travis^talk 00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

if it did, this user would just generate more erratic usernames, if anything just making sock-spotting more difficult, not less. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of religion is his usual favourite page. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review User:Cberlet

I just blocked Chip ( Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ) for 24 hrs for violating WP:CIVIL with this remarkably angry and hostile comment: [83]

I asked him to retract it and pointed out that it was unacceptable, his response indicated that he didn't feel it was inappropriate. Though I generally agree with him and he's a long-standing positive contributor, if he's snapping at people like that right now I think he needs a short break. Review appreciated, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems dangerously close to a "cool-down" block. Are we really worried that Jimbo, the ArbCom, or the board is going to be driven off Wikipedia by such a comment? If not, there's no real point in blocking (unless we're going to really dig into the letter of WP:BLP, but even then, I believe all of his LaRouche claims are rather well-established, and are certainly presented as personal opinion). For what it's worth, I completely disagree with this block. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL exists for a reason, as do WP:NPA etc. I doubt Jimmy, Arbcom, or anyone else will feel personally insulted, but the point is that nobody should be wandering around saying things like that on-wiki. People have been blocked for far longer for less. This is well established policy. That said - further review is always useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly block, IMO. Chip is railing against Wikipedia's failure to enforce policy on the LaRouche articles, which are WP:OWNed by zealots. He is right. Guy (Help!) 04:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Posit for a moment that I agree with you...

Chip could have said so without running a SUV through our civility policy... And chose rather insistently to be extremely rude about it. This is not behavior we should be encouraging. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a decent block. Close to cool-down, but the German trains response following is highly inappropriate as well. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. However I'll note that other parties in the conflict have been using equally uncivil language, one of which I redacted because I thought it was unhelpful.[84] It'd be great if this block improves the civility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good block. First, I don't like blocks for strong but honest language, as long as it stays this side of WP:NPA (and expressing frustration with Wikipedia and its structures should have even more leeway), and secondly I don't see how this is likely to positively influence Chip. He's just doubly pissed now. I do appreciate the style of the block message, though. Very good, clear explanation of why the behavior was problematic. Chip's German/trains comment was completely over the top, though. Now I'm pissed, too, and I guess so would be others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Viridae^Talk 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that his comment is just as much a violation of WP:BLP as it is uncivil. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block- no need to call people things like that (regardless of whether you think it's true) it's unconstructive and intimidating. Sticky Parkin 11:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - looking at the thread in which Chip made the original comment, it appears that someone mentioned his habit of citing himself wherever possible, and his response was to loose his temper. He was then warned, and his response was unhelpful. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries about Jimbo or arbcom members being driven off by such talk, but other editors might easily grow quiet in fear such labels might be slapped on them. I don't see this as a cooldown block, I see it as a way to stop any a hint of a personal attack from this editor for a day. This is beyond strong language, it's name calling, clearly meant to stop discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? --Random832 (contribs) 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a rant/vent targeted at Wikipedia overall. I don't read it as a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I too see it as easily within the range of acceptable comment. DGG (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not easily so, but tolerable in the context of an article with a very long history of abuse by supporters of LaRouche, a particularly unsavoury character. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

← This encapsulates, in a nutshell, everything wrong with our current approach to "enforcing" civility. Let's jump in the middle of an ongoing, overly snippy discussion on an article where there's a long history of antagonism. On some occasions, Cberlet has responded to baiting reasonably (see [85] → [86] and [87] → [88], for example). At this particular point, he loses his cool and makes an unacceptable remark. As a result, Cberlet is given an out-and-out "cool-down block" while several single-purpose agenda accounts skate on after remarks like these: [89], [90], [91], [92].

Cberlet's remark was unacceptable regardless of provocation, and a block is justifiable on BLP grounds, as Cla68 mentions, since he refused to retract it. Whatever. But if you're going cast this as an "enforcement" of WP:CIVIL, then look at the context; consider whether a single editor is dealing with provocation from multiple agenda accounts, and whether any action beyond a "cool-down block" for one participant is warranted - because I can guarantee that a unilateral cool-down block isn't going to improve the situation. Don't come into a contentious, uncivil back-and-forth and just block the person who made the most recent uncivil comment, and then leave. That's going to look like an arbitrary lightning strike, and no one's going to learn anything from it - it's just going to entrench everyone further. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, alright. I also support blocks to the first three links for NPA violations, per WP:SAUCE, (if that doesn't exist, it ought to - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). The last one is more of a legitimate discrediting comment along the lines of COI. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SV has attempted to dodge this thread, and asked GWH for an unblock on his talk page. [93]. I have left the question of what to do with the statement on Cberlet's page open. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin needs to come here and explain why she's above community consensus. That's an insulting move to make, dodging all of the discussion here for an end-run around us. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that she's dodging this discussion. It's possible she was unaware that a discussion was taking place here, unless I'm missing something. The first move if you disagree with a block is generally to approach the blocking admin on their talk page, so I wouldn't consider she's doing anything outside of standard practice. SirFozzie notified her of this thread, so now she knows. No big deal. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, seems like a cool down block, don't agree with it at all. However, it's not cool for SlimVirgin to duck this thread. Come here and voice your opinion in "public." Personally, I feel that civility policy is some times abused. Beam 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this block need to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. None of the remedies or enforcements were against user:Cberlet - they were all about user:Herschelkrustofsky. Since "HK" is now banned indefinitely, there's little point in logging bans on his sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Civility is the most fundamental of behavior policies. Looking at the edit- [94] "Spineless Cowards" is definitely pushing it. "Single issue fanatic supporters" is crossing a line. Referring to the living person who is the subject of the article as a "raging antisemite, fascist and lunatic"-- no definitely good. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review: Consistant misattribution of cited sources

Pointers here left at Pederasty#Australasia and User_talk:Haiduc#Problems_with_a_recent_citation

I'll attempt to present only the facts here.

• 02:38, 23 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (77,173 bytes) (→Post-classical and modern forms: removed sections without references: Australasia, Central America, Europe) (undo) [95]
• 03:50, 23 July 2008 Haiduc (Talk | contribs | block) (81,803 bytes) (restored removed sections and added refs) (rollback | undo) [96]
• Upon reviewing the cited source here I am unable to find support for the majority of the material.

I'd ask for a review of the source, of the material added, and of the comments that I've left in both places. brenneman 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that editing disputes did not belong on ANI. Am I missing something, here, or are you just trying to keep Haiduc so tied up he cannot edit properly? Jeffpw (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. When an editor consistantly has problems with interpretation of sources (see Jules Verne talk as well) then this is an appropiate place to raise the concern. - brenneman 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also just issued a warning [97] to Jeffpw. In my opinion he's been ratcheting up the heat across several venues, and is bordering on disruption. I'd welcome a opinions on this as well. - brenneman 05:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is difficult. Editors who give even the appearance of advancing a pro-paedophilia POV have, historically, been given very little slack, for good reason. There has in the past been determined and wholly unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, and ArbCom has historically fast-tracked consideration of any such issues, and debated cases in private. I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism, and he should be aware that this is one area where militant activism is particularly problematic, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the project. I think Jeffpw and Haiduc need to turn the heat down at least two notches and respect the fact that the default for disputed content is to keep it out of mainspace until there is agreement from all sides as to whether, and how, it should be included. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion - anythign else would be a POV-pusher's charter. In this case it is especially important to remember that consensus IS NOT agreement of a small group of like-minded users, it requires broad agreement from all sides, and additional input must be solicited if there are not enough eyes on the dispute. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Brenneman, you could not have found a more unsuitable instance to support your contention. The citation was applicable to the text, it was from an article that discussed the extinction of the very practices discussed in the paragraph (which, as you might notice, I modified to reflect this more recent report). It is an initial citation for a totally non-controversial section. Australasian pederasty is well known and documented, there is nothing to argue about there.
  • Guy, if I was a litigious fellow I would have you strung up by the authorities here for your slur of "pro-paedophilia POV." How do you permit yourself to cast ugly innuendoes on my work on homosexual history? Is this what administrators are supposed to spend their time doing??? Haiduc (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Read it again with more care. I said even the appearance. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism. Excuse me? I am not here to advocate for pedophilia at all, and I strongly resent the insuination that I am in any way doing so. If you look at my approx 10,000 edits, including one FA and 2 GAs, you'll see a minuscule percentage relating in any to pedophilism. I am anti-pedophilia, though I should not have to be forced to state this for the record.I have monitored the NAMBLA article against both pro and anti-pedo edits, to revert vandalism, and have dome the same on the Pederasty related articles. Brenneman has now threatened to block me for disruption if I continue to participate in what I see has been a civil manner. I feel threatened and intimidated by this post. And I feel besmirched by Guys quote above about my participation here. The atmosphere regarding this area of articles has become poisonous, indeed, and I do not think it is my doing at all. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? Jeffpw (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I said militant activism, I meant militant LGBT activism, not pro-paedophilia activism. There is a small overlap at the margins, and this is a key part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit - no ec warning but post appeared here for some reason] I don't think that's what was meant by turning down the heat ;) Haiduc, I see nothing in the above post that accuses you of a pro-pedophilia bias. Guy was making a general observation about the need to be extra careful not to even give that impression when editing such controversial subjects. EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I think worrying about appearences rather than content isn't a great way to edit. If Jeff gets militant sometimes, well, maybe sometimes we need that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearances are very sensitive on this subject. Very sensitive. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What 'we', Dev920? Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. The notion that anyone is here to push an agenda makes me extremely uncomfortable (and, while I'm sure you weren't serious, your post does illustrate Guy's point about giving the impression of soapboxing, even unintentionally). EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you linked to my name? (genuine question) And I get that people do get all icky over pederasty, but it's not pedophilia. And neither Haiduc or Jeff is a pedophile, they are long, long established editors with an interest in editing pederasty. They really shouldn't have to worry about being accused of a pro-pedo slant, their cumulative efforts here surely show that this isn't the case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just copy/pasted it from your post in edit view (now you've pointed it out though, I've realised I do that pretty much at random - I didn't, for example, with Guy. No idea why!). However, I think the point being made was not relating to pedophilia so much as militancy in other areas, to the point where it becomes difficult to accept edits in good faith because they give the impression of being decided by a personal agenda. This can be true of any group: LGBT, animal rights, nationalist, religious... the list is endless. I think appearances do matter because of this, and it's difficult to claim neutrality if we aren't seen to be behaving that way. EyeSerene^talk 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because emotions run high in editing the Historical pederastic couples article, it's difficult to pinpoint the fault of a single editor. One the one hand, I agree that the citations need to be immaculate and notes should be extensive. However, editors who are either unhappy with the outcome of the AfD or eager to see the article make vast improvements in a small amount of time, are removing content and claiming the sources do not back up the claims when I doubt they have read the sources. Then it rather dissolves into arguing over actions rather than content. I know I have not read the sources, so I am unable to make commentary on them. I have been questioned about content in other articles I have written, though, and when that happens I find my source and copy the passage I used verbatim on the talk page and discuss it there. What might help is if Haiduc posts a timeline or an estimate of how far he thinks he will get in improving the article in a reasonable amount of time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to state clearly here that, due to the level of intimidation I am feeling (On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that I will be banned if I continue participating), and the threat of blockage for supporting another Wikipedia under attack from all sides, I am now withdrawing myself entirely from any of these debates. Call me a coward, but I am under enough stress without adding to is by trying to help a disputed article. I shall now confine my edits to Mary Poppins or The Sound Of Music....oh wait, they involve children too. Damn. OK, I'll just try to tidy Angie Dickinson's bio. That shouldn't provoke any storms of controversy. If it does, I'll just give wiki smiles to all and sundry. Wiki cheer promotes a collegial environment, no? Jeffpw (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Take the disputed content out of the article, leave it on the talk page, and all just do something else for 48 hours. There's an essay jsut created at WP:TABOO which makes a lot of sense in this context. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no reason to stop now, and I think the solution is to focus our attention more closely on what is really going on. It is not pedophilia that neeeds to be exposed here, but intimidation. I feel bullied by Brenneman's behaviour, and while my feelings are between me and my analyst, unfortunately there are objective reasons for my reaction. His gutting of the Hpc article and his belligerent response to my restoration of the Tilden entry are ample evidence, as is his even more troubling equivocation and sparring over my exposure of his behavior. The "appearance of pedophilia" accusation above was more fuel on that particular fire. It is a particularly insidious attack in that there is no defense against it, like Bush's assuring the American public that there is nothing to worry about at Guantanamo because they are all bad guys. Truthiness, welcome to Wikipedia. I am not good at chapter-and-verse polemics, so I will leave it at that. I do want to add that it seems that the suite of pederasty articles is like some sort of glue trap for sub-standard administrators (FCYTravis and Brenneman are just some of the more egregious examples) who come in and act abusively. I can only ask you people to monitor yourselves, and each other. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Apropos of this conversation, please note Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Details_of_Haiduc.27s_mischaracterization_of_DeFord, discussing Haiduc's mischaracterization of Frank DeFord's book "The Triumphs and the Tragedy", and this talk page, where Haiduc triumphantly cites Cocteau being "devastated" at the death of his friend as strong evidence that he must have been having a sexual relationship with him. This editor has a problem accurately summarizing sources, and it is negatively affecting many, many articles. Nandesuka (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jeez, that smells of WP:OR for sure. But I return to my point above: disputed text out of mainspace and onto talk, and everybody step back for 48 hours. If necessary we should lock down talk for a while, just to make it happen, I believe. There are too many trees for the wood to be evident, and I think some space is required. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Don't put words in my mouth, Nandesuka. You have a problem with objectivity and the mischaracterization ofmy edits. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• You say? I don't see any evidence of Nandesuka having an agenda here. You've been open about yours, which is much appreciated, but your expressed agenda means that you need to be especially sensitive to the concerns of other editors who do not share your minority perspective, per WP:NPOV. Valid concerns have been politely expressed by editors in good standing, regarding your interpretation of sources. In this case I strongly recommend that you present your sources on talk, and wait to see whether there is consensus to support your interpretation. Agitating for what looks to a number of people like a novel synthesis is likely to cause you trouble. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y'know, I think that Guy has got it exactly right? What we are seeing here, once the clouds of suspicion, accusation and counter accusation regarding pederasty/homophobia is lifted, is a classic case of WP:BRD. We are at the stage where discussion, and therefore consensus, is required before the bold (which is another persons "controversial") content can be included. While we are taking the simple route to dispute resolution, can I just remind participants of the nutshell of WP:NPA; "Comment on content, and not contibutors."? It may be wise, as suggested earlier, to commence the discussion after a suitable period to allow all parties to engage civilly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly surprised that so much on the topic is on here at all. Most of the 'sources' attribute a modern label to ancient social behaviors, allowing both sides to push and pull on the articles to validate either 124th trimester abortions for all offenders, or to validate their molestations. Few editors seem able to keep the articles balanced, but it's fairly uniform that a modern perspective on this mess is the perspective. We would have a lot less hassle of the articles were restricted to using only sources contemporary to any part which use the term pederasty, thus placing emphasis on the modern issue, not on allegations that it's all normal because it's been going on for years (despite ancient cultures being very different than ours), or that it's all deviant because some tragedy befell the culture as divine punishment.(and good luck sourcing that shit.) Tighten up what's permitted on those articles, and you'd have a lot less trouble. I'm not sure the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for pederast, much less a body of scholarship on the matter. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep assuming that pederasty = molestation though, and that it follows that an article detailing specific pederastic relationships thus justfies molestation - and it doesn't... it merely offers instances of pederastic relationships...

As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy. Crimsone (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So there are Greek and Egyptian writings on the molestation and predatory behaviors of pederasty in those cultures? Great. Please cite those sources. And no, have you read the list? It's all about the glorious and eternal love blah blah blah between a molester and his victim in some cases, and turning some other "normal" relationships INTO pederasties to augment the size and scope of the perversion. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No... I've not read the list... however, pedastry is niether molestation or predatory by definition. Pedastry, by definition, refers to romantic/erotic involvement regardless of whether it involves sexual contact or not. It also primarily refers to and is defined by the emotional context of a relationship, not the physical context. It's a perfectly valid term, and a perfectly encyclopedic subject. How about you "getting real" per your edit summary comment (not the most civil of comments)... suggesting some manner of delusion or fantasy land on the part of another editor is hardly becoming of you (or so I would hope). As to ancient writings, I don't know about the Egyptians, but I do know that it's a historical fact that man/boy relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece, and prior to that, the neighboring Spartans legally sanctioned and required them as part of a boy's development. They weren't always sexual (some were), though many involved a romantic bond. You're welcome to dismiss that, but to tell the truth, I can't be bothered to go looking for sources for a commonly known historical fact in order to satisfy someone who's already demonstrated and inclination to dismiss quite civil and reasoned articles based on actual definition and complete neutrality with such offensive remarks as "get real". Chances are, given your current style of communication, whatever the source it won't be good enough for you. Especially if it doesn't use the term pederasty precisely, in spite of my prior logical argument of analogy. I don't need to read the article to see it being attacked in its entireity from a POV that ignores the definition of the articles subject in favour of calling the subject something it isn't. Crimsone (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not reading my comment clearly. If you have copies of the Spartan decrees requiring such, then you could use that in the Pederasty article, perhaps. However, if it was required, that sounds like an apprenticeship than a true romantic connection. You keep missing my point. Pederasty is a modern label for a behavior which in some cultures is not pederasty, but the normal course of behavior. Pederasty is specifically NOT normal behavior. If it was, we wouldn't need a list of such relationships. IF you can find ancient greek writings about the cultural behavior, you could cite those. You could cite the Spartan law. But you should NOT be using modern assignments of value, 'pederasty', to describe ancient cutlures' takes on relationships. ThuranX (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 1

I'd like to refocus discussion by re-iterating the claims made in the section and comparing them to what is found in the source cited.

• Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
  • Sperm essence of strength surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
  • Not spontaneous but must be introduced unsupported by reference
• 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites unsupported by reference
• Mentoring
  • Father, mother's young adult brother choose unsupported by reference
  • Educating, guiding into manhood unsupported by reference
• Fatherhood
  • First two kids ok to "mentor" unsupported by reference
  • After that had to quit it unsupported by reference
• Casual relationships existed this is supported by the reference, however
  • Boy had to be recipient (?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
  • Growth could be damaged specifically refuted by reference
• Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle unsupported by reference

I've seen H's referencing described as “careless and garbled.” I'd say that is as generous an interpretation as it is possible to make. In the example given, even the least contentious claim is mostly unsupported by the citation, and at least one claim is directly refuted by it.

H's creative use of sourcing, combined with abject unwillingness to accept any other interpretation of sources, is damaging the encyclopaedia. Frankly, had I come across this situation "fresh" I'd have blocked him outright to prevent any further damage. I'd support a topical ban (at the very least) until H can be made to understand why his novel sourcing is a problem and some way can be found to allow him to contribute positively.

brenneman 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you are doing far more damage to this encyclopedia than I ever could. The density of citations that you are suggesting is found in what percentage of the articles??? And why are you so focused on the bizarre practices of an extinct society of what have been described as "homicidal banana farmers?" The material is there to illustrate the gamut of homosexual/pederastic constructions, not to recommend the practice to present-day do-it-yourselfers.
To my eye your contrived "denunciation" coupled with your previous belligerent behavior are indicative of one thing and one thing only: you do not like pederasty and are out to make it as hard as possible to cover the topic. I think you should be subjected to a topical ban, you have given ample proof of an inability to be impartial. Haiduc (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the problems that Aaron has highlighted with your sourcing with respect to this particular example? Do you have any explanation for those discrepencies? Nandesuka (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JimBobUSA [revived due to non-completion]

I have copied this from archive 451, due to a lack of action on this matter. Grant | Talk 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold: [98] [99]
• Japanese war crimes: [100]

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[101]] [[102]] [[103]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[104]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why its being discussed here again. Moondyne 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moondyne.

You made mention of the “numerous warnings given” and then referred to my talk page. I would like to point out that all of those warnings are from the same person, Grant65 (starter of this complaint).

I would also like to point out, that the material I removed, and was warned for numerous times by Grant65 is still vacant from the article. Reason being is that novels (fiction) and books that do not contain reference to the article at all make for poor references. Yes, you read that correctly. The frivolous warnings were for removing false references. Hence, that is why I titled them “frivolous warnings” on my user talk page.

This is also noteworthy on the opening of this complaint, where Grant65 states: “This user has been warned before…”. What Grant65 fails to mention, is that he is the one who has done all of the warnings. Dubious in anyone’s book.

In closing, the creditable/reliable reference given for the Japanese war crimes article (the reason for this complaint) notes this about the source being used, the Seagraves novel (I will copy/paste my text from that talk page):

I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese.

Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity. Johnston goes on to point out that, the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards? Jim (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make a brief exception to my rule about dealing directly with User:JimBobUSA to make three key points: (1) I believe that he is wrong about the CDs supporting Gold Warriors. My information is that they were never sold separately and were an "extra" with a limited number of copies of the book. (2) He misrepresents Johnson's view of the Seagraves, by citing the only passages of Johnson's very long article that are critical of the Seagraves. Johnson is not generally critical of Gold Warriors — far from it. (3) For the benefit of JimBobUSA and others who may be under similar misapprehensions, the main "incident" in question here is his attempt to delete citation of Johnson's article from Japanese war crimes, with edit summaries describing it as a "novel"(!) It plainly is not. Neither is the book it is reviewing. User:JimBobUSA either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (i) novels, (ii) scholarly books and (iii) book reviews. Grant | Talk 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Oh no, not again". What is it about this subject that the conspiracy theorists can't leave it alone? Oh, wait, the answer is in the question, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 14:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Wikipedia should ignore well-known "conspiracy theories"; or, in this case something more substantial than a theory, i.e. the "looting of Asia", to use Chalmers Johnson's term? Grant | Talk 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute / Edit Warring over the term "British Isles"

Hi, an ongoing content dispute betwee, myself and User:TharkunColl. Tharky is aware that the term British Isles is a contentious term and that an unspoken rough agreement was reached on not introducing it into articles that didn't already use the term. He is now inserting the term in many articles, without references - see Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem and Salve Regina. In addition, he is reverting edits that result in the removal of the term, even though the term cannot be referenced and references are provided for the alternative edits. See Furry Dance, Porteous family, Scottish Green Party and others.

Despite many attempts to discuss, several edits are made with personal comments such as "reverted political removal of term".

Tharky knows the policies as well as anyone on Wikipedia. He is aware of what constitutes a good reference, and is aware that the references provided for Furry Dance are not good enough. There are no references for the other articles. His editing is extremely disruptive and in breach of policy. I've politely asked for references and waited to see what he can produce. But he simply ignores the requests while the article is left in the state he wants, or starts an edit war over articles that aren't.

--HighKing (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of no such policy regarding the use of British Isles - Bardcom/HighKing has mentioned it to me before, but has signally failed to point to the relevant discussion or consensus, despite my repeated requests (oh yes, that's right, it's "unspoken"... ho hum). It is he who is disrupting this entire project by his poltically motivated campaign to remove British Isles from the whole of Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who says "British Isles" is a contentious term? That's common usage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. TharkunColl (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, edit conflict)Hi. The semi-edit war, as far as I'm aware of, going on in the article Lough Neagh may also be of interest. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, do you use Wikipedia for anything unrelated to the term "British Isles"? All your edits, and all your disputes seem to be centered around this term. Chillum 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A glance at User:HighKing identifies the issue. From a Irish Republic perspective, the term would be rather galling. It is no doubt politically incorrect there.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For explaination in case people on this board can't tell due to it not being explained at the start of the thread- the complainant who started the thread is User:Bardcom who has conveniently changed his name after his recent two blocks over his "British Isles" fixation and edit warring, and has previously been the subject of an RfC and listed for potential Arbcom or something. Sticky Parkin 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" does indeed seem to be uncontentious: Síle de Valera TD, in her official role of Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands uses it in the usual sense in this speech in 2002. I'm sure other examples could be found easily. -- The Anome (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a failed attempt to form a consensus on this issue at WP:BI.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that expression, "An unspoken rough agreement..." Unspoken? In a text-based medium? Tell me another one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is simply that the phrase obviously cannot be, as has sometimes been suggested, deeply offensive to Irish people in Ireland, if a leading Fianna Fáil politician and member of the de Valera political dynasty -- is happy to use it in a public speech in her official role as Minister for the Gaeltacht to describe the landform in question. -- The Anome (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is lame in the extreme, but just to offer my (unsupported by WP:RS) $0.02, the term British Isles is very rarely used in the UK to describe anything other than the geographical feature; when describing cultural references the terms UK or Britain are both vastly more common and actually in the cited cases above England would have done just fine. British Isles is clumsy and will read discordantly to most Brits. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ssssso... there's a POV warrior warring... and what? block him, be done. As mentioned on WP:BI, there's no other good term for the geographic archipelago. Use it, ignore the POV pushers, and get the encyclopedia written. They can suck it up or go to conservapedia, where I'm sure their intense nationalistic jingoism will fit in wonderfully. ThuranX (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As Guy says- but it is used as a geographical term and how Bardcom describes the consensus at the start of the thread is misleading. The consensus as discussed even on User talk:Bardcom is not to not introduce it where it isn't already used- if so it would hardly ever be used as Bardcom is so mad for removing it. The consensus as I understand it as Tharky and Bardy agreed at one point near the bottom of Bardy's talk page, is that it's ok to use it in a geographical context at least, and probably in some other, historical perhaps, contexts- I don't know the fine details. Anyway, we're not here to discuss the content dispute, but dispite what Bardcom says, as ThuranX says, it's Bardcom that's acting against consensus, edit warring and so on, IMHO far more than the other participants- hence he's been blocked twice recently, been a subject of an RfC etc- two recent blocks of slightly increasing length unfortunately haven't deterred him for more than a couple of days. Sticky Parkin 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute points to this official policy of the Irish government. For most purposes there are better ways to phrase it. Just use them.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

that link doesn't say a thing about alternate phrases, and it's by a bunch of Irish nationalists, thus POV. big deal. This is a lot of pissing in the wind by crybabies with agendas to push. Unless they've got a real, viable solution, start blocking liberally. What good does it do to hide fact behind touchy feely crap like 'we don't want to offend, so we'll jsut cut out anythign they don't like'? Block , and block some more. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've noticed a few editors systematically changing the terminology to "English" or "Scottish" in biographical articles which said someone was from the "UK" or was "British." There seems to be little consensus for using the higher level term, at any manual of style page. Similarly reverting to "British Isles" seems to merely express a personal preference not driven by sources or by consensus of editors. Such non-consensus edit warring is to be discouraged in favor of talk page discussion, at the affected article, or preferably at the manual of style page or at the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom which unfortunately does not rise to a guideline. There is also Terminology of the British Isles where this issue could be worked out, and an essay posing as an article,British Isles naming dispute. Edison (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In such cases I always go with self-description. Sean Connery is Scottish, and would probably slap you if you called him British. I am British, the term English is too much associated in my mind with the "Little England" mentality and the minor English nationalist parties. In Salve Regina, to pick one at random, British Isles was, in my view, the wrong term, it is not the term which would be used by a Brit. And for the record I do not give a toss what the Dail says, Encyclopaedia Britannica says it's British Isles, the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to be exact], England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Ireland (the island) or Eire (the country excluding the Six Counties) - I am sure that's offended everyone by now so I will shut up. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple clicking a few random diffs here: [105] and it is clear that this user really does little else other than remove "British Isles" from articles and revert people who revert him. Chillum 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As one with English ancestry, I object to that body of water between Great Britain and Ireland being called the "Irish Sea". I think we should rename it "The Body of Water Between Great Britain and Ireland". By the way, what do the Scots think about also being in the "British" Isles? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Scotland used to be referred to as "North Britain". -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is technically correct as Britain is the mainland of the British Isles, per my understanding of its history (albeit that this is largely informed by Winston Churchill's books, which are decidedlyy lacking in political correctness by modern standards). Guy (Help!) 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It may suit some editors to make this issue look bigger than it actually is. This is about basic policy - verifiable sources and references.

(restate)Can an uninvolved admin take a look at the named articles please. There are no references or reasons for using the term British Isles in the named articles. There are however references for using other terms. User:TharkunColl repeatedly reverts edits with references without discussion or providing other verifiable references. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I expect someone will. Now sod off and stop fighting with TharkunColl. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope William Connolley looks at it again.:):) He talks sense where The Artist Formerly Known as Bardcom is concerned. Sticky Parkin 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland being an island of the British "mainland". That's interesting. Is it true the Times once had a headline, "Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe so, but that's not relevant, Ireland is an island off the British mainland, as are the Scottish islands. I suspect that some people (e.g. Wotapalaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) will disagree, though, and this is based on my studies of geology before many of the Wikipedians who feel so passionately about this issue were even born. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm just saying that, from the British (i.e. our) viewpoint, the European continent is also "an island off the British mainland". Just a really large island. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Britain is an island off the European mainland, I'm quite clear on that. I am not a Daily Mail reader. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)With respect, can I remind editors of WP:NPA and can I request that an uninvolved admin take a look? I have politely expressed my concerns about Tharkys behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And accused me of bad faith, as well. TharkunColl (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have given Tharkuncoll an immediate final warning for a viscious personal attack upon Sarah777 on User talk:Sarah777. I have also advised Sarah777 about inflammatory language being used. Until personal attacks cease, I do not think this content dispute has a chance of being resolved, and I encourage other adminsitrators to deal with the personal attacks in a similar way.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see what you're talking about. CarterBar (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake about the target of the message TharkunColl posted. I've withdrawn the warning and apologized to him, but the general point stands about there being too much personal attacks in this dispute to make any headway on the content dispute until the attacks are stopped.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to try and cool this a bit: D-str was responding to Thark's remarks to/about an IP which I complained about. They weren't actually aimed at me; that was clear to me but would not have been obvious to D-str (and I'd complained of lack of 'parity of protection'). This is a mess of our creation that D was trying to sort it out! Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cited material on advice of attorney?

Just came across this edit which removed cited material, supposedly on advice of attorney. It doesn't seem defamatory in any way. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say "stick it back and tell the editor to contact OTRS". There's nothing defamatory there -- just reportage. Further, the editor has an obvious COI. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a "legal bluff" by a red-link. I reverted it. If he has an issue, he can contact wikipedia's legal eagles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the phone number they asked us to call (yeh, we'll get right on that, sure) is a Canadian law firm. [106] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this one. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That one at least has a real WP:BLP concern. I readded the info about him having daughters, but the other paragraph should probably stay out (or someone could find a source?). Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i readded in neutral language, plenty of citation int he relevant article about anne of green gables. ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I copied the refs from Anne of Green Gables (1985 film). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We should politely ask what the actual issue is (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and offer the email address for OTRS. He may have a valid concern which does not quite justify total removal of the content but would nonetheless colour its presentation. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec, agree with what JzG says) Blindly reverting this is a really bad idea. It could probably stand to be better sourced and verified. It does make two potentially defamatory claims - that Sullivan lied about the movie making money and that he refused to allow his books to be examined according to contract. Unless someone can back up everything in that paragraph, this is a BLP problem and rather than screaming COI, we should be thanking this individual for their good faith effort to point out a problem with one of our articles. If we are able to get everything in there well-sourced (and claims in the lawsuit itself don't count), and he just doesn't like having unfavorable facts there, that's a him problem, but as of right now, there are unsourced claims there. --B (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, it could go. When a user posts some nonsense about calling an attorney, that just invites blind reversion on principle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But we should be careful. The removed text doesn't actually say the movie made money; it suggests it. The parenthesis " (even though, as noted above, they were among the highest-rated television programs in Canadian history)" is probably synthesis - and it is indeed possible for a crefully structured and extremely popular show to show no profit (this is why percentages of gross profit are customary); the other points should be dealt with by saying "the heirs assert" he refused to let them examine the books, and noting (as the removed text does) that a judge did not believe the movie made no money. (I presume both of these are in the trial record, as cited.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a user involking lawyers invites blind reversion, but we should be circumspect in doing so. Experience on OTRS has shown that while in many cases reversion is the right thing, in others (and it's not always easy on the face of it to tell which) it is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Both quotes from the trial have now been removed (not by me). The Globe and Mail story (here, may require registration) attributes "evasive witness" to the judge, "bad joke" to the heirs' lawyer. Both are just aw well away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the present version is a good compromise. The quotes from the judge and attorney, while factual and verifiable, are superfluous to an article about the film itself. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

I've fully protected Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) following edit warring over what to tag the page as. I suggest uninvolved admins look over the talk page. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma ^message 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the threshold for personal information about a minor?

Resolved

 – deleted/oversighted - Alison ^❤ 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan (talk · contribs) previously had his user page history scrubbed because of the posting of personal information about himself (prohibited for those under age 13). He is working on his user page again, and I think this one is okay (it says his first name, age, state of origin, but I think that's it).

<venting> Or at least, it's okay from the personal info perspective. A number of the infoboxes are downright lies, which really irritates me... he claims to be a former member of a defunct Wikiproject, but he just added his name to the list of members today, months after the Wikiproject closed. heh... His intention to contribute to the other two Wikiprojects he added himself to do is quite dubious (I know a lot of people do this, but it just rubs me the wrong way anyway). And the "This user has a website" infobox links to a Wikipedia article he created, which was speedy-deleted today. Which makes some sense, except he didn't create the infobox until after the page was deleted. Frankly, while the kid has made about half a dozen positive contribs, he is more hindrance than help to the project (previous 48 hr block for continued uploading of copyrighted images; uploaded a couple of hoax/vandal images today; etc.) In a perfect world... </venting> --Jaysweet (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a little concerned by the fact that this user discloses his age as 9 years.I don't know how other editors feel about these things, but I personally think it's a risk on many levels. Anyway, I'm not particularly sure what your point is about the rest. --.:Alex:. 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A clue to my point regarding the second paragraph may be found in the faux-markup tags placed around the paragraph.

The first paragraph is the actual issue I would like to see addressed at ANI, as per the subject of this section. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol ok, just noticed that (darn edit conflicts despite section editing). It looks ok at the moment, though I get the feeling that this user may introduce more personal information once again if not monitored. --.:Alex:. 20:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone good at making beautiful userpages go help him, maybe? If it's already awesome, I wouldn't guess he'd add to it again (and accidentally include personal info again); besides, those sorts of userpages are pretty. So far I think it's okay, though. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

His page looks good, but I am also concerned that he reveals his age, maybe someone could ask him nicely to remove it.— Ѕandahl 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A candidate for a good adopter, maybe? I sense another block on the horizon if the iffy image uploads keep coming, and I'm also a little uncomfortable with a user that young posting their age. EyeSerene^talk 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

An assesment/ possible change to a youngster revealing their age should be mentioned via email or at WP:OVERSIGHT in my humble opinion, because posting here just makes more people and even possible undesirables (no-one who posts here of course :):) ) aware of the person's age. Sticky Parkin 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I probably should have asked hypothetically first (I really wasn't sure if it is worth action here, since he doesn't reveal anything that really compromises anonymity).

Since the cats already out of the bag, I would mention that EyeSerene's idea of getting an adopter would be great -- assuming someone can get him to respond on his Talk page, of course. He so far has not edited any Talk or User talk pages, ever. But yes, mentoring would be good, as the vast majority of his edits are unconstructive, even though all but a few appeared to be in generally good faith. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm -and to clarify, now that they're gone; this person, apparently aged 9, had left their full name, location, school name, date of birth, home town etc. That's more than enough to locate them at their school, pretend to know them, etc. Not good. If people find other examples of this and are sufficiently concerned, please feel free to email me in private about it - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with posting a name/age/location as most non-pseudoanonymous editors do this. As we all learned from Essjay, that may not even be the truth. I agree with the removal of school, address, and phone numbers, of course. I don't know what was on the original page, but getting bent out of shape over age alone is a bit silly. Let's try and keep it friendly, though, since oversighting a userpage is a bit of a WP:BITE. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about someone's age appearing on a page. It's barely oversightable. However, the other items certainly are. It's no reflection on the person and definitely not ageism, but people need to be prudent about what they publish here. The same applies to adults, too, as I know only too well. So, common sense and care all round, really - Alison ^❤ 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert and 80.0.41.117 edit warring

Tennis expert and IP 80.0.41.117 are edit warring at Venus Williams which I have watchlisted due to an addition made a week ago. The two users are making the same reverts in a two party content dispute with no discussion engaged in as yet. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Tennis expert:

• 19:35, 22 July 2008
• 19:33, 21 July 2008
• 07:23, 21 July 2008
• 19:42, 19 July 2008

I warned both editors today [107], [108] at aound 16.30 UTC. Tennis expert acknowledged my warning at 17:38, and subsequently made the same revert again at 20:36.

I would report this at the "edit warring" notice board, but it seems to have taken to rejecting any reports that are not a stone cold violation of 3RR, whereas I think anyone can see this is a purposeful slow edit war with no likely resolution without some action taken to butt heads, or someone giving in. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're right that this isn't a 3RR violation, but it is a slow edit war. I don't personally see it as blockable just yet, so I've protected the page for 72 hours to let discsussion happen on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war." User 80.0.41.117 keeps adding unsourced, unencyclopedic, unconstructive, and opinion-filled information to the playing style section of the Venus Williams article. Here is this user's text:

Williams is an aggressive baseliner, equipped with an attacking all-court game. Across her career Venus has developed into a skillful volleyer and effectively utilises her long reach and relative quickness around the net. Venus stated during an interview at the 2008 Australian Open that she was working to improve her volley.[1]

Venus is the most powerful server (by a margin) on the women's Tour, both in terms of average and fastest serve speeds, surveyed across tournaments throughout the year. At Wimbledon 2008, Venus struck the fastest serve recorded (by a woman) in the tournament's history, at 129 mph, in the women's final, Saturday 5th July 2008 (see: http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/match_reports/2008-07-05/200807051215270803593.html). This equaled the record for the fastest serve in a WTA main draw event, previously set by Venus at the 2007 US Open (first round match) at 129 mph. At Wimbledon 2008 Venus' average first serve speed was 115 mph in the 1/4 final, a remarkable 116 mph in the semi-final and 111 mph in the final (IBM/Wimbledon) - rather faster average speeds than any woman (including her sister, Serena Williams) records. To put this into further perspective, the top men's seed (and world no.1) at the tournament, Roger Federer, registered average first serve speeds of 119 mph (1/4 final), 117 mph (semi-final) and 117 mph (final) in his last three matches at the tournament (IBM/Wimbledon). This kind of confluence in men's and women's service speeds is unusual in professional tennis, and sets Venus Williams apart from her contemporaries in the women's game. To further illustrate the difference, the no.1 seed at the tournament, Ana Ivanovic, recorded an average first serve speed of 98 mph (fastest serve 108 mph) in her last match at the tournament. The no.3 seed at the tournament; Maria Sharapova, recorded an average first serve speed of 104 mph (fastest serve 111 mph) in her last match.

Venus Williams has always been a explosive hitter of the ball off the ground but her backhand is the more consistently reliable of her groundstrokes. Venus' backhand is equally effective hit down-the-line or crosscourt (frequently for a set-up approach shot). Venus' forehand does occasionally break down under pressure. However, it is still the more powerful of her groundstrokes, and a stroke that yields many winners, from a variety of court positions. Additionally, it is one the most powerful forehands in the women's game, frequently struck in the 85 - 90 mph range. In the 2008 Wimbledon women's final, Venus struck a forehand winner measured at 94 mph (IBM/Wimbledon). Only a few women (notably Ana Ivanovic, Serena Williams, Sania Mirza and the now-retired Justine Henin) hit to these speeds off the ground. Venus's forehand drive-volley (a shot that she popularised at the top of the sport) is the most decisive and devastating in the game.

Finally, Venus is a gifted athlete with excellent court coverage. Equipped with a long 'wingspan', Venus is able to reach shots that many other players would not even attempt a play on. Moreover, Venus is able to play an offensive shot from a defensive position - something that comparatively few women players are able to do.

When this user first added this "*checked and re-checked*" stuff, I attempted to work with him or her, as follows:

Williams is an aggressive baseliner and uses an attacking all-court game.[citation needed]

Williams has developed into a skillful volleyer and effectively uses her long reach and relative quickness around the net.[citation needed] She stated during an interview at the 2008 Australian Open that she was working to improve her volley.[1] Her forehand drive-volley, a shot that she helped popularize, is one of the most effective in the women's game.

William's serve is among the most powerful on the women's tour.[citation needed] During the singles final at Wimbledon in 2008, Williams struck the fastest serve by a woman in the tournament's recorded history, at 129 mph.[2] This equalled the record for the fastest serve in a WTA main draw event, previously set by Williams at the 2007 US Open.[citation needed] Also at Wimbledon in 2008, her average first serve speed was 115 mph in the quarterfinals,[3] 116 mph in the semifinals,[4] and 111 mph in the final.[5]

Williams has always been a explosive hitter of the ball off the ground, but her double-handed backhand is more consistently reliable than her forehand.[citation needed] She can hit her backhand down-the-line or crosscourt. Her forehand occasionally breaks down under pressure;[citation needed] however, it is still one of the most powerful forehands in the women's game and yields many winners, from a variety of court positions.[citation needed] During the 2008 Wimbledon singles final, Williams struck a forehand winner measured at 94 mph.[citation needed]

Williams has excellent court coverage.[citation needed] Equipped with long arms, Williams is able to reach shots that many other players would not attempt to play.[citation needed] Williams also is able to play an offensive shot from a defensive position.[citation needed]

But my work was reverted back to the problematic text. Tennis expert (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Anvil Media Inc

According to the deleted article Anvil Media Inc which this user wrote about itself, its business is writing Wikipedia articles for profit. I blocked the account as advertising-only after it created the piece about itself, and after it started tagging articles with "Created by Anvil Media Inc." All of those articles were created by User:Mrtriviamaniacman. The Anvil Media username is now asking for an unblock. Questions: (1) Anyone have any problem with the block of User:Anvil Media Inc? (2) Should we do something about User:Mrtriviamaniacman, who pretty clearly is the same user? (3) Should we do anything about the articles that were created by this PR firm? Most of them do have sources, although I deleted a few where the cited external source didn't work and they appeared to be just advertising for one company's products. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Block of Anvil is good, Mrtriviamaniacman can go too (writing for profit is not on), I would nuke any articles with no significant edits other than by this user and review the rest for bias. For example, Attensa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted three times previously by other people as blatant spam. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which policy prohibits writing for profit (not saying I like the idea of people writing for profit on Wikipedia, just got a nagging feeling this may have come up before)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would be the obvious one. A company being paid to write an article for another company is not likely to write in an unbiassed fashion. Not to mention the obvious WP:COI. Resolute 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:REWARD, which pays users for improvements to articles etc? Sticky Parkin 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to remember. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Mrtriviamaniacman for spam/advertising, which writing for profit is. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, the only article that I can still find Attensa in is FreeRange WebReader, sole edit of a relatively new user. --Amalthea (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Springfield, Oregon for more potential user connections. KimKnees (talk · contribs), at the very least, has edited Planar Systems after the COI discussion, a company listed on http://www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm . --Amalthea (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Should we get a CU to look out the whole lot? It seems there are many... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd absolutely say so, there seems to be no end to it. Johnanvil (talk · contribs) created Attensa, Triviamaniacman23 (talk · contribs) seems an obvious sock of Mrtriviamaniacman (talk · contribs), Pthomas03 (talk · contribs) could be part of it since he created ReliableRemodeler.com a long time ago — really wherever I click I seem to find new suspects. It'd need an admin first to walz through all of those deleted pages, if possible check all pages in the above client list for deleted contributions. This article suggests that some of those accounts were active before that whole thing started, but 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs) seems to be a very good candidate for a common IP. --Amalthea (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest this thread continue over at WP:COIN. This issue came up once before on that noticeboard; I see that I've already left {{uw-coi}} for 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs). Though we disapprove of outsiders writing articles for money, since it is hard to maintain NPOV in such cases, COI-affected editors can sometimes make a contribution. (The ColumbiaSoft article is not too bad). Keep in mind these are fairly low-volume editors, so they are unlikely to swamp the enforcement system. If someone writes a new COIN report please focus on what is the worst abuse so far and maybe we can fix that. If none of these editors will respond on Talk more blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IP content vandal

I have come across an IP - 70.100.254.101‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) - who seems to specialise in changing dates in articles, with no edit comment nor any citations. He may or may not be correcting mistakes, but the absence of citations or comments makes it hard to tell. In at least one case - (Alain LeRoy Locke), his change [109] clearly introduces inconsistencies into the article.

I'm after a couple of things right now: 1) would anyone care to revert his most recent change on Joseph Reinagle - I would hit 3RR if I touched it again. The date he is changing in this article is referenced to the Dictionary of National Biography, and the person associated with the date is so obscure that I cannot believe there is another source. (done - thanks) and 2) Would anyone care to add some of the article he haunts to their watchlists & watch out for more such insidious content changes. I have talked to him and now warned him, but he ain't talking back. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have come across acouple of editors like this over the years. They think that changing the dates won't be noticed. You should feel free to post edit/vandalism warnings on their talk page and report them to AIV if they don't stop. Thanks for keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Gross incivility on Cold fusion

Page gets heated anyway, but it is getting OTT. Most recent comments by User:ScienceApologist are beyond the pale in my view. A good look by an uninvolved admin would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin, the first step I'd take is to warn them with a personal message about focusing on content and contributions, and not the editors per WP:NPA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I'm always talking to this editor about one thing or another. It is too easy to get into a situation where we wind each other up. A completely external person would do better. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was requested by an IP that SA refactor his comments, and he did do. Hopefully that should be the end of it. If there are any more concerns, it might be an idea to ask SA to refactor another comments because he's normally very open to doing so. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

advice needed

Not sure where to post this, so I thought I would try here, where I know there's a number of experienced people hanging around. Please advise me if this should go somewhere else.

I went to the template page Template:Sexual orientation on an RfC. there is a user there - Cooljuno411 - who is essentially doing extensive original research on the template itself (recategorizing the definition of sexual orientation to his own particular tastes...). he's very adamant about his position, to the extent that he comes close to edit-warring, though most editors have been gracious enough not to allow an edit war to start. normally I would solve this by attaching an OR template and flagging it for all concerned, but attaching templates to templates is ugly and confusing to readers. I'll put in some inline templates for the time being, but can anyone suggest a more graceful and effective approach? --Ludwigs2 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep trying to reach out to Cooljuno. And don't try to talk to him by yourself. There has to be others who are concerned and use the Sexual Orientation template. I don't want to use the term "gang up" on him, but you should "gang up on him" in a calm and nice way. If that doesn't work, than try some sort of dispute resolution and if that doesn't succeed, than offer all the money you can muster! Beam 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Figure out what is the basis for the pre-existing categorization system, and then argue from there. If it is commonly known, or famous, or standard in off-wiki professional discussion of the topic, then that should help a lot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bigger problem, seen here. Cooljuno's edits are in pursuit of his POV that sexuality is a choice and thus should all be equally lumped together. The talk page seems to have a lot of interestin forming a good order and consensus ,but against a POV pusher, what hope is there? ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly "defendeachother" request

Resolved

 – Chiselandpaw indefblocked and Cloakdeath re-warned. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems silly that I have to ask for this, rather than do it myself, but based on recent events, I suppose a short silly ANI thread up front is better than a long, stupid ANI thread after the fact.

Could someone block User:Chiselandpaw indef, as the returning indef blocked User:Hammerandclaw? Chiselandpaw's contribs consist of bragging to his friend User:Cloakdeath that he's going to annoy me, followed by doing so. Someone having a word with Cloakdeath about encouraging this behavior (see Chiselandpaw's talk page) would also be appreciated. I'm fuzzy on the relationship, but evidently either thru school or thru some online gaming thing, Cloakdeath has lots of little fans running around in user space (although it seems most aren't active anymore), and the kid behind Hammerandclaw appears to be one of them. If this person had just shut up and edited an article, I wouldn't care he was back, but evidently all he's interested in doing is making my orange bar light up as many times as he can get away with.

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Next time someone complains about you archiving their thread early, I'll block 'em for you. That's how this "defend each other" thing is supposed to work, right? --barneca (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AfD hero

Resolved

 – No administrative action required, at least for now

AfD hero (talk · contribs) Something queer is going on. I immediately noticed the username on an AfD I had submitted. Looking through his contribs, he primarily frequents AfDs (and, as far as I know, has !voted Keep on all of them). From his first edit, one can tell that he's been on a Wiki before and has experience with our policies. This leads me to believe he's a sock of some inclusionist. I also noticed that he had been !voting Keep on AfDs in May and June, but disappeared after June 10. His reappearance within hours of my starting an AfD was particularly peculiar. Please note that he vanished once again after casting the keep !vote today. Does anyone else believe this to be suspicious? Any thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I came across that username around May (approx) and it was almost that users first time editing. This could very well be a sock account, but unless we have something to pin them to, nothing will happen. I'm looking over the other contribs right now to see if I can notice a pattern. Synergy 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

E.g. if certain users are also present at an AfD. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that its just a generic name. This user is obviously an older more established user or ip. Read the opening comments on Epbr's talk about his rfa. Synergy 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is very Kurty. Although we know Kurt doesn't write like that. He's like "Kurt Reloaded". Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

POV-warrior on Property is Theft

The user User:SteveWolfer is persistently re-adding "an Objectivist critique" to Property is Theft. I think it is pretty clear, if you view the content added,[110] that this is giving "undue weight," that Wolfer is using a single paragraph in a single article as an excuse to link to Objectivism on a page that has nothing to do with it. This is seriously lowering the quality of the article. The user has not responded to my comments on the talk page from over a week ago, but continues to revert. Now he is parroting what I tell him in the changelog: he says that I refuse to discuss, and that I am disruptive. I suppose I should also note that the other user currently editing the page (User:EmbraceParadox) agrees that the material should be removed, so that it certainly lacks consensus. (I explained this to Wolfer, althoug hhe did not parrot that part.)

I'm not sure this is the right place to post or if I've provided the necessary information. Really I'd prefer not to deal with this shit at all and I'm far from familiar with policy and protocols. So my apologies for any mistakes. —Jemmy_tc 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute for which administrator attention is unwarranted; the matter has already been raised at the neutral point of view noticeboard. If that does not resolve the issue, I suggest you recourse to escalating degrees of dispute resolution. Regards, Skomorokh 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet trying to unblacklist his site and get an article about himself

Resolved

 – User warned, not much else to do at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First a little background; several years back, Jonty303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went on a spamming campaign for links to his site, losethegame.com (relating to The Game (mind game)). He also was caught creating confirmed hoax articles (The Pez) as well as a few nonsense articles. His site was blacklisted. Subsequently, he introduced a tool on his site for the purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia with "lose the game" messages (e.g., [111]). Since then, he's made several attempts to have his site unblacklisted via the talk page for The Game article. See edits of User:LoserNo1 as wel as deleted edits of User:LosingTheGame and User: LosingTheGame2. Now it appears he's returned with a new account: Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), creating an article about himself, as well as re-petitioning for inclusion of his site. I asked for Sam Korn's opinion, as he'd been previously involved with a checkuser of User:LoserNo1; he found that the case for Rabidfoxes was "plausible" but not confirmed [112] (which doesn't surprise me, as Jonty is now aware of the CheckUser tool). Is there enough circumstantial evidence here (single purpose account following pattern of older socks) to warrant action? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is, at the very least, clear self promotion. I will warn the user to desist, and explain to him that the site will simply not be unblacklisted. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Administrator assistance with problematic set of users

I was left this message on my talk page, but I am not an administrator and I'm not sure what action is appropriate. The message is referring to repeated vandalism as detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2 (2nd). I do not know if the message is accurate, but if it is, it seems some action should be taken. Any assistance is appreciated. Powers ^T 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block IP 76.227.110.225‎

Over 12 hours ago, IP 76.227.110.225‎ was blocked for edit warring. Up until that time, the user was repeatedly vandalizing music-related articles with misinformation, as well as changing article formats. They then vandalized my home page and that of Swampfire. Admin Kevin blocked the user for 12 hours. As soon as the block was over, the user has already attempted to revert edits back to the vandalized version of Motley Crue. I would note that this IP is that used by indefinitely banned user Alterego269. I appreciate any assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked again for 48 hours for continuing the edit war. Kevin (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Look here under "Definition of Propaganda: Binary Emotional Rhetoric" at the very bottom. A name, an address, and a phone number. I don't know whose, what, why, or anything like that. However, something should be done about such delicate information. I clicked on the user's talk page from a discussion by the user here, which may also be of some interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs oversighted. Contact one of these people: Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT#Users_with_Oversight_permissions. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's okay - I've sorted it - Alison ^❤ 02:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you missed the bit on the WP:VPP. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this edit, too. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. I was busy trying to find someone online and I'm glad that you stumbled in. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OOps! Ok - got them all :) - Alison ^❤ 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User admitted to having sockpuppets

Somedude8890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to having sockpuppet accounts. I am not sure how this is normally handled, can someone who knows what to do, um, do it? Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think he's trying to get a rise out if you, ignore him. If you think he might be telling the truth, you could try a checkuser request. There's really no harm in ignoring him; if he's vandalizing with socks, we'll get them as they occur. --barneca (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've seen other people post similar things here, so I didn't know if that was standard procedure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From the way he zeroed in on Zzuuzz, I'm sure he's been here before and will be here again. Soon, you can nuke him yourself (don't worry, not a jinx; I have my fingers crossed behind my back and I'm knocking on wood as i type). My instinct (which is correct approximately 50% of the time) is that he's a just a garden variety vandal, not a special threat. --barneca (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed

Could a sysop look at the contributions of User:76.67.100.126. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a {{uw-test2}} on his talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If they become active again, WP:WARN them sufficiently and then report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Block request.

User:Master chick Has vandalized my User page by blanking. this is because I have nominated his Iron man 2 (film) as a CSD A4 problem, for recreating the article after it had been deleted, per his own User talk. I initially redirected, but as I worked on that, I saw that there were multiple actions by him. He was fully notified, then after being given a vandalism 4 ( he knew the content was deleted but persisted, blanked the CSD tempalte, and so on), he blanked my page. He continues to revert the CSD out on the Iron man 2 page. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you talked to him about this, without templating him or being hostile? Beam 03:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, man, do you just sit here stalking me to nag, or did you bother to read all that I put in the above report? Including a personal message to him on his talk? ThuranX (talk)

I don't stalk you at all, I wish you hadn't said that. I read the report, you said you gave him a vandalism 4. Sorry man, I always feel communication comes before block. As i put in the edit summary, it was an honest query. If the user is continuing, after being kindly contacted in a civil manner, to blank your page and the CSD tag, than I'd support a 12-24 hour block to prevent further poor actions on his behalf. That is if he ignores attempts at communication. Beam 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you admit you didn't read his talk page, the edits I linked, or anything else, just the report. Then you insisted I do more jumping through special hoops for you. If you can't be bothered to read up, please do not comment on my comments and requests for blocks any more. You've insisted on more hoop jumping before, to me and other editors. There are limits to patience, civility, and bureaucracy. It's clear you like bureaucracy, but your love of it derails threads about actual problems. ThuranX (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. I read your report, and took your summarization as truth (why wouldn't I?). I don't want you to do anything more. I'm willing to talk to him if you'd like. And your comment on me derailing threads isn't appreciated, I give my input and opinion as you do, and just because they some times differ does not make my or yours of lesser quality. Again, you don't have to go through any hoops. If you think it would achieve anything, since you're obviously way more aware of this fellow, than I'm willing to assist you by talking to him. As I said above, if he is not able to communicate and if we (you/anyone) has tried than I support a block. Or at the least, a final warning. I hope this alleviates your unhappiness with me, sir. Beam 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User has tried to create the page three times and did replace the content of ThuranX's user page with a comment. I've salted Iron_man_2_(film) but (before seeing Beam's input here) didn't block the user because because they may not understand what they're doing. However, if this carries on a 24 hour block may be needed, to get through to this editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I state above, I share your exact feelings on this case. Beam 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Thank you Gwen for following up on things so quickly. I think that, having had the material deleted already, ignoring a specific non-template message, a template message (the V4), and then a warning about blanking, before then running to the talk page for that delted article, The editor knew full well what was going on, and how not to act. That said, I can wait to see if he tries again. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's nettlesome, but I've found new editors sometimes don't think the deletion templates are anything more than automated barriers and don't know what they're getting into. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thuran. Your patience and calm is very appreciated. Your willingness to potentially put up with one more round of shit from the user speaks volumes. And I'm glad I could relieve your problem with me by simply explaining my position. And thanks Gwen, it's nice to have your input, as always. Beam 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review - Alansohn

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a no personal attacks parole by arbcom. He's just been blocked by animum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating that at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse#Oppose. I personally think he was slightly off the mark, but I don't see anything there that could be seen as uncivil - he's stated his points with resorting to attacks. I'd appreciate some neutral admins to review please and hopefully we can get a swift unblock. I've asked Animum about it, and he disagrees. Alansohn has now requested a block review so I think we should deal with this swiftly. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that slowly unfolding, including the remark by Animum regarding possible blocking. While I am not an admin, I was somewhat surprised at the block. I've read it a few times now, and fail to see violations of NPA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not attacky, just a bit uncivil. So, we're blocking people who don't violate their paroles and don't block those who do violate their paroles? Have I stumbled into Bizarro-Wikipedia? Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Off topic perhaps, but who violated their parole? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a "ha, take that!" at the current double standard with civility. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack, but a comment that is slightly off-colored. Can we be provided a specific reason and DIFF to the supposed personal attack for reference? seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see exact comment which led to the block - I see the one that led to the warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like, at least at RfA, that it was dropped after the warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Was about to write that it was abad block, now i can just congratulate Gwen gale ,who is batting 1000% tonight! Go Gwen!ThuranX (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While bold, did someone talk to the blocking admin first? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not saying I disagree, but if there's some kind of confusion (say per this thread) then usually discussion works first without potentially incuring WP:WHEEL. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I did before bringing it here. He disagreed with me that it wasn't uncivil. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good to hear. That's all I wanted/needed to know : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be scolding Animum or anything though, the posts were mildly disruptive and I've asked Alansohn to lighten up his language, to which he answered: Understood. I will make my best effort to ensure that there is no perception of incivility. It was all a bit on the edge for an editor under an NPA sanction. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, good, everything is more or less fixed. It's clear that I've jumped the gun here. I apologize to everyone involved. —Animum (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)