Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629

User:Paulord

I'm slightly concerned about this user's edits, which seem to consist entirely of adding information to articles garnered from www.pinkfloydfan.net, a Pink Floyd fan site. Maybe he's just innocently adding information he feels would be of use, or maybe he's "spreading the word" about his website. Thoughts? Parrot of Doom 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think User talk:Paulord is the better place for this discussion, at least as a starting point.  Frank  |  talk  12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the WP:RS/N or the WP:COI/N. I don't see the need for this to be here. Fences&Windows 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Gabriel Cousens

Resolved

 – 3 socks blocked for 3RR after warnings to all 3; later all three plus User:OX in the BOX indef blocked as socks of User:Witnesspress.

 Frank  |  talk  19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears I have been the recipient of a legal threat. Please take whatever action is required. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you file something at WP:SPI after someone deals with the threat. All of those new accounts are likely socks. AniMate 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat; the claim of libel is against the author of the reference we are following. Certainly "banishment" is a threat but not a legal one. I'll address further over there.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They're saying the secondary source is likely headed for a defamation lawsuit, not you as far as I can see. AniMate 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns? Please. Any Checkusers around? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC for like the 3rd time.) Anyway, I've already created an SPI case, which may be found here. Netalarm^talk 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Do you really want to ride that train" sounds like a legal threat to me, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is starting to look like a different train is about to arrive at the station, quite apart from any legal threats, perceived or real.  Frank  |  talk  17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, a word to the wise was not sufficient; the train has pulled into the station. 3-hour blocks for 3RR for User:Death and the Maiden, User:Seven Pointed Star, and User:Joe Galaxy.  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns sounds more like an oddly named law firm. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to me. While it smells like a sock, it reads like a weak attempt to hint at legal action, while actually implying that insisting on including a dicey source could lead to a ban[ishment]. Pursue the SPI, but the purported legal threat is too weak for action.--SPhilbrickT 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

New sock 63.227.80.175 has popped up and made the same edits. Netalarm^talk 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User KD Tries Again

Resolved

 – Nothing more for admins to do here, if people are concerned about Cirt's editing they can talk to him or file an RfC/U if it comes to that. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion can take place at talk page of WP:V
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
KD Tries Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) At the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant -- KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added information to the article page that fails the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, despite comments on his talk page and at the article's talk page specifically informing him of this problem. Respectfully requesting another administrator to deal with the violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), and also to get the information removed from the article that was added by the user, that fails WP:V. Chronology 17:11, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds completely unsourced info to the article. 17:20, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds a link to the restaurant's website, which does not confirm the info added in the same edit, the website refers to a "Chef Chuck", and KD Tries Again adds a claim not backed up by that reference, By summer 2010, Charles Howlett was chef de cuisine... 17:33, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds the info a 3rd time, this time quoting the website about "Chef Chuck", while still failing WP:V regarding his claims about a "Charles Howlett". 17:43, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again removes the link to the restaurant's own website from a reference, instead pointing the link to the restaurant's Facebook page (not sure if this is acceptable). Will defer to review of a previously-uninvolved administrator. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Note that the information I added is pertinent to [AfD] where I had raised some queries about an article created by Cirt which he is defending from deletion (I actually did not vote delete). The lively discussion there explains the sequence of events I think: I made two corrections at 17.10 and 17.11 and added further information and a reference at 17.20 (revision history). At 17.13, two minutes after I had started work on the article, Cirt sent a message to my [Page] warning me against adding unsourced material to articles. I agree that the first source I provided was insufficiently clear, as it used a nickname rather than an individual's real name. However, the source was the webpage maintained by the restaurant under discussion, which clearly indicated that the existing information in the Wikipedia article was wrong. While Cirt has been starting this AN/I complaint and posting further warnings to my Talk Page, I went and found a good reference for the information. I am sorry it took me until 17.43.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again What we see here is a persistent pattern by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) to violate WP:V at the article page. However, with regard to the most recent addition, if indeed social-networking-websites are deemed appropriate for use as references on Wikipedia, then nothing further need be done at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I do take exception to the description of my editing as disruptive and a "persistent pattern" (one edit to the body of the article, with consistent changes in the intro and info box). It took me two attempts and twenty minutes to find a reference which Cirt can't really complain about, and I have been civil throughout. In the light of the last comment, I would request an uninvolved administrator to consider whether Cirt has acted appropriately in posting here about an easily resolved content issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again The question is why KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) felt the need to first add completely unsourced info to the page, and then info that failed WP:V, and then info sourced only to a social-networking-website, instead of starting by finding an appropriate reference, and/or discussing on the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Running to ANI at the first sign of a garden variety content dispute is rarely productive, and I see no call for it here. The charge of "disruption" has a ring of hyperbole. You are both experienced editors, more than familiar with our norms of verifiability and discussion. All parties might do well to relax, research, converse and then agree on how to structure the information in question. Skomorokh 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, and on that note, posted a question at the talk page for WP:V. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Started discussion regarding use of Facebook and other social-networking-websites as WP:SELFPUB, at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Question_about_SELFPUB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the Administrator who started a discussion here and asked for independent review to then close the discussion, perhaps not liking the response, and shop the topic off to another forum?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The post to WP:V's talk page is not about KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), it is specifically about use of Facebook as a source (or not) under WP:SELFPUB. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's a separate topic, which is why I think the accusations about me made here needn't have been removed (I know they still appear in the history).KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Discussion is ongoing between the two parties at the talk page of WP:V, though it would be better to get some comments from previously-uninvolved contributors. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment There appears to be another pattern of behavior of note here too with the filing of this AN/I. User:Cirt appears a bit trigger happy about bringing content disputes at the afore mentioned article to AN/I. Just days ago he filed this report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain. Slow down there Cirt. How important is this page to you? Filing AN/I reports left and right, Canvassing people to help you at the RS/N (see User talk:Cirt). I think its time to take a step back and consider a slower more well thought out plan of action here.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Griswaldo, I wanted to ask you the same very question: how important is this page to you? You have made 20+ posts in the AfD (and not short ones either), plus at Cirt's talk page, here at AN/I and at a few other pages. What's up with your preoccupation with this article and this AfD? Do you really have something new to say at the AfD that you haven't said ten times over already? It seems to me that it is high time for you to look up WP:DISENGAGE. There are a thousand other things that need doing here on Wikipedia, that do not involve the dramafest that this AfD has become. In particular, you might actually try creating a couple of new articles... Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I hope you have similar advice for others as well, but I'll take your advice gladly.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Though if you want an explanation I became preoccupied with this AfD because of the larger issue it represents involving our notability policies and restaurants. There was an ongoing discussion prior to the AfD (the AfD that I did not start nor intend to start) at the talk page of WP:CORP. This discussion was initiated by me after I happened upon the AN/I thread. I guess I got too wrapped up in the AfD because it seemed like the outcome of the AfD would be rather important in terms of this broader situation. If you look at my edit history I've been spending time going through the restaurant by state category state by state as well. But you're right. It's time to disengage. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is an unfortunate habit of Cirt's to leave official-sounding warnings on user talk pages and run to ANI with cries of disruption and calls for severe sanctions whenever s/he finds herself involved in a content dispute with another editor. I commented on this habit just an hour ago, without having seen this latest instalment.
• As for the underlying question, self-published sources published by the article subject are explicitly allowed by policy, subject to the restrictions at WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB. This even applies to twitter posts, and it certainly includes company websites and facebook pages (if they have one). To drag another editor to ANI over citing an SPS published by the article subject is preposterous.
• Cirt's complaint a few days ago about Njsustain was equally ludicrous. Cirt had written an article on a probably non-notable restaurant which in Jimbo's and many other editors' opinion reads like an advertisement. Njsustain's "crime" was to have pointed that out. --JN466 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've marked this as resolved (again), as I don't see any need for admin tools to be wielded. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Karthi1522, edit warring and personal attacks made by User:Karthi1522 and User:Kannadakumara

Relevant page histories

1. Puneet Rajkumar
2. Rajkumar
3. Ravi Belagere

Relevant user talk page diffs

1. First attack on User talk:Karti1551
2. Response to the above with vulgar language
3. Second attack after warning on User talk:Karti1551

User:Kannadakumara claims that the text in diff #3 also contains obscenities in Kannada language at my talk page. I have removed the text of the third diff, but left the first and the second personal attck and warned both parties.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:86.44.85.89 vows to continue edit warring

86.44.85.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for continual edit warring and personal attacks, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They've vowed on their Talk page to come back when the block is over and pick up where they left off. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DFTT. Fences&Windows 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame articles

The articles Aspartame and Aspartame controversy are being controlled by a group of editors who will not allow in any data or studies that show any problem with the chemical. I tried again and again to insert studies that showed potential problems, and all were removed, by users with names like "Yobol" (lobbY spelled backwards, roughly). I contend that there are a number of editors who are working here to protect the interests of the major corporations selling this billion-dollar a year chemical: Ajinomoto, The NutraSweet Company, PepsiCo and other soft drink makers. Eventually I was driven from the page and had to create an alternate page at another wiki called SourceWatch. Now any link from the Talk pages to this new page is being deleted on the grounds of "spam", eg diff. I want some uninvolved admins to note that the aspartame pages on wikipedia are effectively controlled by industry stooges who abuse the policies here, such as deliberately misinterpreting wp:MEDRS, to remove anything and everything that puts their product in a less-than-perfect light. I invite admins to study the talk pages concerned, as well as the constant harrassment leveled at me via my user talk page, as well as numerous deletions of my comments from the article Talk pages. These people are making a mockery of this encyclopedia. The editors displaying these behaviours are:
Yobol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Novangelis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) inter alia TickleMeister (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried any methods of dispute resolution to try and solve this content dispute, before taking these users here? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Blindly referring to people who disagree with you as "industry stooges" is about the worst way to get anyone to take you seriously. The response that you are getting from other editors is probably a reflection of this attitude you are displaying. -- Ed (Edgar181)

I suggest TickleMeister provide diffs for each and every accusation he makes, if he wants to be taken seriously.

Other than the rather questionable removal of talk page comments by Yobol and Keepcalmandcarryon, I see more problems in TickleMeister's accusations above than in any problems with the articles.

I was preparing to revert Yobol's edit myself when TickleMeister made an edit [1] that from the edit summary appeared to be such a revert. However, TickleMeister took the opportunity to add new comments instead, ones that are far less appropriate for the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: if an editor is unable to get consensus on Wikipedia for material they want to add and subsequently edits another wiki to his/her own satisfaction, and invites others to use that wiki's page to edit Wikipedia's article, it appears to me they are doing so merely to get their preferred version of the page advertised (and not to contribute to the discussion of improving the actual article in Wikipedia). Now, that seems disruptive to me and is why I deleted it, but I was wondering if placing links to other wikis like this is actually accepted practice; if so I would want to make sure not to make the same mistake in the future of removing links to other wikis. Of note, TickleMeister appears to be edit warring and replacing both [2] [3] comments that have been removed. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed what TickleMeister was doing on Talk:Aspartame at the same time, and no one pointed it out. Given this context, Yobol's and Keepcalmandcarryon's edits make more sense. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

After a cursory look over this situation, I have several comments:

• First, let's skip any discussion on a particular user's choice of name. Your assertion that "Yobol" refers to "Lobby" is...well, let me put it this way: if you suspect a particular user has a WP:COI, you'll have to do better than that.
• I looked at Talk:Aspartame controversy and in particular the section Aspartame and premature birth, in which you appeared to be championing the notion that it is connected because a study found a connection to "artificial sweeteners". Further, you made the giant leap that because methanol is a known toxin, and it's a constituent component of aspartame, and aspartame is the most common artificial sweetener, that means aspartame is responsible. That is wholly unsupported by the actual quotes from the source material that are reproduced in that discussion. To me that seems equivalent to claiming that salt is poisonous because it is 50% comprised of chlorine, or that it is explosive because it is 50% comprised of sodium, a metal that is unstable at room temperature.
• Have you alerted any of the parties above to this discussion, as required (and noted in the edit box at the top of the page)?
• Comments which start out sarcastically and conclude with "So clearly I am right and you are wrong.", with the edit summary "wrong again, ybbol" (sic) are not going to win friends and influence people around here (or anywhere, really).  Frank  |  talk  15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BOOMERANG. That's all I should say. However, let me try providing some advice, though I suspect it might be regarded along the lines of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Advice is: Make an edit on safety in a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. You may find this is accepted more positively by the community. You might also try asking the editors in question for help. A browse through WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, along with reading the directions on this page (particularly on providing diffs and notifying all editors mentioned) would help your overall success on talk pages. N419BH 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I should also be listed among those who reverted his talk page comments because, after long consideration, I felt their purpose was not an effort at collaboration, but rather, an effort to draw attention to his version at another site. This is an editor with ongoing civility problems. After issuing an ultimatum to take it elsewhere with "a less NPOV tone", he copied text to another wiki with less than ideal attribution. Linking seems to be intended as a soapbox—an effort to circumvent collaboration. After several other editors concurred, he claimed it was for the sources. He has placed a copy of the BLP-containing text at User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources. Rather than discuss the issues of keeping an article on his user pages, he wanted to take it to the notice boards. He did not extend the courtesy of notifying me despite his insistence that I notify him.

I should also note that I have no conflicts of interest to declare.Novangelis (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You mention BLP-containing text. I'm wondering if the sub-page should be taken to MfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had brought it to notice any administrative boards, that might well have been the one. I was looking at the numerous involved policies trying to figure out which ones were significant and which were secondary, and where it should be discussed, when I was notified about the case. Novangelis (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd cleared up my differences with TM, who claims to be an alternate/new account of another editor. I haven't edited those pages in ages. Verbal chat 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - TM, study the pillars, and be sure all your edits are neutral, verifiable, and not original. If you source your statements, and word them from a neutral point of view, they will be less likely to be removed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, for what it's worth. I responded a while back to an RfC at Aspartame, where there were similar issues, and from what I saw in that brief time, TM had advocated a position that was rather strongly opposite to consensus, and the other editors there were largely acting very much within the bounds of normal and appropriate discussion, nothing lobby-like. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Ticklemeister appears to be the only one acting strangely, arguing with everyone, and getting emotional. He also seems to know a whole lot about aspartame and all of the fringe studies that have been done on it. If I would suspect anyone of a conflict of interest, it would be Ticklemeister. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for not notifying other users, but it was late, I was tired, and I had to run. I see nobody has studied or commented on how all, and I mean ALL, material that casts suspicion or doubt upon the safety of aspartame has been refused entry to article space on grounds of UNDUE and similar hard-to-argue concepts, where if you're outnumbered, you've lost before you begin. Once again, I ask someone who is interested in how wikipedia can be abused to read the Talk page archives, from the beginning, to see how not only I but other editors before me have been similarly abused by what I contend are vested interests. There is a distinct lack of impartiality in the arguments presented. The articles have a palpable pro-industry POV. I see the forces are gathering against me above. If anyone cares about this project, do the research I'm suggesting. I can do no more than make the suggestion. Billions of dollars are at stake, so it's not surprising I have met such stern resistance, but it's sad to see WP subject to this sort of thing. TickleMeister (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  If it was late, you were tired, and you had to run...you most definitely should not have improperly started an AN/I thread. Regarding the material, I did a review of the current contents of the talk page (see above) and drew the conclusion that you are eliciting responses that are in line with the way you are editing, at least in that particular thread. It is not feasible to ask people here to go back through some long history; your best bet is to take the advice given above (both by me and by others). If you come up with sourced statements - one at a time, if necessary - you'll stand a much better chance of being heard. The sarcasm, shortcuts, and general combativeness will not help your cause. I have no opinion on the merits of the factual material here...I have no axe to grind here. Indeed, truth be told, I scrupulously avoid the stuff and always have. But that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus is that the material is inappropriate for the article, rather than requesting admin action, you should probably try to figure out why such a consensus exists. It's a pretty sure bet that it has nothing whatsoever to do with an industry conspiracy. (Which is not at all the same as saying there isn't such a conspiracy; I'm just saying a collection of Wikipedia editors would be exceedingly unlikely to be involved in such.)  Frank  |  talk  04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I started out editing wikipedia via the Aspartame articles, I can concur that it is not a wholly pleasant environment to work in. While I do not support the allegations of editing for monetary reward (and I think that TM should stop forwarding them), I can certainly empathize with how he may have come to that conclusion. If you look at the earliest contributions TM made to the aspartame articles, they seem to have had some merit and changes were detailed in ES'. They were all rolled back with the talk page response when the revert was challenged: I have not had time to review all your edits. Please justify them here. The removal of sources and text goes against the consensus that was hammered out previously. I have objected to these changes, now please show consensus has changed if you wish to remove this information. I will add back the migrane data once I have reviewed the sources. This included brief, neutrally worded edits such as this which carries 5 journal sources, as well as - after tensions increased: mass reverts of a series of atomic edits such as: [4], [5], [6], [7] any many more edits which either added sources or clarified language. That some edits might have been seen as questionable; I know that many of the editors opposed to TM's edits are opposed to minimizing language regarding the mid 1990's 'Hoax Letter' and any mention of funding, that is not a valid reason to revert arguably 'good edits' en masse. I no longer attend the Aspartame articles very often, personally I find the I/P articles much more peaceful. Unomi (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Since he has acknowledged the second account, it is probably best to address it here. In his response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister, part of his defense is that I had a conflict of interest in finding him using a second account to refactor archived pages. Since this is the venue he chose to formally accuse me, I am looking forward to his ability to demonstrate my conflict of interest and, even more, his demonstration of psychic powers since he claims he knows what I was thinking.Novangelis (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to acknowledge that not only do you edit with a pro-corporate agenda, but that you also have a nasty habit of revisting other editors Talk page comments, sometimes long after they were made, and deleting diff or collapsing diffmaterial you do not like. Refactoring other editors' comments in this sneaky manner is offensive and high-handed, and not supported by policy. TickleMeister (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given the number of times you have made the accusation, you still have to prove it. I'm still waiting to see you produce evidence of my conflict of interest (or in this case "pro-corporate agenda") you keep telling me I have. After all, that's why you opened this incident report. All I did was get rid of a few unsightly, non-contributory soap boxes. In each case, I cited the policies under which I acted in a distinct edit summary. I don't know how that is sneaky. It's not like I used a second account after it was archived.

The content of material does not matter. Long examples can be collapsed after discussion has ended. The whole talk page, not just the RfC had been inactive for a week. This was in a quote box that took four edits to format ((one, two, three, four) and the editor who initiated (but did not close) the RfC had announced his departure. The text is still available in the diffs of the work pages and the collapsed box if anyone ever wanted to review it. As for removing a link to another wiki, it was characterized as a moved workpage. It was neither. There is no reason to link to another wiki page that is described as: "This page will be built from a version disallowed by paid industry operatives on wikipedia. Please be patient as it is sanitised in content and format of wikipedia crud." (the closest thing to an attribution, but I mentioned that above).—Silegnavon... err... Novangelis (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative tools by User:Deb

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.

---

Hi. Earlier today, Deb (talk · contribs) moved, without consensus, the article Russell T Davies to Russell T. Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), citing "naming conventions". After moving the page, she then protected it, with the justification that she was preventing move-warring. However, the last time the page was moved was June 2009, and thus is not move warring under any definition of the term. The move also breaks the vast majority of links, and is not compliant with ENGVAR (no periods after initialisms in British English), RETAIN (as the style has been the same for donkey's years), V (one biography, two editions of his book, and countless numbers of Doctor Who episodes are all agreed on the T not being followed by the period, as it doesn't stand for anything), and two discussions four years apart, here, which affirmed what the sources say. Even the guys at RFPP agree that the justification for protection was extremely flimsy. But the thing that really takes the cake is the fact she did the same thing two years ago. Hence, it is clear that the tools were used to gain an advantage in a dispute, which contravenes the administrator's policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with many of Sceptre's comments above, but have to take issue with "breaks the vast majority of links", considering Sceptre has been systematically changing the links to omit the T over the past day or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article? Bold perhaps but not a serious issue. Immediately using admin tools to move-protect the page citing a non-existant move-war? Not cool, no justification for using the admin tool here, this should be undone. Exxolon (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Sarek: it broke most of the links before I started the AWB run. I believe there were around 800 links to the page, of which around 700 linked to this page. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just about the links: of course, no links were broken at all, either before or after. Linking through redirects is perfectly valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a pretty clear instance of using administrator tools in a dispute one i) has participated in ii) has a firm opinion on, which is inappropriate. If the page needed to be protected, there is no reason the admin in question could not have submitted a request at WP:RFPP. Given that Deb has proposed a move discussion on the article talkpage, I suggest the article be unprotected and that no moves are made until an uninvolved administrator judges there to be consensus on the matter. Skomorokh 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment "Without consensus" does not mean "against consensus", which would be a far more serious matter. What I see is no discussion whatsoever on the matter. Yes, protection might not be necessary, as this looks like a 1x-per-year-for-four-years move war, but still, "abuse" is a pretty serious term. I hope Deb will undo the protection to avoid the appearance of impropriety, however thin such appearance may be.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you check the archives, Frank, you'll see it _has_ been discussed before, so "against consensus" may be a fair description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to be wrong, but I did look at Talk:Russell T. Davies and found six threads going back more than three years, with no mention of a move discussion. Did I miss something?  Frank  |  talk  19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hiding at Talk:Russell T Davies/Archive 1. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I detect a note of sarcasm there? ;-) I didn't see a link from the main talk page so I didn't know there was an archive. I looked - really. Just not hard enough. Still - the thread in question hardly qualifies as consensus, and even if it had been found, one might forgive editors for not presuming a discussion that started in 2005 and continued in 2009 represents consensus of any sort...no?  Frank  |  talk  19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why I said "may". And no sarcasm intended - I was just linking to the archive page, since it didn't get moved with the main page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more prone to call it "misuse" than "abuse". 174.52.141.138 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too, actually. I almost changed the header, but decided against it. If Sceptre wants to do it himself, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would've too, until I found out she'd moved the page before. Because of that, I believe she's deliberately using her tools to gain an advantage in a dispute. Which is a Bad Thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Deb hasn't commented yet since this thread started, has she? I think the consensus is pretty obvious that she shouldn't have made that protection, and I hope she'll just do the obvious thing and lift it again herself. As for where the page should be while the content issue is being clarified, may I suggest it's not really important enough to bother much? The wiki won't be eaten by Daleks if there's a period less or more in that title for a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

She has commented here. Unfortunately, her comment is about the title, not about the move protection. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I've started a move discussion to settle the content issue at Talk:Russell_T._Davies#Article_title. Skomorokh 19:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a disappointing move by a respected administrator. I do believe it would be appropriate to unprotect the article on principle alone and allow a discussion to form. Given the infrequency of moves and willingness to discuss, there appears to be no "move [war]" here. I'll save my opinions on the title for the discussion. Matthew (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. How does a move, which leaves a redirect behind, break links? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I am perfectly prepared to lift the protection, and have done so now that a proper discussion has been started. I do apologise for the "Move warring" tag. I didn't use those words and they didn't come up on my screen when I set the protection. All I wrote was "article naming conventions to be observed" so I am quite surprised to see the words that came out on the edit summary (which I hadn't looked at until now). The article came to my attention only because another article on my watchlist was changed to amend a link that appeared to be quite wrong. I couldn't understand how a long-standing article, one which I had even contributed to in the past, had come to be placed at what appeared to be a non-standard title, until I looked at the history and saw a contributor who disagreed with the standard title had systematically moved it back each time it had been moved. I could see that the same thing would happen when I moved the article, so I protected it to give him pause for thought. Maybe this wasn't the best possible action, but at the time it seemed better than getting into a long argument with an individual. (The way that User:Sceptre approached the issue ("move it back or else") was unfortunately what I anticipated and only served to underline my concerns. It was never my intention to leave the protection on, once a requested move discussion had started, and I don't have any personal interest in the article being at either of the titles - though obviously I do think the title that follows naming conventions is better and less confusing for users. I don't personally consider it abuse. Deb (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• This argument is about a dot, right? Wikipedia:LAME#Punctuation could do with some more content. Fences&Windows 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So it seems. I had never heard of this guy before, but it seems he adopted that middle initial, the same way Michael J. Fox adopted his. So it comes down to what, if anything, the wikipedia manual of style has to say about this. But with the redirect feature, the article can be found either way. So it's just a tempest in a T pot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's about spelling someone's name correctly. I'm sure that if it were your name being discussed, you, like the rest of us, would be concerned that it was spelled correctly. Note the talk page discussion. The "T." is, apparently, not an abbreviation to just the initial letter. It's the whole of the middle name. Eric Partridge, for one, is quite firm that if there's no actual abbreviation going on in the first place, one shouldn't have a full stop. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it really that, or is it just that the British apparently don't use periods for middle initials? Or do they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's really that there's nothing, apparently, to abbreviate. Sans anything to abbreviate, how the British (or anyone else, for that matter) abbreviate things is pretty irrelevant. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2010 (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.

User:Mathsci attempting to out User:David.Kane

Resolved

 – There is no outing here. Also, both editors are already parties to the open arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci is attempting to out me. He claims that I have some connection to the David Kane who writes at "Gene Expression," www.gnxp.com.

I "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." I have never mentioned this website, or any theoretical involvement there by me, at Wikipedia. I request that User:Mathsci remove this claim from Wikipedia. If he refuses to (as his past behavior suggests is likely), I request that an admin sanction him. WP:OUTTING notes that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." A block would provide MathSci with time to consider how best to work with other editors. David.Kane (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, both you here and the David Kane at gnxp.com write under your full names, and you both have the same interest in race-related issues. But what clinches it is, the David Kane at gnxp.com explicitly claims he is you on Wikipedia [8]. If he isn't, maybe you'd better protest against identity theft. Unless that posting is a fake (and it doesn't look like one), I don't think you have grounds for an outing complaint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Shouldn't you have raised this issue by contacting an Admin via email? A large fraction of the Wiki community monitors AN/I, only a small fraction would have seen the comments made by Matsci. That Admin could have intervened by removing the comment by Matsci and then a thread could have been started here to discuss measures against Mathsci; the evidence for the outing attempt would only be visible to Admins. Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add similar thoughts but got edit conflict. I am also of the view that this is not a case of outting. It is not unusual for evidence to be submitted to arbcom regarding off-wiki comments about wikipedia. To use the username David Kane and then claim that you are being outted as being "David Kane" is a mistake. If you used an anonymous username that would be different as you would have a case that evidence should have been submitted to arbcom privately. I don't think there has been any violation of wikipedia policy. If you have an imposter at gnpx.com, then you need to contact gnpx.com. If you really are David Kane and you posted publicly on a blog that you are David Kane at Wikipedia, then you David Kane outted yourself, not MathSci.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Dear poor David.Kane, these points and these links have been under discussion for about a month and a half at ArbCom. His edits here simply seem to be a diversion as a kind of attention seeking exercise or a method of creating more disruption. He identified himself off-wiki with this edit [9], a link ArbCom is already familiar with. His edits at the moment seem to be extremely disruptive. Since he doen't seem to be particularly interested in improving content on wikipedia outside race-related articles and even there he is pushing a POV to breaking point with recent edits to Race (classification of humans), already described on ArbCom pages, there seems little point in making any further comment. Presumably this report was made to interrupt my edits to Clavier-Übung III. Perhaps it hasn't dawned on David,Kane yet that some people spend there time on wikipedia doing things other than trying to push their personal points of view on the bioligical inferiority of certain races. Not a very bright stunt really. But a stunt neverthless. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Moreover, D.K. at gnxp.com not only identified himself as D.K. on Wikipedia, he overtly used gnxp.com to campaign and solicit external help for his POV dispute on Wikipedia. While I don't think his external activity necessarily crossed the line into attempted forbidden meatpuppeting, it clearly is fair game for talking about on Wikipedia. I'd say User:David.Kane is in for a warning for raising frivolous complaints in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As other users have mentioned in the ArbCom case and on article talk pages, he is simply gaming the system. A kind of chidlish exercise in annoying other users. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from dumb bystander. How can you claim outing when you use a handle with your name in it? If you are David Kane, great. If not, why use that handle? Or are you saying you are a different David Kane? Anyways, I'll go back to eat bon bons. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on David's user talk a warning template for trying to gain ownership of article content or article POV by off-wikipedia canvassing as there were no denials from David that this is what he was doing and it is quite obvious this was the case in my view. I have also warned david about not assuming good faith. I guess the admins here can decide whether any further action is needed; if not then perhaps this latest drama on race and intelligence can be marked as resolved and closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not outing, what a frivolous post. Fences&Windows 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, folks, to be fair, I am not even sure this is "outing," technically, in any event. Isn't outing naming someone's real-world identity? Al we know is that there is a WP user with the registered name David Kane, and at this blog another registered user using the same name. For all we know, David Kane here is a 15 year old girl named Sally living in Portland Oregon, and the David Kane at the Gene Blogi s a 60 year old man named Hans living in Munich. Does that gene Blog provide RW info? I couldn't find it. MathSci might be mistaken in associting two internet personas that coincidentally use the same fake name. That is not outing, even if it is a mistkake. That said, Future Perfect's comment sort of nails it.

This would be amusing but for one thing: it is one more example of the kind of tactic David and his comrade-in-arms (or ArbCom) routinely use: to try to bring the disciplinary machinary of WP down on MathSci as a way of distracting him from the current ArbCom case. Frankly I find this abusive. Forget about it being unfair to MthSci (unfair though it is), it is abusive of our time and good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, as the David on the genetic website acknowledges being the same David on wikipedia and tries to invite editors to join in a content dispute. I do not understand what you are saying, when you say "the kind of tactic David and his comrade-in-arms (or ArbCom) routinely use"; are you alledging that ArbCom is in cahoots with David? That is a rather strange claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to 'out' someone who already uses his real name. If this person is editing disruptively, that can be dealt with without invoking WP:OUTING. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

CHL has already passed comment on this disruption on the ArbCom case pages. My only possibly disruptive thought today was that I might perhaps be able port this image file over to en.wikipedia.org. That thought was suppressed, because I fear the answer is no. But if any administrator who's an expert on copyright thinks the answer might be yes, that would be great. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Update David.Kane has been blocked by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I blocked for article disruption, not for anything related to the outing claim or discussion here. I agree with consensus above but him having made the complaint was frivilous, not actionable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane, now unblocked, stated that his reason to be unblocked was so that he could participate in the ArbCom case. The administrator that unblocked him Tivedshambo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did not notice how that statement conflicts with the request David.Kane made here. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with El Salvadoran IP editor

There has been a persistent El Salvadoran IP editor that keeps vandalizing List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and restores a largely unintelligible remark on the article's talk page that appears to be some sort of insult or attack directed at other editors.[10][11] The vandalism takes the form of a false air date of a particular episode. You can see the actual air date at this Hulu links. The edits all come from the 190.86.x.x range and changes from day to day. The article has already been semi-protected for a week once, but the editor simply waited it out and returned to vandalizing the article once the semi-protected expired. An attempt communicate with the editor has resulted in nothing more than the editor posting non-sense such as "pendejo".[12] The editor has already shown that he/she will wait out any semi-protection period and ignores any warnings left about the repeated vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Protected article for three days in the first instance. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor has already waited out one 3 day semi-protection period, I don't have much faith that another will have any affect on stopping the vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence "in the first instance" :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking the IP is not feasible, unless we block the whole /16 IP address space... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We can block a /16 ... but should only in severe ongoing cases. This doesn't seem that bad...

OTOH, we can indefinitely (or long duration) semiprotect an article if a persistent IP hopping vandal is present. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me dust off my slide rule...2^16 is equal to .... OK, enough of that. Look, we can protect the article or play whack-a-mole with each new IP. Or both. It may be a pain, but what's the alternative? Give in? Take solace in this fact: Wikipedia will be around longer than the vandal.  Frank  |  talk  22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess if he continues a permanent semi-protection would be nice, but really just reverting the one or two edits he makes each day isn't that big a hassle.

The irony here is that he doesn't seem to be bothering the Spanish-language Wikipedia article. Geg (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ackees using Congo Free State as a soapbox, again, after 3O

This article was brought to 3O after huge WP:POV pushing followed by a series of racist personal attacks in April, see Talk:Congo Free State/Archive 1#Leopold 'civilized' - right!..... User:HelloAnnyong jumped in and tried to help, and User:Rlevse stopped him from further vandalizing my talkpage. The nonsense stopped for a while, but User:Ackees is determined to belittle and attack all others on this article, and it needs to stop. Now. Please.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notifed User:Ackees about this post - please remember you must notify any user you discuss here. Exxolon (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So did I, I was in the process simultaneously.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, apologies for edit conflict. Exxolon (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We will fight them on the beaches. We will never surrender.Ackees (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. I'm also confused by your edit to my user (not talk) page here [13] with the edit summary "(ha ha ha whatever)" - care to explain? Exxolon (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note - "16:45, 30 July 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Ackees (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)" so Ackees is unable to respond here. Exxolon (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Sarek, he blocked for edit warring on a different article to the one above, so this issue may still need looking at. Exxolon (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Before editing again, (if again), someone needs to give him a primer on NPOV and writing in a netural tone, I had a look at a few of his article edits and they were all problematical. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, somebody apparently had in fact defaced the article with racist references to Europeans as the "civilized world" in contrast with the Africans, which is of course patently unacceptable, so Ackees seems to have had some kind of a legitimate complaint. Looking further into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacing one set of POV with another is not acceptable either, and this has been explained to him time and again. He's apparently familiar with the topic, but too close to it to be able to write objectively. It's not really my topic, I found him because of his brazen and insulting edit summaries and racebaiting, which he tried on me, to no avail. I revert such edits and editors on principle. Racism from any angle is unacceptable here. Some editors are banned from editing certain topics that push their hot buttons, say Kosovo or Palestine. For this user, I would suggest looking further into that.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. On the other hand, simply reverting the offending edits and thereby reinstating the very obvious (and arguably worse) offending parts of the previous version, without correcting the latter, was probably not the most constructive thing to do – it was obviously pushing his hot buttons even more. I'm glad somebody now seems to have been doing the obvious thing and taken out that "civilised" vs. "primitive" nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, attention does need to be paid to this page. Maybe the underlying tone came from the 1911 Britannia article some of it was based on? It doesn't read too badly now, but it still does have a general tone of regarding the Congo as the "White Man's Burden". It'd be good to get more of the perspective of the Congolese into the article, if that's possible. Fences&Windows 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo (talk · contribs) harassing, posting empty accusations and personal epithets

Resolved

 – Taivo advised that it is better not to let frustration spill over, Windyhead blocked for disruptive editing. FOOTBALLPLAYERTHATSHALLNOTBENAMED applies.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, for the last few days Taivo (talk · contribs) supplied every of my post with groundless accusations used as arguments in discussion and degraded to personal epithets.

• [14] in violation to WP:Assume good faith rejects to accept that I checked sources
• [15] as arguments uses personal behavior accusations that I "have not read the source" and "you don't like the information" and "can someone step in and shut this guy up", "He is providing nothing useful to the debate, but only complaining that he doesn't like the result"
• [16] "you to lay off"
• [17] which I even will not quote here (and it is still not removed)
• [18] instead of arguments - personal behavior accusations like "Windyhead doesn't like the information because it conflicts with his worldview", "He then began forum shopping here and at another notice board"
• [19] again empty accusations of not reading the source "You were continually making a mess of the paragraph" , "you worked very hard to not read the sources and to not understand what they said" and "Your "contribution" was nothing and resulted in nothing" , "You'll surely post something self-serving after this"
• [20] "Removing malicious tags" for tags requesting to verify sources
• [21] "Windyhead simply refuses to read the sources cited if he disagrees with my interpretation of them", "This is just another case of his forum shopping", discusses my "modus operandi"
• [22] "Windyhead wasting time with malicious tagging" , "He is POV pushing without bothering to check sources".

Every single of my posts for last few days was responded with some accusation of personal behavior.

He also prepared "edit warring" report on me containing no single revert diff [23].

He also reverted my every single change to a page in conflict during last few days.

Is this kind of behavior is tolerated here? Or is it tolerated but only for editors with "honors"? I mean, may I or should I act like my opponent to get things moving? --windyhead (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor has spent the last week posting baseless tags at Ukrainian language without demonstrating 1) any real knowledge of linguistics, 2) any willingness to actual read sources, or 3) any willingness to read the posts wherein I have explained the linguistic issues to him. If you read his first comments and his last comments at Talk:Ukrainian language, you will see no change whatsoever in the content of his posts or in his understanding of the linguistic issues. An edit warring charge is completely justified as he was told by several other editors and administrators that my actions were completely justified within Wikipedia policy, yet he persisted in posting malicious tags because the phrase he objects to (while completely referenced and NPOV) violates his own personal POV. This complaint is just another in his long series of attempts at forum shopping. --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Windyhead, you have all the appearance of being a tendentious editor. Taivo appears to be calling a spade a spade when he criticises your editing. And Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is the place for this, not here. No admin is going to sanction Taivo for his comments, even if they were less polite than might be desired. Fences&Windows 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, this is a prime example of why remaining civil even in the heat of a dispute is important - in many cases, the party who feels insulted is empowered and angered by the insults, and an ANI case or other wider dispute emerge. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson#Outside view by Georgewilliamherbert, something else that came out of a recent ANI discussion above.

Tavio - There are multiple other editors involved here. If you can't respond politely to Windyhead, please let one of the others there handle the ondoign discussions. Continuing to abuse Windyhead would be inappropriate and a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please stop that now.

Windyhead - Fences and Windows' comment about your tedentious editing is something I agree with having read the article and article talk page histories ( Ukrainian language ). A number of edtiors, many of whom are linguists, are clearly countering your tagging and disputes there. There seem to be many sources. If you do not understand the sources or don't agree with one editors interpretations of them, it is adviseable to discuss it on the talk page and attempt to educate yourself further in the specific field. Tagging something that you don't understand well once is one thing; continuing to come back to it despite multiple editors pointing out the sources and trying to explain them to you is not helpful, and ultimately becomes disruptive.

Please make a better effort to work with the editors there and understand their responses.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) WP:OUCH. Reporter blocked 24hrs for disruptive editing. There was a long-standing pattern of hostile spurious tagging of perfectly straightforward sources (such as [24]), combined with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT wikilawyering on the talkpage and forum shopping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if this was a case of WP:BOOMERANG, I was just about to check. Good block. Fences&Windows 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Breech of General Sanction by User:Triton Rocker

The above named editor inserted "British Isles" into an an article here in defiance of his/her being sanctioned here. He has already had one block for breaking this ban. Would someone please take action as the two main admins monitoring this issue are on holiday. Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Second insertion against sanction here. In this case the change may be valid and I have nominated it on the project page. The sanction however is very clear. --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What this editor did ... that's me ... was a series of well referenced work developing the topic along a pattern of well cited and defined geographic areas, e.g. British Isles, Scandinavia etc, that I will continue ... if left alone by trolls who do no work.

Snowded is nothing more but one of a handful of nationalist war gamers attempting to politicise a non-political issue. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Two blocks already for this behaviour and now a personal attack. Editor is obviously unaware of what a general sanction means, or is unprepared to abide by it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked TritonRocker for 48 hours. Review invited. This is particularly frustrating because the 1st set of edits were to an article already being discussed at WT:BISE. The 2nd set of edits, however, were to a completely new article. In both cases it appears possible that they could have got consensus for their change had they only bothered to try. TritonRocker has already been blocked once for violating the topic ban, hence the 48 hour block. TFOWR 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good block, i do not understand why Triton continues to add British Isles to articles without first raising it on the WP:BISE page. He is clearly being disruptive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

All TritonRocker has to do is stick a mention of it in the WP:BISE page and we will discuss it in a reasonable and constructive way. I've found the level of willingness to engage with the issue in an intelligent way there to be improving now that this sanction policy is in place. Please defend the sanction policy. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tangentially related: I'd appreciate it if other admins could keep an eye on this. Both myself and Black Kite are away until 7 August, and this issue is OK when it's monitored, and blows up when it's not. I posted at AN, so it's possible an admin or admins are aware of this already, but no one's said for definite that they'll watch over the WT:BISE page. Hint hint! Let me know, eh?! TFOWR 09:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • An inappropriate block. TR did not insert British Isles, he merely added a useful reference that happens to include the words "British Isles" in the title. The huffing and puffing by the nationalists on this really shows them for what they are. LevenBoy (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • TR did not insert British Isles Oh, really? Both of the edits that prompted the block involved adding the term "British Isles". Interestingly, every editor who has commented here is (so far as I know) British (apart from me, though I do live in Britain). None of the Irish editors have commented here. TFOWR 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I must admit that I (probably like many others uninvolved in this) have trouble keeping track of who's who and who is pushing which POV. Having said that, I don't think that it's relevant here. That first edit changes "Britain" to "British Isles". If that were by itself, I'd be asking whether that were really worth sanctions.

        The second edit is the problematic one. It removes any mention of the separate legal system of Scotland, bunches England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland into one, and calls it "added refs". That's certainly problematic editing, both as to the cavalier regard that it towards factual accuracy that it demonstrates (not only does one of the sources cited explicitly say "The AHA 1986 and the ATA 1995 do not apply in Scotland, where the relevant legislation is largely contained in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991." but even the article itself before editing stated that Scotland had a separate legal system), as well as the misleading edit summary. So whilst the first edit doesn't indicate tendentiousness here, the second seems to be a strong indicator (as does the name-calling on the article's talk page), and is good evidence that sanctions against such tendentiousness should be applied. When nationalism overrules accuracy in one's editing, then one has become a problem for the encyclopaedia.

        I've put Scotland back. Shame on you nationalist warriors for having an article lose an entire country's legal system as a side-effect of your bad editing! Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

        • I agree with what Uncle G says. Under the cover of adding references, that edit unreasonably merged all of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland into one section, when they actually had/have separate systems. Damned nationalist POV pushers, Wikipedia would be better without all of them. Fences&Windows 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I think, to be honest, I would have blocked on the first edit alone. TritonRocker is topic banned, and required to not make that edit - regardless whether it was correct or not. They've already been blocked once (admittedly by yours truly) for violating that topic ban, so I take the view there's systematic behaviour here and that the original topic ban (applied by Black Kite) was correct. There is a process in place at WT:BISE which the vast majority of editors appear happy with - editors of both persuasions. TritonRocker's behaviour seems to me to be somewhat "newbie-ish" - a belief that the way to get things done is to rip the piss out of WP:BOLD - there's a WP:DEADLINE, things must be done now or we'll lose the WP:BATTLE. Plenty of us were exactly like that not so long ago. The problem here is that if that behaviour goes unchallenged it provokes other editors. This area was a nightmare when Black Kite wasn't involved. It's not too bad now, because the provocations are kept in check. Editors seem pretty happy with a "raise issue, discuss, get consensus, make edit" process. Well, most editors, anyway... TFOWR 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Just for the record, the agreement on the talk page was to keep the three legal legal Jurisdictions separate. After they had been artificially bundled together to create an excuse to use British Isles, I separated them again, doing my best to preserve some good content changes that had been made by Triton Rocker (he is frustrating in that he does good work but ignores agreed process and sanctions). So I think it may have been my fault that Scotland got lost in the process for which apologies - I was avoiding a simple revert. Thanks for putting it back in. Not sure if the insertion of British Isles as a term can be laid at the feet of nationalist POV pushers, but not to worry. What is clear is that the sanctions are preventing edit warring and creating a better editing environment with most issues now being settled quickly. If the sort of behaviour that Triton has displayed is not subject to sanction then there is no constraint on another outbreak of edit waring. --Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a silver-lining to TR behaviour, though. He's giving everyone involved, an example of what happens when the sanctions are breached. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If TR wants to continue to shoot him/herself in the foot, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

IP following me around, reverting my edits and typing "ugly bitch" in hebrew in edit summary's

This IP has been following me around to several articles, reverted all my edits while typing "ugly bitch" in Hebrew in the edit summarys.

You can see what it means in google translate: http://translate.google.com/?langpair=ar%7Cen#iw%7Cen%7C%D7%91%D7%AA%20%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94%20%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA

Arak (drink): [25][26]

Salvia palaestina[27][28]

Salvia hierosolymitana [29][30]

Brown Bear [31][32] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first step is to warn the user, which I've done.  Frank  |  talk  16:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, after digging a little further, I suggest (and will also suggest on your talk pages) that you and User:Chesdovi avoid editing the same articles, or at least avoid confrontation with each other. Nothing good will come of insults being lobbed back and forth across an old and continuing dispute.  Frank  |  talk  16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user for unacceptable personal attacks in an edit summary. Crum375 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the edit summaries I saw -- not sure I got all of them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan101: The last straw.

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.

---

He's done it again: User:Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 88 has been tagged and bagged. The problem here is this: I've contacted Jimbo Wales about this idiot and apparently nothing is being done.

I have blocked four or five complete IP ranges, one school IP range, reported this little freak countless times at CU, tried three times to mentor him, gotten my offers shoved in my face and still he continues.

Unless and until this freakazoid is shut down once and for all, I am off this project. Leave word on my talk page if you have any questions; my e-mail's been disabled for a little while due to a technical issue on my end. Disgusted, I remain, PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that'll sure put him in his place. Bravo, you, and keep reaching for that star. HalfShadow 03:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think you're feeding the troll just a tiny bit? What precisely are we supposed to do, send out the hunter-killer robots? Fences&Windows 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but as long as there are proxies, there will be compulsives like Bambifan. He's not unlike MascotGuy, in that he's easy to spot and catch. His edits don't last for more than a few seconds before he gets blocked. They're not bad enough to require revision deletion. I say we just keep RBIing him. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want done that hasn't been tried. Sometimes, nothing works, and you just have to keep up RBI until someone changes their medication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist, but I make it a point not to punch people out. Kind of a general guideline in my life. Need a break anyway and I'm going to be on vacation next week; hopefully, I won't be anywhere near a computer. OK, I'll be fine...this has gone on for yearsand I just want it to stop. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It will. He can't possibly continue for more than another 80 years. Maybe less. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope cause some other guy will take his place. Wikipedia will always attract "Bambifan101s", the best way to combat them is to just WP:RBI.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think PMDrive has a right to be frustrated with both the vandal and Wikipedia's impotence in dealing with that particular brand of stupidity. Has anyone ever tried filing abuse reports with his IPs? There has to be some way to get tough with these folks. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could a checkuser figure out where that looney is physically located and deal with him somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel your frustration - I've been targeted by another serial, IP hopping vandal. Just RBI. Connormah^talk 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought the best approach to the whole abuse report thing is to schedule an in-person appointment and show up with file in hand...because then you're right there with evidence in a place where they can't just ignore it by getting off the phone asap or ignoring emails. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some of you may recall that I was really wrapped up in combatting this serial idiot a ways back. I felt the same frustration, but I dealt with it by removing all the BF target pages from my watchlist. Enough users are aware of the problem now that the same two or three users don't have to do all the work anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a technical solution here. The edit filter can see the underlying IP range from registered users, we've just disabled that because of privacy sensitivities. Re-enabling that would go a long way towards preventing edits from editors like Bambifan101 and Brexx. I get very frustrated dealing with this crap for pretty much the same reasons at PMDrive1061: it feels futile at times, and knowing there are technical fixes for most of it makes it worse.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA not apply here?

No. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned by the application of the terms "freakazoid", "idiot", and "looney" in the above section than I am with the general pattern of comments made by User:PMDrive1061 who is an admin and should therefore make a better attempt to follow our policies. Some recent samples: "retarded little asshat" "Bunch of retarded apes" "little asshole" "moronic little children" Far more troubling is the overt threat of violence "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist...". There is absolutely no justification for this type of comment. This seems to be a recurring pattern for PMDrive1061 (although I have just used recent examples). PMDrive1061 seems to get stressed out by "vandal fighting", which is precisely why he should not be involved in this area. Note also that a user brought a complaint to ANI PMDrive1061 told a user to "piss off" (page now deleted by PMDrive1061) but it was deleted and ignored. Sometimes even the trolls are right. This pattern should not be allowed to continue - at the very least, PMDrive1061 needs to voluntarily withdraw from "vandal fighting" and leave it to admins who are able to WP:RBI, but I think a block may be in order for the threat of violence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Well, the 'retarded apes' comment was directed at 4chan vandals. I believe that's a scientifically accurate description of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC) It is also a clear violation of WP:NPA ("some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: ... or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities)") and while "retarded" as in "mentally retarded" was once considered inoffensive, times and attitudes toward people with difficulties in cognitive functioning have changed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 4chan aren't people. I firmly believe the members are some form of cockroach. I may go so high as 'rodent'. HalfShadow 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the advice to PMDrive to frequent other areas of the project will be heeded. Regardless, however, I don't think a block is justified here. We put up with far more from far less productive users; while I agree the sentiment was slightly inappropriate, I think the point has been made here. If you disagree, perhaps WP:RFC/U is a more appropriate venue.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest that PMDrive1061's activities are far more productive for the trolls and vandals than they are for Wikipedia. Threats of violence should not be dismissed so blithely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I shouldn't think that Bambifan101's sensitivities are being assaulted in this instance, since they are very unlikely to be reading these pages; it does not form part of their preferred area of operations. I also think that PMDrive1061 should not withdraw from vandal fighting, if that is what they want to continue doing, because I do not want to see another editor driven away from this site - Bambifan101 has already been the cause of one contributor to withdraw. As for the other comments directed at B101, I don't think they are reason for rebuking the editors concerned; B101 seems to think that Wikipedia is a convenient arena for them to indulge in their fantasies and appear uninterested in helping build content, so it is not as if we might upset someone who is adding value to the project. It might be unseemly if a third party came across the comments, but such is the case on many pages on WP. I think that people displaying their frustration at an unrepentant vandal's continuing contempt for the purpose of this website is quiet understandable. Perhaps you, Delicious carbuncle, might like to take on the role of being the principle combatant of this particular editors disruption - walk a mile in PMDrive1061 and Collectionian's shoes, rather than chide the indiscretions of those who have been clearing up after the little shit these last few years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I have no desire to be the "principle combatant", although I will take your suggestion as an endorsement of my upcoming RfA. As I've said elsewhere, I do not believe that "fighting vandals" is productive and any admin who adopts that mentality is playing a losing game. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) If someone can't stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen. Those types of comments are completely unbecoming of an admin. What's wrong with recognizing the good vandal fighting work being done and admitting that this language should not be used? I understand that people get frustrated while doing thankless work, but understanding why remarks like that come out is not the same as condoning them. Let's not condone them here please. Someone should tell the admin to cool it with the remarks and to take breaks as needed if the vandal fighting is getting too hot.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Speaking of admin mentality and endorsing RfA's, I don't think I will endorse anyone to become an admin when they have the school playground mentality of running to the headmaster when someone else does something naughty. "Sir, sir, PMDrive has said a dirty word!"[33] Fram (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are unaware of Jimbo's well-publicized personal interest in the issue of civility, which was my reason for posting on his talk page. Do you have any comment on the issue at hand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC) That he is interested in a subject doesn't mean that you should go and invite him over here. Inviting people to a discussion when you know beforehand which position they have, and where their position seems to coincide with yours, is canvassing. It's small scale (only one person), but an appeal to authority which is hardly needed or helpful. Anyway, "First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies." Since the other party here has not worked on an "open and rational exchange of ideas" but is a relentless vandal, one can argue that the "unwarranted" cluase of Jimbo's thoughts has become invalid here. Consider his final comments: "But we can only do so if we prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us with hostility and incivility." If you consider PMDrive as one of the worst, and BambiFan as one of the best among us, then I don't think we have naything more to discuss here. If you don't, then I don't see how the statements by Jimbo are at all relevant to what has happened here. In any case, your answers still haven't given me any reason to believe that your post on his talk page was anything but an attempt to get authoritative support for your position. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Fram, would it be acceptable for me to call you an asshole, an asshat, a retarded ape, and a moronic little child? Would it be acceptable for me to state a desire to do something violent to you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Does whether someone else has violated policies justify your actions? I am not discussing what PMDrive did, I am discussing what you did. Using the wrong methods for what may be the right desired outcome is still using the wrong methods. Your question to me is a nice diversionary tactic, nothing more. So again, your answers still haven't given me any reason to believe that your post on his talk page was anything but a canvassing attempt to get authoritative support for your position. Fram (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC) It is difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who calls your attempt to get back to the topic a "diversionary tactic". Fine, I'll agree that my post on Jimbo's talk page was canvassing. Now, would you like to answer my question? Would it be acceptable for me to call you an asshole, an asshat, a retarded ape, and a moronic little child? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The topic of this subthread was your convassing, not the comments by PMDrive. That you didn't want to recognize your coanvassing for what it was made areasonable discussion of it difficult, not that I wasn't fooled by your diversion. Anyway, since I haven't acted like an asshole or a retarded ape (or at least not as blatantly as Bambifan), and have many mostly constructive edits, it owouldbn't be acceptable for you (or anyone else) to call me such names. More in general, I don't think it is ever constructive to call people such names, but in some cases (like here), it is perfectly understandable. Yes, it is a sign that PMDrive should move (temporarily or definitely) to other on-wiki actions, so that being on Wikipedia for him or her is a fun or a rewarding experience, not a mainly frustrating one. But just like someone venting on his talk page when being blocked is usually not grounds for an extension of the block, so should someone venting here in such a sitaution as this one be calmed down, not attacked or blocked. You could have discussed this with him on his talk page, and asked him to refrain from such language and behaviour in the future, and suggested some ways tio avoid this. Or you could have recognised that he has taken a wikibreak, and that all this isn't helping anyone at all. Fram (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Fram, we seem to be getting closer to some form of agreement. I understand that PMDrive is frustrated with the situation, but this is a situation in which he placed himself and which he could have chosen to leave at any time. Instead, he resorts to name-calling and incivility. He was not venting on his talk page, he was being abusive on the talk pages of others and here at ANI. This is not a new situation with PMDrive and I believe it has been discussed before. There is also a larger issue of admins flouting WP:NPA when dealing with vandals, which only serves the vandals' interests (in my opinion). I was fully prepared to be attacked for making this post (and I have not been disappointed). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Block PMDrive to avoid further disruptive violations of our civility and personal attack policies. There is plenty of civil editors that can fight vandalism, and if an editor does not follow policies, he/she's not less a vandal than the ones he/she fights. --Cyclopiatalk 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Nonsense. That would be nothing but useless escalation. No vandals were harmed in the production of this drama. The purpose of NPA is to protect a constructive work atmosphere; with Bambifan there is no work atmosphere to be protected. He will never read this, and if he does, so what. Occasional venting is only human; vindictive NPA policing just for the sake of it is pointless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know that a block was needed, but the "constructive work atmosphere" does not simply include the vandal and the potty mouth. It includes all the rest of us. Using this type of language does indeed have negative effects on that entire atmosphere (see this conversation for instance). Once again I think the black and white way of looking at this is completely unproductive. Let's not "vindictively police" this but lets acknowledge that the language is unproductive and should be avoided. Why is that so hard to say out loud? Why is it so hard to ask the admin to refrain from this in the future? I don't get it. Let's move on, but lets do the mature thing first.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The negative effect on the working atmosphere here was not caused by his cursing. It was caused by the hysterical over-reaction to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Funny, I was almost entirely certain I had typed WP:HORN* into my address bar to arrive at this page? jæs (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) *Wikipedia:Hysterical Over-Reaction Noticeboard. Chicken here egg there, I really don't think identifying one as the cause is objective observation of the matter. I would tend to agree about most of the comments made being molehills and not mountains, but where I come from using the word "retard" is like using the word "fag", both of which are completely inappropriate. Those who are mentally disabled do not deserve to be associated with childishness and vandalism. Just because carbuncle has had an exaggerated response doesn't change that fact either.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do not block for incivility. That will just provoke a huge, wasteful drama. Instead, start an WP:RFC/ADMIN instead, and request removal of sysop access via ArbCom if the RFC reflects a consensus to do that. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do not block. Yes, those comments were inappropriate. But all that is needed is a request for some civility. Daicaregos (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC) No block required. PMDrive notified of thread.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do not block User was obviously stressed and verging on ad hominem territory. He has since recognised this and taken a wikibreak. GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. I hit a wall after cleaning up after this kid for four years. That's why I posted my frustration here. I have, until now, refrained from using really vile language to describe him. His behavior is simply unacceptable and no one who actually pays to run this project seems to be aware of what goes on in the trenches. As for the language, mea culpa. That's why I'm taking a break and apologize for the drama. As for the "piss off" comment, it was made to a sockpuppeteer spamming on behalf of some pharmaceutical firm who first told me to do likewise and wished for me to become sick so that they could "withhold" medication. Another sockpuppet cried foul and "reported" me for the comment. Sorry if I opened up a can of worms, but between those vile, unrelenting insults hurled at us through 4chan/ED and the unrelenting attacks by Bambifan, I just boiled over. By the way, my "threat of violence" was meant as a joke if you'll read the rest of the comment. I have no real desire to physically harm anyone, let alone some kid. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One point to note though, if you show frustration with colourful comments then it is more likely to lead to further mischieviousness - bit like getting a reaction from teasing. I do think it is probably easier just shouting an expletive at the computer screen while typing calm and neutral language rather than typing out frustrated words (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you express too much frustration, then they know they've won. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 28 July 2010 (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.

I have blocked Delicious carbuncle

A quick look at Dc's most recent contributions shows that they were making pointy edits to WP:NPA to "reflect" the discussion above, and edit warring to keep them there. I considered it disruptive, and blocked them 24 hours. Since I was involved in the above discussion, and had previously blocked Bc, I feel my block should be reviewed and varied if considered appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed edits. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this block was unnecessary and punitive. Delicious Carbuncle is a regular contributor and was given no warning of any kind. I do agree that his edits to WP:NPA were POINTy and unncessary - but a block was neither necessary nor helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your opinion is in the minority here. Delicious Carbuncle was effectively harassing another regular contributor who was clearly showing signs of burnout. Sometimes we should ignore the rules out of respect for our fellow unpaid & far too often underappreciated volunteers, & not worry about the tender feelings of some vandal who is wasting our oxygen. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I know this is your site, but you haven't dealt with DC. He has drove at least three users away, harrassed a fourth, put me in semi-retirement for 4 months, causes problems wherever he seens fit, trolls the Wiki for nonsense and makes long, never ending threads about them, I could go on. DC needed to be blocked a long, long, long damned time ago. I would die a happy man if DC was never seen on this site again, but I will have to wait for that. Jimbo, good block by LessHeard, best damn block I have seen in weeks, and ZERO need for overturning it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't the very definition of punitive, I don't know what is.  Frank  |  talk  15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary, perhaps - I did consider warning, but the reverts to NPA were against good faith corrections of Dc's edits lead me to believe that they were not interested in communication - but a matter of opinion, but never punitive; I don't do that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that DC does not view the edits as pointy [34], I don't see how the block could be considered punitive and not preventative. Obviously if they don't see the problem, why would they stop being disruptive? --Smashville^talk 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It would have taken only a few seconds to say "Your edits to NPA are POINTy, stop doing that or I will block you." I think there is no question he would have stopped, even if he didn't agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it concerns me that a user was blocked without warning because they were arguing a point that was unpopular. It comes across as being very heavy handed. While I don't agree with a lot of what DC was saying, a warning would have been a good start. I have seen far worse behaviour not resulting in blocks in the past. GainLine ♠ _♥ 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that line of thought, Jimmy, is that it leads to an editor forming the belief that they can edit war to make a point, inserting the material three times over a period of over two hours, up to the point that they are threatened with a block. Contrary to what you may wish to think, a block has more than a preventative effect (although prevention was sorely needed in this case); it also strongly reinforces the lesson not to do it again. Personally, I do not see that as punitive, but as an extension of prevention, YMMV. The block may have been harsh, but well within normal practice, LHvU. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A regular here edit-warring on a policy page should not need to be warned -- they should know better. Requiring a warning under these circumstances is a license to disrupt.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked because he had an unpopular point of view. He was blocked for edit warring on a core policy page in order to make a point (a particularly baseless point, but that doesn't really matter). Jimbo is entitled to believe that DC would have stopped edit warring if we asked him to, but I don't think that's a hardline requirement before blocking in this instance. Admins aren't clairvoyant, but looking at his contribs immediately before he was blocked gives me the impression he was on a tear and hadn't stopped at the moment of decision. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I feel that the block placed on me by LessHeard vanU was unnecessary. I have to give LessHeard credit where credit is due for once having blocked User:David Shankbone for calling another editor a "cunt", and I didn't make a fuss when they blocked me previously in what they admit was abuse of their admin powers, but I would prefer not to become a favourite target of theirs.

I waited out my block rather than inflame the situation, but look at the facts - I made good faith edits to a policy based on what is clearly common practice, even just based on this thread. I was reverted with no explanation by a shared UK GOV IP, and then by an IP whose edit summary was "rv. Delicious carbuncle needs to give some thought to finding a new hobby if he is going to behave like a juvenile.". Would anyone care to own up to that one? I was perfectly willing to discuss my changes, but neither of those to reverts seemed like anything other than someone trying to be annoying. Incidentally, I will start a discussion on the policy's talk page soon. In the meantime, let me point out the following ignored breaches of WP:NPA just in this thread:

• User:PMDrive1061 - "idiot", "litle freak", "freakazoid", and "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist"
• User:Beeblebrox - "this serial idiot"
• User:FisherQueen - "Well, the 'retarded apes' comment was directed at 4chan vandals. I believe that's a scientifically accurate description of them."
• User:HalfShadow - "4chan aren't people. I firmly believe the members are some form of cockroach. I may go so high as 'rodent'."

Three of those are by admins. Are they serious breaches? For the most part, no, but it is ridiculous to pretend that the policy is being followed as currently written. We should either change the policy or change our behaviour. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the block for the same reasons as given by Jimbo. A warning could have been given first. Only when you know beforehand that this is pointless, e.g. based on the block log, you could decide to block rather than e.g. engage in a long discussion. It can be the case that you suspect that such discussions would escalate in insults leading to an even longer block. But I don't think that in this case this was a factor to consider.

Then the edits the dispute is about were made in a pointy way, but there is clearly an issue here that the NPA article should address. DC did not do that in a reasonable way, but it seems to me that there should be a section in that article devoted to dealing with problem editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo (note: I have often, and publicly, disagreed with him). Poor block, a warning should have been given. The block key is a last resort, not a first. Adminship should be exercised with deftness and nuance.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a member of the wikipedia community. Bambiefan is not a member of the wikipedia community. Casting aspersions at 4chan or at whataver malign soul is behing bambiefan may be poor form, but it isn't against any sensible policy we adhere to. There are general suggestions, such as "don't insult the vandals" and explicit prohibitions against personally insulting users on the site. But there is no and should be no wikipedia policy which restricts me from talking freely about people outside the wikipedia community (w/in the confines of BLP and NOT). I assume you are merely confusing prohibitions designed to make the community work, and not purposefully missing the point. But I'm growing less sure of that. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm clearly not smart enough to get understand the subtlety here, Protonk, but you appear to be saying that you both think I should have been blocked for my changes to WP:NPA and stating a position that exactly corresponds with the changes I was blocked ofr making. What am I missing? (And this section of WP:NPA defines "every person who edits an article" as a "Wikipedian" - if that's not the case, let's change it...) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. Your opinions about NPA are your own. you were blocked because immediately following the closure of a block discussion you initiated you went off to change a policy page in a POINTy manner. The underlying dispute over what NPA should say is almost immaterial. Focusing on it misses the point. In fact, focusing on it obscures the point. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments which were called out were venting - which we understand. But venting is inherently unprofessional (as it were). It's tolerated, because people are human, but it's still unprofessional.

We should minimize using it for a couple of good reasons, one being that it makes us look bad to outsiders. All of what's on Wikipedia is "on the record" - it may show up in the Media, in outsider complaints about how we run things, and excessive behavior along these lines gives people an impression that we're a locker room full of jocks rather than a bunch of encyclopedia writers with a serious committment to information quality, freedom, and a good set of core values and policies.

Also, a lot of people see the terms in use and then start using them against other Wikipedians, where it's much less appropriate.

Regarding the POINTyness of the particular edit here - it was pretty much the definition of POINT. Whether blocking immediately was an appropriate response or not I don't know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You understand the subtlety yet don't WP:HEAR the point. In fact DC remains one of the most masterful pointy editors anyone has had the displeasure of "working" with. No concern for anyone who agrees with their POV however, just everyone else and editors who shrug off the constant ANI groupie activity and trouble-stirring. Media parent (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

An account with all of 3 edits is insinuating that I'm a sockmaster? Funny stuff. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait? Bambifan101 is still active? I feel sorry for those who have dealt with him all this time! --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, WP:NPA shouldn't apply when we are talking about someone who has caused mountains and mountains of stress. I stand by the fact that Bambifan101 IS indeed a pest. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats to go to the press

Resolved

 – Unless we get some specifics, there's nothing for admins to do here. WP:NLT does not apply to running to the media. Fences&Windows 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is any administrative action necessary if a user threatens to report an issue to the press if they don't get their way? I am aware of WP:NLT, which doesn't specifically mention situations like this, but the consequences to our collaborative environment seem to be roughly the same to me whether the threat is take legal action or to take it to the press. (I'd rather not be specific yet, because if no admin action is needed, avoiding the drama of ANI would be best.) Gnome de plume (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the issue at hand. If a Wikipedia or WMF policy is being violated, I think it should be brought to the attention of someone who can do something about it, despite the threat. If the threat is being made solely to get a different result in a discussion, I'd ignore it. It's a free internet. (Besides, if we change decisions just to avoid press scrutiny, that will generate press scrutiny in and of itself.)  Frank  |  talk  18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to apply outside pressure to editors are a no-no. We have a specific policy on legal threats, we also stand against attempting to reveal editors real-life identities. This should be treated similarly - as should for example a threat to contact an individual's employer. We must not tolerate "chilling effects" of this type. Exxolon (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly agreed; those are different than "I'll go to the press". Even so...our "toleration" of such behavior isn't a prerequisite for it being carried out; nor is our intolerance any guarantee it will not be carried out. But I agree our stance should be firmly against that sort of thing.  Frank  |  talk  18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do be specific, here or at another noticeboard. If someone thinks they need to go to the press, others should be involved. It's not the same as a legal threat, but it suggests there's any issue that needs resolving. Fences&Windows 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but let's entertain the possibility that the "issue" is simply that someone wants to get their way. If that's the case, a big yawn might suffice.  Frank  |  talk  22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal, press, or otherwise, threats should not be welcomed. At the minimum it's a poor attempt at intimidation and thus blockable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 01:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Intimidation is against the rules. I have to wonder, though, about what kind of a threat they think "going to the press" is, considering that wikipedia is already visible to most anyone with internet access. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I really think a threat to go to the press should be met with "...and?" followed by a yawn. Most of the time, threats are only threats if they are treated as such. Discussions like this seem to me to be equivalent to feeding the trolls.  Frank  |  talk  01:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. What exactly is wrong with going to the press? Unless they provide false information to the press I would say nothing because we live in a free world and wikipedia cannot prevent editors going to the press. In most cases the press won't be interested they have other things to do than write about wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's similar to threatening a lawsuit. Wikipedia can't prevent someone from filing a lawsuit over the actions of an editor. In every case where a lawsuit is threatened on-wiki, such a suit would be laughed out of court and would most likely result in sanctions for the plantiff. As such, a threat to sue is not really a threat to sue, but an intimidation technique to gain the upper hand in a content dispute without addressing the actual issues involved. Threatening to go to the press is a similar technique...there's no real danger resulting from it, but it is an attempt at intimidation that should not be tolerated. Bobby Tables (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat similar except that it is harder to cause harm (though not impossible, see the case of Ms. Sherrod) by just going to the press than it is by bringing a legal threat into the mix. I could have no standing or injury and could still reasonably threaten anyone in the US with some crazy lawsuit. The editor on the receiving end of the threat has little choice but to treat my threat as serious, because ignoring it could result in summary judgment, etc. Threatening to go to the press is a few steps above threatening to blog about a content dispute. Intimidation might be present, but making that decision would have to rely on context. Also, there is the slight optics problem of getting into the habit of blocking editors who want to talk to outsiders about wikipedia. All that said, I'm a fan of BB's approach. If someone wants to inflate their own sense of self-importance and threaten to write a sternly worded letter to their local paper about some WP:LAME edit war, it should be standard practice to treat such threats with indifference. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm left wondering how we avoid the appearance of tolerating (or present the appearance of not tolerating) such threats. My own feeling is that pretending they mean anything by welcoming, discussing, or reacting to them is far more tolerant than would be ignoring them. By pretending (no, behaving as though) there is something to not tolerate, we give the impression that going to the press (or, indeed, a legal threat) actually means anything. I, for one, think a simple "so?" is sufficient to deflate a majority of such cases. This is especially true when there's almost nothing we can do to prevent it anyway. If politicians and public figures spent time denying every untrue (or partially true) bad thing said about them, we'd have tabloids full of such stories. Oh yeah...we already have that...and some folks pay attention; most don't. So, I ask: how exactly do we "not tolerate" threats? We allow people to behave in all sorts of rude ways around here (far ruder than threatening to go to the press) without blocking them, so...where's our stick for this one?  Frank  |  talk  12:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a stick. This is "threat" is basically "I'm going to tell on you", and without further information we have no reason to believe that the media would be interested in any particular content dispute. What we need is for more editors to be involved, because a dispute is obviously escalating and should be resolved. Hence we should stop pontificating on generalities and be told what the specific dispute is. Fences&Windows 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about not needing a stick; I was questioning how we would "not tolerate" such threats without one.  Frank  |  talk  20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

URGENT ! !

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.

Wikipedia:Child protection next time. TFOWR 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – HalfShadow 18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

somebody please performs CU and alerts the Police of User:Pompous Trihedron.  Dr. Loosmark  18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you direct us to some of his edits? That would speed things along much faster.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he is refering to his userpage. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive, box it up. The "complainer" is trying to make a point that there shouldn't be special sensitivity to pedophiles here (guessing). The pompous editor calls himself a "wikipedophile" on his user page. If it really bothers Loosmark, i suggest he contact the editor in question and ask him to remove it. But really, this is a troll.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive report, already removed once by User:SarekOfVulcan. Mauler90 _talk 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Child protection describes what should be done in these cases. Since this seems to me like a poor joke (the editor has also been a "wikipiano"), I have blanked the userpage and left a note on their talk page. Loosmark is welcome to contact ARBOM if they feel there is genuine cause for concern. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe Loosmark could spend a few days making himself useful instead of complaining about everything he comes across, yes? HalfShadow 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if the guy was only joking. Maybe he was and maybe he was not. And frankly even if he was joking I find such "jokes" not at all funny and very bad taste indeed and it simply should not be allowed. It's also disturbing that the so called "admin" Sarek attack me and call my report "disruptive".  Dr. Loosmark  19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what does a "wikipedophile" do, tag 5-minute-old articles for speedy deletion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, far, far worse than that.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful; PT could be luring his computer into a dark alley with promises of candy even now... HalfShadow 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Loosmark: you've been linked to Wikipedia:Child protection above. If you thought it was serious, which IMO it almost certainly isn't, you should be following that, which includes "should not be the subject of community discussions or requests for comment or consensus.", I think, so not discussing it here, really...  Begoon^talk 19:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said I have no idea if it was serious or just a very idiotic joke. What's really appalling is that the 3 clowns above keep making mockery of me for reporting the situation.  Dr. Loosmark  19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a clown; I'm a mime. (I'm typing, so technically I'm not talking). HalfShadow 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)@Loosmark: Ah, ok, well I'll leave you to it, then. Just wanted to point out the correct, drama free procedure, in case you might have missed it. ttfn.  Begoon^talk 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, lay off folks. The link was all that was needed. I'm closing this off and suggesting that humour is best found elsewhere. TFOWR 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but... "Wikipedophile" is a term of abuse used by Something Awful, Encyclopedia Dramatica, 4chan, etc. to describe Wikipedians. That editor notes that they read Something Awful see this comment. Their edit summaries also make clear their contempt for Wikipedia. So not a very constructive editor and I'm surprised they were never blocked (though their recent edits seem innocuous), but also clearly not someone self-identifying as a pedophile. Fences&Windows 19:55, 31 July 2010 (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.

Gilad Atzmon -- restoration of material in violation of WP:BLPDEL

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a couple of editors bent on smearing the subject of this BLP with accusations of anti-semitism. I have twice removed a sentence based on a "working paper", noting that a working paper by definition is not "published" and fails WP:RS, particularly as used for support of highly contentious material in a WP:BLP. WP:BLPDEL requires that material deleted on such grounds cannot be restored until there is consensus, and it is nonetheless being restored. I'd be grateful for some admin input here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would note that both editors, Drsmoo (talk · contribs) and RTLamp (talk · contribs), are essentially SPAs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have edited on a multitude of articles as one can see by checking my editing history. Not that it is in any way shape or form relevant to the notability of this or any other article.

Here is the article in question http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf It is also worth noting, contrary to any "poisoning the well" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well that Atzmon regularly proclaims himself a "proud self hating Jew", allies himself with and reposts articles from far right authors and Holocaust denier, is published regularly on KKK sites, and in no way shape or form distances himself from any of his antisemitic comments. Despite the above editor's contention, most editors on the article are merely accurately reposting the most notable sources which discuss the subject. Drsmoo (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Prolific non-admin AfD closer redux

As a follow up to this ANI thread involving my actions at AFD, I've started a discussion at WT:DELPRO about the practice of closing AFDs that lack participation as "no consensus" instead of a second relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors

Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk.

The dozen articles have to do with Japanese adult video actresses. This is a subject many find touchy, but Wikipedia is not censored, and each image has a proper and comprehensive fair-use rationale. Japanese laws have particular requirements that private photos of celebrities are most-often out of bounds, so for AV actresses, separate rules apply, which have been pointed out to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. On his userpage, he states "The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to." The three editors he is warring with have kept fully within policy, it is he that is being aggressive. I hesitate to label it a crusade, but jihad is a little strong.

Users Testales, Dekkappai and I have repeatedly directed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to please read WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Acceptable sources of fair use photos before removing images.

Articles I am aware of include Junko Miyashita, Bunko Kanazawa, Madoka Ozawa, Haruki Mizuno, Manami Yoshii, Kei Mizutani, Kazuko Shirakawa...

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nao_Saejima&action=history example of one I was not involved in, just to see the course of things

--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that existing copyrighted images can be made free by the copyright holder through a license or a complete release into the public domain. Whatever right of publicity an actress may enjoy in Japan does not override the fact that the copyright holder (normally the photographer or the company that paid for the shoot) controls how the picture is used according to US law, not the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is over the images. We can discuss those and determine their appropriateness. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' continuous edit-warring. When reverted he, without fail, simply reverts. Whether he is right or wrong in individual cases is one thing. The issue here is that he nearly always gets his way through strong-arm editing tactics. I think he has made several good editors sick and tired of this behavior, and that is what this notice is about. Dekkappai (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the etiquette is in terms of displaying disputed non-free images. I know that clear copyright violations should be removed immediately but don't know beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo's edit-warring goes far beyond the removal of Fair use images. Characterizing legal Fair use as "copyright violation" does not change this. Dekkappai (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the applicable policy, WP:NFCC, "Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added" and "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof" applies here. Saying that no new free content can be created because a person is too old or protects her privacy is not true and may not be a valid rationale. It would be nice for HW to explain why he thinks the rationale is not valid or suitable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: This is not a discussion of fair use images. This is a discussion of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' editing behavior. Had HE instigated such a discussion in this case and in many, many other cases, he and the many editors he has instead offended or driven off Wikipedia could have come to an amicable agreement. Dekkappai (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring is over the images though. The burden of proof to show that something adheres to policy is on the editor who adds the item. Are there examples of the editors actually trying to initiate discussion with HW explaining how it does comply before adding the images back? Are there specific examples of HW responding or ignoring the discussion? These are diffs that admins will need to look at rather than try to dig through the article histories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not a discussion of images. There is a long history behind Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' hyper-agressive editing. Please do not further attempt to derail the discussion to fair use image policy. I did not get involved in this after Hullaballoo first removed these images-- all my uploads. I was tired of this editor's non-stop battle tactics, and was in fact prepared to let him have these. I resent my time being used in this forum as well-- I am here at Wikipedia to contribute content, not to play these childish battle games which editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz create. The editing history of the pages below show that I did not get involved until other editors raised objections. It was the fact that Hullaballoo steam-rolled over them that got me involved. For just one example of the recent spate of edit-wars:

• Junko Miyashita
  1. HB removes image
  2. User:Testales restores image citing: WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos.
  3. Rather than follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Hullaballoo instigates an edit war by reverting
  4. I step in and revert Hullaballoo encouraging him to discuss
  5. He does not discuss, but reverts me

The exact same pattern can be seen at: Kazuko Shirakawa, Bunko Kanazawa, Kei Mizutani, Marina Matsushima, Nao Saejima, Haruki Mizuno, Madoka Ozawa, Manami Yoshii, and Kimiko Matsuzaka. Again, this is all just one instance of this editor's agressive editing technique, but to cite even a fraction would be far beyond the scope of this page. A full RfC is probably in order. Dekkappai (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the discussion on both sides in the Miyashita example is inadequate since they are solely using the edit summaries to do this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And do you also see that it is one editor warring against several? That is the point of this ANI, and you have been asked to address this specific already. Please do so.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of members of the wanking fraternity (sum of all human knowledge, you know) complaining that perhaps innapproprietly licensed images are being removed? I'm shocked.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a well founded and sophisticated formulated reply. Maybe you can write it a bit more insulting?! I am shocked even more. If you have problem with pornography, please keep it for yourself. If you see despite Wikipedia:Sexual_content a problem with pornography related topics beeing part of the Wikipedia main project, I would even agree with you. But in this case you should consider to put that up for discussion at a more suitable place. I will write more later on the actual subject, so please see this just as a reminder to keep this discussion at a certain level. Testales (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me be direct. No I don't have a "problem" with pornography -- an occasional consumer of it myself and I believe that there should be plenty of coverage of the subject in an encyclopedia -- from truly famous pornographic movies, to some discussion of genres, to sociological/political looks at it. What i have a problem with is a bunch of fanboys scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible, and then complaining when someone takes notice and tries to clean up after them. I mean look at this articles created list: [35] which includes vital encyclopedia content like Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs, Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil and Continuous Adultery 2: A Portrait of Incest between Sisters. The wanking community needs less input on content here, not more.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever. I'd suggest you apologize and leave this discussion unless you can say something constructive about the actual issue. Dekkappai (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well played sir. "Fourth place" at something called the "Pink Grand Prix" definitely justifies the loving treatment you've devoted to Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs. Yes, I guess the wanking material must stay then. The stuff all fails the GNG, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with your emissions. Someday, maybe, actual standards will be set and this stuff can be cleaned up wholesale. In the meantime, good on wolfowitz for trying to do the right thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, if you have issues here, this is WRONG place. If you are not happy with the current WP:GNG, WP:NF or WP:PORNBIO go to the related talk page and DISCUSS. Until this you have absolutely no right to disapprove the work of other editors. I am also very aware of the work that Dekkappai does and I was also critical to that and I am still regarding some aspects, see this and that for example. But if there should be additional and special restrictions for adding Pornography related information then this can surely not be solved within the scope of WP:P*. These "non-notable soft-porn" films (does soft increase or decrease the value btw.?!) have won notable prizes and it also seems that especially Pink films can not easily be compared with certain western low budget trash productions, they seem have a much higher cultural value as one may expect. But either way, calling hardworking (and truly!) contributing editors like Dekkappai "fanboys" is without any doubt a serious personal attack. Testales (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you and I disagree. I think this is the RIGHT place to discuss problem editors. My ultimate hope is to draw attention and to convince people with power to eventually take action. I understand you're not happy that scrutiny has shifted onto you and the folks you made this complaint with. So it goes. The de-bodiced images placed on wikipedia to promote the films are soft-porn. My problem with them is that none of them approach, or could even begin to approach, proper encyclopedia articles (since there's no scholarly consideration of these individual films, no reviews outside the porn-industry marketing conspecifics, no consideration of their merit and importance set within a larger context, etc...) My objection to this content is much the same (philosophically) as my objection to a great deal of wikipedia content that has nothing to do with pornography. There is nothing remotely educational or enlightening about these "articles." In Dekkappai's case, it's basically just a video directory for people who like to masturbate to rape fantasies and the like. Since the subjects are frequently illustrated with pictures of purely prurient interest (that are generally not fair use), that the "actresses" frequently wish their past in porn forgotten when they leave the industry, since the articles are maintained and compiled by obsessives from within a walled garden, I suppose the porn is a bit worse in my eyes than, say, the obsessive science fiction and video game ghettos. Again: I understand why you'd like to make this about one editors conduct rather than content. I just happen to believe that the underlying content issues are the ones to focus on.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like Hullabaloo is in the clear here: WP:3RR grants an exemption to "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", and the example above certainly seems to fall into that category. Wikiproject guidelines cannot create an exemption to WP:NFCC, and any Japanese laws concerning fair use have no impact on Wikipedia, making the images wholly replaceable.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what did he have to lose by discussing rather than edit-warring? Dekkappai (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussing would have been better. Ultimately, though, all those images have to go. If he had notified me (or probably most admins) of the problem he was facing, he could have received assistance as well. This is one of those cases where the people reporting the problem are more at fault than the one being reported: removing NFCC violations is the obligation of all editors and admins, while chronically inserting them can result in blocks.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not discussing is what caused this issue to come to a head. I was long prepared to see all these images removed. They are not the issue. The edit-warring is the issue. Other editors brought up concerns which needed discussing-- and which, though it doesn't matter here, you ignore. Even had they eventually been thrown out, the place for that discussion was THEN, not here. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' constantly aggressive, edit-warring behavior. Here is another recent example. This one doesn't involve images:

1. Rather than tagging for sourcing, he simply removes a list of interviewees in a film
2. He is reverted noting that the film is the source (a WikiProject film guideline with which I happen to disagree)
3. Rather than discuss, Hullaballoo reverts, instigating an edit-war
4. After an editor takes up the task of sourcing each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list
5. a third editor reverts Hullaballoo
6. :::Hullaballoo again blindly reverts

Again, this has nothing to do with images-- I was long prepared to see those images removed anyway. This has to do with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' CONSTANT edit-warring. Dekkappai (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh-- your reference to Japanese law was confusing at first, because no one has made such a reference. The references the other side made were to Wikipedia policy. Your use of this imaginary claim to join in Hullaballoo's edit-warring, just because you think he is in the right, confirms the faith expressed in you at your RfA, KWW. Dekkappai (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Let me explain what I see here: The issue-- HB's edit-warring and aggressive editing patters-- are OK as long as certain Admins agree with his position. So much for "consensus", and I am out of here. Dekkappai (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, I am responsible for upholding WP:NFCC. Most people who voted in my RFA expressed faith that I understood policies and would enforce them fairly. I believe I have done so. As noted above, removing NFCC violations is an explicit exemption to 3RR. Doing so to the same article repetitively is no more of a problem than repeatedly removing vandalism. That's the issue you face: HW has not committed any offense against Wikipedia policies or guidelines by repeatedly removing these images.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have come across the user at issue in addressing a similar discussion, and I came away with a good impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's policies. We are dealing here with sticky issues of copyright and BLP issues (not arising in this particular case, but in other articles that this editor works on). He is, obviously, a stickler who does not always take the time to communicate his concerns in a way that makes others feel that they have been addressed civilly. However, he is largely on the right side of policy. I would suggest that he bring these issues here before reverting an alleged copyvio addition a second time. Other than that, I do not think administrative action is warranted at this time. bd2412 T 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another recent instance of Hullaballoo's edit-warring and bullying can be seen in the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Seven_Minutes_(film)&action=history where he repeatedly removed sourced information eventually leading to the article's protecting, and then a ridiculous level of over-sourcing to quell his alleged concerns. (Russ Meyer known as "King of the nudies?" nine sources for that potential BLP violation...) But, as the ignoring of the above non-image-releated second example shows, the point of this discussion is being purposely avoided in line with ideological biases. Some openly stated, others hidden by unrelated policy discussion... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic In regard to these pictures, I have one question that should Wikipedia use nude picture such as in the article Kaoru Kuroki? It should be a image with high commercial value which is described in point 2 of the WP:NFCC. And I also think that nude pictures like this one are the reason why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz act so aggressively.--AM ^(talk) 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really off-topic. The fair-use argument is predicated on the concept that Japanese law applies to Wikipedia, which is not true.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So now we're supposed to believe that the reason for Hullaballoo's edit-warring over content, images and sourcing is because of... one image he didn't remove? Makes as much sense as the "Japanese law" argument Kww is refuting, I suppose, which, again, no one ever mentioned during HB's Wiki-approved edit-wars. Why not join the edit-war and threaten blocking too? Might get you an Adminship here. Again: The images can go. And they would have without controversy if Hullaballoo had not instigated edit-warring. Hullaballoo's behavior in many, many articles is the issue here. The images are just the LAST instance of his violation. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my assumption is come from this edit. I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz don't like to see a gallery of content which is both erotic and non-free. Nevertheless, noone answer my concern yet. Should we use copyrighted and erotic contents to illustrate these kind of articles (assuming that these uses are fair enough)?--AM ^(talk) 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this logic: If wolfowitz hadn't tried to remove the images they... would have been removed anyway? And appropriately trying to remove copyrighted images was the problem because it led to edit warring on the part of editors (including yourself) who wanted the images to remain? But you don't really care about the images anyways (i.e. "they can go.")? And compounding the problem was another editor joining in and helping to remove the problem images (the images you say you don't care about but are the "last instance of (wolfowitz') violation)? And the "Japanese law argument" that was brought up by the original complainer, right here on this page, was not in fact ever made? It's all so confusing.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming in late today on this, and find that I have very little to add to the analysis of Morbidthoughts and, in particular, the thoughtful comments of Kww. Where other editors have attempted to meet the burden required to meet NFCC requirements, I've participated in discussion, as at Talk:Nao_Saejima and given even fuller explanation at User_talk:Tabercil#HB_at_it_again and at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_27#File:Kimiko_Matsuzaka.jpg. Without any substantive defense of such dubious content (as Bali Ultimate and others pointed out last year in a BLP dispute we were both involved in), requiring editors removing that content to engage in extended discussions simply frustrates policy enforcement. The underlying issue is a well-settled policy question; as is demonstrated, for example, in the extended discussion over the use of a nonfree image in the Twiggy article, the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support. On the other hand, statements like one referring to the subject's "big bust," as is the case in one of the articles in dispute, hardly require visual aids to be properly understood.
Dekkappai and I have been engaged in a long-running series of content disputes over BLP sourcing, and from the beginning [36] [37] [38] [39] Dekkappai has engaged in uncivil personal attacks, a pattern which extends to his comments on other editors (note, for example, this edit summary from the current discussion [[40]]). I hope greater attention is paid to this behavior in the future; it is disruptive and deters participation by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is apparent that nothing relevant to the purpose of this noticeboard will come from further discussion of the topic. I suggest closure of this discussion. Policy disputes can be handled elsewhere. bd2412 T 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing on the behavioral complaint

Comment: This entire discussion has become pointless at the moment an administrator demonstrated that WP:BATTLE can very well lead to success. It might have been understandable to do such a mass-revert again while the discussion is still running if there were a reason of urgency but I can't see any. The very root of this is - I repeat it once again - that small policy note of WP:NFC#UULP which even has an own shortcut. As despite at lot of pointing to that it was continously completly and simply ignored, I will quote the deciding part again too.

"However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.".

Several of the models in question have retired and/or have visually changed a lot. Furthermore the notability of a model is inherently connected with his or her visual appearance. Porn stars are usually models too, some even get shoot for erotic art and by notable photographers and notable magazines. It should also be obvious that a very ugly actor can not become notable in that business. At least I have never seen or heard that say a distorted or handicapped actor has been given a regular and notable award even though there are handicapped and distorted actors doing pornography. Very old people who start in pornography are not awarded or notable either here although there is apparently some demand for grandmas having sex on camera. So it should be absolutly obvious that [[WP:NFC#UULP] can be applied here without any doubt and this was also the reason why this time some editors rebelled against Hullaboos agressive and massive deleting/reverting every day. It should be obvious but no... As it is impossible for some people to admit mistakes but also hard to just override what a policy page clearly explains (and only having WP:NFCC would leave A LOT of room for interpreation), some ridiculous justification is improvised. I seriously doubt that there would be consensus in the claim that the visual appearance is not important for a model's success. I also get the STRONG impression that there is actually a proxy war behind the scenes, waged by some people who are very unhappy of having pornographic topics on Wikipedia. I think Bali ultimate was very direct here, even going to personal attacks which makes wonder whether Wikipedia:CIV is accepted to be ignored for some topics. I also read several statements regarding that which clearly prove no deeper knowlegde, just the impression one may get at a quick glance and biased with the base attitude that there is no way pornography can be notable or were notabilitly can be reduced to "their willingness to have sex in a studio with bright lights and cameras." as Kww puts it "thoughtfully".

Regarding Hullaboo, no he nas not broken clearly any policy rules. He is also super active but I doubt that he in his many 1000s of edits has added a single byte of new information. He also completly seems to ignore any constructive ideas behind WP:RV, including the very basic advice "reword rather than revert". At least I have never seen him actually improving something or trying to find a better source. There is always only reverting and deletion. (Feel free to prove me wrong.) That may be against the idea that was originally behind Wikipedia but it is not against the current "rules".

Furthermore it is plain wrong (to say it nicely!), that there was no substantive defense. In fact it took several reverts by other editors to make Hullaboo even start to discuss and even then he "left" [the middle]. Instead of that, he created a IfD. While it may bascially be a good idea to have a representative case that was firstly quite late and secondly he didn't even leave a note on the already ongoing discussion. I furthermore see no clue for "the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support". I also doubt that this is only suggested as policies are "binding" and not mere guidelines. There is also no indication for rare aside the point that non-free material should generally be used rarely. He never brought up this argument anyway.

So this is the situation here: An admin says the visual appearance of models doesn't matter and therefore the rule doesn't apply and an editor claiming that this rule is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support (whatever this would mean in this conext). I am always suprised how even for very simple and clear rules there are always people who are still able to interpret them in a different way.

I initially planned to add some links here which may enlight a bit the typical behaviour of Hullaboo usually beeing not very communicative (nicely said again) and always in clear contrast to WP:RV but the unopposed harsh statements of User:Bali ultimate) and the quick and symbolic actions of an administrator make that rather pointless. That also shows there are is apparently a problem with at least pornography related topics that must be discussed in wider scope - on a different place.

Testales (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's time rather to re-focus on the root problem brought to this forum: HW's repeated incivility and hostility toward editors with whom he disagrees, as this IS the place to deal with repeated edit warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV when other means of resolution have proved ineffective. As Wikipedia encourages discussion as a means to solve differences of opinion and/or to clarify one's comments, to instead choose to NOT begin or involve himself in such discussions acts against policy and guideline... making Wilipedia an unpleasent place to even dare offer an opinion... and THAT's why this ANI was opened... to gain input about repeated edit-warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV. While HW can indeed be a productive editor, and has contributed to the cleaning of many articles, he is not the final arbiter, and he does not WP:OWN any of the articles he chooses to edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then bring forth examples of bad behaviour. This complaint was framed in terms of his removal of images that are clear NFCC violations. Since that behaviour is clearly exempt from our edit-warring policies, there wasn't much to be done (and I'm sorry, Testales ... the violation is clear and unambiguous, as the arguments you apply are equally applicable to thousands of mainstream performers where NFCC has been held to prohibit the image use). I'm perfectly happy to examine misbehavior on HW's part if someone brings forth examples of it.

As for my opposition being to pornographic pictures, I think an quick examination of my deletion log and speedy nominations show that most copyright violations I delete or nominate for deletion are of mainstream celebrities.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have myself repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on an open Wikipedia. However, here's a recent example of incivity and lack of discussion and skirting 3RR as if he WP:OWNed the article: 9to5 – Days in Porn: Repeatedly reverting editors[41] until literally forced into discussion,[42] when a simple removal of mis-linked names would have easily sufficed. And then there are examples of his taking other's comments of of context, twisting their words, impuning their integrity, while at the same time insulting the editor. There was absolutely no cause for his rudeness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination), or his calling another's comments "ranting" as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Li (2nd nomination), or his attacking the editor and not the edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (3rd nomination), or his wikilawyering at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Costa (2nd nomination). Please... do I need to find and offer all such examples of negativity toward others? What is ironic here is that in his own words, HW states "One of the least civil aspects of Wikipedia is the way some combatants in AFD and other areas engage in content-free needling of editors they disagree with rather than engaging in civil, policy-based discussions,"[43] when yet he is so often guilty of that very same behavior. Again, he does some fine work, even though he rarely contibutes content or searches for sources, and he is far more likely to scold others for not doing the searches or content contributions he himself does not do. But what I think what is needed here is simply his being urged/asked/instructed to be more civil and not assume the worst in other editors. Or is my opinion here just "whining"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door. I'll look at this in 4 or 5 hours.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. I can see your point It's obvious that he has formed a low opinion of several editors, and it shows. It doesn't rise to block level in my mind, but it would be quite adequate fodder for an RFC. I don't think ANI is the appropriate venue for it.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And sadly, he and these others (myself included) do not always disagree... often finding common ground for deletes or keeps at various AFDs... and contrary to some of his far-too-often repeated accusation that I try to keep "virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online", I am quite willing opine delete at AFD and have done so in agreement with him many times. It's just that when he decides that he and he alone is right, it's a bad time to have a differing opinion. Perhaps incivility toward only certain editors and only at certain times may not in and of itself be blockable, but it is his willingness to escalate to insult and create a devisive atmosphere that is of concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's cause for concern. I just think RFC/U is the more appropriate venue.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment, if a number of editors disagree with an action, even a NFCC action, and they have a valid policy argument, there should be actual discussion, not repeated direct action. Yes, removing non-free material can be exempt from 3RR, but when a real issue is raised, and of a certainly the claim that this is a situation where "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" has come into play means this should go for a proper discussion (at FfD in this case). This might well meet our guidelines and policies for inclusion. Ignoring for a moment if HW was abusing the tools or not I think restoring and listing at FfD for cases where reasonable policy arguments exist would be the best action at this point. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If the images managed to survive FFD, then putting them back in the article would be justified. Removing them from the article is not deletion.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, my mistake in understanding what's going on. That said, if they are removed from the article and thus aren't in any article, aren't they eligible for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free images? Did that sentence even parse? I'm off to bed...Hobit (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the reason for the 7-day interval requirement for orphaned images: it gives time for FFD to run its course.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Hobit has hit on the important point in this matter: the need for discussion, even when it concerns applying policy. There has been a common misunderstanding that Wikipedia policy is somehow the equivalent of rules or laws, & therefore needs to be enforced. Policy is nothing more than the consensus opinion about a number of issues, & the way that consensus is applied is through discussion. That means not only does one need a plausible & reasonable argument for invoking Wikipedia:ignore all rules, but also one for getting other Wikipedians to follow policy; saying that something "violates policy" or "violates consensus" is an acceptable explanation only for the most obvious instances. (This approach has been more or less described at WP:BRD.) Sanctions only come into play when an individual refuses to participate or accept plausible arguments, because this is disruptive & harms Wikipedia. The original complaint -- that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was repeatedly unlinking images against the wishes of others without discussion -- thus is valid. But if HW understands that she/he was mistaken in how she/he was applying policy & is willing instead to use discussion in the future, any form of sanctions here would be inappropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But he was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is _exactly_ the case spelled out as an exception to the general rule, I think it's reasonable to say that edit warring to keep it out isn't the right way to go. BRD applies when a good faith objection is made and execpt in the case of vandalism or other bad faith actions, discussing is always the right thing to do. Further, you are saying that those wanting the image in the article take it to FfD and need to do so immediately when someone removes a non-free image from an article? How the heck are they suppose to know that? My understanding for AfD is that you are only supposed to do that when you want it deleted; people have been told they are violating WP:POINT for bringing things to AfD they want kept. Is FfD different? Hobit (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the exception case at all. No one has demonstrated the existence of any source whatsoever that indicates that the appearance of these particular women is in any way unique or relevant to their notability. I know it creates a Catch-22 for people that get caught by someone that is anal about "don't nominate for deletion unless you yourself want the deletion", but there was no consensus to include the images: the very fact that WH removed them a second time proves the lack of consensus. Whenever there is a controversy, policy favors removal of the controversial material, not the inclusion.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww could you please prove this strange point? What about WP:STATUSQUO?! Not to mention that ideas behind Wikipedia:RV have one again completly been ignored by HW. Testales (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No more than they were ignored by people that inserted it, and somewhat less since he accurately pointed at a policy. WP:BURDEN is overarching: people that want to include material have to prove their case, people that want to remove it do not. And, responding to your comment below, this isn't an "extreme" interpretation of WP:NFCC. This is run-of-the-mill. There are tens of thousands of biography articles without pictures because there aren't free images available, and there is no particular reason that Japanese porn stars form an exceptional group.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww, one of us is missing an important point here. As I understand what happened, HW acted, was reverted & asked to explain himself, & he replied by reverting. No discussion, simply reversion; removing content without any discussion is not challenging the content, it is... well, frustrating. Okay, let's use policy-talk & call it disruption. In any case, there is no discussion, no defense or attack on policy, just one stubborn editor deciding she/he didn't want something in Wikipedia, & refusing to discuss the matter. Years ago, maybe before you joined Wikipedia, there was a certain user who would revert edits without an explanation -- unless someone challenged him on it, & even then would sometimes continue to edit war in support of how he wanted the text to read. Eventually he was banned from Wikipedia -- twice, since he came back under another username only to drift back to his old habits. So if I'm correct in understanding the situation, HW is following in this banned user's steps. So I'll repeat my earlier conclusion -- the complaint is valid & HW needs to discuss his edits in the future when challenged. Especially when several people are insisting that she/he stop & discuss the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch, I believe you're missing the important point. None of the disputing editors asked me to explain myself; the basis for my action was made explicitly in the initial edit summaries, and no one claimed it wasn't clear. Instead, the other editors involved, using identical edit summaries (which I found a bit curious), reverted, alluded to a possible exception to the policy involved, and implied, without any substantive discussion, that it was my responsibility to prove that no exception could apply. As Kww quite accurately pointed out, this goes against both established policy for handling such issues and established practice for handling nonfree images. It's just a tactic for gaming the system to avoid the requirements of WP:BURDEN and to tie down editors trying to enforce a well-established policy consensus. Even now, only one of the three editors pressing for restoration of the images has advanced any substantive arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Hobbit either you are one of apparently few editors left who seem not have to forgotten the original spirit or your comment is just funny. Just open your eyes, it's not even that policies are treated word-by-word as ultimate law but they same applies even to guidelines. If you want to deleted something, just point to a guideline that may in extreme way POSSIBLY be interpreted as supporting the delete and you are done. Not discussion needed, because you "improved" Wikipedia by enforcing its "law". (Can give an example where even a very experienced editor obviously even confuses policiy and guideline). Furthermore, I mean we are talking here about some icon-sized images who show even less than the cover of a typical TV guide. Images that have been on Wikipedia for years and which existence is even still CLEARY allowed (there was still no argument real against it!) by the currenty policies. So even if there are such apparently idiot-proof explanations on a policy page there are still people who simply nullify that, just read that section here. So because there is one guy deletes ONLY who wanted to have a set of fairly uncritical images deleted and (at least) 4 people don't agree with him. Still he enforces that with edit war and gets even support here by an admin. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. As if that would be not enough, the involved editors even get called "gang of pornhounds" and "fan boys". At least half of the editors that were against the removing do not even work regulary in that area but still, they are just "wanking community". Wikipedia has become quite an unfriendly place as it seems. Now I really need to go to a policy discussion to clear up a point which is actually not missunderstandable, only because somebody want to deleted some harmless images for a questionable motivation. No, I am unable to assume good faith here, not seeing the edit warring to enforce this deletion. Testales (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The full story

Ok, let's focus on the actual case, I tried to keep out the policy question from start anyway, see my replies to User:Bali ultimate. So here is the full story, sorry if this now gets a bit lengthy but it should allow to judge the situation. I hope it's ok that I created another sub-section because of the length, if not feel free to merge it with the other one. Let me also say that the behaviour on both sides was not perfect and if very well meaning seen it possibly could even be seen as bad timing combined with missunderstanding. But unfortunately this seems to be more a typical pattern of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz practices.

It all starts here:

Extended content

Hullaboo: 05:51, 19 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:52, 19 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:55, 19 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:57, 19 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:59, 19 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:01, 19 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:03, 19 July 2010: Nao Saejima (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:04, 19 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:06, 19 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:08, 19 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (nonfree image in BLP infobox) Note the quick timing, I left out no other edits here. What may have HW searched here and with what intention? Anyway, some days later when I was reading policies again, I stumbled over WP:NFC#UULP. I verified this by checking the corresponding point at WP:P* again, which states: Fair Use - see Wikipedia:Image description page for rationale for fair use. Publicity photos are often useful for this, but be careful - non-free (fair use) images are only allowed if a free image could not reasonably be created. If the person is dead, is a recluse, or currently looks significantly different than during their career, then the image is not replaceable. But for most active stars, a non-free image would be deemed "replaceable" and would be deleted. So I was convinced (and I still am) that this is enough to justify reverts while pointing to these rules in the summary. Testales: 18:23, 25 July 2010: Nao Saejima (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 18:27, 25 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Reverted, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 18:36, 25 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (Reverted. A non-free promotional image is acceptabled here due to WP:NFC#UULP : subject has retired and her earlier visual appearance is of importance.) I had only reverted the 3 most obvious cases, that means either the subject has retired or looks significantly different which one can expect if an actress is now over 60 and got known while she was say arround 24. I was not sure about the other cases, that may have to be discussed I thought, and wanted to see what happens next. Now another editor appears who picks up "the ball". Kintetsubuffalo, reverting more "contributions" of HW: 10:08, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 10:09, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) (...) 10:16, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 10:17, 26 July 2010: File:Kazuko Shirakawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) I actually expected at least some REASON from Hullaboo either seeking discussion or only not accepting questionables cases. But no... Hullaboo: 17:20, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513204 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:21, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513127 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:22, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512866 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (Life and career: promotional/spam) 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (unsourced/OR) 17:26, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512687 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:27, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512558 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:28, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512327 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:29, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512172 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:31, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (unreferenced; Undid revision 375511182 by 58.160.65.93 (talk)) 17:32, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (External links: remove category not supported by reliably sourced article text) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 17:34, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (phony claim supported only by subject's own promo bio and publicity based on it; see extensive earlier discussions) 17:37, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (Film and television: clarify, show never went beyond earliest stages of development) 17:40, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use;Undid revision 375392644 by Testales (talk)) 17:41, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375391492 by Testales (talk)) 17:42, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375390917 by Testales (talk)) Seeing an upcoming possible edit war, I did the first step by seeking discussion now myself and expecting that HW would at least WATCH the articles he simply mass-reverts. Testales: 20:00, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: new section) Dekkapai, also seeing edit war starting but refering to a basic priniciple of Wikipedia editing: 22:19, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - ANOTHER edit-war started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitiz - read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and STOP this disruptive practice of yours!!!) 22:44, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle DISCUSS, and stop trying to get your way through edit-warring) 22:45, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now) 22:46, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you edited, you were reverted, now YOU discuss) 22:47, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now, you don't edit-war) 22:48, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv - you were reverted, now you discuss, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:48, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Undid revision 375562959 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:49, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you discuss now) Which does of course not impress our Hullaboo even a little and at this point it has definitly turned into edit-war: Hullaboo: 23:08, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (reinserted spam by uncivil user; Undid revision 375609626 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:10, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614607 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614263 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614515 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614413 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613989 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613755 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614145 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:13, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613680 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:13, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613496 by Dekkappai (talk)) Dekappai, now only 1 representative revert and also notifying Tabercil who is an active admin and member of WP:P* 23:12, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - What part of "DISCUSS" do you not understand?) 23:21, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: new section) 23:23, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: correction & bit more) Testales, as it's obviously only possible to draw HW's attention to a discussion by reverting, so 1 revert here too to "trigger" him: 23:18, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (RV, HB, you are the guy who doesn't even look at the talk page!) Hullaboo, still reverting: 23:21, 26 July 2010: File:Kei Mizutani.jpg (ffd notice) 23:22, 26 July 2010: File:Manami Yoshii.jpg (ffd notice) 23:23, 26 July 2010: File:Haruki Mizuno.jpg (ffd notice) 23:24, 26 July 2010: File:Madoka Ozawa.jpg (ffd notice) 23:26, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (ffd notice) 23:27, 26 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd notice) 23:30, 26 July 2010: File:Junko Miyashita.jpg (ffd notice) 23:45, 26 July 2010: File:Nao Saejima.jpg (ffd notice) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] Hullaboo, finally the first reply in a DISCUSSION: 23:51, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r to miscitation of policy) 00:05, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r) 00:59, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r) Testales, replying, HW has still completely ignored WP:NFC#UULP, he was only refering to the a template which is not policy: 00:56, 27 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r) Cherryblossom1982 jumping in, confirming our position: 02:02, 27 July 2010 Cherryblossom1982 (talk | contribs) (5,476 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg) (undo) Followed by Dekkappai: 02:11, 27 July 2010 Dekkappai (talk | contribs) (6,680 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: c) (undo) Tabercil on his talk page, knowing both editors and beeing neutral while having computer problems which prevent him from having a closer look: 14:42, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: reply) Hullaboo, not replying at the discussion anymore but instead creating an FfD: 16:58, 27 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd nomination) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] Kintetsubuffalo, also now doing some reverts and preparing the ANI entry: 05:21, 28 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 05:22, 28 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 05:23, 28 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:24, 28 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:24, 28 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:28, 28 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:28, 28 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:45, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors: new section) 05:46, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors) 05:47, 28 July 2010: User talk:Testales (AV: new section) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 05:48, 28 July 2010: User talk:Dekkappai (AV: new section) 05:49, 28 July 2010: User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (July 2010: new section) 05:51, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

(ANI discussion starting)

Hullaboo's ANI reply, now even claiming there was no "substantive defense" (sic) and improvising an argument by simply declaring the policy rule in question "is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support":

• 23:26, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

I hope I have not forgotten an important part. I intentionally left out the discussion which Morbidthoughts has started after the the ANI discussion started. He bascially stated there that the fair use photos of WP:P* may be outdated as beeing written in 2007.

I also considered starting a discussion about this point before my first reverts but then I thought the wording is rather clear and consistent with WP:NFC#UULP. This and that WP:NFCC alone leaves a lot of room for interpreation was later confirmed by Epbr123 who is administrator and listed active member of WP:P*.

So after all I still think that at least my initial reverts are very justified and that there was no point for HW to start and/or focus on a little edit war to enforce his point of view - as usually, I would say.

I hope this helps a bit to enlighten the reason for this ANI discussion.

Testales (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The major takeaway for me was that Wolfowitz has been more than patient in dealing with a gang of pornhounds dedicated to confounding the enforcement of basic standards. We should give wolfowitz a parade, or a chocolate chip cookie, or something.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to stop with the insulting language from both sides of this. Porn isn't any more trivial than the Disney Channel, and we certainly have enough of that on Wikipedia. "Pornhound" and "wanker" don't add anything to the discussion. There's a walled garden problem here, but the insults aren't necessary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How about a "group of people who appear to be gaming the system to keep non-free images in a host of articles with titles such as Immoral First Love: Loving from the Nipples, Housekeeper with Beautiful Skin: Made Wet with Finger Torture and Female Prisoner Ayaka: Tormenting and Breaking in a Bitch?"Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the behaviour and NFCC implications, not the underlying material. This is no different than people trying to get copyrighted pictures of Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez into their biography articles.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My ability to tolerate your continued incivility rapidly vanishes, Bali. If you continue to act that way you may become the main subject of a similiar discussion too. Although that doesn't seem to impress you very much as you seem to be regular customer here [44][45][46][47][48][49][50] anyway. So in front of this background and as you also have nothing constructive contributed to this discussion other than clearly stating your WP:BADFAITH regarding the work of several editors, I think you opinion can completley be ignored. You can also keep your prejudices regarding certain topics for yourself because I seriously doubt that you had any closer look to the topics you criticized. Testales (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out champ. Good luck with the "retain copyrighted soft-porn images campaign."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not just about images

We seem to have two different threads going on here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) began this report by stating "Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk", after which discussions semed to deal primarily with images. But as dealing only with image issues does not adress the original concerns toward the "larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk", shall we start a different discussion as KWW suggests by taking behavior concerns to an RFC/U? Or since it has been brought up here, might it be discussed here without repeated returns to images? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Az81964444

Resolved

 – Az81964444 has retired, Beyond My Ken has apologised and pledged to use civil language. If Az81964444 returns and makes further attacks that can be dealt with then. Fences&Windows 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could some admin take a look and see if this and this on my talk page and this on my user page are deserving of a block? Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And this after notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor seems not to care if he's blocked. [51] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see this thread, where a non-admin editor intervened. I would still like an admin to take a look, because whether or not my comments to Az8196444, made about 2 weeks ago, were a tad too harsh or bitchy, I can't see them as the equivalent to posting pictures of a limp penis on another editor's user page and talk page. Such vandalistic actions would best be discouraged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be blocked. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I would go straight to indef on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, after reviewing the edits, I found Beyond My Ken essentially provoked this whole thing. Doesn't make Az81964444 any less problematic, but with some diffs, you will see why Az81964444 responded the way he did. The following are from July 18: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. While throwing around piss and vinegar, Beyond My Ken has the balls to tell Az81964444 to "Stay humble". All this centered around the Border War (1910–1918) page. Az81964444 came back with some rude comments which you see above, doesn't excuse them, but this was provoked. Blocks for each. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. So you see "piss and vinegar" and posting pictures of limp dicks on user pages as moral equivalents? Can't say that I agree with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think any admin will say either you both are blocked or you both aren't. You provoke a response and not a good one, from someone you are just as guilty as they are. You started the fight, he kept it going. You are both guilty and both will be blocked. WP:NPA is in effect for any and all, not just some. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't simply say "a pox on both their houses" and wash your hands of it. If my comments to Az81964444 – made two weeks ago, I should point out – went too far, were too bitchy or harsh, then a reasonable response would be to come to my talk page and complain. Most probably, I would have apologized. To instead call me a "dickhead", a "prick", a "computer geek", a "stupid fool", "braindead" and tell me to (in all caps) "FUCK OFF", and then to post an image of a limp penis on my talk page (because I'm a dickhead -- get it?) with the comment "saw your picture", and then move it to my user page -- these are not reasonable responses to what you yourself called "piss and vinegar". The posting of the image is, by itself, vandalism worthy of a block, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't taunt the lion and poke it with a stick and complain when it bites your arm off. Neither of you are innocent here. You both did something that was in violation of WP:NPA. Yours with the linked diffs above and his with the adding of the pictures. If you consider "fool", "geek" and "braindead" a person insult, you will be quite shocked to learn that those aren't even schoolyard taunts anymore. Now, you can both be blocked, you for your personal attacks linked above and him for his adding of the picture, or you can stay away from each other, don't cross each other's paths (meaning not going on pages each other are working on) and stop acting like children. We are here to build an encyclopedia constructively, if you can't do that, sign out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Az should get some form of discipline. His edits were a good order of magnitude beyond...well Beyond's posts; he was clearly harassing him. HalfShadow 06:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am for blocks for both, even if one is greater than the other. There is violations of NPA on both sides and vandalism on Az's, so like I said, no one is innocent. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is this one by Ken that has gone too far. We ought not to bully the bullies back. However, Az's comments are completely unacceptable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand by the essential content of that comment, but admit that the tone went too far. As I said above, if Az had come to me with a complaint about it, I would almost certainly have apologized. Of course, I wasn't offered that option, I got limp dicks instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt to try now. So you got a nasty picture, big deal. You extend the olive branch, see where it leads, just tread lightly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it, but, to be honest, its the vandalism (which is clearly what it was) that stops me from taking that step. If he had simply bitched back at me, well, I'd be annoyed, maybe even pissed off, but I'd get over it pretty quickly. But vandalizing.... that really crosses the line, for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, let me think about it. Maybe some vodka on ice will change my perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a good Jack and Coke, but whatever gets you there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, single malt scotch is my preference -- Glenlivet, to be precise -- but it's a little too expensive to keep in stock, hence my fallback to potato juice. Besides, I think scotch makes me a bit edgier, while vodka's a bit like mild liquid Ecstasy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever gets you there. From here an admin will have to take over as I am going to bed. I recommend you extend the olive branch, if that doesn't work, just leave the situation alone, leave the user alone and walk away from it. I would also recommend not being as edgy. As the old saying goes, you can get more flies with honey than vinegar. I used to be "edgy" (still an to an extent) and edgy is good, but when it gets you in trouble, it is probably best to round off that "edge" a little. I will check in when I get up and see how things are going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did post an apology before my last comment above -- I didn't note it because I was waiting to see what the response would be. Now that response has come in -- 19 minutes after I posted my apology, Az posted "retired" on his talk & user page, without directly responding to my comment. I'm not sure how to read that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes that is the way things go. I commend you for taking the approach and apologizing. Thank you. I wish there would have been a better outcome, but again, that is the way things go. Carry on and keep up with your promise, trust me, it goes a long way. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Difficult IP editor back

Can I get a quick admin review on this IP editor. I Someone else reported an editor exhibiting the same difficult behaviour the other day and it appears this is the same person. Their edits are, once again, borderline and he/she has now resorted to a personal attacks in edit summaries (if it were not for the latter behaviour I wouldn't have reported it :(). Thanks. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the numerous failed BLP/N reports not enough? You might start using talking pages instead of escalating matters in lieu of putting your case. See personal attacks here and here 90.207.105.117 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Those edits were made by another user (just for the record, my edit in that conversation thread was, I hope, not at all attacking! And I apologise if it was). The reason I escalated here was the direct personal attack that prompts me to believe your purpose here is disruptive. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I confirm to you that it is not. Please WP:AGF, thanks 90.207.105.117 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed all edits made by this IP user, I am in no doubt they are the same user that was brought up to ANI before (as given by the link above).

They have now virtually admitted that they are cherry picking sources on specific people in an attempt to damage them through Wikipedia hereMonkeymanman (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How am I attempting to damage him? Did I convict him or report it in national newspapers? Based on your previous involvement, I think you need to decide if you are a biographer or a PR person (for Glasgow Rangers, mostly). Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the same user. That other IP was apparently connected to User:Eliteimp, who has not edited since their 1 week block expired. It might be worth a formal SPI to connect this IP range to Eliteimp, as that account was blocked on the basis of behaviour, not a checkuser report. The attack of "bedwetter" was relatively mild - can anyone provide diffs to show BLP problems? Fences&Windows 19:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences, if your happy (the attack was mild but it tipped the balance for me given past history). In terms of BLP issues there is the difficulty - the edits broadly consist of tabloid sourced material (which on the one hand is not necessarily an issue); the problem is a lot of the material is negative about the subject and to my mind (and others too) the sourcing doesn't always weigh against the material. The other issue is that there is a tendency to use non-neutral wording in edits despite several reminders about current WP policy :( In terms of examples: [52] (charges were dropped, such things are not usually included in BLP's), [53] (tabloid sourced allegation) and non-BLP addition: [54] (unattributed opinion). I've tried to keep dialogue open with this editor but there has been no change to the pattern of edits and resistance/vague anger at every turn :( I don;t feel my help is being accepted in good faith.--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one [55]. At that stage I had been concerned at COI or POV issues from Tmorton166 (describing BLP subjects as "a piece of work") but decided to show good faith and try to work collaboratively. I continued this even after the personal attacks above. I continued with it through numerous BLP/Ns which had decidedly mixed outcomes. One was ignored and one resulted in the offending additions being promoted to their own section. To me these repeated ANIs look very much like forumshopping.

You will note that the Eliteimp account, unjustly banned in my absence, is primarily to do with women's football - a subject with which I have no interest whatsoever. Again, I sometimes but not always work from a shared computer. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between having a personal opinion and how one writes about a subject. For example: I have pretty strong personal opinions but make great effort to retain neutral language when I write on Wikipedia. That was the point I was trying to make in the reply you highlight. Every time I point you at BLP, NPOV or other policy you seem to just shrug and carry on making edits like this - words like "vehemently" and so forth are simply not very neutral or detached! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Such words can be neutral and detached if it used accurately and sourced. I would suggest, in that case given the strength and volume of all his reported denials, indignation, excuses etc. that 'vehement' is fair enough. I just thought it was odd (and disappointing) that you would advertise your strong personal opinions on the subject. I didn't open an ANI about it though!

My edits have weeded out many factual errors and unsourced puffery. I am happy that I have a positive contribution to make, despite continual attacks and ill-founded reports. Fundamentally, we all need to remember that we are biographers and not PR people. Apologies in advance if you misconstrue this response as vague anger. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Such words only really work if a source describes the denials as vehement. Otherwise it is original research to source his denials and then tag it as vehement. All I am asking is that you pick words with more care. In terms of that opinion I was trying to find common ground with what appeared to be your stance on the guy (to avoid the common comeback I often see of "you just like the guy so are trying to cover up for him"). To my mind it seems good to talk about your own views on a subject because it can help to be a stop-check on your own work (a few times I have written talk page responses which help get my own head round neutrally wording content) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this discussion to a talk page (mine, yours or one of the articles - I'll let you choose :)) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If we are now as one that this is essentially a content dispute, could you explain your repeated recourse to BLP/N and ANI? Obviously I would wish to avoid further ANI reports if and when I use a word you don't think is 'neutral.' Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I opened the BLP report because of your history of adding unsourced allegations to articles. I opened the AN/I notice after the direct attack edit summrty that left me concerned your intentions might be disruptive and your apparent continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with regards to neutral wording. As we have a dialogue going that seems a happy outcome (to me anyway). If you have a specific complaint about how I behaved please feel free to open a relevant thread --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering most of your reports have failed or backfired I would suggest it is you who might reflect upon WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you wish to report the addition of unsourced allegations, please supply diffs. Admins will note the cherrypicked 'examples' above were all sourced more than adequately. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They have worked as intended :) to my mind anyway. If I have broached reporting policy I expect to be chastised or reminded. The examples I provided above are all legitimately problematic for reasons raised - they were cherry picked in the sense that they are examples and that some of your contribution is good. As long as we have dialogue I for one am happy --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on Phone number posted on talk page

Resolved

 – No oversight needed Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I prodded an article earlier today and I received a message on my talk page listing the phone number of a physicists university office number. I betting the creator of the artitlce got it off the university website but decided to bring it here because i dont know if it needs oversight? I have removed it from my talk page does need more to be done?Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's actually already posted on their website then it's already "out there" anyway and probably does not need oversight. More information, including how to contact oversighters directly, is at WP:OVERSIGHT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

thankyou Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

R1r1f2

R1r1f2 (talk · contribs)

This brand new user (the account was created July 20th) is making some very strange, unhelpful, and even suspicious edits. On only their second edit ever with the account they stated (in an edit summary to a subpage off their talk page) "not roozie12 or roozie1219 or jacob1219".

Well lets see:

• roozie12 (talk · contribs) was blocked in march for Wikipedia:Competence is required - I've never even seen that block reason given
• roozie1219 (talk · contribs) Also blocked in March for being a sock of User:Roozie12
• Jacob1219 (talk · contribs) Blocked (Disruptive editing: Roozie12, still lacking the competence to contribute constructively)

What caught my eye today was this person editing the page of a recently blocked sock puppet (Urboogyman). That investigation of sock master Pickles0001 was just closed today. Why would a brand new user want to edit a page of a newly blocked user?

Some other strange edits include:

• Notifying 87.82.10.6 about a test edit on Airblue that wasn't a test edit. The edit was valid and still stands. That IP user turned out to be a user who simply hadn't noticed that he was no longer logged in.
• Their eighth ever edit was to their User:R1r1f2/monobook.js page.
• Their ninth ever edit was to request speedy deletion of their own user page.
• Their twelfth edit was to request speedy deletion of the Mars article. (!)
• And their thirteenth edit was to request speedy deletion of the 2010 Japan Football League article.

What does all this mean. Well this looks like an incompetent and disruptive duck. Dawnseeker2000 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

i will stop --R1r1f2 (chat) jhi (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R1r1f2 - Dawnseeker2000 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez, User:208.87.197.82

Resolved

 – GV warned, tagged as suspected sockpuppeteer, ipsock tagged. Nothing more to do. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In September 2009, User talk:GabrielVelasquez placed a {{retired}} template on his User and Talk pages, but has been active since then. A few weeks ago, I went to the user's talk page to comment about the re-opening of an AfD in which the editor had been involved in June 2010. Because the editor was evidently still editing, I removed the {{retired}} template from his User and Talk pages on 25 July 2010, after having left a Talk page comment to that effect on 23 July.

He responded today by reinstating the template, with an edit summary, "Undid revision 375343143 by Jeffro77 VANDALISM - Stay Off my user page ASSHOLE!" Not along after, User:208.87.197.82, who I believe to be User:GabrielVelasquez editing anonymously on a dynamic IP (checkuser please), claimed I vandalised the article Nontrinitarianism, with an edit summary, "Undid revision 373942348 by Jeffro77 VANDALISM, JWs make MANY tracts on a variety of topics!!! Desperate attack!!". (The 'vandalism' in question consisted of correcting a typographical error from "track" to "tract" with a comment that JWs don't make tracks.) The user created a section on the article's Talk page claiming I had vandalised the article,[56] and left a complaint with User:Toddst1 about the alleged vandalism[57] (which he rightly dismissed)[58].

I acknowledge that it was probably unnecessary to remove the {{retired}} template, but consider the editor's reaction to be unnecessarily disproportionate and their editing to be disingenuous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If neither the IP nor Gabriel bothers you again (without even speculating on a link) would you consider the matter closed? What I mean to say is, can this be resolved without an admin intervening? Protonk (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Action by Toddst1 seems sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors

Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk.

The dozen articles have to do with Japanese adult video actresses. This is a subject many find touchy, but Wikipedia is not censored, and each image has a proper and comprehensive fair-use rationale. Japanese laws have particular requirements that private photos of celebrities are most-often out of bounds, so for AV actresses, separate rules apply, which have been pointed out to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. On his userpage, he states "The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to." The three editors he is warring with have kept fully within policy, it is he that is being aggressive. I hesitate to label it a crusade, but jihad is a little strong.

Users Testales, Dekkappai and I have repeatedly directed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to please read WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Acceptable sources of fair use photos before removing images.

Articles I am aware of include Junko Miyashita, Bunko Kanazawa, Madoka Ozawa, Haruki Mizuno, Manami Yoshii, Kei Mizutani, Kazuko Shirakawa...

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nao_Saejima&action=history example of one I was not involved in, just to see the course of things

--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that existing copyrighted images can be made free by the copyright holder through a license or a complete release into the public domain. Whatever right of publicity an actress may enjoy in Japan does not override the fact that the copyright holder (normally the photographer or the company that paid for the shoot) controls how the picture is used according to US law, not the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is over the images. We can discuss those and determine their appropriateness. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' continuous edit-warring. When reverted he, without fail, simply reverts. Whether he is right or wrong in individual cases is one thing. The issue here is that he nearly always gets his way through strong-arm editing tactics. I think he has made several good editors sick and tired of this behavior, and that is what this notice is about. Dekkappai (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the etiquette is in terms of displaying disputed non-free images. I know that clear copyright violations should be removed immediately but don't know beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo's edit-warring goes far beyond the removal of Fair use images. Characterizing legal Fair use as "copyright violation" does not change this. Dekkappai (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the applicable policy, WP:NFCC, "Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added" and "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof" applies here. Saying that no new free content can be created because a person is too old or protects her privacy is not true and may not be a valid rationale. It would be nice for HW to explain why he thinks the rationale is not valid or suitable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: This is not a discussion of fair use images. This is a discussion of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' editing behavior. Had HE instigated such a discussion in this case and in many, many other cases, he and the many editors he has instead offended or driven off Wikipedia could have come to an amicable agreement. Dekkappai (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring is over the images though. The burden of proof to show that something adheres to policy is on the editor who adds the item. Are there examples of the editors actually trying to initiate discussion with HW explaining how it does comply before adding the images back? Are there specific examples of HW responding or ignoring the discussion? These are diffs that admins will need to look at rather than try to dig through the article histories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not a discussion of images. There is a long history behind Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' hyper-agressive editing. Please do not further attempt to derail the discussion to fair use image policy. I did not get involved in this after Hullaballoo first removed these images-- all my uploads. I was tired of this editor's non-stop battle tactics, and was in fact prepared to let him have these. I resent my time being used in this forum as well-- I am here at Wikipedia to contribute content, not to play these childish battle games which editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz create. The editing history of the pages below show that I did not get involved until other editors raised objections. It was the fact that Hullaballoo steam-rolled over them that got me involved. For just one example of the recent spate of edit-wars:

• Junko Miyashita
  1. HB removes image
  2. User:Testales restores image citing: WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos.
  3. Rather than follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Hullaballoo instigates an edit war by reverting
  4. I step in and revert Hullaballoo encouraging him to discuss
  5. He does not discuss, but reverts me

The exact same pattern can be seen at: Kazuko Shirakawa, Bunko Kanazawa, Kei Mizutani, Marina Matsushima, Nao Saejima, Haruki Mizuno, Madoka Ozawa, Manami Yoshii, and Kimiko Matsuzaka. Again, this is all just one instance of this editor's agressive editing technique, but to cite even a fraction would be far beyond the scope of this page. A full RfC is probably in order. Dekkappai (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the discussion on both sides in the Miyashita example is inadequate since they are solely using the edit summaries to do this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And do you also see that it is one editor warring against several? That is the point of this ANI, and you have been asked to address this specific already. Please do so.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of members of the wanking fraternity (sum of all human knowledge, you know) complaining that perhaps innapproprietly licensed images are being removed? I'm shocked.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a well founded and sophisticated formulated reply. Maybe you can write it a bit more insulting?! I am shocked even more. If you have problem with pornography, please keep it for yourself. If you see despite Wikipedia:Sexual_content a problem with pornography related topics beeing part of the Wikipedia main project, I would even agree with you. But in this case you should consider to put that up for discussion at a more suitable place. I will write more later on the actual subject, so please see this just as a reminder to keep this discussion at a certain level. Testales (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me be direct. No I don't have a "problem" with pornography -- an occasional consumer of it myself and I believe that there should be plenty of coverage of the subject in an encyclopedia -- from truly famous pornographic movies, to some discussion of genres, to sociological/political looks at it. What i have a problem with is a bunch of fanboys scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible, and then complaining when someone takes notice and tries to clean up after them. I mean look at this articles created list: [59] which includes vital encyclopedia content like Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs, Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil and Continuous Adultery 2: A Portrait of Incest between Sisters. The wanking community needs less input on content here, not more.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever. I'd suggest you apologize and leave this discussion unless you can say something constructive about the actual issue. Dekkappai (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well played sir. "Fourth place" at something called the "Pink Grand Prix" definitely justifies the loving treatment you've devoted to Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs. Yes, I guess the wanking material must stay then. The stuff all fails the GNG, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with your emissions. Someday, maybe, actual standards will be set and this stuff can be cleaned up wholesale. In the meantime, good on wolfowitz for trying to do the right thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, if you have issues here, this is WRONG place. If you are not happy with the current WP:GNG, WP:NF or WP:PORNBIO go to the related talk page and DISCUSS. Until this you have absolutely no right to disapprove the work of other editors. I am also very aware of the work that Dekkappai does and I was also critical to that and I am still regarding some aspects, see this and that for example. But if there should be additional and special restrictions for adding Pornography related information then this can surely not be solved within the scope of WP:P*. These "non-notable soft-porn" films (does soft increase or decrease the value btw.?!) have won notable prizes and it also seems that especially Pink films can not easily be compared with certain western low budget trash productions, they seem have a much higher cultural value as one may expect. But either way, calling hardworking (and truly!) contributing editors like Dekkappai "fanboys" is without any doubt a serious personal attack. Testales (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you and I disagree. I think this is the RIGHT place to discuss problem editors. My ultimate hope is to draw attention and to convince people with power to eventually take action. I understand you're not happy that scrutiny has shifted onto you and the folks you made this complaint with. So it goes. The de-bodiced images placed on wikipedia to promote the films are soft-porn. My problem with them is that none of them approach, or could even begin to approach, proper encyclopedia articles (since there's no scholarly consideration of these individual films, no reviews outside the porn-industry marketing conspecifics, no consideration of their merit and importance set within a larger context, etc...) My objection to this content is much the same (philosophically) as my objection to a great deal of wikipedia content that has nothing to do with pornography. There is nothing remotely educational or enlightening about these "articles." In Dekkappai's case, it's basically just a video directory for people who like to masturbate to rape fantasies and the like. Since the subjects are frequently illustrated with pictures of purely prurient interest (that are generally not fair use), that the "actresses" frequently wish their past in porn forgotten when they leave the industry, since the articles are maintained and compiled by obsessives from within a walled garden, I suppose the porn is a bit worse in my eyes than, say, the obsessive science fiction and video game ghettos. Again: I understand why you'd like to make this about one editors conduct rather than content. I just happen to believe that the underlying content issues are the ones to focus on.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like Hullabaloo is in the clear here: WP:3RR grants an exemption to "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", and the example above certainly seems to fall into that category. Wikiproject guidelines cannot create an exemption to WP:NFCC, and any Japanese laws concerning fair use have no impact on Wikipedia, making the images wholly replaceable.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what did he have to lose by discussing rather than edit-warring? Dekkappai (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussing would have been better. Ultimately, though, all those images have to go. If he had notified me (or probably most admins) of the problem he was facing, he could have received assistance as well. This is one of those cases where the people reporting the problem are more at fault than the one being reported: removing NFCC violations is the obligation of all editors and admins, while chronically inserting them can result in blocks.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not discussing is what caused this issue to come to a head. I was long prepared to see all these images removed. They are not the issue. The edit-warring is the issue. Other editors brought up concerns which needed discussing-- and which, though it doesn't matter here, you ignore. Even had they eventually been thrown out, the place for that discussion was THEN, not here. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' constantly aggressive, edit-warring behavior. Here is another recent example. This one doesn't involve images:

1. Rather than tagging for sourcing, he simply removes a list of interviewees in a film
2. He is reverted noting that the film is the source (a WikiProject film guideline with which I happen to disagree)
3. Rather than discuss, Hullaballoo reverts, instigating an edit-war
4. After an editor takes up the task of sourcing each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list
5. a third editor reverts Hullaballoo
6. :::Hullaballoo again blindly reverts

Again, this has nothing to do with images-- I was long prepared to see those images removed anyway. This has to do with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' CONSTANT edit-warring. Dekkappai (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh-- your reference to Japanese law was confusing at first, because no one has made such a reference. The references the other side made were to Wikipedia policy. Your use of this imaginary claim to join in Hullaballoo's edit-warring, just because you think he is in the right, confirms the faith expressed in you at your RfA, KWW. Dekkappai (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Let me explain what I see here: The issue-- HB's edit-warring and aggressive editing patters-- are OK as long as certain Admins agree with his position. So much for "consensus", and I am out of here. Dekkappai (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, I am responsible for upholding WP:NFCC. Most people who voted in my RFA expressed faith that I understood policies and would enforce them fairly. I believe I have done so. As noted above, removing NFCC violations is an explicit exemption to 3RR. Doing so to the same article repetitively is no more of a problem than repeatedly removing vandalism. That's the issue you face: HW has not committed any offense against Wikipedia policies or guidelines by repeatedly removing these images.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have come across the user at issue in addressing a similar discussion, and I came away with a good impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's policies. We are dealing here with sticky issues of copyright and BLP issues (not arising in this particular case, but in other articles that this editor works on). He is, obviously, a stickler who does not always take the time to communicate his concerns in a way that makes others feel that they have been addressed civilly. However, he is largely on the right side of policy. I would suggest that he bring these issues here before reverting an alleged copyvio addition a second time. Other than that, I do not think administrative action is warranted at this time. bd2412 T 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another recent instance of Hullaballoo's edit-warring and bullying can be seen in the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Seven_Minutes_(film)&action=history where he repeatedly removed sourced information eventually leading to the article's protecting, and then a ridiculous level of over-sourcing to quell his alleged concerns. (Russ Meyer known as "King of the nudies?" nine sources for that potential BLP violation...) But, as the ignoring of the above non-image-releated second example shows, the point of this discussion is being purposely avoided in line with ideological biases. Some openly stated, others hidden by unrelated policy discussion... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic In regard to these pictures, I have one question that should Wikipedia use nude picture such as in the article Kaoru Kuroki? It should be a image with high commercial value which is described in point 2 of the WP:NFCC. And I also think that nude pictures like this one are the reason why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz act so aggressively.--AM ^(talk) 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really off-topic. The fair-use argument is predicated on the concept that Japanese law applies to Wikipedia, which is not true.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So now we're supposed to believe that the reason for Hullaballoo's edit-warring over content, images and sourcing is because of... one image he didn't remove? Makes as much sense as the "Japanese law" argument Kww is refuting, I suppose, which, again, no one ever mentioned during HB's Wiki-approved edit-wars. Why not join the edit-war and threaten blocking too? Might get you an Adminship here. Again: The images can go. And they would have without controversy if Hullaballoo had not instigated edit-warring. Hullaballoo's behavior in many, many articles is the issue here. The images are just the LAST instance of his violation. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my assumption is come from this edit. I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz don't like to see a gallery of content which is both erotic and non-free. Nevertheless, noone answer my concern yet. Should we use copyrighted and erotic contents to illustrate these kind of articles (assuming that these uses are fair enough)?--AM ^(talk) 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this logic: If wolfowitz hadn't tried to remove the images they... would have been removed anyway? And appropriately trying to remove copyrighted images was the problem because it led to edit warring on the part of editors (including yourself) who wanted the images to remain? But you don't really care about the images anyways (i.e. "they can go.")? And compounding the problem was another editor joining in and helping to remove the problem images (the images you say you don't care about but are the "last instance of (wolfowitz') violation)? And the "Japanese law argument" that was brought up by the original complainer, right here on this page, was not in fact ever made? It's all so confusing.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming in late today on this, and find that I have very little to add to the analysis of Morbidthoughts and, in particular, the thoughtful comments of Kww. Where other editors have attempted to meet the burden required to meet NFCC requirements, I've participated in discussion, as at Talk:Nao_Saejima and given even fuller explanation at User_talk:Tabercil#HB_at_it_again and at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_27#File:Kimiko_Matsuzaka.jpg. Without any substantive defense of such dubious content (as Bali Ultimate and others pointed out last year in a BLP dispute we were both involved in), requiring editors removing that content to engage in extended discussions simply frustrates policy enforcement. The underlying issue is a well-settled policy question; as is demonstrated, for example, in the extended discussion over the use of a nonfree image in the Twiggy article, the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support. On the other hand, statements like one referring to the subject's "big bust," as is the case in one of the articles in dispute, hardly require visual aids to be properly understood.
Dekkappai and I have been engaged in a long-running series of content disputes over BLP sourcing, and from the beginning [60] [61] [62] [63] Dekkappai has engaged in uncivil personal attacks, a pattern which extends to his comments on other editors (note, for example, this edit summary from the current discussion [[64]]). I hope greater attention is paid to this behavior in the future; it is disruptive and deters participation by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is apparent that nothing relevant to the purpose of this noticeboard will come from further discussion of the topic. I suggest closure of this discussion. Policy disputes can be handled elsewhere. bd2412 T 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing on the behavioral complaint

Comment: This entire discussion has become pointless at the moment an administrator demonstrated that WP:BATTLE can very well lead to success. It might have been understandable to do such a mass-revert again while the discussion is still running if there were a reason of urgency but I can't see any. The very root of this is - I repeat it once again - that small policy note of WP:NFC#UULP which even has an own shortcut. As despite at lot of pointing to that it was continously completly and simply ignored, I will quote the deciding part again too.

"However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.".

Several of the models in question have retired and/or have visually changed a lot. Furthermore the notability of a model is inherently connected with his or her visual appearance. Porn stars are usually models too, some even get shoot for erotic art and by notable photographers and notable magazines. It should also be obvious that a very ugly actor can not become notable in that business. At least I have never seen or heard that say a distorted or handicapped actor has been given a regular and notable award even though there are handicapped and distorted actors doing pornography. Very old people who start in pornography are not awarded or notable either here although there is apparently some demand for grandmas having sex on camera. So it should be absolutly obvious that [[WP:NFC#UULP] can be applied here without any doubt and this was also the reason why this time some editors rebelled against Hullaboos agressive and massive deleting/reverting every day. It should be obvious but no... As it is impossible for some people to admit mistakes but also hard to just override what a policy page clearly explains (and only having WP:NFCC would leave A LOT of room for interpreation), some ridiculous justification is improvised. I seriously doubt that there would be consensus in the claim that the visual appearance is not important for a model's success. I also get the STRONG impression that there is actually a proxy war behind the scenes, waged by some people who are very unhappy of having pornographic topics on Wikipedia. I think Bali ultimate was very direct here, even going to personal attacks which makes wonder whether Wikipedia:CIV is accepted to be ignored for some topics. I also read several statements regarding that which clearly prove no deeper knowlegde, just the impression one may get at a quick glance and biased with the base attitude that there is no way pornography can be notable or were notabilitly can be reduced to "their willingness to have sex in a studio with bright lights and cameras." as Kww puts it "thoughtfully".

Regarding Hullaboo, no he nas not broken clearly any policy rules. He is also super active but I doubt that he in his many 1000s of edits has added a single byte of new information. He also completly seems to ignore any constructive ideas behind WP:RV, including the very basic advice "reword rather than revert". At least I have never seen him actually improving something or trying to find a better source. There is always only reverting and deletion. (Feel free to prove me wrong.) That may be against the idea that was originally behind Wikipedia but it is not against the current "rules".

Furthermore it is plain wrong (to say it nicely!), that there was no substantive defense. In fact it took several reverts by other editors to make Hullaboo even start to discuss and even then he "left" [the middle]. Instead of that, he created a IfD. While it may bascially be a good idea to have a representative case that was firstly quite late and secondly he didn't even leave a note on the already ongoing discussion. I furthermore see no clue for "the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support". I also doubt that this is only suggested as policies are "binding" and not mere guidelines. There is also no indication for rare aside the point that non-free material should generally be used rarely. He never brought up this argument anyway.

So this is the situation here: An admin says the visual appearance of models doesn't matter and therefore the rule doesn't apply and an editor claiming that this rule is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support (whatever this would mean in this conext). I am always suprised how even for very simple and clear rules there are always people who are still able to interpret them in a different way.

I initially planned to add some links here which may enlight a bit the typical behaviour of Hullaboo usually beeing not very communicative (nicely said again) and always in clear contrast to WP:RV but the unopposed harsh statements of User:Bali ultimate) and the quick and symbolic actions of an administrator make that rather pointless. That also shows there are is apparently a problem with at least pornography related topics that must be discussed in wider scope - on a different place.

Testales (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's time rather to re-focus on the root problem brought to this forum: HW's repeated incivility and hostility toward editors with whom he disagrees, as this IS the place to deal with repeated edit warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV when other means of resolution have proved ineffective. As Wikipedia encourages discussion as a means to solve differences of opinion and/or to clarify one's comments, to instead choose to NOT begin or involve himself in such discussions acts against policy and guideline... making Wilipedia an unpleasent place to even dare offer an opinion... and THAT's why this ANI was opened... to gain input about repeated edit-warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV. While HW can indeed be a productive editor, and has contributed to the cleaning of many articles, he is not the final arbiter, and he does not WP:OWN any of the articles he chooses to edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then bring forth examples of bad behaviour. This complaint was framed in terms of his removal of images that are clear NFCC violations. Since that behaviour is clearly exempt from our edit-warring policies, there wasn't much to be done (and I'm sorry, Testales ... the violation is clear and unambiguous, as the arguments you apply are equally applicable to thousands of mainstream performers where NFCC has been held to prohibit the image use). I'm perfectly happy to examine misbehavior on HW's part if someone brings forth examples of it.

As for my opposition being to pornographic pictures, I think an quick examination of my deletion log and speedy nominations show that most copyright violations I delete or nominate for deletion are of mainstream celebrities.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have myself repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on an open Wikipedia. However, here's a recent example of incivity and lack of discussion and skirting 3RR as if he WP:OWNed the article: 9to5 – Days in Porn: Repeatedly reverting editors[65] until literally forced into discussion,[66] when a simple removal of mis-linked names would have easily sufficed. And then there are examples of his taking other's comments of of context, twisting their words, impuning their integrity, while at the same time insulting the editor. There was absolutely no cause for his rudeness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination), or his calling another's comments "ranting" as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Li (2nd nomination), or his attacking the editor and not the edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (3rd nomination), or his wikilawyering at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Costa (2nd nomination). Please... do I need to find and offer all such examples of negativity toward others? What is ironic here is that in his own words, HW states "One of the least civil aspects of Wikipedia is the way some combatants in AFD and other areas engage in content-free needling of editors they disagree with rather than engaging in civil, policy-based discussions,"[67] when yet he is so often guilty of that very same behavior. Again, he does some fine work, even though he rarely contibutes content or searches for sources, and he is far more likely to scold others for not doing the searches or content contributions he himself does not do. But what I think what is needed here is simply his being urged/asked/instructed to be more civil and not assume the worst in other editors. Or is my opinion here just "whining"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door. I'll look at this in 4 or 5 hours.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. I can see your point It's obvious that he has formed a low opinion of several editors, and it shows. It doesn't rise to block level in my mind, but it would be quite adequate fodder for an RFC. I don't think ANI is the appropriate venue for it.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And sadly, he and these others (myself included) do not always disagree... often finding common ground for deletes or keeps at various AFDs... and contrary to some of his far-too-often repeated accusation that I try to keep "virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online", I am quite willing opine delete at AFD and have done so in agreement with him many times. It's just that when he decides that he and he alone is right, it's a bad time to have a differing opinion. Perhaps incivility toward only certain editors and only at certain times may not in and of itself be blockable, but it is his willingness to escalate to insult and create a devisive atmosphere that is of concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's cause for concern. I just think RFC/U is the more appropriate venue.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment, if a number of editors disagree with an action, even a NFCC action, and they have a valid policy argument, there should be actual discussion, not repeated direct action. Yes, removing non-free material can be exempt from 3RR, but when a real issue is raised, and of a certainly the claim that this is a situation where "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" has come into play means this should go for a proper discussion (at FfD in this case). This might well meet our guidelines and policies for inclusion. Ignoring for a moment if HW was abusing the tools or not I think restoring and listing at FfD for cases where reasonable policy arguments exist would be the best action at this point. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If the images managed to survive FFD, then putting them back in the article would be justified. Removing them from the article is not deletion.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, my mistake in understanding what's going on. That said, if they are removed from the article and thus aren't in any article, aren't they eligible for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free images? Did that sentence even parse? I'm off to bed...Hobit (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the reason for the 7-day interval requirement for orphaned images: it gives time for FFD to run its course.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Hobit has hit on the important point in this matter: the need for discussion, even when it concerns applying policy. There has been a common misunderstanding that Wikipedia policy is somehow the equivalent of rules or laws, & therefore needs to be enforced. Policy is nothing more than the consensus opinion about a number of issues, & the way that consensus is applied is through discussion. That means not only does one need a plausible & reasonable argument for invoking Wikipedia:ignore all rules, but also one for getting other Wikipedians to follow policy; saying that something "violates policy" or "violates consensus" is an acceptable explanation only for the most obvious instances. (This approach has been more or less described at WP:BRD.) Sanctions only come into play when an individual refuses to participate or accept plausible arguments, because this is disruptive & harms Wikipedia. The original complaint -- that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was repeatedly unlinking images against the wishes of others without discussion -- thus is valid. But if HW understands that she/he was mistaken in how she/he was applying policy & is willing instead to use discussion in the future, any form of sanctions here would be inappropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But he was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is _exactly_ the case spelled out as an exception to the general rule, I think it's reasonable to say that edit warring to keep it out isn't the right way to go. BRD applies when a good faith objection is made and execpt in the case of vandalism or other bad faith actions, discussing is always the right thing to do. Further, you are saying that those wanting the image in the article take it to FfD and need to do so immediately when someone removes a non-free image from an article? How the heck are they suppose to know that? My understanding for AfD is that you are only supposed to do that when you want it deleted; people have been told they are violating WP:POINT for bringing things to AfD they want kept. Is FfD different? Hobit (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the exception case at all. No one has demonstrated the existence of any source whatsoever that indicates that the appearance of these particular women is in any way unique or relevant to their notability. I know it creates a Catch-22 for people that get caught by someone that is anal about "don't nominate for deletion unless you yourself want the deletion", but there was no consensus to include the images: the very fact that WH removed them a second time proves the lack of consensus. Whenever there is a controversy, policy favors removal of the controversial material, not the inclusion.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww could you please prove this strange point? What about WP:STATUSQUO?! Not to mention that ideas behind Wikipedia:RV have one again completly been ignored by HW. Testales (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No more than they were ignored by people that inserted it, and somewhat less since he accurately pointed at a policy. WP:BURDEN is overarching: people that want to include material have to prove their case, people that want to remove it do not. And, responding to your comment below, this isn't an "extreme" interpretation of WP:NFCC. This is run-of-the-mill. There are tens of thousands of biography articles without pictures because there aren't free images available, and there is no particular reason that Japanese porn stars form an exceptional group.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww, one of us is missing an important point here. As I understand what happened, HW acted, was reverted & asked to explain himself, & he replied by reverting. No discussion, simply reversion; removing content without any discussion is not challenging the content, it is... well, frustrating. Okay, let's use policy-talk & call it disruption. In any case, there is no discussion, no defense or attack on policy, just one stubborn editor deciding she/he didn't want something in Wikipedia, & refusing to discuss the matter. Years ago, maybe before you joined Wikipedia, there was a certain user who would revert edits without an explanation -- unless someone challenged him on it, & even then would sometimes continue to edit war in support of how he wanted the text to read. Eventually he was banned from Wikipedia -- twice, since he came back under another username only to drift back to his old habits. So if I'm correct in understanding the situation, HW is following in this banned user's steps. So I'll repeat my earlier conclusion -- the complaint is valid & HW needs to discuss his edits in the future when challenged. Especially when several people are insisting that she/he stop & discuss the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch, I believe you're missing the important point. None of the disputing editors asked me to explain myself; the basis for my action was made explicitly in the initial edit summaries, and no one claimed it wasn't clear. Instead, the other editors involved, using identical edit summaries (which I found a bit curious), reverted, alluded to a possible exception to the policy involved, and implied, without any substantive discussion, that it was my responsibility to prove that no exception could apply. As Kww quite accurately pointed out, this goes against both established policy for handling such issues and established practice for handling nonfree images. It's just a tactic for gaming the system to avoid the requirements of WP:BURDEN and to tie down editors trying to enforce a well-established policy consensus. Even now, only one of the three editors pressing for restoration of the images has advanced any substantive arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Hobbit either you are one of apparently few editors left who seem not have to forgotten the original spirit or your comment is just funny. Just open your eyes, it's not even that policies are treated word-by-word as ultimate law but they same applies even to guidelines. If you want to deleted something, just point to a guideline that may in extreme way POSSIBLY be interpreted as supporting the delete and you are done. Not discussion needed, because you "improved" Wikipedia by enforcing its "law". (Can give an example where even a very experienced editor obviously even confuses policiy and guideline). Furthermore, I mean we are talking here about some icon-sized images who show even less than the cover of a typical TV guide. Images that have been on Wikipedia for years and which existence is even still CLEARY allowed (there was still no argument real against it!) by the currenty policies. So even if there are such apparently idiot-proof explanations on a policy page there are still people who simply nullify that, just read that section here. So because there is one guy deletes ONLY who wanted to have a set of fairly uncritical images deleted and (at least) 4 people don't agree with him. Still he enforces that with edit war and gets even support here by an admin. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. As if that would be not enough, the involved editors even get called "gang of pornhounds" and "fan boys". At least half of the editors that were against the removing do not even work regulary in that area but still, they are just "wanking community". Wikipedia has become quite an unfriendly place as it seems. Now I really need to go to a policy discussion to clear up a point which is actually not missunderstandable, only because somebody want to deleted some harmless images for a questionable motivation. No, I am unable to assume good faith here, not seeing the edit warring to enforce this deletion. Testales (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The full story

Ok, let's focus on the actual case, I tried to keep out the policy question from start anyway, see my replies to User:Bali ultimate. So here is the full story, sorry if this now gets a bit lengthy but it should allow to judge the situation. I hope it's ok that I created another sub-section because of the length, if not feel free to merge it with the other one. Let me also say that the behaviour on both sides was not perfect and if very well meaning seen it possibly could even be seen as bad timing combined with missunderstanding. But unfortunately this seems to be more a typical pattern of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz practices.

It all starts here:

Extended content

Hullaboo: 05:51, 19 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:52, 19 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:55, 19 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:57, 19 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:59, 19 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:01, 19 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:03, 19 July 2010: Nao Saejima (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:04, 19 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:06, 19 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:08, 19 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (nonfree image in BLP infobox) Note the quick timing, I left out no other edits here. What may have HW searched here and with what intention? Anyway, some days later when I was reading policies again, I stumbled over WP:NFC#UULP. I verified this by checking the corresponding point at WP:P* again, which states: Fair Use - see Wikipedia:Image description page for rationale for fair use. Publicity photos are often useful for this, but be careful - non-free (fair use) images are only allowed if a free image could not reasonably be created. If the person is dead, is a recluse, or currently looks significantly different than during their career, then the image is not replaceable. But for most active stars, a non-free image would be deemed "replaceable" and would be deleted. So I was convinced (and I still am) that this is enough to justify reverts while pointing to these rules in the summary. Testales: 18:23, 25 July 2010: Nao Saejima (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 18:27, 25 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Reverted, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 18:36, 25 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (Reverted. A non-free promotional image is acceptabled here due to WP:NFC#UULP : subject has retired and her earlier visual appearance is of importance.) I had only reverted the 3 most obvious cases, that means either the subject has retired or looks significantly different which one can expect if an actress is now over 60 and got known while she was say arround 24. I was not sure about the other cases, that may have to be discussed I thought, and wanted to see what happens next. Now another editor appears who picks up "the ball". Kintetsubuffalo, reverting more "contributions" of HW: 10:08, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 10:09, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) (...) 10:16, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 10:17, 26 July 2010: File:Kazuko Shirakawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) I actually expected at least some REASON from Hullaboo either seeking discussion or only not accepting questionables cases. But no... Hullaboo: 17:20, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513204 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:21, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513127 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:22, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512866 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (Life and career: promotional/spam) 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (unsourced/OR) 17:26, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512687 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:27, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512558 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:28, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512327 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:29, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512172 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:31, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (unreferenced; Undid revision 375511182 by 58.160.65.93 (talk)) 17:32, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (External links: remove category not supported by reliably sourced article text) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 17:34, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (phony claim supported only by subject's own promo bio and publicity based on it; see extensive earlier discussions) 17:37, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (Film and television: clarify, show never went beyond earliest stages of development) 17:40, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use;Undid revision 375392644 by Testales (talk)) 17:41, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375391492 by Testales (talk)) 17:42, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375390917 by Testales (talk)) Seeing an upcoming possible edit war, I did the first step by seeking discussion now myself and expecting that HW would at least WATCH the articles he simply mass-reverts. Testales: 20:00, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: new section) Dekkapai, also seeing edit war starting but refering to a basic priniciple of Wikipedia editing: 22:19, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - ANOTHER edit-war started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitiz - read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and STOP this disruptive practice of yours!!!) 22:44, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle DISCUSS, and stop trying to get your way through edit-warring) 22:45, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now) 22:46, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you edited, you were reverted, now YOU discuss) 22:47, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now, you don't edit-war) 22:48, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv - you were reverted, now you discuss, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:48, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Undid revision 375562959 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:49, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you discuss now) Which does of course not impress our Hullaboo even a little and at this point it has definitly turned into edit-war: Hullaboo: 23:08, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (reinserted spam by uncivil user; Undid revision 375609626 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:10, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614607 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614263 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614515 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614413 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613989 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613755 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614145 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:13, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613680 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:13, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613496 by Dekkappai (talk)) Dekappai, now only 1 representative revert and also notifying Tabercil who is an active admin and member of WP:P* 23:12, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - What part of "DISCUSS" do you not understand?) 23:21, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: new section) 23:23, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: correction & bit more) Testales, as it's obviously only possible to draw HW's attention to a discussion by reverting, so 1 revert here too to "trigger" him: 23:18, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (RV, HB, you are the guy who doesn't even look at the talk page!) Hullaboo, still reverting: 23:21, 26 July 2010: File:Kei Mizutani.jpg (ffd notice) 23:22, 26 July 2010: File:Manami Yoshii.jpg (ffd notice) 23:23, 26 July 2010: File:Haruki Mizuno.jpg (ffd notice) 23:24, 26 July 2010: File:Madoka Ozawa.jpg (ffd notice) 23:26, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (ffd notice) 23:27, 26 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd notice) 23:30, 26 July 2010: File:Junko Miyashita.jpg (ffd notice) 23:45, 26 July 2010: File:Nao Saejima.jpg (ffd notice) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] Hullaboo, finally the first reply in a DISCUSSION: 23:51, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r to miscitation of policy) 00:05, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r) 00:59, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r) Testales, replying, HW has still completely ignored WP:NFC#UULP, he was only refering to the a template which is not policy: 00:56, 27 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r) Cherryblossom1982 jumping in, confirming our position: 02:02, 27 July 2010 Cherryblossom1982 (talk | contribs) (5,476 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg) (undo) Followed by Dekkappai: 02:11, 27 July 2010 Dekkappai (talk | contribs) (6,680 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: c) (undo) Tabercil on his talk page, knowing both editors and beeing neutral while having computer problems which prevent him from having a closer look: 14:42, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: reply) Hullaboo, not replying at the discussion anymore but instead creating an FfD: 16:58, 27 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd nomination) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] Kintetsubuffalo, also now doing some reverts and preparing the ANI entry: 05:21, 28 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 05:22, 28 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 05:23, 28 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:24, 28 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:24, 28 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:28, 28 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:28, 28 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:45, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors: new section) 05:46, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors) 05:47, 28 July 2010: User talk:Testales (AV: new section) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 05:48, 28 July 2010: User talk:Dekkappai (AV: new section) 05:49, 28 July 2010: User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (July 2010: new section) 05:51, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

(ANI discussion starting)

Hullaboo's ANI reply, now even claiming there was no "substantive defense" (sic) and improvising an argument by simply declaring the policy rule in question "is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support":

• 23:26, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

I hope I have not forgotten an important part. I intentionally left out the discussion which Morbidthoughts has started after the the ANI discussion started. He bascially stated there that the fair use photos of WP:P* may be outdated as beeing written in 2007.

I also considered starting a discussion about this point before my first reverts but then I thought the wording is rather clear and consistent with WP:NFC#UULP. This and that WP:NFCC alone leaves a lot of room for interpreation was later confirmed by Epbr123 who is administrator and listed active member of WP:P*.

So after all I still think that at least my initial reverts are very justified and that there was no point for HW to start and/or focus on a little edit war to enforce his point of view - as usually, I would say.

I hope this helps a bit to enlighten the reason for this ANI discussion.

Testales (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The major takeaway for me was that Wolfowitz has been more than patient in dealing with a gang of pornhounds dedicated to confounding the enforcement of basic standards. We should give wolfowitz a parade, or a chocolate chip cookie, or something.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to stop with the insulting language from both sides of this. Porn isn't any more trivial than the Disney Channel, and we certainly have enough of that on Wikipedia. "Pornhound" and "wanker" don't add anything to the discussion. There's a walled garden problem here, but the insults aren't necessary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How about a "group of people who appear to be gaming the system to keep non-free images in a host of articles with titles such as Immoral First Love: Loving from the Nipples, Housekeeper with Beautiful Skin: Made Wet with Finger Torture and Female Prisoner Ayaka: Tormenting and Breaking in a Bitch?"Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the behaviour and NFCC implications, not the underlying material. This is no different than people trying to get copyrighted pictures of Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez into their biography articles.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My ability to tolerate your continued incivility rapidly vanishes, Bali. If you continue to act that way you may become the main subject of a similiar discussion too. Although that doesn't seem to impress you very much as you seem to be regular customer here [68][69][70][71][72][73][74] anyway. So in front of this background and as you also have nothing constructive contributed to this discussion other than clearly stating your WP:BADFAITH regarding the work of several editors, I think you opinion can completley be ignored. You can also keep your prejudices regarding certain topics for yourself because I seriously doubt that you had any closer look to the topics you criticized. Testales (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out champ. Good luck with the "retain copyrighted soft-porn images campaign."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not just about images

We seem to have two different threads going on here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) began this report by stating "Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk", after which discussions semed to deal primarily with images. But as dealing only with image issues does not adress the original concerns toward the "larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk", shall we start a different discussion as KWW suggests by taking behavior concerns to an RFC/U? Or since it has been brought up here, might it be discussed here without repeated returns to images? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Az81964444

Resolved

 – Az81964444 has retired, Beyond My Ken has apologised and pledged to use civil language. If Az81964444 returns and makes further attacks that can be dealt with then. Fences&Windows 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could some admin take a look and see if this and this on my talk page and this on my user page are deserving of a block? Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And this after notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor seems not to care if he's blocked. [75] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see this thread, where a non-admin editor intervened. I would still like an admin to take a look, because whether or not my comments to Az8196444, made about 2 weeks ago, were a tad too harsh or bitchy, I can't see them as the equivalent to posting pictures of a limp penis on another editor's user page and talk page. Such vandalistic actions would best be discouraged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be blocked. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I would go straight to indef on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, after reviewing the edits, I found Beyond My Ken essentially provoked this whole thing. Doesn't make Az81964444 any less problematic, but with some diffs, you will see why Az81964444 responded the way he did. The following are from July 18: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. While throwing around piss and vinegar, Beyond My Ken has the balls to tell Az81964444 to "Stay humble". All this centered around the Border War (1910–1918) page. Az81964444 came back with some rude comments which you see above, doesn't excuse them, but this was provoked. Blocks for each. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. So you see "piss and vinegar" and posting pictures of limp dicks on user pages as moral equivalents? Can't say that I agree with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think any admin will say either you both are blocked or you both aren't. You provoke a response and not a good one, from someone you are just as guilty as they are. You started the fight, he kept it going. You are both guilty and both will be blocked. WP:NPA is in effect for any and all, not just some. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't simply say "a pox on both their houses" and wash your hands of it. If my comments to Az81964444 – made two weeks ago, I should point out – went too far, were too bitchy or harsh, then a reasonable response would be to come to my talk page and complain. Most probably, I would have apologized. To instead call me a "dickhead", a "prick", a "computer geek", a "stupid fool", "braindead" and tell me to (in all caps) "FUCK OFF", and then to post an image of a limp penis on my talk page (because I'm a dickhead -- get it?) with the comment "saw your picture", and then move it to my user page -- these are not reasonable responses to what you yourself called "piss and vinegar". The posting of the image is, by itself, vandalism worthy of a block, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't taunt the lion and poke it with a stick and complain when it bites your arm off. Neither of you are innocent here. You both did something that was in violation of WP:NPA. Yours with the linked diffs above and his with the adding of the pictures. If you consider "fool", "geek" and "braindead" a person insult, you will be quite shocked to learn that those aren't even schoolyard taunts anymore. Now, you can both be blocked, you for your personal attacks linked above and him for his adding of the picture, or you can stay away from each other, don't cross each other's paths (meaning not going on pages each other are working on) and stop acting like children. We are here to build an encyclopedia constructively, if you can't do that, sign out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Az should get some form of discipline. His edits were a good order of magnitude beyond...well Beyond's posts; he was clearly harassing him. HalfShadow 06:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am for blocks for both, even if one is greater than the other. There is violations of NPA on both sides and vandalism on Az's, so like I said, no one is innocent. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is this one by Ken that has gone too far. We ought not to bully the bullies back. However, Az's comments are completely unacceptable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand by the essential content of that comment, but admit that the tone went too far. As I said above, if Az had come to me with a complaint about it, I would almost certainly have apologized. Of course, I wasn't offered that option, I got limp dicks instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt to try now. So you got a nasty picture, big deal. You extend the olive branch, see where it leads, just tread lightly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it, but, to be honest, its the vandalism (which is clearly what it was) that stops me from taking that step. If he had simply bitched back at me, well, I'd be annoyed, maybe even pissed off, but I'd get over it pretty quickly. But vandalizing.... that really crosses the line, for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, let me think about it. Maybe some vodka on ice will change my perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a good Jack and Coke, but whatever gets you there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, single malt scotch is my preference -- Glenlivet, to be precise -- but it's a little too expensive to keep in stock, hence my fallback to potato juice. Besides, I think scotch makes me a bit edgier, while vodka's a bit like mild liquid Ecstasy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever gets you there. From here an admin will have to take over as I am going to bed. I recommend you extend the olive branch, if that doesn't work, just leave the situation alone, leave the user alone and walk away from it. I would also recommend not being as edgy. As the old saying goes, you can get more flies with honey than vinegar. I used to be "edgy" (still an to an extent) and edgy is good, but when it gets you in trouble, it is probably best to round off that "edge" a little. I will check in when I get up and see how things are going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did post an apology before my last comment above -- I didn't note it because I was waiting to see what the response would be. Now that response has come in -- 19 minutes after I posted my apology, Az posted "retired" on his talk & user page, without directly responding to my comment. I'm not sure how to read that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes that is the way things go. I commend you for taking the approach and apologizing. Thank you. I wish there would have been a better outcome, but again, that is the way things go. Carry on and keep up with your promise, trust me, it goes a long way. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Difficult IP editor back

Can I get a quick admin review on this IP editor. I Someone else reported an editor exhibiting the same difficult behaviour the other day and it appears this is the same person. Their edits are, once again, borderline and he/she has now resorted to a personal attacks in edit summaries (if it were not for the latter behaviour I wouldn't have reported it :(). Thanks. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the numerous failed BLP/N reports not enough? You might start using talking pages instead of escalating matters in lieu of putting your case. See personal attacks here and here 90.207.105.117 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Those edits were made by another user (just for the record, my edit in that conversation thread was, I hope, not at all attacking! And I apologise if it was). The reason I escalated here was the direct personal attack that prompts me to believe your purpose here is disruptive. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I confirm to you that it is not. Please WP:AGF, thanks 90.207.105.117 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed all edits made by this IP user, I am in no doubt they are the same user that was brought up to ANI before (as given by the link above).

They have now virtually admitted that they are cherry picking sources on specific people in an attempt to damage them through Wikipedia hereMonkeymanman (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How am I attempting to damage him? Did I convict him or report it in national newspapers? Based on your previous involvement, I think you need to decide if you are a biographer or a PR person (for Glasgow Rangers, mostly). Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the same user. That other IP was apparently connected to User:Eliteimp, who has not edited since their 1 week block expired. It might be worth a formal SPI to connect this IP range to Eliteimp, as that account was blocked on the basis of behaviour, not a checkuser report. The attack of "bedwetter" was relatively mild - can anyone provide diffs to show BLP problems? Fences&Windows 19:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences, if your happy (the attack was mild but it tipped the balance for me given past history). In terms of BLP issues there is the difficulty - the edits broadly consist of tabloid sourced material (which on the one hand is not necessarily an issue); the problem is a lot of the material is negative about the subject and to my mind (and others too) the sourcing doesn't always weigh against the material. The other issue is that there is a tendency to use non-neutral wording in edits despite several reminders about current WP policy :( In terms of examples: [76] (charges were dropped, such things are not usually included in BLP's), [77] (tabloid sourced allegation) and non-BLP addition: [78] (unattributed opinion). I've tried to keep dialogue open with this editor but there has been no change to the pattern of edits and resistance/vague anger at every turn :( I don;t feel my help is being accepted in good faith.--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one [79]. At that stage I had been concerned at COI or POV issues from Tmorton166 (describing BLP subjects as "a piece of work") but decided to show good faith and try to work collaboratively. I continued this even after the personal attacks above. I continued with it through numerous BLP/Ns which had decidedly mixed outcomes. One was ignored and one resulted in the offending additions being promoted to their own section. To me these repeated ANIs look very much like forumshopping.

You will note that the Eliteimp account, unjustly banned in my absence, is primarily to do with women's football - a subject with which I have no interest whatsoever. Again, I sometimes but not always work from a shared computer. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between having a personal opinion and how one writes about a subject. For example: I have pretty strong personal opinions but make great effort to retain neutral language when I write on Wikipedia. That was the point I was trying to make in the reply you highlight. Every time I point you at BLP, NPOV or other policy you seem to just shrug and carry on making edits like this - words like "vehemently" and so forth are simply not very neutral or detached! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Such words can be neutral and detached if it used accurately and sourced. I would suggest, in that case given the strength and volume of all his reported denials, indignation, excuses etc. that 'vehement' is fair enough. I just thought it was odd (and disappointing) that you would advertise your strong personal opinions on the subject. I didn't open an ANI about it though!

My edits have weeded out many factual errors and unsourced puffery. I am happy that I have a positive contribution to make, despite continual attacks and ill-founded reports. Fundamentally, we all need to remember that we are biographers and not PR people. Apologies in advance if you misconstrue this response as vague anger. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Such words only really work if a source describes the denials as vehement. Otherwise it is original research to source his denials and then tag it as vehement. All I am asking is that you pick words with more care. In terms of that opinion I was trying to find common ground with what appeared to be your stance on the guy (to avoid the common comeback I often see of "you just like the guy so are trying to cover up for him"). To my mind it seems good to talk about your own views on a subject because it can help to be a stop-check on your own work (a few times I have written talk page responses which help get my own head round neutrally wording content) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this discussion to a talk page (mine, yours or one of the articles - I'll let you choose :)) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If we are now as one that this is essentially a content dispute, could you explain your repeated recourse to BLP/N and ANI? Obviously I would wish to avoid further ANI reports if and when I use a word you don't think is 'neutral.' Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I opened the BLP report because of your history of adding unsourced allegations to articles. I opened the AN/I notice after the direct attack edit summrty that left me concerned your intentions might be disruptive and your apparent continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with regards to neutral wording. As we have a dialogue going that seems a happy outcome (to me anyway). If you have a specific complaint about how I behaved please feel free to open a relevant thread --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering most of your reports have failed or backfired I would suggest it is you who might reflect upon WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you wish to report the addition of unsourced allegations, please supply diffs. Admins will note the cherrypicked 'examples' above were all sourced more than adequately. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They have worked as intended :) to my mind anyway. If I have broached reporting policy I expect to be chastised or reminded. The examples I provided above are all legitimately problematic for reasons raised - they were cherry picked in the sense that they are examples and that some of your contribution is good. As long as we have dialogue I for one am happy --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on Phone number posted on talk page

Resolved

 – No oversight needed Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I prodded an article earlier today and I received a message on my talk page listing the phone number of a physicists university office number. I betting the creator of the artitlce got it off the university website but decided to bring it here because i dont know if it needs oversight? I have removed it from my talk page does need more to be done?Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's actually already posted on their website then it's already "out there" anyway and probably does not need oversight. More information, including how to contact oversighters directly, is at WP:OVERSIGHT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

thankyou Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

R1r1f2

R1r1f2 (talk · contribs)

This brand new user (the account was created July 20th) is making some very strange, unhelpful, and even suspicious edits. On only their second edit ever with the account they stated (in an edit summary to a subpage off their talk page) "not roozie12 or roozie1219 or jacob1219".

Well lets see:

• roozie12 (talk · contribs) was blocked in march for Wikipedia:Competence is required - I've never even seen that block reason given
• roozie1219 (talk · contribs) Also blocked in March for being a sock of User:Roozie12
• Jacob1219 (talk · contribs) Blocked (Disruptive editing: Roozie12, still lacking the competence to contribute constructively)

What caught my eye today was this person editing the page of a recently blocked sock puppet (Urboogyman). That investigation of sock master Pickles0001 was just closed today. Why would a brand new user want to edit a page of a newly blocked user?

Some other strange edits include:

• Notifying 87.82.10.6 about a test edit on Airblue that wasn't a test edit. The edit was valid and still stands. That IP user turned out to be a user who simply hadn't noticed that he was no longer logged in.
• Their eighth ever edit was to their User:R1r1f2/monobook.js page.
• Their ninth ever edit was to request speedy deletion of their own user page.
• Their twelfth edit was to request speedy deletion of the Mars article. (!)
• And their thirteenth edit was to request speedy deletion of the 2010 Japan Football League article.

What does all this mean. Well this looks like an incompetent and disruptive duck. Dawnseeker2000 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

i will stop --R1r1f2 (chat) jhi (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R1r1f2 - Dawnseeker2000 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez, User:208.87.197.82

Resolved

 – GV warned, tagged as suspected sockpuppeteer, ipsock tagged. Nothing more to do. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In September 2009, User talk:GabrielVelasquez placed a {{retired}} template on his User and Talk pages, but has been active since then. A few weeks ago, I went to the user's talk page to comment about the re-opening of an AfD in which the editor had been involved in June 2010. Because the editor was evidently still editing, I removed the {{retired}} template from his User and Talk pages on 25 July 2010, after having left a Talk page comment to that effect on 23 July.

He responded today by reinstating the template, with an edit summary, "Undid revision 375343143 by Jeffro77 VANDALISM - Stay Off my user page ASSHOLE!" Not along after, User:208.87.197.82, who I believe to be User:GabrielVelasquez editing anonymously on a dynamic IP (checkuser please), claimed I vandalised the article Nontrinitarianism, with an edit summary, "Undid revision 373942348 by Jeffro77 VANDALISM, JWs make MANY tracts on a variety of topics!!! Desperate attack!!". (The 'vandalism' in question consisted of correcting a typographical error from "track" to "tract" with a comment that JWs don't make tracks.) The user created a section on the article's Talk page claiming I had vandalised the article,[80] and left a complaint with User:Toddst1 about the alleged vandalism[81] (which he rightly dismissed)[82].

I acknowledge that it was probably unnecessary to remove the {{retired}} template, but consider the editor's reaction to be unnecessarily disproportionate and their editing to be disingenuous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If neither the IP nor Gabriel bothers you again (without even speculating on a link) would you consider the matter closed? What I mean to say is, can this be resolved without an admin intervening? Protonk (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Action by Toddst1 seems sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating Arbitration policy

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations

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.

---

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been systematically removing citations to Media Matters (a media watchdog organization) from multiple (seemingly random) articles, and replacing them with citation needed tags. (See: [83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99] and many more too numerous to list.) He continues to do so even after several users have pointed out that his interpretation of policy on this issue is incorrect, and that he should stop. (e.g. [100], [101], [102].)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling argues that Media Matters is not a reliable source, and that the articles linked to violate WP:LINKVIO. Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times (e.g. [103][104], [105] are the last 3 discussions), and the conclusion is that while it may be a partisan news organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News. Also, a reading of the policy 'Linking to copyrighted works' shows that it does not apply, as WP:LINKVIO forbids the linking to external Web sites that carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Media Matters is a well known, established organization in the US that carries video excerpts in accordance with 'fair use' laws, if they were systematically violating copyright law, it would have been sued by now. Also, the weblink can be removed if it violates WP:LINKVIO, but the reference itself should be retained.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been polite about it, but he has been ignoring opposition to his systematic actions, and reverting people who undo his removal of these citations, demanding that those who oppose his actions justify themselves on the talk page of the respective articles. (e.g. [106], [107], [108].)

I stumbled across his actions when he removed this perfectly good citation [109] from an article I helped create, and reverted me when I undid his removal.

What I would like to see is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agreeing to stop removal of links to Media Matters, and stop reverting people who undo his removals. Finally, if consensus can be reached that Media Matters is a reliable source, I would like him to undo all his removals, as he has created a huge amount of cleanup work for people to do (but this may be asking a bit much). --LK (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMFA is good for a secondary source for things already covered by the MSM. After reviewing the edits above, I would question the inclusion of a lot of the material. That being said, simply deleting MMFA while doing nothing with content is indeed disruptive and serves no purpose. This needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is extensively used by non-partisan information outlets like NPR (indeed, their On The Media show frequently uses them). They are with out a doubt a WP:RS. Removing them whole sale and placing citation needed tags is disruptive and pointy -- ۩ Mask 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is an openly partisan source that is unfortunately used in place of journalistic sources more frequently that it proper. That being said, I agree that simply removing the citations with no apparent effort to locate other sources or otherwise mitigate the holes left by the removal is disruptive. --Allen3 ^talk 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LK's claims are inaccurate. I have responded here to his efforts to keep an MMfA ref that disparages someone as a means to support the claim that people burn money. As to my other MMfA, almost none of them have been reverted because they are proper. Further, I do not remove all MMfA refs. Indeed in one case I even improved the ref by adding an author. I hope people will support me in applying Wikipedia policy and perhaps join me.

As to removing the refs and adding Citation tags, that is not inherently evil. Am I supposed to buy a subscription to Lexis/Nexis and source everything? Am I not allowed to comply with Wiki policy? The alternative is to remove the ref and the associated text. I see people do that and I don't like that. I choose not to do that. My purpose is not to eliminate things in the text, rather it is to ensure proper RSs are used.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am aware that people are using the Citation tags to properly source the information. In one case, for example, I can't put my finger on it, someone added a NYT ref where I had removed the MMfA ref. So the Citation tag is working exactly as it was designed to work. Wikipedia works to allow people to work together to improve articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal to policy is undermined by the fact that your interpretation of policy has been challenged. Your appeal for cooperation is undermined by your use of reverts. Even if you are 100% sure that you're right, you should still be able to step back and understand these problems. Melchoir (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The challenges made are based on either ad hominem argument or on the irrelevant claim that other MMfA refs have been found to be RSs. No one has yet gone to the specific context as required by RS.

As to my use of reverts, you are joking, right? I make an edit and specify exactly why I made the edit and include specific Wiki rules, a very few revert me with either no comment or a comment that has nothing to do with the RS/LINKVIO concerns, so I revert that, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for reverting a revert? Where's the WP:AGF in that?

I totally understand that some people are opposed to removing MMfA refs. But WP:RS is what necessitates the removals, not me. The only reason why my ensuring compliance with WP:RS is problematic to some is that I have applied the policy on numerous pages. Nevermind that MMfA refs in the hundreds are used all over Wikipedia inappropriately, as Allen3 generally agreed above. Suddenly I'm the bad guy for making a small dent in the removal of the non-RSs.

Look at the specific page about which LK complained, Burning money. Look in Talk. Look at the discussion I am having there. Tell me specifically why the MMfA ref on that page is a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have dedicated a large part of your time over the last 2 months to removing MMfa sourcing, I suggest that you self revert and argue each removal in turn. You have been told on numerous occasions that your interpretation of WP:RS seems to be counter the consensus interpretation, notably around May 3rd. You could have saved yourself alot of time and effort if you had started by searching through the WP:RSN archives. They are, at the very least, a source which can be used with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a perfectly clear and consistent case of subversive editing.--Wetman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman, on the page you reverted, explain how MMfA is a reliable source for Institute for Energy Research funding coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Don't just ignore WP:AGF. Is MMfA a RS for anything and everything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I am acting in compliance with Wiki policy. Most of my edits have not been reverted, almost all, that is. Why? Likely because the other editors agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though everyone who has commented on this thread agrees that his actions are inappropriate, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling continues to remove Media Matters citations, and to argue with and revert users who disagree with those removals. A short preventive block might be in order. LK (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One guy, Badger_Drink, is reverted all my edits claiming it is "vandalism".

And LK, to this point people are saying MMfA is generally a RS but no one, not a single person, has addressed the specific issues on any page. It's as if they know they have no legitimate substantive argument so they say things ad hominem in nature like "A short preventive block might be in order."

I am beginning to sense that the MMfA supporters care more about MMfA than about WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO.

I will need to get help with this as restoring non-WP:RS en masse is a serious problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reverted Badger Drink's restoration of an MMfA ref saying, "rmv disputed statement - only "source" was a copy of the cnn show, posted on some other site, with no additional commentary. does no-one understand notability anymore? So I see WP:NOTE may be another relevant issue as edits like this one are all over Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a preventative measure User:Badger Drink should be blocked for disruption - that user has mass reverted all the removals of MM as a source, but has failed to examine each case, leaving some very poor "sourcing" in this encyclopedia. BDs behaviour is nothing more than edit warring that will eventually have to be undone. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a proactive measure, you should soak your head. If a stopped clock was right twice in a day, we don't start getting in a self-righteous huff over a clockmaker fixing it. That's not to say the edits in question by LaEC were correct, either - see below. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-application of WP:TROUT

Just want to chime in with a vicious self-scolding. Badger, edit summaries like this are not helpful. Apologies to any and all who took offense. Badger Drink (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just loooked at your latest contribution, which was rubbish.[110] If you don't understand basic policy you certainly shouldn't be going on any ill-advised reversion crusades. I've removed the passage you tried so hard to keep in, because it is poorly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Wikipedia statement which you removed: "Arthur Laffer made [a statement] on CNN". Media Matters link: "Economist Laffer [makes same statement] on CNN", complete with fucking video of him fucking saying it on fucking CNN! Honestly now, you're being beyond tendentious. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your second last contribution, which was rubbish.[111] You warred to have this "source" remain despite it not supporting the statement it is there to support. Weakopedia (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you, of all participants in this discussion, should use the word "rubbish"... Badger Drink (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the best you can resort to, then you shouldn't be editing here, full stop. While you are adding non BLP compliant material to BLPs, you will be reverted automatically. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "shotgun approach" to discussion in the hopes something will stick - yawn. Are you really this stupid, or do you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to see your edits here for what they are? Anyway, let me know how the air on that lofty mountain of yours is. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you stop replying please and leave the issue in question for other editors to evaluate first. It'll drop the unnecessarily high temperature of this thread a little. sonia^♫♪ 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's participation at WP:RS/N

I have just realized that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling knew full well that he was systematically removing reliable sources against the consensus at WP:RS/N. As these links show,[112],[113],[114],[115] he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him. And yet he decided to systematically remove Media Matters citations even against consensus. This makes his behavior much less acceptable than I had previously thought it to be. I strongly support an indefinite block unless he agrees to reverse all his removals of these citations, and to not remove Media Matters citations in the future. LK (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him.

What are you characterizing as "Consensus" from those RS/N discussion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only concensus that I ever see from those discussions is a concensus from those in favor of MMfA saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to treat MRC/Newsbusters and MMfA as two sides of the same coin. Until ideological editors agree that they should and must be treated equally these type of partisan battles will NEVER end. As long as one side feels that the other sides is getting preferential treatment there will continue to be edit wars. Unfortunately I don't see any give on the MMfA side. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through the 3 (the 4th is a repeat of the 1st) diffs cited by LK, above. I see no consensus. If I can draw a mood from them considered as a whole, it is this: Cite MMfA's opinion rarely, only if their opinion is somehow relevant to the article. Cite them for facts only if the original source is unavailable. I, of course, haven't looked at each of LaEC's edits but I've examined quite a few including this sequence:

[116] American Family Association 13 June 2009

[117] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[118] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[119] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[120] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[121] American Family Association 25 May 2010

[122] American Family Association 27 May 2010

and see nothing wrong with this. Or any other edits. Have I missed something? Anthony (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

It's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive editing through mass removal of citations without discussion and against consensus. This constitutes tendentious editing, disruptive cite-tagging and a rejection of community input, all classic signs of disruptive editing. He has continued to do so even after this discussion began. He has a lengthy history of previous blocks, including one indefinite block for legal threats (since rescinded). Given this continuous and lengthy pattern of disruptive behaviour, it's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling hasn't learned anything from his previous blocks. I therefore propose an indefinite block of this editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Since it seems to have caused some confusion, please note that I'm proposing an indefinite block here, not an infinite one. If LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is willing to agree not to continue such actions, he should be allowed to continue editing, but without such an assurance a block becomes necessary as a preventative measure. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject Examination of the history shows many articles where MediaMatters was being used inappropriately. Those who are blindly reverting all removals of MM as a source should be blocked, as they are in many cases simply reintroducing inadequate, or even misrepresentative sourcing to articles, just to make a point. Weakopedia (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Bold>Revert>Discuss doesn't work if the person being bold refuses to actually discuss. The previous discussions where consensus in re: MMfA was formed were provided to LaEC, who chose instead to ignore it and insist that somehow they were right in the face of a multitude of editors suggesting the exact opposite. Indefinite need not necessarily be infinite, but given LaEC's past history, I would suggest that he would truly need to display that he understands that he went about this in entirely the wrong fashion and is prepared to make a serious endeavour to mend his ways before the block is lifted. Badger Drink (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support or possibly Restrict. If LaeC had really been removing dubious sources from articles, then in examples like CIA leak scandal timeline he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA. But he left all of those in. Thus, it has to be described as nothing more than political POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA.

I don't recall that specific descriptive being used (do you have a quote or two?) nor your paraphrase summary of recent RS/N discussions related to World Net Daily. Being that as it may, MMfA is being recognized (finally I might add) for what it is...and its RS status, unfettered by any other consideration, appears to now be history in Wikipedia. MMfA is a hyper-partisan source and its ubiquitous presence in this Wikipedia medium should give ANYONE pause. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you reach that conclusion? Mainstream media outlets routinely source or credit MMfA in their stories. A google news search will show you recent items by CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, NY Dailyt times - all referencing MMfA. Please see WP:YESPOV and understand that we are to reflect what might seem to you the apparent liberal bias of reality. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is misplaced. In the examples you cite, substantive third-party sourcing can validate MMfA content just as RS third-party can validate WND, MRC, etc etc. But you place the NPOV cart before the WP:V/WP:UNDUE horse. NPOV relates to the balanced presentation of content, not to the POV of the source itself (which you appear to wrongly suggest I'm asserting). Like all hyper-partisan content from either wing, reliable third-party sourcing is mandated by WP:V/WP:UNDUE.JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When you take in to use language like 'hyper-partisan' I was compelled to believe that you were arguing from the context of POV. You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan. News outlets routinely reference MMfA, this is not the case with the others you mention. From the ES' of LaEC in his numerous (~50+) removals he argued from the position of an imperfect grasp of WP:RS and how MMfA can in fact be used - albeit with particular attribution in contentious areas subject to editor discretion. He had been informed of this months ago, but continued with IDHT removals, that is why we are here. Unomi (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The MRC is also referenced by news outlets. It's a no-brainer that the left-leaning news outlets are going to reference MMfA more often than they reference the MRC. Drrll (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan.

Your opinion is simply not shared anymore by generally half of the participants in the most recent RS/N's on the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Unomi (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who apparently holds MMfA as a breed apart from the hyper-partisan crowd. But you could start here.. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you misunderstood what I meant then, it is not a matter of their perceived political leanings, they could be equidistant from the center as perfectly as one could want, and they would still not be equivalent, that very archive spells that out with the citations in mainstream sources, the Columbia Review of Journalism article and the quality of the editors involved in MMaF and MRC respectively. Unomi (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite...can't say it any better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite and Badger Drink, not necessarily infinite, but we need to break through the IDHT once and for all. Unomi (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: LaeC is looking for instances where MMfA is used inappropriately, and finding them. In some, few. instances, other editors disagree. Nothing wrong with any of that. LaeC does need to be admonished for ignoring WP:BRD. That's all. Anything else is an overreaction and smacks of "I don't like you." Anthony (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not true. As the discussion on the talk pages of many of these articles show, consensus is that the removed citations were perfectly fine. LK (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can you show me a couple of examples, please? Anthony (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: ChrisO, how far back in history do you want to go to skewer me? Don't people change? Have I done anything recently/currently to deserve a legitimate block, other than people doing what you are attempting to do, namely, use procedural means to avoid substantive discussion? Not a single person supporting the block has ever, not once, addressed any substantive issue relating to this matter. Indeed, before the en masse reverts made with ad hominem history comments without substance, most editors left my edits in place. The community accepted them. Look, here is the one and only instance where a person actually discussed substantive issues with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters and when I responded, he politely bowed out. Blocking me will not solve the problem, but I will admit it will probably make you feel really good. What will solve the problem is the proper application of WP:RS, not the blocking of the person applying it. And no one told me this was going on here? What a disgrace. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You were informed of this AN/I thread here and you've already participated in it, so you have nothing to complain about on that score. If you believe that MMFA is generally not a reliable source then you need to raise that at WP:RSN, not unilaterally attempt to purge it from Wikipedia against the complaints of other editors. You've caused a substantial amount of disruption and damage in the meantime, and that needs to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I was not informed of this effort to block me, indefinitely, no less. It was you who said on my Talk page, "Please cease mass-removing citations without discussion. You are likely to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)" By that time I had stopped. Yet here you are yourself seeking to blocking me indefinitely despite your very own words! What shameful behavior! Are you proud of your actions?

Only 13 minutes after leaving me your message, you moved to indefinitely block me. 09:24, 25 July 2010 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (307,425 bytes) (→Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations: - propose indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) (undo) How many "mass-removing citations without discussions" could I cease doing in 13 minutes??

This is a serious witch hunt. Thanks, ChrisO, for helping to evidence it so well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add this. I see Black Kite has said I was POV pushing. That is not true. Black Kite asked me that on my Talk page. I guess he did not wait for an answer. (Now I see he make his non-WP:AGF statement here before asking me for clarification on my Talk page!) But my answer shows I was not POV pushing (as if compliance with WP:RS could ever be POV pushing). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well no - I said that removing sources that promote a particular POV will be seen as POV-pushing, which it does. I appreciate your explanation on your talkpage, though, and given that I have edited my comment above to include "Restrict". Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If the motivation for the removals really was not to push a POV, the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs should have been removed first. The prima facie evidence shows a systematic biased removal of sources from one end of the political spectrum. I suggest that if LegitimateAndEvenCompelling wants to show his 'good faith', he should immediately stop removing MMfA refs and start removing the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs; at least until he has removed as many WorldNetDaily refs as the number of MMfA refs he has removed. LK (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support See Black Kite above for a major plank of evidence. Clearly this guy does not have a clue as to the difference between a source "having a POV" and a source being basically reliable, and is blanket removing a good source of information which has a good history of quality, albeit a source which focuses on exposing problems in the right wing of the US. Weakopedia's comment (as of now) lacks substance and can therefore be discounted; same applies to Anthonychole's comment. Legitimate's own argument shown in the talk page section he references (permalink) is way off: for example, one of his arguments is that ". "E.H.H." Does that sound reliable to anyone here? MMfA articles do include full names of authors sometimes", ignoring the fact that most sources do not always include authors, and sources like the The Economist (which I consider overrated) never do. He argues that since WP:POORSRC (who keeps randomly changing these shortcuts??) includes the words "promotional in nature" and MMfA seems promotional, it is automatically questionable. Wow. He also seems to somehow think that because MMfA irrefutably displays its evidence in actual clips of video, it is less reliable. Wow, just wow. Such a tortured, ludicrous argument needs to be stopped. We should work on cleaning up this mess and restoring these sources as well. II | (t - c) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - if LAEC subsequently agrees not to engage in such behaviour, he can have another chance. It is clear that his behaviour in removing MMfA citations has been disruptive; deleting citations to what is widely enough considered a reliable source can hardly be otherwise. But as he himself noted at RSN on 16 July, " I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources." [emphasis added] In this case, a non-disruptive approach would at minimum put the MMfA link on the talk page with an explanation, or replace it with the sources linked to by MMfA. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I do not see putting these citations on the talk page as an acceptable compromise, heh, and it is difficult to constantly watch over someone this extreme; also if he keeps repeating himself and calling it "discussion" while redoing the edit it is basically impossible to stop him. Perhaps a good start would be for him to self-revert his blanket removals. Replacing these with primary sources of the particular footage is also not the answer. II | (t - c) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions being discussed here are clearly disruptive, but an indefinite block is an overreaction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A permanent block is an overreaction; an indefinite block, liftable on LAEC agreeing not to continue such actions, is not. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the proposal does not contain any mention of such a condition. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of WP:BRD until now. I was aware of WP:3RR, so 2 reverts was my max. Now I suppose it'll just be, what, 0 reverts. And Anthony is right, it would be unfair to be blocked indef for not being aware of BRD, while pursuing RS, no less. It is also unfair that I should get blocked and no one ever (except one now) responds substantively to the RS issues at hand on the various pages. So yes, Rd232, I agree to abide by WP:BRD. And I like your Talk page idea. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only substantive complaint about this editor is ignoring (which turned out to be ignorance of) WP:BRD. They now know about the policy, and undertake to follow it. Can this be closed now? Anthony (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. BRD may be at times be advisable, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate for removing what is widely seen as a reliable source, without replacing it with a better one or at least moving it to the talk page. BRD is not the issue. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were only removing instances where it was not supporting the content, or not appropriate for some other reason. As for not replacing it with something appropriate, is it a policy violation to neglect that and just replace with "citation needed?" Anthony (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a longish block and possibly a topic ban/editing restriction of some kind. The editor has been engaged in a clear and persistent pattern of POV pushing and tendentious editing. There are no excuses and no justification for that. An indef block may be a little harsh but acceptabe under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Has that case (POV pushing and tendentious editing) been demonstrated somewhere? Or can you elaborate on that, with diff's maybe? (I don't want to defend a troublemaker who won't benefit from counseling - but that hasn't been demonstrated in this thread.) Anthony (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support or Topic Ban - It is possible to argue that MMfA is not a reliable source, but that also means that Fox News and WorldNetDaily sure as shit ain't reliable sources either and should be removed from the site using napalm and agent orange. All news is canned gossip, anyway, and is either sold for a profit or proselytized for an agenda. Until more appropriate sources are found, MMfA, Fox, and WND will have to do. There is a thing in American law called "fair use," which Media Matters follows, which means that their videos do not violate WP:LINKVIO. All the articles I've seen either present a video, or present transcripts with some context. LegAEC seems to be sorta repentant, if only because of 3rr and now the threat of a block (not so much because of acknowledging any mistakes, so I guess repentant isn't the right word but compliant). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Fox news is not the appropriate ideological opponent you are seeking; it's the Media Research Center. Fox News is the conservative equivalent of MSNBC, not MMFA.

There is little difference between the left-wing PoV pushing from MMFA and the right-wing POV pushing from MRC, and in a previous discussion on the RS/N, I suggested that neither should be allowed, because the egregious partisan spin both sources place on anything that appears on either site.

As for WND, nobody should be using it as a citation for anything, anywhere on Wikipedia, unless they are citing it as an opinion from WND or one of its contributors. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. There needs to be a definitive consensus on the suitability of hyper-partisan "media watchdog" sources, including MMfA, FAIR, MRC, and AIM. I would support an RFC on the topic, but I don't think focusing on a single user is appropriate for this subject. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC is a good idea, but this isn't about whether MMfA is a suitable source - it's about whether a single editor should make that determination himself and single-handedly attempt to purge Wikipedia of that source, against the opposition of other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LAEC has tacitly agreed to stop removing links to MMfA. I would support blocking him again if he continues if there is an RFC initiated on the issue. Without an RFC, I don't see a consensus at all, so a block would be inappropriate because it becomes an issue of editorial content, unless there is an edit war. When another editor with a different view follows an editor reverting every edit, there is another issue (wikihounding) which is equally disruptive, and needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Unless User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agrees to undo all of his removals. If he really believes that those citations are bad, someone else will surely remove them. Also, he should agree not to remove Media Matters citations in the future. If he comes across a bad citation, he should instead raise the issue on the talk page for someone else to deal with. LK (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is even the point of being an editor then? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose MMfA is almost univerisaly used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view. Its use should be limited to an extension of existing secondary sourcing and not a as a primary source, especially if MMfA is trying to establich a fact. MRC should be treated as the same way. To punish LAEC for attempting to maintain a basic pillar of WP is absurd to say the least. One only has to ask, do you want WP to be a better more neutral place? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I first noticed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's systematic actions when he removed a citation in the Burning money article from this statement "people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest,[17] Larry Kudlow on The Call[18]". The removed reference [18] leads to a short article on Kudlow burning a dollar bill on The Call, with a video excerpt of the act. How is this 'used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view'? How is neutrality on Wikipedia improved by this removal? LK (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only reason MMfA or anyone else commented on that incident is because they are trying to make a political point against Kudlow breaking the law given his apparent attempt to run against a liberal politician in the near future. MMfA could care less about the actual act of someone burning a dollar bill, they are just trying to point out a conservative breaking the letter of the law which will undoubtably be used against Kudlow in the future as political fodder. Now, granted this is a rather benign incident, but the intent is clear from MMfA when you come to grip with reality and admit that they, just like MRC, are political animals. The question I ask myself, is, "Is this editor removing partisan sourcing from one ideology and inserting partisan sourcing from another ideology?" If the anser is Yes, then they are in violation of several WP policies. If they are simply removing partisan sourcing which appears to be in violation of NPOV then they are upholding the fundamental principles of WP. You have to admit, the people putting MMfA in as a source to begin with are very likely to partisan editors to start. LegitCompelling is simply trying to go around and clean up the crap. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps even more importantly, did the sourcing for the content removed rise to satisfy WP:UNDUE sourcing or was it just coatracking of MMfA opinion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. This particular incident didn't warrant removal. It isn't a coatraking of MMfA opinion. The only questionable aspect is that the sourcing is being used in conjunction with a fact (ie that their is no apparent consiquence), when the conjuntion is that this would be MMfA opinion. ehh, boarderline and technical. I did some searching and there isn't much else, so I would assume that burning a dollar bill on live tv probably won't ever get you in trouble. I did look at some of the others that LAEC removed and in general they are some longstanding wars regarding the blur between opinion and fact largely criticism of conservative figures which didn't recieve much press outside of the blogs. Those clearly should be removed, but it is usually a difficult endevour because of the political nature of WP, at the very least they should be expressly attributed as opinon of MMfA. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose If you would indefinitely block LAEC, then you would need to indefinitely block other editors who regularly and consistently remove references from the Media Research Center. I lean toward excluding both sources, but there needs to be a consistent WP policy/guideline on this. In the case where this question was widely discussed on the RSN, using RfCs, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters, the consensus was consistency in application of both sources, and another RfC there leaned against use of MMfA entirely. Because of the results there, the lack of a policy/guideline on the use of such ideologically-charged sources, and because of the regular and consistent removal of MRC sources by other editors, I strongly oppose an indefinite block on LAEC. As someone else has noted, there is going to be continued warfare on this front unless a policy, guideline, or decisive RSN ruling has been made to treat these two sources consistently. Drrll (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a good argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because there are other people doing unacceptable things, does not mean that we have to accept this one person doing unacceptable things. LK (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• So I take it that you would support indefinitely blocking--and will start ANI items seeking to indefinitely block--those who regularly remove references to the Media Research Center? Or does that not matter? Drrll (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From your lack of response, LK, it looks like you are only interested in indefinitely blocking those who remove ideological sources that you like. Drrll (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Treatment of MMfA as something more than a hyper-partisan source is a "sacred cow consensus" that no longer stands up to RS/N scrutiny. Just like its peers (Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters etc. etc.), WP:UNDUE should require third-party RS to support any content solely attributable to MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - indef block for a first time offense? Seriously? He has been warned, he is responding to this discussion, he has been civil, and he seems willing to learn how his actions were inappropriate and adjust his behavior accordingly. He has a few blocks in his bast for edit warring, but most are in 2007 and he seems to have learned from those experiences. At most an appropriate length block (3 days to a week) IF he continued removing the MMfA stuff before a discussion at WP:RSN confirms it is non-reliable. Otherwise, blocks supposedly aren't punitive but preventative and thus far, the disruption appears to have stopped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. There's far too many one-sided ideologues who game the rules on Wikipedia. Strong action against them would hopefully curb this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I could make an argument that such a statement and other actions by you Gamaliel would get you blocked by this rule. Ideologues exist on both sides, it's a part of the site, deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This sort of trolling is inaccurate, inappropriate, and irrelevant to this discussion. If you think any of my actions are inappropriate, take it to my talk page or to the relevant article discussion page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, you were the one railing against one-sided ideologues, not I. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – An indefinite block is taking this too far. How about a ban from removing references from the Media Research Center, enforceable by blocks if necessary? The use of MMfA and MRC sources has already been decided on elsewhere. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. Can you please supply the diff? Anthony (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose give him a WP:WHALE, but i have seen enough good work out him to think it would be a waste to indef. I may support a Topic Ban from Editing Citations and Artilces closesly linked with MMFA Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per diffs provided by Black Kite. Note that it would be indef, not permanent, and lifted after assurances by LaEC that he would cease disruption. -- ۩ Mask 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite didn't provide any diffs. Anthony (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't need to. The example I gave, and many other of LaeC's edits, show clearly the removal of one source whilst not removing those referring to WND, right-wing blogs, etc. Thus his claim of removing unreliable sources is clearly false. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, your differences don't show much. If LAEC was using the linksearch function to find MMFA links (as I have done for Free Republic and Democratic Underground links), it shows that he was looking for links from that source, not links from other, even less reliable sources. When I go on one of my most populated->most populous tears (see my contribution history for examples) I don't look for other problems, and when people go through with AWB and fix specific issues, they will overlook things other than the specific issue on which they are working. It doesn't mean that they are shitty editors, and it doesn't mean that they have a partisan agenda, it means that they are focused on a single task. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? - I haven't reviewed the consensus on this, but assuming consensus is clear that MM references shouldn't be removed as such, and/or that LAEC is persistently overstepping the bounds, can't we just make that consensus clear for the record and ask LAEC to honor it? No need to get any broader than that, and it's only a blockworthy thing if they get that firm message and won't abide by it. I know that an indef. block could be overturned if they only make that promise, but wouldn't it be simpler and less disruptive on all sides to take the administrative sanction step out, and go immediately to the end result? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see that failure to remove other, more unreliable, references is a reasonable argument here. Either there's consensus or not to remove MMfA links, and either LAEC is being disruptive or not doing so. Nobody has an obligation to to anything around here, so I don't think it's fair or practical for anyone accused of POV disruption to show good faith by doing the same edits for the other side as well. It's not as if this is a single-purpose POV editor, they're just caught up in this particular issue at this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has any obligation to do anything here ... except not be disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC's actions are mostly correct in this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per AmnaFinotera. If he's here, discussing the appropriateness of the edits, and has ceased making such edits for the duration of this discussion, there's no ongoing disruption to be solved by such a block. Blocks are not punitive; they're to protect the encyclopedia from harm. When and if LAEC disregards an established consensus or becomes incivil in presenting his viewpoint, then we can appropriately talk about disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the last post by this user, it does not seem to indicate that he recognizes that there is an established consensus. Your suggestion to lay off MMfA refs sounds like you are asking me to self-censor. .. Now I have a demand for you, since you started this. You address yourself to the MMfA non-RS ref you reverted and you explain, for the first time, why that ref is a RS, and you do so without ad hominem argument or general statements about how MMfA has been shown to be reliable elsewhere. Unomi (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular case is this edit to Burning money - the MMfA page in question used as source is here complete with a transcript and a video of Kudlow setting fire to a dollar bill. LaEK's claim that he was unaware of BRD is frankly ludicrous when you consider that this particular account was created in 2006. His block for legal threats also came on the heels of idht regarding WP:LEGAL. Unomi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's 4 years ago! Be reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to MMfA links and whether or not they constitute WP:LINKVIOs, having had a very lengthy discussion on the matter. We still disagree on the LINKVIO issue (and I still hold out hope he'll concede someday, LOL). But for those editors here who support an indefinite block, please take a look at that discussion and also how it got started. Use this link and look at the edit history for July 13th. LAEC removed an MMfA link from a page I watch; I reverted, requesting clarification on the Talk Page. He did not revert my revert; instead, he went to the Talk Page and proceeded to patiently lay out his position and perspective on the matter, a conversation that went on for quite some time that you can see here. The conversation was undeniably civil and respectful. Hence, after my own personal run-in with him on an MMfA dispute, I am skeptical of the claim that he systematically steamrolls over people's objections without taking the time to stop and discuss the issue in a civil fashion. If he did revert someone who reverted his edit, please take the time to carefully examine the incident and see if an edit summary or reason was provided by the offended editor rather than just assuming so. Also, reading some of the comments in this thread, it's apparent there are strong feelings in play for some folks here. I would ask that each of you consider what level of examination and scrutiny you would want your peers to apply before voting to block yourself in a similar situation. LAEC has thousands upon thousands of constructive edits, so please do him that courtesy before you make up your mind.--AzureCitizen (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to believe that anyone would oppose the removal of such viciously hyperpartisan sources as MMfA. Yes, they do often (but not always) link to reliable sources. But no, they are not a WP:RS because of the high-velocity partisan spin, editing out of context, selective presentation of facts, and general propagandizing in which they constantly engage. We need to amend WP:RS to clarify Wikipedia's policy on hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and, at the other end of the rainbow, such right-wing trash as World Net Daily. Until that occurs, any suggestion that LAEC should be indef blocked raises my suspicions about any editor who would even suggest such an oppressive remedy, where there is no clear policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Relentless POV-pushing and IDHT over a long period of time. Xanthoxyl ^< 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is far too lenient with disruptive editors. Ban and move on. Dlabtot (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no ongoing disruption; the user in question is engaging in civil discussions about the disputed edits. There is nothing to be gained from a block. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC proposal

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Let me suggest what I have learned here and how I will respond, then people can comment and eventually agree that those actions will be acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to examine MMfA refs for compliance with all Wiki policy, most typically WP:RS. If I determine that the ref fails the test, I will take the following action:

1. Create a Talk page section entitled "MMfA refs".
2. On the Talk page, add the MMfA link(s) and associated text.
3. On the Talk page, briefly state why the ref(s) is(are) non-RS.
4. On the Main page, remove the MMfA ref(s), and typically leave the remaining text, though other policy may require removal, in which case I will briefly state why I removed the text in the Talk page. I have not done this much at all.
5. On the Main page, insert a Citation tag, but only if the MMfA ref removed is not duplicative of existing links or is not in the External Links section.
6. On the Main page, leave a history comment similar to the full disclosure I currently provide, including that an MMfA link is involved, but also adding See Talk:MMfA refs.

If I determine that the MMfA ref is Wiki compliant, as it is from time to time, I will take no action, except perhaps to improve the link, as I have done in at least one instance.

If I am reverted, I will take the following action:

1. If the history comment claims the MMfA ref is a RS, I will not revert but I go to the Talk page. I will take no action on the Main page until consensus is reached or if a week goes by and discussion on the Talk page has ceased without consensus. This raises a problem. What if all the folks here seeking to block me indefinitely create a consensus that a non-RS is a RS. What do I do then? RS Noticeboard, I guess. But what if the same thing happens there?
2. If the history comment is blank, I will revert, but only once, and thereafter return to Talk.
3. If the history comment contains ad hominem comments, I will revert, but only twice, and thereafter return to Talk.

I note that before this issue was raised and Badger did his mass reverts of all my edits, very few were reverted, and of those, even fewer stayed reverted. I say this to point out that I do not expect a lot of reverts, except if it is by the people here seeking the indef block. If those people revert me just because of what is going on here, that is a problem, and I am asking now how to address that, as that will clearly be for reasons having nothing to do with the RS issue.

The edits that Badger mass reverted, he should revert them all. Have any of you seen the personal attacks that guy made in the history comments? His actions went beyond the pale and he should revert himself--he has already trouted himself, but that's only of jovial consequence. Note well that I have not and likely will not take the route of using procedural means to intimidate him, such as this huge matter that has been filed against me to silence me for complying with WP:RS, though perhaps not complying with WP:BRD, although I was unaware of that until now and will now comply. No, I won't make official complaints against him, or against ChrisO for his move to block me 13 minutes after his comment on my Talk page saying I needed to stop something or someone might block me, or against Black Kite for his projection about POV editing (as if RS compliance is ever POV editting) made minutes before he too went to my Talk page to determine the veracity of what he just claimed was true. Given what has happened to me here and how I have responded in the positive manner I have and how many editors have supported me here and how the vast majority of my edits made over months were not reverted until Badger acted as he did, I ask that Badger be required to revert his mass edits of what I have done over the months, particularly since they were good edits never reverted for months until he came along and made his ad hominem attacks, and because the RS rule goes to the heart of Wikipedia.

Let me add this. In all this time, only one editor, and only once, has ever addressed the RS issue on a substantive basis. Everyone else every single time skipped over that and jumped to ad hominem argument or general statements that MMfA has been proven to be reliable. Then they move to block me indefinitely. Clearly they have no substantive argument or they would have made it. So here is the question. What happens if on the Talk page the discussion and resulting consensus never addresses the substantive RS issues? What happens if, like what has been happening 99 44/100% of the time so far, people choose to attack me or to make blanket statements about how MMfA is a RS on other pages? What is the means to prevent Wikipedia from being subverted in such a manner? What recourse do I have to get attention to that problem?

Okay, what do you all think of the above?

Thank you all very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the persistent efforts to use ad hominem efforts to sway opinion, such as the raising of 4 year old disciplinary matters, among other things, and in light of the persistent avoidance of substantive RS issues in the context RS rules require, I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about your behaviour, and whether you're going to be indefinitely blocked. Do you mind if we focus on that now? The other important questions can be addressed on a new thread, here or at an appropriate forum. But, for now, can we just see how everybody feels about what you have proposed regarding your future conduct? Anthony (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. This betrays a completely inappropriate battlegound mentality, as well as being an egregious violation of WP:AGF. LAEC does not seem to fathom the possibility that someone may find his actions disruptive without being his political opposite -- and by his comment reveals the probability that his own actions have been ideologically motivated and not based on Wikipedian principles. Serious consideration has to be given to the question of whether this editor is capable of acting based strictly on grounds of policy, without guidance from his political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it was an after thought after all I've been through. Cut me some slack, even though you moved to block me indefinitely. I'll withdraw the question and strike it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's look at your proposal: it amounts to codified edit warring ("I will revert twice..."), and is therefore totally unaacceptable. What you need to do is wait until there is some consensus regarding whether the source is reliable or not, and then act. The lack of consensus is not license to do whatever you wish, the lack of consensus is merely an indication that the community has not yet made up its collective mind, and in that circumstance, one needs to act carefully and with due consideration for specific circumstances. Mass reversions when Wikipedia is still thinking about what to do is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am the one being mass reverted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those reversions returned the articles to the status quo ante. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the case of disruptive editing such as your. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. They were not "disruptive" if you judge by the reverts you get or don't get. They were not reverted until Badger Drink did so en masse as a result of this AN/I, and with the ad hominem history comments for which he trouted himself.

I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With the striking of the offensive section, I whole-heartedly support this proposal. It accomplishes the goal of ending disruption and allows LaEC to voice his concerns without detriment to the project (it may even improve sources where there's consensus Media Matters is not the appropriate citation). All in all a better outcome then either extreme. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. We have mitigated potential damage, so none is needed. -- ۩ Mask 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are still seeking to make the determination on a global scale of whether MMfA is a reliable source or not. It should be obvious from the discussion on this issue that there is substantial disagreement on that point. I see nothing in your proposal about getting the consensus of editors beforehand about whether MMfA is a reliable source. What needs to happen is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary. Only then and only if the consensus is that MMfA is reliable should you attempt to carry out a systematic removal or replacement of MMfA citations. As it is, you're still pursuing the approach that got you into trouble - i.e. imposing your own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"[A] discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary" for each of the hundreds of edits I make would be a huge roadblock that would essentially end my efforts to apply WP:RS, and it would be overburdensome to everyone involved were I to decide to do that. As ChrisO is the person who waited 13 minutes to move to block me indefinitely after advising me not to edit in a certain way that I did not, is it not surprising he would suggest such an onerous requirement. Recall that I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. Focusing on MMfA is not what got me in trouble with Wiki policy nonadherence, rather that was failure to comply with WP:BRD, although admittedly it was the MMfA that got me in trouble from the viewpoint of editors such as ChrisO who oppose removing MMfA refs even when they violate WP:RS, etc. So I am not "imposing [my] own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand". My "view of MMfA" is irrelevant. The point is compliance with WIkipedia policy and that I have found an easy way to quickly identify hundreds of refs that may violate that policy. To the extent that I have removed the MMfA refs and not provided a means to mine the refs for RSs or to allow for consensus, I have proposed a means to correct that. That is what is being decided now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right ChrisO, there is substantial disagreement on under what circumstances MMfA is a reliable source. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to be guided by one particular contentious interpretation and not another. LAeC will follow WP:BRD, and preserve the MMfA ref's so others may use them to find RSs if they wish. That should deal with the disruption, from his side. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@LAEC - No not a RfC for every edit. There is so far no consensus that MMfA is NOT (that's NOT) a reliable source. Opinion is split. Until you have consensus that MMfA is NOT a reliable source, you may not systematically remove it from the encyclopaedia. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Either start at the RS noticeboard, or start a RfC to confirm that MMfA is not a reliable source. In the absence of that, you may only remove it where you can show that it is not a reliable source. This would involve demonstrating that it is the only source saying something, or that other sources contradict it, and cannot be done by mass removal, but must be done on a case by case basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Elen of the Roads is 100% correct. I will "only remove [an MMfA ref] where [I] can show that it is not a reliable source". Indeed, that is exactly what I have proposed doing. I have also proposed doing it "on a case by case basis." I will not do "mass removals".

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. Further, I do not think is it constructive to raise the issue. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or opposition. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref. My proposal does exactly that.

Someone made the suggestion that WP:RS needs to be updated to, basically, record what is being decided here so as to minimize the need to redo this kind of thing over and over, this being just the latest effort by so many people. I fully support that effort, should anyone actually carry it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A thread has been opened regarding this [123]. Unomi (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that none of the proposals are going anywhere, so this agreed to self-restriction by LEAC will likely be the only resolution. I think that on the whole, the community is fine with this outcome. However, I would like to remind LEAC to keep in mind that when removing sources that he deems unreliable, he should do so even-handedly, removing all unreliable sources and not just target those from a particular source. If he does this, people will not object to his actions. LK (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That amounts to a variation on the topic ban proposal Lawrencekhoo also launched and also lost in the section immediately below. We all know Wikipedia is for people to do what they like within the rules, not to do as other people direct them to do. Besides, others have already discussed here that I am not required to do as Lawrencekhoo is yet again demanding.

People have also suggested Lawrencekhoo has wandering into WP:WIKIHOUNDING territory. At this point, I do feel Lawrencekhoo "is disrupti[ng] another user's (LAEC's) own enjoyment of editing, or [] the project generally, for no overriding reason." I'll assume the hounding has continued since I have acted again to remove the MMfA ref from the article that caused Lawrencekhoo to launch this AN/I in the first place, this time ensuring compliance with that to which I agreed regarding Talk page attention.

To the majority of people who have supported me, I thank you. To those who did not, I thank you for your input as well. I think this particular AN/I proves once and for all that no reference is deemed automatically reliable, not even MMfA, not even if MMfA has been proven reliable on other Wiki pages. So that should stop the tired, false argument that MMfA has been proven reliable again and again, therefore there is no need to consider context as required by WP:RS.

Most of all I would like to thank Jimbo Wales for creating a system that works to create fair rules for all. I know Wikipedia gets blamed for a lot of things that is not Wikipedia's doing. It is not Wikipedia's doing, for example, that MMfA refs/links/main page mentions are inserted by the hundreds whereever possible whether or not they satisfy WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:LINKVIO, or any other policy. But, now that I have become aware that has happened, I will work within Wiki rules to bring about compliance with Wiki rules, and this AN/I proves anyone has a green light to do so, as long as Wiki expectations are met and/or exceeded. Happy editing, all. Here's a link I use to find MMfA refs that, in my experience, frequently violate one Wiki rule or another.

If anyone is wondering why I wrote this, it's because I am reacting to being wikihounded by Lawrencekhoo and he needs to know it is time to stop. I would not have written this otherwise. It really does feel good to have Wiki rules and a Wiki community to support me and others when we try to apply those rules. Really, thanks Jim. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that few are still paying attention to this, but I would like to point out that I suggested:

• When removing sources that he deems unreliable, he should do so even-handedly, removing all unreliable sources
• He should not just target a particular source

By rejecting this, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has essentially said that he will remove sources in a partisan way, and target particular sources.

As for the wikihounding, I invite all to look at my edit history to see if this is even remotely true. Apparently, LEAC interprets my trying to get him to stop systematically removing a particular source from multiple articles as wikhounding, since it is interfering with his "own enjoyment of editing". LK (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC Topic Ban Proposal

Given that LEAC still doesn't get that it is inappropriate to systematically remove something from the encyclopedia without community consensus, I think its better if he were to leave the issue of MMfA references to others, and to make productive contributions elsewhere, I suggest a topic ban whereby:
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is forbidden to remove any MMfA references from Wikipedia, or to systematically tag them as unreliable.

If he sees any violations of policy involving a MMfA link, he is free to raise the issue on the talk page of the article or any of the relevant noticeboards. If there really is a violation of policy, someone else will surely take care of it. LEAC needs to concentrate his energies elsewhere as he doesn't seem to understand that his actions are disruptive and not supported by the community. LK (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait for LEaC's response to Elen's very sensible post, above? Persuasion and education take a little longer than coercion, but create a nicer work environment. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. See above section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this outright. There is no consensus that MMFA is a reliable source, so there is no community consensus that his removals are a bad thing. An RFC can make a determination, which will settle this once and for all. However, I think that LAEC should wait at least a week, to see if an RFC is drafted. If so, he should not remove any MMFA links until the RFC concludes. Removing links while an RFC is in progress is unquestionably disruptive, but this attempt to hold him hostage over links of disputed appropriateness is not acceptable either. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. Please see Elen's post above, which gets it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. A lot of the difference in our positions may be attributed to differences in our interpretation of BLP; I favor a wide scope on that policy, which would result in more sources being disallowed when discussing living people. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BeyondMyKen and Elen. We need consensus on the question of appropriate use of MMfA and other such sites, and the polite thing for LAEC to do, who has been extended considerable patience here, would be to hold off on further MMfA edits until that is achieved. I have started a discussion at [124] Anthony (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I have heard the contention that LaeC has been "systematically removing all references to MMfA" echoed around but so far have not seen it proven. It seems LaeC has been removing them on a case by case example and on at least one instance improved the citation and kept it there. Until it can actually be shown that his edits are blindly "systematic" and that a majority have indeed been disruptive I completely disagree with attempts here to block him.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed solution offered by LEAC himself seems best. And we need to amend WP:RS to discuss hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and WND. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block on LK LAEC already sort of said he was sorry and anymore more on this post is violating AGF and harrassment. LK has not backed down so he should be blocked. Let's get back to writing, not bickering, after LK is blocked (unless he says sorry). RIPGC (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ANI topic ban on LK This entire thread has been a gigantic drama-stirrin' waste of time. Jtrainor (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Close this thread Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus concerning under what circumstances, if any, it is appropriate to report MMfA's conclusions and opinions. There have been 7 recent lengthy discussions on the topic at RSN and Talk:RSN, all ending with no agreement – [125][126][127][128] [129][130][131] – and there is currently an RFC on the issue at Talk:RS. Until consensus is achieved, LEaC's understanding of this issue is no more incorrect than LK's.

  Despite claims to the contrary, LEaC has not been "blanket" deleting MMfA citations, but has been working case by case, and engaging in polite debate with those who contest a deletion.

  This thread has addressed LEaC's failure to follow BRD, and not saving the MMfA citation so others can easily track down the sources MMfA used. LEaC has learned about BRD and agrees to be guided by it, and has agreed to preserve, on the article talk page, any deleted MMfA citations. I think this is a good result. Anthony (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

An RfC has been started on partisan news organizations like the MMfA on the WP:Identifying reliable sources talk page. Please continue any discussion on this issue there.[132] LK (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (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.

Odokee

Earlier this month (and even though this is still somewhat being discussed on various guideline talk pages), I had found that several articles on video games and related topics were missing the romanizations of their Japanese titles. Odokee (talk · contribs) has for the past two months seen fit to revert me on several articles and on multiple occasions on the same article. The following are every single instance where he has removed romanized Japanese from articles, despite my requests on his talk page, and others' requests, not to.

The instance on Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars listed above is not the only instance of his reverts on that page. His previous edit was falsely listed as an undo, giving the false impression that the content being removed in that edit was vandalism by that IP when he was undoing this edit and my own from ten days prior.

In addition to all of this, he has been flat out ignoring any comments left on his talk page, citing every removal as "rm spam" when it is most certainly not the case:

• [133]
• [134]
• [135]
• [136]

As it can be seen from my last comment to him, I requested that he change his disruptive editing behavior on articles and on his talk page, or else I would bring his behavior to the attention of the community. Well here I am. Such disruptive editing on articles, putting blatantly false information in edit summaries to hide what he is doing, and flat out ignoring the comments of other editors should not be condoned any further.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And he saw fit to remove my notification of this thread as spam as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

not related

And Odokee refuses to discuss, instead removing Ryulong's concerns (and the notification of this discussion) as "spam". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I did state that already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, if you're not interested, then continue to insult the people who are trying to help you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC) "I did state that already." is an insult, now? Which are you, G'Gugvuntt or Vl'hurg? Uncle G (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Did I miss something? Where did he insult you? -- ۩ Mask 07:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this related to your continued attempts to present a fait accompli for your position on the discussion at WT:MOS-J, despite the fact that your position clearly does not have consensus and you should by now be well aware of that? (To summarize the 167K discussion for uninvolved editors: There is a dispute over whether a romanji transliteration is necessary or just needless clutter in the lead when the katakana is itself a transliteration of the English title, e.g. "Final Fantasy VI" → "ファイナルファンタジーVI" → "Fainaru Fantajī Shikkusu") Anomie⚔ 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with promoting or trying to enforce my views on the disparity between WP:VG and WP:MOS-JA or WP:ENGLISH. This is about Odokee's behavior, most of which just happens to involve romanicized Japanese loanwords/cognates from English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Schwyz

Resolved

 – See WP:AGF and WP:BEANS. Thanks, Tommy! [message]

User:Schwyz started to move several article names from "Province of A" to "A Province" (e.g. [137], [138], [139]). I asked him about the background of these moves [140], he removed my question as "personal attack" from his talk page[141] (He, btw, seems to prefer to remove any unpleasant notifications [142]). I'm not aware of any WP policy about names of Provinces, IMO such moves should be discussed first. My attempt to seek consensus [143] was also removed [144] When I started to restore the initial versions Schwyz restored his version again. Is this WP:vandalism? HerkusMonte (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but certainly not a personal attack. I'd AGF with the page moves... I don't see anything wrong with them, as in English, typically you don't say ... Province of A; you say A Province. And he did give a reason with the page moves; see WP:BEANS please. If he seems uncooperative in the future it may be a problem, but I wouldn't go there yet. Thanks Tommy! [message] 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cumanche's impolite comments

I don't know if this post from an anon user constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL but it sure is close: [145]

Your lack of knowledge of the topic.

Dear Lechonaro, your comments are amusing! it is clear that you know little about the topic otherwise you would have addressed the issue at hand. You did not respond to the point regarding the accuracy of the topic. If you demonstrated even a semblance of understanding of the topic your comments might be meaningful. This website is intended to share research. about a topic with the rest of the world. You have contributed nothing in the way of research. Have you read anything on this topic other than this page?

Best to you!

Enyoy yourself!

Doesn't this user deserve a warning from an admin at the very least? Although it came from an anon user, it's identical in style and tone to the previous post by user:Cumanche on talk:Genízaro: [146]

The protection of this page should be lifted. A couple of weeks ago a user (Lechonaro) removed "Indian" from an article about American Indians (Genizaros). Every time an attempt was made to revert back to "Indian," Lechonaro became more incensed. Lechonaros changes have resulted in inaccurate information that he inserted just before having the article frozen. The changes clearly reflect that he has little knowledge of the topic. The following statement for example is inaccurate! Genizaros were not "groups, but instead individuals. Moreover, they were not from New Mexico tribes. In fact the state of New Mexico did not exist at the time.

Genízaros were groups from various tribes in New Mexico who were enslaved as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s. For example,

It is unfortunate that an interloper such as Lechonaro can put a freeze on a topic of such great importance after making edits that detract from the accuracy of the page.

Notice that he calls me an "interloper" which I found a bit offensive. Also notice that he has a habit of posting his comments above previous ones to give them more prominence and he never signs any of his posts, which is confusing. With respect to his accusations, I neither added nor removed any information from the article. I simply did a bit of copy editing and suggested a compromise on the usage of the word Indian, neither of which he could bring himself to tolerate. The article's edit history clearly demonstrates this. Also, I've made every effort to be polite to him.

This is a user who has been edit warring with me on the Genízaro article for the past few weeks. I made two attempts to compromise with him but all he did was revert my edits. This lead to a 30-day block on the article which, quite frankly, I welcomed. Lechonero (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest this doesn't seem like anything out of the ordinary(certainly not the worst) that I've seen on Wikipedia that's been passed off as not being uncivil. Maybe you should try proving to him that you do indeed have knowledge on the subject? By the way "interloper" doesn't really have that strong of a negative connotation and you shouldn't take too much offense to it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to reason with him but he's pretty stubborn. I've admitted to not knowing anything about the subject on the talk page which is way I've limited my contributions to copy editing. I'm afraid he's lying about me adding inaccurate information. The article's edit history clearly shows that. Lechonero (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I will say that looking at the talk page there is clearly a WP:OWN problem here going back over a year. "We the Genizaro people of New Mexico, as a state recognized Indigenous group, pride ourselves in finally being able to define ourselves to the world." is an example. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

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.

Issue has not been handled outside of ANI by approaching Off2riorob directly. Neither does there appear to be any indication this is an administrator issue. --Jayron32 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I have received hostile comments from this particular editor, and I note that over the past 48 hours, he has left similar comments on the pages of other users, including statements that they may be banned. I had responded to him on his talk page about not leaving such comments, but in checking his contributions, I see that the pattern has continued. I was horrified to see this comment left on the page of a new editor, a little more than an hour after that person's first contribution to Wikipedia, with a statement that "you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia" because he had added unsourced content. In the past two days alone, similarly hostile comments have been left on the talk pages of experienced editors [147] [148] [149] [150]. It's bad enough for that type of invective to be directed to any Wikipedia editor, but there is no excuse at all for treating new users in that manner. If nothing else, this person needs a warning. Mandsford 02:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything amiss in the diffs you provided. He seems to be using standard warning templates or otherwise warning editors that they are violating Wikipedia policies, and that doing so can result in being blocked (not banned). What's wrong with that? Where's the invective? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By slapping a brand new user, with a final warning template on first offense and not WP:AGF and WP:BITE, thats whats wrong. The edit he warned for did not deserve such a harsh response. — raekyT 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. OK, that's a fair complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the template he used was a little too harsh for the newcomer, but apart from that the rest of his posts seem fine.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And I'm still not seeing the "invective" referred to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A heavy Template after a Death By WIkipedia? I would have done the same Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears he tried to provide a source at least, I wouldn't of gone straight to level 4 in that case, plus he wasn't the person who reverted him, someone else did, and that person appears to have at least attempted to verify his source so assumed good faith. — raekyT 03:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He tried after the warning, I agree Level 4 might have been a tad strong but Death By Wikipedia tends to never look good on us. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a level 3 warning; level 4 warnings always begin with a File:Stop hand nuvola.svg, but level 3 warnings always begin with a File:Nuvola apps important.svg. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, fair point. — raekyT 03:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this need to be at ANI? I see you notified him of the discussion, but you didn't attempt to discuss your concerns. I wouldn't ask for much in most cases, but this is not a major issue. Maybe a friendly message that perhaps he's being bitey would have sufficed. Shadowjams (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2010 (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.

3 mobile blocked

I am semi-retired, but have made a very few edits logged out. Today I tried to make an edit and got a blocked message. Today's IP (it changes every time I reconnect) had made no edits prior to this, and nothing appears in the block log for this. I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but she hasn't been active for about 12 hours. Her talk page is also semi-protected, so IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors cannot contact her. DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Will you explain more? AboundingHinata (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you editing when logged out? Oh, I see: "to avoid being drawn into disputes with admins."[151] Sorry, no sympathy. You're socking using an IP to avoid scrutiny, and then complaining when you're not able to do so due to a checkuser rangeblock. If you want to retire your account and switch to IP editing, go right ahead, but being "semi-retired" and editing with IP addresses is not on. WP:BOOMERANG. Fences&Windows 13:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it more or less is, since CU refuses to connect specific IPs to accounts now. Unless it is a duck block there is nothing the community can do about it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, this is the third new thread on this. The others are here and here. Can we close this one down please in favour of one of the others?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not until Fences and Windows withdraws his comment. This thread was started first. I'm not socking, just editing anonymously, and until this had done nothing more than to restore some redirects and try to add a single valid wikilink. As an IP I don't comment on other editors, or get involved on WP-space or talk pages. I am unable to follow Fences suggestion of only editing with IP addresses because of the block of several thousand IP addresses from my IP provider which is what I am complaining about. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer I suppose to that is that most editors prefer to edit in an environment which is not being continually disrupted by vandalism. IP block ranges may be a blunt weapon but they're the only tool we've got for the moment against widespread vandalism from random IPs coming from the same network. It's a question of which is the lesser of the two evils.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're (trying to) edit logged out to avoid scrutiny. If you want to retire that account fully then go ahead and do it, but a halfway house of sometimes editing via IPs and sometimes via an account is hardly acceptable. Fences&Windows 17:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to avoid scrutiny, I'm trying to avoid scrutinising the likes of you. I only want to edit by IP, and only in article space, and only correcting/adding wikilinks, but am prevented from doing so by this rangeblock. The instructions given to IPs caught in a rangeblock are to log in - you are attacking me for following the instructions. The only reason I logged in was to raise the problem of the crappy instructions in the template. I fully appreciate that you want the template to be obscure, confusing and unhelpful, but having a go at someone who follows the instructions in it is just idiotic. Sterling representative of the admin class you are. I can't remember and don't care what your grudge against me is, but try to express it in a more intelligent way please. I hate the inevitable kicking that admins like you dish out to anyone who raises a problem. Just fix the fucking notice IPs get when innocently caught in a checkuser block. That and exercise a bit more care when blocking the largest 3G network in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. "The likes of me", eh? I'm all upset now. I have no grudge against you, as far as I know I've never ever come across you before (which was my good fortune, it seems). Swearing won't make anyone listen to you. Where's this template then? Fences&Windows 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"The likes of you" = "admins who berate editors for doing exactly as they were told". The template is whatever generates the incomprehensible instructions for IP editors caught in a checkuser rangeblock, as you will already know because you read this thread and those Roger linked to above, instead of commenting from utter ignorance, as I'm sure you would never do. If you bait someone enough, they'll start swearing at you. Nice sly dig with the "good fortune" comment - well done. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext. – iridescent 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I just found it too. I think the thread at Wikipedia:AN#Updating Checkuserblock template is where this is best continued. Fences&Windows 20:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticed this because I'm on the same network, and recently got caught by the same rangeblock. (Logging on to Wikipedia via a phone is fiddly; if it's just a case of correcting a noncontroversial typo, I don't generally bother.) With no comments on the merits of this case, how does this differ from User:Brucejenner, who is one of our most disruptive long-term vandals but in which the checkusers refuse to rangeblock his phone provider because of the collateral damage it would cause? Seems inconsistent. – iridescent 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned that the second sentence of this complaint reads "I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but she hasn't been active for about 12 hours." (emphasis mine) No editor, administrator, checkuser or other person in any role on Wikipedia is expected to be logged in and available for immediate response 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. A 12-hour absence is hardly outrageous, and shouldn't be the subject of an ANI discussion at the best of times.

  Alison's talk page has been pretty well permanently semi-protected due to massive, near constant inappropriate editing by a wide range of abusive accounts and IPs, including harassment, abuse, outing, and other private or non-public information about a large number of editors; trying to keep it free from such abuse when it is unprotected consumes the time and energy of multiple administrators, and the same thing has happened in the past on "IP editable" pages. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, and the inconvenience for a legitimate IP editor to post on that specific page really doesn't balance out against the widespread abuse that has happened every time protection is lifted from the page.

  I think it is agreed that there can be some improvements made in the blocking notice. As well, the range block will be reviewed by other checkusers, as is standard when we receive such requests. I personally do not see a "socking" issue here, as there is no reason to think that DuncanHill has logged out to comment on talk pages or in project space. The desire for a registered user to edit without logging in while using his/her mobile phone does not constitute an emergency that requires immediate checkuser attention, however. One-week range blocks are unfortunate but sometimes necessary to try to reduce harm to the project as a whole; the problem user being addressed here has been harassing and disruptive on multiple projects throughout the WMF, and editors from multiple projects have been periodically caught in rangeblocks including global ones. Risker (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't understand why you object to me coming here when the admin who made the block is unavailable. I never suggested that a 12 hour absence was outrageous or improper, just explaining why I had come here, as it was clear that she wasn't currently available to deal with the query. Kindly try to avoid misrepresenting what I have said and done. Also, I'm not editing from a mobile phone, my internet access for my computer is on 3 pay as you go - it is the only way I can afford to have internet access. I was unaware of the policy change that allowed admins to make themselves unavailable to IP/autoconfirmed editors. DuncanHill (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Facepalm The objection is that ANI isn't necessary for an issue like this. It's not an "incident" that needs immediate attention, and 12 hours is hardly unusual for a person to be offline. And Talk pages can be semi-protected after repeated harassment, whether the editor is an admin or not. See WP:SILVERLOCK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I had forgotten that people caught in rangeblocks should be grateful and never complain. Maybe the template could include a message "Please do not try to communicate with anybody about this matter, as that will be regarded as troublemaking. The last thing we want to do is to help people like you. Please wait a few weeks at least, as nobody regards anything you have to say or may want to contribute as being nearly as important as protecting the Admin noticeboards from being sullied by matters which relate to admins". DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll add that next time you refer me to a page like SILVErLOCK, you would do well to read on first - "User pages

User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.

Users whose talk page is semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Again, in practice that isn't always possible. Any alternate talk page for Alison would almost instantly be crammed with the same drek Risker describes above. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • It would help if you dropped the snark. You're not exactly making me want to help you here.Your post to ANI is the equivalent of calling 911 to complain that you didn't get your fries at the drive-thru. It's understandable that you're frustrated you couldn't contact the blocking admin, but you could have posted an unblock request at the IP's page, or gone to another admin to request help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point on the talk page. But a rangeblock on a whole mobile phone provider seems inappropriate. Especially if there is no notice on those users talk pages to explain what is happening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would require 65,000 edits to place a notice on the talk pages, but even after that users on shared IPs don't normally see talk page notices. When they try to edit they are presented with the single block message which says that the network has been used abusively. The message has since been updated to provide a bit more instruction to unregistered users. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from Hiberniantears

Resolved

 – Hiberniantears' edit was WP:BOLD, not WP:VANDALISM. This is a content dispute, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Fences&Windows 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is one among you who is engaging in blatant vandalism. I posted the following complaint on their user page:

I am astounded that an administrator can stoop to this level of vandalism. You are removing large chunks of an article, amply referenced sections, because you happen to think they are nonsense. That is what IP users do who are completely unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. And to top that off, you even remove the bio infobox with the utterly mindless edit summary "getting rid of the bio box as well. Doesn't serve a purpose in this case". Have you considered resigning from you administrator position? You should. You really should.

I leave it to this admin's community of peers to consider how to deal with this type of behaviour which clearly compromises the authority of the adminship. __meco (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. The edit you link is NOT vandalism. Meaning that it is a well meaning edit with an informative edit summary which places the article in some normal state. You and Hiberniantears might disagree on whether or not that end state is best, but the edit itself is most definitely not vandalism. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing the bio infobox? Come one! __meco (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

With no comment as to who's right (I've never heard of Richard Hoagland, nor do I care) I imagine the issue isn't the removal of the infobox, but the removal of about 75% of the article text with "getting rid of the bio box" as the edit summary. – iridescent 08:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's only part of the edit summary. Look at the edit immediately preceding it for context. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph under "Blanking" should be carefully considered here. Many would see this as possible vandalism, naturally. Doc9871 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Or appropriate action under WP:UNDUE. We need to be careful that we aren't promoting nonsense. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I do know that Hoagland's stuff fringe/not reliable - what hasn't been ignored by the mainstream has been rejected. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of either editor (or this article). Totally neutral. I'm just agreeing that if 75% of an article is suddenly blanked, some people are going to think it's vandalism. Whether it is or isn't... it will all be worked out shortly, I'm sure. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two edits, I just gave the link to the combined diff. This is the first edit removing everything but the infobox with this summary: "reducing the sections - No need to detail all of his views given that none of them withstand credible peer review". Obviously peer review is not our standard for inclusion, but reliable sources. In the second edit only the biography infobox is removed. __meco (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries, it's clear that the intent wasn't vandalism, but improving the article. The two of you appear not to agree about how to improve the article, so the next step would normally be to discuss it like reasonable adults on the article talk page- you skipped that step, and went straight to accusing him of vandalism and demanding he be desysopped. That might make it harder to talk about it with him and others and work out how much detail this article needs- I can't quite picture any path to that which doesn't include you apologizing to him for the accusation and the demand, and reaching out to him for the discussion. But maybe I'm wrong, and you'll be able to think of a different way to talk about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this? Meco was right. While yes, not technically "vandalism", but to remove half the article like that is definitely unbecoming of an administrator. Absolutely not. There's this thing called copyediting that we usually do to improve- not delete half the article. Tommy! [message] 12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But the message he left was entirely useless to the purpose that needs to be accomplished, which is working out how much detail really should be in the article. The ultimate consensus, once they start talking, will probably be something more than Hiberniantears's cuts, and less than the sumptuous buffet of misinformation that was there before. But they can't get to that consensus without discussion, and Meco's bringing it here, calling Hiberniantears a vandal, and demanding his desysopping doesn't get them to that discussion. Being 'right' doesn't do him any good if it doesn't make the article better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have misapprehended the intent of my posting the complaint against Hiberniantears. I did not post here in order to have the article appear in one way or the other. If that was my intention you are right, this is not the place to start that process. I have made this motion for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an administrator who behaves in a manner which, if quietly or overtly accepted, would undermine the respect for the admin community. __meco (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep saying 'administrator' - he doesn't seem to have acted in an admin capacity here, or used any admin buttons. What would you have done in this situation if you hadn't noticed he was an admin? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I did minus the report to WP:ANI; I would have censured the user for completely unacceptable editing practices. I'm a little puzzled at your apparent total disinterest in the matter I am complaining about. __meco (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you and Hiberniantears have very different views as to how large that article should be. However the first thing to do when you disagree with someone's edits is to discuss your concern with them. I would suggest that you detail your concerns on the article's talkpage, and replace your current note on user talk Hiberniantears with something more appropriate for an editorial disagreement. Hiberniantears hasn't edited since all this began, so may well ignore your current messages if you replace them with a more appropriate one. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have just pointed out above to FisherQueen the issue of content is not the issue I am bringing up here. The issue I am taking up here is what I perceive as gross editor misconduct aggravated by the editor being an administrator. Trusted editors aren't supposed to make blunders on this scale. __meco (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My 'apparent disinterest' is the only response I can come up with. You seem to be requesting that this admin have his admin buttons taken away, because he made some drastic edits to an article that you disagreed with- even though he didn't use his admin buttons to make those edits, the edits appear to have been made in good faith, and we don't know yet how he would respond to reasonable discussion of the subject, because you haven't tried that yet. It would be absurd to desysop him in this situation, and you don't seem to be requesting any other admin action that I can see. The only reasonable thing to do is work for consensus on improving the article, but you seem oddly disinterested in doing that, and in any case, admin intervention isn't usually needed to work out consensus on improving an article. If I seem disinterested in doing anything, it's because I personally don't see anything for me to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are only interested in addressing a dimension of this which my complaint doesn't focus on, then perhaps you shouldn't involve yourself in this discussion, certainly not beyond what you have already? And no, I am not requesting the editor be desysoped. I have left any reaction completely up to this forum. You misread constantly what I have stated or requested. __meco (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you've left any action up to this forum, then the consensus so far seems to be that it wasn't vandalism, it wasn't an admin action, it is a content dispute, and you should discuss it with the other editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. So far that seems to be the consensus opinion, although I believe several have clearly missed the essence of my complaint. __meco (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be me, I assume. Please feel free to clarify what action you're requesting, because you're right that I don't understand what you are asking us to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd like to see other admins agree that these edits were made in extremely poor judgment. I just looked up the word vandalism in the Wiktionary, and as it implies willfull destruction, I must clearly back off from that position. So, I'd like to see a consensus for something like: "Hey Hiberniantears, those two edits (particularly that second one) were made in gross violation of how we're supposed to make changes to articles in order to improve them, and you being an administrator and thus considered a trusted and experienced editor makes this offence look worse still. So we have decided to reprimand you over this. Consider yourself reprimanded by your peers." Something like that would be fine! __meco (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned that isn't going to happen. His edits place the article in a state you prefer less. That's about it. Minds can differ as to whether or not cutting down an article like this one is the best way to go about editing it, but I can't imagine anyone is going to treat the edits as a gross violation of our expectations vis a vis collaborative editing. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For background, I've made two edits to the article in question, and both were made yesterday. The first one removed a laundry list of theories by the article subject under the premise of WP:UNDUE. The content that remains is still longer than most articles and presents the "is" of Hoagland, along with a description of why he is notable. I'm not adding unflattering material, or altering the article to present Hoagland in a different light. I then removed the info box because it just didn't seem to add much value to article... a matter of opinion, for sure, and not something I would necessarily be opposed to restoring. That's my ten cents, Meco. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't vandalism, although the edit summary didn't reflect the reasoning for the edits. However, I don't think the edits were constructive; per WP:BRD, they shouldn't be repeated until consensus in favor is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

Resolved

 – Does not belong here

User Jayjg continuously removes the content I have added from Kohen without stating why. I have warned him several times. Please remove his account. Ventura488 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[152] Jayjg has been notified, moved into new section by Weaponbb7 out of the Off2riorob thread

Jayjg has opened a discussion of this issue on the article talkpage, which is the proper procedure. This issue should be discussed there in an attempt to reach consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Does not belong here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the OP's misleading comments, this might not be the last you hear from him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ventura488 exceeded the 3 revert limit at Kohen and has had xyr editing privileges revoked by User:Malik Shabazz for 24 hours. This without a single edit by xem to Talk:Kohen. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ddd1600

Resolved

 – blocked for 5 days by NW Tommy! [message]

This guy is i believe going to be nought but trouble. He created this page [153] (deleted as vandalism) which was basicly a screw you wikipedia page. Personal attack on User:Carolmooredc [154] another PA on the same editor [155] and also one on me [156] he has also said if he is blocked he will sock [157], so dunno what can be done about that. mark nutley (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 days. I was debating making it an indef block, but I decided to keep it time-limited in hopes that he will shape up. I would have no problem with anyone overturning my block to one of a longer length. NW (Talk) 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a nice fellow. Why do I suddenly wonder what he'd look like on fire? HalfShadow 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - Two (at least) oddly uninvolved editors have recently expressed concern over HalfShadow's above comment: 68.28.104.246 and "Rainbow Striped Toe Sock". Hmmm... Doc9871 (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Bag at your leisure. HalfShadow 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent removal of a sourced section of criticism on German Wikipedia

Resolved

 – There is no admin action needed here; this is a content dispute. Try WP:RSN. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with two German wikipedians who keep reverting (just erasing) the whole section of criticism on that wikipedia. My preferred version would be this. Another version a user seemed to prefer some days ago was this (much shorter, but in my opinion inferior due to lack of details). The section is sourced by a number of articles (yes: not one, but 3 in number) of a German newspaper called Junge Freiheit. It is quite customary to summarize more important criticisms on supposed bias, e.g. we have a whole article Criticism of Wikipedia.

The newspaper JF is a perfectly valid source here on Wikipedia, just like in the article I referred to a section is based on lecturer Tim Anderson's opinions and another relies on The Christian Post and National Review. The Matthiasb and Pjacobi duo is acting blatantly unconstructively: they never engaged in discussion until I basically enforced it on them (commenting in detail at the article talk page).

Up to that time, they were - quite in line to the criticized manner of editing the dominating clique in German Wikipediadoes - just reverting with general comments in the edit summary. What is more, all of their reverts are blind reverts with non-controversially removed material re-introduced with each careless mechanic revert).

I'll copy recent edit history:

1. (cur | prev) 14:38, 1 August 2010 Pjacobi (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (rv -- see talk page) (rollback | undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:06, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (43,959 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:54, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (43,200 bytes) (Reverted edits by Pjacobi (talk) to last version by Miacek) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:37, 1 August 2010 Pjacobi (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 12:30, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (43,200 bytes) (Reverted edits by Matthiasb (talk) to last version by Miacek) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 12:26, 1 August 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (Undid revision 376581359 by Miacek (talk): Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:News sources. Thank you.) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 12:19, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (43,200 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Matthiasb; Rv 1) it generally does 2) for criticism on wikipedias, read Criticism of Wikipedia and discard your totalitarian mindset!. (TW)) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 12:13, 1 August 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (Reverted: Junge Freiheit does not meed the criteriain WP:Reliable sources) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 08:33, 1 August 2010 PaterMcFly (talk | contribs) (43,200 bytes) (→Characteristics: No notability (very rarely frequented page)) (undo)

Now, this is just my personal reflection, but having edited German wikipedia a bit I can confirm that a certain attitude of censorship and political POV pushing prevails there and these two De-Wiki users behave exactly the same way here. As for me, I am here on English Wikipedia just as I was on German Wikipedia just interested in neutral coverage, and do not push any political POV whatsoever here on Wikipedias. Neither do I profess censorship, or incidentally - self-censorship.

The arguments Matthias raised in his edit summaries are invalid. Junge Freheit can be used as a source here. They have published a number of articles on Wikipedia - their initial impressions were more positive, but they later got more critical, lastly covering a student who used Wikipedia for promoting his own conceptions related to discrimination, classism etc. The argument User:Pjacobi raised in his edit summary (“And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.)” is not convincing at all: if there are other notable criticisms, these can be summarized, too, but this mere fact of their presence is not a reason to censor anything from the version I wrote.

I see this whole affair just as an attempt to censor unpleasant sides of their project. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue which can and should be resolved on the article talk page, and if necessary by other measures to address content disputes.

Only to put it into perspective, not the whole section German_Wikipedia#Legal_issues_and_controversies is "removed". The focus of the content dispute is the subsection Discussion_on_left-wing_bias, which in Miacek's version only tells the opinion of Junge Freiheit (total circulation 25 000 at best).

--Pjacobi (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the reliability of Junge Freiheit could be raised at WP:RSN. Once it is established that the source is reliable, it will strengthen your case. On the other hand, should the source be deemed non-reliable, then your case is weakened somewhat. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything for administrative attention here; the only thing that could possibly come of this would be blocks for edit warring (and the original poster would probably be the most likely to draw one due to more reverting). So I don't think there's really anything to do here, though like Mjroots said, try RSN. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Junge Freiheit is not a reliable source-it is a right wing publication.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/germany.htm

Nolte is supported mainly by publications such as Junge Freiheit, which describes itself as a newspaper in Germany for “patriotic right-wingers.” In tones reminiscent of the NSDAP, Junge Freiheit has criticized German politicians as “decadent windbags” who “no longer possess an iota of honor,” and calls for “an end to the self-hatred of Germans”

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reliability is the issue here, Junge Freiheit is a reliable source for its own opinion. It is more a question of due weight and WP:YESPOV. Whether it is permissible to mention that a certain element in the German political landscape is critical of German Wikipedia, as evident in the published sources. --Martin (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Junge Freiheit is not one of the accepted WP:Reliable sources at it is considered a extrem right publication by the Verfassungsschutz and it is mentioned as a such in the Verfassungsschutzbericht. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cease with falsifications, Matthias, will you? You have provided no sources whatsoever for your claims of a 'far-right' Junge Freiheit. We do not reject sources based on personal distaste. Even the corresponding article from German wiki explains, that it was formerly labelled as extremist by Verfassungsschutz of two German states: North Rhine Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg, but the Junge Freiheit won a law suit agains the former and eventually both of those dropped the 'extreme right' qualifications of JF from their reports.
The all-German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz has found rare articles of far-right orientation, but the newspaper itself is not a subject of their monitoring („selbst nicht Gegenstand der nachrichtendienstlichen Beobachtung durch das BfV“).
So, from time to time people of far-right orientation have been interviewed by that newspaper, such articles have been published but this has not been enough to qualify the whole newspaper as right-wing extremist. Similarly, other newspapers from time to time publish pieces written by people of far-left orientation, this not making the newspapers extreme left (German Verfassungsschutz monitors all kinds of extremist tendencies, but the public is more concerned of possible far-right trends, for obvious reasons).
In my opinion, if Matthias still relied on now obsolete reports of Baden-Würtemberg and North Rhine Westphalia, let us also quote the opinions of Bayern VF:

„considering the fact, that the interviewees and authors are almost exclusively people from the democratic spectrum, the Junge Freiheit should be classified as a right-wing conservative newspaper on the right-wing edge of the democratic spectrum.“

(http://www.florian-ritter.de/dokumente/PM_Anfragen_Initiativen/Anfrage_Junge_Freiheit_2005.pdf) According to them, JF can be said to be the most right-wing newspaper within the democratic spectrum. So far there is no reason to assume the authors of those 3 articles I cited are far-right. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Some descriptions of Junge Freiheit

http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/03/yet-more-german-libertarian-voices-condemn-junge-freiheit-and-hoppes-connection/ German-nationalist publication that serves as a forum for the worst fringe elements of German politics, here are a few remarks from Germany. See the thread to an earlier posting for some context (such as the remarks by Hoppe’s defender “Clement,” who insists that the German government is infiltrated with Stasi agents who have conspired to undermine Junge Freiheit). http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,549709,00.html right-wing weekly Junge Freiheit http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/28/weekinreview/the-world-germany-s-new-right-wears-a-3-piece-suit.html?pagewanted=1 The face of Germany's new right is young. Most of the editors of Junge Freiheit, the movement's unofficial journal, which circulates 35,000 copies a week, are in their twenties and thirties. Junge Freiheit says it is dedicated to fighting "ignorance about our nation, shame, fear of power, anti-authoritarian thought, pacifism, feminism, anti-militarism and obsession with the past."

I have no doubt that a German far right newspaper that fights against "anti-militarism" "anti-authoritarian thought" "fear of power" "obsession with the past" is an unreliable one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another piece of information:according toThe Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists by Martin A. Lee, Dieter Stein the founder of JF has called for Germany of 1937 borderes;this means wide ranging territorial demands against Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you think that someone's blog is a more reliable instrument than German court rulings or the Verfassungsschutz for qualifying a notable newspaper? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Federal Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany(2004) states the weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit (JF, Young freedom) continues to offer a forum for right-wing extremists

[158] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you read? I've already treated that question. I've offered the summary (see above). The VS of the state NRW years ago (until 2005) considered the publication far-right, based on “suspicons about right-wing extremism” of the JF. They ceased to do so after a court ruling (the JF basically won the law suit). Since that time, they even haven't mentioned the newspaper in their yearly reports (though it is being monitored in Baden-Württemberg). Of course, since German Verfassungsschutz monitors such things closely, there have been many passages of criticism on that newspaper (like many others, e.g. Junge Welt is currently qualified as extremist), since there is no censorship of articles in Germany. Nevertheless, the All-German Verfassungsschutz has never considered the newspaper in general as extremist and the newspaper Junge Freiheit is no longer even mentioned in the reports of the Verfassungsschutz (you can download the latest report at http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Using an edit on German wiki as proof ? Anyway you are confirming that this newspaper is being monitored.

National Socialism of course also exists today as a current in Germany. It does not serve as a model for the NPD, but we try to integrate the national-socialist current, along with the national-liberals and national-conservatives, as insisting on divisions between them only aids our political opponents.”(Junge Freiheit, 24 September 2004, p. 2)

If you believe that this newspaper which makes such statements as above is reliable take it to WP:RS. Obviously the majority of contributors here do not see this publication as such. As to other newspapers-they are not the subject of debate here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good ol' Molobo! When rational arguments have been proven wrong (VS controversies), then every WP:OR can go. Where did you cut 'n' paste this passage? Sorry to say, but this is patent falsification. You can check the articles really published on September 24, 2004 p. 2 in that newspaper. Nowhere is such nonsense written there. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

JahnTeller07 on Obama-related pages

Resolved

 – user indefinitely blocked Toddst1 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we please have some administrator help to restore order on Talk:Barack Obama?

JahnTeller07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 6-week-old account fresh off a block from edit warring[159] on Fox News Channel, is now camping out on the Obama pages promoting a series of unhelpful non-consensus additions admittedly intended to fix Obama's "whitewash" and "liberal bias" in favor of Obama. When his POV / OR proposals[160][161][162] are rejected he resorts to edit warring,[163][164][165][166][167] accusations and name-calling, [168][169][170][171][172] templating the regulars with POV warnings[173][174][175][176] soapboxing,[177] and simple wikistalking[178][179] and abuse.[180] (followed me to two unrelated articles to mindlessly revert my latest edits).

The editor has said they are here to "counteract [liberal] bias"[181] and "censorship",[182] and angrily rejected a "final warning"[183] and other warnings[184][185][186] on his talk page, and other cautions and advice from various editors elsewhere. They've been warned about article probation.

There's a precedent for blocking and topic banning banned editors for very similar behavior in these articles - this editor is using some of the very same language and tactics. Of course you're welcome to try to talk sense into them, but it doesn't look very likely that they're interested in productive editing: the message they seemed to get from their last block is that Wikipedia admins are biased liberals. Also, we've had extensive socking from a number of editors, so we do have to be careful. There's an IP editor there now, also causing trouble.

Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks for edit warring. Not sure of the precedent for topic banning, but if there is one, it would be appropriate on US politics and coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic banning is a fairly extreme and rare remedy, as compared with a block. I'm thinking of Grundle2600 (an editor I actually didn't mind - discussion here) but there may be others. Grundle posted the same few proposals perhaps a dozen times over the course of a few months. Alas, he is now banned and comes back as a sock... - Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also possibly Gaydenver (talk · contribs).--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should realize though that these people are produced from the near unrestricted left-wing bias here. If you at least tried to maintain a semblance of fairness when covering left and right wing topics then there wouldn't be people like this popping up. But an admin should do something because this does conflict with wikipolicy and won't produce anything constructive. Still though, a topic ban might be a little harsh. Maybe just a 2-week block and a warning? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You picked up that analysis in the 14 days or so you've been registered on wikipedia? Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block to indef as the editor appears to be a sock who is here only to struggle against admins. Toddst1 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It only says 2 weeks still? Tommy! [message]

Fixed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at iGot a Hot Room

Resolved

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

At the article, iGot a Hot Room, an IP user has repeatedly vandalized the article, replacing the character names with fictitious cast members, and adds useless information to the plot summary of the episode. I gave the user the Template:uw-vandalism4 template on the talk page, but the use still continues to vandalize the page. I would appreciate if the user would be blocked. I am getting very tired of undoing all of the edits and vandalism. Thank you. WereWolf (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done; 2-week block. (Note: the appropriate venue for reporting vandalism is WP:AIV).  Frank  |  talk  15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. This was my first time reporting vandalism, but I appreciate your help! WereWolf (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. This is a big place.  Frank  |  talk  15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:DCEvoCE

User:DCEvoCE claims I spam his User_talk:DCEvoCE page when I try to talk to him, he claims my edits were a direct reason for the delisting of the Mega Drive article from GA status, and he claims I should not revert his edits when he removes sourced statements from the article, or when he changes certain words. I did accuse him of vandalism for removing sourced statements from the article multiple times, and DCEvoCE claimed he tried to work with me here however, DCEvoCE never explained to me why he was removing sourced statements from the article. Here is a comparison of the edit he mainly complains about you can see the unsourced statement "Neither console could maintain a definitive lead in market share for several years." To which I expanded and provided two sources to back up.

Today DCEvoCE has been fighting with me and User:Alphathon at the Mega Drive Talk page over what to call the Asian/JP Mega Drive logo. DCEvoCE has pictures of certain Asian games that do not show the logo, while I posted pictures of Asian games that have the logo, which say not for sale in Japan or Korea (to mean they're asian, but not of Japan origin)

This was preluded with me reverting his edits,(with the edit summary "If you have proof of a different logo on an Asian Mega Drive, please show us on the talk page. The Korean MD box has the JP MD logo on it. I have seen no other Asian logo") asking him to post his proof that logo was Japan only in the talk page. He seemed to be very angry I had reverted his edit, saying "@SexyKick, it would be VERY nice if you were to stop the editing war and I highly recommend that YOU provide sources for your claims. Or to put it bluntly: STOP REVERTING MY EDITS! Thank you" in the very post where he finally provided some evidence towards his edit. (sorry if I kind of wrote this paragraph backwards)

Even when presented with proof against his edits, DCEvoCE kept insisting that he was right, and that I had posted no proof.

I suggested to him that he learn more about editing Wikipedia, I meant no offense.

DCEvoCE then reported me to User_talk:J_Milburn for "reverting valid edits," J_Milburn had applied a "non-free" template to the Mega Drive article regarding it having three logos. I had at one point, under the advice of another editor, removed the template. J_Milburn reverted that edit, and said it ill advised at best, to which I took to heart. I think this is why DCE chose J_Milburn to report me to.

DCEvoCE claims I have insulted him, I was unaware I had, and promptly apologized.

DCEvoCE finds it unacceptable that I suggested talking with me, or at an articles talk page if I revert one of his changes. DCEvoCE claims I need to provide sources when sources already exist for information I add to article. I do not understand him, and trying to talk with him to clear things up has only complicated the matter.

I appreciate any help in dealing with this matter.--SexyKick 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at the edit history of Mega Drive, looks like Alphathon and SexyKick are in an edit war and both violated WP:3RR, WP:BOOMARANG? — raekyT 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, me and User:Alphathon aren't in an edit war (at least not IMHO) we're just building on top of each others edits (as well as updating per talk page changes.) We work pretty well together IMHO.--SexyKick 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He changes, and you revert, you make some changes and he reverts then you revert his revert (and a change after that) without a reason given, then he reverts you again. You change a caption, and he reverts. Seems like something's going on here. — raekyT 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted my side of the story here:

Hello there, I would like to report User:SexyKick for continuously reverting valid edits made to the Mega Drive article. Details can be read here on the article's talk page. My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even yours, removing the non-free tag). Prior to that, this person contacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone. Here's the edit in question. Since then, practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person - and definitely every single one of mine. Now he/she proposed at the article's talk page that I should get approval by him for any edits I do by talking things through with him - prior to editing. I think that this is unacceptable. It took me (and others) several days trying to explain to this person that certain variants of the console itself were released under a different name - without result as of yet. And that was something that would have been easy to look up if he/she were genuinely interested. I hope you can help, or at least redirect me to someone who can. I really don't know what to do with this guy. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DCEvoCE (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't remember you trying to explain to me about there being a Korean Mega Drive, or how it goes under a different name (an edit I made to the article myself, here, before you started talking about it) I do remember you trying to explain to me that it did not have the JP Mega Drive logo on it, which I disagreed with because of the Korean Mega Drive 2 box.

There's also the Korean Sonic & Knuckles box here.

I really think this is just us being victims of miscommunication, but it's still not spam to talk to you on your user page, and it's good manners to talk about removing information, before actually removing it, not necessarily with me specifically of course. Alphathon has told you this too now as well.--SexyKick 03:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is was what I was trying to explain to you when I guess it seemed like I was telling you to talk about reverted edits with the revert-er. I always try to explain a revert in the edit summary, and I am always open to talking either on our personal talk pages (preferably) or on the article in questions talk page. I know you may think it's annoying at best, but it's kind of required if you want to change established information. I myself have had to discuss certain things with certain editors for months before being able to make even a small change that we wouldn't fight over. But it helps everyone have a better understanding, and respect in the end, since there was no real edit war. I hope we're starting to see more eye to eye now.--SexyKick 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about whether or not the Japanese logo should be called Asian logo. This was discussed in detail on the article's talk page and on my talk page. And I explained why this wouldn't make much sense in my opinion:

And the Samsung Super Gam*boy / Super Aladdin Boy logos are basically the console's name(s) in Korean letters from what I can tell: Example 1. Example 2. The photos you were referring to several times in the past seem to be a late 90s version distributed by Sega itself: "They were released much later in the consoles life as a cheap games system for those on a budget."

The issue we are talking about here is of a different nature altogether though. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You just posted that in the Mega Drive talk page about two hours ago, a tiny bit after you posted your first message here. So I don't think the time line makes sense, no worries though. Coincidentally, if Sega published that Mega Drive into Korea itself with the JP logo on it, that means the JP logo is actually the asian logo. Right?--SexyKick 05:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This page is not here for you two to continue a content dispute! Stop trying to get each other in trouble and follow dispute resolution, or you'll probably both end up blocked for edit warring. Fences&Windows 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to continue discussing content issues. I'd like to discuss SexyKick´s continuous reverting of edits of the Mega Drive article. I don't think it's acceptable that this person keeps reverting any edits made to the article - by both users and admins.

The issue is not related to any specific content at all but the general approach of SexyKick's methods, effectively claiming ownership of the article in question by denying others the right to edit (see raeky's posts in response to the OP). I would expect that if anyone wants to revert a valid edit made by another user you will need the same kind of agreement, approval or explanation as any major potentially controversial edit might require. DCEvoCE (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim ownership of the article. I'm sorry if it comes off that way to you. I also don't just revert everyone's edits. Me and Alphathon are always talking, changing, and improving upon both of our edits, so he's not a good example of me reverting someones edits, however he is a good example of how editors can communicate and make edits better. I'm sorry if it seems wrong to you that I suggested we (or other editors) talk before you make a controversial edit, this angered you. I apologize for angering you, but I felt I should suggest that to you because of the strong ways you respond to having an edit reverted, and what seems to be you ignoring the reasons they were reverted, only to make the edit again with no talk or understanding.

An example, I can't go to the Mortal Kombat article, and keep removing the bio of Liu Kang, while simply leaving it at the fact Liu Kang was in the game (btw I completely made up that example.) Editors would of course constantly revert my Liu Kang bio edits, maybe even just one editor.

I have tried to apologize a couple times for what may seem like wrong doing to you. Again, I apologize. I do not feel I own the article, I do not simply revert everyone's edits. The idea is to make the article as good as possible, and I believe collaborating with other editors is a good way to do that.

AL has even said these things to you in the Mega Drive talk page in my defense.

@DCEvoCE This is just silly. The rest of us were having a discussion here. Do you really think that coming along and imposing your will (and claiming that it is a "solution" without even discussing it) will work? All it is likely to achieve is either an edit war or a shouting match and may even constitute vandalism (it is certainly unconstructive since the issue is being discussed and no decision has been reached). Also, I can confirm at least that SexyKick is accurate in saying that (s)he did not remove the logo from the page (at least not when you are saying so). It was cropped down to just the left portion since it had been challenged as being too high-res (hence the smaller, lower quality version that you replaced). It was cropped simply to lower the resolution, but since it did not represent the full logo and marginalised the JP logo, a smaller version of the full logo was uploaded. -- AlphathonTM (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) ___ I think I see two sides here which both have a point. SexyKick, there is no reason whatsoever to talk about such things on a personal level when it affects a public project such as wikipedia. This is not about who wins or looses, but about what is wrong or right. DCEvoCE, you seem a little too ready to remove content, sourced or otherwise, which may or may not improve the article. If your edit is only a removal (which it often has been) and the content is sourced don't be surprised if someone such as SexyKick reverts it and asks for an explanation. -- AlphathonTM (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can accept my sincere apology, and understand I only want to make the article better. I hope you can also understand that when other editors (including myself) try to communicate with you through your talk page, they are not spamming you.--SexyKick 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I simply want this dispute to end and be resolved. I don't either of us need to be blocked from editing or anything like that. I think this is a misunderstanding that stems from my inability to talk to DCE in a way which he interprets as positive. I could maybe use a translator.--SexyKick 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move dispute

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.

---

An editor, Josh Gorand (talk · contribs), appears to have tried to gain the upper hand with a tricky edit at Ministers-President of Lower Saxony. Can someone have a look at the situation, possibly deleting the edit. More information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany#Ministerpräsident.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Cs32en has attempted to have the article moved against all the sources cited on the talk page, failing to obtain consensus. Some of those who agree with him have resorted to making POV forks that have been deleted, then they have frivolously nominated the article for deletion (it was speedily kept), and now they have unilaterally moved the page without consensus. Pages are not supposed to be subject of move wars, I have therefore made an edit to prevent further move wars. If someone thinks the article ought to be moved, they have to discuss and obtain consensus for the move on the talk page, not starting move wars. This comment by User:Cs32en was made in bad faith, by a user who is following me around after a disagreement over an unrelated article. Also, the title of the article is part of a wider discussion that has not been solved and it should not have been unilaterally moved. The real problem here was the bad faith unilateral move that ignored the discussion on the article's talk, not me fixing it. (see the wider discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Ministerpr.C3.A4sident, the two terms are supported by an equal number of people). Josh Gorand (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Some" is actually 7 people supporting a move, with 5 people supporting your position. We do not vote on Wikipedia, but you should probably not claim to have obtained consensus for your viewpoint in that situation.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, I have not said there is any consensus. Last time I checked 6 people supported Prime Minister and 6 people supported Minister-President. I.e. there is no consensus, and the unilateral move (that took place after the same group of users had created a POV fork that was deleted and then frivolously nominated the article for deletion, an attempt that also failed) was extremely inappropriate. As you correctly point out, we do not vote on Wikipedia. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Trouts all round. For waging a WP:LAME war, for move-warring, for redirect scorching (which is a mean trick) rather than requesting move protection as you should, for making chaotic substitute moves to third and forth titles, leaving double redirects all over the place, and for being a general nuisance. Anybody who continues move-warring over this (or edit-warring over the use of the term elsewhere) will be banished to Aurich. There, that'll show them. Page now moved back to status quo ante and move-protected there. Will have a look whether there is some expression of consensus to move somewhere, but I rather doubt it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 2 August 2010 (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.

User:MiMaeLi uploading of copyright images despite final warnings

Resolved

 – Contributor indef blocked by User:Tnxman307; I've cleaned up the images per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• MiMaeLi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite final warnings [187] [188], the user has continued spree of uploading copyright images claiming to be the copyright owner.

The request was removed from ANI:Vandal due to "stale" reporting - no edits in 12 hours. Can someone look into this? Most of the recent upload of images are clearly watermarked with copyrights by others despite claim of public domain. I did not tag a few of the recent uploads that are likely copyright vios that did not have the watermaks. Active Banana (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading of clearly copyrighted images and tagging them as public domain could expose the foundation to legal action - block them until they understand they can't do this. Exxolon (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Their talkpage is full of warnings - looks like only a block will get through to them. Exxolon (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by Ludwigs2

Resolved

 – It is hereby decreed that Mathsci isn't the unabomber, and Ludwigs2 isn't very good at making jokes, and should stop re-litigating false "outing" complaints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ludwigs2 has already been blocked for personal attacks / harassment of me recently by BozMo. On the ArbCom pages, he made an unprovoked personal attack on me comparing me with the unabomber, which I take to mean that I am sort of psychopath and should be imprisoned. This must an all time low in wikipedia insults directed at a hard-working and active editor of long standing. [189] Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it was ironic humor - read the context. lol - please... --Ludwigs2 21:00, 2 August 2010 (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.

Placing runtshit targets on review?

Many admins may be aware of User:runtshit's long history of vandalism and of stalking a particular Wikipedian. Would people agree that it might be worth compiling a list of the stalker's favourite target pages and placing them on permanent preview so that his abuse is never seen by ordinary Wikipedia readers?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you could just add them to that LTA page above. Thanks, Tommy! [message] 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean WP:Pending changes, agree, good idea. Also can someone tell me where to report them for revdel or whatever it is. A few of them happen to be on my watch-list & I noticed they're now being revdeled or similar. Misarxist (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're going to be revdel'd there's zero point in PC'ing the page as all that does is shunt the edits off into the history. One cannot revdel the top revision of a page, reviewed or not; just revert and alert an admin whenever he shows up. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct and Biased attitude of Shahid in Playback singer

Resolved

 – Sock of Dr. Mukesh blocked. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to report a serious issue which me and other editors has faced due to the biased and misconduct of Shahid • ^Talk2me in Playback singer wikipedia. The editor Shahid • ^Talk2me is involved in an edit war for the last three months and by taking a hard and biased line against Pakistani Playback singers. Names of famous Pakistani singers remained on the page for good about one year and then suddenly removed by Shahid • ^Talk2me by declaring those names not properly sourced.

By chance I took notice of that and ask him about the issue. Intelligent enough, he allowed me to include those names on talk page of Playback singer because I contacted other editors like   Will Beback  talk  . Once I added the names of Akhlaq Ahmed, Saleem Raza, Mujeeb Aalam etc, he reverted the edit again by saying not properly sourced though I include some references upto best of my knowledge. As its prety obvious that being an Indian, Shahid has shown a biased aproach towards Pakistani playback singers, I want your help in this regard and request to include these names as the editor Shahid is not maintaining a neutral point of view and he is including evey name of Indian singer (famous or not) but adopting a different approach toward Pakistan. Looking forward for a neutral decision. Thanks. Wings spread (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should really work this out on the article talk page. There are problems with the sources you used. I'll post a comment on the talk page explaining it.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, please assume good faith regarding other editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not as simple as you are projecting.. You are talking about good faith but sir, how could its possible for me once I have experienced something which is opposite to "good faith". You have to understand that there is a direct involvement of a powerful administrator who is manuplating arround with in the boundaries of rules. I strongly protest against this misuse of the power and want a neutral decision in this regard. He did not remove the names of Pakistani singers for good about a year and when he involved in the edit war, he suddenly reverted the names. Dont you think its a complete biased approach and now I am receiving the message that I am a sock of some Dr Mukesh, what do you call it now?? A powerful admin has started playing arround. He has friends but I insist on a neutral decision again. Thanks Wings spread (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Mukesh111, it's obvious that Wings spread is another sock. I'll block the account.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

KMTDCfan89 repeated removing deletion tags

Moved from WP:AN

KMTDCfan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See his talk page warnings by Eeekster and the page histories of Killa-mo 187 and End Of Time Entertainment. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will note that this same editor has been recreating articles deleted after an AfD; as well as uploading scans of album covers with the assertion that it is okay because the album cover is "entirely my own work" (apparently unable to distinguish between an actual artist and somebody running a copying machine). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And even replacing existing album-cover scans used in articles with others of same name by different group. That's over the line into vandalism given his history. DMacks (talk)

"This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest. If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.247.186 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

... and who's WP:SOCK are you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who it is, the IP is right; this belongs at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting

For those familiar with him, user Destinero is once again engaging in edit wars on the LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting page. He is not only refusing to allow other users to make any edits but also using profanity and name calling. User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good.Tobit2 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia policies to push up religious right propaganda bring out by Tobit2. Everybody can see and check this. What is more, Tobit2 is incapable to discuss thing just because he do not want to read other user comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Tobit2.2C_please_stop_doing_vandalism_immediately.21 --Destinero (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being (at least a bit) over the top here. I cannot see any "religious right propaganda" or, as you put it boldly in the talk page's section header, "vandalism". You might not agree with those edits, but you need to talk about it. Simply listing the removed snippets and saying "important information" won't help much. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2 cannot just came up and totally change of articles on which there is broad editorial consensus developed over several years and remove sources info. Somebody should explain him Wikipedia policies if he is unable to do it himself. --Destinero (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, this is not a page for slander (besides I am not of the religious right but of a more scientific ilk). Whatever the biases of editors, we must still work together. This page is to report that you are refusing to work with others and instead are reverting their edits without conversation. Moreover, the LGBT parenting article is not one of broad consensus. Most editors, like myself dropped out long ago, because they were simply too tried to work with Destinero. The Talk page reflects this.Tobit2 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

[190] religious right propaganda? Please don't be silly.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointing to the fact that Tobit2 is a Catholic editor (see his user page) repeatedly removing important facts about research and rephrasing summaries of research reviews to weak them is definitely not silly, it is needed to be aware of issues. We have deal with editor with catholic agenda here and he can not just came and delete what credible sources says just because he do not like it. --Destinero (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My goodness; you can't be serious? My user page indicates information about me so that other editors will have a sense of my background. I was raised Catholic, so, yes, my early experiences in life color my world view, and I firmly believe all editors should be upfront about their backgrounds. But to twist my explanation of my background into "a catholic agenda," is just just being silly. I am only involved in these pages because they impinge on the adoption series of articles, of which I have a keen interest.Tobit2 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good. You mean these two blocks?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2, we'll need to see WP:DIFFs on the alleged violations and concerns before being able to act. Once you supply them then we'll have more info to work with. Basket of Puppies 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles (Unconstructive Reverting Other Editors Work)

1) First revert of LGBT parenting of good faith edit [191]

2)Second revert of an edit of LGBT parenting, an edit that had incorporated Destinero's specific criticism. [192]

3)First revert of edit on LGBT adoption; revert claimed POV but edit had only repeated info straight from an article Destinero had added [193]

4)Second revert of good faith edit on LGBT adoption, this one with profanity in the explanation [194]

5) Last edit by Tobit2 on LGBT adoption. It removes little of what Destinero had originally and focuses on adding info directly from sourced article. [195]

Talk Pages (Slander)

1) Refer to last paragraph for first instance of slander [196]

2)Refusal to cooperate, instead tarring other editors with unfounded labels [197]

3) Not sure what to call this? Perhaps an admission from being banned in his native Czech Wikipedia> [198]

4)Another instance of name calling, this time another editor is called "incompetent" for note having read 30 pages of an attached document. [199]

If you are so lazy to read the document, then do not write lies about failing to cite any studies where there are dozens of studies cited on several pages that nobody who open the document could overlook them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_adoption&diff=prev&oldid=376622258 Collaboration on Wikipedia really requires some fundamental abilities and I actually suspect you got them. --Destinero (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Constructive editing means working with others and not expecting them to read your mind. I skimmed the 30+ page attachment you cited and found nothing related to adoption. Did I miss an article? Maybe. But it is incumbent on you to tell people which articles you are referring to rather than making them guess. Your anger is out of bounds, unhelpful, and damaging.Tobit2 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

1. Destinero should back off and calm down and voluntarily refrain from editing for some time. Just because he was treated badly on cswiki is not a reason to point his anger to enwiki.
2. Yes, I know he is theme banned on cswiki. However, his ban is still subject to debates after more than six months and is considered unfair by many editors.
3. It's not a good idea to assume bad faith based on the czech wikipedia. The situation there is rather bad - administrators are unwiling to ban/block trolls and clearly disruptive editors, but very willing to block others who lose patience with them and call them trolls. Even obvious bad faith acts are ignored, like inviting others to discuss articles prepared in the user's sandbox and then posting harassment complaints with a very sarcastic tone on the administrators' noticeboard that the contents of his sandbox are being discussed by others.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient, each of your suggestions references Destinero's cswiki banning, but the current incident is not on cswiki, and I only mentioned it once to provide context that this is not a language problem only. Destinero's edit warring, unconstructive behavior, and incivility are well documented on enwiki and I have provided fresh examples above in the DIFFs. Should anyone be confident that Destinero will change voluntarily if he has not done so in more than 1 year on enwiki? How does tolerating poor behavior help the Wikipedia project?Tobit2 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While I may not agree with Tobit on some things, I tend to agree with him on this. I gave up trying to edit some of these articles because the approach to editing on the part of the editor in question was so frustrating. - MishMich - Talk - 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Destinero's recent activity, including his posts above, indicate, he has not taken Ancient's suggestion to back off. Will the admins act to maintain the community's standards of civility and constructive editing?Tobit2 (talk)

RSN comments by Cla68 and Objections by ChrisO

Feel free to dig yourselves into a deeper hole, but please leave the collapse box in place because most reasonable people are not interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs)

Cla68 (talk · contribs) is attempting to stop me from commenting on the reliable sources noticeboard. At 01:16, 3 August 2010, Cla68 posted a request for input on the RSN concerning a Dutch book review.[200] I have not at any time expressed any view about this source, discussed it anywhere or commented on it in any venue. At 01:24, 3 August 2010, I posted a comment noting the similarity of the issue to that of Amazon.com editorial reviews and asking what the current opinion was of those reviews as a source.[201] Cla68 then began a sequence of edits clearly aimed at driving me off the page. After he had told me to go away [202], I said that I was not interested in continuing an unproductive digression that was not related to the sourcing issue and hatted that section of the discussion, leaving alone his question and my follow-up question.[203] He then twice moved my follow-up question into the hatted section, hiding it from other editors.[204][205]. He has now un-hatted my follow-up question and the off-topic digression that I had said I did not want to continue.[206] This is a completely malicious series of edits - assuming bad faith with no cause or provocation whatsoever, sabotaging my comments and hiding them from other editors. There is no excuse whatsoever for this. Right now I feel that I can't contribute to the RSN without being accused of bad faith or being told to go away. I can't even ask a completely neutral, on-point question without my motives being questioned or my comments being hidden by an editor who doesn't want me to contribute to the discussion. It's an absolutely textbook display of bad faith and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I've never been treated like this in 7 years of editing, and I have to say it's a shitty way to be treated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Here is what is actually occurring. ChrisO and me are involved in a content dispute in the article The Hockey Stick Illusion. ChrisO has been very active in removing content from the article [207] [208] [209] [210]. I believe that ChrisO is trying to discredit the book from being used as a source in Wikipedia. ChrisO, in fact, requested that someone villify a person in their blog who had given the book a good review [211]. I opened a thread at the RSN on a source dispute, in which I believe I did an adequate job giving both sides, and asked the participants at the page to not argue the same thing on the RSN, because AGW debates in the past have turned into free-for-alls on the noticeboards, which I believe has inhibited participation from uninvolved editors. All the involved editors, except for ChrisO, appeared to honor the request. Unfortunately, ChrisO tried to influence the discussion. Me and another editor then reminded Chris that he was heavily involved and to let the uninvolved editors at the board take it from there. ChrisO then tried to hat our comments while leaving his original comment [212] and edit warred to try to keep it that way. ChrisO is not being very helpful here. He appears to be trying very hard to win a content dispute instead of letting it play out naturally. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Let's put this very simply for Cla68. I have never expressed any opinion whatsoever on the suitability of the source he mentions. I'm not involved in any content dispute about this source. I have not participated in the talk page discussion about this source. I wasn't even aware of the discussion until I saw Cla68's post on the RSN. All of the above verbiage posted by Cla68 is therefore irrelevant, and it includes a blatant and malicious lie - I have never asked anyone to vilify anyone else anywhere. My only contribution to the discussion on this particular source has been one completely neutral question posted here on the RSN. Cla68 has not explained why he saw fit to hide my question from the other RSN users, nor what gives him the right to do so, nor why he thinks my question - which doesn't express any opinion whatsoever about the reliability of the source - is an attempt to "win a content dispute" that I've not even participated in. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As everyone in the universe knows by now, Arbcom is in the final stages of negotiating the Climate Change omnibus case. Perhaps not coincidentally Cla68 has recently been stirring the pot with unfounded accusations such as this and tendentious editing of the type that is likely to provoke emotional reactions in his esteemed fellow editors. I suggest all concerned just back off, have a beer (or other beverage of choice), crank some tunes, and cool it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not the aggressor here, Boris - right now I don't feel that I can do anything or post anywhere without being stalked and attacked by Cla68. He's stalked me to other users' talk pages, he's posted aggressive questions to my talk page and now he seems to be intent on driving me off the RSN and posting malicious lies about me here. It's not me who needs to back off. I'm not the one going around pissing in other people's cornflakes. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We used to have this problem with Israel-Palestine sources at the RSN noticeboard, where the same editors tended to like or dislike the same sources, and it became difficult for uninvolved editors to make a point—though it's the views of uninvolved people that are particularly welcome at the noticeboard. On the other hand, involved editors might have a good point to make too. A suggestion for the future might be for the editor who opens the request to post the query, and to explicitly invite comment from editors who are entirely uninvolved in any broader dispute that involves the source. That editor could then create a subsection == Comments from involved editors== so that involved editors can have their say in that section. People would be expected to interpret the reach of "involved" broadly. The uninvolved could then read both sides before replying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Except that I am not and never have been involved in the dispute over this source, and I had not expressed any opinion on RSN or anywhere else about its reliability, so that would solve nothing. And it still doesn't explain why Cla68 felt the need to hide my comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Whether you've ever commented on this source is a little beside the point, because you're involved in the broader dispute and it makes your response (rightly or wrongly) feel predictable. The point is that when people go to the RSN it's because they want fresh input, and it can be frustrating not to get that, because where else do they go for it? So just as a matter of courtesy, where the conflict is a very contentious one, it would be helpful for the broadly involved to step back a little and make their points in a separate section. They'd still get read but it would give the editor who opened the request a sense of some breathing space. I'm not suggesting it for all RSN requests, just as an option for when the opening editor has specifically gone there to request fresh eyes. It would apply to Cla68 too if you were the one opening the request (if you wanted it to). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We're not talking about an editor moving my question to a separate section. We're talking about an editor hiding my question so that nobody else can see it. This is what the section looked like when I posted. This is what it looked like when Cla68 finished with it, twice. Note also what he says about his action in the summaries - "fixed hatting", "fix hat". The dishonesty of that is obvious - he was not "fixing" it in any way, he was moving it so that my question would be hidden from view. Can you please address that? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It would have been better if Cla68 hadn't closed it, but Chris, when he did the discussion was not as you linked to above; there had been some more back-and-forth, including from you, so it was turning into another CC-conflict exchange. I think Cla was just trying to restart the discussion. It would have been better if he had done that with the use of a new sub-section. Perhaps that could be done now, if the issue is still open. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Clarification time again: I closed the bickering so that it would not turn into another CC-conflict exchange. Cla68 then hid my earlier question by moving it into the closed section so that other editors would not see it. I sought to cool the temperature. Cla68 has consistently sought to raise it, including posting a very serious personal attack above. He was not in any sense trying to "restart" the discussion - he was trying to cut me out of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Note: ChrisO has been a long time disruptive editor in the CC topic area, and edits consistently to promote one POV. Cla68 arrived in this topic area earlier this year and has been trying to clean things up, which naturally agitates ChrisO who doesn't like to see his POV work undone. This appears to be little more than retaliation on ChrisO's part. ATren (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There's certainly no rule to bar ChrisO from commenting. I saw nothing in ChrisO's fairly innocent question that seemed worthy of the mini-drama that ensued from there. Hell, he simply asked if anyone knew the current consensus in such matters. Certainly didn't warrant anyone jumping down his throat. I've removed the unproductive comments from the RSN section; I wasn't aware of this ANI at the time (or the apparent back-and-forth manipulation of the comments that seems to have occurred earlier). Feel free to revert my edit, if necessary. BigK HeX (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for that; I hope that the remainder of the discussion on the RSN will be more productive. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And predictably, Cla68 has just restored the bickering. He doesn't want a productive discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Per SV's helpful suggestion, I have divided the thread into "involved" and "uninvolved" and placed Chris' comments in the "involved" section and did not restore the comments where two of us pointed out that he was involved. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter. Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You have restored those comments. Do you think nobody's going to notice when you're not telling the truth? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) What a tempest in a teapot. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think we can safely say this particular weather anomaly is human-induced.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:BassandAle is making threats of outing on his talk page

Resolved

 – block settings modified Tommy! [message]

The user is already blocked, but is continuing to make outing and veiled legal threats on its talk page. Active Banana (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block settings.   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IP evading restrictions on article creation

174.49.188.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been attempting to evade the article creation restriction on anonymous users by placing article content on the talk pages of the proposed article. The first one was Talk:The Real World (Ally McBeal episode) on 23 July ([213]), which was moved to the article space shortly after. User was warned about this on 24 July ([214]), was blocked 31 hours on 28 July for other disruptive activity, and today created Talk:Detachment (film) and Talk:They Eat Horses, Don't They? ([215], [216]). I moved both to the article space, prodded one and redirected the other. I think a longer block is necessary here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one after I posted this report and after I turned one of the pages into a redirect: [217]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. If they continue after that, a longer block. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here, the restriction was originally put in place (as I remember) to help limit the potentially libelous crap being generated in mainspace. It wasn't because we wanted to force people into creating accounts. If the creations are not unreasonable (as opposed to being reasonable) what's the issue? It takes someone else who presumably reads it first to move it to mainspace. Blocking someone for trying to contribute content seems madness. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a mechanism for creating articles, Wikipedia:Articles for creation, that can be used by IPs. I've used it myself. Perhaps IP 174 might be pointed in that direction? 81.145.247.186 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have done that. I've done it. Did you look at the IP's talk page and the long list of warnings and the block just a few days ago? And the complete lack of response to the warnings? A bit of communication goes a long way to show good faith. Let's see how they respond to my offer to unblock. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I would not have brought this matter here had this user not been warned, kindly pointed towards AfC, and blocked before for the same reasons. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is a technical limit on IPs creating pages, but no policy restriction on them being the originator of a page (if there were AFC would be out as well). AFC maybe the better mechanism since it's more or less chance that someone sees the talk page and then understands it's meant to be the start of the article. I still can't see what disruption, what threat to wikipedia or the community is being addressed by such a block and therefore how it meets the blocking policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy to unblock if he will discuss his actions. His original block was not for creating articles, by the way. What we have here is an editor who has had a large number of complaints, mainly for adding unsourced materal and has not responded to any of them either by posting to a talk page or by changing his behavior and adding sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a word with a tendentious editor?

Can someone please take a look at the behaviour of Gd8man (talk · contribs)? He/she got stroppy over a singe edit I made to Dock jumping, which invovled unlinking some country names - common practice under WP:OVERLINK. If that wasn't bad enough the editor then reverted a whole series of perfectly valid edits that I made to Golden Retriever, accusing me on my talk page of being distruptive. If you look at those edits you'll see that they included using the {{convert}} template, adding a cited fact to present a worldwide perspective, and requesting citations for some claims. In short they were perfectly valid. For some reason this editor has taken against me and is now engaged in tendentious editing. A perspective from a third party would be useful. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This user has now also reverted a large sequence of perfectly valid changes that I made to Dock jumping. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified the editor - I've done that. Also, not a good idea to call his edits vandalism. Having said all that, I'm not happy with his telling you to go elsewhere or the edits I've looked at so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your advice is noticed - I shouldn't have used the vandalism function in twinkle - which he/she has now also done. As you can see I have attempted to engage on my talk page to no avail. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also noted on his talk page that he needs to read WP:OWN - I see he created one of those articles, so he's clearly got a problem there. We'll see how he responds, I don't think there's anything else to do at the moment. He has made only 296 edits overall, he's clearly inexperienced. We don't want to drive him away but he needs to rein back. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back I realized that I changed his edits on Golden Retriever by mistake.. But on Dock jumping he made 12 edits..changing picture placement,size,links....now doesn't that need discussion?...gd8man (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"By mistake"? You mean you looked through his contributions, clicked on a page completely unrelated to the original source of the edit war, then proceeded to (ab)use an editing tool to revert the edits he had worked on that page without looking at them (complete with a scathing edit summary)? I have no comment on the heart of the problem, but "by mistake" was such a ridiculous excuse that I couldn't let go. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why any of my changes need discussion? The manual of style for images states that a lead image should be large - up to 300 pixels - and that other images should be left without pixel sizes unless there is good reason (such as detail in the picture). WP:OVERLINK is clear about not linking country names. Quoting distance in feet and inches is not useful to people in other English speaking countries that use metric measurements, so converting the units is good practice. MOS:UNLINKDATES is clear that dates should not be linked - not that the dates in the article were properly linked as the month names were incorrectly shortened. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes by mistake,Golden Retriever is one of many pages I watch. I have a slow connection, so I open many tabs to save loading time.If you can't accept that I am sorry. Now as far as a lead picture there wasn't one,the image that was moved is discribing the chase method.The other images need more detail (such as detail in the picture). gd8man (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the lead image back to its previous place and introduced a new image in the lead position. As for sizes, I can see no reason why they need to be larger than default - there is no detail in them which would need a larger size. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you Mr. Bob to discuss changes (images) on the talk page. And yet you make still changes! Is it because you have made so many edits that you don't need to discuss them? Well that image is not very good. Or should we be discussing it on the talk page?gd8man (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As my reply to you on my talk page said, his changes were both well explained and not obviously contentious, and didn't need discussion on the talk page so far as I can tell. If there had been an earlier discussion of the issues with disagreements, or with consensus that he ignored, then yes, discussion would have been a good idea. But most edits editors made don't need any discussion on the talk page first. Simple Bob, remember that Gd8man is still a pretty inexperienced editor, and won't know about our guidelines that you've linked to above. Gd8man, remember that Simple Bob is a very experienced editor with almost certainly a lot more knowledge of our guidelines than you have. Read the links he's given above. I don't know that there's much more to say here, and hopefully there won't be any more problems. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So when he deleted the current world record, or moved images around, changed other wording and no discussion it is ok .....And because he complained I am the bad guy. I have been editing for over 2 years, not that it means anything. But hey come on, he comes and makes wholesale changes deletes records,changes images (even he admitted the lead image was not good)and doesn't have to discuss it. Well it kind of smells like a brotherhood.gd8man (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than arguing, wouldn't it be better to collaborate and look for coverage in reliable secondary sources before someone nominates the article for deletion per WP:FAILN. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to please someone like you. I moved your image back to where it was, introduced a new lead image which I admit isn't great so I added a number of other images to Wikimedia commons and opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I then added even more information to the page complete with a number of references. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor who never makes malicious or childish edits. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, always happy to enter into discussions, and in general I'm tolerant of less experienced editors even when they start throwing round accusations of such as being part of a wikipedia brotherhood. Looking at the history of Dock jumping you obviously don't like other people attempting to improve your article, which is a shame because you really should attempt to learn from others. Perhaps a it is time for a nice cup of tea and a bit of reflection. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to block a bot

Resolved

 – bot blocked Tommy! [message]

Hi all, Lavallen (talk · contribs) put up a request over at WP:EAR to block a bot account of his/hers on English WP (User:Innocent bot). Evidently Lavallen uses the account for Swedish WP edits but periodically has problems with AWB switching languages. I don't know if that's the ideal solution (one would rather fix the code causing the jump to other Wikis), but I figured I'd echo the request here where it'd get handled by admins faster. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You! I use this bot on four projects, (w:sv, n:sv:, s:sv and commons:) and it's when I switch between projects I accidently find myself in w:en: instead. I hope this "solution" is good enough. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c (admin) - personal attacks

Resolved

 – This discussion went way off topic and any further discussion about it doesn't belong here. Somewhere in here, Andrew acknowledged his comments could be seen as inappropriate and apologized. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

I'm sick of this.

Historicity of Jesus

Good thing the Wikipedia world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere. [218]

I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice. [219]

Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry. [220]

I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices, [221]

Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules which exclude people based on where they went to school, or where they worship in their personal lives, etc [222]

Jesus

This is nothing short of bigotry. It's like saying we can't cite Cornel West on topics of African American studies due to racial bias. If you have valid criticisms and specifics, please get into them, but please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices [223] (edit comment: “more bigotry”)

User_talk:Andrew_c#Personal_attacks

I'm sorry if you find calling it like I see if problematic. I find your continued efforts to discount sources above and beyond WP:RS based solely on a religious litmus test highly offensive. I won't shy away from this: it angers me to see such repeating ignorance and bigotry spouted over and over on Wikipedia. [224]

He also says: "I'd be entirely open to independent review of any of my comments. In fact, I'd encourage it, because I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, and pride myself on integrity, and am always open to review and constructive criticism." I went to the RFCU page, but the case doesn't meet the requirement of two editors commenting on his Talk page. I'm as sick as everyone else of seeing my name in this forum. I don't know what else to do. If I were acting like this, I would be blocked and people would be howling for a topic-ban. I'd like to see admins held to an equal standard. Or (gasp) a higher standard. Noloop (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about Andrew C. Noloop and I filed reports for edit warring yesterday against an editor at Christ myth theory. This wasn't an isolated case of edit-warring. The editor in question has been a serial reverter at Christian-related articles (editing from a conservative Christian position) for a long time, and has been blocked several times this year for 3RR violations. The reverts I posted showed him reverting against multiple editors, yet Andrew's response was that I should be blocked too. [225] It was a response that showed he hadn't looked at the article's history, and hadn't made himself familiar with the reverter's history and blocklog; or else he was familiar with it and was ignoring it. When I looked at his user page, I found he's involved in developing Christian-related content himself. I don't know what Andrew's POV is, but it's worrying if strong personal views are spilling over into not only editing, but also into the positions he takes as an admin.

On the issues of secular sourcing, it's often going to be preferable to try to find that wherever possible. This isn't bigotry, it's an effort to find sources who won't necessarily all agree with one another about fundamental issues. I would never rule out a source in Christian-related articles simply because Christian, but it's also worrying when the only sources used are from theological seminaries, and this seems to happen a lot in these articles. Indeed, at Christ myth theory, there has been an insistence that the sources be specialist biblical scholars, which of course almost guarantees a certain POV. A good mix of sources is always important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropraite to repeatedly tell another editor they are bigoted and prejudiced? We must use secular sources to write about Christian subjects, and Christian sources to write about secular subjects? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Andrew should not have accused Noloop of bigotry just for requesting secular sources. And yes, we must include secular sources when writing anout religious issues, if they exist. We should include all perspectives from all reliable sources, and should not be defining "reliable" so as to exclude secular POVs, obviously. And when there is a specifically Christian POV about a non-Christian issue, that would be included too, if there are reliable sources for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is entirely one sided. Also would we not also have to 'label' athiest sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If a source has made a point of being an atheist activist, I see no harm in pointing that out in the text. But it's less problematic that someone having been educated at a religious school, having gone to a theological seminary, teaching at a theological seminary, and then being used as a reliable source—when at no point in their lives have they been exposed to a non-religious education. Ideally, we should be looking for good sources with no dog in the fight. The problem with these articles (and not only these) that as soon as you find a good academic source with no dog in the fight, editors start crying that it's not an RS because not specialized enough. Hence the importance of sticking rigidly to the sourcing policy, including when it's not producing the desired POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the way Andrew sees it is that nobody accuses atheists of bias in science sources where Noloop does criticize Christians of bias on religious sources. To him it would be comparable to saying that all white sources are acceptable on white articles but that blacks are bias on black articles, which would be bigotry. Just a little clarification of where I think he's coming from. Maybe he should be warned, but I don't think further admin action is necessary.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also say there was an element of provocation, as you can see there was (not without some justification) an accusation that Noloop moved goal posts when his objections are met. That does rather engender the kind of temper losing that Andrew c is undoubtedly guilty of (and I agree with Noloop that an admin should know better).Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What a terrible analogy, it seems almost deliberately provocative. I think a more apt analogy would be accusing members of The Two Plus Two Equals Six Society of bias in the Two plus two article - that is, the primary criticism of Christian sources in the Historicity of Jesus article is that they, by their very upbringing, approach the topic with the conclusion already set in mind. Their research is, overall, better described as "Jesus existed, how can we prove it", as opposed to the more valid "was there a man known as Jesus Christ". That's not to say that they're necessarily aware of their own bias, or even that their conclusions are automatically wrong - just that their conclusions are rightfully suspect. We don't use Moonie "research" for the Sun Myung Moon article, perhaps dwelling on that will help enlighten some as to why Christian sources for this article are so contested. Badger Drink (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We're allowed to use Scientologists in articles about Scientology and members of the Unification Church in articles about their beliefs, but we should never allow articles to be framed entirely by any group, no matter how respectable. That's the essence of NPOV, and it's the point of the sourcing policy, which takes a non-restrictive view of sourcing. If it's deemed reliable by reasonable people, and if it's clearly on-topic without involving original research to squeeze it in, you can use it. We don't adhere to biblical scholar point of view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My current concern is that Noloops uncompromising demands for secular peer reviewed sourcing has, possibly irreparably, damaged the case for including a broader range of sources in these articles. I think it is also becoming confusing in that there are two issues; the issue of "did jesus exist historically" and "what is the consensus view of scholars" - it's a mealy mess for sure. There is also the inherent issue of a slight lack of secular sourcing (simply by virtue of the topic) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This sems to be rehashing the debate that casued this ani, rather then adressing the ani.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, a lot of the comments by editors in this discussion has been concerning; including general accusations of yourself about an ingrained religious bias and so forth (which I felt at the time was not at all justified for most of the editors it was directed at). Not that that excuses Andrew c's direct responses; but I can see the rationale behind finding some of the comments about the validity of Christian sources (more in the wording than the meaning/intent) disturbing - that is the sort of double standard not required on other articles. I think the issue is you are a lone voice on this, even those of us agreeing with you on some matters widely disagree with the more extreme stuff; you've taken it to every noticeboard, mediation, arbitration, got the article protected and so on and so forth. Honestly; perhaps it is best just to withdraw from this one. I honestly believe that you're starting to damage the more "conservative" case being made by other editors and which is gaining traction. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not a lone voice, Errant. I agree with him, and I'm guessing most of Wikipedia agrees with him (though I've not followed the way he's pursued it and maybe I would disagree with the approach, I don't know). But I do find the attitude at the Jesus articles disturbing. We need secular sources. No one should be accused of bigotry for requesting that, because it's perfectly reasonable. No one is necessarily being anti-Scientology because we don't want to base entire articles on their views. The same applies to articles related to Christianity, animal rights, Michael Jackson, and to everything else. Sources with no dog in the fight are important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that no one should use the word "bigot" anymore on these Jesus pages. That would be a good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A better start would be for noloop to stop behaving in a manner that could be described as such. Because if the shoe fits.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not the fact he asks, he demands and when presented with sources just changes what he has asked for. Moreover as far as I am aware no one has said we cannot use secualr sources, just not being secuular does not preclude a sources use. (though I have not followed the Jesus page), which is effectivly what Noloop seems to be saying. That or we should identify christain source becasue they might be bias (but then so would any source, do we identify American sources on the AWI page?), odd that he seems to ignore that Muslims also belive in Jesus the man (thus its not only chrisitans that bleive in him).

Noloop's behavior should raise serious concerns among everyone. Consider this recent arbitration request, where he betrays his approach to editing anything relating to Jesus. You can also check out this thread if that is not enough to convince you. Ironically, the only person (as far as I can tell) who is insisting on using a limited range of sources is Noloop.

Not that he's against using Christian scholars—but if any scholar, no matter how well-respected in the field, happens also to be a Christian, then Noloop insists on specifically spelling that out. For example, "The Christian scholar Joe Blow says such an such about the historicity of Jesus". That would be like saying, "The Jewish historian Joe Blow says such and such about antisemitism". That sounds bigoted to me, but even if it's not, then I seriously doubt that such an approach is part of Wiki core policies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop feels that the predisposition of the sources cited to believe the thing they are cited for should be made clearer. That seems reasonable. It's not clear why your antisemitism example is comparable, because it is not contextualised. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, does that "predisposition of the sources" apply to atheists too? Should we say, for example, "The atheist biologist Richard Dawkins says such and such about biology?" If that attitude is not bigoted, then at the very least it is POV, which violates a core wiki policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the context is missing (ie the crucial part is what the "such and such" is and whether Dawkins is predisposed to a POV in noteworthy way because he is an "atheist biologist"). if the statement is "God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin", then noting than the source is an atheist biologist is likely to be appropriate. It is abslutely in conformance with WP:NPOV to acknowledge the potential bias of a source. --FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The context (i.e., "such and such") is their respective fields. So for an historian, the context is their specialty in history. For a biologist, the context is their specialty in biology. The example you gave above ("God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin") would be valid and appropriate only when scholars are speaking outside their field of expertise. For example, when Dawkins says "there is no god...", he is making a metaphysical claim, and such claims are outside the realm of biology (metaphysical claims belong to the field of philosophy)—so, to note his atheism is indeed appropriate. But when a scholar is using mainstream methodology, to include "Christian" and "atheist" labels (or any other label for that matter) strongly implies a POV by the wiki editor, as if their opinions (i.e., the scholars in question) don't follow the standard methodology of their respective fields and are letting their personal opinions taint their work. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic is personal attacks by admins. I'd like to keep the dispute about content off this page. He's not entitled to accuse me of "vile prejudice" and bigotry, even if he's right about the content.

I only documented Andrew's remarks directed at me. Admin Slrubenstein has slung the same arrows: "Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest....Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. ... All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: " [226] "I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling."[227].

Admins have been strict with me. I was blocked twice for 6 days, without a 3RR violation. Admins should make judgement calls based on the spirit of the rule; I don't contest the principle. The judgement calls against me were just very strict. I wonder if admins are held to the same standard. Strict standards, applied to these admins, would result in a block for personal attacks.

Another sign that things are out of control is that last night I dreamed of diffs. I am taking a 24 hour break. (After just a few more edits, I mean....)Noloop (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop has problems with his approach, but he is far and away a net benefit to the project with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart in everything he does. And as Slim says, he's not a lone voice. If anything, he may very well be a majority voice of editors even if his execution leaves something to be desired. I've been around for two knee-jerk attempts to topic ban Noloop, spearheaded by 2 editors. In one attempt it failed with only those two editors supporting. In the other, there were those two editors plus one more. It failed too. The correct course of action at this point for those who view him as disruptive is to acknowledge the community doesn't see it that way, and try to look past the admittedly clumsy presentation Noloop has and dive in to the substance of his objections, which clearly are considered reasonable by the community writ large. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to him, [my talk] page documents my own righteous and pure behavior. Let’s just call it “immaculate conduct." Yes, of course he's a net benefit. I mean, I even feel honored to be in his presence. Let's all hold hands and pray that he will guide us on our way in the journey of wiki-life. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the history of this and related articles as two sides each trying to claim that the other side is in some degree less intellectually responsible than the other. We should not be engaging in such debates here; we simply present all position. There's been I think an effort to portray the idea of non-historicity of Jesus as a fringe position; I think this is wrong--it's been a respectable position argued for millennia; it is not currently fashionable in academic circles, but in the historical sciences such is very far from fringe (and of course saying that there is an historical basis is perfectly compatible with saying that essentially everything in the N.T. accounts is imaginary--which is not in the least a fringe position.) There's also been an effort to say that religious sources on jesus are not as reliable as non-religious sources; I think this is also wrong. Religious scholars have argued for a surprisingly wide number of views on the subject--religious in not = contemporary Christian fundamentalist. Even so, I would not reject such sources--I see no reason on a topic like this why anyone is more likely to be right than anybody else--though I certainly know what position I personally believe to be right, which is another matter entirely. I fid it almost unimaginable that anyone interested in such a topic actually is truly totally neutral, though people of all views have different degrees of freedom from their preconceptions, as well as different degrees of intellectual rigor. One evaluates work on subjects like this with consideration of the author and the publisher, but not by rejecting or downgrading views a priori--this is the very opposite of NPOV.

But agreed, the above is to some extent a digression. To call someone a bigot is a personal attack. It may conceivably be a valid personal attack, but it remains a personal attack. We can only work together by being careful to avoid such wording--even when one thinks it justified. We can only make progress in Wikipedia by keeping such views about each other to ourselves. It's time we took action against people who do this after a warning. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there has been no warning, besides Noloop would actually be valuable if he did some research and found sources that he thought was appropriate, but instead all he does is demand others find sources which isn't helpful.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some action should be taken. Obviously name-calling, i.e. calling someone a bigot, is not appropriate. It is also not accurate, in the case of Noloop. His stated position is repeatedly misrepresented by his critics and their grotesque caricature of his argument is held up as a straw man to be burned in effigy with a "BIGOT" sign pinned to its back. Noloop has been very good about focusing on the issue of inadequate sourcing for the statements that are made in the Jesus articles. See the talk pages for the arguments. Suffice it to say that the behavior of those who oppose the view of Noloop, SlimVirgin, and others who are looking for some secular peer-reviewed sources has been extremely inappropriate at times, and has not been helpful to the project. Noloop has just provided some examples. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andrew could apologize for name calling, Noloop could apologize for impugning Christian scholars honesty about what other scholars think, and then have a big hug :) Roy Brumback (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that rather than focus on the issue raised, this has been diverted by trying to make it about the behaviour of editor who posted this, the content of the article, and the discussion on the talk page. This illustrates the problem here - people will not focus on the issues, and the discussion gets nowhere. This method of discussion is never going to be productive (statements intended to illustrate the lines of argument - not actual quotes): We need secular scholarly sources... OK... Here is Bertrand Russell... He is not an expert on the topic... We need secular scholarly sources... OK, but unless they are a professor at a theological college who is an expert in this field, you cannot use them... But there aren't any... So all scholars agree on this, there is no need to qualify that are mostly people holding a particular religious affiliation... and so on, round and round it goes. Pointing out the inherent problem here is not bigotry, and people need to focus on the persistent accusations of bigotry against this editor, as well as the repeated attempts to get him banned, off-article comments warning him to stop editing these articles, and what could be construed as 'bullying' of a single editor who challenges a dominant POV. This really should not be going on here, although I am experienced enough to know this happens in quite a few places here, it would be nice to see people starting to do something about this. - MishMich - Talk - 08:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate was obviously heated, and as far as I can see did include an implication that scholars of Christian education were unreliable. Andrew could certainly have phrased his comments better, I could think of several ways of phrasing it so as to convey the same content while not using the word "bigotry" and being above reproach for AN/I purposes. I do not think anything should be done. If both editors haven't gotten the message they need to play it cool in debate from here on in, they never will. I suggest we send this back to the appropriate talk page. This discussion itself constitutes any necessary warning. Obviously, admins need to observe high standards of civility, which I personally try to do myself, but that's not a club to beat the admin with either. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's only a club to beat non-administrators with, I see. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's twice now I've found myself agreeing with Malleus. Worrying :) Wehwalt, Noloop did not say that christian scholars were unreliable. What he said repeadedly was that they were biased. Not the same thing. This is an area where pretty much all sources come at it from a POV of some kind, and SlimVirgin has noted elsewhere that for scholars coming out of the mainly US christian academic field, who seem to be dominant in the current zeitgeist, the POV is notably that the historical Jesus existed pretty much as you see him. This large group has claimed that all scholars agree with them, and Noloop has been seeking evidence from scholars outside the group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked both Andrew C and Slrubenstein not to make any further personal attacks. Slinging around insults like "bigot" is not acceptable behaviour. If any editors do persist in making personal attacks along these lines, they should be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "unreliable", I did not mean "wrong" or "biased" or anything specific. I simply meant that they couldn't be taken as if they came down from Sinai on stone—aw darn, that's a bad analogy. Running for cover, see you later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks, at least not in this case. A few examples have come up: Christ myth theory, Jesus, and Historicity of Jesus. I want to make plain that I have not paid any attention to the Jesus myth theory for quite some time and NONE of my comments address any conflict there. But with regard to Noloop's arguments, and those of some other, e.g. Cyclopia, I have to say, I consider bigotry at WP to be a danger any concerned Wikipedian should take very seriously, and oppose. By bigotry I mean an intolerance for the views of others based on their race, creed, or color (in this case, creed seems to be the parameter in play). It is not calling someone a bigot that is the offence, it is the bigotry that is the offence.

Andrew C's comments directed at Noloop have to be put in context. Noloop has been arguing at the Jesus article against a host of sources from scholars trained at or employed by seminaries or divinity schools. Noloop is making an assumption: that since the authors of these books and articles are Christians, they books and articles forward a Christian point of view. This is prejudiced, because Noloop is deciding what the point of view in the book or article is based on the religion of the author. He is not deciding this based on the contents of the book or article. It is bigoted, because he rejects without evidence the possibility that someone who happens to be a Christian might not have other identities, other social statuses, and as a result may have views that are not "Christian."

I wish to be very clear about the issue here. No one is claiming that the Christian point of view is not biased. No one is claiming that an article should promote a Christian point of view. No one is claiming that Christian views shoud not be identified as such. Andrew C certainly has not suggested anything like this, nor have I.

The issue here appears to be whether a particular point of view is Christian or not. The real issue here is, how do we determine what view is being presented? I think that one first has to start with the view itself, look at the contents of the claim, and secondly to look at how the claim itself is being presented, and to whom it is being addressed. Once one has done these things - and I consider this to be basic research, one might then find it useful to provide biographical information about the person presenting the view, it can provide additional context that helps clarify the view. This is all I and Andrew c have ever called for, to my knwoledge.

But Noloop is skipping the first two steps. For him, once you know what religion a person is, youknow his or her views. I admit that people are often divided, divided by gender, for example, but when Kinsey wrote about male and female sexuality, I do not think he was expressing a "man's" point of view. People are also divided by race, creed, and color, and people certainly can express one's views as a person of a particular race, creed or color. However, we at wikipedia cannot assume that just because someone is a Catholic, they are always expressing a papist point of view.

An analogy: Henry Louis Gates is a literary critic and author of a book on an important African-American narrative device The Signifying Monkey. The late John Hope Franklin was a historian and wrote one of the seminal books on African American history, From Slavery to Freedom. William Julius Williams is a sociologist who wrote The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy, one of the most important sociological works on African Americans. Now, each of these men is an African American. And each of these books is on an African Americans or some aspect of African Americans culture. I think it would be a profound insult if someone were to add to one of our articles on Blacks "The Black view is expressed in The Signifying Monkey," or "Many African Americans believe (reference to From Slavery to Freedom)," of "A notable black view is found in Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy". This would be an insult to Henry Louis Gates, John Hope Franklin, and William Julius Wilson, because it is suggesting that they can only express a "black view" and not "a literary critic's view," or "a historian's view" or "a sociologist's view." But it is also an insult to the academic fields of literary criticism, history, and sociology, because you are saying either one of two things: either these are white disciplines, and can never claim any objectivity but only perpetuate the views of one race ... or you are saying that these fields have no theoretical or methodological standards that provide a basis for declaring something to be scholarly.

Now as to Biblical scholarship - there are some people who have talked about an atheist or secular view in opposition to a Christian point of view. There might be times when this is an appropriate way to sort out the major views (certainly, if the topic is belief in God). But when it comes to Biblical Scholarship, it is not always appropriate. Sure, I understand that this is how the debate may play out when people are debating in high school or at a bar, but it doesn't really reflect the debates among actual scholars. For example, I have heard atheists say the most ludicrous things about Jesus or the Bible. The fact that they do not believe in God doesn't speak at all to their knowledge of Aramaic and Koine Greek, their knowledge of the historical documents that trace back to first or second century Roman-occupied Judea, or of the archeology, or of Second Temple Judaism (the religion in which Jesus grew up). Conversely, Julius Wellhausen, the father of the documentary hypothesis, was trained as a theologian and his first teaching position was as a professor of theology. And yet, his theories are among the most radical in Biblical scholarship and played a critical role in the development of "history" as a modern academic discipline. It is true that as his theories of multiple Biblical authorship developed, he felt he could no longer train pastors and left his post. But his mext post was at the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, the name of which tells you something about how Christian education and critical scholarship (what outsiders might call "secular") were entwined in the 19th century. The fact is this: by the end of the 19th century, Christians were quite divided over the value of the Gospels as historical documents.

Now, Noloop and others have pointed out that a number of historians presented by Andrew c (and I would add by me) were either trained in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programmes, or teach in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programs. What they neglect to say is that many of these institutions or programs actually wish their students to learn history, and thus hire historians. The history they wish their students to learn is what is most conveniently called "Biblical history" but if any of you out there think this means using the Bible as a history textbook then you are simply ignorant. Only religious fundamentalists would do that. And yes, there are many out there. But not all Jews and Christians are fundamentalists. There are in fact vigorous debates among factions of Jews and Christians as to who authored Biblical books and when. And there are many major seminaries, as well as Biblical Studies programmes in a wide range of universities, for whom "Biblical history" begins with asking when a book, or even a part of a book, was authored; what cultural, political, and economic factors influenced the authors; and how to interpret passages in the Bible accordingly. Among people who studied in or teach in such programs there is a wide range of views, including the view that Jesus may have existed or probably but not certainly existed; that Jesus was born of a biological mother and father; that he did not claim to be the messiah. These are scholars who may be Christians but who certainly are historians. They use the same methods as historians who study Pericles or Caeser.

By the way, those of you who have not spent a lot of time at a major university might wonder why it is that there is a separate Biblical Studies program; you might think that that is a program just for people who "believe in the Bible." You are making a real mistake. Perhaps you haven't noticed that in many universities, you won't find Pericles or Caeser being taught in the History Department either. And if you do not understand why you might end up making the bigoted kinds of comments Noloop has made. Here is the deal: academic "History" is the study of written sources (archeology looks at non-written sources, but for practical reasons when one goes way back in time there is overlap); the mark of a serious historian is that one is fluent in the language of the sources used. In the 19th century when the modern university was still taking shape, most History departments focused on the history of whatever country the university was in, and because of the nature of 19th century European history, the history of neighboring countries. This meant you might find people who spoke foreign languages, but they were "living" languages. If you have lived in an English-speaking country, you only need a modicum of extra training to be able to use sources from Tudor times. If you want to study the principle sources on Pericles or Caeser, however, you have to learn ancient Greek and Latin, "dead languages." Most universities created "Classics Departments" which specialized in the study of these languages and written documents in these languages, which meant that the best historians of ancient Greece and Rome did not train in History departments but in Classics departments. This does not mean they were inferior historians; on the contrary, the average History department did not have the resources to train them well. Biblical History requires different language - Aramaic as well as Koine Greek for the New Testament, and for the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugarritic, Akkadian, Ancient Egyptian, even Sumerian. As with Classics, separate departments trained people in these languages and in the study of historical texts in those languages. These can be called Biblical Studies Departments (although they can also be called Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments). Also, while the best universities had enough students who wanted to study this stuff that they might be able to support a good department, most universities simply do not have enough students to support a good department. If you want to teach in a good department i.e. have several coleagues who also read Aramaic fluently or have done original researchon Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian religion .... your best bet is to go to a liberal seminary; those are the institutions that hire good historians trained in these languages. And that means if you want to get a PhD. in the history of this time and place, your best bet is to study at one of these seminaries. Not because you want to be a priest or minister, but because here is where the leading critical scholars are.

People who are bigoted against anything religious might consider this bizarre, but anyone who is really familiar with how universities are organized, as well as the economics of higher education, will not find anything I wrote surprising. In the US in the 1970s this started to change - there were enough PhDs in Biblical Studies, and enough students and money in higher ed., that many "secular" universities would hire good Biblical historians. Interest in the Classics waned in some universities and Classics Departments fell apart and Classisists were often absorbed into History Departments. So in the 1980s you can find some good universities with History departments with people teaching Biblical history or Roman history. But if you think that is how it always was well, you just do not know the history of the university system! Today universities are going through budget crises again, and you better believe that if you are a top scholar in Koine Greek and have read original 4th or 3rd century codixes of the Bible and want a job teaching history, you probably will have to teach at a seminary; most other universities just do not have enough student demand to hire someone with this specialization. The good news is, liberal seminaries do not want theologians to teach Biblical history, they want historians - meaning, people trainined in critical historical methods - to teach them Biblical history.

Now I hope those of you who did not know much about this now understand why you cannot know the point of view of the scholar based on where she got her degree or teaches. You have to read the book or article, determine who the intended audience is, and see what actual arguments the author is making. Some of these Bible scholars may very well be espousing a "Christian" view. But many of them are not.

Now, I realize I am talking about people who may be Christians, who are writing about a portion of Christian history. But remember John Hope Franklin, the black man writing about black history? To reject John Hope Franklin as a source on American history, or to insist that his books are pushing a "black" point of view, is an insult to him and to all of the historians who have benefitted from his research. It is bigoted. Anyone who brackets the man's color and actually reads his work will say "this is the work of a historian." Now, to google the author of a book and see that he teaches at a seminary, or that he was trained in a Biblical Studies Program or a Divinity School, and therefore decide that you are free of the obligation actually to read the books and articles he wrote, or to learn more about the presses or journals in which he is published, and who reads them and you can simply say "Christian point of view" is just as bigoted. When you take this position you are not just insulting the black man who, you are saying, can never study black history as a professional historian, or the Christian who, you are saying, can never study Christian history as a professional historian, you are attacking the whole idea of history as a modern, academic discipline that anyone can study and learn how to do.

As for Andrew c .... well, I have mostly just been trying to explain to you the stuff you ought to know before you attack him. People have mentioned a few articles here and as I said I cannot comment on his behavior at the Jesus Myth Article. But I have watched him edit the Jesus article for years and I have not seen him push any particular POV except to insist that editors use reliable sources and use them appropriately. He is one of a number of editors who consistently insists that scholarly views (and I am refering to critical scholars) be represented adequately and accurately, and that the Jesus article not turn into an article on Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comparison between race and the holding of a set of beliefs. We don't want articles about a belief system, particularly a contentious one, to be framed entirely by people within that system. Asking for sources that clearly fall outside it is legitimate.

What has worried me (and I speak now only of Christ myth theory, as I catch only glimpses of what's been happening elsewhere) is that humanities sources are being rejected only because the writers are attached to the "wrong" university departments. A paper from the lowliest biblical scholar from the worst of the theological seminaries is fine, while respected academics from mainstream universities are deemed not specialist enough. Alvar Ellegård, a professor of English at the University of Gothenburg, has been questioned as a source on the failure of the academic community to be sufficiently rigorous about the existence of Jesus, even though he's known for his work on science and religion. (Not a specialist, we're told, and not really notable.) The philosopher, Michael Martin, was also rejected, though he wrote a book called The Case Against Christianity, and said a strong case could be made for the Christ myth theory. (Not a specialist, they said, and anyway he's retired.) G.A. Wells, who's written extensively about this, is apparently not allowed as a general source, only as a source for his own beliefs in the article about those beliefs. (A professor of German, how dare he!)

There must be more of an effort to include the wider academic community, so we offer a three-dimensional, cross-faculty view of how the existence of Jesus is approached. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are wrong that all of the sources presented (at least at the Jesus article - I repeat I cannot address the Christ Myth theory) are "within the system" if by that you mean "the belief system" and if by that you mean "the Christian belief system." Noloop and others have been representing the views of historians as the views of Christians. In many cases these historians are also Christian, but that does not mean that their views are therefore Christian. If you read the books and articles, and pay attention to how they are framed, and conclude that the views presented are Christian, that is good research. If you do not read the books and articles, and examine how they are framed, and judge the views to be Christian before you even know what the views are, that is prejudice. If you insist that, simply because a historian is Christian, his or her work is not "history" but rather "Christianity," that is bigotry. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone wants only the views of Christians (views from "within" the belief system) to be presented in an article.

But the difference between EP Sanders and GA Wells is not that one is Christian and the other secular. EP Sanders is a professional historian using modern historical methods; Wells is not. If you do not like the word diletantte, just say "indepednednt researcher" or something like that. GA Well's writings on Jesus bear no relation to his academic career and it is a real distortion of academia to suggest that it is. Wells's work is notable in relation to the Christ Myth theory and should (in my view) be included in that article, but they should not be presented as the views of an expert on 1st century Roman occupied Judean history. I see two issues here concerning sources: the first as that both inside and outside of academia there are people who write to forward a particular ideological agenda, which may be Christianity or atheism or some other ism. And second, there are the views of professional historians and Bible scholars who have devoted their lives to careful scholarly research, learning original languages as well as reading everything by Wellhausen and Gunkel and by whomever the major critical historians on Christianity and the NT - and then there are lay or amateur (non-scholarly) views. Now, our notability guidelines may lead us to include all these views in an article. But my main point is that we are dealing with at least four different kinds of views and when someone tries to reduce one pair to the other, as if there are just two views, they really are misrepresenting the research and really the world of scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments of Slrubenstein present a straw man. Nobody is saying Christian scholars be excluded. Simply highlighting that the opposite that is happening. It is more like saying that a white person cannot comment on black history - to stretch that inappropriate analogy. - MishMich - Talk - 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making a simple error in logic. Just because I think blacks are quite capable of writing scholarly works on black history does not mean I do not think whites cannot. Nowhere have I suggested that non-Christians cannot contribute. But aside from your own bad logic, please do not misrepresent me. Did you read what I wrote? I never said the problem is Noloop wanting to exclude Christian views. My problem is that Noloop seems to label any view he does not like as "Christian." Consequently, he misrepresents many important scholarly views. This is POV-warring and it is wrong. The bottom line is it is bigoted to have a religion-litmus-test for contributors. You do not find out what kind of views an author is forwarding in her book by asking whether she is Jewish or Presbyterian or Buddhist. You look at the book and its contents to see what view it is promoting.

It amazes me that there are so many editors here who cannot grasp the simplest point: one can identify one's self as Christian, even belong to a Church, and also be a medical doctor, biologist, or historian. There are Christians who think abortion is a sin but there are also Christian MDs who perform abortions. There are Christians who think the theory of evolution is bunk but there are Christian biologists who conduct research on evolution (evolution, not creationism or ID). There are Christians who take the Bible literally, but there are also Christian historians who see it in its historical context, as the work of people living in different historical contexts, and who analyze it in its historical context, as a document that reveals at least as much about its authors as it does about its characters. The simplest point is that one can be a Christian and also be a fine professional historian, who uses the same methods and reaches the same conclusions as any non-Christian historian. In such cases, it obviously does not matter that ther person is Christian; what does matter is that she is an historian. I keep thinking about it, and reading people's comments, but I always reach the same conclusion: to disregard what a person actually wrote, what methods they use and how they use diferent kinds of evidence and diferent kinds of methods to reach their conclusions, and instead simply decide that since the person is a Christian they can only be pushing a Christian POV, is bigoted.

I am flummoxed by the number of people who do not get this. I can make an edit to any article and based on the edit you can decide whether my edit hopelessly violates NPOV, or violates NPOV but can be fixed, or is NPOV compliant. You do this by looking at my edit, not by asking what my religion is. To take this approach to researching and writing an encyclopedia is just shameful. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you say, but can I ask you this? In an article about Scientology, if you were to discover the article was based almost entirely on the work of historians and professors of religion who were also committed Scientologists, to what extent would you factor that in when reading their material and using them as sources? Because at some point we have to take sources on trust. We can't judge the quality of everything every source writes: if we could do that we would be the experts ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I sympathize with anyone who thinks critically and is skeptical about sources - any sources. But the next step after skepticism is to examine the work in its context, without prejudice. When it comes to Scientology, there is a documented history of the Church of Scientology explicitly declaring that a good deal of knowledge about Scientology is proprietary, and a record of the Church of Scientology suing dissenters. So there is a particular kind of skepticism concerning Scientology that is based on conclusions, and not assumptions, and which I therefore would not consider prejudiced. Within the Catholic Church there is not only a record of sexual abuse of minors, but of the Church hierarchy covering up such abuse - lying to parents and not reporting crimes to state of Federal prosecutors. This pattern is well-documented, so a refusal to take Church statements about sexual abuse at face-value, or as sufficient to any presentation of facts about sexual abuse in the Church is also a conclusion based on real evidence, and thus not an assumption, not pre-judged.

But when it comes to Biblical history there is a different body of evidence and you do not have to have a PhD, you only have to take one or two college courses on the Bible, or find out what books are assigned by professors at major universities and read them, to learn that historically Christians themselves have generated a great deal of literature that is critical of certain Christian beliefs about the Bible. So in this case one reaches different conclusions. In this case, I do not think that an analogy with Scientology is appropriate.

This does not mean that committed Christian do not write stuff on the Bible that expresses Christian views. I would expect most secular clergy, missionaries, and theologians to write about the Bible in ways that advance Christian views. I am just saying that there is considerable evidence of people who are Christians yet who become historians and write critical history.

(You introduce the word "committed" which opens up another can of worms. I am sure there are some Christians who would read the works of these historians and declare that the authors cannot possibly be "committed" Christians. I think any Jew, Christian, or Muslim who was brought up in orthodoxy has some kind of crisis when they encounter the theory of evolution, lower and higher criticism, and other such things. They have a choice of rejecting science, rejecting their religion, or seeking some kind of acommodation. Darwin himself abandoned Christianity, while the Catholic Church accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. First the Enlightenment, then Darwin, and only then Wellhausen provoked great debates within Judaism and Christianity and today I assume among Hindus and Muslims as well. In Christianity and Judaism, "fundamentalism" as we know it developed after the Enlightenment in reaction against it - but so did liberal forms of these religions that embrace the Enlightenment, Darwin, and lower and higher criticism. So a Jew or a Christian can accept these things without abandoning his or her religion. I imagine they consider themselves very committed to Judaism or Christianity, just not to the Judaism of the Lubavitch Hasidim or the Christianity of Jerry Falwell. And I imagine the Lubavitch and Evangelical Christians might consider such people apostates. Personally, this is my opinion: I think when we are talking about these Biblical historians, it is usually very clear whether they are serious modern historians or not. What kind of Christians they are far more complicated and controversial.) Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread was supposed to be about me, I'll show up and wave hello. Is there anything anyone wants me to respond to regarding my conduct? I'd be happy to discuss anything further, either here or on my talk page. Regarding the main complaint, I'll acknowledge that at the time I did not feel I was personally attacking Noloop, and felt I was simply characterizing the nature of their arguments; but I can see now that my comments crossed a line; I acknowledge some editors felt they negatively affected them personally; I acknowledge that they were not productive to the discussion at hand; and I apologize for that; and I can agree to shy away from the b-word in the future, and use this as a reminder to keep focusing on arguments, not individuals. I believe I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, pride myself on integrity, and don't want to jeopardize that by loosing tempers in a petty online debate, and I hope we all can forgive and look past this and continuing working on these issues on their respective article talk pages. I'm sorry to have been a catalysts in taking up this much space in the ever busy ANI. Also, thanks for the history lesson Slrubenstein, (and I did read it all, despite my TL;DR inclination.) Again, I'd be glad to respond to specifics directed at me personally here, or on my talk page. P.S. I hope this is not in bad form, but I was wondering if an uninvolved admin would consider "reminding" Noloop of WP:TALK and specifically not editing or deleting others' comments.[228][229][230][231]. I feel like any warning from me would be throwing fuel on a fire. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement and apology. I have warned Noloop for the latest comment removal, this is not OK. Fences&Windows 23:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Personal attacks are indefensible. It’s astonishing that an admin is actively arguing for a right to insult me. His response to being asked to stop is that he intends to continue: “I cannot believe you tolerate bigots at Wikipedia....Sorry, bigots are a threat to the integrity of WP as a whole. I won't stand for them.” [232] “Noloop is a POV-pushing troll.” [233] “Bigotry, like racism, describes a particular kind of personal attack. Why is labeling someone's edit " a form of bigotry" a personal attack,...” [234]. Is an essay about why he’s right in a content dispute a defense of calling an editor a “fanatical bigot”?

His analogy to African-American topics, which isn’t very convincing, proves the point. If an editor did write “"The Black view is expressed in...” (his example), would Wikipedia policy support saying to that editor: “You’re a racist fanatical bigot” ?

Should I respond to his points about content? It only legitimizes his defense of personal attacks, as if I have to prove I’m right in order to deserve civility. Responding to him assumes he’s interested in listening to me, has an open mind. Should I have faith that someone who thinks I’m fanatical POV-pushing bigotted troll cares about my view? Others have already noted that the Christian:Jesus relation isn’t the same as the African-American:Civil-rights relation. African-Americans are not predisposed by a doctrine of “Blackness” to take faith-based positions on civil rights. Being African-American is not a religion. He objects to a religious “litmus test.” I proposed no “litmus test.” More of my opinion on the sourcing dispute is in my most recent comments to Andrew [235] and [236]. A summary of my examination of the sourcing is here [237]. I won't continue to discuss content here.

An ‘’admin’’ is defiantly announcing an intention to call me a bigot and a “POV-pushing troll”. Not only is he attacking me, he’s announcing a right to do so. I would have been blocked immediately if I had said half what he said. When I accused him of personal attacks, I backed every single case with a diff. In all his mudslinging, he has supported nothing. He proposed: “Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely," previously, and offered not a single diff in support. [238] Nobody who comes here deserves to be attacked and intimidated by admins. Double-standards are offensive. Why no sanctions? Noloop (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First, administrators are wikipedia's janitors. When it comes to conflicts over how to edit a page or apply a policy, it does not matter whether someone is a sysop or not. I do not know why you emphasize a fact which is irrelevant to this case. Second, I apologize for using the word "troll," I should have said disruptive editor. As to comparing race to religion, my point is simply that these identities can shape one's point of view, but do not always do so, which is all that matters as far as our NPOV policy goes. Finally, I will admit to my own bias: I grew up in the United States. During the Civil War, some abolitionists and Congressmen from the North declared that the struggle was over the rights of all persons regardless of "race, creed, or color." One of the first significant steps in the Civil Rights movement in the US was when President Roosevelt, pressed by black unions, issued Executive Order 8802 baning any discrimination "against persons on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin" in the military or any defense-related industry. The first Federal act using the term "affirmative action" - and a pillar of the civil rights movement - was John E. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925, which declared that people should be treated equally regardless of their "race, creed, color, or national origin." The Civil Rights movement in the US had a big impact on me, and yes, I do consider prejudice against people on the basis of their race, or creed, or color, or national origin to be equally bad, and historically, equally problems modern societies must struggle to overcome. I do not understand why you think the equation of Christians and Blacks as equally deserving in civil rights is wrong. I can only explain why I equate them, and it has to do with my growing up in the US during the period of Civil Rights struggles and advances. Finally, you ask why you should care about the views of someone who has criticized your own position as bigoted. I do not expect you to care. A month ago, when you first started commenting on the talk pages of the Jesus article, I took your comments in good gaith and I tried to respond in kind, explaining why I disagreed with you. Other editors did the same. You simply ignored our comments or questions. Believe me, at this point I do not expect you to change your behavior. But as always I am willing to be surprised. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

re to Slrubenstein

Since I have called into question. The rant by Slrubenstein misses one very simple point: we are discussing the very foundation of a dogmatic belief. Let me explain. While Afro-American people do not necessarily share, to my knowledge, dogmatic beliefs of any kind, Christians do share at least one belief, that Jesus existed and that he is their Lord and Saviour. That comes out simply by definition.

Now, Slrubenstein fluffs a lot of irrelevant arguments of the kind "there are Christians that are also evolutionary biologists". So what? Christianity as a whole does not demand absolute refusal (or absolute acceptance) of Darwinian evolution, even if some Christian variants perhaps do. So these examples are completely not pertinent to the problem.

But a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Christ does not exist, simply because it is a self-contradiction. So when Slrubenstein denounces Noloop in thinking that "once you know what religion a person is, youknow his or her views.", he doesn't acknowledge a very important thing. That is, you don't know his/her views in general, but you can bet your life on a very specific point: that that person will absolutely believe that Jesus exists as a true, historical figure.

That is the core problem. I fully agree, obviously, that as a general rule we shouldn't single out sources, scholars and people in general on the basis of religion etc. But in this case, a fundamental biases arises. If you are a Christian and you write on the existence of Jesus, you simply cannot acknowledge that Jesus didn't exist. Notice that Christian scholars are, quite obviously, fully aware of their bias in this respect: page 144: "For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility [that Jesus doesn't exist], which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character.".

So, in this very specific case, yes, we do know what someone thinks on the mere basis of religion and yes, the mere religious affiliation immediately denounces a bias. Then, it is entirely possible (and I do indeed believe it) that the bias is actually close to the truth: but to determine it, non-Christian sources are badly needed.

Finally: In general, I see no problem in writing "Afro-American scholar..." or "European scholar..." or similar, in articles about Afro-American issues, or about European issues, or whatever. To denounce mere open disclosure of potential (not necessarily real, this time!) biases to the reader seems to me only an act of honesty. To call this "bigotry" is insane. Noloop is no perfect editor, but he is fully right in complaining. --Cyclopia^talk 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Christ does not exist.

They do, and abound in certain universities, in the wake of Thomas Altizer, who however thought God died in Christ, unlike many of his colleagues, who thought one could dispense with God and Christ and remain Christian. Many Catholics think that is what Anglicanism effectively is.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You can even find self-identifying Christians who expressly do not believe in God, though admittedly that is a much smaller group. Religious identification is not always centered on strict beliefs or unwavering faith. That view is itself a cultural product of a very systemic Protestant bias regarding religion in general, and Christianity in particular. When I say "systemic" I mean Euro-American in general, regardless of religious faith or the lack thereof. In fact those who are most apt to hold rigidly to this Protestant view of religion are 1) Conservative Christians and 2) Atheists. Both identities revolve around this notion of religion in ways that seem much too rigid to many liberal religionists and agnostics. Cyclopia, the quote you are using above specifically mentions Christianity within rather specific contexts. "Christian theology ... faith ... [and] confession". It does not mention the writings of historians who also identify as Christians. It does say that these historians are incapable of separating their work as historians from their religious identities. It does not say that their religious beliefs are so strong that it means they must compromise the historical method to accommodate them. Those types of declarations remain non-existent in reliable sources as far as I can see. To those of us who exist in the middle, either as agnostics (like me) or liberal religionists, the idea of putting aside religion for the sake of scholarship does not seem to be especially difficult. We never succeed in putting aside all of the baggage we carry around as socialized human beings, but it's just that to us this particular area seems rather ordinary in that regard.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani. But, apparently Cyclopia is a Christian fundamentalist. I realize he may not consider himself a Christian; my point is that the only Christianity he recognizes is fundamentalist Christianity. But the world of Christianity is much bigger than Grand Inquisitor Cyclopia recognizes. Unitarianism for example is a liberal branch of Christianity that formed in the 1600s. Although some Unitarians think Jesus was divine, most think he was just a man, but they wish to live according to his teachings. There are many other liberal Christians who have different views of God and Jesus. Bart Ehrman was a Born-Again Christian when he first went to seminary; many years later, as a Biblical Historian, he still considered himself a Christian although he had come to reject any belief in the trinity or in Jesus' divinity (although for unrelated reasons he eventually left Christianity). E.P. Sanders earned a doctorate in theology to become a Biblical historian and while tI think he still considered himself a Christian, he firmly rejected any dogmatic Christianity; his own view was that all dogma is actually anti-Biblical. These are just a couple of examples to illustrate the fact that Cyclopia is simply wrong in his claim about Christians. (Moreover, I can certainly conceive of someone who studies the Bible historically and starts with the assumption that Jesus never existed, and after study concludes that there was a historical Jesus, whose teachings were not only profound in their historical context but continue to have meaning today. In other words, studying the Bible historically could indeed cause one to abandon Christianity, but it can also lead one towards Christianity. This statement will be nonsensical if you are a fundamentalist like Cyclopia, but if you accept that there may be a range of Christianities including non-dogmatic ones, it is certainly plausible). Cyclopia is simply ignorant - he is basing his judgments on incomplete information (we have reason to suspect this when we note that he is trying to make a "logical" argument, i.e. deducing from assumptions rather than drawing on empirical examples. How many times have we seen editors working on an article try to justify edits based on their own "logic?" We usually reject this and ask for a source. But if you started to learn more about the varietie sof Christianities as well as the actual beliefs of Biblical historians who trained at divinity schools or seminaries ... well, if you were actually working from empirical evidence, you would be very suspicious of the faulty assumptions behind Cycloppia's "logical" argument). And because he makes judgments based on ignorance, they are bigoted. I guess if Cyclopia were Pope he would excommunicate those Christians who do not fit Cyclopia's definition of "Christian" (which I find a little ironic).

In any event, I am fully willing to grant that someone who received a PhD in history from a seminary or Divinity School, or who teaches at one, may or may not be a Christian, or may have been a Christian and no longer considers himself (or herself) to be a Christian. Even if we were to accept Cyclopia's fundamentalist/orthodox definition of Christian, we still must return to my point: we will only know what point of view is being expressed in a book or article when we read it. Just knowing what degree someone has, where one trained or in what programme one teaches, is simply insufficient information to identify the view accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here for example it seems that the views of Jesus are indeed very different, to the point of considering it a mere human example (and I knew that, I know about unitarianism for example). I knew already that there is a vast variety of views on anything, and even non-dogmatic ones. But no Christian view I can find is agnostic (or accepts agnostic views) on the existence of Jesus. Nishidani says that I am wrong in this respect, referring to Anglicanism. Well, the article on Anglicanism says that for example a key point is apostolic succession, and I can't think of a way to combine belief in apostolic succession with the possibility agnosticism on Jesus. It doesn't strike me as "fundamentalist" the notion that Christians, whatever their interpretation, believe in the existence of a person nicknamed Christ -it seems a mere matter of definition. A definition of Christianity that doesn't include Christ seems self-contradictory, and I haven't seen it supported anywhere (I can think of some movement following the Gospel teachings and being agnostic on Christ, but this would be more "Gospelism" than Christianism - Unitarian universalism could fit the definition, but in fact it is not considered a Christian denomination).

Now, it is of course possible that the articles above, and me, are simply wrong -if so, I would sincerely enjoy being educated on the existence of these "Jesus-agnostic" variants of Christianity. And if so, I would happily accept sources from scholars following these variants as if they were secular, in the respect of the point we're debating here. But first we should check that they come from these particular variants.

Also, if these variants exist, we should document them in Christianity and Jesus in Christianity articles, that lack these important points of view. So, educate me, sounds interesting. --Cyclopia^talk 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Human practices, including those related to their "beliefs" are not matters of definition however. That's the fundamental disconnect here. What you are inferring by way of logic and semantics cannot be applied as proof of bias in practice. Proving bias in practice requires that you show evidence at least of a psychological state but preferably of an actually biased human practice. My problem has always been, lacking any such proof, insinuating the possibility of bias by way of attributing a statement to someone of a specific group.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Far be it to come between a man and his G-d, but I do have to point out that Cyclopia's definition is the one used by all the mainstream Christian churches. A view that one can be a Christian but not believe in Jesus pretty much as depicted is rejected by the Roman Catholic communion, the Protestant communion (the overarching group of all Protestant denominations that consider themselves to be in communion with each other - everything from the Church of England to the 7th Day Adventists), and the Eastern Orthodox communion. Yes, there are entire groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians) that hold other views (although I believe all of these groups are of the opinion that a historical Jesus existed), and yes, there may be individuals who claim to be Christian while holding a set of core beliefs that does not include a historical Jesus - although on that point it should be noted that both of Slrubenstein's examples support a historical Jesus who needs to be 'rescued' from being buried under the church, as do Cupitt and Spong, and every other "non-church" Christian author that I've ever read. So Cyclopia's point that all Christians have a vested interest in a historical Jesus is way more true than Slrubenstein's rant would suggest, and goes vastly beyond a tightly drawn evangelical doctrineElen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You and Cyclopia are both mixing and matching academic disciplines in a troublesome way to arrive at your conclusion. Within the study of religion the scientific view of religious belief is formed around the studies conducted by those who actually measure and describe such beliefs ... by social scientists. You see if you are going to suggest that the religious affiliation of an actual individual like a scholar is meaningful in terms of the scholarship they produce then you need to prove that the religious affiliation of such a scholar is actually meaningful. Christian dogma does not, in any way, provide a scientific basis for making such a suggestion simply because it exists. Dogma only tells us what the official position of the institution is. This is like claiming that the dogmatic statements of a national government define all the beliefs and practices of its citizenry. Once again there are groups that do in fact adhere more strictly to their own dogma and in order to argue against them, to the relevance of the dogmatic statements of those they argue with (E.g. conservative Catholics and atheists). I can make that statement based on the studies of social scientists, and not based on the mere existence of these dogmas. My point here is that in order to claim or suggest human bias you have to enter the realm of the social sciences. If you are going to enter that realm you'll have to stick to the methods of that realm of inquiry to provide evidence of your claim.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, will you pack it in with the insults. There really was absolutely no need to make this personal. Cyclopia is a Christian fundamentalist (I think he's actually an agnostic, but what do I know), Grand Inquisitor Cyclopia, a fundamentalist like Cyclopia, Cyclopia is simply ignorant, if Cyclopia were Pope he would excommunicate those Christians who do not fit Cyclopia's definition. What the hell were you even thinking of? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. His behaviour will be enlightening for other readers, and perhaps for himself too, later, when he will think about "bigotry": I'm sure Slrubenstein is familiar with the "mote in the eye" parable. --Cyclopia^talk 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I was thinking that it is a shame when someone makes up their mind about what "Christianity" is, to the point where they think there is no need actually to read what someone educated at a seminary or divinity school has actually written. That is what I was thinking. Right now, I am thinking about an interesting slippage in your reasoning: you point out that "non-Church" Christian historians present a historical Jesus that is quite different from that presented by Church orthodox and from this you conclude that all Christians - wow! ALL, that is pretty big and pretty definitive, who knew you had time to talk to every Christian on earth? - believe in a historical Jesus which just falls down on its own logic, since these historians begin their books by saying that there is no certainty Jesus existed, and the portrait of Jesus they come up with is confounding enough to Cyclopia and perhaps you too, that Cyclopia insists they therefore cannot be Christians, or you say since they are Christians they cannot mean what they say ... it gets all so confusing, I think, to try to follow your reasoning, and I think this would be so much easier if you actually read their books. And I am thinking that it is interesting that you phrase your own point in terms of how Cyclopia's views are "more true" than mine. I am thinking about the wisdom of the Wikipedia dictum, "verifiability, not truth" - that once one starts playing the "truth game" (in the Wittgensteinien sense), nobody wins because it is inevitable that each person's understanding of "truth" will not allow even the possibility of the others' understanding of "the truth." I am thinking that it is really wise, that Wikipedia tells us not to play this game and instead simply to report verifiable accounts of different views. This takes us pretty far away from some pointless debate about defining what "true" Christianity is. And if we do not know what "true" Christianity is, it is no longer enough simply to identify someone as a "Christian." We can no longer make flippant assumptions that we know someone else's view just because we know what someone's race is, or creed, or color ... because no matter what one's identity, one can have have a variety of views, people of the same identity can have different views. "Verifiability not truth" means that there are different views of Christianity, just as there are different views of the Bible. And finally, I think that this means that as editors we cannot just write what we believe to be true, we need to look at sources, we need to read sources, we need to be able to assess sources in context, which usually requires us to read more sources. And I am thinking: in this long discussion, I provided the names of two of the most notable Bible historians, both of whom got their degrees from seminaries, and both of whom are cited in the Jesus article, and I know that in their books neither of them assume that Jesus existed, and that they work as professional historians. And I am thinking, how do these two so-called wikipedians manage to speak with so much confviction and presumed authority, when it appears that they have not bothered to read any of these books? Well, that is what I have been thinking, thank you for asking. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Close

OK can we close this. Its diiffted way off topic Andrew C's poor shoice of words. He has appoligised and aknowlegded that his action are wrong. I think promised to moderate his language in future. Now the issue of his actions in reraltion to his adminship is another issue (I bleives there is a board for that, and that aspect of his action should b taken there). But other then that I fail to see what function is being served here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its gone from one admin abusing poor Noloop - apparently for not believing in Jesus, to another admin abusing poor Cyclopea - apparently for saying that Christians believe in Jesus. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (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.