Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive707

Awaiting assistance

Awaiting assistance with an above discussion: Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion. Chesdovi (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Chesdovi has also raised this at DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, and on request there I have temp-undeleted the category so that the RFC on its talk page can be read. This should be discussed either there or here but not both. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been accused of editing against Jews

I think everything worthwhile has been said. No admin action is required. Please go back to your regular scheduled program. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tinton5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of editing against Jews. When asked if he was being serious he replied "very serious". Now that I know I am being accused of something bordering or crossing the line of anti-semitism I feel it entirely appropriate to have administrative intervention as to this incident. Disclosure I am an ordained rabbi and ritually observant Jew. Basket of Puppies 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Rabbi or not, you're clearly not editing against Jews. Ludicrous personal attack from Tinton. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Comment - To treasurytag: I doubt basket is a rabbi. On the internet, anyone could make up such stories. If he was a rabbi, he would consider having good faith himself, and to be civil. He just made a personal attack to me, after I made an apology. What, apologies don't mean anything anymore? I think he meant to link apology, instead.Tinton5 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) There are a variety of issues going on here. Tinton has made remarks that are in violation of both WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA as long as having a bit of WP:CONSPIRACY thrown in. There are however legitimate concerns about Basket's actions that are at issue here that seem to be causing frustration with him. Tinton's response is only the most extreme such response. Basket is nominating within a very short time period, a large number of articles about different synagogues. He has used a combination of both AfD and A7 nominations. Unfortunately, as I tried to explain to Basket on his talk page, there are only a small number of editors who have the time and resources to clean up and find sources for synagogue articles]. I tried to ask him to slow down his nomination rate or to at least Google search for news articles about the synanogues before nominating, and he apparently decided that this constituted "harassment". At this point, it is probably most helpful if everyone involved just try to chill out a bit. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Okay, I apologize if I happen to make any extreme remarks towards BasketofPuppies and the entire Jewish community, The whole thing should just calm down and instead of going up each other's throats, lets work as a team and it should not matter, Jewish or not, I feel rotten and a jerk. It was all stress related, and I apologize. I know better. Tinton5 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I apologize if I happen to make any extreme remarks Please see Non-apology apology. Basket of Puppies 18:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the first part of Tinton's apology was inartfully worded, but the end of his sentence makes it fairly clear that he is sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That page deals with politics. We are discussing religion. Hello? Tinton5 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Did anyone notice Basket just made a personal attack towards me? He somewhat mimicked what I just said, then linked a page about a non apology apology. Tinton5 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) He didn't mimic, he quoted. Major difference. And I would suggest you follow and read his link to the non-apology apology page... GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The start of the apology-statement written for future accidental acts. That doesn't cover the pre-existing intentional/explicit attacks. "I'm sorry if my foot sticks out" after intentionally tripping someone. You should also read WP:NOTTHEM--someone not accepting something you say to that person is not an attack, it's a statement of how the target is interpretting your statement. That is a reasonable way to prompt you to restate so your meaning is clear (for example, per other's comment that it was poorly worded vs the later part of it). DMacks (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't think you want to go here as it lacks any real credibility and needlessly restirs the waters.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC) And I might add that these comments make my conclusion that you are genuinely sorry less persuasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Okay, enough apologizing. Lets get back on track to discuss why we are really here. Tinton5 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC) What sect is Basket? Clergy#Judaism. Some sects dislike others and perhaps the mass nominations are related to opposing sects. The nominations just look like harmless little Jewish church/temples/worshiping places to me. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYK: 4Chan came by...

DENY - Kingpin13 (talk)

...on Pygmy peoples. Article is temporarily protected. No further administrative action needed (haha), but I thought y'all should know--is someone keeping an archive? Drmies (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Vandalising for teh lulz! GiantSnowman 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) They regularly raid articles and users' talk pages on the order of a couple a day. WP:RBI (and protect the target). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Wow. Would it be appropriate to revdel the majority of that as is seems to consist of racist epithets? Can't remember if that sort of idiocy meets requirements or not. Heiro 19:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Good point. But it's not a BLP. I am inclined to revdel racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc. kinds of vandalism and I am not opposed, but some editors here draw different lines. I am open to suggestions. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm harassed by User:Ion_G_Nemes

Hi, I'm harassed on my talk page [1], [2], [3] by User:Ion_G_Nemes. He left me a notification about something that happened months ago, he accuses me of being uncivil and there's no reason to call me that for a burst that I had half of year ago, why reopen that wound? To me that's a sign of WP:HOUND. He doesn't stop pestering me on my talk page although I told him he's not welcome there [4] and [5] I don't know him, haven't even edited something together with him as far as I know and have no desire to debate my behavior from 6 months ago with him. Can anybody take him off my back? Is there something on Wikipedia as a restraining order? I think I need one against this user. Again, I don't mind notifications as long as 1. are not repeated, and 2. are not about events that happened months ago. Also, accusing me of incivility for something I did months ago is bordering WP:PA. Thanks. man with one red shoe 14:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of posting the required notice of this discussion on Ion G Nemes' Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to use the template. man with one red shoe 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing Ion G Nemes' Talk page, I see that the user removed three warning templates left by other users, and examining the Contribution history, those warnings seem to have been appropriate and timely. Given that WP:DELETE says removal of such templates is adequate indication that the user has read them, it tends to bring their motivation in leaving messages regarding "inappropriate language" on others' Talk pages into question. The remainder of the Contribution history appears positive and productive, so my own 2p is that Ion should be advised against warning on months-old acts by other editors, per WP:VANDAL. IMO, there's not enough back-and-forth or vitriol to warrant an interaction ban, although it would likely be best if the two involved editors voluntarily stayed clear of each other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, Alan, you beat me to it. I just left a message on the user's talk page saying pretty much the same thing. Whatever the content of the red shoe's edits or summaries, such repeated complaining is harassment. My note includes the words "final warning". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for understanding, I think this is the perfect outcome from my point of view. man with one red shoe 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was going to say, now wash your potty mouth, but if this is all there is (and if that is read in the proper context) then there's not much to wash. Let's hope the editor will leave you alone; if not, feel free to drop me or anyone else a line. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you try re-reading the entries you characterized as 'repeated complaining'. I only warned him about his repeated use of obscenities once. The further entries are all replies to his contention that no one has the right to warn him about his use of foul and abusive language. The one example of his use of foul and abusive language I cited is specifically defined as a form of vandalism per WP:VANDAL, but I see no mention on that page (which Alan the roving ambassador cited as prohibiting warning about vandalism in the past which has not yet recieved a warning) of any policy against warning an editor about vandalism in the past which has not yet recieved a warning. The editor in question does in fact have a long history of using foul and abusive language in the past. Numerous examples of this were deleted from the record by User:Binksternet exactly as I said they were(from the Coanda 1910 discussion page, I belive they would be in the first archive had User:Binksternet not removed them). Various other examples exist, some on his talk page. Of course, I will continue to warn him whenever I see instances of foul and abusive language which have not recieved a warning (as per WP:VANDAL), and if he responds to these warnings by asserting that I have no right to warn him about his foul and abusive language, I will reply that I do have that right, and that I will continue to exercise that right when I see further instances of same. If he replies to such a statement by asserting that I have no right to reply to his assertion that I had no right to warn him in the first place, then I will point out, as I did when he recently made that assertion, that I have the right to respond to that communication as well. Since you two are presumably well versed in Wikipedia practice perhaps you could tell me if responding rudely to a simple warning and insisting that the individual who made that warning has no right to post such a warning on your talk page is considered an acceptable practice. If so, then I will leave a message on User:DRMIES talk page telling him that I forbid him from posting warnings on my talk page because I have no wish to talk to him. In fact, perhaps it would be best if I just post a blanket warning that no one may post on my talk page. If I do so, I assume you two will be more than willing to admonish anyone who posts a warning on my page, and then has the temerity to assert that he had a right to do so when I tell him he didn't and order him not to post on my talk page in future.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If somebody would warn you on your talk page about something you did 10 months ago, and would not stop posting to your talk page after you repeatedly told him he's not welcome there, then I will be the first one to advocate a restraining order against that user. Also, are you a sock of User:Romaniantruths? I repeatedly told that user that he's not welcome on my page, if you created a sock (which in itself is not against Wikipedia's policies) to troll me again, knowing very well that you are not welcome on my talk page, then I think you should be banned or at least receive a very severe warning about sock-puppeteering and harassing people. man with one red shoe 05:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitic pov pushing?

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

• "At the moment, it seems to be a collection of liberal European Americans (Amy D'orio) and whiney control-freak Jews ("Teaching Tolerance" being a SPLC front). The latter organisation in particular moan about everything and anything they think they can make money from."[6]
• Added thisd into an article lede "is a neologism invented by American Jewish sociologist" [7]
• Identical to last edit, different subject and article [8]
• Same story [9]
• And a check of their other edits seems to be to add LGBT categories to articles about rapists and pedophiles.

They were blocked on 21 June [10], but the first edit I listed was just at 23:26, 22, June 2011 so they seem to be right back at it. Should I take this here, or is there a better venue for this? Heiro 02:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring by Δ over NFCC issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This is a separate incident from above, and I'm going to start by quoting the WP:3RR exemption for NFCC:

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Bolding belongs to the article. Not my emphasis, but it is the emphasis of this report. This means that the removal of the content should be unquestionable. There should be no reasonable question over whether the image is okay to be in the article. Unfortunately I have to seriously question this series of edits, which resulted in a brand new user getting blocked over a dispute with Delta: Tamimo (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg and immediately added his FUR [11], and then [12] went ahead and added it to the article. This is very commendable. He is a new user, and made very few edits, but he knew enough to make his FUR before adding it to the article. Great, except within 2 minutes, Δ removes the image. What could possibly be wrong? Well, you may have to go back and look very closely to see the mistake he made, because the edit summary is not very helpful. Over the next hour and 46 minutes, delta removed the image 6 times

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

All with the same edit summary, none with any further explanation. Even after the user posted a question to his talk page [13], Delta did not really offer any further help, [14]. He made an assumption that the user did not read the edit summary. However, the user did add a FUR rationale, this poor new user was understandably confused and frustrated. For those who didn't notice it, this article is for a TV drama, there was also a movie of the same name, Raja_Ki_Aayegi_Baraat. The user had simply forgotten to add (TV series) to the FUR. The image isn't even in use on the movie page. Why would it be? it wasn't intended for there. It only took me a few seconds after pulling up the image to realize what the error was, but a new user may not have noticed his typo, especially when met with repetitive and unhelpful edit summaries.

Unfortunately the user made a minor personal attack on Delta's page, for which he was warned, and then after having edited no further, he was blocked out of the blue. That probably needs a review of its own. I have asked the blocking admin for an explanation to this but he hasn't responded yet.

The issue here is "unquestionable". I think this removal was very questionable. It was a trivial thing to see the mistake that a brand new user had made (he'd made a couple edits prior but really only began editing today), and this would have been a very minor fix, and didn't warrant 6 reverts of a new user, with static unchanging edit summaries. For those who will undoubtedly say "There is no way Delta could have known the intended use", the FUR clearly states Logo image of Indian drama-serial This is clearly not intended for use in the movie article, and the image itself isn't present in the movie article. I see no evidence the user has ever edited the movie article, and a quick note of the diffs above will see it was added to the drama article very quickly after the FUR was added, making it all the clearer where it belonged. The FUR further goes on to say Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial making it all the clearer what the intended use was.

All in, this seems to be the same behaviour that generated countless ANI threads on Betacommand when this was all getting started. His inappropriate handling of NFCC issues, especially in relation to new users. As such I propose the following:

• Delta be blocked until such a time that he can demonstrate he knows the difference between questionable and unquestionable removals, typos resulting in missing FUR are not unquestionable removals.
• As was previously suggested by didn't gain consensus, he be placed on 1RR for all NFCC related editing

The image itself has been fixed, but we run the risk of losing a potentially good new editor, one who knows enough to add a FUR, because of this.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as a transparent end-run attempt at an indef block. You say he is to be blocked from editing until he can demonstrate that he knows how to edit properly. I don't suppose you'd accept a nicely written essay? If not, how exactly is he supposed to demonstrate anything? This nonsense is getting tiring. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, typically users are blocked until its clear the disruption will not continue. Disruptive editing with new users was a problem 3 years ago, and it's still a problem now. There is no evidence a week or a month long block would fix the problem anymore than the time passing during the last 3 years has. If he can clearly state that he's aware of what a questionable removal and non-questionable removal are and that he'll only repeatedly remove unquestionable ones, than that will suffice. Nowhere did I ask for an essay.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Clear attempt to hound him. If you wish to report edit warring, take it to AN3. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  This issue goes well beyond a simple 3RR violation, his interaction with users over NFCC, especially new users is a years old issue that hasn't resolved itself.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As you will see in my comments below, another thing to consider besides 3RR is his cookie-cutter, context-ignoring editing style Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Δ should not be deleting images because there is a minor error in a FUR. In cases such as this, the better approach would be to fix the minor error in the FUR, and drop a friendly note on the uploader's talk page explaining their error and why the exact article title must be used. A similar situation exists where an article has been moved, but the FUR has not been updated. Again, the better solution is to fix the problem rather than deleting the image. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly my point. This is what moves this beyond "unquestionable".--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I have deleted the image under WP:CSD#F7, for yet another reason: it had a blatantly false fair-use tag and FUR (it was declared as a logo, which it clearly wasn't.) If anybody wants to fix that, feel free to undelete. I couldn't, because I don't know what it is and why and how it is supposed to be representative of the series. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Most likely it was a title screen with the logo on it, as I recall it appeared to be a screenshot with text on it, and a source was given, but I can't verify that now because you've deleted it, which also disturbs the diffs presented above. Why don't you restore it so that it can be fixed?--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning (FYI, there currently is fair use rationale now). He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots. Though Delta may be right on paper, his methods are clearly violation of policy. If I was an admin, I would support harsh disciplinary action against Delta Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment WP:BRD is an essay, whereas WP:NFCC is policy. Removing files that don't meet the NFCC policy is permitted, even if they are inserted multiple times. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) The ND logo is free use, the UCLA logo is not. It would have been better to have removed them both, to be fair to both teams. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that Delta didn't indicates the lack of contextualizing his edits. There is now rationale for use of the UCLA logo in that article, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)`

NFCC is policy, and Delta was technically enforcing it, but the very first thing I noticed as well was bot-like behaviour. Six reverts to one article, all with the exact same edit summary, and exactly zero attempts to engage an apparently new editor to help them correct their ways. It strikes me that a human would figure out, sometime long before the sixth identical revert, that it might be time to change message or tactic. NFCC usage and enforcement is a giant clusterfuck at the best of times. No attempt whatsoever was made to guide the editor on how to correct their ways. That is the truly disappointing, and completely typical, aspect of Delta's behaviour. Also, looking at his log from today, 14 edits in one minute, all with identical edit summaries, on a very wide range of topics. Frankly, I question whether this is Delta himself making these edits, or a bot. Resolute 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could get a bot for this, however Ive been working on regexes to remove files for years and have had limited success, right now I have a process that works most of the time, but can break a page in about 5% of removals and until I get that figured out there is a snowballs chance in hell of me using a bot for this. However if you take a look at the JS tools that I have provided you will see a simi automated example of the removal script, with a smart edit summary tool. So yes its fairly easy to do large numbers of removals especially if you are working off a list of files that are used across multiple pages without rationales. So please stop the veiled attacks on my character and if you have questions about my actions, or how Im doing them you know where my talk page is. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Delta has technically violated the 3 revert rule, however, he was doing so to enforce the NFCC policy. To me it seems like this proposal is just another attempt to indef Delta. Enough is enough. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  3RR only makes an exception for unquestionable removals. This was not an unquestionable removal. Nowhere did I suggest he be indefinitely blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's unquestionable: the image lacked a proper rationale required by NFCC and the Foundation for its use there. Easily-fixable, that's a different story...--MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's not remotely unquestionable. The error was very easy to see, and Delta had plenty of opportunity over 6 reverts to notice the error and either fix it or bring it to the user's attention. Not once did Delta specifically state "There is no FUR pointing at this article". that probably would have given the uploader the kick he needed to notice the typo on the name. He just repeatedly stated over and over there wasn't a valid FUR linking to the big article on it, but never once stated the specific issue on this page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, we're back at editors using Delta to complain about the strict enforcement of NFCC. Now, I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right, but as far as current policy and NFCC goes, there is nothing wrong with >3RR on removing images that lack fair use rationales. If you don't like that, get consensus to change WP:3RR to change that. Or NFCC.

But now lets get back to the problem here. Under the consideration of the community restrictions, has Delta done anything wrong in this specific instance? No. Reverting with the same , correct edit summary (including the link to the right policy) and responding to the user to point him to the right place is all part of this. Yes, NFCC policy is not easy, but that's why there's plenty of places to ask questions. At worst, [15] this comment is slightly biting the newbies, but I've seen other established editors do far worse without repercussion.

What I do go back to is my suggestion from the last time Delta was here: that he should not be exceeding 1 or 2RR without attempting to engage in discussion on an appropriate talk page (the uploading using, the article in question, or the like). Delta's lack of reaching out first to explain the issue seems to be the biggest point of contention, because if he doesn't do it first, the resulting discussion may get argumentative from the POV of the uploader or user ("But this image is fair use!"-type arguments), and Delta gets stuck in a corner in how to respond politely.

Now, I know this is going to come up, but I am sure someone is going to suggest that Delta must fix any "simple" obvious errors in rationales before deleting them. While it may seem a fair requirement, at the end of the day, unless those simple errors are explicitly listed, this will be gamed against Delta to drive him from the project. ("Well, of course you should have know this was the logo for My Baseball Hometown Team instead of for My Basketball Hometown Team"). The burden, as stated many times over, is on the uploader or those wanting to retain the image to ensure NFCC is met. Even if you define simple cases, like disambig errors, someone will find a way to make a Delta change a huge violation of he restrictions.

Thus, the complaints on this specific issue cannot be dealt with, and one can only consider actions that force Delta to engage in conversation while fixing non-free problems as best he can. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if Delta meets any serious opposition to his removal, he needs to stop and take a serious look at what he's deleting. We might excuse him a single mistake of going through and missing a typo like the one we saw above, but after a couple reverts, he needs to start having a discussion, or thoroughly having a look at the image in question to see where the confusion may be. If he's going to get tied up with an article for over an hour and a half he could take a few minutes to look at the image more thoroughly. It's one thing if there is no FUR at all, it's another when there is a simple mix-up like this. There is a noticeboard for a reason and he either needs to handle this situations or send them off for someone else to have a more thorough and helpful look at them. To make it easier for him, I would accept him being allowed to run a script or something that would automatically kick articles to the noticeboard if he's been reverted twice on them, with the understanding that he walks way from those articles after they're passed on.--Crossmr (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've struck the block request, regardless of tamimo's discovered status, there was still clearly extensive edit warring over NFCC issues, that don't seem to be clearly exempted by 3RR, and which at least another editor agrees with, and likely more if this discussion is allowed to run its course. Can we use this as a talking point to get somewhere?--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock of User:Tamimo

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

This parts are finished

---

This appears to be the edit for which Tamimo (talk · contribs) was blocked. IMHO, the warning issued by Gfoley4 was more than sufficient. Tamimo made no further personal attacks after the warning was issued, and the only other interaction with Δ was to ask again why he keeps deleting the image. I feel that the block was not justified, and therefore should be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked the admin here [16] about it, but have yet to receive a reply.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported the user to AIV and Icairns decided to impose the temp block. Newbie or not, "dont u dare mess with me" is not an appropriate comment to make. Delta could have maybe explained the situation better to the newbie. "I don't understand" would have been a fair comment from the newbie. "dont u dare mess with me" is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So you reported a new user to AIV without first issuing a warning? You're aware that AIV complaints are typically not acted on unless there is a clear indication of warnings issued and ignored? #2 on the AIV instructions The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop., in fact it seems your report [17], came a full 7 minutes before the brand new user was issued a single warning [18]. Maybe this entire situation needs a far deeper look.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw "dont mess with me" as a threat of violence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For which the editor was (harshly?) warned at lvl 4. The block came without further continuation of the behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There can be no compromise where threats of violence are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Threats of violence need some legitimate component to them. There is no indication that this user had any personal knowledge of Delta, or that he was actually planning to attack him physically. There isn't even a physical component to the threat. For all you know, he may have meant "Don't mess with me or I'll report you". keep in mind it was only his first day of editing. There isn't even the remotest hint that there is a threat of violence here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw it differently, and still do. A user making a comment like that is up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Him "being up to no good" is a far cry from someone saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kick your ass", both of which are a far cry from "Don't mess with me". That's a terrible assumption of bad faith, that has zero basis in reality, and we don't even have a history on which to base it. If this was some long term user who'd had a history of physically threatening users who made this kind of comment, I guess. But a brand new guy on this first day of editing? Not even close.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see you prove that his threat of violence was baseless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First you need to prove there was a threat of violence. Please indicate where he said he would take any physical action, oh and again on AIV obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only, I don't see where the user did either of things.--Crossmr (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from, "Don't you dare mess with me" is a threat of violence. P.S. The guy's block has now expired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this user comes from "where you come from"?--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where he comes from, nor does it matter. Err on the side of caution. When someone makes what could be a threat of violence, they have to be dealt with. So, have you fixed that image's rationale yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a threat of violence. What if he meant something along the lines of "Don't you dare mess with me, or I'll file an ANI report"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*Ummmmm .... he hasn't even requested an unblock yet. Maybe wait and see what he says? — Ched :  ?  07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (STALE: block expired) — Ched :  ?  07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block has now expired. Tamimo was dealt with by means of a warning, as this was a first offence, that should have been sufficient. Δ could have done much to alleviate the situation than he did. By taking a step back and looking at the slightly wider picture, instead of robotically following the rules strictly to the letter, he could avoid many of these situations from arising. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes he could have, and that was the outcome of his arbcom case and community sanctions. That was supposed to be the entire point, but here we are, and he's still doing it. As the argument was made above, Delta was technically correct in that no FUR pointed at the article, but that is only due to a typo which makes the removal questionable, he was right on the basis of the FUR, but he was wrong in regards to 3RR and edit warring, and of course it happened over his favorite subject.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamimo, et al.

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.80.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.67.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.73.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These may all be the same guy, using a Nevada-based ISP. Note that his previous registered user ID was indef'd for copyright violations and personal attacks. Imagine that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Might want to file an SPI, so someone with Checkuser can see if there are any other IPs or accounts he has been editing from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, let's just leave the poor, misunderstood, abused newbie alone, as Crossmr thinks we should assume good faith. P.S. Here's one thing he said that got him blocked.[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to your original report, as you had no idea about this when you made it. You still haven't proved that he made any kind of threat of violence and in fact have only strengthened the fact that there wasn't one. His personal attacks are trivial at best, and in fact your sarcasm is stronger than his attack. As far as you were concerned you were reporting some new editor to an inappropriate noticeboard for an imagined attack based on your own personal bias. It's become quite evident that this is likely an immature user who probably needs mentoring, but as often the case in NFCC issues, appears to have been brow-beaten by more experienced users. Look at his talk page. He got absolutely slammed with notices. Something that wasn't supposed to be happening anymore, this is exactly one of the problems that was identified with betacommand and his bot.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My having turned him in was based on experience and what admins have advised me offline on numerous occasions. Meanwhile, Ched pointed out that the guy made no attempt at an unblock request, which seemed a bit curious, so I investigated a little bit. If you think the guy can be mentored, feel free to volunteer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is different. Socking to avoid a block is something which should be investigated if there is credible evidence that it has taken place. Tamimomari was blocked on 4 June, Tamimo did not edit before 6 June. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the dynamic IP ranges, he might be hard to stop. If you start following the chain of the IP's, they go back a few months, with additional 71's turning up. I remain convinced that he only created the registered users in order to upload pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• hmmm ... the closer ya look .... just sayin., — Ched :  ?  08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Image needs restored

Resolved

Image has been restored so that errors can be fixed

Future perfect deleted the image, but it appears he's now gone offline. As he noted there was a missing license, I'd like to fix it, but I didn't save the image. So if someone could go ahead and restore the image so that I could fix the license, I'll do so. From what I recall, it looks like a title image similar to File:Friends_titles.jpg so I'll check the source and update it appropriately.--Crossmr (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted under F7. There's no mega rush here. Having seen the image, It could be described as a screenshot of a title sequence rather than a logo. Given that the uploader is a new editor, we can expect mistakes to be made, as seen above. This may be another mistake. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that above, but he said people were free to restore it if they wanted to fix it, I want to fix it, but he hasn't restored it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Google cached it [20] this page contains the same image, and it's clearly a title screen (which contains a logo), the same as the friends logo.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like the one I saw yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not showing in FPAS's deletion log. If you can show me where he said that, then I'll undelete the image for you to fix it. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's right here [21] in his deletion log

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free use policy: obviously false tag (not a logo))

and he said right here he didn't object to people restoring it to fix it [22].--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So we have one admin who blocked the guy for making a threat, and another admin who deleted the image on the grounds that the guy violated the fair use rules. Looks like a growing conspiracy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like FPAS beat me to the undeletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated it with the additional license and added the word "titlescreen" to the description.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You also need to add it to the appropriate article, or the orphaned-fair-use bot will tag it for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow up

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

No administrative action is needed at this time. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Yeah..not sure who this person is that closed it, but the immediate matter was neither dealt with, nor does tamimo being a sock end up being relevant to the issue. It wasn't known when Delta was making the reverts, and if tamimo hadn't been a sock, there is no evidence that Delta wouldn't have done the exact same thing. Even Massem seems to agree that Delta should be limited to 1 or 2RR on NFCC issues, this discussion was certainly still on-going--Crossmr (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• My position is this: based on the last Delta thread, I can't see us reasonably putting a 1RR or 2RR limit on Delta without being too specific on the types of edits that are, but that doesn't address the core issue in that the past incivility and the like that came from Delta generally arose from him not communicating the issues of NFCC. That is, my belief is that a reasonable community restriction that would help improve the core issue is to require Delta on a contested NFCC matter to explain on an appropriate talk page what the issue is before engaging in either a second or third revert. It doesn't matter if this is a templated message or what, but as long as he is explaining his actions away from his own talk page, that's the head start that is needed. That's above any other matters and assumes he is following NFCC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is in separating genuine disputes from people who might try to abuse it. How about this - Delta should only feel free to continually revert NFCC issues on images where NO FUR appears at all, not just for that article but for any article. Beyond that he should limit himself to a single revert, and then kick it off to the noticeboard for others to handle. This gives him an opportunity to make his case and if it doesn't hold, then he can let others handle it and avoid conflict. This way if there is confusion over the FUR, like in the case above where it was a simple typo, it can be handled without mass reverts on the part of Delta. As I said, I'd support allowing him an automated process to kick off pages which he meets opposition to make it easier and faster for him to handle these without adding a big burden to his work and letting others who may handle the situation better or more thoroughly do so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  He's not abusing NFCC. Unless someone wants to propose that change at WT:NFCC or at WT:3RR, Delta's following the letter of the law and within the bounds of the community restrictions. What I surmise others want is that Delta be a bit more human in his edits - and that means at minimum discussion resulting after his first remove is reverted prior/as he completes the second revert, and not just via edit summary notice. Pretty much every situation that appears where Delta is heading down the incivility track is due to lack of personable communication with the person that is reverting him. I would be a bit cautious on the next possible step, preventing Delta from exceeding 3RR on NFCC matters, but as you say, the infrequency of these cases usually means that if Delta lets someone else know about the issue that person can step in to take over to deal with the persistent user that's engaging in the EW.--MASEM (t) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  That's debatable as some users do think he's abusing NFCC. In this case I feel he was, and I wasn't the only one. As I've mentioned before, you either get to choose the letter of the law, or you don't. If you want to live by the letter of the law, do you know how many violations of his community sanctions he's committed these days? Even if it's policy, he really shouldn't edit warring anyway. That gets him into a bad situation. Even if he is right, if he's edit warring with some new user, we could end up chasing away a user who is just confused. He's done it in the past, as users have basically said they left because of the way he acted. So even if he is following the letter of the law, it's how he follows it that causes issues, and now that I've thought about it more, he really should be at 1RR on all NFCC for the sake of his interactions with others. He can remove an image twice, and if there is still opposition, kick it off rather than risk creating a bad situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get all this straight. Delta scares me with talk of blocking me in User talk:Chaswmsday#WDTN and User talk:Chaswmsday#June_2011, based on what I later find is just his/her own Essay: WP:Fair use overuse, assuming Delta=Betacommand=Durin. And the Essay seems to misquote WP:NFCC items 3a and 8. But if I dare revert Delta's edits to keep the images in question from being orphaned and then speedily deleted, I could be charged with edit warring, but that any of Delta's subsequent reverts of my reverts would not be counted against him/her, even though there would be no huge consequence to keeping the images intact while the dispute is pending. And just how/when is the dispute resolved? When a few users who have a certain bias in their minds get their way on an issue that allegedly was settled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Use of images in articles? And that can be justified both by argument and by a reasonable interpretation of 3a and 8? When I leave in frustration? Urgh. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, Delta's using standard template warning messages for over-use of images and 3RR, so I would not talke it as "scaring" you to avoid a block - they're boiler plate messages that behavior like this is discouraged. Secondly, no, Delta (who is Betacommand) is not Durin. That essay was written a few years ago so the exactly language of NFCC#3a and 8 may have changed, but the intent has not - we strive to minimize non-free images and only use them where they aid in comprehension of the article. Delta's removals and reverts of that are in line with established practice that loading a number of decorative images into an article is never appropriate, the idea that some may be readded after considering how each meets NFCC. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:WDTN. First, if the essay is out of date, it should be edited. Second, what is the definition of "decorative"? Third, how would images of the same type greater in number than some arbitrary number per article (say, 2) ever meet NFCC? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'decorative' are things that can easily be replaced with text, or items that severely limit the readers comprehension of the topic when no free replacement would be possible. Without critical commentary for why the old logos are notable in their own right and have sources providing citations on aspects of the logo itself (not just being used for identification like the current logo) then it falls under decorative. -- ۩ Mask 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletionists typically hate things that make an article easier for the average viewer to comprehend, such as illustrations and lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is that people do not read the notices/edit summaries that I leave. Unless I start using extremely large red blinking text Im not sure how else to get them to read the notices that I leave. When I make an edit I clearly state the reasons why. 95% of the time users just stick there fingers in their ears and ignore what Im trying to tell them, and they just blindly revert to their version, not bothering to even consider the reason for my edit. I have provided several useful scripts for working with/checking non-free files and their rationales. see:

• importScript('User:Δ/NFCC.js');
• tools:~betacommand/check_files.html
• tools:~betacommand/rationale check.html
• example of checking all uses of a file for rationales.

Im doing just about as much as I can except saying fuck WP:NFCC, lets use as much as we want ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the standard "explanation" doesn't make sense to newbies. I know at one time it didn't make sense to me, either, and I had to ask whoever it was (not Beta/Delta), and probably more than once, just what that standard warning is supposed to mean in plain English. What it means is, "You're using it in article that's not listed in the picture's fair use rationale." In this case, the user Tamimo (now indef'd as a sock of Tamimomari) didn't ask the right questions, hence he and Delta were talking past each other. Then Tamimo issued a threat (continuing the bad behavior he had shown as Tamimomari toward another editor), which escalated. Whoever brought this here led us to the serendipitous discovery of sockpuppetry. But this problem could arise again, and I think the solution is a more-clearly-worded explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, as I have said, I am always open to suggestions/modifications of the notices I leave. However very few people step up and lend a hand fixing that. Ive seen two people step up and lend a hand, Hammersoft and Xeno User_talk:Δ#Maryland_State_Colonization_Society, and in both cases I have adapted my notices/edit summaries to try and make things clearer. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on Delta, you've had move lives than a thousand cats. You've been talked to countless times and it's done essentially no good because you're a AN/ANI regular still after years of the same behavior. Just think that if all the user and admin effort that's gone into attempting to deal with you had instead been put into actually improving articles....and even more so if we didn't need AN/ANI/Arbcom/etc. It's a mind boggling thought.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because people just complain, say "it should be done better" but never actually put their money where their mouths are. Hammersoft and Xeno are part of the solution, instead of just complaining, Ive made multiple suggestions including a file/use discussion similar to FFD but for individual uses rather than the whole file (cases where a file is being over used but FFD has zero chance of deletion) Take a look at my edits and compare them with policy, Every single one of my rationale missing removals is exactly within policy. I also have one of the highest mainspace percents with relation to my contributions. Most people who follow these notice boards have anywhere from 10-40% of their edits to articles, very very rarely will you see one with 60%. I on the other hand spend most of my time working on articles and have over an 80% mainspace I typically spend most of my time working in the article space and avoiding the drama boards. If we deleted AN/ANI I bet we would loose a lot of people here just for the drama. I however focus on what actually matters, articles. you are only at about a 45% mainspace ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's because some poeple, you in this case, refuse to learn how work truly productively in a collaborative environment. You avoid drama boards? ROTFL. Delete AN/ANI, yea, you'd be one we loose because you you thrive on it.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the main issue, and in fact you've been told by users you accused of not reading them that they had. Your explanations are sometimes not that clear or helpful. Look at this case. This was a case of a typo. You took the time to revert the article 6 times, but not once did you look at the image and realize "oh there is a movie and a drama, this image obviously isn't being used on the movie page, and has the words 'identify the drama' in it". I know many people like to often say "I can't possibly know what the intended use is", but in this case, it was extremely obvious what the intended use was. The image was used in one article and had one FUR they just didn't match because of a naming typo. Had you fixed that obvious error, or even said to the user "The FUR doesn't point directly at this article" they may have noticed the error and we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasnt that simple taking a quick look I saw a film and what appears to be a tv show both using an image, I dont know if the tv show spun off the movie or vise a versa, I cant tell what the file is really, (Ive seen movie screenshots used in TV articles) so its not as clear as you claim it was. I took the safest route and just removed it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was that simple. The description clearly said "Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial- ;Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat." The image was NEVER added to the movie article, and the movie article doesn't even mention the drama at all. The image was added to the drama article 2 minutes after being uploaded. It could not have been anymore obvious where this image really belonged especially after looking at it 6 times. The movie article clearly says it is from 1997, and the drama is from 2008, the movie obviously did not spin off from the drama. The file was clearly described (missing a single word does not make it as unclear as you'd like to claim) and had you followed the source you'd have clearly seen that the page is about the TV show and the image is being used to identify that.--Crossmr (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a very productive discussion at this point. I think what would be helpful is if we drafted a "Common FUR problems" document that our NFCC workers like Δ could link to that would offer tips to users whose images have been removed from articles. Would you be willing to help me put such a document together? 28bytes (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right"--that's an understatement. In my 6 weeks of editing, I've seen more AN/ANI threads about Δ (why can't he pick a name that appears on a standard keyboard?)/Betacommand than anyone else. From reading these and backlinks, it's obvious this person has a years long history of problematic behavior; behavior that obviously isn't going to change and centers on two things: atrocious behavior and non-free images. Why does wiki continue to endure such behavior? It seems self defeating to me. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just my view: I like 28bytes' suggestion on something being drafted up in laymen's terms that's easy to understand. There are folks here (including me) who have been here for years that have trouble wrapping their head around our legal issues. WP:NFCC, WP:PLAG, WP:COPY etc. I understand the wording in places like that is by necessity very legalistic, and each time I read through them I get a bit more out of them ... but I digress. Just from my experiences ... Delta is passionate about these things, and they are extremely important. I know Delta may not be a "chit-chatty" "how's the wife and kids" kinda guy, but he knows this technical stuff inside and out. I've never seen him fail to steer a person in the right direction if asked about a computer, programming, technical, or wiki kind of question. He's given me some very sound advice on several occasions (although I doubt he'd remember). All I'm saying is that maybe it's time to give him a bit of room, and a little bit of help; instead of the constant "why can't you be nice" let's poke the bear and see if he'll growl stuff. Let's not forget that he's done some great stuff here, give credit where it's due.

I do understand the hard feelings from days gone by, but it sure seems to me that he's been doing his damnedest to comply with the community. Honestly, do you think he'd still be here if he didn't honestly care about what's best for the 'pedia? ... OK .. I'm done running my mouth now ... have a great weekend all. — Ched :  ?  05:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ched hits the nail on the head here. Delta is very knowledgible and skilled, especially in the technical areas and in NFCC issues. However, he is not very good at communicating with people who are less knowledgable in these areas (read: just about everyone else) and invariably this leads to conflict. The trouble is that the image policy is complex, especially for new users, and Delta expects all other users to be as fully versed in the policy as himself, and he has (to my observation) shown no interest in educating users in the policy, if they can't figure it out he seems to have little patience with them. At some point dealing with Delta's interaction styles we all begin to feel like King Cnut facing down the tides: No matter how much we want him to be more accomodating towards users who do not understand NFCC policy, he's just not going to. We'd have a better chance of getting the tides to stop comming in. I don't know exactly what this means or how we should proceed. On the one hand, he does needed work. On the other hand, the manner in which he does this work causes much consternation, and has for many years. I guess I am saying, I want Delta to continue to do his work, but I want him to be better about working inexperienced users through the minefield that NFCC policy is; helping users who are using the wrong template, or misspelling things, or whatever do it right. Most users want to do it the right way, and are willing to learn, and I just want Delta to take more interest in teaching them. Ah, well, the tide is coming in again. Pardon me while I tell it to stop... --Jayron32 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, and that's the entire point of this. He didn't get it before, the community finally got fed up and kicked him out..he was let back in under heavy protest, and heavy restrictions, and he still doesn't get it. I'm seeing absolutely nothing different about his behaviour now than I saw 3-4 years ago. From the unhelpful and repetitive reverts of a confused user (sock or not is irrelevant, there is no evidence anyone involved knew that at the time), to these kinds of statements directed at users he's in dispute with [23], to ignoring the community by violating his sanctions both by starting large projects without first proposing them, to blowing through his edit restriction so many times I gave up counting, and having 3 blocks stick, and one questionable one reversed that some people supported. That's all happened in the last 5 weeks or so. As a member of the community, it just boggles my mind. As a community I think we need to draw a bright line and say: He gets it and we all forget about it and move on, or he doesn't get it and we all forget about it, and he moves on. I don't see any other way we can move forward. Users have, in the past, left the project because of him, because of the way he conducts himself with what he does. The conduct has seemingly not changed, as such I can only worry that we'll again lose users because of that conduct.--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you declined to respond to my offer above to help draft a document that would help these confused users you speak of, I'm forced to assume you're more interesting in bashing Δ than in solving the problem with confused users. As such, I'm closing this thread. If a new incident arises that needs administrative action, feel free to open one. And if you should decide to reconsider working on a guide for helping users identify and fix FUR problems, you know where to find me. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow up 2

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

Despite that lovely assumption of bad faith, I wrote that on the way out, and didn't see your small comment tucked away in the middle, the problem is in fact not confused new users. Do they need help? Yes. Should we make a document clearer for them? absolutely. But all we're doing is treating symptoms. We're not taking care of the problem. I am not bashing Delta. I was clearly outlining how I viewed the situation, and the giant issue I'm seeing here. The problem is clearly, and has been for 3-4 years, Delta. Other users seem to handle NFCC without generating the problems he does. When it comes down to these situations, it takes two users. The person adding the image, and the person removing it. And as Delta has said, there is only one constant. Throughout all this time, and all those users, we can't try and shift the blame to them. They are new users and we expect them to make errors. It's how we respond to them as a community that is important and the way he responds isn't. As for actually writing the document, am I good choice to do so? Probably not. I'm hardly the expert others are at NFCC, and you'd be far better off getting someone who regularly deals with NFCC stuff and is known for interacting well with users to help you write something, but I do think the document is needed. The last time I took part in an NFCC discussion was probably years ago, heck the last time I even uploaded an NFCC image was over a year ago.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes' suspicions echoed mine, as you continued to defend that user despite its own behavior, and it looked like your agenda was to gripe about Delta. The right response to Delta's standard-form FUR edit summary should have been, "What does this mean? I don't understand", and NOT "dont u dare mess with me". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr has also posted on my talk page, so I have replied there. Short version: no, Δ isn't a particularly good coach for new users struggling with FURs and NFCC, and hammering that point home doesn't really help anything. What would help is a simple troubleshooting guide, which Ched and I will work on this week. Everyone with experience or interest in this area is invited to join us. 28bytes (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Just point us to the right link. While you're at it, someday, something in plain English about how to upload a free photo would be good. It seems like every time I go to upload a photo I've taken, several layers of complexity have been added. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do; as soon as there's a link, I'll make sure it gets advertised. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond being a bad coach. Users have stated that they have either curbed their editing or stopped editing because of the interactions they've had with Delta. That is a huge problem for the project, and goes well beyond simply creating a "NFCC for dummies" guide. Is that needed? Yes. But it doesn't solve the actual problem. Delta knows that he has the issues. He's known for years. Yet we still see him getting into the same situations. No one has a gun to his head forcing him to handle NFCC issues. At any point he can walk away, and there are times when he should. If he's been reverted a couple of times, he needs to kick it off to a noticeboard and let someone else handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are we still debating over this when the original account in question that Crossmr tried to defend is blocked indef for socking? It sounds like a kangaroo court to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it being a sock is irrelevant to the actual issue. There is no evidence Delta knew it was a sock. The account in question was making a trivial error in the FUR (the edits were otherwise fine and appropriate) and the issue is the unhelpful and blind reverting. This could have been any old new user. Let's not forget just shortly there after he got involved in an edit war on rd232's talk page that some admins thought he should have been blocked for (and one did block him before realizing there was a declined 3RR request already on it, but others had posted supporting it), and hardly an isolated case. While he's often right in the removal of the images, it's how he removes them, and sometimes when he's not right that causes issues, but he seems to treat them all the same. Let's take a look at the history of this talk page which also occurred at the same time: [24]. While the removal is mostly inline with policy, his final removal, where he just quotes policy, with no explanation [25], is not actually removing an image. There is no image on this page [26], so I don't see how a link to an image violates NFCC. It seems pretty clear that he wasn't even looking at the page and just saw his edit had been undone, so he responded in kind. While it's not a 3RR violation, he's edit warring without carefully checking his edits, because he removed no image from that page. He also reverted 6 times over at [27], which again may have been inline with policy, but he only used a helpful edit summary the first time. There is no evidence there the user is banned, and it's the exact same behaviour. While in this case we're not dealing with a FUR that has a typo (it was actually missing in at least some of the images) Delta handled the situation identically.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, Actually if you take a look at the diffs you can see that the files where added back in (almost correct syntax), not using the standard [[:File: link but the actual media usage of [[File: so it is fairly easy to miss that the magic word __nogallery__ with a file would break it. I was using diffs and saw a [[File usage which normally represents a file being used and reverted. I am getting sick and tired of you assumptions of bad faith, and insults. And yes I suspected that Tamimo was a sock, because I still had Rang_Badalti_Odhani on my watchlist. Im tempted to start a request to have you topic banned from me due to your repeated hounding. The reason that I kick up so much dust while enforcing NFC is because most other NFC enforcers do as much as I do with regards to missing rationales/overuse. Just ask User:Beetstra most people do not listen and blindly re-add their files without fixing the problem, Beetstra has actually placed several blocks for this due to users not listening. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Crossmr seems to be on a mission of some kind here. The editor Tamimo's being a sock most certainly is relevant to the overall picture. The thing is, though, Tamimo asked you why you kept deleting his image, and your explanation wouldn't necessarily make sense to a newbie - because, as I said earlier, the standard explanations are not plain English. They assume the user already knows what the jargon means. It's true the editor was a sock and acted like a junior-high-level jerk. But even so, he deserved a newbie-level (i.e. straightforward) explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the crux of the problem with delta. Which has been explained how many times now? @Δ: Dude, how many times does someone have to say what is substantially the same thing (or block you) before you start saying "humm, maybe the problem actually isn't with everyone else. Maybe I'm actually taking the wrong approach."? Despite protestations from your supporters, it's not wheter you're right or wrong, it's how you play the "game"!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes is working on some better explanations which will help alleviate the issue greatly. As for Crossmr's hounding of Delta, it is becoming farcical at this point. To the point above me, Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game. Aggregating sources and building articles out of them is the exact same skills (analysis of statements and context, critical thinking) that are required to read the policy links and come to some understanding of them. I would hazard a guess rage-quitting over Delta corresponds greatly with editors of temperment and attitude ill-suited to producing a reference work in a collaborative environment. In other words, if it wasn't this it would have been something else sooner or later. -- ۩ Mask 06:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me. "Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game"? If that's what you got out of my comment above, then you're an idiot AKMask. As for crossmr... he probably is hounding delta, but delta brings it on himself. You and his other advocates only make it worse because you're enabling his poor behavior. Anyway, none of this really matters to me, so... whatever. You guys deal with this, I'm done with it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Idiot (or moron, as you used in the edit summary) is far from the worst I've gotten on here. I'll chalk it up to you being upset consensus is not with your approach. -- ۩ Mask 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright Delta, I'll believe you. I know you're making edits that you believe will help the project, but you have to realize that the people who speak out against you are doing the same thing. Personally I'm quite disgusted when I see that a user has stopped editing or mostly quit because of interacting with you. can you please consider kicking off difficult users to someone else? To the noticeboard, to another user on the talk page, just anywhere else? Heck you know what, if someone reverts you more than twice on a page, put them on my page and I'll take care of it. Just anything to stop this relentless hammering of new users. The project won't get sued in the short time it takes for someone else to get on it. Go ahead and close this, some people have once again disagreed with the way you do things, some have supported it, and we're obviously not going to get anywhere, even though I thought we might earlier.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And I will say that contrary to the allegations and assumptions of bad faith that have been made, I don't hound your edits. I do defend my point, and don't simply walk away because of a little opposition. I've only posted 2 topics 8 days apart on two separate incidents and in the case of the second, I first ran it by Jayron32 who suggested I post it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support a 1-minute block People in this thread seem to think that WP:3RR says nothing about WP:NFCC other than it's ok to keep reverting past 3RR to remove it. In fact, it states: "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption" (emphasis mine). Δ needs to be less combative. While a 1-minute block wouldn't stop him from doing anything of significance, it would be logged and discourage edit wars in the future. Δ should get other editors involved instead of just getting into revert battles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  That wouldn't accomplish anything. His community ban didn't change his attitude, why would a one-minute block do so? Resolute 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  Sigh. Δ does such good work in other areas too. Why is it some people (Δ isn't the only one to be sanctioned in the past) become so obsessed with this particular area of Wikipedia? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's policy, and there's no figuring wikipedia policy. They allow any moron to edit, unregistered yet, while just about any website on God's Green Earth that allows user input requires registration; and meanwhile they have a much stricter fair use policy than the law requires. Although, as cases like the Tamimo affair suggest, maybe the one necessitates the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  A 1 minute block will register a "foul" has been committed. Unless we note this, behavior that runs right up to the border of what is acceptable will continue to be swept under the rug/ignored. Sure, he does good work in other areas too, but that doesn't excuse his bad behavior. It sure can mitigate "punishment" (example: a court case in which a billionaire philanthropist kills someone accidentally in a bar, the courts are likely to rule more favorably in the punishment phase than a coke dealer on his 5th conviction for manslaughter...but both are still guilty and deserve to face rehabilitation). People continue to be opposed (not obsessed) to such behavior because it is the point of contention that causes the most trouble. He could largely walk away from ever editing a single image again and, instead, focus on improving core articles. Instead, he continues to address areas where he thinks there are problems and handles them in a hostile manner. Tothwolf, I'm not so interested in sanctions in the past (if there are any). I'm only interested in the sanctions he's under now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Blocks are preventive, not punitive. 1-min block definitely falls into the realm of being punitive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  At the same time, as I tried to point out on your talk page, such "annotation blocks" appear to be controversial. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DC connector

This section split from #Follow up 2. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I privately queried Δ about this removal of File:Powerpole.JPG from DC connector this last Thursday. It was clear that the FUR template had the article name wrong (DC Connector instead of DC connector, which has since apparently been corrected [28]) but when I pointed this out to Δ, he then began to argue that his removal was not due to the typo in the FUR, but instead that the image was replaceable and that it violated NFCC. I explained to him that this particular image would be next to impossible to replace given this type of connector, but I got nowhere and finally had to give up trying to discuss this with him. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ happens to be right. This is an article of electrical equipment that exists in the real world. It is not a statue or other artistic work. Therefore, any Wikipedia editor can photograph one of them and release it under a free license. Further, the image wasn't tied to the text in any way. It's completely replaceable. I'm sorry that you're wrong, but that doesn't constitute poor behavior on Δ's part. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you or another editor actually put your hands on one of these and photograph it? This sort of argument has come up before for other images and doesn't hold up when you can't actually obtain one of these to photograph. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• For transparency, I'm noting here that I've undone this edit by Hammersoft which was made without an edit summary. If this image could be replaced by a free image I would be all for it, but when one cannot actually obtain the item to take a photograph, it is impossible to create a free photograph of the item. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is that a current piece of equipment? If so, this is not like trying to get a free photo of the Unibomber. Couldn't someone just go to their local hardware store and take a picture of one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's funny you say that because a very old painting of Kim Jong-il was deleted for that very reason. You know, because every wikipedian has a special forces team at their disposal to break into north Korea.--Crossmr (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• As I understand it, no. It is a proposed standard for DC power distribution in data centers. The connectors are highly specialised and are not readily available (meaning one can't just go out and buy one), otherwise we could create a free photograph of one. I would actually love to replace this image with a free photo too, the quality of this one is not that great. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I give up [29] I'm tired of this sort of bullshit. No, it isn't available, although the manufacturer would probably be happy to custom manufacture 100,000 pcs for you. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, here is a random though, email the company asking for a image released under a free license. Most companies would jump for the chance for some free advertising on wikipedia. But no, instead of taking a few minutes and attempting to get a free file lets just ignore the m:Mission and and use a non-free file. Or try emailing someone/group that installs these, or has one in their facility. With a little leg work getting free versions of files isn't that difficult. Yes no free version exists now, and if we dont attempt to get one, one will never exists.... ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I just spent a few minutes, drafted and sent an email to Anderson requesting a freely licensed file we can use. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Gosh, so why then Δ couldn't you have done that in the first place? Is it just far easier to just remove the image [30] without any sort of notification to the uploader, or perhaps bite a newbie editor such as Webwat, as some others have done with templates on his talk page? (It would be nice if people would be nicer to new editors such as Webwat.)

  While most manufacturers are not going to be willing to license product photos under a free license (legal worries, concerns of competitors using their photos, concerns that people may think their designs are free, ...), you are certainly welcome to try. Here is a link to the section of their site for these style of connectors and there is a customer service link at the bottom of this page. Maybe you can obtain a photos of these custom connectors.

  As I explained to you previously Δ, you aren't going to find anyone "out in the field" with these connectors, period. The only people who might have them are either the original manufacturer (although they would likely be more than happy to manufacture and sell you a large order), or previously, one of the demonstration sites (which likely no longer exist given how long ago this was). As far as I'm aware, despite the standards, no one is using these connectors in production devices. See these links for more information: [31] [32] [33] [34] (this pdf file being the source of the photo in question) Note that these documents have been cited elsewhere, too. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)...and on that note, a much better version of the original photo can be found on LBL's site here which is linked from the FAQ here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• To be blunt, it's not Delta's responsibility to do that. I have to say I'm quite impressed that he's going above and beyond the call, to model the way for future newbies (and old-bies, like me) on how to go about getting, or trying to get, a free image. Perhaps that kind of info could be included in the simplified instructions that 28bytes is developing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• True, and to be fair I wrote the above reply before Δ replied a second time here. I also just now noticed the note Webwat added to File talk:Powerpole.JPG. Others might find it worth reading. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. It indicates a willingness to work with us, and that's good. It also occurs to me that a willingness to work with Delta, instead of beating up on him all the time as some users do (and which I used to do also), would be more productive for all concerned. Let's hope all this discussion results in a good step forward for all of us. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• He also asked about the ".jpg" vs. ".JPG" stuff, which is one of the technical oddities about this site. The file could be renamed, although perhaps it would be better to see what result Delta gets from his e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we do keep the file and rename it, it would be best replaced with this version anyway since it is higher quality and does not have the artifacts introduced from being included in a PDF and then extracted.

  Given the image was created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is funded by the United States Department of Energy, I've been wondering about the copyright status of the image too. LBL publishes a copyright statement here, but it directs inquiries to the page owner.

  Because these are custom connectors, I'm still not sure that APP is going to be able to help us, but LBL might. This page has some contact information and this page gives a contact email for high resolution video. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Crossmr

Crossmr (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly posting to several different venues and talkpages trying to sanction Delta and attacking anyone who tries to close down the threads above, including: Fastily's talkpage, mine, FPS's, 28bytes's and Sven Manguard]'s, as well as the Edit-Warring noticeboard. Despite having two final warnings about his continuous hounding of Delta, from two administrators, he continues to post about Delta, rather than working on some useful articles. How many more warnings does he need before he stops? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta has taken steps to improve the fair-use message he was leaving. To me that shows a willingness to work with us. Crossmr needs to back off a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I 'backed off' a day and a half ago now. The last two discussions that were petering out had nothing to do with Delta at all really.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see here:

• Regarding your page, I was not the only one who thought it was a mistake for you to close it. Baseball bugs also said that he was going to open it again if I hadn't of
• Regard fastily's page comment, I was seeking clarification on his why he made the decision he made, and I was not the only one. A group of admins later blocked Delta over that edit war, but then it was overturned because they didn't know there had been a declined 3RR on it.
• Both Future Perfect's and Sven's talk pages are replies to comments on my talk page. I am allowed to reply to people who write on my talk page right? Both of these discussions are not even really about Delta, they are more about the discussion and their edits and my edits.
• Future perfect's warning is nothing more than baseless personal attacks. Which he was asked to support with diffs and refused, and for which there is no basis to support his claim that I was either forum shopping, nor persistently badgering admins about how hard they sanctioned Delta [35]
• As for the 3RR noticeboard, I posted my interpretation of policy and the situation surrounding it, one someone else had already basically stated. I didn't even address delta by name or ask for a specific action against delta. I was actually speaking to Mickmacknee's edits more than I was speaking to Delta's. I still don't see where I'm prohibited on commenting on an open thread.
• and Beestra's warning? Well His warning is based on nothing more than his view that two people can't have a conversation about someone on a talk page without notifying them, otherwise it's uncivil. I asked him to cite the relevant policy that stated that, and I still haven't seen it.
• and 28byte's and I's disagreement was based on a misunderstanding between us. One we've already drawn to a conclusion, he thought I'd ignored him, I thought his close sounded spiteful. If you note above he came back to the thread and we had no problem continuing our dialog.
• Just for clarification where was it that you notified me about this? You know, as required by the page header above, since I'd already stated above that I was done with this discussion, and in fact stated that in a couple places (since you went to all of them and checked). it was only by chance that I caught this. just so we're clear here:
• You disrupted a discussion by closing it, that another user agreed was inappropriate
• You started a thread a day and a half after I clearly stated I was done and made no further comments about Delta here asking "when I'm going to stop"
• You failed to notify me of this thread as required by the noticeboard

I guess I could turn around and ask you the same. Oh an my continuing to post [36] has nothing to do with Delta, and it's about Future perfect's unsubstantiated allegations. I recommended on your talk page that you should read things more thoroughly, I'll repeat it here. No where in that post was I complaining about delta, I was going over my edits to clarify them with FP.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so there is no further confusion, I consider this conversation about Delta done. I considered it done a day and a half ago (other meta conversations aside that weren't directly about Delta). While some others also have yet again taken issue with the way delta edits, it's clear once again we'll have no consensus. Hopefully Delta will improve his process and we won't ever have to have this conversation again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Crossmr, you reported ∆ to Rd232 for typing an all-caps edit summary - unlike typing 'fucking twat', typing in all caps can be a good faith mistake (forgetting to turn it off) - I agree, it was unlikely here, it turned out that it was not a case of forgetting to turn it off, etc. But still, there was a good faith explanation possible, which you simply ignored). You did not ask ∆, you just went to Rd232 and reported him for incivility (and also there you did not show that you considered it could have been just a plain mistake). To me, that show a lack of assuming good faith on ∆. Then you do go immediately to an admin, you do not notify ∆, you do not talk to ∆ about it. That is, just by common sense, uncivil. We do not have policies and guidelines for it, but if editors come complaining to me about another editor without talking with that editor first about the situation, I do say "did you ask the editor", "did you try to talk to the editor" - similarly, if someone reports an editor to AIV, and the editor did not get any warnings before, then the vandalism should be pretty grave otherwise it will simply be ignored (I hope).

We expect ∆ to be civil, ∆ has been very civil for thousands of edits, except for some (one?) case(s) where he was treated with continued incivility, rudeness etc. He was blocked for that, and ∆ did not complain, no-one complained that that was a improper block. Yet, ∆ is confronted on a daily basis with unnecessary incivility (like this remark about ∆, by you, to Rd232, what was the problem to first ask/remark to ∆ first, or to notify him, even if you were (or turned out to be) right, Crossmr? - especially since this was not a clear cut form of incivility, people do forget caps-lock sometimes ..). If we expect ∆ to be civil, then I also expect editors to be civil against ∆ - if ∆ is uncivil, well, he is under civility parole, he will run into an immediate block then. But I will, increasingly, be warning editors who are uncivil against ∆, I will ask them to take care, to try and assume good faith. And just as single cases of incivility by ∆ will result in immediate blocks of ∆, I will block (and have blocked) editors who are repeatedly incivil against ∆ (of course, after significant warning). You did not, by policy or guideline, have to notify ∆ that you were talking about him somewhere else, but that does not make such behaviour civil. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S., you've got my name spelled wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I made that comment based both on the fact that it was all caps, and the fact that he made that edit summary before he'd communicated to the user that he didn't want to receive talk back messages. I'll also point out that nowhere in the message did I ask for any specific action against Delta, nor at any time did I recommend he be blocked or banned during the discussion. As I've already said, Rd232 was seemingly handling all things Delta at that time, and I commented on it to make him aware of it. only after I discovered what I felt to be a further example of uncivil behaviour directed at the same user did I suggest a warning a most. If I wanted to make a formal complaint about him, I would have brought it to AN/I (which would have no doubt been drama inducing) and notified him as I did here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So that basically confirms that you ignored the fact that it could have been a good faith case of forgetting to turn off the caps lock .. ánd you think that talking about editors around their back is a form of civil interaction between editors, Crossmr. I am disappointed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Who was talking behind his back? As Delta stated, he has the talk page watchlisted. He was the first person to respond to the comment a very short time after I posted it. He'd posted to the page a mere hour and a half before I had and responded only 22 minutes after I did. The discussion was no mystery to him. For all the time you've spent insisting that you think I was somehow assuming bad faith for commenting on a sanctioned user without first talking to him, you might want to remember that in assuming good faith yourself you have to remember that I felt I was making edits that were for the best of the project, and as the policy states ..there is no corresponding policy requiring editors to act in good faith. Thus accusations of bad faith serve no purpose., and yet I've almost lost count of how many times you've said it. You are right though that this entire situation is rather disappointing. You might have a case to make if I'd made this comment in secret somewhere insisting repeatedly that he be blocked immediately, but that is not the case.--Crossmr (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a weak excuse, Crossmr. ∆ has the page watchlisted, so it is fine? No, it does not work like that. And it is actually ashaming that they were answering before being notified (I got such a remark because I was writing out a long remark after blocking someone - I did not notify the editor of the why of the block!). And so when it is not written down in policy or guideline, one can do whatever one wants? Crossmr, there is a lot not in guidelines and policies on Wikipedia but still it is not done. And note, I did not accuse you of bad faith, Crossmr - I just noticed your lack of assuming good faith (I mentioned '.. you would have been right to assume bad faith' - I did not say that you assumed bad faith).

But well, if I understand you well, you were just chit-chatting with Rd232 about an all-caps edit summary by ∆ for the best of the project. I am not sure how this exactly helps the project, I don't see how it in any form would improve an article, but maybe you can enlighten me on that (same goes for these endless discussions about all the massive, unrepairable damage that Delta is doing - editors could use their time better - e.g.:). Anyway, I think that it is better for the project if editors (you, perhaps?) started to help out ∆ with removing images which do not have a fair-use rationale, to talk to editors who blindly revert ∆ while his edit is right (or help them solve the perceived problem), to talk to editors who blatantly yell at ∆, throwing insults or incivility at him (or at others, for that matter, I get the same type of insults). Or maybe the very best - actually start writing all the missing rationales and make sure that all non-free images are following our WP:NFCC policy - if that all is solved, then you have solved the problem with ∆ - his work in NFCC would be redundant, he would not need to make all the edits he is making, he would not need to yell at editors that throw insults at him (not that ∆ should yell at them, but that also goes for the people yelling at ∆). Or if those editors don't feel like helping out ∆, there are other policies and guidelines which need enforcing (there is enough: remove some unreferenced material, superfluous external links, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how it would help the project? Now where is your good faith? Were you not here years ago when this started? Your account seems old enough. Do you not remember all the AN/I threads started on Betacommand about his civility and interactions with users? The reason why he's on civility patrol now? There is far more to helping the project than just improving articles. As I pointed out above, I don't want to see anymore users leave the project because of an interaction with Delta, and after finding the second comment, as I'd mentioned in that discussion, it was starting to look all too familiar. Yes, initially it was just a chit-chat. As I'd stated, rd232 had closed and started all the major discussions on Delta when I made that, so he seemed to be the go-to admin. It certainly wasn't a block request, I was leaving whatever action he felt was necessary or unnecessary up to him, but given that Delta is under sanctions for that kind of behaviour and that it was a major source of drama/problems in the past, I thought he should be aware of it. As for your suggestion, I already stated above, you're treating symptoms, not the problem. There is absolutely no need for him to yell at anyone, regardless of what they do and if you honestly think there is, I'd say our discussion is done.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny though, my impression (and probably a few more people as indicated here and this sub-section) felt that your recent activities revolve around using every opportunity related to NFC to lynch at Delta and try to get him blocked/banned/sanctioned/reprimanded. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Crossmr - I know that he is on civility parole and why. But my point is, that that is not a free ride to be uncivil to him. He has been civil for 25k edits with one exception. Yet, I can give you a string of diffs by editors who are uncivil to him (or to other editors who are doing exactly the same work as ∆). The diff about which you were chit-chatting with Rd232 would be a minor case of incivility (and it might even have been a case of 'forgetting to turn of the caps-lock' at the moment you started your chat), and I agree, ∆ should not have yelled. But you insist to keep him on a very, very short leash (and maybe you are right), but I am also keeping others who are uncivil on a leash now - ∆ is not allowed to snap at anyone, however uncivil they are against him, however I am allowed to snap at editors who are uncivil against me, or at ∆. It would have cost you nothing to show some basic respect and notify ∆, it would not have cost you anything to talk to ∆ - whether you are right or not, that does not matter.

And I do agree, there is no need for him to yell at anyone, but there is no need for anyone to yell at anyone, there is no need for anyone to be uncivil to anyone.

It looks all too familiar, indeed Crossmr. People are still excessively yelling at ∆, people are still treating him in an uncivil way, people are still not showing respect. And if people are leaving, it is because they feel the need to be excessively rude, uncivil towards Delta. You do not want to see anyone leave because of an interaction with Delta, I do not want to see anyone leave because of an interaction with someone else. I do not expect ∆ to snap (note that I may be even the person who blocks ∆ on such an occasion), but I also do not expect others to treat ∆ in that way.

Regarding "you're treating symptoms, not the problem.": diff - so I am a problem as well? No, Crossmr, I am treating the problem. ∆ is not the problem, Crossmr, the editors treating ∆ (or whoever) uncivil are. A bit of respect and a normal conversation goes a long way, also with ∆. Give it a try.

So no, I do not see how reporting that edit summary to Rd232 is helping the project, Crossmr. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Some eyes and advice needed please

I am not sure if there is another notice board to post this on so please move it if necessary. In fixing this nonsense edit [37] I came across these two editors Mskusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Synjruler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both were created this month and the bulk of their edits are to each others user/talk pages. Other edits seem to be dubious at best or to be "taking the piss" out of Wikipedia. I apologize for dumping this on your doorstep but I am about to log off for the night and I think this might need some sort of action. I will be leaving the message informing both editors about this as soon as I am done here. As I say please feel free to move this to a more appropriate message board if needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I am not sure how they will see the ANI notce as their talk pages (as well as there userpages) contain a large batch of nonsense on them MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Recommend checkuser to see how many other accounts are being abused. Look like vandal socks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Inconclusive – There is a match, but that is coming from a school, which leads me to believe that these are two separate people who are editing in tandem. –MuZemike 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I chose one article-space contrib at random, and it seemed to be entirely constructive in intent (adding two references to a poorly referenced article?), so unless there is a significant amount of actual vandalism going on, I'd suggest ignoring whatever strange behaviour they have towards each others' talkpages, in as much as it's not disruptive to the encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin opinion) If it hasn't already been done, a reminder of WP:NOTMYSPACE? umrguy42 13:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review

I noticed Giardiasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making a legal threat here and blocked them. Now they have requested review in an email which includes the words: I request that a different administrator takes a look and removes the defamation I've suffered on this Wiki page that you block me from in my attempt to defend the false defamation that you choose NOT to block, thereby aiding and abetting reckless defamation which means I can apply to the police to get your contact details to prosecute you in a civil court. I'd be grateful for any further opinions. --John (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion: Good block. As blatant a legal threat as I've seen. If he's got issues with article content, he can follow the rules to improve the content. One caveat: Is there any possibility that the article (whichever one it is) contains incorrect (i.e. potentially libelous) info about a living person? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits in the dif link above is signed one "Jane Francis". The editor seems to be referring to the article Milperra massacre, where someone (possibly the same Jane Francis) seems to have persistently trying to add something that looks like soapboxing, also here using another account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Obvously a personal agenda of some kind, abusing wikipedia in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The original entry was here, nearly 2 years ago:[38] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks to be the background. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• pretty bright line, and you left info on "unblock" .. so good block. — Ched :  ?  09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Very good block, and how interesting that it's basically their only contribution. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Celeste6566

Celeste6566 (talk · contribs)

This user appears to need administrative assistance. I'm not entirely sure what she is trying to say, but please see the following posts made by this user:

• A request for an unblock when there was no block: [39]. This was followed by an administrator replying that she was never blocked to begin with: [40]
• A complaint again about being "blocked from uploading": [41]
• A fake unblock message indicating that she is unblocked from uploading: [42]. This was followed by my question to her about why she would post her own unblock message when she was never blocked to begin with: [43]
• An accusation that I blocked her (I didn't and I'm not an admin) (A second reading indicates I misinterpreted what she was saying.), and a request for help: [44]

Not sure what's going on here, but can an admin look into it and maybe tell her what (if anything) is going on? Singularity42 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The user created a number of articles that were deleted and trying uploading a number of images that were deleted as well? Perhaps they thought they were blocked after so many attempts? Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the user has been blocked from Wikimedia Commons for "Uploading unfree files after warnings". See user's block log and user talk page at Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work out well. My attempt to get her some help resulted in her lack of understanding what was told to her and vandalizing my talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I would consider that last edit "vandalism", but rather a misguided attempt by a newcomer who may not know better. However, that is not to say that there still is a rather evident lack of understanding here, as clearly evidenced by the block on Commons. –MuZemike 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

n user writing a fake message to incorrectly inform someone that a page the user has nothing to do with is nominated for speedy deleted isn't minor vandalism? In the context of what was going on, I would think it could fairly be considered that, and a Level 1 or 2 caution is appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is a purposeful attempt to damage wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why all the user's edits are being marked as minor, or is this some means of attempting to evade responsibility for disruption? –MuZemike 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a somewhat more detailed comment on his/her tal page. Having a delve into ther contribs, it looks like the vast number of minor edits are due to lots of little edits for tags and such. The user doesn't seem to use the preview button at all before saving the page. --Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal of Twinkle

Resolved

 – No. —DoRD (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

can you remove wizard191 ability to use twinkle? he uses it for edit warring and has been warned repeatedly. --Tck350 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the user. What conflict are you involved in with him?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples to provide? Searching through 40,000 edits to find the problem doesn't seem like fun. --Onorem♠Dil 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's talking about this.

Interstingly enoguh, he never notified User:wizard191. Looks like he never even posted except for two other pages, one for this issue and the then the Village pump. Anyone hear quacking ? KoshVorlon     20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very loud quacking. In any case, the recent update to Twinkle did away with the ability to blacklist users. —DoRD (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as each other:

• Tck350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tci350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomtom350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wizard350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kci357 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wdk789 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked Also, due to abuse of talk page in the past, talk page has been revoked from all sock accounts. –MuZemike 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was one big honkin' WP:Boomerang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. He almost hit the Flying Doctor! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has been bugging the RD for a long time (their questions weren't terrible but sometimes a bit juvenile or easy to answer and they would often ignore answers given) under many different identities more then listed here. At first they weren't usually banned just abandoned an identity after it started to wear out its welcome (they usually blank their talk page so some people may not have noticed they'd been warned before even ignoring the many identities). I think they were also causing a few problems outside the RD (removing content they didn't appear to agree with regardless of sources sometimes even saying unsourced in the edit summary despite sources while sometimes adding stuff without sources themselves). Ironically this is the first time I've ever seen them sign their post. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wran

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, User:Wran has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his/her position on what details about the alleged assaul victim should be given in the article, culminating in a statement that I am "clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion". [45] A previous attempt to reason with Wren on his/her talk page resulted in contributors being described as "fascists". [46] It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at minumum a topic ban for Wren is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must include everything that is sourced or stand accused of 'tyranny' and 'censorship'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My review of User:Wran's talkpage is that they have been given policy based reasons why a persons name may not be included in another subjects article, and that they have not accepted those rationale's. My understanding is that one person citing policy correctly has the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when multiples are in agreement as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation - not that I am seeing anything resembling negotiation. I am going to issue the editor with a final warning to not add the name to the article, and not to make personal attacks on other contributors (I deem liar to be more of an attack on the integrity of a contributor than even "fascist"). Any repeat of this behaviour, and they get blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a "liar"; rather I said that a particular demonstrable lie was "lying": when someome accuses an editor of violating consensus when it's a simple matter of fact that the consensus is in the accused's favour, that is clearly a lie.

Your second sentence is absurd as a person can't have the consensus of those opposing him and your use of the term multiples is not intelligible English. Presumably you meant something like: "one person citing policy correctly overrides the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when there is a consensus as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation." This however is absurd as the second clause contradicts the first. However either option would justify my actions as both others and myself cited policy correctly and pointed out clearly how those who disagreed with us were misapplying it; and ther is a clear consensus in my favour. Your remarks here and on my user page make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of the term "consensus': I suggest you read the wiki article "Consensus decision-making". Nor have I expressed personal individual insults to anyone, whereas my accuser has: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". Wran (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• From the look of it, Andy isn't the only person reverting your changes, but you are the only one putting them back. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one: [47] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User: AndyTheGrump

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case User: AndyTheGrump has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his position on what details about the alleged assault victim should be given in the article. Previous attempts to reason with AndyTheGrump by various editors have not received any responses aside from false statements, mis-characterizations of wiki policies, and personal insults such as the following: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at the absolute minumum a topic ban for AndyTheGrump is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must delete everything he disagrees with no matter how well it is sourced. Wran (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't all of this be in the existing thread that Andy started about your conduct? [48] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I add that maybe Wran should read WP:PLAGIARISM too... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And WP:Point and WP:Boomerang... Kevin (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Has Wran understood the warning [49] he received from LHvU? He appears to be continuing to edit war on the DSK article. [50] Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He has been warned not to attempt to add her name in to the article and not to personally attack editors, I don't think that means he can't edit or add in the other info (obviously not past 3RR but otherwise). I've just read through all the relevant talk page info and this stuff is a bit more complicated that what's been presented here. There are good points on both sides and I can see why Wran is frustrated. Personally, reading that article, I would expect to learn something about the accuser (not the name, but from what I read Wren specifically said they don't want to include the name), and as of now I think that information is lacking. It shouldn't be presented the way it has been, but I think something should be there and I think you guys all need to calm down, take a step back, assume that the other side simply wants the article to be the best article it can be, and work together. N^oformation ^Talk 03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to settle content disputes. I brought Wren's behaviour up here after he/she started describing contributors as 'liars' and 'fascists'. Of course it is 'more complicated' if you want to go into the minutia, but that isn't the issue - what matters is Wren's abusive language, and combative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no excuse for that and he has certainly been unpleasant.N^oformation ^Talk 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this Wran fellow in all the back and forth between Mac and WW1. Was he the one calling for the alleged victim's name to be put in? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just a lot of bio detail, see diff here. But this issue is more about behaviour than content. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is speaking of making "repeated personal attacks on contributors". He refers to "talk-page etiquette".

Here he speaks of "abusive language, and combative behavior."

People should not criticize other people for faults that they have themselves. I'm finding AndyTheGrump leaving edit summaries reading "is there any article that Bus stop won't troll?"

Here, at Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, he tells another editor, User: FatTrebla, in reference to me, "Then again, I very much doubt that was what Bus stop intended. Instead, he was looking for another way to describe his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. WP:AGF does not extend to allowing Bus stop to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."

Opinion is approximately evenly divided, in my opinion, as to the advisability of including other characterizing details on the individual accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. Anyone really wanting to understand exactly what this issue is about has to read this section of the DSK Talk page (Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#Should we characterize the accuser?). I obviously support more inclusion of characterizing details of the accuser. But it is not just my argument. You will find many cogently presented arguments by a variety of editors for not blanking out all references for characterizing facts relating to the individual that is filing charges of sexual assault against another individual.

There are also clearly ownership issues going on at the article, as has been pointed out by User: FatTrebla. It is understandable that frustration can lead to harsh words such as User:Wran is being accused of. This issue is far from being resolved. Resolving this issue is not accomplished by topic-banning your opposition as AndyTheGrump calls for here. That only exacerbates the problem. I recommend continued dialogue on that article's Talk page. I would welcome wider input from other editors there too. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, Andy the Grump is not the only editor to believe you have a POV agenda to "ethno-tag" people, as can be seen in this TP discussion over at the main DSK article. There are four editors (myself included) who disagree with your relentless insistence on categorizing him as a Jew.

I would note too that you have not edited the DSK sex assault case article in the last month and seem to be weighing in here just to "stir it up" a bit as this concerns Andy the Grump (who is, by definition, a grumpy old sod).

As to ownership, which of the 9 or so editors who oppose this inclusion is owning the article, or is it a collective own or tag-teaming as Wran calls it? Or maybe, it's just like-minded individuals around the globe interpreting WP policy and guidelines in broadly the same way and acting in a consensual fashion to keep the article neutral and balanced? Just asking. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tying these two threads together, "relentless insistence" is a fair description of Wran's behavior. And I believe the wall of resistance he meets from other editors reverting him (myself included) is what incites him to increasingly inflammatory remarks on the DSK Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How did we get to "ethno-tagging" again? I haven't edited or watched this one at all, I'm just on AN/I for a visit. As a content issue I don't see how that's what this dispute is all about. Please don't expand the dispute, best to narrow and diffuse any disagreement. My very quick read is that both ATG and Wran have been somewhat uncivil to each other, ATG more emphatically so (in my opinion), but neither as much as the other would think. Plus Wran won't let go of a content position that is against consensus and problematic from a BLP position, so I might be exasperated too if I were trying to argue against it. That's all in due course, and no need to feel bad about any of it. From experience, these things seem a lot worse in the moment when they involve you then they look from the outside. Best just to step back, take a deep breath, and both sides try to de-escalate rather than match every accusation with a come-back. Just my quick opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The ostensible foreground, law, is merely background for the DSK legal article. The topics of sex, race, religion, money and power are salient. Keeping the actual foreground topics in the background is trying. Explaining BLP to 'information must be free' types frays tempers. The Grump did not dump, "...why should any of us be arsed to hand you out a reach-round? Jerk it yourself," on to Wran's talk page. A different exasperated editor left that there. How that one stays out of trouble astonishes me - breeding? Being restrained by the rules in the clutches of flaming temptation is troublesome. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In the DSK-case article I have seen many uncivil comments from editor AndyTheGrump. For example, he wrote:

• I think you should read articles before Wikilinking to them. [...] Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• the nonsense about IMF neo-imperialism is (a) WP:OR, and (b) a ludicrous attempt at coat-racking. [...] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC) [As pointed out to Andy, a) it was not OR and sources were provided; and b) including basic biographical information is not coatracking.]
• Utter nonsense. [...] As for your comments about [...] this is frankly ludicrous. If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant, I think you'd not be using them. [...] (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• This is not some tabloid rag, and we don't include trivial details for the entertainment of readers, or to suit the questionable motives of contributors. [...] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't a random collection of stuff "readily available elsewhere on the internet". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) [As pointed out to him, Andy was misapplying WP:BLP1E, which is about articles, not the facts within them.]

This goes beyond being grumpy, it is rude discourse. It is not helpful, especially to newbies, which this article may attract. FatTrebla (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"This[...]is[...]not helpful" either. Please don't insert ellipses into quotations where they omit significant parts - this goes against basic standards of scholarship and good practice. If you have specific complaints about what I actually wrote, in the context in which I wrote it, then fine, raise them. Cherry-picked phrases taken out of context tell us little beyond what is already apparent - that I am Andy, and I am a Grump. Yes, I wrote 'WP:BLP1E' when I meant 'WP:BLPNAME' or whatever, but none of this changes the essential point - that some editors were attempting to base article content on the dubious premise that if it is published elsewhere, we have to include it, and then complaining about 'censorship' when it was pointed out that Wikipedia doesn't operate like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wran now soapoboxing in the article

This seems to be a clear attempt to escalate the issue once more: [51]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it mentioned many times that just because X-language Wikipedia does something does not mean we have to follow suit as they are separate projects. Is there an essay or something that one could link? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A more global version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? GiantSnowman 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks to me like Wran has a real agenda going on. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was not aware that this discussion was taking place; I blocked Wran for 31 hours for violation of WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:AGF a little while back. I had already warned them that they needed to conform to WP practice if they expected to be allowed to continue to edit, and I considered their actions as contrary to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Tag Team ownership by User:AndyTheGrump, User:ErrantX, and User:Captain Screebo on DSK case?

Tag-teaming and ownership are difficult to identify and prove. I readily accept that these three editors are acting in WP:Good faith, and working to uphold principles that they believe are paramount (especially: protecting the privacy of an alleged victim, protecting WP:Biographies of Living Persons, and avoiding WP:Recentism). They have made many excellent edits and have helped prevent abuse of this article, which has been the subject of many bad edits. However, I think they are now taking these principles to an extreme. I am reluctant to make such an accusation. However, in my opinion, users AndyTheGrump, Captain Screebo and ErrantX are crossing the line in their editing of the article. ErrantX has been polite and is clearly a very seasoned editor, whereas AndyTheGrump has been uncivil, resulting in a Good cop/bad cop effect that can drive away other editors.

1. In particular, they are taking an excessively-strident view that absolutely no information about the victim should be included (specifically her nationality, religion, age and parenthood), despite the fact that every WP:Reliable source used elsewhere in this same article does include this information. (Please note: this has nothing to do with including her name, which is a Strawman argument and Red herring. There is widespread consensus not to include her name. Users AndyTheGrump, ErrantX and Captain Screebo, among many others, deserve praise to they extent they helped keep her name out of the English Wikipedia.)
2. Nationality: all reliable sources include mention of her nationality. E.g.: Bloomberg: "The woman ... is a native of Guinea"; CNN: "attempted rape of a 32-year-old Guinean maid"; BBC: "The woman came originally from the West African state of Guinea"; the Telegraph: "The woman is a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant" (lede sentence); the New York Times: "The woman, 32, a widowed immigrant from Guinea", and in NYT columns ("The young woman escaped horrors in her native Guinea"); ABC News (in 14 different stories); Fox News--several times; the Wall Street Journal (in 15 articles); News One for Black America puts it in their headline: "African Woman Accusing IMF Head Of Rape," "The West African maid who was allegedly assaulted by Kahn..."; the Los Angeles Times: "the woman is a 32-year-old single mother from West Africa"; Reuters: "a 32-year-old widow from West Africa"; the NY police: "a police spokesman ... described the victim as 'female, black, 32 years old,' "; her own lawyer: "The 32-year-old Sofitel Hotel maid ... is a devout Muslim who came to the U.S. from Guinea seven years ago and is the single mother of a 15-year-old daughter, her attorney [Jeffrey Shapiro] said;" Jeffrey Shapiro "said the single mother, who has a 15-year-old daughter... The 32-year-old maid was born in Guinea, west Africa"; and thousands of other articles -- they all identify her native country or ethnicity and most identify her religion, parenthood and age.
3. The editors of all reliable sources consider this information relevant. (These editors may have many reasons for this inclusion. It is not the obligation of Wikipedia editors to guess or impute these reasons -- and the tag-team has rudely shot down any suggestions, which is a distraction to the focus of this article.) But the tag-team has methodically kept out this information.
4. User:AndyTheGrump, in particular, has a WP:POV that this information should not be included in any Wikipedia article. He says so, himself: "And yes, I've argued that we should stop using categories for religion, ethnicity etc entirely." ~~~~AndyTheGrump [52] Personally, I've always argued that we shouldn't include ethnicity or faith of people in articles about people unless it is relevant to their notability. Others think differently, but it is always open to discussion [...]. ~~~~AndyTheGrump[53] (emphases added) Despite his stated 'openness to discussion,' he asserts his POV when it comes to actually editing the article. This POV is not WP policy.
5. User:Captain Screebo 'reassured' ErrantX that "the article is now 99.9% pruned and the last prurient-detail obsessive has given up and gone to the fork!" He emphasizes his "notion of WP:NOTNEWS that yourself [ErrantX] and AndytheGrump and myself were trying to point out." (Note: this is a misinterpretation of WP:NOTNEWS, which is about articles, not the facts within them.)
6. Users AndyTheGrump, Captain Screebo and ErrantX have acted in conjunction to censor this basic biographical information. I suggested in the Talk page that they were adopting ownership of this article, in a tag team approach. WP policy is that No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of this article. Claiming that other editors' lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (as ErrantX wrote as it seems to me that ErrantX implied) is a proscribed form of ownership. Alleging that other editors are unfamiliar or have no hands-on experience with BLP is a form of ownership. (E.g.: "you need to listen to those of us with experience in these areas.") Telling other editors not to make changes without your tag-team's approval is a form of ownership. (E.g., "do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked." This is also a textbook example of a threat.) Repeatedly reverting to protect a certain version is a form of ownership. Patronizing other editors is a form of ownership. (E.g., "Some people here are unfamliar with our approach to biographical information of living persons; which is understandable.")
7. The result, imo, has been a WP:CRUSH that has turned off good editors, inhibited improvement of the article, and does readers of our encyclopedia a disservice.
8. I suggested that ErrantX, AndyTheGrump and Captain Screebo might want to take some time off from the editing process on this article, to cool things down and take a fresh look in a couple weeks. I have practiced this, myself, and avoided trying to get in the last word. I am dismayed to come back and find that things have not improved.
9. Friendly humor: it seems clear to me btw, that ErrantX and AndyTheGrump are different people. The fact that out of 700,000 WP:EN editors they are the only two who link to this photo in their user pages suggests a possible FSM agenda. ;-) (Which I also share.) Cheers, FatTrebla (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

   

Errrm, ok. This boils down to a content dispute over the level of detail we should include about the alleged victim (including her name), there may be conduct issues to look into, and I am happy to have my comments critiqued... but I am cautious of this attempt to cast us in the light of collusion - I've worked with Andy before on BLP material, and we share views (although we have also disagreed over things), but I don't think I've ever seen Screebo before this article :) That we share the same views and act to promote them doesn't strike me as very good evidence of "tag teaming". So, yes, consider behavioural issues, but casting it in the light of tag teaming (which is specifically noted as a pro-active form of collusion) concerns me because I categorically deny this is the case. Any communication I have conducted about DSK exists in two places; my talk page (minimal discussion with Screebo) and the DSK talk pages.

I stand by what I said on the page though; the editors commentating against inclusion of this detail are all highly experienced BLP editors who make it their speciality to work on BLP material of this type. I've worked on a number of articles where the same content approach is taken - so, yes, it is worth listening to what Any, Rob and the others are saying.

On the content issue (which I know we do not really deal with here) our accepted practice for BLP material is to have a strong editorial preference in favour of the privacy of non-notable individuals. Very little of the detail is of relevance to the article per se (and a lot of the these facts about the alleged victim were being used to discredit or attack her - so this is another reason to minimize the detail). I nthe last day or so I note that Rob has introduced a small amount of detail about her using the BBC source; this, again, is a fairly normal approach because the BBC tends to have an approach to living persons that mirrors ours (and so we can usually follow their editorial policy safely).

Regarding the quote "lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it" which is attributed to me; I may be losing it a bit :) but I can't find that quote from me anywhere, I certainly don't recall writing it (and I didn't recall it when you first mentioned it on the talk page!) It's not a view I subscribe to so I am not sure why or where I might have said such a thing - a diff please?

Finally; I haven't edited the article or the talk page for a few days now, for various reasons, and don't intend to for a while (unless something major crops up). --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX: I was not clear above and have edited it above, with strikeout, to clarify. The italics above are quotes from WP policy pages. Your words are in "quotation marks", usually in parentheses and introduced by "e.g.", and are in the second half of that paragraph. E.g., you wrote: "Some people here are unfamliar with our approach to biographical information of living persons; which is understandable. But you need to listen to those of us with th experience in these areas."[54] (emphases added) My apologies for not being clear, or if I misunderstood your words. The imperative: "you need to listen to those of us with experience" comes pretty close to saying "you lack the deep understanding necessary to edit it," in my interpretation.

You also wrote on the DSK-case Talk page: "Lets put this very simply; for BLP reasons do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked."[55] (emphasis added) The relevant passage proscribing this, on WP:Threaten policy, is: Don't do that or you will be blocked.

Even above, you seem to imply that some editors are more equal than others: "the editors commentating against inclusion of this detail are all highly experienced BLP editors who make it their speciality to work on BLP material of this type. I've worked on a number of articles where the same content approach is taken - so, yes, it is worth listening to what Any [Andy], Rob and the others are saying." (emphases added) As noted, Andy has stated a strong POV about the exclusion of bio info, a POV which is not WP policy.

Clearly your editing and talk behavior is polite, which is very much appreciated. Do you see how in conjunction with AndyTheGrumps incivility (examples given above[56]) this creates a one-two punch, that is especially intimidating to new users? It might help another time (and even on DSK-case) if you encourage 'Andy' (or whomever you are agreeing with) to be civil, so that newbies aren't intimidated, and to avoid any misperception of tag-teaming. Just a suggestion.

Errm, the 'level of detail' yes, but not including her name, which was settled by consensus weeks ago. As I've explicitly pointed out several times in the Talk pages, and again above, this is a strawman and red-herring. (E.g., in the Talk pages: I wrote: "@User:Flinders Petrie No-one is suggesting that we include her name. That is a strawman argument. [...] @Andy: Please stop making Strawman arguments, no-one here is suggesting we include her name. [...] [@ErrantX] No mention is nor should be made of the alleged victim's name, we all agree. [...] [@above] Please note: this has nothing to do with including her name, which is a Strawman argument and Red herring. There is widespread consensus not to include her name. User:rgpk wrote: "Anyway, no one here is arguing that we should include the name of the victim". Even user:CaptainScreebo acknowledges that even user:Wran was not "calling for the alleged victim's name to be put in", "just a lot of bio detail".)

As noted repeatedly, her own lawyer is the origin (in RS's) for the basic bio info. It does not violate her privacy. DSK has had extensive PR to shape his name for decades; it seems reasonably balanced to include the minimal info about the woman as released by her lawyer.

"Rob has introduced a small amount of detail about her using the BBC source; this, again, is a fairly normal approach because the BBC tends to have an approach to living persons that mirrors ours (and so we can usually follow their editorial policy safely)." I'm glad for this, and see it as a positive step forward on this article. Thanks, Rob! I included links to BBC on this when I first raised this issue (weeks ago?), and since then. *shrug*

My speculation on human nature: my guess as to what happens in articles like this is that reasonable editors get tired of correcting unreasonable editors over and over again (e.g., on invasions of privacy, racism, BLP, recentism, etc.). Perhaps some informal teams form. Then a newer editor comes along and adds something in what the former see as a grey-area at best, and it gets lumped in with the unreasonables. Conflicts ensue.

Btw, do you see the Catch-22: you and Andy ask why WP should include any bio info. (I gather that you feel it's not enough that all editors of all reliable sources include this info). Then, when any reason is offered, you label it as 'WP:Coatracking' (which it is not), and reject it. The more defense that is offered for including it, the more you can argue it is coatracking. Catch-22.

Basta. I hope I'm moving on to other topics! :-) FatTrebla (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification over that. Some final thoughts... my "block" comment was directed at Wran, who was adding soap-boxy material to the article to complain about the fact we are not naming her. He was subsequently (and rightly) blocked for repeating this, which was the point of my comment :) I employed it as an attempt of last resort to stop his behaviour, and as I said at the time the threat was not made lightly.

In terms of the other comments; the implication is not that some editors are more equal than others, but simply one of experience.. we all have our specialisms - Rob, Andy and myself (as well as many others) devote large amounts of our time working on BLP content and this is the established standard of content inclusion that has been agreed by consensus a number of times. The intent is not to say "this is how it is", but to say "this is how it is applied everywhere else".

The problem with the material stems largely from the fact that it is generally being used to smear her as an individual (obviously, not going to detail the specifics here, but read the numerous news reports and check the talk page history). Some of the detail was being speculatively used against DSK and in support of her (for example; her religion). This underlines the reason we try to avoid too much detail of private individuals, particularly potential victims.

IIRC the comments about "coat-racking" were only made in relation to previous attempts to cast her race in the light of IMF neo-imperialism; in simple language an attempt to underline that she was the "ultimate minority" to against a rich white male.

I'm not sure what your comments r.e. Andy's POV mean... that is his interpretation of our policies (to some extent I agree with those interpretations). Indeed he is all but quoting the policy of WP:BLPCAT in the first comment you cite.

Your comments are taken on board r.e. the perception of "tag teaming". --Errant ^(chat!) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I added the womans nationality and the fact that she was an immigrant yesterday and it has not been removed. It is quite normal (that I have seen for us to use editorial control to report cautiously about victims of crime - we have nothing to sell here, unlike the press) that we don't report personal details in such situations - please see Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange - months after the event and with masses of details about the accusers in the press almost no details about them at all in our article. Clearly her religion (if she is actually actively practicing the religion of her birth) is irrelevant to the alleged crime that she has become notable for as is the fact that she has a daughter - as a one event alleged victim of a crime the article is not about her it is about the alleged crime.Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the woman's nationality is relevant at this point. Nor do I see that it was released by her lawyers - that's not what the BBC article says in support of the assertion. I haven't removed it because the amount of controversy about what to include about the housekeeper and what not to makes me reluctant to touch it. If I recall correctly, I said I was against its inclusion on the article's Talk page. It feels a little like putting something in the article that doesn't belong but doing it anyway as a sop to those editors who want even more.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response:

I am somewhat confused. What Wikipedia policies and or guidelines am I supposed to have contravened? Other than yet another run in with User:Bus stop over his attempt to hijack the thread for yet another debate on ethno-tagging, where I'll freely admit to pushing the bounds of WP:CIVIL somewhat (which, if anyone wishes to follow up, I am fully prepared to defend, given Bus stop's behaviour), I can see no evidence that anyone is even claiming that I have done anything wrong. THis is a content dispute, no more, no less, largely over the extent to which we should use 'reliable sources' to determine content, rather than to provide it.

As to the specific suggestion that I have a 'POV' regarding the extent to which Wikipedia should report matters of ethnicity, religion etc, it is true that I have one, and have made it clear. But since when has having an opinion been against Wikipedia policy? That FatTrebla can take a suggestion from me that Wikipedia should stop using categories (in the specific Wikipedia sense) regarding ethnicity or religion in articles as an indication that I wish to exclude the subject entirely can only indicate that he is less-than-familiar with the debate.

Finally, I note that FatTrebla has used the term 'Tag Team' in the section heading. Given that he has not provided any evidence that anything of the sort has occurred, I ask that he redact this - or provide evidence that it has. Instead, what seems to have happened is that he has been told much the same thing, by several different editors - that article content is determined by policy, and by consensus, not by the content of the NYT. This is an online encyclopaedia, with long-term objectives, and that we should have a different perspective on content is unsurprising - and here, my perspective largely follows that of the 'tag team' (and of WP:BLP policy). Evidently though, I am to be held to account not merely for having different opinions from other contributors, but for having the same ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Andy that the term "Tag Team" is wholly unsupported and unsupportable. It is a serious charge and not mitigated simply by following the charge with a question mark. It's sort of the editing equivalent of a conspiracy. It should be stricken.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is not tag teaming but a content dispute. As WP:TAG says, "some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team"". If one disagrees with other editors, one should use content dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring over non-free image removal...

...is something I'd like to see less of, so Ched Davis and I have written a document called Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems, which we hope will help people understand why their non-free image was removed from an article.

I'm posting this here, since edit-warring over non-free image removal seems to be a perennial issue on this page that saps a lot of time and energy from more productive endeavors. Your input on this doc is welcome; anything you can think to add that will help people understand the basics of NFCC and how to deal reasonably with image removal would be great.

Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I hope it helps. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc

This began at Armour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with sockpuppetry to force changes against WP:ENGVAR - and has since then devolved further into vandalism, edit warring, and today into personal attacks [57][58]. The user had also attempted to manipulate and mislead to try getting administrative action against those who blocked him - namely, me (see archived threads at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive705#Admin Abuser Barek and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_77#Admin Abuser Barek) - which he later used additional socks to attempt to blank out of the archive history [59][60][61]. Most recently, the user has posted via another sock[62] his intent to persistently edit war over a a shared IP tag at user talk:70.186.166.251 and user talk:68.106.172.179.

My question is, what should be done? Should we simply pursue a WP:RBI with an occasional WP:SPI when needed? Should we edit protect the talk pages? Move the sharedIP tags into the editnotice space for the IPs (assuming such a thing even works for IPs)? Delete the talk pages?

I'm wondering what opinions others have as to the best course to contain any disruption of Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to create an edit filter (I took a look at the disruptive edits and a lot of it is based on removing the word armour [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]) which has a regex for disallowing the removal of the word armor and maybe for disallowing the change from British to American English. I think this might be the best way to solve this problem. Minima© (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring at Armour isn't really a current issue - it was the start, but the user seems to have stopped any activity on that page. My concern is more related to his subsequent behavior on other pages (vandalism, blanking, and personal attacks). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wran

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, User:Wran has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his/her position on what details about the alleged assaul victim should be given in the article, culminating in a statement that I am "clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion". [68] A previous attempt to reason with Wren on his/her talk page resulted in contributors being described as "fascists". [69] It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at minumum a topic ban for Wren is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must include everything that is sourced or stand accused of 'tyranny' and 'censorship'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My review of User:Wran's talkpage is that they have been given policy based reasons why a persons name may not be included in another subjects article, and that they have not accepted those rationale's. My understanding is that one person citing policy correctly has the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when multiples are in agreement as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation - not that I am seeing anything resembling negotiation. I am going to issue the editor with a final warning to not add the name to the article, and not to make personal attacks on other contributors (I deem liar to be more of an attack on the integrity of a contributor than even "fascist"). Any repeat of this behaviour, and they get blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a "liar"; rather I said that a particular demonstrable lie was "lying": when someome accuses an editor of violating consensus when it's a simple matter of fact that the consensus is in the accused's favour, that is clearly a lie.

Your second sentence is absurd as a person can't have the consensus of those opposing him and your use of the term multiples is not intelligible English. Presumably you meant something like: "one person citing policy correctly overrides the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when there is a consensus as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation." This however is absurd as the second clause contradicts the first. However either option would justify my actions as both others and myself cited policy correctly and pointed out clearly how those who disagreed with us were misapplying it; and ther is a clear consensus in my favour. Your remarks here and on my user page make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of the term "consensus': I suggest you read the wiki article "Consensus decision-making". Nor have I expressed personal individual insults to anyone, whereas my accuser has: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". Wran (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• From the look of it, Andy isn't the only person reverting your changes, but you are the only one putting them back. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one: [70] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User: AndyTheGrump

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case User: AndyTheGrump has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his position on what details about the alleged assault victim should be given in the article. Previous attempts to reason with AndyTheGrump by various editors have not received any responses aside from false statements, mis-characterizations of wiki policies, and personal insults such as the following: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at the absolute minumum a topic ban for AndyTheGrump is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must delete everything he disagrees with no matter how well it is sourced. Wran (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't all of this be in the existing thread that Andy started about your conduct? [71] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I add that maybe Wran should read WP:PLAGIARISM too... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And WP:Point and WP:Boomerang... Kevin (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Has Wran understood the warning [72] he received from LHvU? He appears to be continuing to edit war on the DSK article. [73] Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He has been warned not to attempt to add her name in to the article and not to personally attack editors, I don't think that means he can't edit or add in the other info (obviously not past 3RR but otherwise). I've just read through all the relevant talk page info and this stuff is a bit more complicated that what's been presented here. There are good points on both sides and I can see why Wran is frustrated. Personally, reading that article, I would expect to learn something about the accuser (not the name, but from what I read Wren specifically said they don't want to include the name), and as of now I think that information is lacking. It shouldn't be presented the way it has been, but I think something should be there and I think you guys all need to calm down, take a step back, assume that the other side simply wants the article to be the best article it can be, and work together. N^oformation ^Talk 03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to settle content disputes. I brought Wren's behaviour up here after he/she started describing contributors as 'liars' and 'fascists'. Of course it is 'more complicated' if you want to go into the minutia, but that isn't the issue - what matters is Wren's abusive language, and combative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no excuse for that and he has certainly been unpleasant.N^oformation ^Talk 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this Wran fellow in all the back and forth between Mac and WW1. Was he the one calling for the alleged victim's name to be put in? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just a lot of bio detail, see diff here. But this issue is more about behaviour than content. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is speaking of making "repeated personal attacks on contributors". He refers to "talk-page etiquette".

Here he speaks of "abusive language, and combative behavior."

People should not criticize other people for faults that they have themselves. I'm finding AndyTheGrump leaving edit summaries reading "is there any article that Bus stop won't troll?"

Here, at Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, he tells another editor, User: FatTrebla, in reference to me, "Then again, I very much doubt that was what Bus stop intended. Instead, he was looking for another way to describe his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. WP:AGF does not extend to allowing Bus stop to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."

Opinion is approximately evenly divided, in my opinion, as to the advisability of including other characterizing details on the individual accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. Anyone really wanting to understand exactly what this issue is about has to read this section of the DSK Talk page (Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#Should we characterize the accuser?). I obviously support more inclusion of characterizing details of the accuser. But it is not just my argument. You will find many cogently presented arguments by a variety of editors for not blanking out all references for characterizing facts relating to the individual that is filing charges of sexual assault against another individual.

There are also clearly ownership issues going on at the article, as has been pointed out by User: FatTrebla. It is understandable that frustration can lead to harsh words such as User:Wran is being accused of. This issue is far from being resolved. Resolving this issue is not accomplished by topic-banning your opposition as AndyTheGrump calls for here. That only exacerbates the problem. I recommend continued dialogue on that article's Talk page. I would welcome wider input from other editors there too. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, Andy the Grump is not the only editor to believe you have a POV agenda to "ethno-tag" people, as can be seen in this TP discussion over at the main DSK article. There are four editors (myself included) who disagree with your relentless insistence on categorizing him as a Jew.

I would note too that you have not edited the DSK sex assault case article in the last month and seem to be weighing in here just to "stir it up" a bit as this concerns Andy the Grump (who is, by definition, a grumpy old sod).

As to ownership, which of the 9 or so editors who oppose this inclusion is owning the article, or is it a collective own or tag-teaming as Wran calls it? Or maybe, it's just like-minded individuals around the globe interpreting WP policy and guidelines in broadly the same way and acting in a consensual fashion to keep the article neutral and balanced? Just asking. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tying these two threads together, "relentless insistence" is a fair description of Wran's behavior. And I believe the wall of resistance he meets from other editors reverting him (myself included) is what incites him to increasingly inflammatory remarks on the DSK Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How did we get to "ethno-tagging" again? I haven't edited or watched this one at all, I'm just on AN/I for a visit. As a content issue I don't see how that's what this dispute is all about. Please don't expand the dispute, best to narrow and diffuse any disagreement. My very quick read is that both ATG and Wran have been somewhat uncivil to each other, ATG more emphatically so (in my opinion), but neither as much as the other would think. Plus Wran won't let go of a content position that is against consensus and problematic from a BLP position, so I might be exasperated too if I were trying to argue against it. That's all in due course, and no need to feel bad about any of it. From experience, these things seem a lot worse in the moment when they involve you then they look from the outside. Best just to step back, take a deep breath, and both sides try to de-escalate rather than match every accusation with a come-back. Just my quick opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The ostensible foreground, law, is merely background for the DSK legal article. The topics of sex, race, religion, money and power are salient. Keeping the actual foreground topics in the background is trying. Explaining BLP to 'information must be free' types frays tempers. The Grump did not dump, "...why should any of us be arsed to hand you out a reach-round? Jerk it yourself," on to Wran's talk page. A different exasperated editor left that there. How that one stays out of trouble astonishes me - breeding? Being restrained by the rules in the clutches of flaming temptation is troublesome. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In the DSK-case article I have seen many uncivil comments from editor AndyTheGrump. For example, he wrote:

• I think you should read articles before Wikilinking to them. [...] Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• the nonsense about IMF neo-imperialism is (a) WP:OR, and (b) a ludicrous attempt at coat-racking. [...] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC) [As pointed out to Andy, a) it was not OR and sources were provided; and b) including basic biographical information is not coatracking.]
• Utter nonsense. [...] As for your comments about [...] this is frankly ludicrous. If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant, I think you'd not be using them. [...] (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• This is not some tabloid rag, and we don't include trivial details for the entertainment of readers, or to suit the questionable motives of contributors. [...] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't a random collection of stuff "readily available elsewhere on the internet". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) [As pointed out to him, Andy was misapplying WP:BLP1E, which is about articles, not the facts within them.]

This goes beyond being grumpy, it is rude discourse. It is not helpful, especially to newbies, which this article may attract. FatTrebla (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"This[...]is[...]not helpful" either. Please don't insert ellipses into quotations where they omit significant parts - this goes against basic standards of scholarship and good practice. If you have specific complaints about what I actually wrote, in the context in which I wrote it, then fine, raise them. Cherry-picked phrases taken out of context tell us little beyond what is already apparent - that I am Andy, and I am a Grump. Yes, I wrote 'WP:BLP1E' when I meant 'WP:BLPNAME' or whatever, but none of this changes the essential point - that some editors were attempting to base article content on the dubious premise that if it is published elsewhere, we have to include it, and then complaining about 'censorship' when it was pointed out that Wikipedia doesn't operate like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wran now soapoboxing in the article

This seems to be a clear attempt to escalate the issue once more: [74]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it mentioned many times that just because X-language Wikipedia does something does not mean we have to follow suit as they are separate projects. Is there an essay or something that one could link? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A more global version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? GiantSnowman 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks to me like Wran has a real agenda going on. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was not aware that this discussion was taking place; I blocked Wran for 31 hours for violation of WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:AGF a little while back. I had already warned them that they needed to conform to WP practice if they expected to be allowed to continue to edit, and I considered their actions as contrary to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Tag Team ownership by User:AndyTheGrump, User:ErrantX, and User:Captain Screebo on DSK case?

Tag-teaming and ownership are difficult to identify and prove. I readily accept that these three editors are acting in WP:Good faith, and working to uphold principles that they believe are paramount (especially: protecting the privacy of an alleged victim, protecting WP:Biographies of Living Persons, and avoiding WP:Recentism). They have made many excellent edits and have helped prevent abuse of this article, which has been the subject of many bad edits. However, I think they are now taking these principles to an extreme. I am reluctant to make such an accusation. However, in my opinion, users AndyTheGrump, Captain Screebo and ErrantX are crossing the line in their editing of the article. ErrantX has been polite and is clearly a very seasoned editor, whereas AndyTheGrump has been uncivil, resulting in a Good cop/bad cop effect that can drive away other editors.

1. In particular, they are taking an excessively-strident view that absolutely no information about the victim should be included (specifically her nationality, religion, age and parenthood), despite the fact that every WP:Reliable source used elsewhere in this same article does include this information. (Please note: this has nothing to do with including her name, which is a Strawman argument and Red herring. There is widespread consensus not to include her name. Users AndyTheGrump, ErrantX and Captain Screebo, among many others, deserve praise to they extent they helped keep her name out of the English Wikipedia.)
2. Nationality: all reliable sources include mention of her nationality. E.g.: Bloomberg: "The woman ... is a native of Guinea"; CNN: "attempted rape of a 32-year-old Guinean maid"; BBC: "The woman came originally from the West African state of Guinea"; the Telegraph: "The woman is a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant" (lede sentence); the New York Times: "The woman, 32, a widowed immigrant from Guinea", and in NYT columns ("The young woman escaped horrors in her native Guinea"); ABC News (in 14 different stories); Fox News--several times; the Wall Street Journal (in 15 articles); News One for Black America puts it in their headline: "African Woman Accusing IMF Head Of Rape," "The West African maid who was allegedly assaulted by Kahn..."; the Los Angeles Times: "the woman is a 32-year-old single mother from West Africa"; Reuters: "a 32-year-old widow from West Africa"; the NY police: "a police spokesman ... described the victim as 'female, black, 32 years old,' "; her own lawyer: "The 32-year-old Sofitel Hotel maid ... is a devout Muslim who came to the U.S. from Guinea seven years ago and is the single mother of a 15-year-old daughter, her attorney [Jeffrey Shapiro] said;" Jeffrey Shapiro "said the single mother, who has a 15-year-old daughter... The 32-year-old maid was born in Guinea, west Africa"; and thousands of other articles -- they all identify her native country or ethnicity and most identify her religion, parenthood and age.
3. The editors of all reliable sources consider this information relevant. (These editors may have many reasons for this inclusion. It is not the obligation of Wikipedia editors to guess or impute these reasons -- and the tag-team has rudely shot down any suggestions, which is a distraction to the focus of this article.) But the tag-team has methodically kept out this information.
4. User:AndyTheGrump, in particular, has a WP:POV that this information should not be included in any Wikipedia article. He says so, himself: "And yes, I've argued that we should stop using categories for religion, ethnicity etc entirely." ~~~~AndyTheGrump [75] Personally, I've always argued that we shouldn't include ethnicity or faith of people in articles about people unless it is relevant to their notability. Others think differently, but it is always open to discussion [...]. ~~~~AndyTheGrump[76] (emphases added) Despite his stated 'openness to discussion,' he asserts his POV when it comes to actually editing the article. This POV is not WP policy.
5. User:Captain Screebo 'reassured' ErrantX that "the article is now 99.9% pruned and the last prurient-detail obsessive has given up and gone to the fork!" He emphasizes his "notion of WP:NOTNEWS that yourself [ErrantX] and AndytheGrump and myself were trying to point out." (Note: this is a misinterpretation of WP:NOTNEWS, which is about articles, not the facts within them.)
6. Users AndyTheGrump, Captain Screebo and ErrantX have acted in conjunction to censor this basic biographical information. I suggested in the Talk page that they were adopting ownership of this article, in a tag team approach. WP policy is that No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of this article. Claiming that other editors' lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (as ErrantX wrote as it seems to me that ErrantX implied) is a proscribed form of ownership. Alleging that other editors are unfamiliar or have no hands-on experience with BLP is a form of ownership. (E.g.: "you need to listen to those of us with experience in these areas.") Telling other editors not to make changes without your tag-team's approval is a form of ownership. (E.g., "do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked." This is also a textbook example of a threat.) Repeatedly reverting to protect a certain version is a form of ownership. Patronizing other editors is a form of ownership. (E.g., "Some people here are unfamliar with our approach to biographical information of living persons; which is understandable.")
7. The result, imo, has been a WP:CRUSH that has turned off good editors, inhibited improvement of the article, and does readers of our encyclopedia a disservice.
8. I suggested that ErrantX, AndyTheGrump and Captain Screebo might want to take some time off from the editing process on this article, to cool things down and take a fresh look in a couple weeks. I have practiced this, myself, and avoided trying to get in the last word. I am dismayed to come back and find that things have not improved.
9. Friendly humor: it seems clear to me btw, that ErrantX and AndyTheGrump are different people. The fact that out of 700,000 WP:EN editors they are the only two who link to this photo in their user pages suggests a possible FSM agenda. ;-) (Which I also share.) Cheers, FatTrebla (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

   

Errrm, ok. This boils down to a content dispute over the level of detail we should include about the alleged victim (including her name), there may be conduct issues to look into, and I am happy to have my comments critiqued... but I am cautious of this attempt to cast us in the light of collusion - I've worked with Andy before on BLP material, and we share views (although we have also disagreed over things), but I don't think I've ever seen Screebo before this article :) That we share the same views and act to promote them doesn't strike me as very good evidence of "tag teaming". So, yes, consider behavioural issues, but casting it in the light of tag teaming (which is specifically noted as a pro-active form of collusion) concerns me because I categorically deny this is the case. Any communication I have conducted about DSK exists in two places; my talk page (minimal discussion with Screebo) and the DSK talk pages.

I stand by what I said on the page though; the editors commentating against inclusion of this detail are all highly experienced BLP editors who make it their speciality to work on BLP material of this type. I've worked on a number of articles where the same content approach is taken - so, yes, it is worth listening to what Any, Rob and the others are saying.

On the content issue (which I know we do not really deal with here) our accepted practice for BLP material is to have a strong editorial preference in favour of the privacy of non-notable individuals. Very little of the detail is of relevance to the article per se (and a lot of the these facts about the alleged victim were being used to discredit or attack her - so this is another reason to minimize the detail). I nthe last day or so I note that Rob has introduced a small amount of detail about her using the BBC source; this, again, is a fairly normal approach because the BBC tends to have an approach to living persons that mirrors ours (and so we can usually follow their editorial policy safely).

Regarding the quote "lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it" which is attributed to me; I may be losing it a bit :) but I can't find that quote from me anywhere, I certainly don't recall writing it (and I didn't recall it when you first mentioned it on the talk page!) It's not a view I subscribe to so I am not sure why or where I might have said such a thing - a diff please?

Finally; I haven't edited the article or the talk page for a few days now, for various reasons, and don't intend to for a while (unless something major crops up). --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX: I was not clear above and have edited it above, with strikeout, to clarify. The italics above are quotes from WP policy pages. Your words are in "quotation marks", usually in parentheses and introduced by "e.g.", and are in the second half of that paragraph. E.g., you wrote: "Some people here are unfamliar with our approach to biographical information of living persons; which is understandable. But you need to listen to those of us with th experience in these areas."[77] (emphases added) My apologies for not being clear, or if I misunderstood your words. The imperative: "you need to listen to those of us with experience" comes pretty close to saying "you lack the deep understanding necessary to edit it," in my interpretation.

You also wrote on the DSK-case Talk page: "Lets put this very simply; for BLP reasons do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked."[78] (emphasis added) The relevant passage proscribing this, on WP:Threaten policy, is: Don't do that or you will be blocked.

Even above, you seem to imply that some editors are more equal than others: "the editors commentating against inclusion of this detail are all highly experienced BLP editors who make it their speciality to work on BLP material of this type. I've worked on a number of articles where the same content approach is taken - so, yes, it is worth listening to what Any [Andy], Rob and the others are saying." (emphases added) As noted, Andy has stated a strong POV about the exclusion of bio info, a POV which is not WP policy.

Clearly your editing and talk behavior is polite, which is very much appreciated. Do you see how in conjunction with AndyTheGrumps incivility (examples given above[79]) this creates a one-two punch, that is especially intimidating to new users? It might help another time (and even on DSK-case) if you encourage 'Andy' (or whomever you are agreeing with) to be civil, so that newbies aren't intimidated, and to avoid any misperception of tag-teaming. Just a suggestion.

Errm, the 'level of detail' yes, but not including her name, which was settled by consensus weeks ago. As I've explicitly pointed out several times in the Talk pages, and again above, this is a strawman and red-herring. (E.g., in the Talk pages: I wrote: "@User:Flinders Petrie No-one is suggesting that we include her name. That is a strawman argument. [...] @Andy: Please stop making Strawman arguments, no-one here is suggesting we include her name. [...] [@ErrantX] No mention is nor should be made of the alleged victim's name, we all agree. [...] [@above] Please note: this has nothing to do with including her name, which is a Strawman argument and Red herring. There is widespread consensus not to include her name. User:rgpk wrote: "Anyway, no one here is arguing that we should include the name of the victim". Even user:CaptainScreebo acknowledges that even user:Wran was not "calling for the alleged victim's name to be put in", "just a lot of bio detail".)

As noted repeatedly, her own lawyer is the origin (in RS's) for the basic bio info. It does not violate her privacy. DSK has had extensive PR to shape his name for decades; it seems reasonably balanced to include the minimal info about the woman as released by her lawyer.

"Rob has introduced a small amount of detail about her using the BBC source; this, again, is a fairly normal approach because the BBC tends to have an approach to living persons that mirrors ours (and so we can usually follow their editorial policy safely)." I'm glad for this, and see it as a positive step forward on this article. Thanks, Rob! I included links to BBC on this when I first raised this issue (weeks ago?), and since then. *shrug*

My speculation on human nature: my guess as to what happens in articles like this is that reasonable editors get tired of correcting unreasonable editors over and over again (e.g., on invasions of privacy, racism, BLP, recentism, etc.). Perhaps some informal teams form. Then a newer editor comes along and adds something in what the former see as a grey-area at best, and it gets lumped in with the unreasonables. Conflicts ensue.

Btw, do you see the Catch-22: you and Andy ask why WP should include any bio info. (I gather that you feel it's not enough that all editors of all reliable sources include this info). Then, when any reason is offered, you label it as 'WP:Coatracking' (which it is not), and reject it. The more defense that is offered for including it, the more you can argue it is coatracking. Catch-22.

Basta. I hope I'm moving on to other topics! :-) FatTrebla (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification over that. Some final thoughts... my "block" comment was directed at Wran, who was adding soap-boxy material to the article to complain about the fact we are not naming her. He was subsequently (and rightly) blocked for repeating this, which was the point of my comment :) I employed it as an attempt of last resort to stop his behaviour, and as I said at the time the threat was not made lightly.

In terms of the other comments; the implication is not that some editors are more equal than others, but simply one of experience.. we all have our specialisms - Rob, Andy and myself (as well as many others) devote large amounts of our time working on BLP content and this is the established standard of content inclusion that has been agreed by consensus a number of times. The intent is not to say "this is how it is", but to say "this is how it is applied everywhere else".

The problem with the material stems largely from the fact that it is generally being used to smear her as an individual (obviously, not going to detail the specifics here, but read the numerous news reports and check the talk page history). Some of the detail was being speculatively used against DSK and in support of her (for example; her religion). This underlines the reason we try to avoid too much detail of private individuals, particularly potential victims.

IIRC the comments about "coat-racking" were only made in relation to previous attempts to cast her race in the light of IMF neo-imperialism; in simple language an attempt to underline that she was the "ultimate minority" to against a rich white male.

I'm not sure what your comments r.e. Andy's POV mean... that is his interpretation of our policies (to some extent I agree with those interpretations). Indeed he is all but quoting the policy of WP:BLPCAT in the first comment you cite.

Your comments are taken on board r.e. the perception of "tag teaming". --Errant ^(chat!) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I added the womans nationality and the fact that she was an immigrant yesterday and it has not been removed. It is quite normal (that I have seen for us to use editorial control to report cautiously about victims of crime - we have nothing to sell here, unlike the press) that we don't report personal details in such situations - please see Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange - months after the event and with masses of details about the accusers in the press almost no details about them at all in our article. Clearly her religion (if she is actually actively practicing the religion of her birth) is irrelevant to the alleged crime that she has become notable for as is the fact that she has a daughter - as a one event alleged victim of a crime the article is not about her it is about the alleged crime.Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the woman's nationality is relevant at this point. Nor do I see that it was released by her lawyers - that's not what the BBC article says in support of the assertion. I haven't removed it because the amount of controversy about what to include about the housekeeper and what not to makes me reluctant to touch it. If I recall correctly, I said I was against its inclusion on the article's Talk page. It feels a little like putting something in the article that doesn't belong but doing it anyway as a sop to those editors who want even more.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response:

I am somewhat confused. What Wikipedia policies and or guidelines am I supposed to have contravened? Other than yet another run in with User:Bus stop over his attempt to hijack the thread for yet another debate on ethno-tagging, where I'll freely admit to pushing the bounds of WP:CIVIL somewhat (which, if anyone wishes to follow up, I am fully prepared to defend, given Bus stop's behaviour), I can see no evidence that anyone is even claiming that I have done anything wrong. THis is a content dispute, no more, no less, largely over the extent to which we should use 'reliable sources' to determine content, rather than to provide it.

As to the specific suggestion that I have a 'POV' regarding the extent to which Wikipedia should report matters of ethnicity, religion etc, it is true that I have one, and have made it clear. But since when has having an opinion been against Wikipedia policy? That FatTrebla can take a suggestion from me that Wikipedia should stop using categories (in the specific Wikipedia sense) regarding ethnicity or religion in articles as an indication that I wish to exclude the subject entirely can only indicate that he is less-than-familiar with the debate.

Finally, I note that FatTrebla has used the term 'Tag Team' in the section heading. Given that he has not provided any evidence that anything of the sort has occurred, I ask that he redact this - or provide evidence that it has. Instead, what seems to have happened is that he has been told much the same thing, by several different editors - that article content is determined by policy, and by consensus, not by the content of the NYT. This is an online encyclopaedia, with long-term objectives, and that we should have a different perspective on content is unsurprising - and here, my perspective largely follows that of the 'tag team' (and of WP:BLP policy). Evidently though, I am to be held to account not merely for having different opinions from other contributors, but for having the same ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Andy that the term "Tag Team" is wholly unsupported and unsupportable. It is a serious charge and not mitigated simply by following the charge with a question mark. It's sort of the editing equivalent of a conspiracy. It should be stricken.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is not tag teaming but a content dispute. As WP:TAG says, "some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team"". If one disagrees with other editors, one should use content dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring over non-free image removal...

...is something I'd like to see less of, so Ched Davis and I have written a document called Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems, which we hope will help people understand why their non-free image was removed from an article.

I'm posting this here, since edit-warring over non-free image removal seems to be a perennial issue on this page that saps a lot of time and energy from more productive endeavors. Your input on this doc is welcome; anything you can think to add that will help people understand the basics of NFCC and how to deal reasonably with image removal would be great.

Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I hope it helps. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc

This began at Armour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with sockpuppetry to force changes against WP:ENGVAR - and has since then devolved further into vandalism, edit warring, and today into personal attacks [80][81]. The user had also attempted to manipulate and mislead to try getting administrative action against those who blocked him - namely, me (see archived threads at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive705#Admin Abuser Barek and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_77#Admin Abuser Barek) - which he later used additional socks to attempt to blank out of the archive history [82][83][84]. Most recently, the user has posted via another sock[85] his intent to persistently edit war over a a shared IP tag at user talk:70.186.166.251 and user talk:68.106.172.179.

My question is, what should be done? Should we simply pursue a WP:RBI with an occasional WP:SPI when needed? Should we edit protect the talk pages? Move the sharedIP tags into the editnotice space for the IPs (assuming such a thing even works for IPs)? Delete the talk pages?

I'm wondering what opinions others have as to the best course to contain any disruption of Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to create an edit filter (I took a look at the disruptive edits and a lot of it is based on removing the word armour [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]) which has a regex for disallowing the removal of the word armor and maybe for disallowing the change from British to American English. I think this might be the best way to solve this problem. Minima© (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring at Armour isn't really a current issue - it was the start, but the user seems to have stopped any activity on that page. My concern is more related to his subsequent behavior on other pages (vandalism, blanking, and personal attacks). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion

Debresser has nominated a category for deletion again before the rfc has reached a satisfactory conclusion. I will not let him entice me into an edit war again, resulting in getting me sanctioned. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to the RfC? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was closed on June 4 by User:RFC bot in this edit. In addition, the category has been empty for over a month.

User:Chesdovi's revert of my speedy delete nomination was out of procedure in any case, since the way to contest speedy deletion nominations is to press a button and write on the talkpage, not to remove the template. The problem here seems to be that Chesdovi refuses to accept that a vast majority of editors disagrees with his point of view, rather than that there is still active discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor It appears the following occured.

1. Chesdovi and Debresser had a dispute over the appropriateness of adding articles to Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis compared to making specific century subcategories for Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine (the issue being whether it is appropriate to call medevial Jews rabbis living in the Palestine territory of the Ottoman Empire as "Palestinian").
2. This led to Debresser removing the category from articles.
3. Supreme Deliciousness tried to deal with the dispute between the two of them, and started an RfC at the category's talk page on May 5th (I invite any reviewing editor/admin to read the talk page to see how that turned out).
4. Three or four other editors (besides Chesdovi and Debresser) got involved, all who sided with the view that the category was inappropriate. (The main policy-based argument that the reliable secondary sources need to call these people "Palestinian" to allow their articles to be categorized as such, with a sprinkling of arguments on the same line as WP:UNDUE.)
5. The RfC eventually turned into Chesdovi showing evidence of some Jews calling themselves Palestinian prior to formation of the State of Israel, and Debresser pointing out reasons why those exaples were wrong or not helpful, and that the majority of reliable sources do not use that term.
6. The last comments during the RfC were on May 24th (ignoring comments made by a sock).
7. The RfC bot removed the RfC tag on June 4th.
8. On June 16th and 17th, Chesdovi and Debresser had another debate over new sources provided by Chesdovi.
9. On June 17th, Debresser tagged the category for speedy deletion because it had been empty for weeks.
10. Chesdovi removed the tag (incorrectly, as he was the article's creator).
11. Debresser restored the tag.

Now that the chronology is set out, here are my comments. The RfC was requested, and editors responded to. By the time the RfC closed, most of the editors supported a policy-based argument that there should be a requirement that reliable secondary sources have referred to these type of individuals as "Palestinian" before their articles could be categorized as such. (I would also point out that WP:UNDUE applies here as well.) That appears to be the current consensus, notwithstanding Chesdovi's disagreement. Debresser and Chesdovi can keep arguing back and forth indefinitely. However, the RfC closed, a consensus was determined, the category has been empty since the RfC closed on June 4th, and therefore it is correct that the category should be deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the conclusion Singularity42 has reached.

Biosketch: "I have to concede that Chesdovi builds a more compelling case per Wikipedia's guidelines."

Redaktor: "I don't understand the objection to the word Palestine in this context. The region has been known by that name for close on two thousand years."

Dfass was opposed but did not respond to my last reply and had previously stated: "Perhaps we just have different perceptions of how this term would actually be interpreted by readers."

Jztinfinity seems to be neutral.

Supreme Deliciousness insists individual sourcing.

Debresser and IZAk oppose.

There was no concensus anywhere that agreed only to add sourced "palestinians". Neither was there consensus opposing the designation altogether. If Debresser thinks "there is still active discussion" why did he nominate the category for deletion? Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Have I got this right? The editor who nominated it for deletion emptied the category and used the emptiness as an argument in favour of deletion? Don't we rather frown on that sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It was outrageous! Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you use it as a sneaky end-run around a consensus that you didn't like, fair enough. However, if there's a consensus that pages which formerly belonged in the category should be removed from it, and that results in the category being depopulated, and that sticks, then it makes sense to remove the category. The questions here seem to be:

1. Was there a general consensus that the category should contain only those rabbis designated as Palstinian by reliable sources?
2. Did editors act properly in regards to editing the articles formerly under the category in question during and after the RfC?

If the answer to both is "yes" then there's nothing wrong with an involved editor having been responsible for the second category deletion attempt. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to DuncanHill). No, I think you're mixing up the chronology a bit (although it appeared a bit confusing to me as well until I shifted through the history of both the category page and the talk page). My read is that there are two seperate parts to the history:

1. Pre-RfC: Debresser empties the category, other editors tag for speedy deletion, speedy deletion put on hold due to RfC about whether category is appropriate or not.
2. Post-RfC: RfC ends in a concensus that the category (which has happened to remain empty during the RfC) is inappropriate (at least, that is my read on it - Chesdovi thinks I've read the discussion incorrectly), and after a couple weeks of no discussion, Debresser restores the speedy tag.

I don't think what Debresser did is incorrect, provided the RfC consensus is that the category is inapproriate. Singularity42 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a bit of back 'n forth at the beggining of this, but as far as I cn remember Debresser de-categories 150 pages and then went ahead and nominated the cat for deletion. See history here. Also Pallomine was a sock who "appeared" to save Debresser the trouble of nominating the other cats for deletion. The problem is that the discussion died down without a clear conclusuion. There was not enough outside input. The reason why the cats remained empty during the rfc is that Debresser would not allow them to remain! Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Chesdovi created these categories of his own initiative. He was reverted. He insisted. Consensus was established. Time passed. Now we clean up. Chesdovi obviously is not happy about all of this, but that is the way of things. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has acted as the sole protagonist campaigning against my changes. He was so sure that the whole community were aginst them aswell. Yet when it came to it, only IZAK provided him with any substantial backup. No one seems that interested, even after notices were left at umpteen pages to try and garner input. So we are left with Debresser pushing for his view of not accomodating my category names. Chesdovi (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see what the big fuss is here. Regarding Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, if there are 16th century-era rabbis who are themselves also Palestinians, then the category can be used. I mean, we have Category:People from Nizhnekamsk which at first glance doesn't seem like an important category until you see there are 225,000 people living there. If it wasn't a very active RfC, then we don't really have a good opinion either way and we can't judge properly based on that RfC. Is having one dissenter (not saying that's the case here, just in general) agreeing with the nominator enough to pass the RfC if no one else supports? I mean, using my own example, no one's given an opinion on my AfD in over a week, it's just getting relisted even though it clearly fails notability policy but as soon as one person agrees, it gets closed - or disagrees, it gets closed and kept. Funny how we work around here! CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The big fuss is that editors are suggesting that there was an RfC which said that we shouldn't describe 16th century-era rabbis who happened to live in what is currently Palestine "Palestinians" unless reliable sources do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I emphatically object to the manner in which I have been quoted above. It's true that at that Category Discussion page I said Chesdovi (talk · contribs) built the more compelling argument. But it was more the product of WP:TOWEL than of a truly cogent position on User:Chesdovi's part. A more recent comment of mine (though admittedly perhaps ill-formulated) leaves no room for doubt that I oppose Chesdovi's campaign to turn everything Jewish in historic Israel into "Palestinian." This is a serious issue, and it isn't being dealt with in a duly serious manner.

CycloneGU (talk · contribs), the big fuss is that the word Palestinian has clear connotations today that are being overlooked by Chesdovi. To call 16th-century rabbis "Palestinian" is to impose an ethnic identity on them that's completely foreign to how anyone at the time would have referred to them. Ultimately, that is the problem here. The adjective Palestinian is not normally construed as meaning "in Palestine" but rather as "of Palestinian ethnicity" or "relating to the Palestinian people." There was no Palestinian people five hundred years ago, and Jewish rabbis in Palestine certainly did not share the same ethnos as the Arabs in Palestine. Ultimately, yes, Chesdovi has been able to summon an impressive volume of documents indicating that the word Palestine has been applied to Jews in Palestine from hundreds of years ago. But he's ignoring the ambiguity of the word and being selective about which definition he would like to embrace, when simply saying "16th century rabbis of Palestine" or "16th century Land-of-Israel rabbis" would avoid the ambiguity of calling these Jewish rabbis/synagogues etc. "Palestinian."—Biosketch (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Bio for explaining his position. There is more at play than meets the eye here. It is quite clear that the term Palestinian can and is used to describe people "from/of Palestine", just as we have French Tosafists, or German rabbis. Are those tosafists ethnically French, or rabbis ethnic Germans? Unlikly, but we refer to them as German and French becasue they lived there, an by calling them French we understand that they came from France. By calling rabbis Palestinian, all we are doing is highlighting the fact that they came from Palestine. I have yet to truly undersatnd the great problem here. There may have been no Palestinian people as such 500n years ago, but there was a region called by that name. That's why this category is so vital here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a region called "Rome" as well, but its precise geographic boundaries, political influence, and ethnic makeup has varied somewhat over the years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point being what? Not to have Category:Roman people by century? Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That Category:Roman people by century is populated by articles on people who are uncontroversially "Roman". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying the use of Palestinian is a problem here because it is "controversial" - read "unacceptale for right-wing zionists who baulk at the "P" word? Chesdovi (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely why we don't do it. Labels can harm people. We should be careful where we use them. This applies to Israel/Palestine as much as (if not more than) it applies to other particularly troublesome labels on Wikipedia, most notably Ireland or pretty much the whole of the Balkans. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean exactly, but we do have Category:Ancient Irish people which no doubt includes people from Northern Ireland too. And is this really about “harming” people? This is not a BLP issue. The only harm here is that Wikipedia is being be censored to pander to people’s personal POV. We cannot help it if Ameer Makhoul lives in in Israel. He is categorised as an Israeli Arab whether he likes it or not. If these rabbis lived in Palestine, they are Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to make sure we're not getting off-topic here into a content dispute; ANI isn't to re-hash the RfC. I think the following questions need to be answered here:

1. Did the RfC establish a consensus about whether the category is or isn't appropriate, or is more input required before a consensus is established?
2. Was Debresser right with the most recent tagging of the category for speedy deletion?

As already indicated above, my answers are (without repeating my reasons) 1) Yes, there was a consensus from the RfC, even if there were only approximately five editors who participated (although Chesdovi disagreed with the results), and 2) Debresser was correct in the most recent tagging of the category for speedy deletion as a result of the RfC. Singularity42 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case it is clear to all that there is no consensus to create and populate the categories Chesdovi is pushing. The discussion has ended June 4, and the categories have been empty even longer. I propose an uninvolved admin close this discussion and delete the categories. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should the opinion of one user, Debresser, override mine? For a month the categories were untouched, until Debresser noted them and acted without consesus to immediately revert 150 pages and nominate for them for deletion. Dbresser also objected to Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine, claiming there was no such place ever called Palestine! There is simply not enough serious objection by enough people not to have these categories. (We must remeber that MailkShabbaz also took a neutral postion, although he did not comment at the rfc). It is clear that the reason given about confusion over "ethnicity", while understandable, is unfounded as backed up by a plethora of RS, and that initially Debresser called the category "antisemitic"! As I said, there is more to than meets the eye here. Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There was never a problem with Category:Palestinian Christian monks. How strange. Chesdovi (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we'll get to that :) Joke... Debresser (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I get that you're joking (really, I do), but I must also point out Category:Palestinian Jews. =P CycloneGU (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at that category. It contains only those people who either identify as Palestinian or who lived in what was uncontroversially Palestine. The argument being made here is applying those criteria to Category:Palestinian rabbis depopulates it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rfc query

There was no one who "closed" the disscusion. Is this required? Who decided that the category does not have a place on wikipedia? Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This category was deleted because it was empty. There is no bar to recreating it if it becomes not-empty in the future. Just remember that any article you include in the category, must have a source that calls them a "Palestinian rabbi". I suspect that my be hard, which is why all of the members were removed in the first place. -- Selket ^Talk 18:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There are severe problems with the name "Palestinian rabbis" even if a source were to be found that uses such a term. That seems to be the consensus of the deletion discussion, and this has been mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Selket, many indeed are sourced, but need they be? We have countless other "xxxian" rabbi categories, they aren't sourced. Even so, Debresser still has a problem with it. But then again, Debresser may be bothered by the ever so slight misunderstanding which may occur. He nominated Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel to be renamed to "in the Land of Israel".... His proposal was defeated. Let's not bother ourselves here either with these pernickety views, worrying people may mistake residency with ethnicity. And if they do, so what? We can't plan for each and every circumstance. Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask for block

Chesdovi has begun again, adding this category to articles. I ask he be blocked immediately for making his controversial edits, and pushing his non-consensus points of view. You may see Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis#Chesdov.27s_conclusion where he himself shows that there is no consensus for what he is now doing. Please notice that he has been repeatedly blocked in the past for these same things. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can follow the timeline of Debresser's arrogant enforcements, they will conclude Debresser is not playing by the rules by any means. See Below where I have asked he be stopped before naymore damage is doen, (like the deletion of the category page, only to be undelted after much annoyance while this thing gets sorted out.) Chesdovi (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi is walking the edges. He has added a notice to many article, that he intends to restore the term "Palestinian rabbi", and has added a link to Palestine to the names of many cities in articles about rabbi's. The first certainly would be against consensus. The second is walking the edges, since "Palestine" was not the official name of the region during the time-period involved (see Ottoman Palestine). I think a block would show Chesdovi clearly, that this type of walking the edges, when discussion is still going on, including on WP:ANI, is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"discussion is still going on". Give me a break Dbrsr. Who do you think you're fooling. Chesdovi (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Debresser

#Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion is up the way, guys. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Debresser has reverted a number of my changes, changes I made after a couple of users noted that the Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis had been empty, which reulted in it being deleted and a big nusience having to get the page undelted. Debresser needs to be stopped once and for all. I will not be dragged into and edit war and get blocked like a month ago. Debresser needs to learn that he can not force constantly his view on others. Chesdovi (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For reference. --causa sui (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ask_for_block and the discussion preceding it above. For the real references. :) Debresser (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I have had enough of Debresser's arrogant behaviour. How much more must I suffer? 150 pages de-categorised in one fell swoop, without any discussion, then back and forth with nominating the category for deletion. Now reverting after I populate the category to save it from being deleted again. I cannot take this much longer. Chesdovi (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Are you now throwing a tantrum after another bout of your disruptive pushing of non-consensus edits is reverted? I propose this discussion be merged with the discussion above. If that is allowable on WP:ANI discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC) You have acted wrongly right from the start. Who do you think you are to go and revert all those pages without consulting a soul. How dare you. Do you not understand that you got the page deleted before there was a conclusion to the matter. But hey, you wouldn't care about that would you. You even wanted to close the rfc after a few days. How can anyone take you seriously. I readded with citation as suggested by Skelet and others. But you, you again, go on the rampage to force yourself upon others. Do you know where this type of smug behaviour leads...? Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I really have no idea what you are talking about. But I find it odd that you who created this category and added 150 articles to it, without any prior discussion, should be offended by the fact that you were reverted without discussion as well. It sounds rather like "poetic justice". Not to mention WP:BRD Just in case anybody should wonder, the revert I reverted you today was because the discussion has shown very clearly that your edits are highly controversial and definitely against the opinion of a majority of editors. Oh, btw, the "few days" you mention, were actually two whole weeks. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC) "But I find it odd that you who created this category and added 150 articles to it, without any prior discussion" & "the revert I reverted you today was because the discussion has shown very clearly that your edits are highly controversial." Who said then following: "Even if you thought when creating them that they were not controversial, but by now you must have noticed that they are controversial"? Debresser of course. So he concurs that the initial creation was not deemed by me controversial, so why the need for prior discussion? Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RevDel requested at Penny Lancaster

IP using edit summary to post unsupported accusations against the article subject. Zero credibility, zero encyclopedic value, but will remain visible in article history unless suppressed. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. The IP is accusing her of lying about her height? I'm not sure that falls under the purview of RevDel. TNXMan 17:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We have an anon accusing an article subject of dishonesty, without a shred of evidence either that the statement is false or that the disputed claim can be attributed to the subject. That would ordinarily be removed without discussion from just about any place it was posted on-wiki, and RevDel is the only way to remove it from an edit summary. It falls under both CFRD 2 and 3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

*shrugs* OK. I disagree, but I'm curious to hear other's opinions. TNXMan 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Of course, is her height/weight properly sourced anyway? If it's from her personal website, it might not necessarily be a "lie", but it's certainly not really a third party source...I agree that the IP's isn't sourced either. Nothing to RevDel IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary does say she was lying, insofar as it literally says "she is lying", but I'm hard-pressed to read it as a serious accusation. Maybe if the IP had claimed that Ms. Lancaster was lying about never having kicked a puppy, or something. Larry V (talk | email) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note at 174.108.82.56's talk page because… well, why not. Larry V (talk | email) 18:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've deleted the edit summary. We do not want editors making such accusations about article subjects. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was quite right to suggest it and I fail to see what there is to ruminate over, Tnxman307. Fences&Windows 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just saw the bit at WP:REVDEL that said "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". I didn't think calling someone a liar qualified as "grossly insulting". TNXMan 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Especially over something as trivial as one's height. Larry V (talk | email) 02:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Not that much harm was done here, but if that's the threshold that we're using revdel for an BLPs we're going to need an admin cloning machine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
        • While it's not something I would have bothered to ask for myself I feel the revdel was appropriate. As others have said it's not so much that the material desperately needed revdel just that it's the kind of thing for which removal from an article talk page or some other page on wikipedia was appropriate but this is not possible for an edit summary Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not that it is of any importance, but the only of the sources given that is accessible to me and mentions her height gives her an inch less than what is claimed in the infobox. I do not believe this matter to be important enough for even a {{fact}} tag, though. —Kusma (t·c) 07:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

Resolved

 – Down to just a single unactioned report at time of writing. --Taelus (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. GiantSnowman 15:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Siksok

User:Siksok abused 3RR in the article Turkey. Actually these edit must be regarded as vandalism. He/she tried to remove sourced information repeatedly. Judging by his/her user name Siksok, I cannot think that his/her edits are normal.

1 2 3 4 5

Possibly this edit was done by his/her sock puppet or meat puppet. Takabeg (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I'd agree User:Siksok is editing in a rather aggressive and tendentious manner. He/she could probably be blocked for several reasons. I'd agree that Soufle is a possible sock. NickCT (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rovas Script

Not sure what's going on here, but Rovasscript (talk · contribs) and Rovosaman (talk · contribs) are rapidly making changes in articles adding stuff about Rovosaman, including piping, etc. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, scientific materials are added and reorganized, there are lack of information on Wiki: feel free to specify any mistake or error. Many thanks Rovosaman (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note: I am herewith signing this segment in response to reminder (below). As some editors have noted, Mjpresson has furnished no proof of any "threats' from Tokerdesigner and even, it appears to me, attempted to deceive editors voting in this proceeding by adding his/her own boldfacing after the fact to a comment (cited below) which I did leave on the User:Mjpresson talk page. I have never threatened to "tag", delete or vandalize any article by Mj or anyone. To get an idea of what User:Mjpresson intends to do if User:Tokerdesigner is banned for a week (as proposed below) view recent edits to Cannabis smoking (photo of a "man smoking a joint" promoted to top of article) and my response thereto on Talk:Cannabis smoking. I will also, as time permits by tomorrow, because User:Mjpresson has objected to my defense argument (also below) as too long and even proposes deleting some of it, present my argument at the MP:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page with links to it inserted on this page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [91]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [92] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[93] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose we should let him have more rope and let him to acknowledge better and change his ways. Switch to Support. He should know not to do that. Also, the 6 months would give hime time to change his ways. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Tokerdesigner has been causing trouble at least as far back as 2008, but the trouble he's caused is relatively low-level. If this doesn't get his attention, then heavier penalties may be warranted. Frotz (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Please see [94].Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have provided some documentation on this issue here [95]. Mjpresson (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Thanks in part to the effort of Mjpresson in gathering the evidence, I will present my case day by day as library time permits.

As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":

Revision as of 17:43, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Re: Cannabis smoking edits, and Block Warning)

Revision as of 15:20, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (→Hash Oil)

Please note that Mjpresson, not Tokerdesigner, has added the substantial amount of boldfacing which may make the message appear more menacing than intended by Tokerdesigner. Am I entitled to suspect an intent to deceive editors who may be voting in this proceeding?

Then, in his compilation referenced above, you will note that Mjpresson has added on further quotes, all drawn from October-November 2009 in the period after User:Altenmann (now permanently banned from Wikipedia) had reduced the Kief article from over 4000 to 1000 bytes and Mjpresson had begun curtly reverting efforts by Tokerdesigner to restore (in revised form) a small part of the deleted information.

That is when I contributed small edits to several articles by Mjpresson, mainly by way of letting him know I was interested in learning of their nature. As he admits, none of my edits defaced, vandalized, deleted or "tagged" any of the articles in any way, nor as far as I can see "threatened" to do so. Yet his response to those edits, and to some messages in which I tried to use humor but was possibly missunderstood, was this:

Revision as of 18:23, 31 October 2009 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→A note regarding user "Tokerdesigner")

"... This user is totally stalking me, trying to ridicule my edits, and uses his own wiki-posts as references. This is a complete and utter loser. If you want to see the saga of an asshole, see his talk page. A complete antipolicy wank..." --Mjpresson (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the italics. What is a "wank"? As for policy, Tokerdesigner is not "anti-policy" (whatever a "wank" is). I affirm that in the vast majority of cases policy rules. (Or rules police.) But Jimmy Wales and partners instituted Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for a reason. Wikipedia/Wikimedia was intended to be a progressive project as indicated by the 2008 fund raising slogan, seen here above pages for several weeks: "Help Wikimedia change the world!" If readers want conventional strict encyclopedic rules and total neutrality they can go to Britannica. WP:IAR must be invoked in one particular situation: "SAFETY FIRST!" That means: SAFETY TRUMPS POLICY. Anyway, I henceforth abstained from any further edits to Mjpresson's articles, or messages to User:Mjpresson until this month when I felt I had to protest after he reduced the length of the Hashish article (which gets 6000 hits a day according to the Full Wiki rating service) by 40%, an unprecedented reduction, in 18 consecutive edits including this:

cur | prev) 03:12, 27 May 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (9,838 bytes) (Inappropriate catsUndid revision 431098491 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)

Revision as of 03:11, 27 May 2011 (edit)Mjpresson (talk | contribs)(→Preparation and methods of use: STOP ADDING HOW TO multiple warnings in past)

Revision as of 23:47, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (move hash oil foto)

Revision as of 00:29, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Tobacco: article isn't about tobacco, reference removed as was not allowable as ref)

Note that on 26 May Mjpresson deleted a paragraph covering the practice of mixing cannabis with tobacco, including a reference to the Australian Department of Health warning against that practice. What's "not allowable" about that ref? (In the interest of Safety First, and in the service of readers, including youngsters, who want to know about issues of safety regarding hashish use, Tokerdesigner then restored the ref, see above.) Mjpresson, why did you delete that ADoH warning?

As if in answer to Mjpresson's May 26 deletion of the Australian DoH warning that mixing cannabis with tobacco "can lead to unintended nicotine addiction", the World Health Organization issued this May 30 warning:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/wntd_20110530/en/index.html

"... This year, the tobacco epidemic will kill nearly 6 million people, including some 600 000 nonsmokers who will die from exposure to tobacco smoke. By 2030, it could kill 8 million."

Let's do some math: assuming 1% of the nicotine addictions over the past half century resulted at least in part from youngsters exploring hashish having received advice to roll it in a joint together with tobacco (I think the figure is higher), that would account for 60,000 of the 6 million yearly premature deaths (with huge medical expenses in the later stages of illness). (Comparison: Ratko Mladić is in court over a one-time execution of 8300 at Srebrenica. Will the Wikipedia editors of today someday be compared with UN Peacekeepers who stood by at Srebrenica "for policy reasons" while Mladić's troops killed the 8300?)

I cited, above, two further edits: (a) one in which Mjpresson deleted what he/she refers to as "How-to"-- i.e. safety instructions" which could, if observed by readers, lead to avoiding the "other" How-to (cannabis and tobacco together in a joint, "which can lead to unintended nicotine addiction"), and (b) one in which Mjpresson deletes a "See also" link (which Mj believed to be a "cat"-- category?) to the one-hitter article which describes what are seen as possible alternatives' to rolling cannabis and tobacco together in a joint.

Without waiting for voting to close in this proceeding, Mjpresson then went to One hitter (smoking) and deleted over half the article, particularly pictures and information which could instruct readers in how to avoid rolling tobacco and cannabis together in a joint. Mjpresson further deleted a picture of a bottle of dokha, a sifted tobacco product used in a midwakh, as "non-contextual", even though the picture served a useful purpose in the {One-hitter (smoking) article by showing how herb (any species!) should be sifted before use in a narrow one-hitter. This seems to indicate an intention to deny readers information which promotes health and safety (but admittedly interferes with recruiting them into nicotine addiction).Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support A week block for not heeding the communities warnings since 2008 to use reliable sources for verifiability seems fair to me.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tokerdesigner has disrupted this conversation above with his own "oppose" (can he do that?) and a huge amount of lengthy copy/paste inserted. Can this be removed from the conversation? Mjpresson (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be hatted. But we can take it as read that people can "oppose" their own block or ban, and give a reason why - otherwise WP:ANI would be more like a kangaroo court. In this particular case the reason seems to be rather tangential, and Tokerdesigner is just digging themselves deeper into a hole with the genoicide comparisons, but hey... bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only can someone oppose, it's unusual for them not to, unless they can't for some reason (they are away from Wikipedia or are blocked, etc.). -- Atama頭 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my previous note from here (after justified criticism, below, and because no longer timely. Readers can search it down in "History".) I have added further defense argumentation at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page, at Talk:Cannabis smoking and at [96], the latter also now referenced, below, by Mjpresson. At all three of those venues, if editors will read the entire text, they can observe illuminating one-on-one debate between User:Mjpresson and User:Tokerdesigner, including references to edits Mjpresson has made in the last three days to numerous articles, perhaps in expectation that Tokerdesigner will be banned and other editors intimidated. (See Mjpresson:Contributions page.)

Option to change vote

Anyone who has already voted (above) can still-- as of this moment-- change their vote. After reading the further debate installments referenced above, they may feel they understand the issues better. The issues are complex-- if they weren't, humanity would have solved the 6,000,000-a-year cigarette mortality problem by now, by understanding the differences (a) between cannabis and tobacco and (b)between commercially advertised overdose cigarette/"joint" "smoking" and a vaporizer or one-hitter-- so regrettably editors have a burden of duty to inform themselves more comprehensively than usual when deciding on this demand from Mjpresson to ban the "anti-policy wank" Tokerdesigner.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the above entry Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito). This is typical of the unintelligible entries we see on a daily basis. I don't understand what it means. Mjpresson (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it means "library". Perhaps that's where most of his internet access is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Because he also stated "I'm ghosthosting on various IP's to avoid getting caught by Big 2Wackgo". I don't know what that means, either. Mjpresson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's code for Big Tobacco? They could be out to get him. -- Atama頭 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an actual conspiracy theory rather than a bizarre conversational gambit, it's definitely wasting other editor's time, goodwill, and attention. bobrayner (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tokerdesigner's self referencing is preposterous. See my reversion of one here [97]. I don't know if the community has noticed this. I have reverted many of these by him.Mjpresson (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That "self referencing" was produced by some formatting machine later, I didn't put the name "Tokerdesigner" in there.

To address this issue now: on the archived section of Talk:One-hitter (smoking) you can find a list of the wikiHow and Wikiversity articles Tokerdesigner referenced, in order to comply with WP:NOTHOWTO which includes an overt directive that readers seeking how-to information be encouraged to seek it at wikiHow.com among other places. Referring to those articles kept that how-to information-- how to make one-hitters, etc. in true Wikipedia "do it yourself" spirit instead of buying them from high-price WP:SPAM headshops-- out of Wikipedia pages without denying readers access to it.

(Those wikiHow articles contain typewriter-generated diagrams similar to ones which Mjpresson has recently deleted from WP talk pages where they were posted in hopes other editors would decide to use the JPG technology to enter them as thumbnail illustrations. Since when is it considered civil to delete talk page postings?)Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And now this [98] unsigned note making false allegations on others' talk pages. Mjpresson (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm a a stooge of the world's leading genocide-for-profit conspiracy?:[99].Mjpresson (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like this to be addressed, please read his entire note if you have all day.[100].Mjpresson (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner says this of me on the talk page: "Using Wikipedia to promote the interests of the cigarette industry (through his advocacy in 44 detailed articles about the chain-smoking movie-maker José Mojica Marins whose main character Ze do Caixão (in English "Coffin Joe"-- sound like Joe Camel?) commits serial murders for sex and personal vindication). I personally couldn't smoke enough tobacco to stay awake sitting through 88 hours of those horror flicks. To reference another BRIC country: a 2004-05 study showed 89% of all movies made in India contained depictions of "tobacco use" (almost always cigarettes)."[101] [sic]Mjpresson (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed 1 week ban (or longer). Tokerdesigner's crusade (and inability to AGF) is detrimental to the project and to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning assumption of good faith: anyone with time to read the entire debate will find statements of mine showing that I assume good faith from Mjpresson, despite disagreements which stem from a perception that he/she has been pursuing a "policy" of removing from cannabis-related articles information which might promise to obstruct an "industry" agenda to exploit the interest in cannabis to recruit youngsters into nicotine addiction-- see the latest 30 Contributions by Mjpresson to various articles since Mj opened these proceedings. Bobrayner has the option, though it be onerous, to search further into the matter and even change his/her vote. This includes additions and revisions of my argument (above) since yesterday; I will continue as time and logistics permit to improve the links involved to make referencing them easier.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"agenda to exploit the interest in cannabis to recruit youngsters into nicotine addiction"? You've proven my point about AGF. Please stop digging. bobrayner (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But, bobrayner, why would Mjpresson delete the Australian Department of Health warning against mixing cannabis with tobacco (May 26, referenced above)?Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:THERAPY can be applied here[102],[103], [104],[105],[106],[107] in addition to the WP:V and WP:CIVIL issues. Please know that I do not intend any personal attack by raising this.Mjpresson (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not mean any personal attack, either, by mentioning here that Mjpression has (a) referred to Tokerdesigner as a single-purpose editor and (b) contributed 257 edits (I counted them) to the WP biographical article on the chain-smoking film-maker José Mojica Marins.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

Should I just continue to add these until the problem is addressed? [108] Mjpresson (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My energy and wiki-goodwill are being drained by this user ranting about me site-wide. Are the admins aware that this issue remains unresolved after 11 days?? Mjpresson (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And the relentless "one-hitter" obsession [109]. Mjpresson (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• ...to hell with a one-week ban, this is out of control. Support full siteban of Tokerdesigner, and also a polite suggestion that he find a more reputable dealer for whatever he's smoking, because good GOD is he getting some bad stuff. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned before this should be a permanent ban discussion for relentless WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:THERAPY. I certainly support that.Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not to mention violations of WP:CANVASS. --Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What's going to happen here

This isn't getting any traction because it's difficult to tell exactly what's going on, why it's disruptive and what policy would suggest is the correct outcome. From a quick read of the history, however, the following would seem to be true:

1. Tokerdesigner's edits are mainly in the area of cannabis smoking.
2. He's strongly in favour of promoting methods of cannabis smoking which don't involve tobacco, to the extent where he's convinced himself that those who disagree with his edits are working (directly or indirectly) for the tobacco industry.
3. He's edit warring on articles under the category of cannabis smoking to promote his POV.

Never mind talk of "one-week bans". Those supporting such things don't appear to understand the difference between a block and a ban, nor for what reason we block editors (specifically, that blocks are not punitive). Appropriate methods of resolution are things like:

1. Taking specific instances of edit warring past 3RR to WP:ANEW
2. Seeking a third opinion on specific content disputes
3. A request for comment on user conduct if the above fails to satisfactorily resolve the problem
4. Further remedies depending on the outcome of the RFC/U

None of the above is likely to happen while the likes of Mjpresson are edit warring right back, or wasting time proposing bogus sanctions at ANI. Put simply, y'all need to take this content dispute from the top rather than simply trying to un-person Tokerdesigner. For what it's worth Tokerdesigner's POV pushing here seems incredibly obvious, but our dispute resolution process is designed to amicably resolve such things while hopefully steering people into more productive editing: kicking people off the project is supposed to be a last resort.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I seriously propose that Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) did not read all the diffs provided. A serious issue has been blown off. There were 5 supports for the block and one protest by the blockee. I am not edit warring. He is just causing us more work and allowing an abusive editor to be disruptive sitewide. Seriously Cunningham I propose did not read the diffs provided and has made a capricious error of judgement. Mjpresson (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved:[110],[111], [112],[113],[114],[115], [116], and 5 supports to block contested only by blockee. Mjpresson (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had initially titled this section "too long, didn't read" before posting it. The reason it has been "blown off" is because a huge list of diffs with no succinct summary of the supposed wrongdoings is unlikely to get any attention at ANI at all, and the "proposed solution" is bogus. It is irrelevant whether people have supported it or not as we're not going to enact punitive blocks based merely on the number of people shouting for them. Lastly, you're not doing yourself any favours by attacking the only admin who has bothered taking the time to respond. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm only concerned about article quality and stopping the ranting about me sitewide. It's all in the diffs. Not concerned with doing myself "favour"s as you put it. That sounds a little threatening. You simply made a decision without reading provided diffs. Mjpresson (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"I had initially titled this section "too long, didn't read" before posting it.". An admin is attempting to reslove an issue without reading provided evidence and diffs. Mjpresson (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't just throw a mess of diffs at ANI and expect a result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: That post of mine was a bit curt, so I'll elaborate. What we have is a terrible mess of diffs, accusations and discussion that makes it incredibly difficult to figure out what the actual problem is. I'd suggest you write a succinct (500-1000 words) description of the history of the problem, with diffs provided at each juncture to help us understand what's going on. This may be better as an RfC, than an ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that most of the "tl;dr" stuff is from the wall-of-text postings by TokerDesigner that almost feel like they were intended to disrupt and break up the discussion. Has anyone *other* than TokerDesigner objected to the topic/siteban proposals? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rdfox, you are correct. There were 5 supports for a block and one object from Tokerdesigner. He has managed to copy and paste and mess up this thread until it's unreadable for the purpose of disrupting the proceeding. Tokerdesigner has trumped and played the administrators and has succeeded. Mjpresson (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of skipping Tokerdesigner's walls of text. What I am not capable of doing is finding a solid, policy-based proposed solution from other parties. A site ban is absolutely not happening based on the say-so of half a dozen involved editors, as you've already been told, so complaining about not getting one enacted is not productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a bit late to the party, been very busy in RL lately, but I thought I would just chime in and add that my experience with Tokerdesigner is that he is a shameless promoter of his own shall we say "unique" ideas on the "proper" methods of smoking pot and in my experience has been unwilling to accept many of Wikipedia's most basic policies because he believes his crusade to get people to smoke pot differently overrules those concerns. Haven't read this entire massively long thread, just re-iterating what my prior experience with this user has been for the record. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• There was a pretty solid consensus to block Tokerdesigner for one week, and while the justification for the block is all over the place, really it all comes down one way or another to soapboxing about their personally-preferred method of smoking cannabis. The disruption includes personal attacks and edit wars. I've therefore blocked Tokerdesigner for a period of one week. If this behavior persists, escalating blocks would be sure to follow as is the norm in such cases. -- Atama頭 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, he hasn't edited anything except his own userspace (with one exception, and that's hardly egrecious) in five days now. A week's block here is little but punitive, and sends out the wrong signal as regards future dispute resolution (i.e. just go and browbeat folk on ANI until you get what you're demanding). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I based my block on a few things (which didn't include Mjpresson's browbeating, that actually put me off taking action). First, SmartSE's analysis above is concerning. Secondly, the support for a one week block expressed by multiple people here. Third, the fact that even in this discussion Tokerdesigner took the time to soapbox about the evils of tobacco. And finally, they were back to edit-warring as recently as yesterday. (Mjpresson is guilty of the same thing, though, I'd like to point out.) As always my actions are up for review and criticism. -- Atama頭 23:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm aware that Chester Markel is a sockpuppet and their contributions to the discussion didn't hold weight with me (just in case someone brings that up). -- Atama頭 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Please know that I didn't initiate this block request. I started this thread as strictly a complaint. I've never asked anyone to be blocked. Now I see that the user who initiated this block is a sock who is banned? As much as I think Tokerdesigner needs a block, I'm not comfortable with the fact that this block was started by a sock puppet and I gave support. I don't want to do things that way.Mjpresson (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, what's done is done. I'd have been happier for Tokerdesigner to simply be given a final warning, but obviously his actions have been predominantly disruptive up until now. If it happens again then just bring it up here with as short a summary as you can, ideally with diffs and accompanying explanations which point it out, and sans the unnecessary "proposals" and blocks will be escalated until Tokerdesigner gets the point. For now we can probably close this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for coming back here. Please tell me if this[117] is the way to format this if it continues to be a problem. In the future would this be more likely to be addressed than my poor first attempt at a complaint? Then I'll move on to more positive things.Mjpresson (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Help needed in 'hijacked' page

After nearly two months of conflict with User:Wee Curry Monster I'm forced to come here because of a particular incident.

After successful intervention of User:Dave1185, the article Luis Vernet remained in a consensus status [118] [119]. You can see that version here.

Some days ago I felt that the article's introduction was incomplete, because as you can see it only stated that Luis Vernet was a hamburg-born merchant (not a valid reason to be in Wikipedia). So I translated with the help of a friend the German version, in the hope of getting a NPOV text: [120].

After a series of reverts, [121][122] Wee Curry Monster proposes a new introduction [123] which I reject for being too long and a bit inadequate, [124] and so I create a new section in the talk page [125]. My opinion about the text may be wrong, but instead of working in the talk page, that introduction was imposed with the argument that it is the original one (I am accused of removing text [126][127]), or that "my edits are still there" [128], or that I'm plainly and obviously wrong [129]. I tried to revert to last consensus status[130] and said so in the talk page,[131] but I was ignored.

Basically, I'm being forced to accept those new modifications. If I start reverting, I know I'll be accused of edit warring (he has already put a template in my talk page,[132] with accusations of socket puppetry), so I prefer to take a break and seek for help here. -- Langus (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a plain ol' content dispute and there doesn't appear to be anything in the way of edit warring which would require immediate administrative action. If you can't work it out on talk, try WP:3O and WP:RFC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For info, it was I who moved a substantial amount of material from de.wiki not Langus, the current lede is lifted directly from material there. Secondly the lede as edited by Langus was distinctly POV as it only presented one of several comments in the German language version. My rewrite introduced all. And I did delineate why his edit failed NPOV in Talk:Luis Vernet, in reply he alleges my rewrite is POV but does not substantiate why. I'm also in the middle of an expansion of the article, he is not forced to accept those changes but unfounded accusations of POV are not helpful. Nor is obstructing improvement of articles by using WP:NOCONSENSUS to try and simply block improvements.

I believe there is more going on here than a simple content dispute. Please, I would positively welcome admin overview on the matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Take this to WP:DRN. Larry V (talk | email) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both. I think I'll try one more time before that. -- Langus (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IP claims of vandalism

Some IP user reverted me at 3 different articles. While the first rv seemed okay, this and that were marked RVV. I wonder if someone was stalking me.

Anyway, is it okay to undo both, or would that be edit warring? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I might argue that the IP's version is the better version. Neither version is "vandalism", though. Better to follow the Bold Revert Discuss principle, and take it to the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of them certainly wasn't, and "RVV" is simply not an acceptable edit summary. Bugs, you're giving the IP a little too much credit--I don't see any talk page action happening. I left them a note on their talk page; as far as I'm concerned, further designation of Ed's edits as vandalism can be called a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed's question was basically whether to start a revert war, and the answer is NO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A user insulted me

Try the user's talk page or WP:WQA. This page should not be the first port of call for every complaint. NW (Talk) 04:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe this user insulted me in this edit summary. RevanFan (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC) You wouldn't win that claim in a court of law. Literally, ignorant meens that someone simply doesn't know something. Unfortunately, the word also has a colloquial, pejorative meaning equivalent to not very smart, or stupid. The writer of that Edit summary simply has to plea that his meaning was the former one. I suspect the traditional literal meaning would win every time in a legal battle. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I know that, but this isn't court. And, I was right in that matter anyway. He played in Croatia, yes, but he is not from Croatia. He was not born there, and you use the location of birth in those templates. At least you did last year and earlier this year. Anyway, I would like to hear his explanation as well, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place. RevanFan (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

user:CowlishawDavid‎ needs blocking

The user is repeatedly spamming the Reactionless drive article with unverifiable OR garbage, and is even signing in the article space and referencing his own unpublished work. I did wonder if he was a troll, he seems to just be a crank; or he may be someone doing a joe-job on the real Cowlishaw David.

The user's account shows no other positive contributions, and he was recently blocked for 3RR for this, but he immediately carried on revert warring upon return, and I would suggest a month long holiday, or at least a couple of weeks to protect the article.

Special:Contributions/CowlishawDavid

. -Rememberway (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about copy-editing his addition to a state where it's keepable? Psychoceramicists are always persistent, so you either have to embrace them or block them - there's no hoping they'll just go away.

From a brief look at it, it's reasonable for scope and we're actually quite lacking in some areas here, particularly the Sandy Kidd drive. This stuff is fringey as hell, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen and that it didn't get coverage by sources. Kidd was very widely covered in the UK during the 1990s, at least one Sunday newspaper (Sunday Observer?) and of course Eric Laithwaite jumped on the hovering bandwagon too. I'm not sure if Laithwaite is WP:RS on gyroscopes though? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find references then by all means add what you like to the article. Given that CowlishawDavid's contributions to date have all been perfectly stereotypically ravings, however, I would imagine that his next edits to articlespace will probably be his last. William M. Connolley has presented a final warning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I love his last comment on his talk page: "Bring it on! Those that hold sway in the public, and insist on putting forward false concepts, will soon be brought down! Truth is physical, repeatable, and verifiable! I hold myself, AND my adherants to the same standard. The "original research" includes the repeated experiments by over 20 others, that reported to me, results (both positive, and negative). I understand that I need to overcome the fantasy of former understandings, and need to verify my claims that deviate from the norm. Stay tuned (but don't close your mind to possible new realities)." (shouting his). A bit of COI there also. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As the "technology" he is writing about is his own work, I'd say there's more than a "bit" of COI going on. Larry V (talk | email) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We can just block him now, he's already been blocked for 3RR and then started right back up again. -Rememberway (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And no, I don't think, Laithwaite is generally considered a reliable source on gyroscopes and inertial thrusters ;-) For example IRC the royal society refused to publish his lecture material on that. He's was very good at linear motors though, but none of them moved reactionlessly. -Rememberway (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well. I've edited the section on Mr. Cowlishaw's work to something that might be acceptable, it needs more sources to ANYTHING that is other than Mr. Cowlishaw's own words. I'm not a fan of blocking, but as the user has appearantly been at this for upwards of 20 years, he's not going to easily give in to haveing only reliable sources on his fringe idea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me notice to this discussion. Inertial Propulsion is clearly a volitile subject. When I talked with Bob Dean at the First International Anti-Gravity conference in Reno years back, he related that his father's (Norman L. Dean) prototype had been confiscated after his untimely death, and after years of litigation to get it returned, it had been altered to no longer produce thrust. I understand "put up or shut up", and I will refrain from altering the current dogma until after I get my latest, high thrust prototype built and tested. Given the "lore" surrounding this field of endeavor, ironically, my success may mean you will never have to deal with me saying anything on this subject ever again! CowlishawDavid (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, "Inertial Propulsion" isn't a "volatile subject" on Wikipedia. It is merely one of many subjects where a proponent of a fringe theory insists that he/she has made some astonishing new insight, which mysteriously (usually due to a complex conspiracy run by persons unnamed) the 'establishment' refuses to recognise. We spend more time on keeping this sort of nonsense off Wikipedia than would seem plausible to the unenlightened outsider. We could of course open the floodgates and let it all in, but I doubt that this would do much for the very small minority of fringe theorists who have even an inkling of a useful idea - indeed, I suspect that an article would rapidly appear claiming that you stole your 'thruster' design from extraterrestrials held captive in Area 51, and/or that it was first described in the Book of Ezekiel. Since we don't wish to drown in a sea of unverifiable speculation, we confine articles to subjects that 'the establishment' choses to acknowledge the existance of. Other websites can however be found which operate on different principles, and I'm sure you will be welcome there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AndyTheGrump! I don't hide behind a false front or an obscure username! I am who I am, and you could drive up into my driveway and talk with me (but I might have a gun in your face, if you presented in such a negative, or challenging visiage).

My additions to the networked base of intellectualy observed reality is, and has been, open sourced. Challenges to reality, are opened by anyone living (or historical).

All I ask, is that reasonable people, use reason, in exploring the evidence.

Again, I will refrain from modifying the definition of "Inertial_propulsion" until I can achieve a clearly working prototype (a WOW, IN YOUR FACE) construction.

It takes time to turn a flat earth into one that is round! :) CowlishawDavid (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin note - ColinshawDavid has been indefinitely blocked following the comment above in which he threatened to put a gun in someone's face.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Kvvvvxvvvvv/Relpmek/Szs567

Copying over from edit warring noticeboard, where I was told to bring the issue here:

Page: Speculation about Mona Lisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kvvvvxvvvvv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [133]

• 1st revert: [134]
• 2nd revert: [135]
• 3rd revert: [136]
• 4th revert: [137]
• 5th revert: [138]
• 6th revert: [139]
• 7th revert: [140]
• 8th revert: [141]
• 9th revert: [142]
• 10th revert: [143]

..etc

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

Comments:

This is an ongoing dispute regarding the so-called "Roni Kempler theory" introduced to the page by user Relpmek (Kempler spelled backwards) earlier in the year (see talk on article page). It now appears the above user (whose page has been marked sock account by another editor) is attempting to insert the same theory despite well-worn explanations by several editors, including myself, on the WP policy against original research. It seems we have all attempted various means to diplomatically resolve the dispute, but the user, under his various names (Szs567 is likely another via [146][147][148]), simply will not listen.--Chimino (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for the other two accounts:

• Szs567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Relpmek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The oldest account is Relpmek, and it last edited in March. Sz567 and Kvvvvxvvvvv have both edited recently and the edits overlap. It is hard to think of a good-faith explanation for this use of multiple accounts on the same article. User:Kvvvvxvvvvv has been notified of this report. The Kempler theory which the multiple accounts keep adding to the article is sourced only to a personal web site. If there is no appropriate response, a block may be needed. — EdJohnston (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rovas Script

Not sure what's going on here, but Rovasscript (talk · contribs) and Rovosaman (talk · contribs) are rapidly making changes in articles adding stuff about Rovosaman, including piping, etc. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, scientific materials are added and reorganized, there are lack of information on Wiki: feel free to specify any mistake or error. Many thanks Rovosaman (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

De-archiving as Rovosaman has been removing AfD templates and calling the nominator a vandal, more eyes needed, thanks.

Block review

Resolved

 – block endorsed Toddst1 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting a block review of Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since they have not been given a chance to do so. Along with the concerns expressed on the Nightscream's talk page I would make the following points.

1. This seems to be purely a punitive block which is not supposed to occur here. I can find nothing in the 30+ edits that came after the edit summary in question that contained anything that breached WP:CIVILITY so the block is not preventing anything.
2. There are no warnings on Nightscream's about the situation and the responses to Nightscream's legitimate question asking to be pointed to where the discussion requesting the block occurred have been unsatisfactory.
3. The edit summary is intemperate but this language is used all to often with no blocks or quickly overturned ones
4. Nightscream has not been blocked for over four years and even then it was not for this offense so the duration is absurd.

If it determined that everything here is appropriate then so be it but I did feel that it deserved wider attention than it was getting at the moment. MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The blocking admin and Nightscream have been notified of this thread though the latter cannot reply here. MarnetteD | Talk 17:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Re (2): There was a warning given on Nightscream's talk page regarding civility. It was that very warning he was removing, with the edit summary he used, which resulted in the block. Re (3); Am I to understand that since incivility and personal attacks are rampant on the project as offenses people don't get blocked for, that incivility and personal attacks are therefore ok? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pt 1 My apologies for missing the removal of the warning that portion of my post is now struck. As to point two unless the consequences for incivility are the same for all then yes, sadly, it would pretty much seem to be ok. But that is an entirely different discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the striking. As to the latter, so WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should not be enforced then? Nightscream, as a recently as last month, cautioned someone that calling them a "Troll" is not acceptable. It would seem Nightscream feels these policies need to be enforced. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Addendum: in February of 2009, Nightscream felt it appropriate to block someone in part for civility violations for calling someone else's work "sloppy". See this, finishing with the block for reason of these two edits [149][150]. That's sufficient to block someone, but saying "Removing pointless and non-construtive bullshit whining from lying hypocrite editor" isn't? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse block about time CIVIL and NPA where enforced equally. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Silly edit summary. Harsh block. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block: Stupid action by Nightscream for sure, but a simple WP:Trout would have sufficed. Blocking is only punitive here and definitely harsh. Recommend unblocking. Beyond that, I think this matter should have been brought to ANI per WP:NOTNAS instead of unilateral action by Ironholds. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Comments like Removing pointless and non-construtive bullshit whining from lying hypocrite editor go far far beyond stupid. It is crystal clear textbook NPA from an administrator. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but nothing has been accomplished by blocking. If you want to talk about de-sysop because of bad judgment, that's a different story. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So ignore the problem, go to arbcom get laughed at for not enough evidence, and then rinse and repeat? Better solution treat all editors equally and any user who makes these types of crude and insulting comments should be blocked. If a persistent issue developed then ArbCom would be warranted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Toddst1; I don't think anyone has ever lost their adminship over a period in which they descended into incivility. Long term? Maybe. This case wouldn't ever pass muster for a desysop request, and in any case has nothing to do with Nightscream's use of administrator tools. Requesting a desysop would be a pointless exercise, guaranteed to get nowhere, but certainly produce an awful lot of writing. The point here is an editor grossly violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, an editor who has cautioned others for the very same thing before, and even blocked people for the very same thing before. Do WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have a place here or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse, provided the block is shortened to 24. He flew off the handle and deserved some time, but 48 hours is getting close to rubbing it in his face. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per listed edit summary and the personal attacks in this diff.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, Endorse - this is not the way to address other editors (note, this involves three individual attacks on 2 people: "I made the edit summary that I thought was appropriate, as I'm quite tired of obnoxious deletionists like Triangle who make false accusations and no attempt to communicate with others, as well as persistent liars like yourself who think repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths constitutes "discussion"."/"Removing idiotic message by newbie editor who thinks he's the class hall monitor."/"Removing pointless and non-construtive bullshit whining from lying hypocrite editor not interested in actually communicating or discussing accepted practices on Wikipedia."). Way over the edge. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse and support duration given the additional civility issues noted above. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - If for no other reason than to discourage off-wiki solicitation for people to be blocked. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss that part? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See below or NightScream's talk page Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment. Sorry for only commenting now; I'm at work. I did try explaining the source of the block to him - a conversation thread running "how did you find out about this" "it came up on IRC" "I've been to WP:IRC and can't see it" left me rather confused as to what on earth he meant. I did try my best to explain, but then got dragged off doing my actual job. 48 hours would be severe if he was a new user making a simple mistake. He was not. He is an administrator, and part of being able to enforce the rules means both understanding them and applying them. I have no sympathy for anyone who, tasked with actively prohibiting personal attacks, goes off and makes one of his own. I do not care that nightscream hasn't been blocked in ages. I do not care that it is not standard for comments like that to result in blocks - the former is irrelevant and the latter is a sign of underenforcement more than anything else. Nightscream is an administrator, and if he cannot follow the rules he should either suck it up or hand back the tools. There was no "off-wiki solicitation"; it was brought up, by an uninvolved editor, and several administrators agreed he needed to be rapped on the knuckles. If someone trusted to enforce the rules can't even follow them and is slapped as a result, it is not my competence which should be in question. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non admin) Endorse block, not enough experience to comment on timing an admin should be aware of the rules on civility and NPA and should also be aware of the potential for a block if they breach them. Nevertheless he/she was warned and then proceeded to show they didn't care in doing the same thing while removing the warning. This would be funny except that the sort of thing happens all to often that it's not really funny any more. Coming from admin it's unacceptable behaviour. No comment on the process that was followed but I sense some wikilawyering there. User is of course free to appeal to JW as they've indicated they may do but I can't see that ending well. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Entirely correct block, even though it has every chance of being overturned on a whim by a friend of the blocked editor any second now.  Sandstein  18:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

comment Thanks to all for their responses. I am satisfied with the scrutiny and opinions given. I still wish that these blocks were applied equally to all who violate the civility guidelines but I know that will never happen. I do have one question for Ironholds, I looked at WP:IRC before posting here and could find no mention of Nightscream on either the main or the talk page. Indeed the most recent item on the talk page is from April so it would be nice to have a link whatever "IRC" conversation caused you to look into this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

comment okay there still seems to be confusion on this point. What happened is someone on Internet Relay Chat (I'm guessing the Freenode server and one of the wikipedia channels) mentioned the issue and Ironholds noticed the discussion and then after looking in to the situation decided a block was needed. Internet Relay Chat is sort of like group instant messaging where anyone can take part (this is a real simplication). Nothing to do with the WP:IRC or IRC pages. As others have said, think of it like someone mentioning the issue by email or phone call or during a face to face meeting or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-admin) Observation: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this comes down to "Are admins held to a different standard than editors at large?" If admins are held to a higher standard, then by all means keep the block for the length. If admins are held to a lower standard (because they know what's best for the community and have the community's trust), then by all means reverse the block and make the blocking admin apologize. However, if they're no different than any other editor, then treat a incivility just like any other (Warn, Warn, Warn, Warn,..., RFC/U, ArbCom). I'd much rather see the NPA and Civil standards enfored more rigorously, but we can't take a snap break to a new level of enforcement. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that by unnecessarily labeling your observation as "Non-admin" you are explicitly supporting the idea that admins and regular editors are sufficiently different to be treated differently. ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some are more equal than others :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I mark it as such, because this is the Administrators' noticeboard, ergo I'm not the primary consumer/audience.

• Endorse It's two freaking days, he can read a book while he cools off. It's well known that we hold certain people to higher standards than others, and when it comes to admins, I'm okay with that. Cliche as it is, he should bloody know better. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  I'm new to the non-article space side of things, but what does the length of the block have to do with it's appropriateness or lack thereof? To be clear, I don't think that an angry edit summary merits a block, but my question is how does the length of the block serve to bolster your endorsement of it? LHM 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment - if he makes a decent unblock request I support time served. This non free picture issue is creating a lot of disruption at multiple locations - delta is always in the fray... An experienced user under pressure can be pushed over the edge by a template that could have better been said in a polite comment. Edit summary comment was not civil but we can all get a bit upset occasionally without the need for a two day book reading punishment. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• The civility warning I placed on his talk page was NOT a template. You can view my warning if you like to confirm. It was the edit summary he made removing that non-template warning which precipitated the block. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• This was the templated warning I was referring to , from User:Delta - diff - Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong meh Don't like IRC blocks, but I don't like the snarky edit summary either. Request an unblock and maybe we can go for time served? --John (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• If he apologizes or indicates that he'll keep WP:COOL in the future, the block should be removed. --causa sui (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Speaking in abstract, and NOT about Nightscream; getting anyone to apologize about indiscretions committed on Wikipedia is effectively impossible. The effort taken to try to make that happen itself often generates a considerable amount of heat. Speaking in reference to Nightscream, assurances that the incivility/personal attack behavior pattern will halt should be plenty enough to remove the block. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Not to derail the thread, but IME it's often difficult to get apologies from naughty editors because the people asking for the apologies are often doing so rudely and aggressively themselves. --causa sui (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse the block, would also endorse an unblock if he put together an unblock request and made assurances the behavior would not continue. -- ۩ Mask 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse: if a normal editor said this, he'd be blocked.There should be no admin immunity from the rules. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non admin) Strongly oppose block. Our blocking policy clearly states that "blocks should not be punitive", and should not be used "as punishment against users". The purpose of blocks is clearly stated to be to prevent more damage/disruption to Wikipedia or to deter the continuation of a disruptive pattern. Nightscream is not a vandal, he is not a disruptive user by character, and this was a serious step out of character for him. He does not have a history of disruptive behavior. He is not likely to repeat his mistakes again- sometimes in the head of the moment people say things that they don't mean. As far as personal attacks go, WP:NPA states that "personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality, or sexual identity of an editor" are grounds for a block "until the remarks are retracted". The user has not only retracted his remarks and apologized, but the incivility was not based on any of those traits. This block was improper to begin with, as it was extreme action for the level of the crime, and it went against the very purpose of blocks. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. This isn't like the law, where if you commit a crime there's a penalty you have to face. This is Wikipedia, where our main goal should be improving Wikipedia. Blocks exist to serve this purpose, but this punitive block only hurts the project as a whole. --Slon02 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• That I think would be drawing a line that we shouldn't block someone if they don't attack a person based on their race, religion, nationality, or sexual identity, but do base their egregious personal attack on some other aspect of the person. I would think many people would find being called a lying hypocrite to be considerably more offensive than being called gay. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that calling someone gay is meant by "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity". Actively bashing a person on the grounds of one of those is a different story. However, just calling some a lying hypocrite is not something I would describe as an "extreme" personal attack under any conditions. Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks is clear in regards to blocking- immediate blocks are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances, "such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or misogynistic insults". To quote some more policy- "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." The user has apologized and retracted his remarks, so even under the most severe personal attacks he would be unblocked according to policy. The user is not disruptive in nature, and that is clear, and that makes the block punitive. --Slon02 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not attempting to state whether the block is punitive or preventative at this time. My point was that attempting to define what is and is not a severe insult is highly subjective, and if you tightly define what is a severe insult, anyone could easily game that system and spew a long series of insults without being 'severe' in doing so, and not therefore being subjected to a block. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse block, AND endorse dropping it now, time served, since Nightscream apologized to the community. For the record, Hammersoft and Nightscream can both call me gay. Or straight! Drmies (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• :) --Hammersoft (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment - another non-admin here with his opinions. I don't have much to say about the block or what the block was for, but I am pretty uncomfortable with the idea of admins making these decisions based upon discussions made away from wikipedia. I'm friends with an admin in real life, but I wouldn't ask him to do stuff regarding other users away from somewhere nice and transparent where other wikipedia users can see what is being said. Is there not a policy regarding this sort of stuff? Coolug (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  I am pretty uncomfortable with the idea of people on ANI discussing things while not having the faintest idea what they're talking about. It was in -en-admins. The person I was talking to was not a "friend". I was not asked to actively block, I was asked to review. Other administrators also agreed a block was necessary. It was in an official Wikipedia IRC channel. That channel was not hidden, it was seen by thirty different and unrelated admins. Other than that, your concern and/or analogy is perfectly valid. Ironholds (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I don't know all the ins and outs of this situation, however, I do know how it appears from the outside, and that is it appears rather unfair. I think wikipedia should strive to be as transparent as possible in every avenue and even if lots of other admins could read what you were talking about in this internet chatroom, it's not there for any random user to check out. Still, if this IRC channel is an official wikipedia area then I suppose that must be nicely within the guidelines (if there are any) so there's no problem.

Ultimately I'm not especially bothered about this whole thing, but I just wanted to say how I felt it might be perceived by other users and potential new users who might be be able to contribute something one day. cya Coolug (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Good block. --The Silent Blues 12:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse, the incivility was probably at the lower end of the spectrum, but rules are rules. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC).
• Non-admin Endorse block; oppose an unblock that's made based on current request. Nightscream's incivility was gross and repeated, it appears from the diffs, and an administrator should not need a full set of three or four warnings before being blocked for an issue like that. One becomes an administrator because one (is assumed to) understand community norms. These include that incivility is unacceptable, and a simple "hey, stop that" sort of warning, which Nightscream got prior to the block, is all that should be or, in practice, usually is required. I think people may be reading into the IRC element more than it deserves; I wasn't privy to the conversation but in my general IRC experience such things tend to go something like, "Hey, could someone look at X? It looks like that could be a situation." "Ok, looking...yeah, that's a situation. [takes action]", rather than "ok guys, I want someone to block X!"

  That said, Nightscream is clearly a constructive contributor and I would support an early unblock if he's willing to assure the community that his behavior won't happen again. The problem is, his current unblock request doesn't really do that. It says his actions in this case are an aberration when compared to his past history, and then goes into an unblock request based on how he was mistreated. To my mind, he needs to acknowledge that not only were his actions historically unusual, but that he also recognizes that they were unacceptable and that he will not make such comments again. (As an aside, I'm also, I must say, a bit concerned that someone who's been an admin for five years doesn't, as Nightscream says he doesn't, know how to use an unblock request template.) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • To add something to my thoughts, I would say that continuing incivility beyond the time one is warned does in fact call for a block for the purposes of prevention. That is, I see this as being a preventative block rather than a putative, given that Nightscream's apparent disregard for the warning he got strongly appeared to be an intent to carry on in that manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Following Nightscream's apology, I've unblocked him/her. (The unblock is not meant as a comment on appropriateness of the original block, which I believe was appropriate.) --rgpk (comment) 14:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kshitiji

Please block User talk:Kshitij85. He deserves a lifetime block. Note his threats of violence and racism against white people. Note this is the message he left on my Talk Page. Note he claims on his Talk Page to have sockpuppet accounts, all those accounts will need to blocked as well. --Tovojolo (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Kshitiji has been indefinitely blocked by KFP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What about his sockpuppet accounts? --Tovojolo (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, either a checkuser can go fishing, or, we wait until he pops up somewhere else, and indef block him then. Your talkpage seems like a logical place for him to pop up, so I've watchlisted it.

Here's a convenience link for anyoneany administrator interested in Kshitij85's unusual viewpoints on various ethnicities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at King Edward's School, Witley

Recent IP edits, crude schoolboy vandalism targeting a classmate (named private person) for sexual ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, however, it might be wiser to contact one of these admins privately... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside canvassing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball

Resolved

 – AFD closed as delete. m.o.p 20:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparantly I am a "feminist from Canada", (news to me) trying to get this page deleted. Anyway, there's been a lot of blogs calling on people to save this Wikipedia page, and the result is that the deletion page, the talk page for the deletion page, and the article's talk page has seen a deluge of SPAs. Wouldn't mind an eye or two to make sure the situation doesn't sprial out of control. Singularity42 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a feminist. Being Canadian on the other hand... GiantSnowman 16:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fun fact: Being Canadian automatically make you non-notable. Larry V (talk | email) 18:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, curling. Larry V (talk | email) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a self-hating Canadian; does that therefore make me notable? GiantSnowman 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey, we might have to ask Jimbo about that one. Larry V (talk | email) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I love this: "The very fact that someone put it up, someone wants it gone, and that we're now discussing if it should be deleted proves that it is notable." There you are then. Proposing it for deletion as non-notable makes it notable. Paul B (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that so far is the best line from the discussion, eh? (I have to rely on some of my Canadian heritage :) ). Singularity42 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the arguments so far in favour of keep are:

1. The fact that we are even having this discussion means it is notable.
2. By asserting that there is a conspiracy by mainstream media to not cover this person, the lack of coverage should not justify deletion.
3. The nominator is part of the conspiracy.
4. His death is important to a group's political beliefs.
5. His death has been covered by lots of blogs and forums.
6. Any politically-motivated suicide is inherently notable.
7. If Wikipedia has an article on [insert random topic here - i.e. Half-Life 2, a murderer, etc.], then surely there should be an article about this person.

I have given up trying to explain why these arguments are not in accordance with policy. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those really strange situations which make me wish for a policy on "Biographies of Deceased People - Single Event", similar to what WP:BLP1E covers. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:BIO1E which applies to dead as well as living persons. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That works. See something new every day... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If our definition of "notable" doesn't give any weight at all to large numbers of people caring a very great deal about the topic, we need to look in the mirror and give ourselves a metaphorical slap in the face, because we have entered the world of newspeak. Thparkth (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If I cajole all my family and friends to petition for an article about me, do I then become eligible? GiantSnowman 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, but if there was an article about you that was verifiable and at least marginally notable, and if hundreds of people with no personal connection to you descended on the AfD to argue passionately about how important you are, then yes, that should be given some weight, no matter how weak their arguments in policy terms. Notability is ultimately about determining whether sufficient unconnected people care about a topic so that it is useful to have the article and practical to maintain it. All of our notability policies are essentially imperfect proxies used to answer this question as best we can. If enough of those unconnected people actually start showing up in person, it is no longer necessary to use the proxies. Thparkth (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Are they unconnected though? How can you tell they haven't all come from a father's rights forum, for example? GiantSnowman 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to disregard their opinions if they have. Having a common interest doesn't make people connected. If they all personally knew each other, or were close relatives, that might be a different matter... Thparkth (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Even with 'call to arms' like this one? Singularity42 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is specifically why the {{not a ballot}} template is used in AfDs. The fact that people were canvassed to post in the AfD doesn't add notability to the article, it just means that people were connected enough to come here and post. That link that Singularity just posted is a pretty damning case of canvassing (not to mention personal attacks on Wikipedia editors) if I've seen one. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) To me, it seems like the issue is that there aren't "large numbers of people caring a very great deal about the topic", but rather only a small number of highly vocal ones. Peacock (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

On a planet of 7.1 billion people, the fact that a handful of fanatics can be summoned to defend a single article proves nothing, zero, nada, bupkes, not a darned thing except that people have strong feelings about lots of stuff, whether it be this guy's death or the place of rutabagas in making pastys. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase an old saying, it sounds like he burned the right guy. Do we have a special category for looneys that kill themselves in order to attract attention? Budd Dwyer comes to mind here. Of course, he was already notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a special category for editors inclined to present their snide commentary on everything that happens at ANI? If you must do it, at least have the decency to restrict it to folk who are capable of answering back. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy killed himself because he didn't want to support the child he sperm-fathered, and like-"minded" individuals want to abuse wikipedia to further the guy's "cause". The fact he's "incapable of answering back" was his choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your rationale. Your eternal presence on ANI is unproductive enough without passing plainly offensive commentary on the recently deceased. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in your personal attacks. But I put up with them anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this AfD as delete - a bit earlier than usual, yes, but I've provided reasoning here. I'm also Canadian, though - does that make me biased? m.o.p 20:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A user that never listens: User:Misconceptions2

I have been trying to explain to this user, many times in articles and on his talkpage, certain policies and ways to contribute together. All I get back is accusations on my talkpage, like this and this, and on articles too, like this and this. He's followed me wherever I get into a discussion to ask for advice or opinion, and throws in the same-old accusations (commenting on me instead of my edits).

We've been accused of edit-warring before, so I've learned to add tags when he continue to re-insert the same disputed material and ignore the talkpage; however, he keeps removing the tags, too (with no discussion).

Last incidence
Another user removed my tags here, while we were still in a discussion and a "third opinion" called the sources unreliable too. Afterwards, User:Misconceptions2 removed the tags again two times: here and here. I know I've been simi-harsh sometimes, but that's always after repeating the same thing again and again. I'm working on correcting that, btw. I've told him that a third opinion was involved on the article, here, but he kept removing the same tag with more accusations in the summary.

I'd love to get an opinion of how to deal with User:Misconceptions2, as it's misleading to keep an unsourced/unreliable content without even a tag. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds ripe for WP:DRN. --causa sui (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was proper being a continues issue (not only one incident). I'll be going there. Thanks for your reply... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 19:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...all the admin notices you opened (and i opened) have worked like a Boomerang against you, like here, everyone should see a different side of the story--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the first ANI I opened, sir. What you're referring to was a place to ask for advice on a content, if you ever read it. I'm not the one who went out-of-topic, and it ended with my suggestion. Thanks for your info ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 19:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OR/vandalism by multiple IP's

Hello,

Some IP's are editing Ottoman Algeria related articles by Nationalistic/OR editing, by replacing all the information related to the Ottoman vilayet of Algiers with OR information stating that it was an independent kingdom : [151][152][153].

Even, one of these IP's (probably used by the same person) blanked my request on the OR board [154]

Can an admin make an "autoconfirmed" protection on these articles or intervene by any way?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not an admin or an Algeria expert, but want to concur that, at first glance, there seems to be some rather shady and extremely comprehensive Algeria-related work being done by these IPs. The Russo-Turkish War of 1792 involved "The Ottoman Empire and Algeria"??? Bit of a long walk, there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, there's a serious dose of edit warring going on, based on the article histories. Might be a good idea to semi the articles in question for a short time so they can be reviewed and reverted (if necessary). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that that same IP just blanked this section, imho someone should probably drop the hammer on him anyway, it's one thing to replace and edit war, but it's entirely another to blank legitimate complaints about someone and wipe out legit contributions from multiple editors at the same time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours, but if someone wants to check the edits, etcetera, go ahead.. (Since I'm mostly inactive, if pages need to be semi'd it's probably a better idea to ask here then at my talk page, but if you don't mind waiting...) SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP is on an Algerian ISP and geolocates to Algiers. The problem is they're on a /8 range which doesn't seem to be subnetted. This is likely to need either a series of semi-protections on articles or a prolonged game of Whac-a-Mole™, whether anyone likes it or not...I can't see an admin willingly rangeblocking the whole ISP because of a half-handful of nationalistic miscreants. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've only limited knowledge of the history of the Ottoman Empire, but I can tell that many of his edits are a perfect example of that most horrific practice of historical revisionism. As the OP said, he's basically trying to get rid of the idea that Algeria was not under Ottoman domination around the time of the Barbary Wars. I don't mind alternative hypotheses (within reason), but outright fabrication of history is just wrong. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

His main account, according to Fr.Wiki : [155]

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Information: A sock puppetry case was reported on Fr.Wiki, maybe this can help.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to pass the duck test if I understand that right. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can add this new user account : [156]

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I protected a few articles the other day due to this user. I've also gone ahead and rangeblocked 41.200.0.0/19, and two obvious socks - TheWhiteOne, FAIZGUEVARRA. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I just received a legal threat over a deletion - a pointless one, but a legal threat nonetheless

Resolved

 – Thanks, all, for taking care of this so quickly. I appreciate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people.

So I sat down to check my Email, and I received this in my inbox, sent through the contact form on Schumin Web:

email redacted. –MuZemike 18:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not responding to this person. I have better things to do than waste my time talking to him.

About the Wikipedia content, I did a little research. The article in question is/was Knight Mediacom International, which was started by Ronknight (talk · contribs · block user). So on its face, the owner of this account would appear to be the same person who Emailed me through my site. So obviously, legal threat notwithstanding, we have a conflict of interest here as well (same user also created an article about himself, also deleted). The article in question was deleted under PROD back on April 16. Now normally, a challenge to a PROD deletion would result in a restoration of the page. I have not done that, and think it would likely be a waste of everyone's time to put this through an AFD.

So there you have it, legal threat and all. I am taking no action of any sort regarding the article or the user. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)So you are not taking action of any sort. But you are giving it publicity with your post. What did I miss here? Moriori (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You should let Ronknight (talk · contribs) know about this thread. And if/when that editor looks in, they may want to look over the Wikipediapolicies regarding conflict of interest, biographies of living people, notability, sourcing, advertising or self promotion, and legal threats. - J Greb (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

He's not responding/ taking action. Remember? Moriori (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was also going to add copyright violations since it looks like the deleted articles were lifted from else where, but (shrug) c'est la vie.

And I can understand why SchuminWeb would be posting this here... the other editor appears to be applying pressure, threat of legal action, to get him to tuck tail and reverse himself. A "head's up" covers this post at the very least.

- J Greb (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not supposed to post e-mail contents here without the permission of all concerned. However, the comment "You have deleted our Intellectual Property" is curious, as the only thing you could have deleted here is the wikipedia article, which is definitely NOT some external company's "intellectual property". He also mentions "our time and investment", which suggests maybe they paid someone to write the wikipedia article. (Either that, or they copied it verbatim from their own website, as Greb suggests.) It's possible the guy was sincere in making this totally misguided complaint, which is funny considering he challenged others education levels here. Indef him and tell him what the score is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

They do not own the article in any sense, per our licensing agreement. If they wish to post said information onto Wikipedia, then they irrevocably release said information under our free content licenses; they cannot continue to claim copyright on it, and claiming that they can is tantamount to challenging our free content licenses and hence is also a legal threat. –MuZemike 06:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they most certainly can continue to claim copyright on it. Irrevocably licensing content is not the same as relinquishing copyright to it. They and you and I continue to hold the copyright to all our Wikipedia contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a clear and unambiguous legal threat, and as such, I have issued an indefinite block. –MuZemike 06:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4. I have reviewed the deleted material. The page which read like a press release or a B2B web site entry was deleted perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia procedure and policy. Furthermore it was both tagged and deleted by admins. Although we have some recommendations here that editors should look for sources before tagging articles, WP:BURDEN is a firm and clear policy - no sources, no article - and the creator was given 7 days to provide them. No one has a legal 'right' to have a page on Wikipedia, whether referenced or not. Suggest blocking the creator for several issues including COI and making legal threats. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously a good block. Is there evidence of copyright violation as suggested by Greb? Can the editor's own website be found, in order to show that copyright violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Running a google search using the first line of Ron Knight yields [157] (and on 2nd look I'm starting to wonder how much of that is Wiki mirrors) and Knight Mediacom International yields [158] (same 2nd look). - J Greb (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Could well be wikipedia mirrors, as that kind of thing is all over the web. I have to wonder whether the guy originated the article here in hope of getting it mirrored everywhere, thus achieving artificial "notability" due to the many google parrots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for inadvertently deleting part of a post (now restored). My post should have read: Unable to find a web site with a TLD for this organisation. Unusual for the claims made of importance. One wonders why the president of such a supposedly large firm would be tinkering with Wikipedia rather than their marketing/PR and/or legal department. Looks like an SME - a very small one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a large firm also have a legal dept that would read through Wikipedia's terms and then use the Contact Wikipedia button rathe than harassing one Wikipedian? The message itself is filled with ad hominem attacks and attempts at intimidation. I also don't think this guy (as pointed out by everyone else) gets how Wikipedia actually works. Well-deserved block imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is likely the website [159]. It was down earlier, but just came up. Cardamon (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some student's flash project circa 2000. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the account Ronknight (talk · contribs · block user) is now indef blocked with account creation blocked, but still has the ability to send email through Wikipedia. Since the original legal threat was sent by email through Wikipedia, it might be worth disabling that as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That web site would make any prospective client run a mile - if he's ever been in business at all. If he's watching this, he will realise by now that his threats are baseless and I don't think there's any point in blocking his email - if he wants to send any more he can send one to all of us. I also think that the 'copies to' his legal advisers is bluff - any freshy in law school could put him right on Wikipedia. If he can't afford a web site, he can't afford a lawyer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: He's tried to update his website today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the attorneys mentioned are a managing partner of an international IP specialist firm, the sole partner of a relatively small CA business firm and a noted expert in international IP regarding films, television and reputation who no longer works with the firm he is associated with in the email. I'm sure that, if this is bogus, these esteemed attorneys wouldn't be too happy to see their reputations being used to prop up a baseless threat such as this.

Incidently, it might be wise to revdel the email. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

^{How can you be a "sole partner"? a_man_alone (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)}

Fair cop, substitute 'boss'. Most firms seem to be limited liability these days and use 'partner' as in the rank rather than the legal sense so it's possible to have just one partner - Not sure it's in common usage but perhaps not as silly as it sounds. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, the attorney would be called a sole practitioner. Partner is used for firms with more than one attorney. Many multi-attorney firms use other terms than partner, depending on their legal organization and jurisdiction, e.g., shareholder, member, and others.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cc-ing attorney's from 3 different firms? That alone smells fake. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fake threat or not, they should not be made, period. Even in real life, legal threats are taken very seriously, as with any other type of serious threats. That being said, let's leave it as it is right now (talk page/email still allowed) and hope that the user can some to his senses. If not, you can always contact the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe and foward any judicial correspondence to the Court of Law in Trenton, New Jersey. –MuZemike 17:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

While chuckling over the contents of the email itself, I'm troubled that it is still viewable. Like Baseball Bugs, I don't think we should be sharing this without permission. I do not know if that is merely politeness or stronger - isn't that message under copyright? Can someone explain to me my it is OK to leave it here, alternatively, perhaps it should be revdel'd?--SPhilbrickT 18:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it from a copyright point of view. Technically, just about anything is subject to copyright, but the idea that an e-mail sent to someone can't be posted by the recipient because of copyright protection is generally only bandied about on the Internet. That said, I don't see why the entire e-mail has to be visible for other reasons - it's not really necessary to the discussion of the legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And the irony is

The puffed up cartooney threat was completely unnecessary. The article was deleted by PROD so all Ron Knight had to do was ask for the article to be undeleted at requests for undeletion and abracadabra, it would be back. Yes it's possible that the article might have been sent to WP:AFD but then at least he would have had a chance to make his case in the discussion. Ron, if you're reading this, a popular expression here is "don't shoot yourself in the foot" which you definitely did here. Ben himself might have been willing to restore the article if you had asked him on his talk page instead of emailing him that lawyer BS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:4

As oultlined in the essay WP:PETARD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed. If they had come to my talk page and politely said, "Please restore this article," I would have restored it, no questions asked (but in this case probably also nominated it for deletion, but that's besides the point). Since they threatened me, however, they ended up getting themselves blocked. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghurids

i want to report that this IP-address:188.107.15.203 user is making ignorant edits and give arguments from which he doesn't even known the history of it. Such as that Pashtuns aren't of Sunni branch of Islam, that Pashtuns don't exited in Afghanistan at the time of Ghorids and even not before Ahmad Shah Durrani well before Afsharid dynasty it were the Hotakis who ruled Afganistan and who were Pashtuns as well,[160] that Pashtuns are 800 years Wahabis/Salafis well Wahabism only exists around 2 or 3 hundred years, that Pashtuns were living in Pakistan well when Pakistan exists only 64 years [161] and many more childish editings.[162] I have tried to clean up it but he continues with this childish edits. I have also talked with user:Kansas Bear but he haven't replay me yet.[163] This IP-address user is also insulting and my nation, which is WP:PA.[164] Can some body do something against this ignorant and childish edits? Thanks in advance, Tofaan (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The content is not at issue. The IP's behaviour is the issue, and they've just been blocked for it for a week. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tofaan misrepresents the situation. User:Tofaan made massive changes to the Ghurid dynasty article which was still being discussed. He/she has also removed a reference from the section he/she finds unpalatable. Typical disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time in as many weeks the fighting on this article has shown up here. At the rate this is going, it'll have to got ArbCom soon.--Blackmane (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing discussion from ANI

Resolved

 – Now we know what does and what doesn't belong on ANI. m.o.p 07:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had two admins User:KFP and User:J_Greb remove my discussion from ANI. Not sure why. If this not where community consensus on what the scope of ArbCom decisions should be than please direct me there rather than role back my contributions? The reply on my talk page have been less than friendly [165]. As a fellow admin and board member of Wikimedia Canada cut me some slack. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

They removed your thread because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. GiantSnowman 21:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how that applies? Can you clarify. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your original thread expressed a personal opinion related to abortion, did it not? That is covered by WP:SOAP; this is not the forum for that kind of discussion. GiantSnowman 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I say it as more of a "what does the community feel the scope of human sexuality should be with respect to an ArbCom decision" I guess it may have come across wrong. The threats of a block however is a greater concern at this point as if we treat editors like this routinely we as a project are in trouble. Have worked hard to attack my colleagues per here. But this is an issue may be better dealt with at / on the civility notice board so moving here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Treats_of_bans_and_failure_to_AGF --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Jmh649:

• WP:VP/P is where policy is made and discussed, not here. Admins are not special and have no special rights or say in determining what policy is or should be. Discussions of this nature have to involve the whole community, and should be at a discussion forum that focusses on the whole community.
• Even if it was a matter largely for admins, it's still not an incident. So it would be long on WP:AN, not WP:ANI
• You post did not mention anything about the scope of ArbCom decisions, and contained no links to discussions or ArbCom rulings. Posting such opinion polls without giving full and frank context is very unfair to anyone trying to answer it.
• I don't see how the number of edits you have matters. We all have lots of edits.

-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the feedback. I agree that I posted to the wrong venue with insufficient details.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see any reason why that sort of feedback wasn't the response in the first place. The initial posting lacked context, and was misplaced at ANI, but there was no obvious reason to respond to it with the sort of treatment normally reserved for vandals. If any such reason existed, it would be a fairly serious matter, and it should have been explained. One way or the other, someone deserves a large WP:TROUT at the very least. Rd232 public ^talk 23:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The question raised by the OP was discussed at some length recently, and may have been referred to here but I don't recall. But it's not going to be a policy matter in any case - it's a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WQA where part of this has moved. - J Greb (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking of,[166] from a couple of weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User Scarpy reverting against policy, refusing to explain reasons for reverts

Note: User Scarpy has been notified using Template:ANI-notice.

THE PROBLEM:

On Secular Organizations for Sobriety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Scarpy (talk · contribs · logs) has reverted my edits multiple times (see page history). When I try to engage him in a discussion about his reverts he engages in personal attacks and refuses to answer reasonable questions. I can supply diffs if needed but in this case the talk page is pretty short, there is just the one section with just the two users talking, and thus it is easy to see the behavior in context by reading the talk page.

A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE:

(From the talk page)

• Guymacon: (explaining removal of a link) "Under "further reading" there is this entry: "Wilson, David (1991). Secular organizations for sobriety: recovery without religion (M.A. Thesis). Sonoma State University. OCLC 25243661." This is a MA thesis with no indication that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

Scarpy restored the link without explanation, along with reverting all of my other edits. (Diff)

• Guymacon: "you simply reverted every one of my edits, including the edit you previously said you agreed with. I explained why I made each change when I made them. It is now up to you to explain each removal, as is explained in the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page."

• Scarpy: "Master's theses are reliable sources, and I see nothing in the proposed guidelines (Wikipedia:Further reading) that lead me to believe that it should be removed."

• Guymacon: "This exact issue has been brought up before on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and the determination was that masters theses are not reliable sources.

No response to the above - pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT despite my citing the Reliable Sources Noticeboard addressing the specific issue of whether masters theses are not reliable sources.

After two days it became clear that he was not going to respond as long as the page was the way he wanted it, so once again I removed the link, citing in my edit summary his refusal to explain why he put the link back. Scarpy immediately put the link back in (and reverted all my other edits) and instead of responding to my argument he engaged the following personal attacks:

• Scarpy: "you seem keen on wasting everyone's time"

• Scarpy: "At least I can stop wasting my time with this completely useless and obviously politically motivated conversation"

• Scarpy (in edit summary): "caving in to request for censorship of a citation"

At this point I posted warnings on his talk page using Template:uw-agf2 and Template:uw-npa2.

• Scarpy: "you are in no way acting in the spirit of Wikipedia or it's guidelines no matter how sanctimonious your attempts are to position yourself as a victim."

• Scarpy: "If you have the time for protracted discussion to argue for your misinterpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, enjoy--those people tend to get their way on Wikipedia regardless of what they're arguing--I don't have the time for this. If you're trying to make things "convenient" for me shorten your responses, skip the drama, get to the point, and stop spamming my talk page with worthless templates."

• Scarpy: "It is sad when people use reasonable guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as if the purpose of them is to give you flimsy grounds for righteous indignation every time someone takes off the kid gloves."

• Scarpy: "I can't stop you from acting like a Wikipedia vigilante, but I don't see any place where I've 'personally attacked' you. In fact, reading this discussion again, I don't see a single ad hominem."

• Scarpy: "I know when someone is wasting my time, and you are wasting my time."

• Scarpy: "Etiquette is not a science, it's very subjective, it's open war. For example, if someone were to ask me if I thought you were being a 'harmonious editor' in this case, you would probably disagree with my response. If you want to have a discussion WITH ME about THE ARTICLE, you're going to have to stop with this pattern of crying 'personal attack' and making empty threats to block me because I disagree with you. If not, fine, go post some more templates on my talk page, and write another post here about how I'm a big meanie. In the meantime, I have a job, and a life, and for now I'm not dedicating more time to protracted discussion on the topic. HAND."

OTHER ISSUES:

(I can provide more details if needed.)

Scarpy keeps citing a book by Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser (niether author is associated with SOS) as a source for what SOS teaches, and he keeps rejecting the official SOS website as a reliable source for what SOS teaches. Twice he has refused to answer the following question:

• Guymacon: "You can start by explaining why you believe that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are authorities on what SOS teaches. Are you asserting that they are official spokespersons for SOS? Recognized authorities on the internals of SOS?"

Instead keeps re-inserting the citation without explanation.

He also keeps re-inserting (again without explaining or discussing why) a claim that LifeRing is part of the history of SOS.

I don't believe he is actually thinking about why, but rather simply reverting every change I make.

BOOMERANG:

While I would obviously like to have this resolved so that I can make good-faith edits to the article without personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and edit warring by Scarpy, I would also welcome criticism of how I have handled the situation, and especially correction if I have misunderstood Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I really do want to do the right thing, and would welcome any guidance. Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know why, but I read all of this, and all of the talk page. There's way too many words there. And if it all boils down to this edit there isn't anything here. There is a discussion on the talk page about the reliability of a certain source (a Master's thesis) and some other content issues--now, what do you want an admin to do? Tell you you're right? Accusing Scarpy of bad faith and edit-warring might indeed boomerang right back at you, especially since Scarpy has provided edit summaries and is talking on the talk page, so the charges you make right above (without explanation, without explaining or discussing, not actually thinking) are clearly not in agreement with reality. Drop it, and walk away, per Boomerang, yes. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• And Guy, I would urge you not to repeat this edit again, or its edit summary: Scarpy did explain, and there was no abuse coming from that direction. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  There is a definite civility issue on the part of scarpy here, couple with some bad faith edit summaries, like claiming there is "citation censorship". That's definitely an admin issue if it continues, but it may be better served at etiquette noticeboard. Unless this is an on-going issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  True: that was certainly a silly comment on Scarpy's part (esp. since they seemed to agree with Guy Macon's comments on the talk page). But the rest of their edit summaries have been much more informative than those of their opponents. I've never run into either of these two and don't know if there are histories, individual or shared, and I don't really care so much--I have a feeling this will fizzle out quickly. But, since we are asked for our opinion on administrative matters, I'll give mine in the same words as the section heading: User Scarpy was NOT reverting against policy, and did NOT refuse to explain reasons for reverts. In my opinion. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  I believe that the above comment is factually untrue, but if you would be so kind as to quote the place where he explained why he believes that MA Theses are automatically reliable sources or the place where he explained why he believes that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are a reliable source for what SOS teaches, I would be glad to admit my error. I looked several times and found neither. User Scarpy DID refuse to explain the reasons for his reverts.

  I removed a citation, explaining on the talk page that it was not a reliable source. Scarpy put it back, giving no reason. I asked him to explain several times. No answer. I removed the citation again. He asserted "Master's theses are reliable sources" without explaining why and put it back in. I quoted him the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that Master's theses are not reliable sources. No response. After two days I took it out again. He put it back again and slung a few insults may way, still refusing to explain himself. How is this not reverting against policy? Are you saying that it is OK to revert and refuse to explain why? Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom e-mail leaks

Main page: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee § Who is responsible?

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

See link above for the appropriate venue for this discussion. 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

---

In relation to the hacked Arbcom emails, which are being discussed by Arbcom on a public page any of you can access. I won't say any more than that, you can go read about it yourself. This is about a personal attack made against me by Arbitrator Iridescent, in relation to a discussion about an Arbcom case. The statement by Iridescent is as follows,

If SS tries to play the "martyr to Arbcom" act, he's in for a rude shock. Giano, Malleus, even Kelly Martin can get away with it because they genuinely do have the history of high quality positive achievements to point to, and can legitimately argue that they bring far more to the table than they take. SS's main contribution appears to be annoying a lot of people with "information has a right to be free" posturing at various Wikileaks-related pages, and having an edit history (spike–one year gap—spike–two year gap–spike) that's pretty much a textbook example of a sockmaster having their primary account banned and reverting to their old identity, and it's a safe bet that Slim and Jayjg won't be shy in pointing that out.

— Iridescent, Arbitration Committee, April 6, 2011

I'm not even going to comment on the contributions comment, beyond saying that i'm sorry my 51 articles, 27 DYKs, GA, and 12000+ edits aren't good enough for you. No, the more major issue is the calling me a "textbook example of a sockmaster". I have already previously explained these year long absences in more congenial terms to others, with the first (2007-2008) being because I was a sophomore in high school and lost interest in Wikipedia. The second period (ish-2009) was because I was disowned by my parents and didn't have a computer. Is it common to call someone who's gone for a year or so a sockmaster? Is that just common practice, because I must not have run across it yet if it is. Silverseren^C 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? Did you try to talk to Iridescent about this before coming to AN/I? 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a personal attack of calling someone a textbook example of a sockmaster requires much talking with. Regardless, I can't talk with him (?) because of the hacking. Iridescent seems to have shut down all Arbcom connection. I'm not sure if that means they're still editing Wikipedia in the interim, I haven't heard any mention of it. Really, this is for any Arbcom member to respond to, because it's clear that they all agreed with it, since no one refuted the statement. Silverseren^C 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that your edit history was compared to a sockmaster's modus operandi. If my edit history was compared to a sockmaster's I'm sure I wouldn't be flattered; however, since I'm not a sockmaster it wouldn't mean much to me. Tiderolls 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that anyone who doesn't edit for a year's time can be called a sockmaster, since that somehow is the standard modus operandi of one? Silverseren^C 22:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

SS I notified User:Iridescent for you - User talk:Iridescent#FYI - ANI it says at the top to do it.... Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

True, sorry, I always seem to forget that. Silverseren^C 22:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It really does seem to be an issue you should primarily discuss with the user. Also at the next Arbcom election. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The publication of hacked-into e-mails from the mailing list is going to demonstrate that the arbitrators (like anyone else) sometimes say things to an audience of 17 colleagues that we might not say in the same way on-wiki or in another public forum. As a result of the hack, I fear that some people's feelings are going to be hurt. I for one apologize to anyone whose feelings might wind up being hurt as the result of anything that I might have said there without anticipating that it could be publicized (I do not always use Bradspeak on mailing lists).

To state the blatantly obvious, this is not a situation that any of us wanted. Methods of preventing a potential recurrence are being reviewed; there is some related discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard.

The amount of e-mail we receive(d) from Arbcom-l each day is massive, and probably no arbitrator has time to read every word of it. Certainly, no arbitrator has time to respond to every comment that he or she might disagree with. The fact that no one responded to a particular comment doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agreed with it, or that anyone agreed with it, or that anyone thought hard about it. Please don't jump to any such conclusion.

If you have a concern about Iridescent's opinion of you, I would ordinarily suggest that you raise the issue with Iridescent. But please, not now, and not anytime soon. With everything else that's going on right now, a much better idea would be to simply drop the matter, at least for the foreseeable future.

In any event, I fear that there is nothing much useful that can come of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But I think most people expect the Arbitration Committee to act properly, even in their private communications about cases, if not especially so there. This doesn't meant that we expect you to employ Bradspeak in your private conversations, but we do expect you to not berate and belittle users in comments to each other. Silverseren^C 22:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have a lot of sympathy for Iridescent, but we should also have some sympathy for Silver seren, who presumably wasn't expecting to be informed of this opinion about him by it being broadcasted all over the place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly surprised that it was said in the first place, least of all by Iridescent. Of the times i've interacted with him, it's been fairly congenial. Silverseren^C 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If as is being discussed/threatened off wiki a full dump of all the arbcom archives is posted this thread will likely be just the beginning. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are a significant number of personal attacks against users made by Arbcom in their discussions, then I would expect so. If such things do exist, I don't see the problem with them being brought up on-wiki. Silverseren^C 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Advising on the proper place would be more helpful. You still haven't responded to my question on your talk page. Silverseren^C 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Silver seren, you can discuss this with Iridescent at some point if you wish, if he's willing, but he's certainly not available to be poked about this now, and I am telling you the best thing (including for yourself) would be to drop the issue rather than publicize it further. Meanwhile, if Iridescent isn't available or willing to speak to you about this right now, no one else can do anything about it, and no other remedy is available to you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • True, though I suppose it's best to ask in advance. Is there more stuff like this in your discussions? I don't mean about me specifically, but comments between Arbcom that can easily be seen to be personally attacks against users. Is more of this stuff going to start popping up? Silverseren^C 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Silver seren: Remarks made off-wiki are not our business, not least when disclosed by the violation of copyright and confidentiality. If you think Iridecent has a misguided view of you, perhaps you could take this up privately with her after the e-mail hacking issue is resolved, but this is probably not the community's concern. AGK [•] 22:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't consider the Arbcom mailing list to be off-wiki. It's a system that was specifically set up for Arbcom in order for them to deliberate about on-wiki cases. Therefore, it is inextricably linked to the wiki itself and is not considered off-wiki like a random other forum would be. Furthermore, I don't think there's copyright involved with the mailing list, but confidentiality is something. However, broken confidentiality doesn't mean that comments made in private are suddenly not applicable. The arbitration committee, especially, is responsible for the comments they make, even on the mailing list, and if that includes extremely negative attacks against users, there is a problem. We didn't elect them to sit around and discuss which users they hate and who they think is crazy. Silverseren^C 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • As a community member, I am concerned about it, but I suggest it be left until such a time as Iridescent is contactable and things are calmer. As far as I understand, Silverseren is of roughly the same view, so we are about done here. I have no idea what made me interpret the above comments like that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Agreed, and I will wait until Iridescent is contactable again. However, I don't want people to think that Arbcom can make accusations like this and, so long as it is on their secret mailing list, it's okay. It's completely improper and not what we elected them to do. Silverseren^C 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Silver, as one who was there at the time, I can confirm that it wasn't "Arbcom" who made this accusation. It was one individual who expressed an opinion, and it was never followed up by any action from Arbcom. If more of this stuff comes out, I'm sure it does contain remarks made by individuals about others. I know it contains my opinions on some editors (including you), and they weren't all complimentary. This is how organisations work, as you'll find as you go through the world of work. Usually the conversations are by the watercooler or in the Ladies, rather than by email, but I bet you'd be surprised by the content of your management team's emails. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Then, if it's an individual's views, then they are still responsible for those views. And it doesn't matter where on Wikipedia you make comments like that, it's still not appropriate and the mailing list should definitely still be considered a part of Wikipedia, even if it isn't accessible by normal users. Furthermore, there's a difference between making a casual, slightly negative comment about a user and saying that a user has made no worthwhile contributions and is essentially a sockmaster. There's a huge difference. Silverseren^C 00:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See my comments above (in the box). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a question, if ANI is not the appropriate venue for this discussion, what is? Silver seren is making what I consider a valid point regarding how discussions are conducted. I also see some security issues related to this, as email is not considered a secure vehicle for communications unless it is on a sealed server or encrypted, but it seems to me very important that everyone involved in WP follow the same guidelines for conduct regardless of their role. I hope I am not hearing an argument that what would be considered a personal attack on a talk page is ok on an email list used to conduct WP business. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm not certain what it is that will make you feel listened to, SS. Does it suck? Sure. I can tell you that the arbs are stressed about this. We all say things in private that we wouldn't say publicly. But could I ask that we withhold issues with style and tone until this present crisis has calmed a little? We can deal with them later: that's why we have elections. But unless there's a remedy yo seek, this may not be the best time or place. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippe, I would also like to suggest that currently sitting arbitrators should not make condescending comments about editors slighted by this leak, publicly, like the comment made by Elen just now. I trust that you agree. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

^ And what he said. Silverseren^C 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Was it condescending. It wasn't meant to be, and I apologise. I do sympathise with Silver - it's never very nice to find out that people have been talking about you behind your back.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've already stated that I will be taking this up with Iridescent when he becomes available again, I am only responding here to people that are trying to justify this as something that doesn't matter or doesn't apply. If what he said had been stated in a place that wasn't the Arbcom mailing list, there would certainly have been a big issue with it. And I don't think that the fact that it was stated just on the mailing list makes it any less important or relevant. I really think Arbcom needs to work at what they say within their mailing list. It isn't meant for the sort of conversations that give rise to comments like this, it is specifically meant for discussions about Arbcom cases. Silverseren^C 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm thinking I must be in the minority here, but I don't see an issue here. These were private conversations that were intended to remain private. That someone leaked them is incidental. Does it paint people in the best of lights? No. Is it actionable? No. We should not penalize people for speaking their minds in private. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, in private would mean in an actual personal email conversation not involving Wikipedia or its site at all. If this had just been something that had truly been gotten from off-wiki, then I wouldn't be making as big of a deal of it. The issue is that these sorts of conversations are taking place in a mailing list that, while private, still constitutes on-wiki and is meant to be used for official communication in terms of Arbcom cases. It is not meant for this kind of stuff and I worry what other things have been said by Arbcom members in their mailing list. Silverseren^C 00:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is precisely why these things shouldn't be made public. What you don't know won't hurt you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Silver, I am sympathetic that some private comments have been made public and caused you upset and embarassment. It's never very nice to find out that someone has been talking about you 'behind your back'. However, I think you are being unrealistic over what Arbcom is, and not taking account of how groups of people actually work collaboratively. In terms of security, it would have been better to have a separate location for the 'I am sending you personal information', 'we are formally discussing this motion', then it would have been clearer that most of the rest of the traffic is personal opinion. It's bound to be if you think about it - most of the 'incidents' on Wikipedia come down to personalities and differences of opinion. The mailing list is meant for "this kind of stuff", because it's how most things actually get done. And yes it includes an element of sarky personal comment. I'll put my hands up and say I'm probably the worst offender - I'm very blunt, and I say very rude things in private. My boss would verify that. She would also verify that I don't say the same things to the people involved, in fact I'm usually quite good at getting people to work with me, even if I've railed off about them privately. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, or if you think it is condescending, or if I've failed to meet some standard, but it's how people work. People have private opinions, which in some cases they keep separate from how they deal with the matter publically, and finding that out is the rather unpleasant experience you've just had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's called "venting", and everyone does it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Elen, that's not an acceptable response. The ArbCom has retained archives for years that contain damaging information. No security system can be devised that will keep these archives safe, so they ought not to exist. Arbs are not speaking in private when using a Foundation mailing list; speaking to 18 or so people; and performing tasks they were elected to perform. It's unacceptable to be snarky and contemptuous of the people who elected you, and worse when they have no idea you're doing it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The comments are more troubling not because they are negative but because they suggest editors are judged by their contributions or reputations not only on the merits, that Arbitrators anticipate drama, that they justify venting about editors they don't like and do so not in polite or restrained terms... in short, that they don't assume good faith. Elen, I'm particularly concerned by the attitude that this stuff is normal. Have we as a community ever aspired to be just like the conventional office most of us hate or dread and come here to avoid? I presume not, and it's partly because the office politics are absent from much of the site, though they may percolate up more frequently to your domain. SilverSeren is a decent editor and though he gets himself in all kinds of trouble by being honest (ironically), he does so with good intentions, even when he goofs up. SS, I implore you to hang around long enough to make 12,000 more edits... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is everything that you say in private, suitable for public consumption? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anything I say in private have an impact on the Arbcom members' perception of a certain community member? Does anything I say in private influence the decisions of Wikipedia's most important mediation body? You're question is silly since it compared apples to oranges. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So, is it your view that there should be no such thing as a private communication? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As a community site, and concerning elected representatives entrusted with the most sensitive issues, this example is not a good test case for 'any private conversation'. Also, mailing lists are fairly un-private by design, and the comments made therein are reflective of issues regardless of who sees them. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why sensitive issues are usually not made public. However, if someone betrayed the trust of the arbcom and leaked private e-mails, then they've got a lot bigger problem than just some snippy comments made by a team member. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

News flash SS, you really are incredibly difficult to deal with. Iridescent is not, by far, the only one that makes negative comments about you in private. If your negative reputation bothers you, suck it up and deal with it or change your behavior. Just about everyone here sympathies that this ugliness has affected you, but just as many people are sympathetic for Iridescent and the Arbs, whose private comments have been made public. No matter how much you continue to whine here, nothing is going to come of it, so stop it already. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense to anyone here, but no admin is going to take any action here, and the Community isn't likely to come to any agreement on anything when there are more questions than answers. If anything, it's going to end up with more people throwing mud at each other. Although people find this frustrating/enjoyable, moving the discussion here isn't going to accomplish much (and it doesn't seem appropriate given the purpose of this noticeboard). So without ruling anything out and rather than prolonging this agony, maybe someone can extend the close and leave the thread as is, with any further discussion happening at the original thread until things are a little less turbulent and a little clearer? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I note SlimVirgin has reverted the closure by an uninvolved admin, despite the fact she is involved in this situation (the emails involve her directly and indirectly). Are there no other uninvolved admins? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't close the thread, Ncm, and I'm no more or less involved than anyone else. Everyone is "involved" when it comes to this. People need to talk about this somewhere, and there's no reason not to do it here if someone has opened a thread. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a few threads at WT:AC and ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which venue would be better. I agree that there's no point in discussing why individual Arbs said particular things about certain editors, because everyone's too panicked at the moment for that level of detail. But a central discussion about the nature of the exchanges about editors on that list—and how to prevent them in future—seems justified. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearean Hunter is an user, he is uninvolved, and he also agreed that this is not helping. It appears Eagles247 agrees and he is an uninvolved user. You on the other hand are involved up to your eyeballs, with emails from you to Cirt and others being leaked, and comments about those emails also being published. You are the last person who should be either closing or reverting a closure of this thread. This is not an appropriate venue for furthering your grievances with ArbCom/WMF/etc; no admin or the Community is going to do anything here, and it frankly looks like forum-shopping. As it is, the rest of site is functioning and uses this noticeboard for the purposes it was designed for; using it as your complaints department was not one of them. Can you please clarify whether you will adhere to the basic expectations of a sysop, and avoid disrupting this venue which is needed for other matters (seeing the rest of the site is still functioning)? Or do you need to be dealt with through other means? Please restore the close that you inappropriately reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, WT:AC is the best place to discuss the leaks as no admin action can be taken at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using edit summaries to attack me. It's simply not true that I'm more involved than anyone else here, and anyway "involvement" is not an issue when it comes to keeping a thread open. The point is, if people want to discuss it, please let them. If they don't, the thread will be archived soon enough. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.