Initially this started on the BLP aboutCashis. Charaba was adding back in BLP violating info to the article about a feud between 2 living subjects that was controversial and not documented by reliable sources. I discussed this last year at BLPN[1]. I removed it several times, listing the BLP vio in the edit summary. Warnings about it were given to Charaba[2] and[3]. Charaba has continued to put this info back and begun vandalizing my talk page[4],[5],[6].Niteshift36 (talk)18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This is NOT the place to post this but my requests atWP:RFPP are being ignored once again for some strange reason. I'm asking for eyes on a problem and requesting semi-protection on the major articles affected by the incessant socking ofUser:Ragusino's variable IP (186.105.124.70 & similar). In case there are doubts as to his identity (even though most involved admins are aware of it), one can easily note his frequent trademarkWP:OUTING attempts against me included in his edit-summaries[10].
The socking has increased in frequency lately (several times a day) in a group of articles I've listed atWP:RFPP[11], that much is obvious from their respective edit histories. Regards --DIREKTOR(TALK)19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In the last few days, at least 2 UK-based IP's have been working to tag certain users as socks of other users, and most suspiciously, toremove the impostor socks from Axmann8's various impostor accounts. This was brought to my attention by the user TFOWR.
My guess is that it's the impostor himself (Light current(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) would be a good guess), trying to take away "credit" for the socks and also to preserve them for "historical" reasons. He admits to being on a dynamic IP. It could also be Axmann8 himself, although he's based in Indiana and as far as I know whenever he actually socked it was traceable to Indiana, and he didn't use plays on his regular username. Two different bad apples, basically.
The reason I'm bringing this here is to ask what to do. Should the various pages he's touched (now all reverted) be semi-protected? Or is he technically correct in making at least some of the changes he's doing? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Did we get CUs on the prior sockpuppeteers to compare the IP ranges with?
I spotted TFOWRs note on your talk page and looked at the first IP they mentioned; I am concerned by not entire convinced based on behavioral analysis.
It could be someone else altogether, impostoring an impostor. And, no, the checkusers ignored my pleas to "look outside the box" on this thing last summer, so we don't know where all those Axmann8 impostors came from. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protecting both the talk and the user pages would fend off IP's, who ought not be messing with those pages anyway. If I were an admin, I would walk through the "contributions" of those two IP's and semi the ones they've touched. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→20:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Except I would still like to know, socks' egotism aside, whether the changes being made were appropriate to make. The one thing the checkuser did last summer was to determine they were NOT socks of Axmann8, yet these various pages still say they are. That's the mistake the IP was trying to "correct". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If an identifiable real life named person gets indeffed and wants to have their record clear and properly tagged to avoid mistaken connection with other abusers, that's one thing.
We owe these pseudonyms no extra courtesy. Indeffed users coming back and editing around the edges like this aren't helping the encyclopedia or themselves at all. Even if we have some wrong info, they're wasting our time and disrupting things.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)21:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Greg L made several comments at thereliable sources noticeboard that I viewed as defamatory statements about John Sugg, a journalist and living person whose article was being discussed as a source. The relevant quotes from Greg L are:
"Sugg… has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions..."
"I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot."
I asked the editor to strike or refactor their comments, bothon the noticeboard itself, as well ason the user's talk page. The user replied with alengthy essay about why they felt justified in their comments. Rather than derail that discussion, I thought I'd bring up the issue here. I'mnot seeking any sort of punitive action against Greg L, but I believe calling someone "an idiot" is a violation ofWP:BLP—even when done at RSN. Greg L suggested I contact an uninvolved administrator if I wanted his comments modified, which is why I'm here. ← Georgetalk21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If an administrator does decide to refactor Greg L's comments, please also correct the spelling of Sugg as Slugg. ← Georgetalk21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the expression of opinion ventured across the BLP expressable line; the opinion, however, seems reasonable. Expression bad, opinion ok, requested refactor.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out to George the nom, and he acknowledged elsewhere, his post here failed to reflectthis P.S. that Greg L had left at the RSN. Greg L's post squarely addressed the nom's issue, 51 minutes prior to this AN/I being opened. This AN/I is needless wikidrama -- as to Greg L (though not as to the remaining three of us).
It also strikes me as odd that such great sensitivity and concern is being directed at of all things this particular alleged crossing of the line. While the nom (and, admittedly, most others at that discussion) have evidenced complete insensitivity to the instances raised much earlierin the very same discussion of BLPs (supported only by a non-RS) stating that individuals have suggested that others bekilled, beshot, that they wereincited to kill someone by living person X, and that have contained all manner ofracism,sexism, andanti-semitism. I encouraged the editors in that discussion to delete those references. Yet George, rather than address those far more serious references by removing them from those BLPs, chose to raise this issue -- first at the RSN, and now here.
Perhaps it is as Bertrand Russell says: "Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.".--Epeefleche (talk)05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An offer to correct a post which is never acted upon isn't useful. Ignoring an administrator's request is likewise non-productive. To the best of my knowledge, I never "suggested that others be killed, be shot..." or any of the other things you listed, and I can't really understand what that sentence means, so maybe you could clarify, or leave me out of the group that shows "complete insensitivity" to whatever you're talking about. ← Georgetalk08:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And, since there are especially restrictive requirements on putting posts in user-talk space, I corrected George’s comments and the thread title on my talk page(here) in order to not mention Sugg by name there. Curiously, Georgeelected to not adhere to this counsel and did so again. I am accordingly deleting that thread in its entirety. Please try to ensure that controversial discussions of Sugg are limited to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such material must be strictly limited. I also corrected my “Slugg” spelling, which wasentirely unintentional. Sorry for that.Greg L (talk)23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
BLP violations: Epeefleche, John Z, and Annoynmous
The underlying problem here is Epeefleche's original post, which manages to seriously defameboth Emerson and Sugg. Epeefleche said, and Greg L repeated that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."
Neither Sugg nor Emerson said nor did anything so dangerous or crazy. This is not at all what Sugg says inhis FAIR article. What Sugg said was that Emerson helped push a phony Pakistani defector's made-up story that "Pakistan was planning nuclear first strike on India." Very, very different.John Z (talk)23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
If that is true, then I would say “the proper response tobad speech isbetter speech.” I just repeated there what Epee wrote. If that point-of-fact is not true—or has been stretched beyond all comprehension so it isn’t a fair characterization of the facts, then please state as much there. What I wrote there was what I believed to be the truth of the matter at that time. If what isclearly my opinion there at Reliable Sources Noticeboard *truly* meets Wikipedia’s criteria for “defamation”, then I should think that in order to protect Sugg’s fine, fine reputation, there would exist a clear imperative toexpediently remove the defamatory opinion. Accordingly, I hereby give my permission to any uninvolved Admin who finds my posts to be defamatory (and clearly not a simple matter of opinion that has an unfortunate tone) to delete any and all of my offending statements bydeleting the offending post in its entirety. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia can not have “clearly defamatory” information on its pages, even on RSN; I’m just not clearly seeing it yet and so will yield to wiser uninvolved admins.Greg L (talk)23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd note that the offending phrase goes back at least to Annoynmous's first edithere, and earlier, as he says he was restoring material, and that I and other editors pressed save in the Emerson article when it contained this phrase.John Z (talk)00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
@JohnZ:
I am a living person.
Next time you disparage me with a contentious and untrue "fact", if it is in a conversation that I am not party to, I would appreciate you letting me know. You failed to do so here.
Your above statement as to me is not only contentious, as you well know (if you've read the sentence in full, that you quoted somehow only in part) it iscompletely untrue.
You untruthfully state that my post seriously defamesboth (your shocked emphasis) Emerson and Sugg.
You untruthfully state that I said that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India...."
As you know, if you've read the sentence in question in full, what my sentencereally says is that (quotingjust a few more words from the sentence):
To borrow your characterization: "Very, very different."
7. I'm more than a little miffed at your easy-to-catch error, at your defaming me, and at your doing it without even tendering me the slight courtesy of a note that youwere doing it. Is everyone looking for abona fide BLP violation? Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a winner.
8. Given that you are a NPOV editor, and your comments here were made in good faith, I look forward to you making this same accusation at the AN/I that is open with regard to the disruptive editing of your colleague Annoynmous. Accusing him, as passionately as you accused me, of the same defamation.
9. Of course, if you were a POV editor, I imagine we would not see you making the same passionate charge against your colleague at his AN/I. I assume good faith, however, and look forward to our seeing your post there.--Epeefleche (talk)03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I screwed up badly. There were so many he said, she saids involved that again, I screwed up badly in saying who was saying who had said what.John Z (talk)03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking again at this interminable thread, I note that you did, as far as I can see, accidentally, and in good faith, like everyone else here, indicate that you believed Sugg had definitely said #1. Not just that the 5 paras said Sugg said #1.Later on in the thread: "Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). " Has anyone kept things entirely straight in their head and in their posts here? ;-)John Z (talk)04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The context makes absolutely clear that what I was writing was "as presented in the 5 paras". It follows that in the string. One doesn't repeat every caveat, etc in these strings -- just as one doesn't write out the name of FAIR each time.
And, as you know,you were quoting the very sentence where I made it clear that I was referring to those 5 paras. Not some later sentence you're now trying to make a silk purse out of.
It doesn't explain your failure to notify me. It doesn't explain you quoting a misleading, limited portion of the sentence. It doesn't explain you defaming me.
And it doesn't explain why I haven't yet seen your damning post at your colleague's AN/I. Which I hope to see shortly. I'm quite annoyed -- I thought, whatever our different points of view at times, that you were above all this. It's not cricket.
I'm frankly disgusted by the duplicity here -- crying that these people you've not dealt with are being defamed --- while actually you are defaming me, with whom you are dealing -- you fail to notify me == and you still haven't stepped up to level the same charge, with the same passion, against your colleague, at the AN/I where his similar misconduct is being considered.--Epeefleche (talk)04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche, I have apologized above. It is quite clear that in the later post you referred to the "5 paras" but you then quite explicitly made the same mistake many others did: You said Sugg said: #1 Emerson was involved in a plot... No, one does absolutely always repeat necessary caveats, because if one doesn't one makes improper accusations. In this matter of 'He said she said X said Y said', if one omits one of the saids one gets an entirely different meaning. Before you responded, I accused Annoynmous (see below) and myself of making the same error in article space. What else should I criticize Annoynmous for? I explained my own actions above and on your talk page: I screwed up badly. I'll say it again: I screwed up badly.John Z (talk)07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sense I've been brought into this discussion, I would like know when I ever defamed anyone. I think I once called Emerson an Idiot, which I acknowledge was wrong. I used that phrase because I was frankly very upset at Greg L's insulting tone and in the heat of the moment I used language I shouldn't have.
I will say for my part that depsite my profound disagreement with epeefleche on many things, I don't remeber him ever using POV language of the kind Greg L is accused of. However, I think he's overeacting here somewhat. John Z said he was sorry, except it and let's move on.annoynmous05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Annoynmous: Oops again: I cited your edithere, which is a bit ambiguous, but the problem phrase really was in the next edit by yet another editorhere, and that phrasing remained in many subsequent edits. I don't think anyone acted in bad faith, just abroken telephone resulted in article edits desired by no one, that defamed both Emerson and Sugg, which people then took on faith and used as the basis of unfortunate statements. What a mess!John Z (talk)07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
@Annon: The defamation that you engaged in (by inserting the language into the BLP Emerson article; repeatedly) was the precise defamation that John Z mistakenly accused me of above.
I imagine that the following statements that you made constitute BLP violations as well -- your saying at the RSN that it seems a fellow editor “has proved once again that heknows nothing about nothing", and “apparentlyoperates under the rationale of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned" (when nobody mentioned a ban, or that they dislike you), that a fellow editorthinks he owns Wikipedia, that a fellow editorhasn’t “contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion", and that a fellow editor has “whined”. I note that you followed all that with the statement: “I believe in civility”.--Epeefleche (talk)08:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I never inserted POV language into the article. All I did was add Suggs criticism of Emerson and his opinion of him. The quotes about TWA and the first WTC attack are not denied by Emerson. He merely says that many others made the same mistake. I agree that the pakistani thing shouldn't be in until a more reliable source is found, but I don't see what's wrong with the rest of it.
Greg L never threatened to ban me? So I supposed I was just dreaming comments like this:
If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner
Your telling me that's not a threat of a ban?
My language above was born out of frustration with Greg L's attitude. I'm sorry if I speak the truth, but the fact is he didn't contribute anything to the article and spent most of his time on the page insulting me. There's no rule that says I have to sit back take abuse.annoynmous08:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
@Epee et al: Epeefleche, we all did end up making these defamatory statements, you and Greg L were probably the last in the broken telephone. I again apologize for saying that your RSN post started it, which is quite untrue. Annoynmous wrote something confusing, another editor was confused and reworded it badly to say something quite unintended, you tried to eliminate it and many other things, and other people, including Annoynmous and me, not seeing that precise problem, reverted to the clearly BLP violating, original to Wikipedia, wording. This wording was eventually taken as fact, as what Sugg said Emerson said, by everyone at RSN, and this thread got started when Greg noticed how crazy the statement attributed to Sugg was but took it as factual, and derided Sugg. Again, a mess. I hope this might explain a little, to each other, Annoynmous, Greg's, mine, etc less than perfectly thoughtful statements. Good night to all.John Z (talk)09:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I am once again reminded of the extreme importance of going to the source to see about what is and is not “factual.” So I readSugg’s “Steven Emerson's Crusade” article inFAIR. Clever guy. He hides his accusations behind the apron strings of questions:Did self-styled anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson help push the world toward nuclear war? Indeed, inquiring minds want to know. TheFAIR article in question is an op-ed piece by an author whose, uhm…*suggestions* are, uhm… *novel* and have dubious uhm… *truthiness* in my opinion. Whereas Sugg might be an exceedingly fine author, and might have some exceedingly good works out there,in my oh-so exceedingly humbleopinion, “Steven Emerson's Crusade” isn’t one of his better works. It was arguably a defamatory, POV-pushing piece, his writings on Emerson were the subject of a defamation lawsuit, and the article has absolutely no business being used in citations in Wikipedia’s BLPs—IMOSEHO.
I could not possibly agree more with Jimbo when he wrote(∆ here): "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. The first five words in Jimbo’s post—the quoted part—was in reference to a post from Annoynmous(∆ here). Yeah, I’d say Jimbo’s common-sense assessment of the matter is something I entirely agree with; we need to go with other reliable sources and not mention Sugg’s piece at all. This is all a big do-da about reliable sources. Sugg’s op-ed piece, while having a message point some find welcome and refreshing, has no business being used as a citation on Wikipedia—IMOSEHO.Greg L (talk)17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to state that I've accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article. Enough Independent sources have been found to confirm most of the things in Suggs article. I think Sugg does a wonderful job of bringing together various statements by Emerson and showing how wrong he was on a great many issues. Contrary to Greg L's assertion, I feel Sugg hides his argument behind nothing but facts.
I feel that some time in the future that it should be put back in, because whatever you may think of Sugg, you have to admit that the lawsuit was a significant episode in Emersons life. He spent nearly 4 years on it only to suddenly drop it in 2003. If you ask Sugg he say's Emerson dropped it because the Judge told him he didn't have any evidence to prove he was defamed whereas Emerson say's he felt that in the post 9-11 environment that the lawsuit was no longer important.
It should be stated exactly what the lawsuit was about, Emerson was actually sueing two people. One was an AP reporter who accused him trying to pass off a paper he wrote as an FBI report. The suit against Sugg was based on an article Sugg wrote in 98 accusing Emerson of making up the death threat against him. As I've said before, it's significant that Emerson dropped both suits. No defamtion against him was ever proved.annoynmous12:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As Jimbo rightly pointed out (greeen,{xt} text, above), the argument that “No defamtion against him was ever proved” is rather shocking and has no merit whatsoever when evaluating whether that particular article from Sugg is a Wikipedia-styleWP:Reliable source. Repeating the point does not help much. I am, however, pleased to see that you’ve “accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article.” Doesn’t that mean we’re done here?Greg L (talk)16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and as I pointed out it did have merit as an argument because Jimbo was referencing the fact of the lawsuit for it not being an RS and I was pointing out the simple fact that the suit was dropped. However, I've given up for know because I've decided I need a break from this nonsense. I may return to this article sometime in the future to make the case that it should be included. I feel many people are falsely claiming that Jimbo gave the final word on this when in fact his words were fairly ambiguous. For know I need a wikibreak and will return when I have the strength and spirit to argue.annoynmous11:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
So let’s conclude this
John Z, in his 09:16, 4 May 2010 post, above, did a good job summarizing the Keystone Cops comedy wherein everyone here fell victim to a train of misunderstandings. Jimbo weighed in with a textbook example of his figurehead, royal leadership and removed something attributed to that particular article by Sugg. And now annoynmous has “accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article” (12:07, 5 May 2010 post). I think we’re done here, are we not?Greg L (talk)20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If this is about “getting your way” or “getting me to show contrition” or something, please advise. Because if your concern is only to protect Sugg’s reputation from defamation, I’ve already provided a perfectly good remedy, above. I think it’s pretty clear here and elsewhere that my comments were myopinion and were well-intentioned at the time (but parts were in error). Moreover, I already stipulated that if an uninvolved admin finds that Sugg’s fine fine reputation is truly being defamed by my opinions, said uninvolved admin maystrike my entire post containing the defamatory material; I have no problem with that whatsoever.That is how we protect Sugg from real defamation—if it exists. My running back and changing things to your liking (seeWP:IDON'TLIKEIT) isn’t on my to-do list, George. I imagine that you might feel the same way if our positions were reversed, right?
This case was opened to remove an instance of defamation. If you choose to not refactor your comments, after an administrator advised you to, that's your choice. If administrators choose to act in response to your inaction, that's their choice. Your offer to allow administrators to edit your text for you is empty and meaningless, as they can do that without your permission.WP:IDONTLIKEIT has to do with bad reasons to support deletion of articles, not reasons to remove defamation. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't have defamed Sugg in the first place, and I would have stricken any of my comments others felt were defamatory upon being notified. I'll leave it up to the administrators. ← Georgetalk08:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote above, you have my permission to fix whatever concerns you. You could have done so already in less time than it took you to write the above paragraph. Methinks thou doth protest too much now.Greg L (talk)13:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think having myself add a note that your comment is your own opinion eliminates the instances of defamation. But I'm sure you knew this, or you wouldn't have only offered that an administrator could strike your comments and not myself. However, if you'd like me to strike the offending phrases for you (and I'm talking strictly about the handful of defamatory phrases I identified earlier, not your entire comments), I'd be happy to oblige. ← Georgetalk14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I do hope this is the last time I have to state the obvious here. “Defamation” is a negative statement that is “expressly stated or implied to befactual”. Any common-sense reading ofthat thread on the Reliable Sources noticeboard shows editors were expressing theiropinions of Sugg and/or his article. Accordingly, appending(IMHO, ‘cause I might be wrong) after each opinion of mine that offends your sensibilities and deep appreciation of the law and Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines will perfectly establish that the words are opinion—not fact—and leave intact the sufficiently clear meanings that no one should construe me as an admirer of Sugg or that particular piece. Don’t sign your edits; let them look like they are part of my original post.
If you continue to decline to go and fix (with the text shown in{{xt}}-style, above) what you consider to be defamatory (in light of the fact that you are no stranger to correcting all sorts of material on Wikipedia that you feel needs improvement), then that is your choice.
As I said, I don't believe a third person annotating your comments alleviates the infraction, and I recognize a red herring when I see one. If I wrote that someone was stating their opinion when they made a defamatory statement, then they're immune to lawsuit for defamation? Of course not. I have no idea why you insist on belaboring the point on your distaste for Sugg, but I also don't particularly care. And as I said, I don't care if you remove the defamatory statements, or if an administrator does, though I would hope that someone does. If an administrator agrees with the one who advised you to revise the statement, and chooses to take action on the matter, great. If not, this discussion will get closed and the defamatory comment will stand. Your refusal to remove the offending statements, combined with your sarcastic, uncivil tone is more than enough for me, thanks. ← Georgetalk05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this conversation is ignoring (again) the far more serious infractions I mentioned above. As to Greg L, I think it is has past the point of diminishing returns -- but I encourage editors to address those highly inflammatory comments at the BLPs indicated. I also remain concerned about Anon having inserted that defamatory information, as well as the defamatory information John Z highlighted for us, repeatedly in articles via reverts of my deletions of them.--Epeefleche (talk)06:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly Pointy campaign of questionable CSD nominations
User:69.232.193.24 made 7 CSD nominations today, all of themcoincidentally were books that were written by conservative authors and criticized liberals. He used the G11 (spam) rationale for all of them. Most of these books were NY Times bestsellers. All but 1 were written by unquestionably notable authors. At least 2 had already survived AfD's. Now he has begun going to biographies and adding that people are Jewish.[12],[13],[14],[15]. I know about AGF, but I've readWP:DUCK too and this is looking moreWP:POINTy than helpful.Niteshift36 (talk)13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago I opened a sock puppetry cae on three editors.User:Rogueslade,User:Mandoman89User:Biohazard388. In the end they weren't proved to be socks and myself and a few other editors expressed concern that these were meatpuppets and got dragged through a bullshit ani. Well I still think they are meatpuppets and I take comments olike this to be proof [[17]]. That message was posted on all the mentioned accounts. Can we please block the perpatrators?Hell In A Bucket (talk)15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Tempting. However, the comment from the sockpuppetUser:Teenage Martyr just shows that Dalejenkins likes deleting Star Wars and Lady GaGa articles, not that those three accounts are connected to each other or to Dalejenkins. Being an SPA at a single AfD is not in itself a blockable action, is it? If they proceed to vote stack on other AfDs or discussions or tag-team on edit articles I will happily wield the banhammer.Fences&Windows16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
{ec}And you find it merely coincidental that this happened this way? I don't, not even close, you have a known sosck tauinting the community with his new additions.Hell In A Bucket (talk)16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My concerns about the above three editors were not resolved, but I guess that's not shocking since at least one invited us to "check my IP" almost immediately. All three brand new editors knew exactly how things work on wikipedia, andBoba Phat was a marginal and weak article to mount a deletion vendetta against. I've leave it to others to determine whether any block is appropriate.--Milowent (talk)17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This report is nothing but a lot of bad faith with no evidence to support that assumption. Just because a sock of Dalejenkins congratulated them doesn't mean that the the accounts are socks or that they are meatpuppets. There is no evidence what's so ever to connect the four together. The SPI turned up negative and I believe we owe it to Rogueslade, Mandoman89, and Biohazard388 that they are who they say they are. —Farix (t | c)20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not buying it either. Just because a CheckUser result showed different IP addresses to be in use does not mean that the accounts aren't sockpuppets or even meatpuppets. Without going into the specifics for reasons ofWP:BEANS, it is absolutelytrivial for someone to defeat CU if they understand how it works. It would also make sense that he could swap IPs at will (and swap back) due to how many broadband ISPs today implementsticky dynamic IP addresses. Let's also not forget the power of the almightycantenna... Moreover, given the third comment in this edit[18]"Check IP Addresses if proof is needed." it is obvious that this individual set out from the beginning to beat CU. This isn't the type of behaviour exhibited by a new editor or someone who just registered an account. Usually accounts such as these would have already been blocked perWP:DUCK as being sockpuppets based solely on behavioural characteristics.[19][20][21] The behaviour of all 3 accounts is identical and matches the behaviour ofDalejenkins. The account creation dates are also quite telling.Biohazard388 was created on 9 June2006[22] and never used until 26 April2010[23] when it initiated the AfD in question. This date closely matches the account creation dates forDalejenkins (11 May 2006)[24] andBravedog (4 August 2006).[25]Rogueslade was created on 22:53, 26 April 2010[26] followed byMandoman89 on 21:34, 27 April 2010[27] during the AfD which follows similar patterns of confirmed Dalejenkins sockpuppets. The wording in the first comment in this edit"I fail to see how this being my first action as a member can be used to call the move's validity into question."[28] appears to have also been carefully chosen instead of saying something along the lines of "I'm a brand new editor and just signed up". --Tothwolf (talk)23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this is becoming ridiculous. This is extreme bad-faith towards myself and the other users being accused.As I Have Stated Beforein this previous ANI report, I have been involved in other Wikimedia projects in the past, and am currently an administrator on a privately operated wiki platform. Also, the policies, guidelines, and templates are FREELY available to any Wikipedia user. Is it hard to believe that I, a person fluent in Wiki coding, can sit down for an hour and read through Wikipedia's rules and policies, and review the templates for an action and then implement them? That is, after all, what they are there for: to help users understand and use the tools that are built into Wikipedia's framework, both as a software tool, and as a community through it's policies? Is it also hard to believe that I know that the Wiki software logs IP addresses, and that I can simply say "review my IP address" to have myself vindicated? I can understand a preliminary case based on my account being inactive for a good long time, but to go so far as to nearly derail an AfD and create two ANI postings on the topic... it is starting to seem like a few select users are being overly suspicious of a newbie to the community who happens to know what they're doing, and how to read, and it's starting to disappointment greatly that these select users in this open community cannot just hang up the towel when the proof they were looking for doesn't exist. I am not a sockpuppet, and I'm not a meatpuppet. I've never heard of DaleJenkins before this, and these users that are accusing me of this are only giving Wikipedia a bad name in my book. I saw an article I didn't agree with. I signed into an account which I've had created for a while and have never used. I read the "how to" articles and start an AfD, and these few select users attack me relentlessly, along with other users who I can only presume are innocent, too. Today I started to contribute more to the community, as I'm trying to move up in the Wikipedia community a bit, but this newest accusation is really making me feel as if this community is just a bunch of paranoid biggots that have nothing better to do than bash a newbie. I call bad-faith. Actually, let me make that "Extremely Bad-Faith". I suggest these users review theWP:AGF article.—Precedingunsigned comment added byBiohazard388 (talk •contribs)23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Guys, Biohazard388 is likely telling the truth, so stop assuming bad faith. Biohazard388, please list your usernames on other Wikis or consider a unified login to help put this drama to rest, as there is no way to be completely sure that what you are saying is fact. In the end people, stop attacking others just because they just happen to pop up at an AFD. Coincidence is always a possibility on this site.Kevin Rutherford (talk)00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I seem to be guilty of the same things as Biohazard; having basic intelligence. Of course my response to such an accusation would be to say go ahead and check my IP address. I assume that your checkuser software gives a general physical location of the IP address, state at least, perhaps city as well? If this is the case, I'm content to let the administrators in charge of those checks to indicate what state I'm in, based on my IP, and I'm willing to bet that the other accused individuals would allow the same thing. After all, given the widespread use of Wikipedia, I assume that the odds of the other accused parties being in the same state are low. Furthermore, after seeing the provided 'evidence' I chose to run through the history of my talk page. This Teenage Martyr and VaginicaWestwood strike me as deliberate attempts to frame me, and I would assume the other users as well. Knowing that the entire site is monitored by the admins, not to mention assuming that my detractors would be likely to 'watch' my talkpage, both comments were clearly an attempt to throw further suspicion onto me. These ongoing accusations are insulting, to say the least. Hopefully, as time wears on and both myself and the other editors make disparate additions, this ridiculous defamation will stop. That's assuming I even bother to make further contributions, as these assaults are starting to make me rethink whether it's even worth the effort.Rogueslade (talk)03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any blockable actions here. That you were able to find evidence of them discussing matters right on Wikipedia actually weakens the case for meatpuppetry. If they were conspiring in the "real world" it would likely be invisible on-wiki to hide this fact.Beeblebrox (talk)03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Hell and Co. All three voted on that Afd, when they recieved notice of this report, they all commented minutes after each other (same on the SPI). They were created in 2006, same time as Dalejenkins and his army. This is a good faith accusation in an attempt to protect Wikipedia. Might I suggest a CheckUser finds any relationshipbetween each other (such as ISP, location etc). I thought this would be helpful.92.40.48.173 (talk)17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is grossly unfair to give me an NPA warning for something that is clearly not a personal attack while Bucket, you and others get off without one for the continued accusations of bad faith on Rogueslade, Mandoman89, and Biohazard388. —Farix (t | c)19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Irony is seeing the same handful of editors repeatedly scramble over each others' shoulders in an attempt to declare another group as meatpuppets. If I were one of the editors involved in the dreadful wikilawyering on that TfD (which ended up pretty clear-cut) then I'd be keeping pretty quiet right now.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The behavioral evidence is there. All three are related in some way. It's possible this Dalejenkins guy is using adifferent IP range to avoid detection.DF76 (talk)20:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The CU would have picked it up on the latest Dalejenkins SPI. They are related as of behavourial evidence. Plus, Biohazard didn't give any links to other Wikis where he is an admin which strengthens the case for meat/sockpuppetry.Dr Mikomi (talk)09:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response. I haven't been following this page very closely. I run [this Wiki] for the Mandalorian Mercs Costume Club. It is one of only three costume clubs licensed by the owners of the Star Wars Franchise, the other two being the 501st Legion, and the Rebel Legion. I am the Communications XO for the group, and my responsibilities cover the Wiki, as well as maintaining other major site functions. My username there is Biohazard. Please also take a look at my edits. I have been active in other articles here on Wikipedia, and not just the aforementioned AfD. I signed in to create the AfD after receiving a message on the Mercs Forum from Boba Phat himself. After reviewing his wiki, I found it unsatisfactory for Wikipedia and signed in to see what I could do. After research, I began the AfD because the article did not meet several quality standards, notability standards, etc... and I think it important to note that over 70% of voters agreed with me, and so did the Admin's that took the article down. I have since been involved in several other articles, mostly grammatical editing, as well as marking sentences and sections of some articles with the Citation Needed mark. Once again, sorry for my late response. Please feel free to contact me on the Mercs, or through Wikipedia.Biohazard388 (talk)14:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Continued disruption from OttomanJackson
In the past month,OttomanJackson (talk·contribs) has been nothing but disruptive. Their talk page reflects this. They continue to upload images with copyright issues, create articles on non-notable subjects, un-redirect articles that failWP:NMUSIC, create AFDs on clearly notable subjects to prove apoint, edit war/revert against established consensus, and ignore all advice from every user that has adviced them. After receiving a final warning, they werebrought to ANI a few days ago. The issue was believed to have been resolved after they received two admonishments. However, this user has continued to be a pest, byun-redirectingsongarticles that failWP:NMUSIC.Pyrrhus1619:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
He's been doing this for the last six days. I don't know whether he wants tomake a point or is justignoring the editors or have told him, but he's acting in contrary toWP:NMUSIC and is editing in a disruptive manner.This seems to suggest he doesn't get it. Also,this edit, are we sure aboutWP:NMUSIC failing here? Just to double check on that one example. The rest, I agree. Needs strict admonishment or a block.SGGHping!19:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)`
A while ago I found a source around the background and story of this song, I will try to find it. Morphine is notable, and a great song. Listen to it and Money. Morhpine is a start class article, so can you at leats giv it a chance at AfD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OttomanJackson (talk)19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not notable. It was never released as a single, never charted and did not have any impact on the music world. Whether it sounds good or not is irrelevant.Pyrrhus1619:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The quality of the song is irrelevant. It has to demonstrate why it deserves aseparate article. The fact that it's a Michael Jackson song doesn't automatically qualify, because that's his notability, not the songs.SGGHping!19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think he's learning. I deletedMichael Jackson is awesome! as a nonsensical redirect and left him another warning, however I did not block as to be fair the specifics of Caknuck's warn regardingWP:NMUSIC. I did, however, give him a very clear warning about editing in general.SGGHping!21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
–Understandable action, no admin action required. Most editors here off to get torches and pitchforks and march on Castle Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk)23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this measure to censor Wikipedia was unilaterally taken without discussion. I saw nothing in the file's talk page about deleting the image, and I'm pretty sure we haven't started censoring Wikipedia all of a sudden. If I'm correct about this being a unilateral action, then I propose the following:
He reverted himself: "15:08, 7 May 2010 TheDJ (talk | contribs | block) restored "File:Jyllands-Petc" (95 revisions restored: perhaps being pointy isn't a good idea.)" Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and continue the discussion.Shii(tock)21:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say that the original delete was a Bold step too far, but self-reverting indicates they concluded that as well.
No administrator action required at this step; there is no emergency, this was not "abuse" in the first place, though it was arguably a mistake (that they self-corrected). I don't think that an admin conduct RFC is required but you can file one in the usual place if you think so.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion or other editing related to the article by TheDJ. I would like to hear what made them do this. I don't think that's too much to ask.--Atlan (talk)21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I got a little bit pissed about the american-centric overprotective hypocritical and FOXNews driven bullshit that was being stated on the foundation mailinglist and Commons. Sorry. —TheDJ (talk •contribs)21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fox news ran astory on us which contained some highly misleading statements about what kind of images used to exist on Commons before today. (In some ways, I think we were better off PR-wise before, since now people can spread all sorts of rumors that we can't disprove. But hopefully this will die down soon.)—Soap—23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm familiar with that FNC story, which was spawned by Larry Sanger. I fail to see how the porn complaint is a Mohammed complaint. To me, it looks more like the upper echelon (ie Jimbo) finally started paying attention to what was going on with images.Niteshift36 (talk)23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The only other things I can see that he's deleted (lookhere) are a bunch of files which are hosted on commons, too, so the local copy was deleted as unnecessary (CSD F8). ···日本穣? ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, he's reminded people that the project scope does not include being the world's leading free porn host. Commons still is not censored, neither is Wikipedia, in both places we apply sound editorial judgement in the context of the overall mission which is to inform and educate not to host any and all crap just because there is no hard and fast rule that lists every type of crap you should not host. We're supposed to apply Clue. Over time the Commons scope has drifted, Jimbo has given it a kick back in the right direction. Good for him.Guy(Help!)22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What he says and what he does are different things. His indiscriminate deletions have gone beyond dumping 300 random images of penises where we don't need them. He's deleted illustrations and artwork that were in use on articles based on his personal views of what constitutes pornography. Classic censorship. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would be in support of a megalomaniac. Birds of a feather...Resolute22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that didn't sound like an insult....There is an actual issue here, beyond the "nobody censors us" POV. We supposedly want this to be an encyclopedia and we hope that someday it will get some level academic acceptance, don't we? How can we expect a school to take us seriously and not outright block Wikipedia if we are hosting tons of pics that really don't have any educational value? You can have an article about masturbation without showing a pic some guy took of his girlfriend with a GI Joe shoved up her snatch. The 2257 issue is a real one and I don't see where Wikipedia should be exempted from it.Niteshift36 (talk)22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You should try reading the linked discussions on the village pumps. Sufficed to say that your assumptions are not in line with what is actually happening, being deleted, and debated.Resolute22:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I read the discussions. I'm not sure how we got from Mohammed to that, but I still read them before I commented. Perhaps you should AGF a little. If you stopped to pay attention, nobody in this discussion mentioned the 2257 issue. Where the hell do you think I was reminded of that? Yeah, one of the threads you linked. I didn't make any assumptions, I simplified it. Maybe instead of worrying about what you think I didn't do (and actually did)....oh forget it, you won't bother.Niteshift36 (talk)23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It is very simple. In many schools around the world, that is objectionable content. Wether YOU like that or not. As such the material is as far as I am concerned in the same boat. —TheDJ (talk •contribs)00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You may have read the discussions, but you obviously failed to understand them. The community isn't upset over the 2257 issue. It is upset over Jimbo deleting artwork and illustrations, neither of which 2257 applies to, I believe, because of his personal opinion of what constitutes porn. If all he did was delete the "pic some guy took of his girlfriend with a GI Joe shoved up her snatch" there is a good bet not many people would care.Resolute06:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No Resolute, I didn't fail to understand anything. I know he deleted other stuff. Just because he deleted some things that are questionable (as to his reasoning) doesn't mean that all of his actions need to be condemned. Some seem to be taking this "all or nothing" position where they are pissed about the idea of anything being "censored". Yes, it looks to me like he went too far on some things, but some seem to take the position thatnothing should ever be "censored" and I can't say that I agree with that either. But I don't think your condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with you is productive either. Thus far, you've responded to me twice, first telling me that I didn't read the other discussion (which you should have realized that I had), then telling me I'm just not smart enough to understand. You're 0 for 2. Want to go for a 3rd strike? 09:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not what's happening. What's happening is that Jimbo is deleting things like 19th-century artwork and illustrations of bondage techniques, because they happen to have sexual content or themes. If he'd stuck to the penis pictures and low-quality porn, there would be far less of a shitstorm going on. --Carnildo (talk)23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like he restored it at adifferent time:"21:08, 7 May 2010 TheDJ (talk | contribs) restored "File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png" (95 revisions restored: perhaps being pointy isn't a good idea.)" But maybe I'm confusing it with another file.ALInomnom21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I just received an e-mail complaining that this user has recently deleted at least one other image within the past few days against consensus. This bears further investigation.Rklawton (talk)21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The only other things I can see that he's deleted (lookhere) are a bunch of files which are hosted on commons, too, so the local copy was deleted as unnecessary (CSD F8). ···日本穣? ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll follow up later this evening. Real-life just got in the way. The file the user complained as deleted he says was titled "Sex intercourse.jpg" with three rounds of "Keep" and was allegedly deleted 2 days ago. I did a quick check and couldn't find anything, but I won't have time to dig into it for a few more hours (at least).Rklawton (talk)21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all andUser:TheDJ for addressing my concerns. I consider my particular concern satisfactorily resolved, and see no further action in this particular matter necessary. With regard to Jimbo, FNC, and censorship, I'll read through the various threads and pick up the matter again in the appropriate location. Thanks to all those who helped bring me up to speed.Rklawton (talk)01:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got no problem with removing cruft from wikipedia and I figure Jimbo's judgment is better than that of the average cruft-hoarder, so I'm usually happy when he deletes stuff. But I've been annoyed for a while that the supposedly fundamental "right to fork" (if you don't like how WP does things, make your own) has been broken for years. While we arefinally able to get meta history dumps of enwiki text after a multi-year interruption, there has not been a dump of enwiki or commons images since 2007 (it was 217GB then according tom:dumps). ANI isn't the place for a long philosophical diatribe but people interested in WP censorship and privacy issues might keep this dump problem in mind.69.228.170.24 (talk)02:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I find it funny that Larry Sanger filed the complaint first, then FNC covered it and made it's own inquiries. But some seem to keep putting forth the notion that this was all dreamed up by FNC. Few want to mention that one of Wikipedia's co-founders is the source.Niteshift36 (talk)18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
User:JzG made an outrageous statement on this noticeboardhere, implying either that Plaid Cymru supporters were terrorists or that Plaid Cymru itself had links to a terrorist organisation. Now that the UK general election is over and no further damage to the electoral system can be done, I highlight this here. I made several attempts requestingUser:JzG withdraw his statement or explain it awayhere,here ,here,here andhere, before being uncivil in frustration, for which I have no excuse and I apologise. Each attempt was met with stonewalling and no substantive explanation has been made to date. To link a legitimate (and, I may add, traditionally pacifist) political party with a terrorist organisation with no evidence orsources the day before a UK general election at which that party had candidates standing was, at best, a grave error of judgement. To maintain that viewpoint when challenged compounded the error. The only (partial) explanation given byUser:JzG was that the article onMeibion Glyndŵr doesn't describe them as a terrorist organisationdiff. However, as pointed out to himthisRS calls them terrorists and the article is in theCategory:Terrorism in the United Kingdom. Any damage done to the the party's electoral prospects cannot now be repaired. The damage to the party's reputation, however, can be recovered byUser:JzG striking though his comments and making a full apology. It should be made clear toUser:JzG that such disgraceful statements will not be tolerated.Daicaregos (talk)15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't read that as "implying either that Plaid Cymru supporters were terrorists or that Plaid Cymru itself had links to a terrorist organisation" at all; I read it as saying that while they have very different means, those who used to support Meibion Glyndŵr are more likely to support Plaid than any of the English parties. I can't see how that can seriously be disputed; it's no more an attack than "those who supported the National Front in England in the 1970s were more likely to go on to support the Conservatives in the 1980s" is an attack on Margaret Thatcher. – iridescent15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh FFS,drop the stick already. I do not accept your interpretation of what I said, and your vastly inflated hyperbolic description of it has no basis in reality. The idea that any remark made by any person on Wikipedia might materially affect the outcome of the election is risible.Guy(Help!)15:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
JzG's remark wasn't the happiest of comments, but it does not warrant administrator action.AGK15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with Guy's remark, and your suggestion that it could have "damaged" the UK electoral system is ridiculous.15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say that if that were the implication JzG intended, it's just a statement of his political opinion, which isn't really something to bring to ANI. People say all sorts of controversial things when stating their opinions, especially politically; they even have them in userboxes, like being in support of Israel or Palestine's right to "defend itself", implying the other side are the terrorists. You're allowed to say stuff like that here. It's understandable that it makes you angry, I've gotten angry at people's opinions before too, but I can't rightly complain about it being said. The only reason JzG might want to strike the statement would be if it had anunintended implication, but in that case it should be of his own volition, and no admin action would be required.
Dear VernoWhitney, you have repeatedly destroyed this article. www.isleofpurbeck.com/durlston.html states: The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887, for George Burt. Burt was Mowlems nephew and one-time partner. It is popular belief that the construction was in London/Greenwich because there were not sufficiently skillful craftsmen locally. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is of 15 sections.
I write facts: The Globe was constructed fromPortland stone inMowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. It was erected by W.M. Hardy in the park upon a platform cut into the solid rock during the same year. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is made up of 15 sections of stone and joined together with granite dowels. Its position on the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.
Then I rewrote it to: The Globe was constructed ofPortland stone. It was made inMowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887. It was brought to Swanage by sea and was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform chopped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.
Again I rewrote it to: The Great Globe is made ofPortland stone. It was constructed inMowlem's Yard in Greenwich during 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. The Globe was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform chopped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, it weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.
Mood Indigo (culfest) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) seems to be in the grip of a sustained PR campaign. I have rolled back to the last version before a couple of SPAs took on the task of inserting every weasel word in existence, I am sure this will not be allowed to stand. They have contacted OTRS saying it's "really important" that their changes are not reverted, I have asked why. Something tells me that it will be really important to sales, not to Wikipedia's mission.Guy(Help!)22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Bombay studant festival all cited to primary citations, it at least is not hurting anything or any one and is likely very important article of you are a Mumbai student. As it was it was clear advertising, needs a decent write, looks like a pretty notable-ish event, lots of videos on Utube.Off2riorob (talk)22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Good heavens. That article has one whole reference? And oh, look. It's to the festival's own website. What a lot of nonsense. We ought to empty this article of text and start from scratch. Maybe then we'll get something close to encyclopedic.AGK23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've filed anotherSPI about this persistent blocked and vandalizing editor. I note it here, because Sorrywrongnumber's past M.O. has been to come here and post a complaint about how I am harrassing them (the "new" editor, that is) before they fortuitously discover that I supposedly have a conflict of interest and blah blah blah blah blah. It's all documentedhere. SWN's last socking activity was six days ago, on May 2.[30][31] I have notifiedUser:Sorrywrongnumber of this report.Beyond My Ken (talk)09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Co-ordinated conspiracy against people they disagree on topics. I will not edit Wikipedia again b/c of their harassment. They are a cabal and also socks or meats.
User:TerryE less then 100 edits before November 2009 then almost 1500 edits about CFS. Co-ordinates w Ward20 and Sam Weller and Tekaphor to attack people like me and KCCO, it is most from what this person does, they do not make additions to encyclopedia just deleting and attacking. TerryE is planning attacks on KCCO and me, many months writing algorithms and investigating people on the internet[32]. I am sorry but it is a very hateful to do these things.
User:Tekaphor from 2006 has 1000 edits all on CFS and related article. Co-ordinates RfC against me with RobinHood70 in summer 2009. When I give up on August 2009 b/c this harassment Tekaphor goes away and does not edit for two months, mission accomplished?? After February 2 2010, no edits until Co-ordination of sock attack on me and KCCO starts and Tekaphor edits. It does not work, Tek edits two more weeks and does not come back until May 5 after I also come back and reverts my edits four hours after my last edit, attacks me again at Sock investigation.
User:RobinHood70 had about 200 edits about CFS and other things before summer 2009 then 2000 edits most on CFS. Used most summer 2009 to ban me from Wiki like TerryE did to KCCO later. Has 4 edits in January 2010, 4 edits on Februay 5th, does not edit for two weeks. Then he is suddenly on Wikipedia again for edit the SPI attack at KCCO and I TWO HOURS after Ward20 puts it up. He edtis every day until the sockpuppet case is closed with "CU evidence is iffy at best" and then he goes away for weeks. He has only nine article edits until April 29 and then he is suddenly there again to revert my edits.
Most of these edits were in response to disputes with RetroS1mone. During periods where she was not active, my editing patterns returned to normal and were not overly CFS-related. While I continue to monitor some articles, I have largely left the projectprecisely due to this kind of incident as my recent edit history will show (a few wiki-gnome edits and yes, reversions of RS's edits, many of which labelled things as "bs" and reverted hundreds of edits in one go). I would appreciate if my name were left out of any ANI or similar forums unless there is significant cause to bring it up. —RobinHood70(talk •contribs)03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Jagra created 21 May 2007 two days from TerryE, just like TerryE over 1500 edits about CFS. Co-ordinates RfC against me in summer 2009 and leaves for two months just like Tekaphor when I take my break starting August 2009.
User:Sam Weller First 100 edits in 2 years on homeopathy, CFS, and a biography he is very interested on,Martin J. Walker then almost 1000 edits in 1 year about CFS. Tries to destroy me and ban me and also when I am away six months he co-ordinates the February Sock investigation with Ward20 and TerryE, when it does not work he leaves Wikipedia, end of February.
User:StevieNic is away from Wikipedia 3 weeks, returns May 3 to vote against my article for deletion ofDavid Sheffield Bell recruited with TerryE and Ward20.
I'm disappointed that RetroS1imone is leaving over this. But given that the checkuser clerkendorsed, it's hard for me to characterize this as harassment.--Chaser (talk)04:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerks endorse to filter out obviously bogus cases. The community restricts checkuser access (for good reasons, IMHO) to only a very few users, making it valuable to spread the workload that does not require the tool. You are free to your own opinion, of course, but that entire filing reads to me like a particularly vicious attack by someone not particularly interested in a neutral encyclopedia. -2/0(cont.)04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
User:TerryE hasnot filed three accusations ofsockpuppetry againstUser:Keepcalmandcarryon. Thefirst was filed byUser:Immortale, over what I have no idea. Thesecond was filed by myselfUser:Ward20 strictly on the basis of edit patterns, and it came back"Possible same geographic area with user agent overlap. Meat puppets certainly plausible." I was looking over thethird investigation filed byUser:TerryE to form my own conclusions, when I saw there was a discussion here. I have also edited the related articles and there certainly have been RFC's on the content for dispute resolution. When I look at the timelines of the editing patterns ofUser:Keepcalmandcarryon,User:RetroS1mone, andUser:MiRroar thatUser:TerryE has presented I believe there may be cause to suspect a connection between the three accounts. I don't understand why there is a problem with an investigation if there isn't a connection asUser:Keepcalmandcarryon has stated.
RetroS1mone misrepresents the consensus of several editors as some kind of unprovoked persecution. The activity that R describes above is merely the independent response of several different editors who have all been targeted by R's false accusations and problematic editing over the course of roughly 18(?) months. See theprevious RfC and itstalkpage. Those issues were never resolved, they just went dormant when R disappeared for a while. But now R is back with all the same accusations, attitude and tendentious editing which led to the RfC in the first place, as Ward20 highlights. Nothing has changed despite all the chances and warnings, with[33][34][35][36][37][38] as recent examples of failed "advice".
As for my frequent disappearance from Wikipedia, I regularly take unannounced wiki-breaks from editing,especially after dealing with the extra work R produces, so what? I monitor the CFS articles but most of the time I am either unable to contribute or reluctant to do so. You can be sure that when one of the reasons I do not contribute more consistently (ie R's history of reverting my edits without due cause) shows up mutilating the articles and ranting about conspiracies I will be doing what I can to resolve it. -Tekaphor (TALK)06:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a comment directed at anyone in this thread, but people do coordinate off-site - especially it seems patient support groups - to get their spin into our medical articles. It didn't take long to findthis (for some reason only accessible via Google cache). Conspiracies aren't always products of the imagination.EyeSerenetalk12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My first direct involvement with RetroS1mone was when she deleted one of talk page posts[39]. I have always tried to observeWikipedia:Etiquette and related policies when dealing with other editors, RetroS1mone included. I am open about who I am and what my background and interests are. I agree that I only started to get actively involved in WP in November last year when I felt that another editor was misrepresenting the RS/MEDRS on a few articles. I kind of get sucked in and went through a learning curve as I learnt the WP policies and guidelines (as most editors do; a few like RetroS1mone seem to be able to appear out of nowhere and start editing as WP experts from day 1). If you notice my posting rates on theVirtualBox forums fell off at the same time as I ramped up on WP. I am trying to use standard WP processes within their guidelines. If I have breached any guidelines then no doubt I will be informed on the SPI. If RetroS1mone has any other specific claims of infringement on my part then I will happily answer them.
Picking up EyeSerene's comments. I have made clear on many occasions including on myuser page that I am not involved in this forum or others like it. Quite frankly, I find such external topics a pain in a**e as people come blundering in with lots of emotion and reluctance to read the rules and follow them. I only just recently got into an edit exchange on another article where I was attacked by a couple of such posters for defending another editor who has a content viewpoint a lot more similar to RetroS1mone than mine. There are two main reasons why the majority of editors working with you on a page tend to edit against you: yes, there is the conspiracy theory; but the obvious one is that you don't edit within the WP guidelines and antagonise everyone else. --TerryE (talk)13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
First I'd like to say that I'm sorry that RetroS1mone decided to quit wikipedia but I do understand why. Did this edior lose their temper at time, yes they did. English is not their first language but even that was brought into doubt against this editor. If you look at the history of this users talk page, you will see the kind of mean and nasty harassments they had to endure. I used to haveChronic fatigue syndrome on my watch list. Things there got so bad that I and at least one other editor took it off our watch list. The problems that I speak about go back to whenUser:Guido den Broeder was a main advocate and editor of these articles. He is now permanently banned by the arbitration committee after they gave him an opportunity to return from a community ban which lasted maybe a week. Surprisingly, some of the editors above appeared to take up the cause that Guido was pushing for. I will not name names, period. I just know that this article and articles connected to it is full of advocates who have this disease and a strong POV about how it should be presented. S1mone had her/his ideas of what should be in the article. S/he may have been rude at times with claiming a conspiracy theory but then again there were websites shown where editors were actually talking about how the article should look and also Guido had emailed some of the editors. (Some of the editors were ethical enough to say they received emails from him. I believe this was announced on the CFS article but I'm not sure) I think that there is a clear group of advocates working these articles which needs to be stopped. As for the comments above about the SPI investigations, I believe if you check them out your will see thatKeepcalmandcarryon and S1mone admitted to knowing each other, even that they worked in the same place. The last time S1monoe left there were joyful editors. I think it's sad when an editor leaves because of harrassment issues. Maybe all the editors involved in this should be checked out for their own behaviors. I know that I got told off the last time I stood up for S1mone and I hope there is not a repeat of this. I apologized the last time because I didn't want to get into a fight with anyone. I still don't. I just feel that I should say something since S1mone is now gone. I also think that maybe MastCell should be told about this thread since he commented on the latest SPI case. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
EyeSerene is correct: sometimes a conspiracyis a conspiracy. I don't agree withUser:RetroS1mone that all of these editors are sockpuppets, but at least some of them have clearly coordinated with each other on- and off-Wikipedia to influence article content, stack votes and harass other editors. And then, of course, there are the coordinated SPIs (yes, Ward20 technically filed the first one, but only after consulting with "Weller", TerryE and others). It's simply amazing that some of these editors have devoted weeks and months of their lives to harassing me because of content disputes ontwo Wikipedia articles.
From personal experience, here's a bit of what one can expect if one is perceived as standing in the way of the "inner circle" of CFS activists:
Harassment on Wikipedia
Harassment by email
Discussion of one's identity on the internet
Implicit and explicit legal threats
Complaints to one's employer and/or colleagues demanding silencing and/or dismissal
Unfortunately, it's not for nothing that these activists have been termed"The terrorists of health". I don't know if TerryE has been involved in all of these activities, and I don't really care. What's apparent to me, though, is that TerryE and others have figured out who I am, and considering what they (or like-minded editors) did in the past toUser:Jfdwolff, I'm not at all comfortable with that. In the hopes that they will leave me alone, at least in my personal life, I'm going to emulate CrohnieGal and takeWhittemore Peterson Institute andXMRV off of my watchlist and leave the controversy to others.Keepcalmandcarryon (talk)14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This is no surprise, there are some very militant and opinionated people in the CFS community. Article probation might well be the best solution, as it is for a number of intractable real-world disputes.Guy(Help!)14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Guy/HalfShadow, yes there are some militant people in the CFS community, but I think we are discussing me here. I've got so tired of this accusation that I've even put a specific statement on this point in myuser page[40]. Yes, I have exchanged emails with Keepcalmandcarryon, when I was trying to reach out to reconcile our positions and I have offered to make the entire threat public if K wishes. I also take it that the legal threat relates tothis, which was a joke and dismissed as such by the administrators. I haven't discussed K's identity on the internet (and by that I think you mean the public forums): heck, it now looks like I didn't even get K's gender right. I certainly haven't complained to his employers. The only reference between K and me on external posts that I can think of was when K outed me for posting a technical comment on another site.
What the debate on theXMRV andWPI articles is and always has been about is whether thecontent is suitably underpinned by appropriateWP:RS andWP:MEDRS within WP policies and guidelines, and how we editors should conform toWP:ETIQ in our dealings with each other. Please look at the discussion threads before condemning me. --TerryE (talk)16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, TerryE, it's not all about you. As I stated above, the incessant harassment of editors who present reliable sources that are in disagreement with the convictions of ME activists has been a constant on Wikipedia for many years. As I also stated, I believe you've had a role in this, but I don't know the full extent of your involvement. In any case, the harassment of me and others has gone well beyond your Wikipedia e-mails and well beyond your thinly veiled "joke" aboutHarvey Whittemore suing me.
Whatever your role in the wider harassment, surely you can't believe that devoting several months to questionable "analyses" of other editors' editing patterns, with the goal of banning them from Wikipedia simply because you have a content dispute with them, is in any way constructive.Keepcalmandcarryon (talk)16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read though TerryE's analysis fully, but, correlation does not imply causation. In addition, the specific test he's using is his own; I can't find an analysis of it in the statistical literature. Non-parametric factor analysis, which is what he seems to be attempting to do, is known to be questionable, at best. (Furthermore, theK-S test is inherentlynon-parametric; calling something non-parametric K-S is a best, redundant. What he's done appears to be a time-series parametric version of K-S. However, it may just detect people in the sametime zone, rather than actual correlation.)
I'm afraid that I've, also, edited CFS from time to time, so I will not take administrative action here. However, if the statistics is found to be original, and targeted to produce his desired findings, TerryE should be banned from Wikipedia, and his edits reverted, even if supported by other editors.
The specific analysis atUser:TerryE/Supplemental SPI analysis would likely produce a positive if (1) U and D work at the same place; (2) U posts from work and D from home, and (3) there is a holiday sometime during the period, or they work on the same project which is running long, irregular, hours.
(3) is needed to break up the periodicity which Terry seems to be testing for.
(1) may not be needed if (3) includes a holiday.
I did not intend to imply that Terry developed this statistical method to produce a "positive" result, althoughHow to Lie with Statistics did come to mind. It may be that he developed the method in order to formalize his suspicions. However, the method does seem faulty. —Arthur Rubin(talk)17:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If people are editing in such a way as to coordinate their actions, I think we normally treat this in a similar way to sockpuppettry.. To quote WP:SOCK, "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity". 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)This wasDGG (talk·contribs).[41]
(outdent) Since this has come here I think administrators should investigate the active editors there and if they are behaving as socks or meat puppets then sanctions need to be handed out. This behavior has gone on for way too long. Just my opinion, have a good night, --CrohnieGalTalk23:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with DGGs sentiments, though I suspect that I am the object of these comments in this case. I have really been amazed by this response. As I said in the SPI, I took this step reluctantly -- and in retrospect perhaps hastily, but there was only one name on this -- mine. I have been labelled many ways, for example the originator of this ANI implied that I was supporting fringe[42] theories -- what fringe? Where are the diffs which support this unfounded hearsay? The source of this claim was a debate relating to a paper published inScience and co-authored by domain experts in theNCI andCleveland Clinic who have very recently publicly supported the integrity of this work.Science -- fringe?NCI -- fringe? I am not trying to oversell anything, just ensure that article content sensibly reflects the RS and MEDRS, though I do object when editors accuse reputable authors of incompetent science.
If some of the other editors on these pages have a common ground, then in my view it is that they object to slash and burn tactics which cut across sound RS and MEDRS based content and that can undo weeks of careful negotiated work with a 15 min edit. As I have said to K many times: it's not our job to interpret the sources, but to report them in an unbiased way and to wait for the science. Within the next year or so the scientific process itself will be the true judge. I don't know which way the coin will land, but whichever way it lands, then I will willingly accept this, because if I do have a bias, it is my faith in the scientific method.
As to my statistical analysis, I really value critique from editors who have read my analysis and have some understanding how to use this class of non-parametric test. Yes, there are weaknesses in this approach. One commenter citeddata dredging. I've posted the code. Look at it; run it yourself. Is this data dredging? Throwing the dice 260 times and looking for odd patterns amongst theseis an example of data dredging. Wondering whether the dice is loaded because you didn't get a single six in 260 throws isn't. I now realise that it was a mistake to ask this type of question in the first place. --TerryE (talk)00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop playing the "ME activist" stereotype card
A small radical fringe element amongst a wider more reasonable community is often alluded to by Wikipedians. I'm not involved in whatever personal life issues with supposed ME activists that K claims to have, so I can't really comment on that. But the unacceptable recurring theme in so many of the disputes I've been involved in has been use of the "ME activist/cabal/mafia" caricature, used to shrug off my edits and arguments, cast doubt on me, and poison any further discussion. The editorial problems I have with R and to a much lesser extent K have already been outlined elsewhere but I want to address this ME activist cabal strawman and red herring because it has gone on long enough. The evidence presented above and elsewhere for my involvement in or the existence of any "cabal" is rather dubious and paranoid:
In early 2008 the CFS article was split into several subarticles, per consensus. I supported the split. A harmless project page was created to facilitate the process, but I was not involved editorially. By late 2008 R had major editing disputes with Guido den Broeder who was later banned. Guido used to mention some of the alleged cabal members including me on his userpage as Wikipedians he respected. We did not necessarily agree on CFS issues. R however suspected a cabal, and from then on basically any disagreement with R's POV was further evidence of a cabal. The false accusations and the strawmanning of my opinions became routine when there were disputes over the wording and weight given to various aspects of the psychological factors/treatments for CFS. I was a main contributor in the dispute at that stage. It's all in the archives.
K makes much out of a more recent comment where Terry implies there is an "inner circle" he was not part of. I'm guessing Terry meant the main editors since he didn't edit much back then, and I'm one of the main editors? On the XMRV/WPI articles, I had minimal involvement there and it was the other alleged ME mobsters who added the majority of the XMRV negative studies. So there's no pro XMRV/WPI cabal either.
At the CFS talkpage recently one or two anonymous editors turned up out of the blue possibly from a CFS forum and promoted a particular paper. I didn't bother to get involved. However, their arguments or actions were ironically shut down with the help of, wait for it ... -drumroll- ... Wikipedia's own resident alleged ME mafia mobsters Ward20 and TerryE!
Out of the millions of English speakers in the world who may be interested in CFS only a small handful edit at Wikipedia on the CFS pages. The conspiracy theories about me and a "ME activist cabal" that I'm allegedly involved with have been refuted over and over but the false accusations just keep coming regardless of the evidence. When the slightest indication of consensus is misconstrued as cabalistic and instant suspicion is thrown onto anyone who disagrees with you, beware of confirmation bias creep or soon you may be seeing ME cabals everywhere! Why not try comparing what "ME activists/militants" allegedly believe with what the CFS article actually is, you'll see that the idea of a ME activist cabal in control of the CFS articles is humorous enough to put on that Wikipedia list of fake/joke cabals, and I have already done so a few months ago.
I've actually left all of the CFS pages alone for a good long while and the only reason is the acrimonious atmosphere. There is an immense amount of research done on CFS, it is a constantly expanding field, but also one prone to wild proclamations, exaggerated claims of success, criticism, etiology, treatment, etc. The involvement of a lot of single purpose accounts who have dedicated, strong points of viewdoes not help. Given the enormous number of resources available (pubmed shows5,000 research articles and over 1,000 review articles), there isno reason for this page so be so daunting to try to edit. Editors coming to the pagea priori certain they know what causes CFS and how to treat it (from either the biological or psychological side of things) is the biggest detriment to neutral, dedicated editors coming to the page for the long-term work of establishing a neutral version. The page needs a) a mediator who understands that the field is inchoate, lacks answers, and full of controversy and b) a set of editors who are willing to either be polite, or respond only to the mediator rather than slinging mud at each other.
The page can, and should, be solved with sources. There is no need for it to be an ongoing, aggravating POV battle - editors need to realize there are multiple perspectives, none have come to dominate the field, and they're going to see neutral discussions of theories they don't like on the page.
Like a lot of the uninvolved editors, I'm certainly willing to comment. I am unwilling to step into that minefield. Perhaps arbcom should become involved, but the situation, as is, is borderline intolerable.WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to second WLU's comments. I think a mediator would do animmense amount of good for the CFS article and related articles, since biased edits from both/all sides would effectively be nullified. (I'm assuming the article would be locked to non-admins in this instance; otherwise, it would be less effective.) It could perhaps also provide someone who more closely monitors the behaviours of the editors involved, allowing those behaviours to be addressed before they get out of hand, as well as providing a more neutral third party to give a viewpoint on things if theydo escalate. I think the bulk of editors currently on these articles can and do work well together regardless of their personal opinions or biases, but when the more extreme opinions and/or actions come to the fore, it naturally makes everyone look more polarized than they truly are, similar to what's described atWP:TINC ("If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one.") By setting controls on these actions, I would like to think that it would moderate the impression by some that there really is some sort of cabal here and allow us all to return to productive editing. —RobinHood70(talk •contribs)23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree a neutral mediator that has no preconceived ideals on these articles but a good basis in enforcing policy would be beneficial.Ward20 (talk)01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure those of you who have been around awhile remember this page. Well, "activity" has picked up again on this page and I think it's worth keeping an eye on. Multiple IP's attempting to re-insert the same POV material. Several of those IP's66.99.0.150 (talk·contribs) and64.107.0.167 (talk·contribs) have attempted to hijack my account by requesting password reminders. -Drdisque (talk)20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I asked Drdisque to forward the password reminders to confirm the IPs. I blocked 66.99.0.150 just now. The other IP, 64.107.0.167, made a password request for his Commons account, but it's been blocked locally anyway. If you want to show this thread to a commons admin, be my guest.--Chaser (talk)01:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Without comment on the present case, admins need not wait for a speedy deletion tag to be placed if they feel it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If you disagree with the deletion, why didn't you taken this up withJzg directly? –xenotalk20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct. It became clear from emails to OTRS that the article (on a political candidate with zero chance of election) exists solely as part of her campaign marketing.Guy(Help!)20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
She's also a magazine publisher and is getting significant media coverage. Rather than make a unilateral decision you should have put it to an AFD or at least prodded.Be in Nepean (talk)20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Two inactionable threads in a day. My, tonight seems to be Guy's lucky night. Nepean: he shouldn't have taken this to AFD because that's nothow we do things around here. I'm sure, though, that if you took the matter up with JzG directly, he would be more accommodating to your request than if you ran straight to ANI to tattle on him (though I guess it's too late for that).AGK20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
AGK, the candidate has received significant, neutral coverage so she meets the notability requirements you cite. Therefore, he should have taken it to AFD.Be in Nepean (talk)20:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention, since the question of the article's existence is being discussed here, you should wait til people here are convinced the deletion was inappropriate before attempting to recreate it yet again.
DRV isn't well-suited to determine if the article meetsWP:GNG, for numerous reasons - not the least of which would be the fact that it would remain redlinked during the discussion... –xenotalk20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
JzG mentioned something about OTRS emails. If there's good evidence that the article is being created as a campaign tactic, I'd say an AFD would only help them misuse Wikipedia by calling attention to the candidate.
I'm not with her campaign. I'm not even going to vote for her (I'm supporting Pantalone) but I recognize that she is considered a mainstream candidate and is not being lumped in by the media with the fringe. She's being invited to mayoral debates for instance (and with 20+ candidates only the "major" candidates are being invited).Be in Nepean (talk)21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm don't have access to OTRS so I can't comment on the specifics of the ticket. However, if the article is written in a suitably neutral manner and meetsWP:GNG, it doesn't matter if someone in an OTRS ticket thinks it was posted to further her campaign. –xenotalk21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's quite possible a campaign worker with one of her opponents filed the OTRS ticket in order to make mischief. Have you considered that?Be in Nepean (talk)21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's also possible that the OTRS ticket was filed by her or one of her campaign workers ie "HOW DARE YOU DELETEOUR ARTICLE". Maybe acartooney threat was thrown in for good measure. --Ron Ritzman (talk)21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm also a bit suspicious since this supposedly new user seems excessively familiar with the lingo (prods, speedy delete tag, AFD, etc). Just putting that out there.
But yes I agree, if it meets notability guidelines it can stay no matter what the motivation for creation was. I just want to be sure a speedy isn't applicable first.
Yes, I'm using two computers in the same office and started a second account on the second computer because I couldn't remember the password on the first. What's your point Guy?Be in Nepean (talk)23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, a comment like that without context might be worthy of a block, but in the context of that discussion, I think he should be asked to redact it first. That, and I amso not getting involved in the whole climate change crap again.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?23:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 did not raise any concerns about this with me but took this to AN/I without any attempt to ask me to refactor my comments, which I have now done. It should be noted that Cla68 was recently blocked for reverting an edit of mine. This appears to be a further attempt at retaliation against me by an editor whom another admin has said appears to have "gone off the rails" lately. I suggest that he should give himself a time-out from this topic area and take note of the policy againstwikihounding. At any rate, now that refactoring has been done (which I'm always open to if requested), there is no need for any further controversy on this topic. --ChrisO (talk)23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not block Cla68 for reverting you; I blocked the both of you, and another editor, for making unilateral edits which fundamentally effected an article which I had earlier protected against a slow edit war - whichblockprotection I lifted upon request when it appeared that issues were again being discussed rather than being reverted over. The violations were edit warring "per se", and the sanctions accordingly.LessHeard vanU (talk)00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually you didn't lift the blocks on request, since the requests made by myself and Cla68 were denied. Unfortunately it would seem that Cla68 blames me for that outcome and is determined to get revenge. I have asked him to cease this apparent harassment. But thanks for the clarification otherwise. --ChrisO (talk)00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Lasvegaslover on Commons
Looking atFile:Wynn 2.jpg, it appears to have been uploaded on Commons by a User named Lasvegaslover, who has posted a lot of Las Vegas images on Commons. It looks to me like a lot of those images are copyrighted. Is a typical Wikipedian going to be making panoramic images of a Las Vegas nighttime such asFile:Las Vegas Panoramic 2.jpg and claiming to be the copyright holder? I don't know what to do on Commons to get these images looked at. What should I do?Everard Proudfoot (talk)05:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You do realize commons has its own separate set of admins, with only limited overlap with enwiki admins, who are chartered to deal with such issues, yes?Jclemens (talk)06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, but I've never done anything on Commons and don't know what the procedures are over there, and besides, the images are being used on the English language Wikipedia.Everard Proudfoot (talk)06:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You could post ithere. Maybe you are right about copyright. I looked at two of the user uploads. Different cameras were used.--Mbz1 (talk)06:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, many wikipedians have good cameras and excellent camera skills and photoediting skills. Panoramics are very common. However the low size under which he uploaded the one you linked (2) makes one wonder.--Crossmr (talk)06:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wildbot
Wildbot is malfunctioning.[43] Please block Wildbot and fixthis history page. I came here because there was a note on Wildbot's user page that said, "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it ." Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk)13:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering is it possible to check these two users (User:Samofi,User:Tobar888- onlyone edit from the latter user which is very familiar with Samofi's edit (NOT DELET), seems to be a sockpuppet, but Samof said that Tobar888 is not him...) to prevent more cheatings atthis ongoing discussion? Seems to be a duck test, (This is why I did not report him/her at checkuser) but who nows... (ps.: I was not sure where to write this so sorry if this was not the best place.)--B@xter913:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(I'm not an admin, still less a checkuser) With only one edit, I'd say it's too early forWP:DUCK. However, with only one edit the editor does seem to be asingle purpose account. Youmight want to consider using the{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}} template to tag the editor's !vote, but otherwise leave it alone until they've made more edits. Cheers,TFOWRThis flag once was red13:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, i need an advice about a user who ignores a certain rule. The problem is kind of old, and it takes back tothis when it was discussed a very similar thing where there also was "a big deal" over a clear matter for the policy applying matter.User:Rokarudi refuses to follow the standard naming policy,WP:PLACE andWP:NAME. We tried to talkhere and on many other occasions but the problem still persists, since he continue to ignore this rule. This violation can create chaos on manyRomania andSlovakia related articles because both counties have Hungarian minority which is very important to hisPOV. I tried to explain everything but i failed. The problem is1 and2. I want to point out the fact that before his projects there wasn`t any templates with the attempts of a special template just to emphasize other language names. In this case, Romania or any other country has river(or any other type) templates that use the standard naming policy, there is no reason for this to be a special case. Also i want to say the basic idea of the template, it has to be short and informative not cramped with alternative names. A template should not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for rivers and places that are found only in Romania. Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used. I am writing this problem here for the need of clarification. Thank you.iadrian (talk)22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Note user has been previously blocked[44] due to violation of 3RR. I am not an administrator and not experienced to pass judgement, but I feel that the REPORTED user should stay away from articles relating to this subject to prevent edit waring, having discussed this issue with the editor above. To shed a little light on the problem for Administrators, there is tension between Romania and Hungary about land. RegardsCaptain n00dle\Talk23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. Only a couple of days ago I supported unblocking Adrian and instead restricting him to two reverts per day. Now that he has back his editing rights, evidently the most productive use of them he could think of was to jump straight into a contested subject area. This request may well be actionable, but I remain a little disappointed.AGK23:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Good Evening, It was not ME but Iadrian yu who was blocked due to violation of 3RR. Already for the 3rd time. There is no tension between Hungary and Romanian but Transylvania needs patience and tolerance. If someone says I must stay away from editing, please bring evidence that I breached rules or was uncivil. I never provoke edit wars, but I do not like to see that 100 articles were edited without consensus overnight. I never violated any wiki rules on WP: naming.If you find any serious violation, feel free to block me for 2 month minimum.The story is as follows: 1.) From time to time, Iadrian receives a block atJohn Hunyadi. On such occasions, he comes over to Transylvania-related geographic articles to delete Hungarian placenames. Since 2007, there was a clear consensus in this matter as per thisOdorhei naming compromise. All of my edits were according to this. (no one can show any single edit that violates it). On 15 March 2010, he received a block for 55 hours. When he was free to edit, he to geographic articles and on 24th March, 2010Iadrian yu provoked an edit war by deleting bolded Hungarian placenames from dozens of articles atCovasna County, and when I reverted to status quo ante, he started to report. He was not given the opinion what he wanted at(Mediation Cabal initiated by Iadrian yu) so finally he reported the issue to adminMjroots. In the discussion Iadrian + permanently banned editor sockpuppetUmumu + zero editAmon Koth convinced the admin that ‘consensus has changed’. Although I disagreed with the ruling, in the aftermath, you will not find any single edit from me that violated the ruling. If you find 3, feel free to block me for 3 month. Check first false accusations. 2.) A few days ago, Iadrian was about to receive a block again at John Hunyadi for edit warring and 3RR violation, therefore, he came back to geographic articles and after having been reverted by Markussep at changing the template[45], he created a duplicate and started to change the template on app. 100 articles. The template, by the way, was created several months ago as a result ofConsensus of responders on template languageThe consensus was that there is no prejudice against bilingual geographic templates or lists. On the one hand, I never created any nationalistic edit. Please bring an example if did. From the template history[46] you can see that Iadrian yu only continued the work of permanently banned editorIaaasi sockpuppet of sockmaster Bonaparte. 3.) Look at my talk page atMures2, even a respected Romanian editor warned Iadrian yu not to harass me.Dahn clearly said that I do not violate any rule although he personally does not share my opinion. 4.) Look at my edits, let's say, during the past two weeks atHargita County settlements or elsewhere. If you find anything disruptive, feel free to block me. I do not let me drawn into any edit war, so this is all what I want to say.Rokarudi--Rokarudi00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but all this, what does that has to do with the violation of theWP:PLACE of your templates? You didn`t represent a single arguments to support your POV and you make up for this by discrediting the users which have a different opinion than you and being overly nice. "Your first violation of the naming policy was noticed when i pointed to theWP:PLACE andWP:NAME, not by some users you think "helped me" so please don`t try to misrepresent something soclear. The administrator said his decision based on WP:NAME and WP:PLACE. Please stop with the false accusations on other users, stick to the subject. I don`t need to justify myself again (after i told you so many times[47] ,[48]..) since i am acting based on wiki rules and i talked to you many times on this subject which i made clear in my first comment.The consensus was that there is no prejudice against bilingual geographic templates or lists. that was a decision made on when you insisted so much , this is not binding,WP:PLACE is. I will repeat, all templates are the same only you are trying to create aspecial one based on yourPOV that violates wiki naming policy and the idea of the template. Beside theWP:PLACE A template should not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for rivers and places that are found only in Romania. Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used.iadrian (talk)00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I also want to say that all this problems were first introduced by Rokarudi. First of all he introduced other language names in Romania in hundreds of articles(and now on the other hundred of articles about Mures river) in violation with wiki rules and now even templates.iadrian (talk)01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment The discussion mentioned above referred to the Hungarian name for places in Romania appearing inarticles. Templates were not discussed. IMO, the template should only link to the article name, which in this case would be the Romanian name. No translation would be necessary in the template, although such may legitimately appear in the lede of the linked articles.Mjroots (talk)05:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not a problem, everything that is according to the wiki naming policy is fine, other language names , in this case Hungarian names will appear in the lede but in standard form like everywhere else. Templates the same. Templates carry only official names so there is nothing special about this case to change that.iadrian (talk)08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As we can seehere andhere Rokarudi recently modified this templates also, before his modifications everything was normal, as any other template.iadrian (talk)09:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As another indication of Rokarudi`s violation of this rules, there was also a similar discussionhere where it is explained to another user that tried to do something similar and recognized his mistake.iadrian (talk)10:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mjroots, It is not a problem that you are not sympathetic with the use of alternate names in specific settings. However, you may give a thought to fact that you have recently made a ruling in a similar matter which was based on a 'new consensus' reached by 3 editors includingIadrian yu blocked for three times for 3RR violation and edit warring,Umumu, a proven sockpuppet and zero editAmon Koth, who has only been active at that and this voting, showing himself an obvious sockpuppet of Iaaasi|Umumu|Bonaparte|Contest. By your last ruling based on this consensus, you put aside the real consensus reached by a great number of respected editors in 2007, providing guidance ever since.Odorhei naming compromise. Although I considered your ruling a major mistake, I never breached it.It is also a major problem, that in this bilingual template matter, neither you nor others from the opposing side pay anjy attention to the fact that there was an identical discussion in February 2010, and the consensus of responders was that bilingual templates and lists may be acceptable (no prejudice against them)[49].Sorry, but it is close to ridicule, that every consensus reached in the past through real consensus building can be overthrown in this area at any time if one side is active enough to provoke a new dispute. What is the recipee? 1.step. You choose a sensitive area with delicately balanced practices. 2. step. You edit 50 aricles according to your POV. 3. step. When you are reverted with reference to the specific consensus, you challenge the practice based on this consensus at ANI and the new consensus is declared by those present (the more sockpuppets involved the better) 4. step. The one who worked in line with existing consensus in a specific matter at a specific time is labelled as wiki rule violator and perpetrator. No wonder, that this dispute is avoided by most serious editors who had told their opinion in similar discussions in the past as such evergreen disputes are boring for most, regardless of opinion.Rokarudi--Rokarudi11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me and trying to tarnish my reputation as an editor or the reputation of other editors. You saw that i don`t do that for you, even if you brake the rules. I never accused you of something so please try to be civil. False accusations are not helping and arenot constructive to this discussion. The last block was "planed"[50] by you. You sent a message to Squash Racket for help to block me intentionally, that is edit warring, by YOU. Anyway , the validity of an opinion is not judged by the number of blocks or anything else, everybody makes mistakes and that is not relevant to this subject, except for you. You didn`t represent a single arguments to support your POV and you make up for this by discrediting the users which have a different opinion than you to so you can continue with ignoring the rules.iadrian (talk)11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Rokarudi, I am sympathetic to the issue of alternative language names in the appropriate places. As far as I can tell, templates generally fall outside of this. I'm not sure that consensus can override policy, although I do know that consensus may change over a period of time. The two templates have both been nominated for deletion. The outcome of both TfDs should therefore help to establish the consensus on the issue of alternative language names in templates.Mjroots2 (talk)12:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots, I do not know how much experience you have with respect to naming policies, but general policies in naming issues are usually implemented by being filtered throughcountry speficic consensus. If you read the link you will see that, not surprisingly, there is no listed convention neither for Slovakia nor for Romania. This proved to cause many problems. Therefore, as a convention-substitute, reasonable editors worked out partial compromises which were respected but not officially listed: for Slovakia theElonka-convention, while for Romania theOdorhei partial compromise. This latter had been used since 2007 until you were unhappily gamed into abolishing it, based on a dubious discussion. Why I was angry was not because you decided as you did, but I felt that you are not familiar enough with the specific Transylvanian circumtances and the history of the problem, so decided from a distant and purely abstract point of view, thus, let the ghost out of the bottle by encouraging Iadrian yu to challenge all existing compromises and practices. By the way, templates are only means of grouping information, like lists. There are dozens of exonym lists. See them here[51] The only reason I made a template was that a template looks better than a list. Why to delete a template, if a list is acceptable. As to arguments mentioned by Iadrian yu, all the arguments, pros and cons can be read atMures County bilingual template It would not contribute to consensus building if I repeated them. If anyone is really interested in editor's opinion, can take his time and go through it. It is not from 2007 it is from 4 February, 2010. But, one has to hurry up as Iadrian wants to close this discussion immeadiately after one day :) Regards:Rokarudi--Rokarudi14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Rokarudi you should really stop with you attitude. You were first acting like a victim and now like a teacher. Please stop. Where there is no consensus for particular country like Romania and Slovakia (you gladly violate) we respect the standard naming policy since there is nothing special there. I will remind you that YOU started this problems we have here, from Romania`s names to this templates that are unique in all wikipedia. Whatspecial situation about Transylvania? Please don`t try to express some irredentism feeling you might have. The rules are clear here and it was already explained to you several times. I am not rushing the discussion but since we know that you ignore the naming policy this case looks pretty clear. There is no need for every rule you don`t like to make a chaos and a ANI report to talk for days and weeks.iadrian (talk)14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As this section is about incidents, and not of naming policies, the following edits show that the Reporter provokes edit war even during on-going discussion. He has no patience even to wait for the result of the on-going template discussions tocontinue his work in deleting Hungarian name sections from other templates, he feels an urgent need to do it right now.edit warri by Iadrian yuEdit warring by Iadrian yu. In terms of incident discussion, the main isue is to tell the difference between good faith editing and edit warring. In the first case, an editor may edit what he deems good, even may edit bold, even may be wrong, but after consensus is declared, he shall comply with it. If he wants to change consensus or staus quo, he first try to build consensus. As a contrarian example, Iadrian jumps into hot issues, acts quickly and efficiently, then goes to admins and wait for admnistrative legitimization.Rokarudi--Rokarudi09:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Again , you and your "representation".. "As this section is about incidents, and not of naming policies,"-This has no sense, this section is about an incident because of the violation of the naming policy, one can`t exist without the other. One correction according to the naming policy(you violate) is hardly a provocation for an edit war or do i plan one like you do[52]. You said everything except real arguments, anything about the problem or your edit chaos. If you would be kind to check the talk page[53] and[54] at the templates, you created chaos, you would see that everything is explained nicely. I don`t think that any unsupported accusations are constructive as you should know too, from you and me included of course, so it would be great if you could stop(and i will too) from doing it in the future because we will just end up throwing "mud" one at another and we won`t do nothing with that since nobody of us indeed violates the rules you are talking about in your last comment. Let`s try to keep the conversation at some level and to the subject.iadrian (talk)12:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
How about for a change to answer why did you revertedthis ? And why did you introduced Hungarian names in the first place into these[55] and[56] templates ? And if you have valid points why don`t you represent then at my answer at the talk page?iadrian (talk)13:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(1) As I said above, the template was modified on 24th February, 2010 according to the result of the Mures (Maros) County template language dispute in which the admin summarized consensus by establishing that although the issue was controversialthere was no prejudice against bilingual geographic templates or lists. I edited according to this very consensus prevailing at that time. (2) Hungarian names are not in first place in these templates. The Romanian names stand first (upper section), while the Hungarian names in second (lower section)[57] and[58]. (3) Your arguments on wiki policies (WP:PLACE andWP:NAME) are empty, references to non-existing policies as these guidelines only cover article titles and use of placenames in the body of the articles, not in lists or templates. Policies against a bilingual template are like a Ghost Ship, many speak about it, but nobody saw it. There is no wiki policy on monolingual or bilingual templates, exonym templates or similar.Dahn, far from being a promoter of Hungarian placenames, clearly told it on my talk page. Many approve alternate names in Transylvanian county templates, many disapprove, but this is a question of opinion, not that of wiki rule. (4) You have again Hungarian names deleted without consultation from another county template where 80% of the population are Hungarians and almost all of those names are locally co-official. When I reverted you, you forced your POV again, although you are on parole on condition that you avoid edit warring. I will NOT revert you as this is the very strategy you follow in trying to drag me into an edit war. I will not report you for harassing. I will patiently be waiting until an admin will be kind to ask you to stop it.Rokarudi--Rokarudi14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. The points are that:
The consensus you talk about is not binding in sense that the conclusion was "There is no prejudice against bilingual templates"WP:PLACE is.WP:PLACE andWP:NAME are not an empty argument since it regulates the use of the official names in articles, therefore use of the official names in templates, since that is also a part of the article and it is created conform the names we use in the articles.
Note : Looks like for you naming policy is something likeWP:ABF where there is a sentence describing such behaviorPolicies are only guidelines! Unless they support my position, in which case they are, of course, set in stone.
I quoteHungarian names are not in first place in these templates. The Romanian names stand first (upper section), while the Hungarian names in second (lower section) , as i explained as one of the reasonshere, If Hungarian users want to see Hungarian names there is a Hungarian Wikipedia. A template should not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for places that are found only in Romania. Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used. Even in lower section. - Since that is one of the main motive the Hungarian names should be present, by your opinion, if i understood it well.
Also, precedent isn't binding on Wikipedia, but it can be illustrative. Is there a comparable template that provides two names? If you look, for instance, at thetemplate for Vojvodina, which has sixofficial languages, only Serbian names are given, with other names provided in individual articles.
Hungarian is not an official language anywhere in Romania. In 20%+ towns, it has some attributes of an official language, like signage and educational rights, but it's not official or co-official. It doesn`t matter the percentage of the Hungarian population in some compact areas, it matters the official language (Romanian) and therefore the Romanian names.
Note : The demographic factor is reflected in other ways like in the lede where is mentioned as a second name and in infoboxes and in the maps displayed right under the official name as an alternative. Like in this article[59] where we can see it in the info box and colored on the map of Romania the location and the alternative name.
As i said, i would like to talk about the subject of this discussion since we can`t solve something if we don`t talk about it and constantly throwing unsupported accusations at each other so please stop. I will not respond to your unsupported claims and accusations for the purpose of this conversation.iadrian (talk)15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Bigotgate, again
I salted the titleGillian Duffy afterthis discussion. There is now a request to reinstate it as a redirect toUnited Kingdom general election, 2010#Campaign where the incident is covered. My own view is that we should not have a redirect that permanently associates Mrs Duffy's name with the fact that the Prime Minister called her bigoted, and I propose that my protection (which runs only to the 13th) should be made permanent; but I would like other views. Please comment atTalk:Gillian Duffy.JohnCD (talk)09:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, yet again, as has happened all throught the election, this has just been discussed at length on British national television as one of the incidents of the election, with, shock horror, her full name mentioned many times. Yet, we have somehow ended up with interpretations of BLP that mean that, the theoretical situation of her grandchildren being traumatised by Wikipedia, is more important than the real situation of readers wanting to know what the hell actually happened and why it is being mentioned all the time, and not being able to even find the relevant page where it is documented by Wikipedia (not that it has even done that very well).MickMacNee (talk)18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a discussion we shouldn't be having. We simply cannot judge the lasting importance of a name that's been in a newspaper for a week. If this is still being discussed in a year's time - we can deal with it then. The notion that "the reader might be searching for this" is silly - we are not a newspaper and any reader looking for this ought to be directed elsewhere. We fail miserably when we try to do immediate current affairs of living people, it is out of project scopeWP:NOTNEWS, and as for "do we need this is the long-run?" questions, I simply reply "let's ask that in a few months" - what'stheflippinghurry--Scott Mac18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
My own view is that we should not have a redirect that permanently associates Mrs Duffy's name with the fact that the Prime Minister called her bigoted – I think that British political memory will do that perfectly on its own! I see no problem with the redirect myself: is there any policy basis for not having it?18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
For a policy reason, I would cite the passage inWP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy about: "...dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."JohnCD (talk)13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The incident metWP:EVENT days ago, which would have fallen within the period of the original Afd, had it not been vanished within an hour. I don't know why anyone is even still pretending this won't still be remembered, culturally referenced, or otherwise written about, in year's time as a major incident of the election, except for ideological reasons and a desire to change Wikipedia, something which should not be anywhere near the mind of an admin when mashing his buttons. This is not a question of improper prediction, it has been proven beyond doubt already, if one is actually looking at the sources, rather than making assumptions about what they say. The idea that Wikipedia waits a year to write articles is a pure fantasy. Wikipedia is treated as a newspaper for major incidents of lasting impact, by readers and editors, which is why Wikinews is such a total failure.MickMacNee (talk)21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Before the next time it happens, Wikipedia should have a discussion to what we want to be. If we want to be a traditional encyclopedia with an online format, then some minor people will not qualify. If we want to have articles on practically everything, that's a value judgment. Until we decide that, we will constantly have this problem. Even the policies and guidelines are contradictory.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk)15:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No idea, but while you are waiting can you comment on your user name? This is the policyWP:U andTwyfords is a company and tri-shell is a product associated with the industry in which Twyfords are involved - porcelain sanitary ware. Is there a conflict perWP:U?LeakyCaldron20:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Judging from some of your edits post-block I'm not sure if you have entirely lost your tabloid-esque style, however there is nothing that warrants admin action as far as I can see. Reporting user hasn't provided any diffs. I suggest a read ofWP:CITE,WP:BLP andWP:MOS but that's all.SGGHping!20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A review of just a few of your most recent edits, several of which I'm in the process of removing, indicates you're contributing like a writer for theDaily Mirror. Stop. Keep it up and yes, the case will be closed, but not how you'd want it to be.20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)The above was directed at Twyfords, not SGGH.
And... he's been blocked by another admin. I posted a note to his talk page alerting him of this... not that it's needed. But it will be interesting to see if he fesses up.—DædαlusContribs06:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Large amount of copyrighted photos uploaded by User:Hemayetsmhh
Resolved
Hemayetsmhh (talk·contribs) has uploaded a large amount of copyrighted photos that I doubt he created. Here are some examples:
Practically everything he'd uploaded was a copyvio. I've deleted all of them except one that probably passes NFCC and one that actually had EXIF data and looks OK. Also rolled back all his edits. And blocked indefinitely with a note that he may be unblocked if he acknowledges the problem.Black Kite (t)(c)16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
A newbie,User talk:MarcusHookPa, is edit warring atChichester, Pennsylvania. He's reverting cn & dubious tags, as well as deleted my comments on the talk page. I've tried explaining to him how his edits contradict what what he says, and this last time warned him I'd ask to have him blocked if he continued, but he's reverted the tags again. His attitude appears to be that, since he's right and I'm wrong, there's nothing to discuss. —kwami (talk)03:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You need to inform him of this discussion. Also, both of you have passed 3 reverts, although arguably you're reverting vandalism, i.e. unexplained removal of fact tags and the like. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that Kwamikagami has edit warred over the pronunciation of a town's name. Kwamikagami wastaken to ANI previously for edit warring and misuse of admin tools. The latter not a case in this account, but edit warring is. While MarcusHookPa's actions may be bad, Kwamikagami has a history of edit warring of the pronunciation's of towns and will edit war to make sure his pronunciation is the "right" one. Clearly something needs to be done to both users. I recommend a 3RR block for both. -NeutralHomer •Talk •09:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a pattern of edit warring if the other case isn't an edit war. And however much you try to distort it out of all proportion, one revert in a week is not an edit war.Knepflerle (talk)10:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just a big coincidence he reverts once (the other editor doesn't engage) and a week later he fully edit wars with another user. Yeah, just a big coincidence. Not buying it. -NeutralHomer •Talk •10:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully, whether you "buy" that is neither here nor there. He didn't edit war at that article, so it's an irrelevance. Editors are judged on their actual actions, not on what you choose to wildly extrapolate from one non-incident.Knepflerle (talk)10:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
NeutralHomer hid my rebuttal of his false allegation in a collapsible boxin this edit, but left the allegation in the main text. I am happy forboth to be archived, orneither; it is not acceptable to hide the criticism alone.Knepflerle (talk)11:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A cursory search hasn't revealed any sources for me. I'd estimate that 99.99% of IPA pronunciations are unsourced on en.wp, and 70% are unsourceable (this is not an excuse at all, just an observation).
In this case the dispute wasn't about the pronunciation, rather how to represent this correctly in IPA. The representation Kwamikagami proposed is correct and hopefully MarcusHookPa will be convinced of this. If he continues to dispute it however, it wouldn't harm to remove the information as OR, as it's hardly crucial.Knepflerle (talk)13:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right about the unsourced nature of the pronunciations. I expect that's going to be an issue someday. Meanwhile, how would you say "Chichester" phonetically? As in, what common word does each syllable rhyme with? "Buy west her"? "Bee west her"? What's the deal on the stress on the syllables? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
(Puts on finestWikipedia:Reference desk/Language hat): soChichester, Pennsylvania rhymes with "buy west her", in contrast with theChichester in England which rhymes with "rich sister" (almost).Chichester has primary stress on the first syllable followed by two unstressed syllables (like the normal pronunciation of the word "bicycle"), whereasChichester, Pennsylvania has primary stress on the first syllable, secondary stress on the second syllable and an unstressed third syllable (like the normal stress of the word "railroading").Knepflerle (talk)17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If Chichester had two primary stresses, it would be pronounced as two words, "chai chester". I added that comment to highlight why the transcription was dubious.
I didn't edit war over the pronunciation, I reverted Marcus's deletions of the fact tags and discussion. Does that count as an "edit war"? The only time I changed the pronunciation was when he told me how it was pronounced, and I accommodated him by changing the transcription to agree with his description. —kwami (talk)18:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverting non-stop and not discussing it on Chichester talk page or the user's talk page IS an edit war and as an admin you should know the exact definition of an edit war and should not need to ask "is that an edit war"...you should know already. You edit warred over tags...tags dude, tags. You didn't take the high road and discuss it, you just hit that revert button and keep right on warring. This is the exact same problem you had with the page I was working on and as thatANI discussion showed, you have had this problem in the past as well. -NeutralHomer •Talk •23:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In a conversation withUser:Tcncv, I seem to have stumbled across mass disruption, over several years, by an IP editor on articles related toBarney & Friends. On further examination, it appears this has been going on since 2005/2006 and he's changed IPs several times between then and now. It seems that almost the entire history of many of these articles has been sneaky vandalism (changing dates, statistics, removal of content etc), much of which has gone unreverted and the articles have been edited since, so the only way I've come up with of removing the junk is to delete the articles and restore them without the junk edits.
You're right you're haven't, feel free to remove the warning. Chances are it was a mistake, it happens, no big deal--Jac16888Talk03:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Trekphiler appears to have said "Taxicab" when he meant to sayTalk:Canadair CL-41 Tutor, and he appears to have been referring tothis edit you made, as it's the last thing he reverted before coming to your talk page. That said, unless you two have some history, at first glance seems to be an overreaction on his part. -DustFormsWords (talk)03:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone explain how that could be construed as vandalism? (a) airplane operated by Canada (b) Malyasia (c) manufactured in Montreal (d) adding a bannershell (e) separating the top of the talk page and banners, from the comments.
When I look at the diff mentioned above (your edit), I see some additions which include what looks like a mistake, namely== == (and it is highlighted in red on my system). People reverting vandalism see many cases like this so an unwarranted assumption was made. We are sorry that you have had this unfortunate issue, but please understand that it is almost certainly just a mistake, and no harm has been done. Please continue editing, but be prepared for occasional glitches (which should be dealt with calmly).Johnuniq (talk)04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the move, but I felt ANI was appropriate since ban evasion is happening right now, and the report contained a block request against the currently active IP sock.69.228.170.24 (talk)22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The last report was archived with no action. I guess there's not enough interest among admins to intervene against some determined POV pusher that edits exclusively in his research area, which is utterly obscure to most people. The AN report has longer staying power, and you did ask for a formalWP:BAN, which is normally discussed there (cf. policy I just linked.)Pcapping22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I've seen other bans done here at ANI. The last report did receive action, just less vigorous action than I'd have liked.69.228.170.24 (talk)22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Highly disruptive and indefinitely-blocked userGADFLY46 (talk·contribs) has postedthis on his talk page today. He says that he has another account, but does not reveal the name (surprise). Can we get a checkuser on his IP? Also, removal of talk page access wouldn't hurt.(C)22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not believe I canvassed. I informed some people that the article was being wrongly attacked, and because they supported the opinion of the "keep" voters, they voted. They wouldn't have voted if they believed the article should be deleted. Is that supposed to be wrong? The Message for DreamFocus was a question. I asked him if there was a way to get the rescue squad more involved, which is just as bad as adding a rescue tag in the first place. As for encouraging disruptive behaviour, I don't see where anyone recommended disrupting the AfD process.PÆonU (talk)14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh, and here I interpreted your comment of "Flood the page with comments (scroll to the bottom of the text box, copy pasteComment into a new line, and write your comment) about why Muir Skate deserves an article or why Ron is such a douche" to be encouraging disruption. Clearly we are operating under somewhat different definitions.VernoWhitney (talk)14:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "I'd like to ask of some of you guys to vote to keep the article"is canvassing: you didn't just 'inform' them but specifically told them what to say, going as far as writing out six !votes for people to copy-paste into the AfD. It's also abundantly clear from that thread that you're aware you're breaking Wikipedia's rules and were attempting to avoid scrutiny. When you failed you began telling people at the forum to spam the AfD with messages about the nominator being a 'douche'. No matter howmistaken you believe someone's opinions may be that's completely unacceptable - do you really not see that as disrupting AfD?
Continue with this sort of behaviour and you'll find yourself blocked very quickly: consider that a warning.Olaf Davis (talk)14:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
"Flood the page with comments about why Muir Skate deserves an article" was a request for other people,if they wished, to explain why they want to keep the article up, not just vote or say random things about Muir Skate. As for "why Ron is such a douche," three words:tongue-in-cheek. I never meant to cause disruption and if I knew that so many people don't know how to take a joke, I wouldn't have said it.
Seriously, I'm getting the third degree for this? It's a simple misunderstanding on a website that, like all other websites, will fade away, not defacing the Mona Lisa. What is this, the Warsaw ghetto or a user-editable encyclopedia? Does benefit of the doubt suddenly mean nothing to this site?PÆonU (talk)14:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what "third degree" means - it means "interrogation". You're not being interrogated; multiple editors are telling you that what you didwascanvassing. Fair enough, maybe you didn't know aboutWP:CANVAS before you started this. It's possible that an editor who isn't involved with the skate shop will recreate the article, and this time manage to demonstratenotability. If that happens you'll be better equipped to handle any resultant AfD. Cheers,TFOWRThis flag once was red14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what it seems like to me. However, I'd still like you to respond to the comment below.PÆonU (talk)14:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know where in the rules it says articles can be automatically deleted when someone canvasses. The votes meant nothing and in the end, I was the only one adding my opinion. Even if you delete it, I'm curious, would the article have been safe had I not canvassed (I certainly wouldn't have done it if I knew how funny admins find overreactions)? Even if there is no hope for the article, please be honest. What would the outcome have been?PÆonU (talk)14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muir_Skate_Longboard_Shop
The article was deleted because it showed almost noWP:Notability - not because of canvassing. I closed the discussion because of the ridiculous canvassing, your disruption and the mess the discussion had degenerated into.Toddst1(talk)15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am extremely confused. It had 3 large local sources, one large national, and one medium sized international interview. How, in any way, is that not enough?PÆonU (talk)15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the post on my page was an innocent question, as he did explain when I informed him of the canvassing rule.[60] Linking to just his first post, and not the second, kind of takes things out of context. I had said Keep in the AFD before the message on my talk page, as did others. Only three first time IPs which seemed to have come from the posting off wiki at that forum.DreamFocus15:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Toddst, you can not close an AFD because one editor did canvassing. It hasn't been 7 days yet, so the AFD must run its course.DreamFocus15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there even a rule about the possibility of doing this? It seems as if the admins get to do what they want, because I can't find ANYTHING about what they pulled.PÆonU (talk)15:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, AFDs can be closed early, but in this case I've restored the article. Let the fiasco continue without PÆonU.Toddst1(talk)15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Good call. Best to let the AfD run its course so we have a firm unambiguous result one way or the other, without confusion over the reason being notability or canvassing.Olaf Davis (talk)15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Username violation?
Have we all missed the obvious here? the username PÆonU could be interpreted as violatingWP:U as offensive - PÆonU =Pee on you.Mjroots (talk)16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Having just stumbled across this, thus making me totally uninvolved in the above, I'm inclined to agree with Mjroots that the username is not in line with policy. I see no reason why the username without the "U" shouldn't be acceptable, but he shouldn't be a allowed to continue editing with the name as it is.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
What is this, the wiki equivalent of tax evasion? The username is borderline, it should be discussed atWP:RFC/N, not indefinitely blocked. If the user deserves an indefinite block for disruption, it should be placed on its own merits. –xenotalk17:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, if you really feel that the block is unneccesary, please reset it to the week that originally imposed and unsucessfully appealed against. To me, consensus above seems to be that the name is in violation ofWP:U, and therefore the user should be blocked for that reason alone. I'm making no judgement of the situation above, just on the issue of the username.Mjroots (talk)17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This just looks like a pale attempt to find any reason to indef block this user. I had already initiated discussion with this user, who, after all, is blocked for a week, there's no need at all to indef block here.The Rambling Man (talk)17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review the relevant guidance atWikipedia:U#Dealing with inappropriate usernames and consider self-reverting and following the prescribed course of action. This is not so blatant as to warrant an indefinite block without warning; especially given the user has been using this name since 2007. –xenotalk17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
And as for "consensus above seems to be that the name is in violation of WP:U," two in favour, one against, and a grand total of 40 minutes to achieve said consensus. Speaks for itself really.The Rambling Man (talk)17:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I may have been a bit hasty, so I've reset the block to that originally imposed. I will refer the username toWP:RFCN though.Mjroots (talk)17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Referred, but I'm not sure that was strictly correct, given what is stated there. PÆonU notified of RFCN.Mjroots (talk)17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots' original assessment at the top of this section was correct. The username is obviously a play on "pee on you". You can tell that from the attitude expressed in some of his user boxes, such as calling Scientologists gay, and saying thatZac Efron should be killed. The username began over 2 years ago, so ringing him up for that now might be a bit much. But he can't be allowed to have such BLP violations on his user page. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There's at least three userboxes that should be removed from his user page. The secon and third from top, and the second from bottom.Mjroots (talk)20:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent). I know that this thread has been marked as "resolved" but as the "douche" who inadvertently started this category 5 dramacane, I thought I should make a statement.
As some of you know, most of my work in AFD is non-admin closures, relists, and deletion sorting. I vary rarely nominate articles for deletion. (hell, I don't even !vote that often) The nominations I do make are usually of the hoaxy variety. (seriousWP:V andWP:MADEUP issues) I really don't like telling otherwise good faith editors that their submissions are not "good enough" for wikipedia. Like I said in another AFD, my "google fu" is not strong so when I do nominate an article for deletion, nothing would make me happier then someone finding something I missed so I can withdraw my nomination. However, this one turned into yet another "deletionist vs inclusionist" battleground AFD and then the whole thing blew up when I mentioned the forum post. (which I found while looking for sources)
On the canvassing issue. I originally didn't view PÆonU's question to DreamFocus as canvassing. It was an innocent question from an editor wanting advice on saving "his" article. However, the offsite canvassing was not only completely uncalled for but also unhelpful. If I lacked scruples and really really really wanted to get an article deleted, that's exactly how I would do it because I know that there are some who would !vote "delete" only because of theSPAs and the drama. Before the fit hit the shan in this AFD, there wasn't that much participation and there was a possibility that it would have been closed "no consensus" depending on who closed it come day 7. --Ron Ritzman (talk)23:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Str8cash is removing big chunks of info from theEtherboy article. He first tryed to redirect the page toRon Browz which was chalenged. Then a AfD discussion resulted. Since the discussion begain he has deleted two sections from the article (Background & Guests) with no reason left in the edit summary.STAT-Verse02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone with more experience/language skills look into this?
Originally,User:Hoots Hagis Kilts Porridgeadded an interwiki to ourEjaculation article. The article name seemed oddly satirical even for another language, so I was suspicious and tested the link. It led to an article page that wasn't created yet. I reverted the interwiki link as vandalism and warned the user.
Now it seems the article page has been created at that other language wiki, and so ourXqbot added the interwiki link again to ourEjaculation article. My suspicion is that this is still vandalism, but I'm not entirely sure, and would like another opinion. Can anyone make sense of this?
Reading through the article at the other language wiki, it looks like an exaggerated phonetic version of some English text, ie. a joke. I'm still not entirely sure what to do with this though.
That article is par for the course for the Scots Wikipedia; considerhttp://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose . This is a matter for our sister wiki – none of us speak the language I imagine, so we are in no position to judge the content and so ought not to mess with such interwiki links.86.41.80.244 (talk)02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was reading through more of the wiki and was about to ask. Thanks Gavia. This makes it pretty difficult to determine if individual pages constitute vandalism or not, cause frankly they all look ridiculous. I'll have to be ignorin' all ye' olde sco: links from no' on, aye.
Oh man, can we get that guy over here, it's just what enwiki needs:
Nobody's necessarily making fun of it, the question is whether a phonetic transliteration of English as spoken with a Scottish accent is, in fact, a separate language. I know a few Cornish speakers, a fair few Welsh speakers, but nobody who purports to speak a separate Scottish language, though such exist, so I personally can't ask anyone whose opinion I can directly verify and trust. This has been discussed before, there is I believe a very small movement for the resurrection ofScottish Gaelic but it is not clear to me (or to several others) that the Scottish Wikipedia project is actually written in Scottish Gaelic. I would think the best idea would be to involve some language scholars.Guy(Help!)10:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Scots is not the same as Scottish Gaelic, which is a Celtic language and rather closey related to Irish. Scots is a dialect of English; a dialect being different from an accent, which only involves pronunciation, while a dialect also has a distinct vocabulary and disctinctive grammatical features. Some people maintain that Scots is a separate language rather than a dialect, and there are definitely arguments to be made for that, but this isn't the place for it. Suffice it to say that Scots certainly is a language variety in its own right, it is not just a phonetic transcription of a Scottish accent. I'm sure some people write joke articles or use bad Scots (or phonetically written Scottish-accented English that isn't even Scots) on sco.wikipedia.org but that's no reason to throw the good articles out with the bad. --bonadeacontributionstalk11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Guy, the Scots Wikipedia is written in Scots, not Gaelic - if you'd bothered to read the articles I'd linked to you might have found something out about the language and saved yourself the embarrassment of making such ill-informed comments. Still, reminds me of our first interactions.DuncanHill (talk)12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both, one learns something every day. I am unconvinced that "Scottish" as a language can be said to formally exist; it sounds to me more like a dialect. We do not have a Scouse Wikipedia or a Geordie Wikipedia, do we?Guy(Help!)19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would, for one, have been more judicious to use the wordrevival rather thanresurrection. Sadly, judging by the lack of sources given and signs of it only being in the early stages of development (there is no article onplooks for instance) I would suggest that cross-linking to sco.wikipedia's articles should be avoided. I see no reason to seek its deletion, though. It looks like a harmless enough endeavour and, clearly, quite a lot of effort has been put into producing it (though it looks to me as though a lot of it is written in very "cod" Scots). I passed a few enjoyable minutes surfing round it and, with a bit of luck, it'll keep a few bored people from engaging in more antisocial activities, such as spray-painting old ladies, head-butting bus shelters and stealing the neighbours' television set. ← ZScarpia13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Just look at that guy'suser page on Scots wp and especially thetalk page (especially all the racial slurs towards the bottom). Obvious vandal of the more obvious kind. I know that's now our problem as such, but can we perhapsnot interwiki-link to this user's "contributions".80.135.8.220 (talk)07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely flabbergasted. After looking around more, I really don't know what to say about it. It is more or less (99.9%) readable by an english speaker. Can scots speakers parse english? If they can is something like this even necessary?--Crossmr (talk)12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's really a vandal, trust me
sco:Ejacyoolayshun is not real Scots. It's a vandal making fun of the language. Scots is a very silly looking language, yes, but they still use -tion and other endings the same as standard English does. The Scots wiki has very few active admins, so I've nominated the page for deletion but that doesnt mean it'll get deleted any time soon based on my (limited) past experience there with cross-wiki vandals.—Soap—12:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I just read the culture article off the main page and while it's of higher quality, it still reads very similarly. perfectly understandable by an english speaker. Can a pure scot speaker read english?--Crossmr (talk)15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be very much surprised if there are any Scots-speakers who don't, but what relevance does that have? Language is about much, much more than intelligibility. There are many languages in the world that are close enough for almost perfect mutual understanding, but that doesn't mean that only some of those languages should be singled out as being suitable for Wikimedia projects. In fact, the strategic goals they talk about at the top of all Special: pages list "more diversity" as one of the top priorities. Allowing people to use their own language must surely be part of that, and since nobody would accept Scots in English Wikipedia articles, the obvious solution is to have a Scots Wikipedia if there are people who are seriously interested in working on it. --bonadeacontributionstalk15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
While I've argued elsewhere against continued support of the low-readership wikis—including Scots—"I'm sure they can understand English" is a ridiculous argument. By that logic, you'd merge Norwegian, Danish and Swedish into a single project, likewise most Slavic languages, German/Seeltersk/Bavarian/Zeelandic/Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese… – iridescent16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the comparison between this situation and Norwegian/Danish/Swedish, Slavic, German/Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese etc. is not really a good analogy (after all, there are plenty of Dutch speakers who don't understand German, plenty of Portuguese who don't understand Spanish, plenty of Poles who don't understand Russian etc.) A better analogy would beSwiss German compared to standard German (as spoken/written in Germany, Austria). Spoken Swiss German is almost unintelligible to a standard-German speaker, to the extent that when Swiss people appear on German TV, their speech is almost always subtitled to make it understandable. Butwritten German in Switzerland is always standard German, and a newspaper published in Zurich, say, will be perfectly understandable to anybody who reads German.80.135.8.220 (talk)22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The analogy with the Scandinavian languages is very apt, though. The spoken forms of Danish/Norwegian/Swedish can sometimes be unintelligible to speakers of the other languages, depending on which accent the speaker has, but written Da/No/Sw is 99.9% comprehensible to speakers of the other languages. Not to mention the fact that there are two separate Norwegian Wikipedias, because there are two distinct Norwegian languages. Nobody is questioning the existence of these four Wikipedia versions, so "mutual intelligibility" is not a good criterion. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's actually a good example. Written Danish/Norwegian/New-Norwegian/Swedish are reasonably close and mutually intelligible (at least in written form), yet are definitely considered distinct languages. (In fact spoken Norwegian is probably close to Swedish, but the written form is much closer to Danish, for historical reasons.) In fact the situation withBokmål andNynorsk is probably of relevance: while speakers of one of this languages will definitely understand the other without problems -- i.e. native Nynorsk speakers will have no problems with Bokmål -- yet they are still considered distinct languages, and we have separate Wikipedias for these two languages.80.135.30.136 (talk)09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Because, if I can understand what they've written, and they can understand what I've written, is there any point in duplicating content, which is basically just a pronunciation difference? There might be some grammar differences but we already have those between American and British English. It seems to me no different than having a stereotypical bronx encyclopedia or a southern US encyclopedia, or a newfiepedia (which I'm sure exists but probably not as a genuine alternative language on wikipedia).--Crossmr (talk)01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate: it isnot basically just a pronunciation difference. If it were, I'd agree with you. I think you may be confusing it withScottish English. Apologies for repeating myself, but a dialect is more than pronunciation and slight grammar differences, Scots is considered by many to be a language rather than a dialect, and being able to parse the text is only a very small part of what language is about. The comparison with American and British English is not a good one - the very minor grammar and spelling variations there are not true differences in the same way. A better comparison there are the different dialects of Scots, which could possibly be compared to the differences between British and American English. Scots has been a written language for a long, long time, and it does have political recognition in the UK. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of duplicating content. Currently there is a separate Wikipedia inSerbian. And a separate Wikipedia inCroatian.And a separate Wikipedia inSerbo-Croatian. Yes, that's right. Serbian and Croatian are indeed mutually intelligible -- the major difference between them is the alphabet, Serbian is using the Cyrillic alphabet and Croatian is using Latin alphabet. Other than that, the difference is minimal. Imagine having a separate "English" Wikipedia, a separate "American" Wikipedia,and a separate "English-American" Wikipedia, and you get the idea.80.135.30.136 (talk)09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, stick to the topic, don't try to draw the discussion away from the original topic. Don't hide behind the IP to promote your personal attitudes. Admins must delete the message of user 80.135.30.136.Kubura (talk)02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There was once anattempt to fork off a Brazilian Portuguese version of Wikipedia. And then of course there's the infamousSiberian Wikipedia. The Brazilian one never got approved, and the Siberian wiki was closed when it was decided that it didn't really qualify as a separate language. (I believe Scots should be considered separate, though ... even as far back as 1300 AD there were marked differences between the dialects of England and those of Scotland.)—Soap—19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't the alphabet difference between Serbian and Croatian be fixed with something similar to the hans/hant switch tabs on the zh.wikipedia?68.248.235.144 (talk)21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit of a non sequitur (not to mention comparing apples to oranges, as hans/hant are different writing systems for the same set of languages). There is no problem here that needs fixing. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are separate languages linguistically and politically, and because they areAusbausprache it is extremely likely that they will become more different from each other more rapidly than what would be the case if the languages developed organically. And the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia projects are both very active from what I can see, with 114,000 and 80,000 articles respectively. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a missunderstanding,Serbian language uses BOTH,cyrillic and latin alphabet, the alphabet difference is thatCroatian language uses ONLY latin. Regarding this issue, yes, you have 4 wikipedias with almost identical language Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian. The real news is that now we have a attempt to crate a separateMontenegrin language (regarded as dialect of Serbian until now) with a separate Montenegrin wikipedia (it was rejected).FkpCascais (talk)03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This is no longer an AN/I matter, is it? The original question has been answered a long time ago, and frankly it's rather uncomfortable to have a discussion about whether various languages are "real" or "different" or whatever - Wikipedia is generally all about the sources and the established knowledge, so why not look at theconsiderable body of established knowledge about all these languages, instead of making guesses based on superficial differences? And in any case,if there was a question of any of the Wikipedias for any of the languages mentioned being deleted, that question shouldn't be raised on this board. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably correct, but this sudden realization comes after you've been discussing that very thing on this board yourself for a while now ;) I feel like commenting on this, and will do so here even though I agree this isn't the venue for it, just because, well, it's being discussed here already. A language should only get a Wikipedia if it's truly needed to allow a group to read and edit. We have a Spanish Wikipedia only because if we didn't, a large group wouldn't be able to use Wikipedia. If you understand English, you should be using English Wikipedia -- not using the fact that we have separate language Wikipedias as a cultural pride tool, saying "we have a real language so we deserve to have a separate Wikipedia". I have to doubt that the people at sco: would really have that much trouble using en:. But I acknowledge it's possible I'm wrong.
Blocked userHarvardlaw appears to be back again. This time the offensive edits are reporting his own alleged business deals with Mexican billionaireRicardo Salinas Pliego. Overlapping edit atDennis DeConcini, a usual page to edit by this user. Also found him adding himself toYoung Americans (2011 film). There's probably more that I haven't found yet. User is following usual MO of making dozens of incremental edits, so I can't pick out 1 or 2 diffs. Most recent blocking incident was asUser:68.106.15.134 on April 30, 2009, detailed inthis incident discussion. I don't know what the right kind of block would be. ~So say•we all20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's him alright. I'll block those and any more I can find. Thanks for spotting him and for posting the notice. Will Bebacktalk06:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Drork has been indefinitely blocked for edit warring, topic ban violation and abuse of multiple accounts.[61] Despite this, he has createddozens of sock puppets to continue these edit wars.
He has now used an IP account to place his preferred version of one article in a subpage of my user talk page (now removed), as well as atHarlan Wilkerson's andTaelus's talk pages. Can any steps be taken in order to prevent this serial vandal from continuing with his contempt of Wikipedia, and to protect editors with whom he is in disagreement from suffering this harassment?RolandR (talk)00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the two new creations. I've semi-protected the targets I'm aware of. He's bouncing around IPs over such a wide range that I'm not able to think of a better strategy.—Kww(talk)02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I have counted so far 27 IPs, all registered to Bezeq, that this vandal has used; there are probably more that I have missed. How do you submit an abuse report?RolandR (talk)07:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello.Rudeboysliketoska (talk·contribs) has engaged in block evasion and multiple account usage by creating a new account following a block, as he himself states on his user page.[62] I am reporting this here because I believe this does not exactly fit into a sockpuppet investigation. Regards,Anna Lincoln14:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to know why you think "this does not exactly fit into a sockpuppet investigation". Opening a new account to avoid a block on an existing account looks like sockpuppetry to me.JamesBWatson (talk)17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Calm down guys look at my edit history I don't vandalise with this account, I am fairly certain most changes are just simple grammar edits. my user page is a jokeRudeboysliketoska (talk)21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That's hilarious. He even managed to get on ANI with that comment. I think that says more about our sense of humor, rather than his.Buddy431 (talk)01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to assume good faith. However, if I consider which is more likely, a brand new editor thinking it is a joke to pretend to have been blocked more than once, or an experienced sockpupeteer making a defiant gesture by saying in effect "so you've blocked me again, and I've got round it again", and if I think of past cases I have known, then I find my AGF-unit is having to work quite hard. However, I can't find any signs of disruptive editing, so I suppose we can accept it as a joke.JamesBWatson (talk)10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This is probably a grey area. Since X gave up the tools voluntarily and not under a cloud he can request them back at any time without having to go though an RFA, I doubt it will hurt to leave the bots be, both seem very useful --Jac16888Talk19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. MPUploadBot at least isincredibly useful. I believe the policy is there to stop a non-admin bot owner hijacking the admin account, but if X! wanted admin tools, he could ask for his own back at any time, I assume.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing about giving up admin rights voluntarily is that in most cases, the user is still has therights to admin tools, just not theability to use them. By that I mean that I am still an approved admin and crat, and that means that I can still operate adminbots. If it comes down to having them desysopped due to my resignation, I will then request my tools back on the BN.(Honestly, I hope that it doesn't happen. Ireally like not having the burden of the tools over my head.:))(X! · talk) · @999 · 22:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that X! did not get desysopped, but gave up the bits voluntarily, a message at BN would enough to get them back! As far as I am concerned, I am happy for his adminbots to be continuing to operate, as they are useful, and there is no problem with them. As Jarry1250 says, they can be shut down/blocked/desysop'd if there were to be problems. --PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
User:RyanG222 Repeated Ignoring of Warnings on Talk Page and failure to follow MOS
What a shame. User:RyanG222 has been problematic for a long period of time. He fails to understand that wikipedia has rules for style and formattingWP:MOS and so is constantly editing discography pages in an inappropriate way. He sometimes has issues with following rules atWP:record charts too.
On March 20 2010 he was warned and cautioned by another user for vandalizingPixie Lott discography by[63]
Then on April 19 he recieved a series of warnings about using TBA/TBR and unsourced details[65] which resulted in a two week block.
Then on April 28 he attempted to impersonate the blocking admin and was blocked from editing his own talk page for the remainder of his original block.[66]
As soon as his block was over he continued vandalism of discography pages with this edit[67] even though he's been pointed toMOS:DISCOG
I reverted this which he went ahead and re-changed on 9 May[68] even though it was explained to his why it was incorrect and i had leftthis message on his talk page.
He was further warned by other users[69],[70] and[71].
Though his damage my seem minor it clearly discreditsWP:CRYSTAL,WP:verifiable,MOS:DISCOG and more importantly due to its vast scale is causing mass damage. His clear reluctance to respond to messages and warnings or take heed of them is surely a sign that this user is claimingWP:IDHT and editingtediously. Despite recieving afinal warning today at 18:58 he made further edits a to previously untargetted discographyhere at 21:55. Please note he requested to be unblocked previously stating her "promised not to vandalize again" but he disobeyed a final warning - what more can i say?Lil-unique1 (talk)01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently he was blocked previously at least once but for only 2 weeks.... ???? Anyways i'm glad we've finally blocked him now. I've already started undoing the massive damage he's done to all those discographies. In a short period of time he's edited quite a lot.Lil-unique1 (talk)04:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
TheIP2Location (seen as GeoLocate) link is seen at the bottom with WhoIs tags and others on all IP user talk pages. Problem is IP2Location has been down since Friday (maybe longer). Not sure what the problem is over there but it is effecting on finding out where users are located. This could cause problems for people who are looking for a location on someone for a threat situation or other problem. I request that the IP2Location link be changed to something else (possibly TrustedSource.com) for the time being while the problems at IP2Location.com are worked out. It would at least give us another source to find information. -NeutralHomer •Talk •02:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Stange, I tried and keep getting a "Firefox can't find the server at www.ip2location.com" message, IE gives me an "Action canceled" message. -NeutralHomer •Talk •05:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Back up on my end. Must have been a localized problem....either that or my computer hates me. Making this resolved. -NeutralHomer •Talk •07:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
–Chesdovi has accepted they could have acted differently over the dispute - I don't see that admin action is required. Hopefully this will be sorted out through discussion and not reverting from now on, but here is not the place to do so.Olaf Davis (talk)13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Chesdovi (talk·contribs) has been removing the word "Rabbi" from in front of the articles of a lot of rabbis. He started onAvraham Chaim Naeh[78]. When I reverted him with an argument in the edit summary,[79] and later posted onhis talk page he didn't answer on his talk page, but instead started doing the same thing to another 30 or so articles![80] When I undid these and wrote him again on his talk page that he should really engage in discussion first when he sees somebody disagrees and tries to discuss it with argument from Wikipedia guidelines,[81] he ignored that too and repeated all his edits,[82] including one of them with the edit summary "I need not "refute" your arguments. You are just wrong on this issue. thanks!"[83]Debresser (talk)04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg seems to address another point than I did. I addressed the behavioral issue.Jayjg addresses the question who is right. Personally I disagree with him, on the arguments I mentioned in edit summaries and Chesdovi's talk page. As to the discussion inTalk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Rabbi: that was an old discussion where I merely gave up my oposition, but I have now though it over more.Debresser (talk)07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg is entirely correct on this one. PerWP:MOSBIO#Clergy, the "Rabbi" honorific "should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper" unless the "honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it". You should be discussing the issue on theWP:MOSBIO talk page if you want to have that guideline changed. ···日本穣? ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe07:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Debresser’s reading and understanding of WP policy is flawed on this occasion. He firstly confusesHonorific prefixes with Honorific titles by claiming to quote from Honorific prefixes and actually quoting policy fromHonorific titles. He then assumes that "Rabbi" is an Honorific prefix, when it is more correctly an Academic title. (Besides from the fact that point 3 of Honorific prefixes states: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy...should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper.") (The titles listed for Christian clergy atWikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) do not really have corresponding terms in Judaism, hence the matter is not addressed at all.) He then misses the point totally when quoting policy fromSubsequent_uses_of_names which only advises to use the person’s surname throughout the article, and not using "Mr" to precede the surname. That does not mean that "Mr" or "Rabbi" has to have already been used once before.
On my behavior in response to his misunderstandings of policy, in retrospect, I could have maybe acted with more understanding, but I thought that my explanation in myfirst revert would suffice. I was also a bit surprised that after I had corrected a few articles, Debresser straight away reverted all my changes without waiting for a response to his posting on mytalk page. As is stated "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is sometimes controversial on Wikipedia", so we must try and understand that Debresser may have different views on the matter.Chesdovi (talk)12:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think this has any place at AN/I. It is principally a content dispute. Yes, there may be an issue of civility, but it should be taken to the appropriate noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk)13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Of concern is the mass reverting and re-reverting. Editors should not take large scale actions that may be controversial without first engaging in discussion. To all participants, please de-escalate this problem by leaving the articles in the current state (whatever that may be), and commence a discussion somewhere. When the discussion resolves, then make the necessary edits to bring the articles into compliance and consistency. Unless somebody wants to continue edit warring (thereby risking a block), this discussion may be concluded.JehochmanTalk13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Dinoguy1000 (talk·contribs) keeps on removing information about the American release of the manwhaRecast because he thinks that info is trivial. Despite international releases being added to articles of films and books all of the time. What should I say to him? Discussing so far didn't work.Joe Chill (talk)19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got to be honest, the information Dinoguy1000 removeddoes seem trivial - there's an explanation of "manhwa" vs. "manga", which really doesn't belong in a specific manhwa article, and a review from a reviewer who thought Recast was originally written in Japan. Perhaps the fact its written left-to-right (instead of right-to-left) is notable? I've only limited experience with manga/manhwa, and itdoes seem notable to me, but not hugely. Either way, your best options would bedispute resolution - maybe get athird opinion? Cheers,TFOWRThis flag once was red19:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's the difference between this publication and the other publications. I'll take those links into consideration. Thanks for your advice.Joe Chill (talk)19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm not sure you've given discussion enough of a chance. I note the talk page of the article is nice and empty, awaiting discussion; maybe move the conversation there, to get more eyes than your (and his) user talk pages? You could pingWT:COMICS (as Dinoguy himself suggested) and ask them to chime in on the article talk page. Unless I'm missing something, he doesn't seem to be acting unreasonably, not sure why this is at ANI at this stage. --Floquenbeam (talk)19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where best to get advice. I mean, I don't know much beyond article building and deletion debates.Joe Chill (talk)19:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
One final comment: Asking at ANI is certainly not the end of the world, but probablyWP:HELPDESK is better to ask general advice like this. At ANI, I (and others, I suspect) can mistake it for a request for admin action of some kind, even when, upon re-reading, you didn't ask for that. --Floquenbeam (talk)19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I blocked the second underWP:DUCK, however not sure if I could justify ducking the first one, lots of people participate in AfDs and they do get sorted through Wikiprojects where a passing newbie might go.SGGHping!21:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No, not for me. It puts 24.15.54.202 in a different location to the 166.137...s. But they appear to be all linked to OJ to me, so the only thing we can do is keep an eye on them for any further related edits.Pyrrhus1622:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Having said that, it puts me 300 miles from my actual location! But so long as the above three all route to the same location that would be ducky enough for me. :DSGGHping!21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The following Ip's (And possibly more) have been consistantly adding rants and removing content fromIslamic views on anal sex, on it's talk pages as well as personal attacks[84] The most recent as of now isthis one who was blocked, after his revert. The article has been semi protected because of their actions (Who I'm almost certain is one person due tooWP:DUCK) and two more have been blocked todaysee here, for further evidence see both pages histories. Is there anything we can do to prevent this? A rangeblock perhaps? I'll go through and alert the ips of this.--SKATERSpeak.18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already sent an e-mail to a checkuser inquiring about the consequences of a rangeblock. Meanwhile, I'm continuing blocking and rolling back.Horologium(talk)18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I asked the C/U only about the 78.101 rangeblock. I think that adding in the other two will have to be done separately.Horologium(talk)18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to make sure that the collateral damage from a large rangeblock is not unacceptably large. Blocking 65,000 addresses can be a problem, and at least one of them resolves to Qatar.Horologium(talk)19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there's a good possibility of knocking out an entire country or two with a rangeblock on just that one set of IPs. Looking at the range contribs for78.101.0.0/16, there seems to be a few good faith edits in there. Hence, based on my observations, I would not recommend a block on that range. –MuZemike20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Well that's unfortunate...Is there anyway we could prevent these Ip's from adding this rant? Perhaps semiprotecting the talk page? I know it's unorthodox and I've never seen it done before but it would at least force autoconfirmation.--SKATERSpeak.21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think in this situation we could make an exception and semi for a while--looking at the history, I'd suggest a month or two. The intensity of activity there otherwise is not very high. DGG ( talk)21:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(Not an admin, sorry, should have mentioned that earlier) Would a range-block on 78.101.*.* be too excessive? I suspect we could narrow that down further if it was too wide. What's the widest range-block acceptable?TFOWRThis flag once was red17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
{ec} I've seen you around TFOWR, I knew you weren't an admin(Somewhat surprising to me but that's a different story). Apparently blocking just that set of IP's could take out a country or so, his main target has been semiprotected, that should hopefully slow him down or stop him.--SKATERSpeak.17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've protectedTalk:Western world for a month. I normally don't agree with semi protection talk pages. But, considering that this page was protected 4 times prior to today's protection, there has been, if any, few recent legitimate edits from IP/new users, and this has been going on for some time now with little chance of rangeblocks due to collateral damage, a longer protection is needed.Elockid(Talk)01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps an edit filter could be a solution. He does usually say something like "...DO NOT REJOICE" In the edit summary, and it's a clear copy paste because it's the same everytime.--SKATERSpeak.02:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough and automated edits
Several strange edits on my watchlist recently (such as[86][87]) alerted me to a massive undiscussed change made byUser:Rich Farmbrough toTemplate:Portal andTemplate:Portal box. The change involves not just a change to the templates, but edits to thousands of articles, without any public announcement apart from a brief discussion onTemplate talk:Portal box in which Rich said that he was editing "a few hundred articles". For the edits, see Rich's contributions over the past few days.
I pointed out yesterday atTemplate_talk:Portal_box#Named_parameters that some discussion and announcement is necessary before the usage of a highly-used, protected template is changed on thousands of articles. Without responding to this post, Rich Farmbrough ran an unapproved bot task tonight to change the syntax of approximately a thousand articles, using AWB on his main account.
I am strongly considering reverting the AWB edits from this evening, as they represent not only an undiscussed and unapproved bot job, but they also seem to include severe errors. In particular, the edit on my watchlist removed see-also links for no apparent reason[88]. This sort of error is one thing that bot approval is intended to catch.
Could someone else contact Rich to impress the importance of discussion for large-scale bot jobs? Access to AWB does not grant automatic permission to edit thousands of articles without discussion. — Carl(CBM · talk)00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary the initial changes to{{Portal}} were made byUser:Svick, and discussed onTemplate talk:Portal. One of the consequences is that the syntax of{{Portal}} has become considerably simplified. Further to that additional changes to the internal workings of the templates were made and{{Portal box}} was simplified massively both in use and implementation. Discussion of the templates welcome on their talk pages.RichFarmbrough,00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
...and what of seeking bot approval for the task? And the errors CBM mentioned?
And you neglected to seek the bot approval that might have avoided the error to begin with because...?
Because it was a manual run of about 120 edits over 2 hours. Followed by a more substantial run of about 500 a few hours later.RichFarmbrough,01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
According to your contribs, today you made 763 edits with summary "Update portal box usingAWB" and another 661 with summary "new portal syntax usingAWB". There are another couple hundred with edit sumaries that look like section edits. In total you made over 1600 edits with a summary including the word "portal". — Carl(CBM · talk)01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The next edit did not restore the see also links, though ([89]). They were still missing hours later when I noticed the page on my watchlist. — Carl(CBM · talk)01:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
While we're waiting for Rich to actually offer a candid response above, I'd like to propose thatsomething be done to assure that he can't run bot tasks without approval again. I don't know if that's possible, since he's been using his main account for automated tasks... but as much as Rich has been invaluable to Wikipedia, he seems to be taking shortcuts lately and not respecting process.
Pardon me, stupid question alert, but why would Rich need bot approval for something he is doing manually with AutoWikiBrowser (AWB)? You still have to actually hit the "Save Page" button on AWB, so it isn't a bot and wouldn't need bot approval....right? -NeutralHomer •Talk •00:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It is quite obvious to this observer that Rich has modified the AWB code to allow him to run in auto mode from his main account. –xenotalk00:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, then if it is modified, then yeah, that is bad and would need approval. I was assuming (and you know what they say about that) that he was just using the standard AWB program. I didn't read the code or anything (wouldn't know where to go and wouldn't understand it if I found it). Doesn't Rich have a bot of his own? (User Edit: After looking, he does...User:SmackBot.) Since he is one of the more prolific users here, he could easily get bot approval for anything and do it correctly with his own bot. -NeutralHomer •Talk •01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This thread may help lend some insight as to why Rich doesn't always engage the BRFA process (execute summary: it can, at times, be akin to molasses). Since that thread, I've been BAGged myself, so maybe Rich could prod me into reviewing his BRFAs as punishment for my incessant nagging =) –xenotalk01:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In some cases the slowness is a good thing. For example, the issue here is a wholesale rewriting of a highly-used template. That sort of thing should be announced on a village pump and people should have time to comment. The BRFA helps ensure that such notice is given, because the BAG members should be looking for announcement like that before they approve bots. We don'twant people to fundamentally change a highly-used template without discussion. — Carl(CBM · talk)01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Rich has been running bot tasks, both approved and not, sometimes insignificant, from his main account for some time. I've approached him several times with the suggestion that he move it onto an actual flagged bot to no avail. I eventually brought this tothis noticeboard, but the rough consensus seemed to be to leave him be, so I left it at that and haven't bothered him since - but I still think he should move these various tasks onto a bot, and seek approval. –xenotalk00:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of my AWB edits are on SmackBot, and I have submitted a fair few BRFA's, and intend to continue to do so. Xeno's advice on the matter was well taken.RichFarmbrough,01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
"was well taken"... Does that mean you'll be seeking bot approval for all automated tasks in the future, and running them from your bot account -- or does it mean you see yourself as having taken his advice already, and don't see what you've done now as having opposed that advice?
As per my original post, I rolled back the edits to namespace 0. Will look into the ones in the category: namespace tomorrow. — Carl(CBM · talk)02:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait. If most of the edits were correct why they were rolled back?This one is a very back example of rolling back. The new portal box syntax was discussed from April 5 to May 5 to its talk page and they were no disagreements. If they are problems with some templates we can fix them too. PerWikipedia:Rollback feature "The rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." I don't see any vandalism nor nonsense in Rich's edits.
Carl, I strongly disagree with these rollbacks even if you are right in some other points. I noticed that you did the same when an anonymous IP started replacing otheruses4 with about. The edits we correct even if there were not supposed to be done with this way. After the rollbacks the watchlists were alerted for 2nd time at the same day.
On the new portal box syntax: I think we had consensus on that. If people think that this should be done by a bot or more slowly this is something we can discuss. --Magioladitis (talk)08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is a, dare I say, misuse of Rollback byUser:CBM. When some of these edits are clearly not vandalism or nonsense and are not unproductive. I would recommend that CBM quickly revert his rollbacks and not misuse the Rollback application again, else it be taken away. -NeutralHomer •Talk •09:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Have we actually confirmed that Rich was running an unapproved bot or we just assuming? You know what they say when you assume. -NeutralHomer •Talk •02:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Re Magioladitis: Yes, the issue is that it needed to be done more slowly and thoughtfully. I asked Rich for evidence that the changes had been well announced as early as May 6[90][91]; he didn't give any. He also did not respond to my note onTemplate talk:Portal box, or tothis note from another user on May 6.
In this case, the changes were not tosupport a new syntax – they were to make existing features not only deprecated, but actuallyforbidden. That sort of change, if it affects thousands of articles, requires more than a template talk page discussion. The procedure that was followed for the ambox rollout is an example of better practices: use village pump posts, keep everyone informed, make sue that the right features are implemented.
Now, I don't agree that most of the changes were "correct". At best, they represent a stylistic change. Worse, many of the edits removed named parameters, such as "break", that had been intentionally placed by article editors. Worst, at least one edit erroneously removed "see also" links; probably the same happened to other articles that used col-break around a portal.
The edits were also flawed in that they attempted to force a large-scale change without any sign of community-wide consensus. Running large bot jobs like this presents users with afait accompli – if all the articles have been changed, the new syntax starts to look like the default. The use of unapproved bots to implement such changes without consensus is not appropriate (seeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli and the other findings there). The simplest way to respond when someone makes this sort of attempt is to simply to roll back the edits, restoring the status quo.
I agree that it's unfortunate to have to roll them back, but if the unannounced, an unapproved bot is like BRD then this is the R part of it. The scale is larger, but that's exactly why it should be discussed completely before the edits are made. That is: bot edits are not supposed to beBold, but when they are, they can still beReverted like other edits.
To be clear, I am not focused on the bot approval for bureaucratic reasons. The point of bot approval is to guarantee public discussion and announcement of changes, and reduce the chance of errors. When bot operators make unapproved bot runs, they cannot be too surprised if the edits are rolled back. The point of the rollbacks here is to remove any errors unintentionally added by the bot, and to restore the status quo so that the changes can be discussed properly. — Carl(CBM · talk)12:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like this use of terms like "forcing through without consensus". There's far too much pointless bureaucracy in templatespace already. There was rough consensus and a belief that the new code worked, and that's all that should be required. To me, the only issue here is that the task looked automated and that there may be discrepancies in the way that it was carried out. I certainly don't see that running to ANI to admonish people should be the first response to what amounts to a red tape problem outside of a few technical edge cases which nobody had previously spotted.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This entire change could be described as "pointless bureaucracy" – the previous template worked, and the only reason for these edits seems to be that a few editors felt that it required some sort of cleanup. Still, I would be fine with the changeif it was actually supported by a village pump discussion that agreed that the previous behavior should be forbidden (as with the ambox changes). But in this case, it is not obvious that the "break" and "left" parameters should be forbidden. Instead, it looks like a small number of editors may have decided that their preferred implementation of the template was better and then forced that change on thousands of articles via unapproved bot jobs. If they had made the new code backwards-compatible, that would also have been fine, but then they would not have needed to run a bot job in the first place.
The reason that I brought this to ANI is that Rich has a history of doing this sort of thing. Had it been the first time, or had he made any effort to reply to the notices on his talk page of the template page, I would not have come here. The key point is that even when an editor has the technical ability to make changes to thousands of articles, via AWB or otherwise, such massive changes should not be done without widespread agreement that they are actually worthwhile. — Carl(CBM · talk)14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, your talk page comment didn't bring up any of the technical problems; that might have given Rich a bigger pause for concern than concentrating on the bureaucratic angle. That said, apologies for insinuating that you hadn't pinged him first.Chris Cunningham (not at work) -talk14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The edits from it make it look like a bot to me. They're all edits to user pages, all welcoming users. It looks like something that PyWikipedia's bot framework would use.Pilif12p01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
he seems to be picking people who've edited certain pages, not necessarily recently, that are related to India. I suspect it'snot a bot, actually, just a user with a lot of time on his hands, because a bot would probably be more random as to which editors it welcomed (unless it was very well designed).—Soap—01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I doubt it; if you look at the three edits around 18:15 on 8 May 2010, they made a typo that they then fixed; that isn't bot behavior. Look like someone cutting and pasting a welcome, and they aren't doing any harm. Also, a note on their talk page asking them, before coming here, might have been friendlier. --Floquenbeam (talk)01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Adam Kontras(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) has consistently demonstrated the use of multiple single purpose only accounts to create some sort of Wikipedia notoriety, in order to translate that into actual notoriety. This has been shown in edits made only related to himself, as well as through several instances of controlling the debate when it came to questions of his notability.
This behaviour has also been perpetuated through the use of his own personal meat puppetUser:GPHemsley(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) who is also largely a single subject editor and seeming promotor of Kontras. Through the subjects own website this relationship is known a simple google search turns up with these two people seeming very connected [[92]] There is an obvious pattern of other meat puppet abuse in discussions as well (check history of AFDs and edits related to Adam Kontras). Kontras has also been making a number of legal threats.
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.
Is there anything that can be done about frequent snark/attacks likethis? This guy constantly makes unhelpful swipes like this in already-heated discussion, which I equate to throwing molotov cocktails. The sole intent of those sorts of comments is to (1) attack and denigrate other editors; and (2) further escalate anargumentum ad infinitum during content discussions. I post this here because the editor has ignored civility requests in the past, and refuses to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his conduct. It should be noted that this editor recently had toapologize for frequent, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against me and others. He shouldn't be allowed to continue to attack editors at will. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos(t /c )18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This shouldn't even be here. This is an incredibly weak "attack". Blaxthos has a history of snarkiness himself and carries it from one discussion to another with certain editors (myself included). An example is this edit[93], where he complains about an editor typing asingle word in caps for emphasis. His form of complaint is to typenine words in caps and characterize the other editors use of caps in a single word as "dickish". Snarky? Maybe. Ironic? Oh yeah. If Blax had been nothing but civil, non-snarky or sarcastic in the discussion, this might appear more legit. But when you're actingdickish in the same discussion, you can't really complain about "snarkiness". If it were a blatant attack, yeah. But to complain about this....Niteshift36 (talk)19:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift conveniently leaves out the history of other editor previously requesting him to STOP SHOUTING, not to mention the fact that I was capitalizing to make a point (not to shout); I also challenge his assertion that I have a "history of snarkiness". His rush to defend his ideological brother by attacking me (especially by cherry-picking a rather weak/transparent example) only further validates my point -- whenever challenged, they revert to attacking other editors. Perhaps this wouldn't be so significant if Badmintonhist hadn't been rebuked by administrators just a few weeks ago for this very behavior. Editors who continually fall into the pattern of sarcasm and attacks shouldn't be allowed to continue poisoning our project. //Blaxthos(t /c )19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't conveniently leave anything out. Whatever another editor requested does not justify your snarky response. You could have politely pointed it out. You could have done it without doing the exact same thing you were complaining about. But you didn't. Then your defense here is to start your subtle name calling about "ideological brother", "they" etc, like there is somesecret cabal. You couldn't even make your first response without going making this a political issue. Cherry-picking? No, I limited myself to the most obvious example in that particular discussion. One example is sufficient to illustrate that you can't play the victim card here and act like you're being set upon by the cruel BH. Challenge my assertion about your history all you want. Your edit history is there my friend. "Editors who continually fall into the pattern of sarcasm and attacks shouldn't be allowed to continue poisoning our project"? Nowthat drips with irony.Niteshift36 (talk)19:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As Niteshift36 attests to, Blaxthos is hardly an innocent party. In my short time running across him on WP, he has come over to my Talk page to ask if I was "still confused"[94], accused me of trolling, accused me of not acting in good faith, said that I was ignorant of policy, and said that I was wikilawyering.--Drrll (talk)19:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Blax made those statements a number of times (ignorant, wikilawyering) too. He intentionally choses words like "ignorant", knowing that while their use is correct, it can also be offensive sounding. But he willrepeatedly call a person "ignorant", subtly insulting them while being able to claim innocence. I'll give him credit, it's smart, but also transparent.Niteshift36 (talk)19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think that Blax was just trying to disprove the point I was making when I said that he was David Gergen (i.e. a gentlemanly. polite, moderate political personality) in comparison to young PrBeacon.Badmintonhist (talk)19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
And that's the funniest part of it. You were actually being snarkier (is that a word?) towards Beacon. But in the rush to be a victim, it appears that fine point got lost.Niteshift36 (talk)19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and I had reason to be snarky with Beacon. He said the only reason I had criticized one of his entries was that I had gotten "whooped in raquetball" (sic). He didn't even get the sport right. It's BADMINTON. Right in my user name!Badmintonhist (talk)20:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Can you go away please. I really don't think this sillyness requires admin action. Just try and sort it out among yourselves, admins are not playground supervisors.Theresa Knott |token threats20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, hello. Unfortunately I wasn't notified that I'd been mentioned here but I'd still like to respond. At first I just ignored Badmint's insult. Honestly I didn't think much of it. Just that he was lashing out or something. Why feed that. But since its gotten to ANI then perhaps there is a pattern. Now I figure that he was trying to provoke me again, after our discussion about Clinton-hater Gerth & the NYT, etc. where he called my argument a joke. What's actually quite laughable is that Niteshift has taken it upon himself to lecture another editor here. I'm no saint, but Niteshift is not objective on the issues either. He engages in sarcastic condescension, veiled insults, and assumption of bad faith, thus inevitably provoking others (myself included). He then retreats with denials or indignation. Or worse, with the cloy of insincerity like "my friend". @Badmint: I didnt get the game wrong, sport. A twist too subtle, perhaps you thought otherwise. But odd how you still think that's reason enough for the characterization.PrBeacon (talk)09:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Since we're still wasting space here, Beacon, thanks for the explanation; however it's racquetball.Badmintonhist (talk)
Since you aren't the subject Beacon, you aren't required to be notified. In fact, Blax only notified one person, BH, because he is required to. The rest of us found it on our own. If you have a complaint about me, at least get it right. I have never retreated a step from you, despite your blatant name calling. BTW, calling you "my friend" isn't a "cloy of insincerity". That's just what I insert when I'd really prefer to call you something much more accurate, but doing so would make me run afoul of the NPA policy.Niteshift36 (talk)20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I declined an unblock request, even though I'm not an admin
The user made what I feel to be a totally disingenuous unblock request. I thought it would be best to not waste admin energy on it, and show the user that he can't use the unblock template to troll. I thought I'd let everyone know, in case this was a big no-no... if so you can feel free to revert me and formally answer the unblock request.
Obviously the unblock request was not serious, and I've removed talk page access so they can't keep making silly requests. However, my own opinion is that unblock declines like this are best left to admins who patrolCAT:UNBLOCK, if only to prevent the need for notes like this (which end up taking up roughly the same amount of admin time), and to head of the inevitable third unblock request on the grounds that the second one was by a non-admin. Still, no harm no foul, and others might think differently. --Floquenbeam (talk)19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. I guess it is rather counterproductive.
I basically agree with Floquenbeam, you made the right call, but if we still have to double check it no effort has been saved. So, there's no current nominations atWP:RFA if you would care to eliminate the middleman...Beeblebrox (talk)19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing; I'm not an admin and I've declined unblock requests too, though they were in every case ones far more abusive even than this (essentially just insults against the blocking admin, sometimes with shock images, and in all cases with no actual rationale given). As an aside, I suppose this could have been prevented if in my haste to get him blocked on sco.wiki I hadn't forgotten that he was vandalizing over here too.—Soap—20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. You made the right call there. If I were you, I would leave it to an admin, but I'm fine with you doing it.—MC10(T•C•GB•L)04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I would think it should be very unkosher for a contributor to delete material that they did not create from another contributor's talk page. I see absolutely no reason why a contributor would remove an "unblock request" no matter what the reason. If the request is offensive an administrator needs to deal with that. If the request isn't offensive there is no reason to interfere and such actions could esculate situations. Administrators should take a firm stance on this.--scuro (talk)12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete my article
Resolved
–Deleted perWP:CSD#A7: no explanation of the subject's significance, entirely unreferenced, the only external link no longer lead to the magazine. –xenotalk12:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. This page needs to be semi-protected now. Rage from presidential candidate fans leads to vandalism specially the ones with just IP addresses. The election is stil ongoing and the page is being updated from time to time, and having vandalism from IP addresses just doesn't help.--TwelveOz (talk)08:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've semi-protected for three days, based on the edits I saw in the history tab your observation concerning isp edits appears to be accurate.TomStar81 (Talk)10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Bjarkith has made a good faith move ofFlugstoðir toIsavia. While this is a good interpretation ofWP:UE, they have unfortunately cut and pasted content into the new article, thus breaking the article history. As the moving will require a temporary deletion, could an admin please do this. Thanks,Arsenikk(talk)16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Noting just for reference that if you encounter similar cases, you could also either tag them with{{db-histmerge}} or bring these directly toWP:SPLICE, which is inhabited by one of the most dedicated history mergers of the site :)MLauba(Talk)16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Ahmed shahi insists thatKabul city's urban population is 615,000 inhabitants relying only on aSINGLE source. Here is his first un-explained edit ([96]). Theonly source which states that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 isNaval Postgraduate School ([97]) which itself bases its estimation on official statistics of the government ofAfghanistan (like the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and those of theUN agencies operating in Afghanistan.Apart from the NPS, there isNO single other source which supports this point..
There are numerous sources, both official statistics and secondary reliable sources, which estimate Kabul city's urban population at around 2.5 million, and the metropolitan population at 3.5 million. For exampleCSO (Urban: 2.8 million; Metropolitan: 3.4 million; est. 2008),CPAU (Urban: 2.4m; est. 2004),UN DATA (Metro: 3.3m, est.2007),AIMS (Urban: 2.7m ; est. 2007),Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.), and numerous other sources. WhileUser:Ahmed shahi cannot provide another single source for Kabul's urban population being 615,000.
User:Ahmed shahi uses an incorrect approach in determining Kabul's urban population. He tries to compare Kabul with other cities in the world, as he did inhere, while he forgets that we cannot compare Afghanistan with other countries which have different territorial administrative division. Countries in the world differ in determining the area of urban section of the cities. InFrance, for example, they considerCommunes, while in Afghanistan the government considersDistricts.
The Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan reported the following statistics for Kabul in its 2006 Statistical Yearbook: Rural (601,700), Urban (2,536,300), Total (3,138,000). Following that,Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.) considers CSO's "Urban" figure as "Kabul city's Urban population" and CSO's "Total" figure as "Kabul city's Metropolitan population". I used the same approach in updating Kabul's population as of 2009, butUser:Ahmed shahi writes:"Encyclopedias are mainly used for history but when it comes to data on population we should use government sources." and then he does not even accept the government sources such as CSO and MRRD which I present, and goes for the NPS which is an American institution based in the USA.
Instead of using the latest figures, he goes foroutdated figures such asMRRD. Or instead of being specific and exact about the figures - since there are numerous sources that have providedexact population figure - he writes vague sentences likebetween 2 to 3 million. He is doing the same thing inKabul Province ([98]), while there should beNO dispute over Kabul Province's population, because all the sources are clear, direct and give exact figures.
I provided several references and sources (Talk:Kabul#Latest), and all his response was that"The reason why Kabul appears over-crowded in some images is because most of the people don't stay at home, they all come out in the day and walk around." ([99]).
It is not only me who disagrees withUser:Ahmed shahi over Kabul city's population being 615,000, but there are alsoUser:Ketabtoon andUser:Alefbe who did not agree with using the NPS as the only source (Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), but User:Ahmed shahi is still insisting lonely at his part against the view of three editors.
He lacks cooperation, makes false accusation at me being an "associate" ofUser:Tajik (here andhere) and directly makes apersonal attack and insult (You're in college in Europe and you can't figure this simple thing out?[100]) which indirectly insults me of lacking enough intellectual capacity to understand the issue despite being enrolled in a European University.
I am asking for the intervention of an Administrator.User:Ahmed shahi does not show any cooperation as a member of wikipedia community in editing an article. Not only inKabul's article, but also inAfghanistan and inGhurid Dynasty articles which are currently Protected as a result of Edit War.Ariana (talk)17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree withUser:Ariana310. Despite the fact thatUser:Ahmed shahi is constantly violatingWP:NPA (for examplehere), his actions are being ignored by admins. He is an extreme POV pusher, does not understand what sources to be used, and he removes authoritative academic sources from articles in order to establish his own POV andWP:OR (here is a very good example). His behavior is very disturbing.Tajik (talk)17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Both editors (User:Ariana310 and User:Tajik) are trouble making edit-warriors who has been blocked before for edit-warring[101][102] They are working as a team to get me blocked so they can go back to placing false and misleading information in articles that I've corrected. Both editors are spreading Tajik or Persian-ethnocentric POVs, and, they are going after me because I'm not an ethnic Tajik and I disagree with their POVs. I cite the most reliable undisputed sources but they still disagree with them. I discuss my corrections on the talk pages in a civil manner but they leave discussions and instead start saying bad things about me and say that I don't know anything. They are provoking me to start edit-war but I learned to ignore them. This is just one example of what Tajik has been saying about me to Ariana310"Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Ariana310 and Tajik should follow the rules of Wikipedia because this is not a place to discuss content disputes. Making such baseless reports is disturbing me and is disrupting Wikipedia.Ahmed shahi (talk)01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you focus on the edits, with diffs -- as they have done above, rather than non-diff comments about the editors.--Epeefleche (talk)06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
@ Ahmed shahi: which "most reliable undisputed sources" are you talking about?! As everyone can seehere, you are actuallyremoving the most authoritative sources available (Encyclopaedia Iranica andEncyclopaedia of Islam) because these sources and the countless experts and scholars cited in those works do not support your nationalistic, ethnocentric, misleading and wrong claims which are only based on your own POV and OR.Tajik (talk)11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Tajik, you know very well why I removed those 2 sources, I gave a good reason in the edit summary that 3 sources forAfghan is just too many in the intro ofPashtun people article. I left one source which is 16th century work explaining what Afghan is, and, the even the word is wiki-linked. You are pressing your POV in Pashtun people article that all Afghans are Pashtun people but this is false, Afghans are citizens of Afghanistan who belong to many different ethnic groups.Ahmed shahi (talk)11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
@ Ahmed shahi: Please don'tfalsify what is going on. You remove the official sources and yet you write in the summary that"Reverting Ariana301 because he/she removed properly sourced content coming from the official Afghan and US governments"[103]. You are using the figures ofDIFFERENT YEARS by various sources and you write:"The population of Kabul province is any where between 2.5 million to about 3.5 million.". Such a method is totally inaccurate and false. Please refer toWikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data where it says"Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.".
Ahmad shahi hasonce again removed authoritative sources, in order tofalsify the general consensus among scholars as presented in the two most authoritative academic sources of oriental studies. Instead, he quotes a 16th century historian of Mughal India (the Persian court writerFerishta) who isonly citeable by modern scholars. Ferishta was not a modern scholar and his writings need to be evaluated and validated by modern experts. His words cannot be used as a source to propagate ethnocentric POV. The word "Afghan" isstill synonymous with "Pashtun", as can be read in the aforementioned encyclopedias. Leaving that aside, he cannot even name the sentence he is pretending to quote! The meaning of the word "Afghan" is explainedhere:From a more limited, ethnological point of view, “Afḡān” is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paṧtūn. The equation Afghans = Paṧtūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paṧtūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. This is an authoritative academic source which is being removed and falsified by Ahmed shahi. That's ethnocentric POV-pushing at its worse and it is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules!Tajik (talk)12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"Afghan" refers to any native, citizen or national of Afghanistan. This is mentioned in all dictionaries and encyclopedias as well as in the Afghan constitutions and in books, articles and etc. Editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stating and claiming that ethnicPashtuns should beAfghans[104][105], which is totally wrong and misleading.
As I said earlier, please don't falsify the things around here.This is what you did; removing the exact figure ofKabul Province's population with itsofficial source (Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and which was the latest estimation (as of 2009). And you replaced it with threeoutdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writing in the article"......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." This is absurd and scientifically wrong; you should be specific about the data (you should not say between this number and that number, unless the source says so).
UnlikeKabul city's urban population, there should be no dispute overKabul Province, because there is no urban or metropolitan areas that you are confusing the definitions of. The CSO is completely direct and specific about the figure: Kabul Province's population as of 2009 : 3.4 million. That's it!Ariana (talk)20:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If the Administrators are ignoringUser:Ahmed shahi's behaviour (falsifying the sources, falsely describing and portraying other editors' approaches, making a personal attack, committing 3RR violation several times, removing reliable and scholarly sources, etc.), they can at least ask a neutral editor who is qualified in statistics and demographics to look at the issue and find out who is employing the wrong approach. The issue of Kabul's population might be a minor concern, but I am afraid ifUser:Ahmed shahi continues like this, it will be hard for editors to contribute in Afghanistan-related articles; as he/she has made me completely irritated and impatient with his non-cooperation and disturbing behaviour.Ariana (talk)20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reasons to believe that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stalking me, harrasing me, and making false accusations.Ahmed shahi (talk)00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment (from a non-admin): this issue has been up for a couple of days now, with no input from admins or non-involved editors. I suspect admins are finding the issue as difficult as me to decipher. Could I suggest that the various partiessummarise their views in one paragraph, providingdiffs to demonstrate their concerns? Otherwise this is going to continue going back-and-forth with no outcome. Cheers!TFOWRThis flag once was red11:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Summaries
Ahmed shahi
Almost every page I edit, the three editors (User:Tajik,User:Ariana310 andUser:Inuit18) work as a team and revert my edits. See how they keep removing the reliable sources from theKabul article[109][110][111]. These three editors are ethnic Tajiks from Afghanistan who are editing mostly ethnicity of people. They don't like my edits because I provide reliable sources that go against their POVs so then they come here and make up lies against me. I believe one of them (User:Tajik) has been placed on aone revert per page per week so this explains why Ariana310 and Inuit18 come to help revert for him.Ahmed shahi (talk)12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Tajik
Actually, diffs have been provided above: Ahmed shahi is insulting other users as "racist" ([112]), he is removing authoritative academic sources ([113]), and (as already criticized in the previous complaint at WP:ANI) he does not understand the difference between reliability of sources ([114]). He is actively falsifying quotes and sources (see second link), and it is very obvious that he fully misunderstands the meaning of Wikipedia. He truly believes that Wikipedia is a place where national interests are to be defended, no matter if they are factually right or wrong ([115]). See alsothis comment byUser:Eaglestorm. As for theKabul article: see the detailed summary ofUser:Ariana310 above: it is in fact Ahmed shahi who is deletingofficial (!) data provided by the Afghan government in2009 (!) in order to replace them with outdated numbers. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on his side. In fact, he actually believes that websites such as www.sabawoon.com aresuperior to academic standard reference works such asEncyclopaedia of Islam orEncyclopaedia Iranica (he is constantly removing these 2 sources from articles; see my first diff and the comment by Eaglestorm). Please see also his disruptive, ethnocentric edits inTalk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity and the respective article.Tajik (talk)12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I realise that, but the thread above isvery long, and I suspect people simply aren't prepared to wade through huge amounts of text just to get to the real issue. Thanks, both of you, for summarising. Note to admins/other-interested-parties who haven't trawled through the thread: another editor,Ariana310 (talk·contribs), has also participated but has not yet had an opportunity to provide a summary. Cheers,TFOWRThis flag once was red12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ariana310
User:Ahmed shahi intentionally falsifies the sources, insists at his own part alone on an issue against the view of three other editors (for ex. on Kabul's population :Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), bases all his argument on a SINGLE source (([116]) and when is asked to present his arguments cannot provide satisfactory and coherent answers (Talk:Kabul#Latest). He removes the latest official statistics (as of 2009) forKabul's population, and uses severaloutdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writes"......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million."[117]; his approach is entirely incorrect. He makes direct personal attacks ([118]) and accuses of me "helping" or working as an "associate" ofUser:Tajik (here andhere). He is trying to deviate this current complaint and tries to show it like a situation ofWikipedia:Don't take the bait. He continuously removes scholarly sources which are in contrast with his POV and lacks cooperation as a member of wikipedia community.Ariana (talk)14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Moving forward
Thanks to all parties for summarising and providing diffs.
Regarding resolving this issue (and this is addressed to non-involved editors and admins) what's the best way to move forward?
I really do not know how to mediate. I mean, after all,User:Ariana310 had already offered him a discussion in order to reach a consensus, but Ahmed shahi is stubbornly pushing for POV. Just check his latest edits, especially inPashtun people andKabul where he is once again removing and falsifying academic sources and quotes. Admins ignoring his provocations, insults, and POV pushing further motivates him to continue. After all, he accused others of "spreading racism" (only because a reference of theEncyclopaedia of Islam was used to disprove the nonsense he had copied from an unimportant website) without being sanctioned.Tajik (talk)17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any of you should, to be honest - I think it's important a non-involved editor does. I'll give this a wee while longer; if no one steps up I'll offer to, and we can reconvene over at my user page. Cheers,TFOWRThis flag once was red17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Any time someone levels serious charges of "racism" and claims that any collection of editors not agreeing with their POV is a conspiracy, alarm bells sound and neon lights flash. ►talk17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please seeTalk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity where editorTajik (talk·contribs) is wrongly labelling the latest terrorist as an ethnic Pashtun.[119][120] Editor Tajik does similar things in many other articles, trying to make ethnic Pashtuns look bad in any way possible. I don't know what is the best description of an editor who claims to be an ethnicTajik (User:Tajik) and is constantly editing articles of a rival ethnic group (Pashtuns) in which he is pushing negative POVs.
As for me, my every edit is properly cited by a reliable source. If you dispute my sources then I'll present more until you finally agree and give up. This is how I edit, the other editors whom I named (Tajik, Arian310, Inuit18) are removing from articles the sources that I cite because they don't like the outcome.Ahmed shahi (talk)21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahmed shahi, what you totally fail to understand is that nobody in here except you has an ethnocentric POV.Faisal Shahzad was not named a Pashtun because he was a terrorist (as you so wrongly comment), but because it was mentioned in various news articles, includingForbes. It is you who is calling that source "dubious", because you feel insulted in your national pride. On the other hand, you persist on your POV that theGhurid dynasty was Pashtun, a claim that is explicitly rejected by modern scholarship. Again, you delete academic sources, present unreliable internet sites as a "counter argument" and insult your opponents as "racists". You believe that Wikipedia is a place where national interests are to be defended against the consensus of modern scholars, and THAT is the biggest problem with you. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on your side. In fact, you are on some kind of a crusade against scholars and academics, you quote selectively. If a scholar is more or less supporting your POV, you cite that one quote 10 x on 10 different occasions. If the same scholar is totally contradicting your POV (for example Louis Dupree in the articlePashtun people, where you delete authoritative sources in order to justify the word "historical" which is not mentioned inany of the sources but is your own ethnocentric POV) you quickly delete the links and claim that "it is not needed". You alter and falsify academic sources and quotes. On the other hand, you proclaim yourself an expert who has "read 100s of books" about this or that subject, yet you are not even a student at a university and do not even know or understand the importance and validity of an academic encyclopedia such asEncyclopaedia of Islam. That is very disturbing. And when faced with these problems, you call others "racists" (see links above). Except for insults and name-callings, you have nothing else to offer.Tajik (talk)22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This relates to the Pashtun discussion at Faisal Shahzad discussed above. I try to be gently with users who don't seem to "get it". They may be newbies, and therefore deserve kindness ipso facto. They may be young teenagers. They may have markedly low IQs. At some point, one reaches a conclusion as to their editing, however, and from what I have seen I can no longer conclude that Ahmed deserves special treatment due to his falling into any of those categories. He simply, despite my many discussions with him, and great patience, "refuses" to understand. That's disruptive. I would appreciate someone addressing it before he does further harm to the project.--Epeefleche (talk)02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
@User:Epeefleche, I filed a separate complaint against you down below.[121]
In apparent retaliation to my above sharing of my point of view at this AN/I, Ahmed has just now brought a baseless AN/I against me, replete with libelous untruths,here. I'm not sure that this sort of behavior is in the best interests of the project.--Epeefleche (talk)20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Next step
I'm going to look over everyone's points and diffs, and then I'll post on your talk pages with a link to a user page I'll set up. At that point we can reconvene there, and clear some space here on ANI. It's past midnight where I am (UK: timezone is UTC+1, so it's nearly 1am for me right now) but I expect to kick this off in the next 12 hours or so.
In the meantime, could I suggest you all refrain from posting here? I realise you're all frustrated, but I don't think anything will be solved by repeating complaints in the meantime.
Following a recent thread atWP:ANI, I have offered to mediate in a dispute between editors.
I consider that the mediation process is open to everyone. In particular, it is open to editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute, and to editors who have never edited this article.
I will post this message at the talk pages ofKabul andKabul Province, atWP:ANI, and on the talk pages of the editors who appear to be involved already.
You may, if you wish, re-post this message elsewhere. If you choose to do so I strongly recommend you postthis message and not a new message. I would also strong recommend you read and understandWP:CANVAS before doing so!
This IP is continuing to delete a speedy delete template from an image that does not have the appropriate FUR and has multiple problems. There is currently a review atWikipedia:Non-free content review#File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. From this review, one editor suggested opening a sockpuppet investigation (now atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight) and an admin reinserted the tag with the following edit summary: "please see WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. Add a fair use rationale, per our guidelines, or this image gets deleted. if you need help formatting a FUR, then ask. but DO NOT remove tag w/o a proper FUR".
To make matter worse, the IP has reverted all recent work to the article as it looked on April 25. The biggest change was turning the page into a redirect based on a deletion discussion and more at the Tea Party movement talk page. Other issues with his mass restoration was re-adding the non-free image, several lines by other editors removed or added, and multiple non-reliable sources.
The IP has received multiple warnings and refuses to discuss most of the issues. It is more than likely a sockpuppet but at the best it is just a disruptive editor. Reporting this as harassment is also an abuse of process.Cptnono (talk)21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Administrator intervention is now needed. IP 74.162.147.17 just reverted another editor at the page.[122] It is very likely the same editor. Evidence is submitted at the SPI. He is skirting 3rr by using a different IP. He is making edits although there was ample discussion and has a history of abusing alternate IPs and edit warring. I believeUser:Mbhiii should be indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive behavior.Cptnono (talk)04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Completely looks like a fork to me (as tagged). The problem here is not the content but a continuous abuse of IPs over a few years with a splash of edit warring over and over and over again.Cptnono (talk)07:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment - First, the IP editor failed to give any evidence to back up their accusations, which seem unfounded to me. Second, having no knowledge of the dispute or article itself, why isn't it just a disambiguation page with links to the two groups of people called teabaggers? ← Georgetalk07:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for saying something George. Just for transparency: George and I have similar off Wikipedia interests. We don't always agree on here though. This really is a case of an editor abusing IPs and continuously getting away with it. Something should be done since it has been the cause of several disputes after looking at the history. People are free to not agree but flagrant disregard for the standards is a concern. I am surprised it has gone on this long.Cptnono (talk)11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And he is still doing it. Now under a different IP in the same range. He has added a fact tag to the article even though there are plenty of sources. I think the article should be redirected completely so don;t really are how much he botches it but it is certainly inappropriate to be editing like that. Can an administrator intervene?Cptnono (talk)23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Since an administrator has not intervened here or at SPI I am going to make the changes again. This is based on people here, at the deletion discussion, in the edit history, and at the merger discussion leaning that way. I would appreciate if the disruptive nature of the editor was addressed but enough days have passed without him opening up a discussion on the talk page on something that has already been discussed.Cptnono (talk)19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record I'd like to say I've never known Cptnono to harass an editor. We've had our own disagreements about content but I believe he has the best interest of the project in mind. In fact he usually steps in to referee when other editors (including myself) have been less than cordial. Sorry if this testimonial is inappropriate here.PrBeacon (talk)21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks PrBeacon.
So I made it a redirect again. He reverted Two others have reverted him but he keeps on going. There were discussions on this. If he doesn't like the outcome he can open up another but until then it is clear that it needs to be a redirect. His continuous reverting and abuse of IPs is still a problem.Cptnono (talk)22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
So everyday another editor or I change it and everyday he reverts. He did not participate in the discussions and is not opening up a new one. He is an obvious sockpuppet who is being disruptive. So since an admin is not doing anything I am just going to edit war. Cool?Cptnono (talk)20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Leonard Horowitz: edits and legal language claimed to be from article subject
I have made a slightlyWP:BOLD use ofWP:NLT here, considering that the notice placed at the top of the article makes threats of "civil or criminal" charges to any Wikipedia editor that does not conform with the user's concept of what the article should say. I've also reverted the changes to the article itself. I'll explain carefully on the account talk.SGGHping!22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've left a {welcome-auto} and an expanded message explaining the problem. Since it was a legal threat not directed at a specific editor (just all editors of the article that might disagree with the user) I would appreciate another admin reviewing my actions.SGGHping!22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
He's now posted a reply on his talk page, if anyone wants to look at it and take action. I've also removed the resolved tag (because while the block issue may be resolved, the overall issue isn't), and also removed a potential BLP violation from this thread.Buddy431 (talk)06:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I am an agent of the CIA, or something. I have left a message reiterating that editors who operate within policy are fine, but step outside and you risk editing restrictions, and I have assured him that - since I've never heard of a Leonard Horowitz, I don't have any kind of CIA-bias.SGGHping!11:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche (talk·contribs) has been blocked 2 or 3 times for serious violations since September 2009[123] and is now attacking me for no reason.[124] He is very disruptive and calling me all sorts of names, even threatening me.[125] He removes "dispute" tags while there is a running discussion over and leaves bizaar messages in the edit summary[126][127]. He is forcing us to believe thatFaisal Shahzad is an ethnicPashtun even when US and Pakistan government officials have clearly stated in the media that he isKashmiri. SeeTalk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity
He keeps adding over and over the word "Muslim" right at the start of every terrorist's article.[128][129] Wikipedia articles are not suppose to start with someon'e religion first, Epeefleche is breaking that rule.
I have reasons to believe that Epeefleche may be prejudice against Muslims or certain ethnic groups, and the reason why he's attacking me is probably because of my first name which is Islamic.
Wikipedia should not allow disruptive editors such as Epeefleche to push his prejudice POVs.
@Stifle, Epeefleche's first block was "indefinite" which was reduced to 1 month, and then he violatedWikipedia:Biographies of living persons. He is putting "Muslim" right at the start of every terrorist's article even though many others complained about this. I find this very unusual especially when the biography is of a person who is from a Muslim nation.
First step, have you earnestly tried talking to the user on their talk page seeking resolution?--scuro (talk)12:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I talked with him atTalk:Faisal_Shahzad#Kashmiri_descend, in which I presented evidence/proof that both US and Pakistan's government has confirmed Faisal Shahzad being an ethnicKashmiri but Epeefleche refuses to accept that. Instead, Epeefleche looks for anywhere someone mistakenly labelled Shahzad as an ethnic Pashtun and present that as his proof.Ahmed shahi (talk)13:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Where can I address this issue about Epeefleche persistently placing the word "Muslim" after the names of terrorists in the intro of their articles? Many of us find this as an act of racism or religious war, and Wikipedia should not allow editors who do things like this.Ahmed shahi (talk)14:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I see this is already resolved, but just want to clear up some mistruths stated above. I was not blocked three times. I was not blocked indefinitely. When I was blocked (twice--not three times; seasoned editors will note the absence of diffs supporting his charges), the blocks were quickly lifted because in the first instance it was realized that the suspected charge of sockpuppetry was incorrect, per checkuser, and in the second it was lifted within hours as "highly inappropriate". Ahmed also states I was blocked for violating BLP; as he looked carefully enough to see the specific charge in that block, he no doubt saw the specific reason that it was lifted, and knows that his statement is an untrue accusation -- he doesn't just say I was blocked, but states that I actually violated BLP. As to attacking Ahmed shahi "for no reason", there are also untruths there. First, I've attacked his edits, and his mode of editing. And for good reason. I've also just most recently weighed in at anAN/I re his disruptive editing, brought by another editor (with a Muslim name -- so much for Ahmed's world view), pointing out my disappointment in his editing. Perhaps he thinks that bringing this baseless AN/I is the proper rejoinder. AfF doesn't require that I immediately assume that the two, hours apart, are unrelated, especially when it turns out that his statements replete with full of untruths. I'll not get into the specifics of the content disputes here, as this is the wrong place.--Epeefleche (talk)20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Threats to a BLP
User : 173.15.85.13 made today three times a threat to killa BLP. I've blocked this user for a month, as a precautionary measure. It would be wise to look into this to assess the seriousness of such a threat.JoJan (talk)17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Uh, a "BLP" refers to an article, not a person. One cannot "kill" an article, although one can delete it. One can kill a person, but in this case it's unclear whether this is an actual threat -- or vandalism. And if it is a threat, why announce it with edits to an unrelated article? I think this is a case best handled by the established policy of "revert, block, & ignore." --llywrch (talk)17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention "Kill (name)" (which they said) is entirely different from "I'm going to kill (name)". One is a request and one states intent. --Smashvilletalk20:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Issue about Gymnasium Quefurt article - Hans Adler and other users attack our school and delete content
Extended content
We need help urgently. Users like Hans Adler always delete the content we add to the article about our school, the Gymnasium Querfurt (High School). They keep removing our CEEB Code, coordinates, class information, recent projects and programs, etc. These people are Germans and because our school is in Germany they think we may not be affiliated with the American College Board and it would be advertisement to name our International Website GQBC in the article. We are a very American high school and I believe these users want to discriminate us on account of nationality and political opinion. Please help. Thank you.—Precedingunsigned comment added by217.234.101.152 (talk)17:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not too surprisingly there is nobody in the office of Gymnasium Querenburgfurt [I mistyped the name of the town, but the telephone number was correct] at this hour.HansAdler17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm It was trivial to find this brainiac's complete name, village of residence (1,200 inhabitants), date of birth and photograph. I think I will have to call his parents to tell them they need to take better care that he doesn't expose so much about himself on the internet.HansAdler18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm Turns out he has become a bit of an internet celebrity through fraud againstRIPE – which already got him a phone call to his principal Dr. Hans-Jörg Däumer, who in a letter promised disciplinary action.HansAdler18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That letter was faked by some Joe Baptista, Canadian Internet terrorist, because I and the computer science department corporate with an organization known as INAIC. And why I publish the information about myself on the Internet: I am a member of the Democratic Party (right, the one founded by Andrew Jackson in 1828, successor party of the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson) and every party member is required to publish his or her activities online on Facebook and MySpace. What you are just trying to do, Adler, is called harassment, which is not tolerated by US law.
If you found a "village of residence", you are wrong, by the way. This is a town where I live, because all settlements in the US are towns or cities. Back off!! or it will have irreversible consequences for you, you stalker.130.242.7.253 (talk)18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I have endless IP numbers: the grandma of my fiancé wrote the Internet Protocol and thanks to this nice laptop from the 1990s and the files on it, I have free access to all Internet resources.88.161.176.20 (talk)19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It's your choice. Tell me which of the three first names in the telephone book is your father's, so that I can call your parents. Or I can call your school if you prefer that. Or, even better, just forget about Wikipedia, and I can spend my time with better things.HansAdler19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not long after I was sysopped, I received an abusive email from a vandal I'd blocked. I replied, which of course copied in the original email. Thing was, he'd set up his Wikipedia account using his parents' email address. To cut a long story short, I got a very nice email from his mother a while later apologising profusely and telling me that she'd grounded him until Christmas (it was September)....Black Kite (t)(c)21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that neither this child up here, nor that Baptista person, nor the guy spreading stuff about the Baptista person are entirely sane. I guess it's not a good sign about myself either that I am trying to deal with this nonsense.HansAdler19:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, there are three numbers listed under his last name in the phone book of his village, and he won't tell me which one is the right one. Thus I have the choice between randomly calling one of the numbers and probably talking to an aunt or something first, and calling his school. I think I will try his school first, since he is creating a bad reputation for them.HansAdler21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You're asking an admin to ratify your change of the RfC that you madehere, atWT:NOR. Since option C, that you wish to remove from consideration in the RfC, wasoriginally added by Crum375, consider writing to him directly. If you expect the result of the RfC to carry any weight, you should probably try to find supporters for the exact version of the RfC that you prefer, instead of just reverting what Crum375 added.EdJohnston (talk)18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I initally just thought it was vandalism but it may be something more serious than that. Seethis diff. Following diffs included "rachel curses" and "she's a bad boy". Vandalism? Or something more sinister? Could an admin please take a look?--John Chestpack (talk)18:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a schoolkid with too much time on his hands. Blocked as a vandalism only account, nothing more really needs done. --Floquenbeam (talk)19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this, or whether it's actually allowed or not - it just seems out of order to me. I'm not mentioning any names because I just want to know what the principle is, and I do not want to antagonise anyone unnecessarily or unfairly. I've had a lengthy and lively, but fair, discussion with another editor - a discussion I am relatively happy with. I started a discussion on a WikiProject page and he joined in. After he stopped discussing, another editor voiced an opinion in his favour. This second editor has never edited on an article on the subject before now, and is an infrequent editor, having not edited since February 28. Both editors are from the same country and in the past there has been some cross-editing between them, particularly one editor editing a few years ago on articles related to the specialist subject of the other. I want to retain an open mind on this, but I have a feeling that these two editors are close, and one has asked the other to participate in the discussion in his favour, or possibly used the other's account himself to do it. I feel this to be somewhat disingenuous, though I understand that it may not be forbidden, as such. Your thoughts would be much appreciated.Bretonbanquet (talk)20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
SeeWP:MEAT; "meatpuppet" is considered a pejorative term, but is frequently used here to describe this situation. I think the key element isgood faith. I believe the policy suggests that if User 1 requests User 2 to voice an opinion, and, importantly, that User 1 is attempting to do something which is less than above-board, then User 2 can be subject to any penalties appropriate for User 1; in this case, as I understand it, meatpuppet =sockpuppet. However, I've certainly seen situations where one editor asks another to comment because of his/her obvious expertise in the subject area, and the fact that they happen to agree is largely irrelevant. So, (a) do you think this is happening in good faith, and (b) is the article in question being improved? Have a look at the policies and see what you think.Accounting4Taste:talk21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Aha, I knew there must be a term for this, thank you. I have to say I don't think this is happening in good faith. User 1 was clearly losing the debate, since no other editor was agreeing with him at that point, and five were against him. Suddenly User 2 appears, with zero experience in the relevant field, not having edited at all for 2½ months, and supports him with a short comment. I believe it was a crude attempt to bolster support for his argument in order to build a consensus in his favour. I also believe the change he wishes to make to be no kind of improvement. However, I am sure that this extra voice won't actually make any difference to his case anyway - current consensus is still clearly against his idea - so I am not tempted to make a big deal of it, unless people here consider it serious enough. Maybe I will see if he attempts to use User 2 any further and make a judgement then. Thanks very much for your help, I appreciate it.Bretonbanquet (talk)22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
edit warring on boards of canada page
there seems to be some dispute as to whether the tag "IDM" should be attached to BOC and it constantly is placed by one editor then removed by another. i put it back with a dubious tag hoping to find some middle ground but of course it disappeared a couple of days later and even when i refer people to the talk board where it was discussed years ago and i´ve opened a fresh discussion people seem to ignore and just carry on edit warring. what can be done?--Lotsofmagnets (talk)16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: the IPs seem to want to have "Intelligent Music [dubious]", as opposed to "Intelligent Dance Music [dubious]". I suspect the IPs simply don't understand what the dubious tag signifies... I've left a message on the most recent IP's talk page. I suspect the best course of action may be semi-protection - it'll force the IPs to discuss it on the talk page - or leave well alone...TFOWRThis flag once was red16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The IP hasreplied: if I understand them correctly it was partly a joke, and partly to make apoint ("music can't be intelligent"). I've left a note explaining what the dubious tag signifies.
I'd still suggest that if this continues semi-protection would be a good idea. It's incredible how communicative some editors become once their preferred strategy stops working...
Could any administrator with a minute of free time please take a look at today's edits byRiceCholo(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)? He's been inactive for approximately seven months, and his edits today all appear to be attempts to associate the name of a minor with terrorism. I would have put this on AIV, but I wasn't certain it would be acted on with no warnings prior my having noticed him.—Gavia immer (talk)23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Done Blocked as a vandalism-only account. Warnings or not, I suspect that the account would've been blocked at AIV as well. —DoRD (talk)23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea on how to handle this. Could someone checkout what's going on seems to be lots of nonsense and attacks on each other. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs)07:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like two kids messing around. I'd say that Firelightrcorvett is an account someone's lost control of; both should be blocked.Beyond My Ken (talk)09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Jonah Falcon reportedly has the largest penis in the world. If you think that makes his article a target for vandalism - you're right! Can some forward-thinking admin pleasepermanently semi-protect it? Thanks.Delicious carbuncle (talk)19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The vandalism isn't absurdly frequent, but it's pretty regular and contributions by unregistered users are exclusively vandalism of the most unimaginative and stupid type. Semi-protected for 1 year - this has indeed been going on for a while. ~mazcatalk19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed we had an offline glitch a little while ago -- when I signed in again, instead of being taken to the main page, I was taken toHome. I suspect this is a small coding problem but I'm certainly not able to fix it; I hope someone can have a look at this quickly.Accounting4Taste:talk21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It was indeed a small coding problem - a misplaced dollar-sign in an update, as I understand it. (We need more $!) - It was fixed within a few minutes. If you are still seeing the problem, you need to clear your DNS entries - a reboot will probably sort things out. Cheers, Chzz ► 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Accounting4Taste, the page:[130] links to en.wikipedia.org however the redirect from en.wikipedia.org to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page must have been corrupted in your cache following wikipedia's downtime.
I had this problem and fixed it by typing CMD into the run box (opening command prompt) and typing ipconfig /purgedns
My mistake yes that should be ipconfig /flushdns. Note thata lot of people had this problem. I will check these page view statistics tomorrow (they are updated daily) to make sure the problem has reverted.Captain n00dle\Talk06:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a personal attack. Not entirely supported in fact, but trying to hide your history by referring to just criticism as personal attacks isn't on.Stifle (talk)12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You have not tried to discuss this with the other user. You have not notified him of this discussion. And even if you had done those things, this still wouldn't be the proper venue for this,WP:WQA would probably be better. But in general, when you get comments referring to past behaviour, ask for diffs. If the other can't provide such diffs, then it may be considered a removable personal attack. If he can, on the other hand, it becomes a rather pertinent remark which has its place there. Anyway, please followWP:DR.Fram (talk)12:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't notify the other editor is because we edit-conflicted here while I was still entering my initial comment; thereby confirming that he was already aware of it (as you can see, there's a one-minute difference in the time-stamps of the first two post, above). He'd be welcome to provide diffs proving his claim, were there any. Also, Iam following WP:DR.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);Andy's talk;Andy's edits13:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Certainly will provide diffs once I get home from work and can dig through edits. Easy enough to do since I have stumbled onto many occasions where you have made claims that weren't substantiated. -DJSasso (talk)13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy, what was so urgent about this personal attack that it couldn't be resolved with a discussion on his talk page, a note that you don't agree with that characterization at all, a request for diffs, and/or a wikiquette post?Fram (talk)13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
One revert on such a checkable attack, without further discussion attempts, is not an urgent matter requiring the attention of ANI. On the other hand, Djsasso, calling a back-and-forth edit an "edit war" is not an attack either.Fram (talk)13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Your use. Not Wikipedia's. Unless you'd care to link to the page where it says "personal attacks are OK if the accusing party believes them to be true" (notwithstanding the fact that your accusation towards Thatcher on that occasion was demonstrably incorrect).83.244.229.222 (talk)11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The irony of the situations is he did it twice to me a month agohere andhere (and was prooven wrong). Yet you don't see me crying about his "personal attacks" on me. Seems he has no problem "attacking". -DJSasso (talk)11:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure how to convey to a new editor (that i believe is old with a new account) that blanking pages and making them redirects at will is not constructive to wikipidia. I am not sure what can be done a few editors have tried to explain that this is not how its done but the persons keeps doing it.i.e 1i.e 2 and so on...posting here to find out how we can stop this disruptive edits byUser:Active Banana.....all the best.Moxy (talk)17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not necessarily disruptive. If the albums are indeed not notable, then there is no need for an article - but a redirect is fine. However, s/he should stop and discuss now that someone with a differing opinion has reverted.Aiken♫17:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the problem it is being do without warning, causing may to get upset as see on the users talk page..I agree most are not notible but should be given a chance to improveMoxy (talk)17:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)...
You just dont get it....your not doing right by editors here...how many more people have to post to your talk page and explain that your actions need much more tough to them before you implement them!!Moxy (talk)17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
"your not doing right by editors here" - please explain. There is no "right" to post unsourced content to Wikipedia. Leaving unsourced articles is harmful to new Wikipedia editors whomay believe that "because some other album or single has its own article, then my favorite bands albums and singles deserve one too."Active Banana (talk)18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
According to your account you been here for a few months and in that time you have been brought here 2 times and have had noless then 8 editors explain to you that your not going about things right. What more explanation do you need about "not doing right by editors here". I will move on and can only hope oneday you will see the errors of your ways....Moxy (talk)18:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Though it may be a bit of a hassle to interested editors, Active Banana can go ahead and redirect such articles perWP:BOLD. However, perWP:Deletion policy#Redirection, once the redirection is contested, it should be taken to discussion (rather than continually reverted). -M.Nelson (talk)18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If you believe so, there are venues for such a discussion. Don't make your own personal interpretation of policy and take it to battle in articles. -M.Nelson (talk)18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A redirection is not a delete. Active Banana can redirect an article at will, perWP:BOLD. If the redirection is reverted, then discussion should ensue. However, it is equally contingent upon the person reverting to discuss -- "You're doing it wrong" is neither convincing nor productive. If lack of sources is the indicated issue, then those in favor of keeping the page as an article rather than a redirect should be able to indicate that sources are available and that those sources will be added to the article reasonably promptly. It seems to me that Active Banana is mostly in the right here, although perhaps a bit overzealous.Shimeru (talk)20:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
OK you are all correct about the redirection, but it is a delete if the proper redirection process is not followed, that is the page content should be move to the page that the redirect is going to. Blanking the page and making a redirect to a parent article that does not mention what has just been blanked is not the way it should be done. I am not one to point to rules ascommon sense should apply here. However atWikipedia:Editing policy it clearly states that content should be merged.
merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into aredirect as described atperforming a merge
The main concern here is that the work of editors is simply being deleted/ignored and not merged to were the redirects are going to.WP:BOLD is great butWikipedia:MERGETEXT is the proper way to go about it. The average new or novices editor will take this redirect he does as some sort of consensus that the article has no merit, were in fact this sort of thing is decided by the community has a whole.....Moxy (talk)21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
When the original article is unsourced, there is no sourced content TO move. Placing the unsourced content into a new article is not supported byWP:V. And a redirect is NOT a merge.Active Banana (talk)21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You are one hundred percent right!!! but this is not what your doing realy is it[131] do i think this guy should have an article no but.... Anyways this is going nowhere i wish you all the best of luck...Moxy (talk)21:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
According to theWikipedia:Editing policy: "However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed[...]" If an article isn't founded on reliable sources, then removal of unsourced information would leave... nothing. In that case, a redirect (as a potential search term) to a related article is appropriate.Shimeru (talk)22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
re:Moxy and the edit[132]. As anarticle about a living person the requirements for sourced content are even higher than a random article about a non-notable single. And there is nothing at all to indicate this individual is in anyway notable outside of his participation in the band. Therefore a redirect to the band is called for.WP:ONEEVENTWP:ENT .Active Banana (talk)16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed onTalk:Malamanteau that we make the article a redirect toxkcd. The page is protected, but I can find neither discussion nor consensus for the deletion or protection. In any event, I feel that a redirect to the xkcd article would be a more appropriate way to quell the xkcd fans' attempts to remake the article.Normally I wouldn't bring this trivial sort of thing to ANI, but quick action would be ideal, before we anger too many xkcd fans with a non-existant article....comments? ~BFizz14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As an admin alphabetically near the top of the list (A. B.), I've been asked to help as an admin with the following problem:
I need your assistance (I found you via thelist of admins). Back on May 3,Jerzey jon movedElizabeth High School (New Jersey) toElizabeth High School (1979-2009) (which the automatic redirect was subsequently undone by another user), and then Jerzey jon simply cut/pasted much of the content from the original EHS article into his newly createdElizabeth High School (2009-). Please take note that Jerzey jon did not bother gaining consensus on the page split, nor did he bother with any of the necessary pagemoving steps that an administrator has to take in order to preserve the article's edit history. Can you please fix these mistakes and then explain to him all of the minutia that he did wrong? I'd really appreciate it.Jrcla2 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm tied up with other issues -- can someone else help this person out? Thanks, --12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Just as a note, I was the user who requested that the page move, andUser:Nihonjoe executed it. The premise was that All users should be directed back to a comprehensive article without the (in my opinion, unnecessary split. I am for Keeping a unified page for the purpose of our readers, and I do not see any dramatic "transformation plan" that would require 2 articles, but I am not from Elizabeth, let alone New Jersey. I have started a discussion atthe talk page.Fiftytwo thirty (talk)20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I doing a bit of clean up and clarification editing at this article and have run into an editor with ownership issues. I am accused of making edits without preapproval while the "owner"User:Pyrrhus16 freely and without consensus does the same. He/she recently changed the title without consensus. This editor has been accused of ownership issues in the past. Owner is now threatening me with blocking if I don't seek preapproval for every edit. Help.SoniaSyle (talk)15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have never said that I "owned" the page, and have welcomed yourhelpful edits. However, you are drastically overhauling the article without any discussion or consensus, in order for it to suit your own view of Michael Jackson as being (in your words) a "warped, drug-fueled" and "selfish" individual. You are intentionally trying to make Jackson out to be an evil person who used his chimpanzees as slaves and then threw them out when they became too old. Stop pushing this agenda, and maintain a neutral point of view. The article is not perfect, but was largely put together through consensus and discussion with other editors. You cannot just come and reword everything without also waiting for discussion and consensus.Pyrrhus1616:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the difficulties of trying to maintain the MJ articles over the upheavals of the past year, when they were getting five million page views a day,and large numbers of unhelpful edits. I applaud Pyrrhus16 and am inclined to cut him some slack. By the way, SoniaStyle edited the page a minute ago now.--Wehwalt (talk)16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just reiterating here that SoniaStyle has continued rewording the article after receiving the warning and after an outside editor reverted one of her changes.Pyrrhus1618:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
UserElvey seems to be persistent that there is an open dispute, but has failed to follow thedispute resolution policy. In addition to this, this user has been hostile toward me with regards to this. Further assistance is required. --Hm2k (talk)00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Pcap, thanks for pointing us toWP:NNC! Glad to see that what I'd written,"Lack of an article or evidence of notability donot imply lack of notability. (That is circular reasoning.)" is supported by a formal rule. The disruption was caused by an apparent understanding of the rules thatWP:NNC directly contradicts. Also, it wasWP:POINTY; see[135] for action that recently got Hm2k blocked. Also note hisrollback/undo of my warning from his talk page (See also this undo:[136]. Also note that lack of an article as evidence of notability was the ONLY justification for the mass deletion I have noted. Note, I didn't even undo the deletion, but I do think undoing it would be good for the project.--Elvey (talk)19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in engaging with this user. However, as a resolution I would appreciate it if the user would follow thedispute resolution policy instead of a trivial notice on the article. Further assistance may be required if the user continues to be uncivil. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk)21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I have very little support for Hm2k's actions here on wiki but nothing here seems actionable on either side. It doesn't appear he has risen to the level that the last afd was at and I would suggest that he rereadWP:STICK.Hell In A Bucket (talk)00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I cannot understand why the following imageFile:Gettin' over You - Single cover.JPG has been removed. It had legitmate use in the articleGettin' Over which i've been patrolling and working on for a few days. It was never to my knowledge tagged in article itself stating it was up for deletion via discussion and as of yesterday i checked the image's license/summary and everything appeared to be in order. Can someone find out the following please:
To note i was told that prepositions less than fives letters should be small case according toWP:MOS therefore Gettin' Over You should be named Gettin' over You. I did not place the speedy deletion tag as being suggested above.Lil-unique1 (talk)09:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not say, or mean to imply, that you speedied that article, rather that I looked over the list of a dozen or so articles that youdid tag for speedy deletion, and thought that some of them were clearly notable and worthy of keeping. That was the meaning of my comment that you were "quick on the trigger" with SD tags. Please be sure that the articles you tag are of no value to the enecyclopedia before you tag them for deletion. Sure, an admin has to agree and delete them, and sure there's always deletion review, but it's really better for everyone if the process isn't even started if the article is worthwhile.Beyond My Ken (talk)13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for that. There will always be a difference of opinion but yes i strongly believe that the articles i noted for deletion were on the whole candidates for CfSD. i only every tag them for quick delete if they are obviously bad e.g. gibberish, no content etc. or where there is no context. The main one's i focus on is the latter. It is my belief (which you are entitled to oppose) that an article which has no context even if the information is sourced maybe be irrelavant and so its purpose on wikipedia is questionable.Lil-unique1 (talk)02:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but my feeling is that context can always be added if the subject is notable, so it's probably best not to tag with SD articles about notable topics, and deal with the lack of context with cleanup tags (or, even, editing it to provide the context).Beyond My Ken (talk)02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Odd editing pattern (high edit rate, extremely low content changes with no edit summary (User:Git2010)
It looks to me like an unauthorized bot account - I could make trivial edits at that rate if I wanted to, but there's no way I could sustain it, and in any case making edits like[141] at high speed smells like AWB genfixes to me.—Gavia immer (talk)03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, fixed it. User recently created a User page (albeit an enigmatic one). Probably harmless, though edit summaries would be nice.OhNoitsJamieTalk03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything since you posted this but I don't think this should just disappear from here just yet. Definitely something strange going on.--58.122.40.118 (talk)01:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
A few months ago Hm2k was in a truly horrific display of Tendentious editing. This invovled several admin and users reasoning with him about why his list didn't meet notability or wuality standards. He is now deleting every redlink he finds. I've tried to explain that not all redlinks need to go as there are several pages like this [[142]] that use those as a way of writing articles and maintaining organization. He has ignored this and has reverted the edits. I would suggest another user or admin discuss this issue with him and have at least a short round of good faith for him. Right now in my opinion he is disrupting wikipedia to prove a point.Hell In A Bucket (talk)15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've given him a carefully worded message. His "removal of redlinks" on one article simply removed an entry, not just the redlink, which is obviously a no-no. Just because the article doesn't exist is no justification (WP:WTAF or otherwise) for deletingcontent. Outside this one, I've just advised him of all the benefits of redlinks. I don't know the history of this user so am unaware of any point he might be making.SGGHping!15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Do we need to pull out the bucket-o-trout and give all involved a good trout whacking? ;P The List of shell providers AfD was related to things which were happening onTalk:Shell account (as well asTalk:List of shell providers) and whileUser:Hm2k certainly played a role in it, he was also being baited by someone who had originally followed me toTalk:Shell account during an earlier, somewhat heated discussion. For the record, I don't find myself in agreement with Hm2k in removing the majority of these red links, although after some of the heated discussion onTalk:Shell account was well over with, he and I discussed a number of things and came to mutual understandings. I've been avoiding editing many of these articles in an attempt to avoid getting into an argument regarding the red link removals as I have too much on my plate already. --Tothwolf (talk)16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
User H@mk has no concept of consensus or policy. He was warned by a admin then said he would continue deleting redlinks as he saw them. I'm sorry but this user is problematic and a site-ban should be put in place until he accepts the will of the community at large.Hell In A Bucket (talk)23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Conflict with Headbomb Re Forever Knight
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A conflict has started with myself and this user which is getting ridiculous. It started whenUser:Headbomb restored theList of Forever Knight episodes from a redirect[144] to the main article in June 2009,[145] per consensus, as it had been primarily copyvio and nothing but titles after all that was removed. I initially disagreed with his restoration, but after he reverted[146], he added the air dates I figured that was fine and proceeded to properly format the list using the{{episode list}} template, adding a basic lead, adding the basic ELs. He began an extensive edit war over it, becoming abusive and uncivil, undoing the entire reformat for what appeared to be an effort to restore his use of a non-reliable source (IMDB), and to claim that his format is the proper format per "featured lists" (it is not). The format I put in place follows what is proper per FLs andWP:MOSTV. I attempted to discuss it with him on his talk page,[147] but he continued reverting while we were talking and refusing to simply continue editing with the new, proper format. I asked him repeatedly to stop perWP:EDITWAR but he continued reverting. I started a discussion at the talk page, requesting additional views from the project as well, but after I posted those, he reverted again.
I filed a report atthe Noticeboard, where his response started with "Fucking christ, you really can't stand it when people try to do stuff do you?" (clearly not civil). His later responses and edit summaries continued with this sort of abusive and bad-faith language. I noted that at not time during our attempted discussion nor his edits did he actually indicate he intended to do anything more beyond restore the list and add that one reference. He did not flag it as in-use, indicate continued work on his edit summary, anything. My reformatting came seven minutes after his last edit which had an edit summary of the "Ref" he added, and which we edit conflicted over.[148][149]
He later gave me "permission" on the edit warring board to reformat the list again, claiming "he was done", so I did so. He has proceeded to continue reverting my edits, delinking an unnotable character (pretty sure he was deleted in an AfD)[150][ and an unnotable screenwriter[151][152][153][154]. He went on to create acategory and atemplate. As the series has three articles:Forever Knight (barely a stub),List of Forever Knight episodes, andNick Knight (purely a stub), and per general project consensus one what goes in a television navigational bar I nominated both for CfD and TfD, respectively. He responded by leaving an abusive note on my user talk page[155], and making personal attacks in both deletion nominations, calling them, among other things, "pointy" and accusing me of "stalking" him, trying to get him blocked (no, trying to get him to stop edit warring), and seeking "revenge"[156][157][158][159] I have worked with theForever Knight articles since 2007[160], and helped clean out a ton of the copyvio last year, so how my seeing edits related to it is "stalkerish" is beyond me.
As it seems clear he intends to continue this tirade for awhile, I feel administrative eyes might be useful, as I'd rather not continue dealing with him and am getting tired of his continued abusive profanity and incivility. --AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs)21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's getting ridiculous,stop try to delete everything I touch. I'm here to write articles. I want to make the general topic ofForever Knight suck less, and all you're doing so far is trying to get me blocked and make my life miserable by CfDing and TfDing because you can't assume good faith for two seconds. Can't you back down for evenone minute?
And knock it of with your "appears to" and "supposedly" and the rest of your scare quotes. I was basing myself onList of The O.C. episodes, AnmaFinotera switched to the template-based style midway through my edits which kept giving me conflicts and got in the way of doing things (I never used that template before). Apparently taking a feature list as an example is a crime punishable by death nowadays. IMDB has nothing to do with it, although you've removed the reference I used, instead of providing a better one (AFAIK, IMDB is fine, maybe it is, maybe it isnt', but that is the reference for the current list).
Then, other crime punishable by death,I created a category. What horror! And to add to the ignominy, I createdanavbox! (Which, BTW, I haven'teven linked to yet, because it's rather primitive and I need to write many of these articles).
Headbomb, you need to calm down and not insult other editors, or you will get yourself blocked, and that's hardly necessary. I don't see any stalking or baiting here. Assuming good faith doesn't come into it; if AnmaFinotera believes that the category and template are inappropriate, of course they can nominate them for deletion, even if they believe you're trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia (which I also believe). If you want them kept then make cogent arguments for this and other editors might side with you. Crying persecution won't aid keeping them.Fences&Windows22:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) If we can't count on an editor with over 100k edits, and an editor with over 50k edits, to somehow avoid diving headfirst into a flame war, what hope is there for the hoi polloi? Anma, how about giving Headbomb some breathing room to expand this, let him work on this for a while andthen come back to it to tinker with it? And wait for some otherWP:TV people to chime in? And give the template and category a break to see how they evolve? Headbomb, how about dialing back the aggression about 3 notches, so it's easier for others to concentrate on content issues without being sidetracked? The talk page of that list is depressingly empty. --Floquenbeam (talk)22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Itried that andsuggested solutions and see what that got me. CfD, TfD, and ANI. However "Anma, how about giving Headbomb some breathing room to expand this, let him work on this for a while andthen come back to it to tinker with it? And wait for some otherWP:TV people to chime in? And give the template and category a break to see how they evolve? Headbomb, how about dialing back the aggression about 3 notches, so it's easier for others to concentrate on content issues without being sidetracked?" Sounds good to me. Which I thought was what would happen after I told Anma that he could switch the list to the template-based version.Headbomb {talk /contribs /physics /books}22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Those are not examples of dialing back the aggression 3 notches. Letting you work on it in peace for a while would be common courtesy that I would hope most of us would extend to one another, but it isn't required. And when you overreact to perceived slights, you make it less likely that you'll be extended that common courtesy. --Floquenbeam (talk)22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
He did not indicate any problems with edit conflicts nor that he was continuing to do stuff until the edit war report was filed. His initial response, beyond the one with no edit summary, was instantly hostile and combative, without again any indication that he was doing anything other than adding the airdates (which were kept in my initial revert) and the unreliable source. He did not start adding any further content until I warned him for edit warring, and posted notes to the list talk page and the project. At NO time during the discussion before that did he give any indication that he was doing anything else, and his initial responses seemed only to confirm that he disagreed with my removal of the IMDB source. Had he responded like a polite adult, and simply responded to my initial note by indicating that he had reverted because of edit conflicts while he was adding the directors/writers, we wouldn't have had any of this mess. I attempted discussion with him in two venues, not counting edit summaries. He was hostile, combative, and assuming bad faith from the first two reverts[162][163]. I will also note that after my report, I stopped reverting, and he continued his edits. When he specifically claimed he was done, I went in and did mine (just as you have suggested here), and he again began making reverts and continued acting hostile. Even after yourself and another asked him to tone it down, he expand his reply here with more of the same overreacting retoric[164] and continued claims of "bad faith" in the CfD[165] because I pointed out the topic has only four potential articles as far as I can see. And note that no where have I asked for him to be blocked, other than to note in the 3RR report that we had BOTH done four reverts and it is very typical that both parties are blocked in such a case regardless of reason or discussions. --AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs)22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary should have read "will you JUST WAIT, for odin's sake you can't fill eveything in two seconds". 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"He did not start adding any further content until I warned him for edit warring, and posted notes to the list talk page and the project." Yes, this is what happens when you give people 2 minutes windows to reply before going to ANI.Headbomb {talk /contribs /physics /books}23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This went on for HOURS and you obviously found time to reply to the notes on your talk page, but not to take an extra second to explain yourself? And to perform all the other edits pointed out here, including the note on my talk page. Not once did you attempt to be civil nor to actually discuss the issue. --AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs)23:14, 12 May 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.
It seems to me thatBybee Memo has just been cut and paste moved toTorture memos, although possibly in an edited way. (However they definitely share chunks of text.) I reverted the editor and told them to ask an admin to do a proper move, but the editor simply re-reverted, claiming it was a completely new article. I am going to bed now, perhaps an admin can look into this.HansAdler00:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a cut-and-paste move that I can see, but if the latter has unattributed chunks of text from the former then the two articles need to be histmerged. —01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
suggestion, As a neutral editor can i recommend that you know wait for an admin to comment useWP:RfC and/or dispute resolution as suggested above.Lil-unique1 (talk)02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(a) Gage is not an admin. (b) Gage's reverts at RFPP were dumb, and uncool. (c) Gage appears to be saying he won't do that anymore. (d) Discuss the issues that resulted in page protection on the talk page. (e) It will be more productive if the namecalling that seems common on that talk page was stopped. (f) I don't think there's anything more to say. --Floquenbeam (talk)02:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
IP 71's badly formatted comments here and atWP:RFPP make him/her difficult to understand. That may not be his/her fault, but it is nonetheless the case.
I've declined to unprotect the page anyway so most of this is moot. Suggest returning to the article talk page, perhaps with a quick detour toWikipedia:Assume good faith.
I thought he was an admin, sorry to assume that. I was using the article talk page and everyone but Gage has been working to communicate. He accused me of a personal attack when all I did was comment that he promised to keep edit warring. Then he removed my comment as a personal attack and vandalism. I have no problem getting more opinions but my comments should not be deleted as attacks and vandalism when they are not. Others seem willing to use the article talk page but Gage is acting like his decision is final and stated he'll just revert everyone else anyway. If he stops blanket reverting and deleting it would be a good thing.71.139.1.193 (talk)02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Despite a strong consensus atWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors, Wikidemon is insisting that entries in lists do not need to be sourced, and that the onus for removing material lies in the editor who wishes to remove it, despiteWP:BLP saying the exact opposite. As a result, he's restored a bunch of unsourced and/or improperly sourced names toList of Jewish actors. For example, he's restoredScott Caan withthis link as a source, despite the source itself nowhere actually stating Caan is Jewish. He includesJerry Orbach, without a source, despite the fact that Orbach had a Catholic mother and was raised Catholic. But more important that any specific item, given the complete repudiation of his views atWP:BLP/N, is it appropriate for him to be doing this?Jayjg(talk)01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the argument is whether or not list articles need an inline citation verifying each item's justification for inclusion in the list, or if sources contained in the linked article are enough. I'd say Wikidemon is correct -- either do the work to carry over the citations to the list article, if you'd prefer they all be cited, or leave them be.
This has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged, and they need them on the page in question, not on some related page. That's true of anything, but even more so with living persons.SlimVirgintalkcontribs01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly the question. The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't beremoving those items instead.
Equaczion you appear to have the onus exactly backwards:WP:V is says quite clearly that any that if material challenged must "be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". Or, to use your words, with some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't beadding those items.Jayjg(talk)02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's too much policy wank for me. We're faced with a situation where we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete.
How do we know these claims are verifiable? Actually following policy is not "policy wank", and there are no policies that "guard against" enforcing policy. What would quite obviously be best for the encyclopedia would be to have the list comply withWP:BLP andWP:V.Jayjg(talk)03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article. And if there isn't one, then removing it would be justified. There is one list that I can think of where its primary watchdog is death on anything unverified, but that's a little different, asList of U.S. Presidential nicknames is an OR magnet. The question is, what exactly is being "challenged"? Is it the assertion that something is factual? Or is it simply because of the lack of a citation? It's not the same thing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems obvious to me. If someone challenges something in regards to our living subjects, we only reintroduce it with a source. Unless Wikidemon has managed to definitively answer the question "Who is a Jew?" we should probably only reintroduce subjects with good sourcing.AniMate03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, to begin with, there are important principles at stake here. One is the principle that all items in Wikipedia articles must be cited, perWP:V. For some reason some editors claim there is an exemption for lists, despite policy actually explicitly repudiating that notion. Another is the principle that it is incumbent on the personadding material to ensure it is properly cited; again, that's basic policy, but for reasons that escape me some editors fight the notion that they should actually have to cite claims they add to articles, or imagine they have another "exemption" if they add the material by way of reversion.
In addition, many of the items are or were erroneous, or had citations that did not support the claims being made. This is unsurprising; my experience with these lists is that they are often filled with dubious or erroneous material, which is a good reason to demand that all items in them comply with policy. And finally, the lists are filled with dozens of items like this, and there are many lists; if it were just one item, then yes, it would be easier to try to source it (assuming a source could be found, which is not a given). However, as there are hundreds of items like this, it's better to re-iterate policy here, rather than having to fight this battle again and again.Jayjg(talk)03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→07:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Baseball raises an important point, as to which a response would be helpful. Jayjg -- when you deleted those items, did you have an informed good faith reason to believe they were untrue? Or were you deleting them just because they lacked sources? Lacking either: a) a good faith reason to believe they were untrue; and b) info as to whether they were untrue?--Epeefleche (talk)20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We have ways of handling unsourced material. One way we handle an unsourced article is to tag it. Another is to AfD it. For what I assume are self-evident reasons, when AfD'ing an article (which obviously is short of any deletion, the step taken here) we in implementing our policy of sourcing implement another policy -- that of not willy nilly deleting, without a good faith effort by the nom to search both in the article and on the internet for other sources that would support the entry. Even if they are not in the article. Many policies support that, but I daresay the objective is the same as it should be here -- especially for a sysop. We don't want to delete good content, and we require to that end the person proposing deletion to do a search to makes sure that they can make aninformed suggestion of deletion. Those policy considerations should have been applied here -- Jay should have first done a wp:before search, and then he should have, as to any entries for which he felt there was not RS support, either a) moved them to the talk page; or b) tagged them as such. Mass deletions were POINTy and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk)04:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the same battle that happens all the time. One side removes an unreferenced statement. The other side demands that the statement be returned, and then demands that the deleters should reference the statement rather than delete it. Let me refer the entire cadre of combatants in this little skirmish toWP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If someone wants any article, including a list article, to say anything then THEY need to add the reference. It isn't the responsibility of anyone exceptthe person who wants the statement to remain in the article to provide the reference. The person who objects to the statement is well justified in a) referencing it themselves b) adding the "cn" tag or c) removing the statement altogether. They may choose any of these. Choice a) would be nice, but choice c is fully justified for any contentious statement. If its easy to reference, rather than coming here to complain about someone removing it, return the statement with the reference. Ultimately, the person who wants to say something must provide the backing for what they want to say. It isn't the responsibility person who doubts the veracity of a statement to find proof that the statement is true, if they doubt its truth to begin, then why would they believe that a reference even exists?!? --Jayron3206:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted Jayjg's latest edit here as apparent disruption. I hope that it was a simple mistake, but this is starting to look like aWP:POINT problem. I'll answer in more detail shortly. -Wikidemon (talk)06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
[166]. I count 10 unsourced entries that you restored. You are acting completely against policy and all the advice from others both here and at the BLP noticeboard.Quantpole (talk)08:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Look a little harder. The correct count is zero. I did not restore any uncited claims about living people. -Wikidemon (talk)09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Where is the source on that page to say that Ron Silver is Jewish, or Susan Strasberg? Are you being deliberately obtuse?Quantpole (talk)09:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Quantpole, these people are dead, so his claim that "I did not restore any uncited claims about living people" is correct (although a link to Amazon is hardly sufficient for one that is living). I have no idea why he just doesn't source those eight entries though, but then again, I have no idea why we even have such a list. It's not as if most of these people are being notable for being an actor and a Jew, they are actors who happen to be Jewish. We don't have a list of blue-eyed actors either. This should be a category, not a list, just like many similar categories.Fram (talk)09:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I didn't specify that it was living people. All I asked was whether he had restored unsourced content, to which he said 'No'. So he was just lying then.Quantpole (talk)09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Jayjg is correct.WP:V requires that any editors trying to add or re-insert unsourced material, even to a list, do so citing reliable sources. I don't think policy can be much clearer on the subject. If it's obvious that someone is Jewish, then there should be no problem finding reliable sources to support their inclusion in the list. If no such sources exist, then maybe it's not so obvious after all. ← Georgetalk08:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not what the policy says. As I mentioned in the last forum, before Jayjg shopped it here, we've been through this drill a number of times here, at RfC, and before ArbCom. There is no policy basis that permits blind mass deletions of verifiable content for being uncited, without more - and WP:BURDEN does not give those making such deletions an end-run around by prohibiting good faith reversion of their disputed edits. Anyway, that's not at issue here. Jayjg reported me not for addingunsourced claims that living Jewish people are in fact Jewish, but for adding carefully consideredsourced claims to that effect. -Wikidemon (talk)08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me quote it for you: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious or negative material about living persons must be removed immediately." You claim that Jayjg removed verifiable content, and he claims that he removed unsourced or poorly sourced content. Above, he gaveJerry Orbach as an example, which is indeed unsourced in the current version of theList of Jewish actors. While not a living person, his Catholic upbringing makes the label questionable. Where is the reliable source that Orbach is Jewish, that makes his entry "verifiable content," as you claim? ← Georgetalk08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A clue for you - Jerry Orbach is dead. BLP does not apply to non-living people. If you want to claim that all Wikipedia content needs a citation and can be mass-deleted otherwise, you've got an uphill battle policy-wise. -Wikidemon (talk)09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
To quote Jimbo, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." And did I claim that all Wikipedia content needs a citation? No, just contentious material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This materialwas challenged, and someone's religion is often aninherently contentious issue. These entries should be cited to reliable sources; failure to do so - or worse, reinserting the entries unsourced - is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. ← Georgetalk09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty random. Jayjg's twisted account of the edit history notwithstanding, it's sourced[167] that Orbach's father was Jewish, and that's apparently the reason why some editor (not me) decided to include him in this list article. It's not a policy violation to include deceased Jewish entertainers in a list of links to Jewish entertainers. If you think it is, you're welcome to lobby to change the policy on verifiability, or a guideline for when we call people of Jewish ancestry Jewish, but this is not the place. This is a notice-board to handle behavioral problems that necessitate administrative intervention, not a place to complain about editors who oppose mass deletion sprees. -Wikidemon (talk)09:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to search for and add sources to the list article with respect to those non-living people, or to any of English Wikipedia's several million articles articles, as you see fit. That's not a behavioral issue and it is not the source of this complaint. Are we done here? -Wikidemon (talk)10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're confirming that the ten challenged, unsourced entries you re-added in violation of Wikipedia's policies about citing reliable sources was the underlying behavioral issue behind the content dispute, then yes, I believe we're done here. ← Georgetalk10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't confuse content policy with behavioral policy. There's no behavioral violation in answering an editor's stated content objections without meeting their unstated objections, but you're free to lobby for me to be blocked for not bringing every deleted sentence to featured article standards before reinserting. -Wikidemon (talk)10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to see you blocked, though it would be nice if you added citations when re-adding contentious material. And I don't think asking for citations for ten uncited entries in a list is quite the same as asking you to bring the article up to FA status. ← Georgetalk11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district. That's the deletionist's first clue. Then I googled ["ron silver" jewish] and found quite a few references to his passing in Jewish publications, and about the fourth or fifth line down there was this[168] in which Silver makes reference to himself being Jewish. In a fraction of the time the deletionist has spent arguing about this issue, he could have found this. If he's got doubts about an entry, he should apply a citation tag to it rather than a meataxe. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my personal tact would have been to tag the entries rather than remove them, though removing them is fully in compliance with Wikipolicy. ← Georgetalk10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If it said George M. Cohan was Jewish, that would likely be somebody's idea of a joke. A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted. I would also submit that since the deletionist obviously doesn't know a Jewish name when he sees one, he should go work on something else. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is very dangerous ground. We shouldn't try tointerpret someone's religion from their name. There are plenty of people born into a religion, or given a religious name, who are not religious, or oppose religion, and would object to being labelled as a member of a religion. ← Georgetalk11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Especially in this case, since a person's surname is (usually) that of his or her father, whereas "Jewishness" depends on themother′s being Jewish (or on conversion to Judaism).Deor (talk)11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Did I mention Ron Silver? Is there some reason you're ignoring the dozen other unsourced names that were re-added? And if someone doesn't consider them self Jewish, it doesn't matter, because an editor decided that they should be labeled as Jewish anyways?We rely on reliable sources for a reason. ← Georgetalk11:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The Silver point is well taken. It stands for the proposition that no wp:before check was done here, which would have reflected good faith and been in keeping w/wikipedia safeguards against careless deletions of RS-supportable-material. That was one problem with what was done.--Epeefleche (talk)04:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at the first four people removed by Jayjg's most recent edits: Two without article, one about whom we only know that his father is of mixed Mexican Catholic and Hungarian Jewish descent, and a Latter-day Saint. I think it's fair to say that it's notjust about Ron Silver.HansAdler11:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. It has to be taken case-by-case. Jayjg's blind deletion of someone who's obviously Jewish disqualifies him from this subject on the grounds of incompetence, ignorance, whatever you want to call it. There are plenty of other subjects eagerly awaiting his meataxe. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
My point being if he's that ignorant about Ron Silver, he shouldn't be working on that subject at all. Maybe the other ones have problems, but he's just meataxing with no thought behind it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→11:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Or let's takeFred Astaire, restored inthis edit: "Astaire's mother was born in the United States to Lutheran German immigrants from East Prussia and Alsace, while Astaire's father was born in Linz, Austria, to Jewish parents who had converted to Catholicism." WTF? I guess he is one of those people who justhave to be Jews because, somehow, you know, it's obvious. Right?
Next one from the same edit,Bob Einstein. Nothing about his religion or ethnicity in his article, but his parents are both categorised as Jews (without relevant sources, of course). That makes him a Jew, right? No, it doesn't. My parents are both Protestants, I am not, and neither is my brother.HansAdler11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Judaism is more than just a religion, and if you don't know that, you're not competent to be editing this subject either. Also, why is this being debated on two different pages? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't categorise someone as a Jew if he doesn't think of himself as a Jew. This is still Wikipedia, not "Jew Watch". I have started making my comments here rather than at BLP/N when I realised that this does in fact require administrator attention. In my opinion those who edit warred to keep that crap on the list need to be blocked.
Listen, mate, it's not OK to just copy a crappy list from a crackpot site such as "Jew Watch" into Wikipedia and then claim that those who want to clean up have to justify every single case, one by one. That's a racist denial of service attack against the project which we can't permit to work, whether that's what actually happened here or not. (And apart from that it's time that you do something about your editing statistics. >10% on ANI doesn't look good for a non-admin, especially one who doesn't usually make insightful comments.)HansAdler11:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's more than a religion, yes, but that doesn't mean that having Jewish parents and a Jewish name makes you Jewish. I linked to it above already:Who is a Jew?. If you want to lecture people on their lack of competence, it would be better if you didn't use such an oversimplification to judge them by.Fram (talk)11:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Listen, "mates", Ron Silver identified very strongly with being Jewish and supporting Israel, which you all would know had you bothered to look into it. I know it crimps a deletionist's style to be asked to look into something before deleting it, but if he had bothered to do that, we might not be seeing this case argued - on 2 different pages, yet. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose when your mother accidentally breaks a glass when washing your dishes she has to listen to your complaints for the next few months, right?HansAdler11:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Since my reply was not about Ron Silver but about your incorrect generalisations and overestimation of your own competence, your reply to it is quite irrelevant.Fram (talk)11:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You make an incorrect statement (at least twice), I answer that, and you start about something completely different, one specific example which had nothing to do with the generalizations about Jews you made, but everything with the state of that singular article. Why should I reply to statements you want to make which are not a reply to what I was saying? And why won't you reply to questions or remarks about your statements?Fram (talk)12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one who's so ignorant he doesn't know Ron Silver was a Jew, and a Jewish activist at that. If Jay had bothered to look before swinging the meataxe, we wouldn't have lengthy debates going on on at leasttwo different pages. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→12:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression "It's so obvious" is an appropriate substitute for a citation, and that anyone who doesn't realize this is ignorant and disqualified from editing this list. I think you're oversimplifying the issue and wouldn't mind you addressing concerns raised here rather than hammering the Ron Silver point home ad nauseam.--Atlan (talk)12:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you miss Baseball's point. Let's say we have a list of black people, and Muhammad Ali is on it. But there is no footnote. To just delete because of the absence of a footnote is disruptive. It hurts the project. A simple google search will yield the fact that there is RS support. That's what should have been done here.--Epeefleche (talk)04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Next one from the same edit[169],Ray Ellin. I could find no indicationanywhere that he is Jewish. Perhaps he has a Jewish name? I did in fact find some indications on the web that he might be Jewish, but so far nothing reliable. Note that this is thefirst reasonable case under all those that I have examined, and I simply started from the top.HansAdler11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Stand-up comic Ray Ellin was performing at a New York comedy club a few days after Rosh HaShanah. It was his usual act — some family stories, some bantering with the audience. As usual, he asked people in the crowd where they came from. “Germany,” said one couple. That’s raw meat for a Jewish comic. “I wish you,” Ellin said, “a year of health and happiness — and reparations.”
I have now removed a few actors fromList of Jewish actors. I have observed that in some cases when I google forname + jewish I find some reasonable information, and in others I find Wikipedia, followed by a mixture of irrelevant stuff and Jewish conspiracy crap.This is a typical example of what I mean. Real life is calling now, but I am sure the list needs further purging.HansAdler13:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering the discussion and that editors are aware there is a request to cite the names and that all such claims about living people require quality supporting citations, take all the uncited names to the talkpage where interested editors can find reliable citations and replace the names to the list.Off2riorob (talk)13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to get into the "who is a Jew" question that's a different content matter that cannot be decided here at AN/I. I'm not terribly familiar with the Judaism-related articles here but in larger society, identification as a Jew is an overlapping matter of ethnicity, heritage, culture, and religion, and can a matter of self-definition, external definition, context / circumstance, and designation by an authoritative or official person. Matters such as ethnic identification are best dealt with editors in the relevant content area who are famiiar with the subject, rather than newbies imposing their personal beliefs or analysis on first impression in a drive-by manner. -Wikidemon (talk)15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me make this clearer since everyone seems to have ignored it last time.Statements which people, in good faith, believe to be untrue do not need to remain in articles. The existance of the statement in WP:BLP that contentious statements must be removed immediately from living person-related articlesdoes not mean that the converse is policy, that is itdoes not mean that in non-BLP articles contentious statements must remain indefinately unsourced. If someone believes something to be blatantly false, they should remove that statement. Period. If someone else has reliable evidence that the statement is true, it is their responsibility to provide the source in order to return the information. If people want a persons name to remain on a list,regardless of whether the person is alive or not, then it is THEIR responsibility to place a proper, unambiguous, reliable inline cite into the article in question. It is not the responsibility of anyone who believes a statement to be incorrect to do that research. If you want a name to remain on the list, find the source. Period. --Jayron3218:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's true where an editor has a good faith believe that there is something wrong with a specific piece of content. However, it is not the way things work in cases of content deleted for being verifiable but unsourced. There, I would not agree to a procedure that permits deletionists to blank swaths of article content in a way that is indiscriminate with respect to its verifiability, yet imposes a heightened sourcing burden on any who would disagree with what they are doing. In any event, that's not what happened here. I wasn't the one Jayjg was originally edit warring with or threatening - I stepped in and was the one editor who actually did something constructive, which was to source the BLP content Jayjg said they were objecting to. I also admonished Jayjg not to threaten adminsitrative tool use in a content dispute. For my efforts Jayjg simply deleted me with a rude edit summary and filed a report here, that looks like retaliation and forum shopping given that this was my first edit to the article and we were all engaged in an active discussion at another noticeboard on this issue. -Wikidemon (talk)20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There was alot of crappy entries among those he removed on one of the pages, and quite a bit on the other. These entries were added without any discussion, many of them in a single bulk edit a long time ago. I can see no reason why they can't also be removed in bulk. Perhaps the best approach would be to move them to the talk page for discussion. It's a pity Jayjg didn't do that, but you could have done it too.HansAdler21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The entire list article is of modest quality - weakly sourced, poor formatting, incomplete, without clear inclusion criteria, and an imperfect repeat of material already in the articles the list points to. It may be that the whole list should be deleted, merged, or reorganized - perhaps the existing categories already cover it. That would take some time. You've also raised a valid, but very difficult, question of when we can call someone a Jew even assuming solid sourcing. The serious business of improving articles time and comes from content edits... not edit warring, complaints against others, or policy discussion. -Wikidemon (talk)21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Moving the info to the talkpage, rather than tagging as dubious, would be reasonable as it would have the same effect of saving the info for other editors, who have not watchlisted the article, to review and restore as clean. Simply deleting it, when there is not a good faith reason -- based on a good review of the article and a good google search -- to believe it untrue, is simply disruptive. We don't allow people to delete articles without a wp:before search. And if there is a basis for the info either in the article or in sources unearthed in a google search, the article survives AfD. To not use a similar approach, and simply mass delete without having done a wp:before-type check is simply disruptive, and does not reflect good faith editing. For a sysop to do so is especially troubling. I think it's time to close this string, as the consensus appears to be that Jay would have been better off doing something other than mass deleting the sort of info that is routinely reflected in cats and templates without footnotes.--Epeefleche (talk)21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? The consensus here is that the material should be removed, andnot restored without proper sourcing, and that Wikidemon acted improperly. SlimVirgin, AniMate, Active Banana, George, Fram, Jayron32, Deor, Hans Adler, Quantpole, Atlan, and Off2riorob all objected to Wikidemon's actions. You, Baseball Bugs, and Equazcion agree with Wikidemon's actions.Eleven editors disagree with Wikidemon,three agree with Wikidemon. Please make more accurate statements in the future; people herecan read the discussion, you know.Jayjg(talk)02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please cut it out. We've dealt with this again and again in this forum and others, and there is absolutely no consensus for your position, and clear admonition by Arbcom not to use tools to support it. As an administrator in an administrative forum you ought to have a little more decorum than systematically misrepresenting the edit history to harass good faith content editors like myself. A single edit you don't like after being cautioned about that and you bring it straight to AN/I? You are truly creating disruption here to prove your point. Drop the stick. Just let this thread go, and please don't do it again. -Wikidemon (talk)02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon, we're up to twelve in support of me, Wikidemon, 3 in support of you. And on the related BLP/N thread, Sean.Hoyland, Good Ol’factory, CarolMooreDC, and Crum375 agree with me. That's16 editors who support my position,3 who support yours. That's a pretty strong consensus, actually. As a Wikipedia editor, you need to stop misrepresenting the discussion here, and start listening to what editors here are saying. You've been duly cautioned, and are truly creating disruption here to prove your point. Drop the stick. Just let this thread go, and please don't do it again.Jayjg(talk)03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, I'll do you the favor of ignoring that nonsense. Other editors support you because you've systematically misrepresented the situation here. Iadded reliable sources per your request and you played sour grapes. But please take a look in the mirror, administrator-wise. Don't file any more bogus retaliatory AN/I threads for matters that don't conceivably merit adminsitrative attention, don't edit war, and don't threaten tool use in self-involved editing situations. Please take a deep breath and get on to some productive editing, if you can - or at least sleep on it. If you can't do that you'll be arguing that again at RfC or ArbCom, but surely you're better than that. If there is any uninvolved person watching, can we please close this as a no action? We've made our statements and I don't see how anything good or actionable is going to come from Jayjg continuing to berate me, and me trying to set the record straight. -Wikidemon (talk)03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Jay -- of the 12, how many of them responded to the following points made above:
1) no footnotes in similar cats;
2) no footnotes in similar templates;
3) it would be less disruptive to dubious-tag, unless the point is to be disruptive;
4) it would be less disruptive to move to talkpage, unless the point is to be disruptive;
5) shouldn't the concerned person do a wp:before search, much as when deleting an article at AfD, and has one been done here?; and
6) will you support (or yourself handle) the deletion in toto of the lists I set forth above, all of which are completely bereft of footnotes?
And how compelling and complete have your responses been to those point? Or have you not even satisfied yourWP:ADMIN obligation of replying?
Furthermore -- you keep on throwing around the phrase "three editors" as though it is the holy trinity. Which of the below do you count as the "three", and which were you leaving out (other than, of course, the last one)?
Wikidemon (a number of comments)
"The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be removing those items instead." and "we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete."←Equazcion
"It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article." and "If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that."←Baseball Bugs
"take all the uncited names to the talkpage where interested editors can find reliable citations and replace the names to the list." Off2riorob
Epeefleche (a number of comments)
Plus assorted "supporters" of yours who say they themselves would not have deleted, but rather would have either tagged the items or moved them to the talk page.--Epeefleche (talk)05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, the point is to either be disruptive orlazy. The fact he deleted a Jewish activist from the list, and hid behind the letter of policy rather than using his brain, indicates he's incompetent to be doing this work. I may have said that already. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sixteen, Eepefleche, not 12. And Baseball Bugs, your personal attacks aren't really relevant to the discussion, and I doubt they're winning over any of the 16 editors who disagree with you.Jayjg(talk)05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me say (although I know you were directing your comment at Baseball) that I do not think you are lazy. Nor do I think you personally are a disruptive person. But I do think that your mini-Katrina deletions are highly disruptive, interfere needlessly with the goals of the project, and that you would do well to commit to a) answer my above questions; and b) desist in such practice in the future in lieu of one of the assorted alternatives mentioned above.--Epeefleche (talk)05:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Eeepefleche, in answer to your question, I started this thread because Wikidemon inserted unsourced or improperly sourced items into the list, reverting my removal of them.That was the action I objected to. Why don't you name the editors here who supported Wikidemon's re-inserting uncited names in the list? That certainly wouldn't include Off2riorob or Rich Farmbrough. In fact, as far as I can tell, only 3 editors support Wikidemon in insisting that uncited entries are allowed on lists, contradicting the plain words ofWP:V andWP:BLP - you, Equazcion, and Baseball Bugs, who actually made the arguments "Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district" and "A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted." If it wasn't right here on the page, people would think I was making it up.Jayjg(talk)05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Jay -- as when you bring a matter to arbitration, when you bring a matter here your behavior as well as the behavior of the subject of the "action" is subject to being reviewed. Indeed, it's often, as here, difficult to separate the two. As to where you did respond, I would urge you to consider whether Off2riorob's suggestion, for example -- which wasnot what you did -- would have been less disruptive editing on your part, and more in keeping of the goal of the project. And if Rich's suggestion -- that 10 seconds of research -- which was not what you did, apparently -- could have avoided needless deletions of RS-supportable material, which is in the interests of the project. You may have missed it, but both of those editors, which you left off your list of "three", were suggesting things that you might have done that you failed to do.
Furthermore, you still have not responded to most of my questions above. I've made a number of arguments.WP:ADMIN requires a response. Yet all you've done is tally others who -- like you -- did not respond to them.--Epeefleche (talk)06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche, your arguments were responded to and rejected, either here or in the BLP/N thread. I'm under no obligation to respond to each one personally and individually, nor is anyone else. There has been a collective response, and a collective rejection of the notion that one can insert uncited items on lists. This is the primary, fundamental issue at hand here, and must be dealt with first. All else is secondary. When I see you telling Wikidemon he was wrong for doing that, then I'll re-examine your other suggestions.Jayjg(talk)06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not worth the pixels to refute that mischaracterization of consensus or misrepresentation of the single edit I made that lead you to retaliate with this report. If you're addressing Epeefleche could you please do that without making yet more accusations against me? I've explained again and again exactly what I edited and why, and your choosing to ignore my explanation in favor of a continued insistence that I'm promoting unsourced content is truly vexatious at this point. You made your report. There will be no administrative action. The article is now sourced so the point is moot. Now please give it up. -Wikidemon (talk)06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing
This reversion[170] wasn't exactly constructive or in good faith given the above discussion. Spot checking Jayjg's edit history I see a pattern of contentious sloppy deletions of notable Jews from lists of Jewish people, and think we may need a broader review. I'll be checking some others from the past few days and selectively restating some that are easy to verifyh. I'll be providing citations so nobody can accuse me of policy violations - not honestly anyway - but I do think we need to visit in a mature, collegial, productive way the question of how we deal with list articles reflecting the intersection of ethnicity and occupation. -Wikidemon (talk)04:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon, you inserted a claim using a dubious source, as I explained on the article Talk: page. Your re-reversion, however, was neither constructive nor in good faith, nor was your following me to the RS/N noticeboard to expand your conflict with me. None of my deletions have been "contentious" or "sloppy"; I've never deleted a properly cited name from a list of Jewish people. The way "we deal with list articles reflecting the intersection of ethnicity and occupation" is by adhering toWP:BLP andWP:V, as in any other article; a novel concept, perhaps, but one you should strongly consider for the future. And if you continue on this path of following me all over Wikipedia to revert me and/or insult me on various message boards, we may indeed need a "broader review" here, but it will rather be of a pattern ofpersonal attacks andharassment.Jayjg(talk)05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The source says he had abar mitzvah. You're arguing a different point that has nothing to do with this thread, perhaps that non-Jews are having bar mitzvahs these days. I would ask you to stay on topic, but the topic isn't too good either. Do you have a good faith belief as an editor that Mays is not Jewish? If so you're wrong but please bring that up on the appropriate talk page. If not, give it up, seriously. -Wikidemon (talk)07:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Good luck with that. BTW, who publishes that "Jew or not Jew" website? Well, no doubt it has that sterling reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires for BLPs. Can you describe its editorial process to us?Jayjg(talk)12:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Bassball Bugs, if you are being serious about this, then it is even worse than I thought, and I would suggest that you withdraw from every discussion of including people in lists based on reliable sources, or from any discussion related to reliable sources in general. I have the feeling that Jayjg's answer was rather sarcastic, as it should have been. That source is terrible.Fram (talk)12:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course my response was sarcastic, as Baseball Bugs knows (or should have). Perhaps I shouldn't have resorted to sarcasm, but really, after all the insults, denial of plain policy statements, insistence that we should judge who is a Jew based on their names (or their father's name and occupation), his bringing this site was just a bit too much.Jayjg(talk)12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on first sight it looks as if they are using precisely the same criteria that weshould be using. That doesn't mean we can use it, but we can compare what we are saying with what they are saying for consistency. Any discrepancy is a reason to look closer. But I find it hard to believe that so many here are sufficiently obsessed with who is a Jew and who isn't to create these silly lists.HansAdler12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I knew Jay was being sarcastic, while Jay couldn't tell that my comment wasalso sarcastic. But since he clearly knows nothing about the subject, doesn't know a Jew from a Gentile, and has spawned arguments on at least 3 different pages due to his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to this in the first place, nothing should come as a surprise. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's odd you would claim that I "clearly know[] nothing about the subject". I've essentially single-handedly written 5 of the 12 Featured Articles in Wikiproject Judaism, and another 6 Good Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. How many Featured and/or Good articles have you written in Wikiproject Judaism?Jayjg(talk)13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I can sympathize with the frustration of being called out on weak edits. But please don't lower yourself to edit warring to preserve the mistakes or tit-for-tat accusations of bad faith. As I noted elsewhere the parroting of my comments is not helpful and suggests you're getting too hot about this. A preliminary review suggests that a number of your other content deletions in this area are indeed sloppy and haphazard - as disputed mass deletions often are. It's indeed proper when encountering a pattern of bad edits to check out how far it extends. Bad mass deletions merit careful selective mass reversions, but as I think I said I am looking these over one by one, and only restoring things that can be verified, and adding citations for anything unsourced. I doubt that's going to be Wikipedia's final answer for list articles but I'm being extra careful given the scrutiny and lack of resolution here on the policy / style question. -Wikidemon (talk)05:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like being called out on weak edits, then please stop making them. Also, if you can't stop posting to threads in which you've been refuted and admonished by over a dozen editors, then maybe it's time to back away and cool down. Seriously, for your own good. And pretending to "undo" my edits as you dohere, when in fact you are actually adding material that was never there before - specifically, adding citations that were never in the article before - is both misleading and needlessly provocative. And finally,harassment is a really bad way of dealing with your feelings, so I strongly counsel you against it.Jayjg(talk)05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't too swift, and it's not worth a response. However, I will note that you've misrepresented my newest edits. You can do what you want, but stepping back would be a very good idea. -Wikidemon (talk)06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, please stop it with the bogus accusations. I'm fixing some bad edits you made on the disputed and largely discredited minority position that otherwise verifiable content should be deleted merely for being uncited. The community has been to AN/I, RfC, and ArbCom several times recently on this, so please don't try to pretend this ridiculous complaint can establish consensus for what you're doing. I've added cites in the BLP cases so that my editing is beyond reproach - yet you still reproach me for fixing your mess. Best to pause the edit warring and retaliatory behavioral complaints, while we can clean this up as a content matter. You're best bet is to find something else to do for the moment. There's no shame in that. Surely there are some other things to edit. -Wikidemon (talk)06:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
How do you not understand that one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies "requires anything challenged or likely to be challenged... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question"? Your allegation that the things you refuse to cite are "verifiable" comes across as disingenuous when you keep repeating it in spite of the multiple editors who have explained to you that Wikipedia's policies on verifiability explicitly state that you must cite sources for them. ← Georgetalk06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not support mass deletion of verifiable content merely for being uncited, nor is WP:BURDEN a secret tactical weapon for those who want to do that. Instead of accusing me of being disingenuous on this, I ask that you give me the credit of acknowledging that I am sincere when I say the community has considered this matter before and rejected mass deletion campaigns. If you won't give me that credit I don't really have much to say other than that I heard you and I disagree. Anyway, as I mentioned at the start of the above subheading, there have been some bad content edits that need to be fixed. The removal of Jews from lists of Jewish people seems to have a false positive rate of at least 80%. I'm fixing that 80%, with citationss. I might make a few mistakes here and there but the ongoing sour grapes accusations and edit warring to undo my fixes are just annoying at this point. Nobody is going to protect an article or block me over this, so I truly hope people can pipe down and get on with things. -Wikidemon (talk)07:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please identify whereWP:V says that the amount of challenged, unsourced material that can be removed is limited? A quote would be great. I would also accept a link to a discussion in which "the community... rejected mass deletion campaigns" of challenged, unsourced material. ← Georgetalk07:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I will not spend time belaboring that obvious point. Edits made individually for specific content concerns are clearly different than mass edits made to enforce formal compliance with rules. If you want to explore Wikipedia history on mass deletions, one good starting point is the search bar. There is also an archive index and several hundred pages of discussion for this notice board, and some indexing system over at Arbcom. Deletionists come and go around here, and they cause a lot of trouble, but they tend not to last long as deletionists. -Wikidemon (talk)07:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place, to say this. I hold that unsourced information should only be removed if it is likely to be challenged (seriously, not for the sake of it). Otherwise we should keep it. This should apply to particular information, as well as whole articles.Debresser (talk)07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
At last, a voice of reason. The deletionists have gone nuts here. They're invoking the "challenged or likely to be challenged" in a circular argument. They're not challenging the facts,they're challenging the lack of a citation. Hence they end up deleting Jewish activist Ron Silver from the list. Using their heads for a hatrack, as my mother would say. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→07:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's great that your psychic abilities allow you to vet out who is an isn't Jewish at the mention of their name, but we mere mortals sometimes have to rely on reliable sources for such things. I'm glad I'm not on any Wikipedia lists, because you would no doubt be jumping to (wrong) conclusions about my religion based on my name as well. ← Georgetalk07:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not nuts enough in my view. I dream of the day that an unstoppable smart bot (without a talk page for people to complain on) does this automatically, removing instances of non-compliance, issuing templated warnings to users the first time they add someone to a list without adding a ref (that the bot can read and understand) within a fixed time period, blocking them if they do it again in a completely merciless, 'boot stamping on a human face— forever' way and possibly arranging for their deportation toCamp 22 in North Korea if they come back as a sockpuppet. Just my view though.Sean.hoyland -talk07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Technically it would be the unstoppable 'Ron Silver Memorial' bot screwing things if you want to see it that way but I prefer to think of it as tough love.Sean.hoyland -talk08:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I support that approach, putting pedantic, narrow-minded rules ahead of the interests of readers who are satified with being supplied with any old tat by editors who can't be arsed to follow policies there to ensure that readers are supplied with accurate and verifiable information. Sounds good to me. Having said that, until recently I wasn't aware of the potentially devastating consequences of implementing wiki policies like NPOVbut this editor put me right on that.Sean.hoyland -talk10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, insisting that items in a list do not require citationswithin the list is a direct violation of the plain language ofWP:V and/orWP:BLP (if the person is alive). Also, continually calling those who explain policy to you and enforce it as "stupid", "lazy", "pedantic", "deletionists", etc. violates another policy,WP:CIVIL, and does nothing whatsoever to bolster your case.Jayjg(talk)12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I note that SlimVirgin wroteThis has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged. That policy appears to be a big invitation for conflict. If Woody Allen didn’t have a citation in that list, one editor’s “likely to be challenged” (a young person, or an older person who crawled out from under a rock) would differ from another’s.
It also seems to me that the common-sense interpretation of what SlimVirgin quoted is at-least partially being overlooked in its practical application on those lists. If one simply clicks on a link toWoody Allen, the lead states he is an actor. An in-page search turns up eleven incidences of “Jewish”. So it seems clear to me that Woody Allen’s inclusion in the list A) would not be deserving of being encumbranced with a presumption that it is “likely to be challenged”, and B) would eventually be deleted by some editor for any variety of reasons. Why?
…BecauseList of Jewish actors 1) provides a column for citations and then doesn’t specify anywhere on the page that 2)Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged nor does it state thatItemsmust be cited here on this page; not the target page. This is a prescription for conflict and needless wikidrama. Editors can get into edit wars with another editor and simply revert what another did. Many editors are too lazy to click the link toWoody Allen andread what’s there; they might be too offended that another editor added some links that were uncited on the list page. Or editors may simply not be aware of what SlimVirgin is exceedingly familiar with (“This has been discussed and decided a thousand times”).
I personally couldn’t care if something has been discussed a thousand times ifclear and unambiguous guidance governing what to do isn’t provided in a venue for mere-mortal editors of common capability. It does no good to have someone say “This was discussed on Villiage Pump on Archive 5189 ad nauseam”. Gee, I’m sorry; wasn’t there.
Now, Ido note that the page has stated “You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions.” And then there is that column that stands out like a sore thumb with citations in it. Given those circumstances, I wouldn’t personally have dreamed of adding a bunch of actors to such a page and not added the citations; I would have felt lazy, at the least, and in violation of the implied requirement of the tag across the top of the page. So, for would-be contributors to the list, I would have suggested that they follow the common-sense implications of having a tag at the top of the page that talks about “reliably sourced additions” and that column where so many other editors took the time to add citations. To do otherwise, IMHO, smacks of an editor who fancies him/herself as the *creative* type who leaves the busy-body clean-up for others (IMHO).
My suggestion is simple: Revise the adviso tag at the top of the page to stateUnless it is explicit and clear in a linked Wikipedia target article that the individual is A) Jewish, and B) an actor, entries must be citedhere on this page. Someone could have done that in 30 seconds instead of the four man-hours that have been wasted here with back & forth finger pointing and wikidrama.Greg L (talk)20:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. After noodling about it for a bit to see if I could convinced myself it was a good idea, I gotWP:BOLD and addressed the issue(∆ here). It seemsWP:COMMONSENSE to me, but revert me if it isn’t helpful; I didn’t make a marriage proposal to the edit or anything.Greg L (talk)21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a reasonable first pass. I have a few comments. The page needs some work. Can we discuss the content over there on that talk page? -Wikidemon (talk)22:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Me? (not my cup of tea.) I assume yours is an open invitation to others who routinely edit there. As to your first sentence: Good; I’m glad I could help.Greg L (talk)23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Greg, I've removed your personal opinion from the article, which actually contradicted policy, and instead justdirectly quoted policy there. Rather than inventing radically new, contradictory policies, we should instead be reinforcing the existing ones. I can't see there being any objection to this, since I've just directly quoted policy, rather than interpreting it in any way.Jayjg(talk)03:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The content discussion is ongoing on the list article page. I would suggest that anyone who would care to help improve this or any of the related list pages join the work and/or discussion over there - there's plenty to be done. Thanks, -Wikidemon (talk)03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs
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.
Can someone uninvolved step in and guide Baseball Bugs away from this topic? His comments are defnitely not helping, and are only intended as attacks on Jayjg. Only from today, we have[172][173],[174],[175],[176],[177],[178],[179],[180],[181]
In this edit, he introduces a new source, with another arrack on Jayjg of course[182]. The fact that that source is completely unreliable only reinforces the idea that it would be a lot better if he didn't continue in this and related discussions anymore, as he isn't contributing anything constructive, and his endless attacks are getting very disruptive.Fram (talk)13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one that started arguments on at least 3 separate pages. If he had bothered to deal with that list in a more intelligent way in the first place, he could have avoided all this brouhaha. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You are closinga section on your own actions as resolved? Are you begging to get blocked, or is there another reason for such blatant behaviour?Fram (talk)14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment—I have removed the "resolved" tag, because the editor against whom a claim was made has no right to put such a tag. —Ynhockey(Talk)15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
ANI page ban proposal for Baseball Bugs
Some editing statistics for this user, over the last 10,000 edits (per WikiChecker):
39.5% various reference desks
17.8% user talk
12.0% other project space
11.4% article space
9.6% ANI
8.8% article talk
The problem is not these statistics. They would be perfectly fine in the case of an editor who is making insightful comments on ANI in order to facilitate discussions. But these statisticsare a problem in the case of an editor who is very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions. Therefore I am proposing the following:
For the remainder of the year 2010, Baseball Bugs is banned from all ANI and AN discussions to which he has not been invited by another editor.
My 2¢? If he’s not disruptive, let him post. We don’t need 8 man-hours of wikidrama to discuss Bugs. I find it hard to believe that his posts on ANIs serve no purpose. If his posts have a common theme of sounding utterly ridiculous and he is often at odds with the thrust of your arguments, then take comfort in the amazing good fortune of your having an opponent who shoots himself in the foot without your having to lift a finger.Greg L (talk)15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Bugs is pretty much the reasonI post here. He serves to advertise that ANI isn't a private members club, and that ordinary editors (such asmoi) can contribute. I'd like to think ANI benefits from my presence here; I certainly think ANI benefits from Bugs' presence here.(Disclaimer: I've previously supported Bugs' (unsuccessful) RFA - my views on what constitutes a good editor or a good admin may not be mainstream...)TFOWRThis flag once was red16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair observation; though you failed to append a big fat “IMHO” at the end. The only solution that I am aware of would be Wikipedia-styleeugenics: strip someone of their ability (I’m not sure it’s a “right”) to speak here at this German beer garden because they seem incapable of making an “intelligent comment.”Greg L (talk)16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please close this - it's a collateral attack arising from another active dispute here and on other pages. Let it rest, guys. Please put the stick down and start editing articles. Thx, -Wikidemon (talk)16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon, whatever your views, it is inno way an attack. It is a good-faith attempt to improve the situation. If you feel it is misguided, so be it, but please don't intentionally inflame the situation further. (I make no comment on the issue itself.)16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon. A collateral attack is exactly what this looks like to me.
Agree with Wikidemon. An attack need not get into personalities, as we used to say, it can be by an unwarranted request for a restriction, which is surely an attempt to damage Bugs' reputation.--Wehwalt (talk)16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As a term of art, a "collateral attack" is a type of argumentativeflanking maneuver: in addition to your substantive argument against a debating opponent's position, question their right to present it. You see that sometimes on this page - as here, where this thread continues a content dispute that has now sprawled across several pages. In law it's a jurisdictional challenge. -Wikidemon (talk)17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've yet to see Bugs make adisruptive comment at ANI. It's up to users where they spend their time. I don't really care about the stats. ANI can constitute 100% of your edits for all I care, so long as you're not a disruptive presence. Bugs is often helpful, sometimes humorous, and rarely totally useless in his participation here, IMO. And also IMO, Hans is only proposing this because he generally disagrees with Bugs -- which is no reason to do anything.
Bugs is rather pointed with criticisms (as am I), but there is a gulf of difference between sharp and disruptive. To be banned from AN/I isChildofMidnight territory, and this in no way reaches that. This was an extremely petty proposal.Tarc (talk)16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
“Petty proposal” seems unjustly harsh. Hans wrote “who is very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions.” Hans seems to have been expressing a heartfelt and sincere observation and was advancing a proposed solution and wanted to run it up the flagpole for others. I suspect you are spot-on correct that Bugs’ situation doesn’t rise to the level of “ChildofMidnight territory”. You had a great post there, in my opinion, until you added those last six words. “Misguided proposal” might have been a better choice.Greg L (talk)16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call for an ANI ban, but I would advise BB to step away from the Jew list topic, as he's starting to sound like a broken record. I mean, how many times does he need to say Ron Silver is a Jew and everyone who doesn't instantly realize that is ignorant? An unhelpful point that's been repeated at least 8 times in the thread above alone.--Atlan (talk)16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a word with Bugs about that. I think we've all heard that drum bang by now, but I don't think he's going to stop unless you ask nicely. -Wikidemon (talk)17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Every serious (i.e. non-vandalism) edit to WP is as useful as any other and just because Bugs chooses to make a lot of his contributions here and employs a degree of humour while making really very valid points is no reason to ban him from here. There's countless other users that are technically on the right side of the rules but could do with being kicked off of WP altogether before we get to Bugs. If the community once again practices a bit of self-harm and decides to impose restrictions on Bugs I'll side with Duncan and make it my purpose in life to invite Bugs to every discussion raised.raseaCtalk to me16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Unless there has been repeated and widespread concern expressed about BB's participation on this pageand he has shown a lack of acknowledgement of those concernsand he has continued participation in a manner "very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions"; this particular proposal seems out of place and other remedies should be attempted first.Active Banana (talk)16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I read AN/I fairly frequently but don't post here. IMO Bugs is funny. Also, IMO, this proposal has a chilling effect on editors. The message is that it's fine to read, but not fine to post, unless you're an admin.Truthkeeper88 (talk)17:08, 12 May 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:Bali ultimate
Thread outlived its usefulness a while ago. Please uncollapse *only* if you truly believe something productive will happen by continuing this. --Floquenbeam (talk)02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Bali ultimate (talk·contribs) This user has in the past affronted me with his contemptuous tone. On this very WP:ANI even, if memory serves me. If I remember correctly he had some problem with the fact that I am arabbi. Butthis post is unacceptable. Please also note that it comes afterthis post, which clearly shows that he is either irrational, or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy of reliable sources because of some personal prejudice (I guess). I kindly ask you block this user, perhaps even indefinitely.Debresser (talk)21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. TheMenachem Mendel Schneerson page is about a deceased Chabad rabbi, many of whose disciples believed he was theMessiah (some still do, or think he didn't really die or something). Chabad is a controversial movement, Schneerson was a controversial person, the article is an unbalanced mess. Why? A number of Schneerson disciples guard the article. (No where is it mentioned, for instance, that many scholars and other Jewish groups believe that a cult of personality revolved around Schneerson). Chabad is also of course an organization that seeks to aggressively expand (like a lot of religious organizations, nothing wrong with that per se) and is having an outsized influence on the wikipedia article about Schneerson to suppress criticism. More people with both an interest in accurate research and history and no connections to chabad would be useful. I must admit, absent the Chabad pov-editors the article would probably end up badly skewed the other way (lots of people hate/hated Schneerson). Perhaps this is just a classic case of systemic wikipedia fail.Bali ultimate (talk)21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in your reply, or in any Wikipedia policy, do I see justification for saying "what are you fucking on about"!Debresser (talk)21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It's uncivil but I don't think it warrants a block, much less indefinite. SeeWP:WQA perhaps, orWP:RFC/U (if it is a recurring pattern as per your comment). –xenotalk21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything deserving of a ban. Little bit incivil, maybe, but he appears to be right on the merits. We really do need more than hearsay to remove a reliably-sourced addition from an article. If anything, it would seem to be the opposing side that is unwilling to abide by WP:RS.Shimeru (talk)21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That is precisely what that discussion is about, and is best discussed there. This post is aboutWP:CIVIL andWP:NPA. When did we start to allow such language on Wikipedia?Debresser (talk)21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't typically block people for an expletive or two, much less indef-block them. If you feel there's some established pattern of harassment of you, then you could tryWP:RFC/U (not WP:RFCU, that's something else). I would suggest, however, that you might be making a mountain out of a molehill, here.Shimeru (talk)22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been the target of Bali Ultimate's ire before, but per Shimeru, he does appear to be right on the merits. Wikipedia's action over incivility is irregular at best, and I doubt you'll see any action taken against an editor who is correct on the merits of his argument but incivil in doing so. I suggest the reporting party grow a thicker skin and take comfort in the fact that when another editor resorts to profanity it reflects badly on himself.Jclemens (talk)22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in your reply, or in any Wikipedia policy, do I see justification for saying "what are you fucking on about"! Or "I don't fucking care". Nor is that last statement evidence of a good Wikipedia attitude. And no reason to make an effort to sound sophisticated here now. If you are capable of writing such sentences, and of the other insults you inflicted upon me in the past, you can not be a part of the Wikipedia commmunity. Such is my conviction.Debresser (talk)21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Debresser was a party to the above case, which I admittedly did not follow. Bali ultimate may have used a few naughty words, but I believe he's right on the facts here; I *know* he knows his stuff. Sincerely,Jack Merridew23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Tell me this JCelemens. I was right about theOnline Quran Project. If I said "what the FUCK are you saying JC, the article needs sources or it WILL be deleted", I would have been blocked in 0.5 seconds indefinitely. The fact is that Wikipedia gives "established" editors extra room for breaking the rules because hey, you cant piss off the big editors, right, otherwise who's going to do the editing? Anyone remember Giano II as well? Yea. Sorry Dresser, its unfortunate that things are like this and its just not right. What some people dont understand is that if you let abusive editors stay, they spoil the whole experience for everyone else. And now Bali ultimate will become even more abusive as he learns that he's give free reign because he has a lot of edits. (hey if he cant be blocked or warned for using abusive language, the rules should fucking apply equally for us). Why dont we CHANGE theWP:NPA to say "Four letter words can be used if you are you right". Tolerating language like "what are you fucking on about" is 100% wrong. Debresser, you can use it too from now on really. The best thing to do? LeaveJimbo a message. Jimbo will not say its ok, trust me and he'll tell everyone else here that its wrong, sorry. --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anyone saying it's right... just that it's not grounds for a block. And incidentally, speaking as the admin who closed that debate you linked... no, I wouldn't have blocked you for that, much less indefinitely.Shimeru (talk)02:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If no one can be blocked for incivility like that, then how will it stop? If no one goes to jail for robbing a bank, the robbers are going to keep coming. --Matt57(talk•contribs)02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time we put an end to this type of abuse. As i see it , this term is used rightly in 3 types of situations only: in the literal sense as the appropriate English noun or verb, as an rare expressions of extreme anger or frustration indicating the last stage of verbal as distinct from physical violence, or--when used routinely-- to indicate one's membership in a group who is living or like to pretend they're living in a perpetual state of imminent physical violence. The only other use of it is the wrong one, of desire to offend other people who do not use the word routinely. The tolerance of it here dates from the RPG days when even ordinarily good people as a convention adopted the manner of violence-dedicate game characters of the loutish variety. Anyone who thinks the current WP is or ought to be such an environment does not belong here. If not this, it's the desire to be obnoxious. Bali is often right, as he in the issue here, but that makes it worse, because he could establish his position without any extreme language--especially because he had calm solid support on that talk page. I think we need to actually establish and enforce a rule that such language if repeated after a warning will get you blocked. If any of the old-time players here feel uncomfortable with that, they should remember that they are making everyone else here uncomfortable. I'll make a deal with Bali , though, in consideration of our long-term relationship here-- , he may use fuck or any other abusive words he pleases to me, on my talk page where it will disturb nobody else and where I've learned not to mind it, but not to anybody else. It does not hurt me, and it may amuse him. DGG ( talk)03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
DGG, I find your position reassuringly normal. Like in civilised world. I for a second thought I was in the jungle. I also thank Matt57 and Joe Chill who wrote me some moral support by email and on my talk page. I still hope something normal and civilised will come out of all this. I am really shocked by the matter-of-fact acceptance of what I soundly believe isnot accepted in the real world. I think and hope that if a coleague on work would speak to me like this repeatedly, he would get reprimanded at least. Luckily, I have not met such verbal violence in real life, and that in itself might teach you something.Debresser (talk)04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, is nobody affronted by the contempt inherent inthis edit above, which basically says that he doesn't care what editors on WP:ANI will say in this thread. Orthis edit on the discussion page, which boils down to a complete rejection of Wikipedia reliable sources policy.Debresser (talk)05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse Bali's words. But if you feel your injury is grievous enough to pursue further action, a few potential paths have been sketched out for you in previous responses. My advice would be to step away for a while and cool down, but it's your call.Shimeru (talk)08:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You may not worry about me being "cool". After last evenings cold shower, I am as cool as can be. I refer off course to the unexpected reaction of admins condoning offensive language and personal attacks. I will indeed consider the options laid out above, but at the same time think I should persue the present one as much a s possible. And I was happy to see that at least some editors and admins agree with me generally.Debresser (talk)08:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with reminding editors that there exists a WP:ANI in order to help them stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? No reason to call that a threat. Also, stating my opinion is not the same as declaring that reliably sourced information cannot be added to an article without my permission. You should be more careful when assessing edits.Debresser (talk)08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "As long as these issues have not been addressed to [my] satisfaction, the information can not be restored." That seems like a declaration to me. But then, that's one of the limitations of plain text -- lacking body language and tone, it's sometimes difficult to divine what someone's intent was based on what they wrote. We can but use our judgement.
Incidentally, there is a difference between refusing to block a user for writing something and condoning it. You should be more careful when assessing edits. ^_-Shimeru (talk)09:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Many editors use strong language to indicate that as far as they are concerned a line has been crossed and they are really, really furious. They shouldn't use strong language to express that, but let's think aboutwhy they shouldn't use it for a moment. — It's because saying "Your post is unreasonable and made me irate" would express the same thing as "What are you fucking on about?" and is more constructive because it's marginally less likely to invoke a symmetric response.
Now if that's the main reason why we can't use expletives, then surely similarly unconstructive posts that could easily be phrased constructively are just as bad. Such as "you[r] post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia", which is straight from Debresser's post which triggered Bali ultimate's explosion. That's just as bad. In fact it's slightly worse because (1) Debresser is obviously wrong in the underlying content conflict and using fallacious arguments, and (2) it appears that Debresser may have been tweaking Bali ultimate in cold blood, while clearly Bali ultimate was genuinely (and justifiably) irate.HansAdler09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to assume bad faith to see that "you[r] post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia" is not a constructive comment. Sometimes I say such things myself, but I shouldn't, I am not proud of doing it, and it's not constructive. And it is not better than using expletives.HansAdler10:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We disagree here. I think an editor who feels he may insult other editors, isnot an asset to Wikipedia. If they show they piss on Wikipedia, including WP:ANI and WP:RS, then they should be blocked.Debresser (talk)11:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think an editor who declares publicly on ANI that it's OK for them to tell others that they should "stop editing on Wikipedia" isnot an asset to Wikipedia. If they show they, um, actively ignore Wikipedia's processes, including WP:ANI and WP:RS, then they should be blocked.HansAdler12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Debresser is the instigator here, and while decorum is always a nice goal to shoot for, a burst of frustration on Bali's part when faced with such circular arguments is not entirely unexpected. Before this becomes aboomerang moment, let's move on.Tarc (talk)13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hans Adler, being told to "stop editing" is not an excuse to use four letter words and is also not grossly uncivil as using 4 letter words. I'd say that people who justify abuse are not an asset to Wikipedia and should be blocked, what do you say?
Tarc, you've instigated me (dont ask why, you just did). Can I now abuse you using 4 letter words? When will people start learning that abuse is wrong no matter what? If you are told "stop editing", you can either be rational and say (1) "I have as much a right to edit as you do and needless to say, will ignore further demands to stop editing", or (2) get mad and use 4 letter words. #2 is an abusive response to something that isnt really abusive and is not even a personal attack. Debresser, its sad that commonsense isnt common at all as we can see. --Matt57(talk•contribs)14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Use whatever words you feel you need to get your point across, bro. Now if a line is crossed where you start f-bombing descriptions of another user (e.g. "so-and-so is a fucking moron"), then there may be problems. But this wasn't that.Tarc (talk)15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to block Bali ultimate for 24 hours
If abusive behavior is left unpunished it will continue and this is not consistent withWP:NPA. I recommend a 24 hour block forBali ultimate (talk·contribs) for using abusive language ("what are you fucking on about") andrefusing to accept responsibility for his abuse. This is not escalating this issue but doing justice where it needs to be done. Getting mad and using 4 letter words in reply to someone else isnot acceptable on Wikipedia. If Bali is not blocked I may use 4 letter words myself at times and will cite this incident to justify what I did. Please help stop abusive editors on Wikipedia:
Oppose. Blocks should not be punitive. If the community has issues with the use of the f word by BaliUltimate, a warning is appropriate. --RegentsPark (talk)15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fuck that bad idea. What is more incivil? Agressively turning a wikipedia article into a worthless propiganda piece or saying fuck?Hipocrite (talk)15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as fucking ridiculous. :) We're many hours after the fact now, and this was not even a remotely egregious f-bomb usage, all it really meant was "what's your problem?"Tarc (talk)15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Alright. I am now allowed to say things like these to admins: "what the fuck are you on about", "what fucking nonsense", "dont fucking bullshit", "why did you fucking revert me", "what kind of pussy faced edit was that?", "what kind of asshole would put in a reference like that?" and so on. I always wanted to but theWP:NPA stopped me. Now I know it cant and it wont. thank you. --Matt57(talk•contribs)15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"what the fuck are you on about" - fine (legitimate question, requesting clarification).
"what fucking nonsense" - borderline (stating you disagree, OK. Suggesting the other editor is speaking nonsense - not OK).
"dont fucking bullshit" - unacceptable (suggesting other editor is lying).
"why did you fucking revert me", - fine (legitimate question).
"what kind of pussy faced edit was that?" - borderline/unacceptable (commenting on content, not a contributor - but very likely to be misconstrued as an attack on an editor).
"what kind of asshole would put in a reference like that?" - unacceptable (describing a fellow editor as an "asshole").
In the real world there are no restrictions on using such words either. Yet, the lack of a "decent language police", does not lead to everyone using such words all the time. How do you explain that?Count Iblis (talk)15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
TFO, "why did you fucking revert me" is 'fine'? I'm done. Its called incivility. Look it up.
Count Iblis, "In the real world there are no restrictions on using such words either", wrong. You cant use 4 letter words in a meeting room for example and if you keep doing that you'll likely be fired. --Matt57(talk•contribs)15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The proper analogue would be a prison sentence, as that amounts to being blocked for participating in society. It is common knowledge that in board room meetings F-words are frequently exchanged when things are not going well, just askAlan Sugar.Count Iblis (talk)16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me - "why did you fucking revert me" is finein the context ofWP:NPA andWP:CIVIL. The word "fucking" is little more than a modifier, it's not directed at the recipientper se. That said, I thought the salient point of my comment was the "Don't swear; expect others to swear" line.Incidentally, pretty much the only time I swear in real lifeis in the meeting room, or other environments where the folk around me are swearing.TFOWRThis flag once was red16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Need more evidence of wrongdoing. There's nothing wrong with the word fuck, especially as an adverb, so long as it isn't used in one of its adjective forms to describe an editor. I think the best course of action here is for the bigger of the two editors to go edit other subjects and stop breathing down each others throats. -ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The correct course of action is give a 24 hour block (and longer the next, 3 months and so on) so next time he thinks twice before talking to another editor in anabusive tone. Sadly everyone here with a few exceptions is making a joke out of it. --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of such profanity and vulgarity really detracts from the professionalism of this encyclopedia. I would be happy to support a policy that would entirely ban vulgarity being used by editors.Basket of Puppies16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No longer. Since it's in project space I have taken the liberty of adding some neglected aspects. I have taken care to reference all potentially surprising statements contained in the improved version.[184]HansAdler17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it really necessary tooppose this nonsense? Use of expletives as modifiers etc. is, and should be, in the grey zone in which motivations and causes are examined andat least a warning is given before even thinking about a block.HansAdler16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Honestly. This is Wikipedia, not a primary school. Sometimes expletives are unnecessary, sometimes they're unexceptionable. Lots of grey in between.Black Kite (t)(c)17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No-Fucking-Way ⌣ — Better to boot some of the POV warriors from the fucked articles in question. A huge proportion of the civility-whinging on this project amount to attempts to change the subject. So, peanut gallery,click here to help sort theWP:OWNership problem on that bio.87, at the moment, and it needs to go higher. Sincerely,Jack-Fuckin'-Merridew19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fuck that shit Blocks for profanity? Shit no. I may swear like a damn sailor in real life (actually, I'm being generous with the "may" part of that), but on-wiki I try to keep it restricted to just my talk page or key project-level talk pages (well, and this post). That said, that's justmy personal policy. "what are you fucking on about?" is a perfectly valid question; I'm not surprised by anyone finding the tone a bit gruff, but to somehow suggest that it warrants a block? Uh, no. Hell, I'd consideryour comment of "If Bali is not blocked I may use 4 letter words myself at times" to be more disruptive that what you're pissed off at Bali ultimate over; "If I don't get my way I'm going to throw a tantrum" is exactly how I read that. People swear; get over it.EVula//talk //☯ //19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't admire people who swear because it's cool, and liberal swearing has never seen necessary to me, but that's just me. His conduct doesn't breach any policies as long as it's not directed at certain users in violation ofWP:NPA.SGGHping!19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
oppose. Blocks are not punitive and the word fucking is not a personal attack as it is not directed at anyone, but merely expresses an agitated state of mind in the speaker. Profanity by it self is not a cause for blocking, unless it forms a pattern of generally agressive behaviour towards other editors, in which case the words used are irrelevant, but refusal to change the behaviour pattern whether accompanied by profanity or merely boisteroius prose would be the blocking reason.·Maunus·ƛ·19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's prove Bali ultimate wrong by tolerating his use of the F-word
I have run into Bali ultimate a few times in discussions about the way Wikipedia covers sexuality, ranging from child porn, homosexuality, images of a sexual nature, sado masochism, etc. etc. I take an extreme liberal POV in these matters and Bali an extreme conservative POV. Just yesterday on the AN page when I asked clarification about what was going on with Jimbo Wales, Bali wrote about his view that Wikipedia is far too liberal. If it were up to him, Wikipedia would be patrolled by anIslamic religious police :) .
So, we should be careful not to move even a femtometer in that direction. Instead of blocking him for something some of us feel strongly about, let's prove Bali Ultimate wrong by tolerating his use of the F-word as long as he doesn't launch personal attacks.Count Iblis (talk)16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"far too liberal" is not correct and is actually his way of justifying what he did. Lets delete the wholeWP:NPA then if its liberal or "polocing". It is possible for someone to be polite and not be rude or aggressive. There are tonnes of examples of those kinds of editors. Its not like I'm asking to find water on the moon. Tolerating the F-word, hello, come on, you cant be serious. What the fuck is wrong with you? See my point? --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What is moreoffensive? Allegations of racial/religious bias and irrationality or sayingWhat the fuck are you on about in response to a circular, logic free argument that has been continuously spun for weeks? For instance, the complainer wrote:If I remember correctly he had some problem with the fact that I am arabbi. (Nope. I have no problem with that and no diff will be found to support that allegation). Why was this written? To imply some sort of bias without any evidence for it.This post... clearly shows that he is either irrational, or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy of reliable sources because of some personal prejudice (I guess). Wow, what a happy choice -- I'mclearly either crazy ("irrational")or acting out of "personal prejudice" when i insist that the word of an anonymous wikipedia editor (and a committed partisan) shouldn't trump a reliable source. I don't really care about the insinuations. Standard practice here. But someone with a grasp of what the actual word "civility" means (rather than the bastardized wikispeak version of the word) would appreciate that the larger civility issue is the loaded language, the insinuations, the game-playing (again -- a group of editors with a single-minded point of view still effectively control content of the article on a man they view as infallible and holy), and ultimately the reason we're here. Someone pushing skewed content wants to be rid of someone they don't agree with. And some of you are enabling him. That this thread remains open is equal parts funny and sad. Back to lurking.Bali ultimate (talk)17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
YOU are enabling abuse here get it. Now you know - dont do it again because if I see it I'll make sure its noticed and talked about. And why did you remove my comment from your talk page? Let people see it. --Matt57(talk•contribs)17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Removing a comment from your own talk page is fine, especially when it's a fuckingWP:POINT violation.[185] It's removing comments fromsomeone else's talk page[186] that is abusive.HansAdler18:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So you think talking like this "what are you fucking on about" is not abusive, but removing comments from a user talk page is. Great, what can I say. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, there's a difference between using the word "fuck" and a personal attack. "What the fuck is wrong with you?" is a personal attack (as is "You're not right in the head"). "That edit is fucking great" is not a personal attack.TFOWRThis flag once was red16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No sorry, abuse is abuse and I made my point clear. "What the fuck is wrong with you" isequivalent to "what the fuck are you on about", hello?? --Matt57(talk•contribs)17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Explain to me the difference between "what are you on about" and "what is wrong with you". Why would adding word "fuck" in this specific case make one phrase less offensive than the other? Answer that question. --Matt57(talk•contribs)17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Adding "fuck" would make no difference. "what is wrong with you?" contains no vulgarity, but is an attack (it implies there's something wrong with the target). "what are you on about?" contains no vulgarity, and is not an attack.TFOWRThis flag once was red17:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is getting silly. Wikipedia is a place where people should strive for a collegial atmosphere that fosters rational and intelligent discussions. Cursing rarely helps achieve this end so adding "fuck" in either sentence, or anywhere else, is inappropriate at best. For what it's worth, I don't think anybody should be blocked just for uttering a curse word in isolation, but as part of a pattern of disruptive discussions, blocking should absolutely be considered. It's distracting and unnecessary (this thread as case in point). —e. ripley\talk17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"Your incivility knows no bounds; you are a master at it. Keep up the good work. Cheers."17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's get some consistency for blocks is all I'm saying (though it doesn't help matters when admin 'friends help friends'). Cheers.16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The last sysop who was of that misguided view and reflected it in his editing has, quite properly, been de-sysopped and tossed out. Clearly uncivil. Sysops, especially, are bound to model appropriate behavior and follow wp:civil.--Epeefleche (talk)19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you're referring to Tanthalas? He wasn't emergency desysopped for using the word fuck, but for abuse of admin privileges (unblocking himself). You're totally misrepresenting what happened there.--Atlan (talk)19:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He was "de-sysopped and tossed out" because he unblocked himself and blocked another admin in a way that arbcom considered to be "wheelwarring". It had nothing to do with his use of swear words. Trying to indiscriminately equate swearing with incivility is ridiculous. Yes, sometimes people are rude and swear at the same time, that is against policy. Sometimes people swear but aren't rude, that is not against policy, nor should it be. Kind regards,SpitfireTally-ho!19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
He was quite properly blocked first for his use of profanity, which was clearly a wp:civil violation. He unblocked himself, as you say. Had the initial block been inappropriate, his unblock would have been fine. That wasn't the case. So he was indef blocked. I'm not indiscriminately doing anything. I'm telling you that use of the F-word is uncivil. I'm being quite discriminating in my statement. Any sysop who doesn't understand that, and doesn't get his obligations under wp:admin to follow wp:civil should not be surprised to receive similar treatment. --Epeefleche (talk)20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No, even if the initial block was clearly inappropriate, an admin should never unblock themselves. They should ask someone else to review the block, like anyone else.Prodegotalk20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree if there isany question at all as to whether it is inappropriate, that is the case. But, for example, if he had blocked himself by accident -- and then unblocked himself -- there's no way he would have been de-sysopped and kicked out of the community for that. Anyway, we can look at various arb statements, including those at a matter I brought to them where a sysop was using the F word, for statements indicating that that is simply not acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk)20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Prodego blocked Tan for needlessly harrassing Malleus Fatuorum on his talk page. So again, not for profanity as you would have us believe. Were profanity not involved, he would still have been blocked. Your point that incivility should be dealt with is taken, but this is just a bad example of it and rather unconvincing. I think what others are trying to say here is that profanity does not equal incivility and you shouldn't be blocked for uttering the odd "fuck" or "shit". I can do well without those words, but to each their own.--Atlan (talk)21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the profanity, however,this comment by Bali Ultimate was a personal attack on myself;
Herbert (if that is your name). I am inclined to believe that the posteris Olidort. I'm also inclined to believe that he's lying. I'm inclined to believe this whether he gets a letter to the editor published in the Mossiach is Coming newsletter (or however messiah is transliterated) or not. How will you handle your little computer science detour into the humanities, then? You've already gone on record as saying that all history you haven't personally witnessed is equally valid (good littlewikipedian that you are) so this should be fascinating.Bali ultimate (talk)02:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So Herbert is his real name? Apologies. I don't really care what his real name is. I was just signaling that i didn't know. As for the rest, read my response to him on my talk page if you're interested.Bali ultimate (talk)19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On that point, that the article needs to not beWP:OWNed by any group, I believe I am in agreement with you and Bali Ultimate. This is why I was asked to get involved in the article talk page some weeks ago and why I've been doing so.
The question is, whether we allow Bali Ultimate to be attacking those uninvolved admins who are reviewing and intervening in the situation there.
If EVula's opinion is the consensus here then that's fine; my opinion is more offended, but this is why we ask admins to ask for uninvolved admin review.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, George. I don't think we've met or interacted much. I don't know the backstory of how folks got involved in that article (well, besides those who are there per their faith). I know Bali ultimate to be a reasonable editor and believe you'll come to this conclusion with some more talk. What you're calling an attack is not, really, and seems to stem from only a cursory read of your user page (rather like the pretty brief glance I gave it; people don't read everything they could; there's a lot of text on this project).
This whole level-2 thread needs to be boxed and the focus put on the article and the POV editing that seems to be occurring there. I've started editing the bio and will read the talk page; see you there.
FWIW, I'm here because Bali ultimate is a serious editor and I have had unimpressive encounters with Debresser and Zsero before, on other articles. Sincerely,Jack Merridew20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No no, lets not block this guy. He's great, he's a role model. Its perfectly fine. Said JClemens to Debresser in this thread above: "I suggest the reporting party grow a thicker skin". How would you feel Georgewilliamherbert, if someone told that to you here? You wouldnt feel good. What is happening here is trolling because people like that are good at playing with the rules and dividing the masses and in the end a lot of damage is done before they are stopped because half of the people didnt see anything wrong with it and didnt agree with any kind of discipline. This is whats wrong here. Its plain nonsense and its being allowed to go on. And now you can see admin Evula and Jack here saying "nothing wrong here". I'm glad he did that because he did that to an admin now. Its really all gone the drain. I will be adding this insult in my report to Jimbo. Whats worrying is not this specific editor's actions, but the general public saying such behavior, attitude and tone towards another editor is ok. I'm sure Bali here wont get any kind of block at all which basically means, he can continue being rude, aggressive, belittling and abusive towards other editors. Looks like something similar toGiano II. --Matt57(talk•contribs)20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Any particular reason why every single user gets on my case when I accidentally use a cuss word, but not calling someone a cuss word? Is there special privileges for certain users? Can anyone tell me why admins kept on defending someone that called me a troll when I brought it toWP:ANI? The truth is, I wasn't breaking any rules and here comes a (more established might have to do with it) user calling me a troll and reverting my edits in AFD.Joe Chill (talk)20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not many have seen it. Whenever I say a cuss word, people go to my talk page and get pissy and tell me to remove it (this counts toward my account that I don't use anymore). What I said was just things like "What the fuck?".Joe Chill (talk)20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of people who have already looked into it. Its not an attack, stop being so sensitive and stop wasting everybodies time continuing this discussion--Jac16888Talk00:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit. It's still incivil. Doesn'tWP:CIVIL mean fucking anything to anyone? (It would be hypocritical to get on my case). How about we change the policy so that it reads that only certain users can be incivil and be backed up by admins?Joe Chill (talk)02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a pattern of ownership and biased editing continuing in the area of Schneerson and Chabad. Since we've got some outside attention on this issue at the moment, how about we sort just who should be editing such articles? I've only just started looking at this, but given that there was an inconclusiveArbCom case, the community might care to impose some topic bans to facilitate the future editing of these articles. Sincerely,Jack Merridew21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If ArbCom didn't find that necessary, I hardly see the merit to this proposal of yours. Especially since there is plenty of discussion about this subject on the article talk page. Unless you mean to propose editing the article without the involvement of those who know most about it and care the most.Debresser (talk)21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
My proposal is that owning and biased editors be removed from the fuss; I'll add that those with aWP:COI had better review that link and consider voluntarily recusing from that bloc of articles. You seem to have pretty clearly stated yours.Jack Merridew22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Admins and editors are fully empowered to investigate and enact community sanctions regardless of what Arbcom has decided to pass on involving itself in.
That said; while we could do this, and while I'm personally concerned about ensuring that policy gets applied fairly and consistently on the articles, we haven't gone to a RFC or more independent uninvolved admin opinions yet, and (this incident notwithstanding) behavior of people engaged in the talk page discussions has generally been within normal bounds.
I don't see it as necessary or appropriate at the current time, as an uninvolved admin who's been working on issues on the talk page (of the Schneerson article, at least). I am perfectly happy and willing to file for community sanctions in cases where I see abuse of the appropriate magnitude; this is not near that level. You and the others aren't being disruptive in the admin intervention needed sense, much less the topic ban needed sense.
I see signs ofWP:OWN and other issues, but everyone's talking about it in generally reasonable terms, and banning you and the others isn't IMHO necessary.
You seem to have a clear picture of what's going on in there and if this is premature, I'm fine with it getting sorted over more time. I do expect that it will come to this. The area certainly needs more participants. Sincerely,Jack Merridew22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Jack Merridew wrote:...how about we sort just who should be editing such articles?
Perhaps not a bad idea to apply to all controversial articles. By default, a topic ban is imposed for everyone. ArbCom appoints suitable editors who are allowed to edit the articles in question.Count Iblis (talk)23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That was not my idea. Sure, the AC has a role in some cases, and I note that they rather washed their hands of this mess, so it falls to the community to address. These articles will not significantly improve as long as the members of a messianic cult are the arbiters of content about the cult's history. The COI'd need to go; this is really a blanket solution, across all controversial articles. Sincerely,Jack Merridew00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is not a matter of messianic or not. And I also don't think the messianic ones can be properly described as a cult. There are people around who revere Schneerson (either as a dead person or otherwise). That makes editing this article a little tricky, to "keep all costumers satisfied", but I think the article talk page is doing a fine job, without violating eithertruth, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and said sensivities. I propose we continue doing just that.Debresser (talk)04:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The contrib page of the IP, 70.27.75.122 looks to be very similar of theactivity of the 172.0.0 vandal, the talk page insulting, and childish vandalism on politician pages. Any thoughts, or other IPs that may have the same activity as this one? Perhaps the 172.0.0 vandal has moved onto the 70.27.75.00 range?Connormah(talk |contribs)03:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It is possible, could be using a cell phone or friend's computer, maybe be on vacation. But since these are Bell Canada (with the 70.) and the 172.s are AOL, it would be tough to guess. -NeutralHomer •Talk •04:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Other than the one that NW blocked, no others that I can see have edited in a few days. I think it would probably be best to see if he starts hopping around again before implementing any range blocks.J.delanoygabsadds04:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's probably the best thing to do. Keep in mind that the targeted pages of this vandal are all protected until February of next year, so it may not be such a problem this time around.Connormah(talk |contribs)04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
BruceGrubb has been editting theChrist myth theory article (I.e. the view that Jesus simply never existed) for a long time. Sadly, his contributions at this point are little more than a never-ending parade ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page.
Bruce objects that the article is poorly defined, that the definition used in the article is synthetic and the product of original research and that it therefore violatesWP:NPOV. To support his claim he refers to a few books, notablyThe International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, editted by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
This book, which was published in 1982, states: "Over the last two hundred years or so, some skeptics have sought to explain the New Testament witness to Jesus and the rise of Christianity in terms of the Christ-myth theory." It then goes on to describe how advocates of the Christ myth theory argue that Jesus' miracles depicted in the gospels can be explained as early Christians just copying from other works available at the time, an argument anticipated by Lucian, a second century writer who accepted Jesus' historical existence but felt that the gospels exagerated his biography. The Bromiley text goes on to discuss more of the theory's history and then moves on to mention that other thinkers, such as Bertrand Russell thought Jesus' historical existence was an open question.
Bruce, however, has misunderstood this source and thinks that Lucian and Russell are both classed as examples of Chrst myth theory advocates proper though they accept that Jesus existed. On this basis, Bruce claims that the definition Bromiley uses differs from that found in the Wikipedia article (which is currently supported with three different sources all written by university professors and published through major universities). He's raised this objection over[188] and over[189] and over[190] and over[191] and over[192] and over[193] and over[194] again--formore than a year. He's been corrected every time (I can get diffs if needed), by a variety of editors, but he presses on regardless, refusing to drop theWP:STICK.
I've recently informed Bruce that if he didn't stop this nonsense I'd submit a report to the ANI seeking some sort of censure for disruptive editting asWP:DISRUPT mentions this sort of tedious, time-wasting, consensus obstructing talk-page behavior[195],[196]. Not only did he not stop[197], but he then said my statement that I was coming here[198] constituted a "personal attack"[199]. Please, do something about this so the Christ myth theory page--which is contentious enough without Bruce's shenanigans--can have a better shot at making progress.Eugene (talk)15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not involved in this article directly, but I participated in itsgood article reassessment which has just ended by removing that status anddelisting it. The majority of the GAR comments were that the article is not NPOV, that CMT is poorly defined, that it appears to be a POV fork ofHistoricity of Jesus, and that a couple of editors appear to be behaving in violation ofWP:OWN on that article. It seems to me that these issues need to be addressed before anyone is reprimanded for insisting that the article become more NPOV and policy compliant, which appears to be a majority view, as is clearly seen on itsGAR page.Crum375 (talk)15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we have some evidence that you (Eugene) has listened to those who feel that the article needs POV attention? Looking at the GAR review and the talkpage it doesn't seem as if the consensus is in fact behind your interpretation of what is neutral POV and that Bruce's concerns have not been duly adressed. That might be why he feels he needs to repeat himself.·Maunus·ƛ·16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been willing to make a number of concessions to those who've cried "POV!": the most obvious example is that in mediation I agreed to a compromise in which certain material was removed from the lead and a few marginal quality sources were removed[200].
But the issue here isn't the article's POV/NPOV status; it's that Bruce is factually misrepresenting a source over and over and over again on the talk page despite numerous attempts to correct him and that this sort of thing is prohibited byWP:DISRUPT. As for Crum's concerns, it's precisely Bruce's sort of disruptive talk page obstructionism and obscurantism that impeeds more meanignful conversations which could potentially resolve the questions concerning neutrality and so on. Please help us.Eugene (talk)16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not just Bromiley (who as I pointed out before requires someWP:OR to shoehorn his definition in the the Jesus wasn't a historical person position the article has taken) but also Dodd, Richard Dawkins ("The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (The God Delusion pg 97)); Price, Doherty AND Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) all regard Wells' post Jesus Myth position as Christ-Jesus Myth one which agrees with the first part Welsh's definition ("The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory"); and I could go on with the many sources some of which are just notable (likeJohn Remsburg that show the definition the Christ Myth Theory the article mainly uses is the product ofWP:SYN as well asWP:OR and by excluding those definitions that don't support the one the article present there are always going to be majorWP:NPOV issues (which it has been tagged with yet again).
I once agreed with Akhilleus that there was a definitive non-historical hypothesis that wecould form an article on but after reading much of the material I honestly can't see any real support for that position. Dodd is so vague as not to exclude a historical Jesus, Bromiley'sstory of as well as his use of Lucian and Bertrand Russell without one single mention of Drews or any other 'great' of the "formal" non historical position seems to leans more toward a 'gospel are accurate history' position definition than the man never existed at all. Price, Doherty AND Boyd all calling Wells with his mythical Paul+historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus a Christ-Jesus Myth position only adds to the mess.--BruceGrubb (talk)17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This probably isn't the place to do this, but perhaps correcting you here (yet again) will show the adminstrators what exactly the problem is. Bruce lists a number of works that he thinks undermine the very clear definition of the "Christ myth theory" that the article currently sources with university publications; here are a few of Bruce's ostensible counter-examples: (1) Bromiley'sThe International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (2) Dodd'sHistory and the Gospel, (3) Dawkins'The God Delusion, and some inspecific references to (4) Price and (5) Doherty. It's likedeja vu all over again.
As I've already indicated, Bromiley (or an anonymous contributor to his volume) doesn't say what Bruce wishes he said. Bromiley stateson page 1034 ofThe International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that the Christ myth theory has only been argued for "the last two hundred years or so" and that the advocates of the thesis employ an argumentsimilar to that used by the 2nd century Lucian. Also, Bromiley deals with Russell's Jesus agnosticism onlyafter wrapping up his overview of the Christ myth theoryproper.
Dodd never actually defines the Christ myth theory so there's simply no way to set his non-definition against the actual definition currently used in the article. Dodd's book simply includes little superscripts at the top of each page to help roughly orient the reader, such as "occurence and meaning" and "historical and supra-historical"--they aren't section headings or anything, the text just flows from one page to the next with no breaks.At the top of page 17 the superscript reads "The Christ myth theory" and on that page Dood speaks of the theory that some people just made Jesus up as the symbolic representation of a mythic god. Hethen goes on to say, "Or alternatively", and then sketches out a different view that Jesus may have been some totally obscure person dressed up in a ready-made myth. Does Dodd think that this "Or alternatively" information is part of the Christ myth proper or does he think that he's moved on to a totally different option? To what material does the superscription apply? We don't know; as I said, he never actually defines the phrase.
Pricewrites of Wells on the back cover ofThe Jesus Myth, "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous..." If Price contradicts himself later on, that doesn't undermine the article's definition, it only undermine's Price's reliability.
Doherty is an online self-publishing amatuer who's statements are manifestly inadmissable as reliable sources.
This is precisely the sort of nonsense that Bruce has been burdening the page with and while a few editors have tried time and again to correct his mistakes, he just keeps on posting the same references over and over and over, confusing the new comers and forcing us to have the same arguments time and again. Please, stop him.Eugene (talk)18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sadly part of the problem is the source material is a mess. Before the GAR (which really surprised me) there were no less than four attempts across two noticeboards even even define what theChrist myth theory even was:
andnone of them answered the concerns much less formed a consensus. I should mention that before I called him on itUser:Eugeneacurry was calling editor Kuratowski a liar[201] and given his statement of pastor being a First Baptist Church of Granada Hills so there are possibleWP:COI issues here.--BruceGrubb (talk)16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please take Bruce's claims of COI with avery large grain of salt; he once made the same accusation against books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press at the page in question[202][203]. This only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's editing here.Eugene (talk)16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press both have exclusive contracts to print the Authorized KJV and it is in their best interest to kept the head of the Anglican Church (ie the King or Queen) happy which means supporting the idea Jesus was a historical person by default. As I said later on it would be akin to expecting a totally unbiased paper out of BYU regarding historical accuracy of the Book of Morman, the Pontificia Università Lateranense to put out an unbiased study on abortion or the viability of having married priests, or any US university putting out an unbiased study on Communism c1951-1960. To believe university presses aretotally immune to pressures is to live in a fantasy world. Even the most respectable of medical journals are not immune to this--why else do you thinkLancet put out an article insupport of homeopathy in 1997? Also going over the delist of the GA I seen several charges against Eugene for POV issues providingindependent support for myWP:COI concerns.--BruceGrubb (talk)18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I find Bruce polite and extremely patient, indulgent even, towards those who don't share his view. I share his view about the inadequacy of the definition, but am concentrating on the article's comment that the scholars who argue for this decidedly fringe theory are pseudoscholars, and haven't had time to concentrate on the definition issue. But I occasionally read the discussion on that issue and am amazed at the pure unkindness of Bruce's opponents towards him, their inability tosee there is a problem, and his perennial humanity in return. 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)
There are times Ihave lost it (if you go though the talks pages I do make a few first class blunders but as the Japanese say 'even a Buddhist priest will get angry if you smack him in the face three times') and I actual left the article for a while because the constant POVing was driving my blood pressure through the roof (sadly I had similar issues with theMulti-level marketing article but at least there I was able to pull one reliable source after another to clearly make the points I was making.) I came back and while I didn't like where the article had gone I thought it was going somewhere and stayed out of it for a while until it became clear the somewhere it was going was off the NPOV cliff (again). The only peer reviewed journal that I could find that even tangentially touched on this issue (and was thrown out because it was felt to be outside the journal's expertise) was Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind"Anthropology of Consciousness) Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 which said "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text).--BruceGrubb (talk)17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This misdirection onlyfurther illustrates the problems with Bruce's edits to the talk page. Inever complained about civility issues. The talk page has often become heated and I'm in no position to pretend to be "Mr. Manners" here. This has always only been about Bruce's disruptive editing. Further, Bruce has now reverted, as he often does, to using the discussion of the articleper se as a forum for discussing thesubject of the article. Please, admins, take some of the distraction out of this article's existence by taking Bruce out of it, at least for a little while.Eugene (talk)18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Eugeneacurry, you are the one doing misdirection with the "The Christ myth theory is..." or "The Christ myth theory, namely the belief that..." word games you are trying to use to ignore what Dodd is saying. You have called another editor a liar (removing it only when it was point out to another administrator), verbally smacked down Crum375 who chastised you for it, Sophia and SlimVirgin both claimed you were POV pushing the article in the GA delisting, and were pushing for calling Drews anAnti-Semitism even though editor Paul B indicated that the term meant a totally different thing than it does now (ie not a hater of the Jewish people) and yet the term links to the hater of the Jewish people article. While were at it there seems to be a problem with theNew Testament Introduction: The College Press Niv Commentary reference used to back this up as the1994, 1997, 2008 version that is searchable via google booksdoesn't have Drews in it at all So why did this reference only appear in the hardcover version?--BruceGrubb (talk)19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Admins, please not that Bruce is trying to obscure this report through a number of pointless diversions; this is precisely the sort of thing he continually does on the talk page. If Bruce would like to complain about my supposed POV issues let him do so, but that's not the subject here. And as for David Fiensy' NT intro book, it's simply one more attempted distraction. The book appears once in the article and isn't connected to Arthur Drews at all but to another person, Bruno Bauer. Bruce is attempting to draw a false equvalency here. Please don't be distracted by it. Please block him.Eugene (talk)19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No, him. —^
Seriously, are we in kindergarten here? I always thought Wikipedia was a community of late teens living in basements.HansAdler20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That was a little harsh, Adler. I have to admit, I did confused by the stuff on Drews' own page with what was on theChrist myth theory but he is called a "religious anti-Semite" on his page without really explaining what that means; I through the previous referenceArthur Drews (1865 – 1935) Professor der Philosophie an der Technischen Hochschule Karlsruhe, Vortrag von Dr. Bernhard Hoffers, Lehrte, im Geschichtssalon Karlsruhe, 24. April 2003 at google translator and found out that was a majorly bad idea as trying to pull any sense out of "First you should in fairness, after I one of Drews and Nazism had made allusion just say that Drew's publicly against tremendous growing anti-Semitism in the twenties has pronounced itself." gives me headaches though I can see who ever put it there thought it demonstrated Drews was not an anti-Semite (unless they knew German then they knew exactly what it meant). It still seemsoff to use terms that have certain meanings in 2010 that may have had totally different from those in 1927 based on one and only one reference that really doesn't explain what those terms even meant.--BruceGrubb (talk)22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In such cases just ask a German for a better translation, such as: "For justice' sake [I] should first, after I have made these hints about Drews and Nazism, also say that Drews has spoken out publicly against the enormous rise of antisemitism in the 20s." You should generally be careful with what German scholars say about Nazi era scholars. Most are their academic descendants and are either uncritical or hypercritical. – Unsurprisingly, the term "religious anti-Semite" was added by Eugeneacurry.[204]
Here is something more detailed translated from elsewhere: "To understand Drews' own position during this time more clearly, it is necessary to draw on his convictions which he voiced publicly at the time in the journalFreie Religion. On one hand Drews positioned himself unambiguously against antisemitic stereotypes. On the other hand he also expressed thoughts that correspond to a racial religiosity. For example Drews asserted that Christianity was the expression of a 'sunken time and the mindset of a race foreign to us'. He stressed that 'Christianity [had] absolutely nothing to do with Germanhood' and therefore a 'German Christianity'would represent 'nonsense'."[205].HansAdler22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation. My late mother knew German fluently and I still remember one of her examples of just how awkward translating the language was: 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket.' Conan-Doyle even had his creation say "only a German is so discourteous to his verbs." Back to the point at hand:
"Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous,moving closer to the recent theories of Burton Mack." (please note the part pf Price's that was left out)
Back inTalk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_18 there was a lot said on this matter and going over Price'sDeconstructing Jesus on page 228 he actually defines the pure "Christ Myth Theory" and states "According to the Christ-Mtyh theorists "Jesus hadfirst been regarded in the manner of an ancient Olympian god" which does not exclude Wells mythic Paul Jesus concept. In the conclusion Price states "The gospels Jesuses are each complete syntheses of various other, earlier, Jesus characters." and there there may have been a historical Jesus behind any one of these versions or none at all.
"Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the lattera prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." [...] Is it, after all this, possible that beneath and behind the stained-glass curtain of Christian legend stands the dim figure of a historical founder of Christianity? Yes, it is possible, perhaps just a tad more likely than that there was a historical Moses, about as likely as there having been a historical Apollonius of Tyana. But it becomes almost arbitrary to think so.For after one removes everything that is more readily accounted for as simple hero-mythology or borrowing from other contemporary sources, what is left? (Price, Robert M (!999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?"Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1)
"G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference toCan we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover ofCan we Trust the New Testament?)
The entire"Review of Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" article which in part says "But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth." [...] "Wells specifically addresses the parallel cases made by Earl Doherty and myself to the effect thatthe Q source need not go back to a single teacher at all, much less one named Jesus." In short Wells' current idea is that theGospel Jesus is acomposite character made of at least a preexisting Christ Myth (accounted by Paul) plus one or more historical teachers whos actions were record in the Q Gospel. Last time I checked acomposite character wasby definition non historical as no one person did all the the things the composite character.
"Far from being a radical, Wells is simply mainline scholarship taken to its ultimate limit, engaged in dialogue with his critics, and with copious references to topical writings. He accepts much that is normative in NT historical scholarship, and but for his "radical" view that Jesus is acomposite figure, could easily be mistaken for another conservative apologist drone, grinding out defenses of the position that Paul's companion Luke authored Acts, or that the Tomb was really empty. Wells is the last in a long line of men likeRobinson, Loisy, andDrews, scholars who trod the mainstream paths to show where the mainstream had gone wrong." (Turton, Michael (May 16, 2003)The Jesus Myth and Deconstructing Jesus)
These are the trueWP:IDIDNTHEARTHATs that tend to happen in the Christ Myth Theory article--anytime you get one of these examples which present even thepossibly that the "Christ Myth Theory"could include a historical person you get a kind of hat over the eyes, fingers in ears, la la la I can't hear you tap dance and it has really gotten old.--BruceGrubb (talk)02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, at most this just means that Price, the non-professor extremist self-publishing here, is inconsistent and thus not a reliable source on living 3rd parties according toWP:IRS onthree different counts. We've been over this before--many times.Eugene (talk)03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Eugeneacurry, you clearly are missing (or ignoring) the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose workin the relevant field has previously been published byreliable third-party publications." As I have pointed out several times by publishing articles inJournal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"),Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"),Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"),Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"),Evangelical Quarterly,Journal of Psychology and Theology,Journal of Unification Studies, etc. Price fits the "workin the relevant field" requirement (Please note this does NOT say on the topic of the article and wouldn't make sense if it did so don't even waste our time going there). Also Price's position on Wells is independently supported by other sources like Boyd, Turton, and Doherty so it is not like he is the only one saying this. Per the order presented on theWP:RS it would seem Boyd being published through Baker Academic is of a higher 'rank' than Wells' Open Court book. Wells may not consider himself a part of the "Christ Myth theory" but Boyd does and as the more reliable source we would have to go with Boyd for how "Christ Myth theory" is defined especially as it is independently supported by Price.--BruceGrubb (talk)04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've said all this before:WP:IRS says "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Price's views are widely considered extremist so his self-published stuff can't be used to define other people. Further, WP:IRS goes on to say that "Self-published sources shouldnever be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" Given that Wells is still alive, this further indicates that Price's blog articles cannot be used to categorize him. Ditto wth Doherty, only more forcefully since he's not an academic at all. Double ditto with Turton, another non-scholar whose self-published web review articleyou yourself once said was "somewhat useless"[206]. These absurd attempts to grasp at straws perfectly illustrates Bruce's disruptive editing on the talk page.
It's nice to see that you finally concede that Wells doesn't see himself as part of the club any longer; I'll save the diff. It's also nice to see that you now feel that Christian scholars publishing through real publishers are more authoritative sources for this article than even the Christ myth advocates themselves; I'll save that diff too. But I note for the admins here that both these points represent major shift on Bruce's part; he's argued the exact opposite on the article's talk page (E.g. re: Wells[207]) and seems to have only reversed himself here as he's been progressively backed into a corner.
The book by Boyd and Eddy would be worth considering, but they clearly support the definition of the "Christ myth theory" currently used in the article:
"As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend." Paul R. Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd,The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165
Please admins, don't allow this thread to go stale or become nothing more than one more go-around on Bruce's tendentious carousel; please intervene.Eugene (talk)14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I do see some evidence for concern here, but I am unclear what you are requesting. Is it a topic ban, a block, or something else?NW(Talk)22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a full-blown topic-ban is neccesary. A short block would be fine. All I want is for Bruce to knock off this broken record routine. I think that if some sort of official action is taken against him, even a minor one like a 24 hour block, he'd get the message that he can't just go on bogging down the talk page with his tendentious edits month after month after month, confusing the new comers and making a ton of needless work for everyone else.Eugene (talk)01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
One issue is that ANI threads don't necessarily lend themselves to fair examinations of the evidence. Perhaps you could file anWP:RFC/U?NW(Talk)01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
The CheckUserMagic 8-Ball says:
Inconclusive.Tim Song (talk)04:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
