Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

User:Fvw

Resolved

 – Issue is adequately covered by WP:ROUGE. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Fvw deleted [1] open afd nomination without any explanation, contrary to WP:Deletion policy. This is WP:Disruptive editing at least, if not WP:Vandalism.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the AFD nomination he removed doesn't exist. The article hasn't been deleted. \ / (⁂ | ※) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The afd nomination itself was also deleted by User:Fvw.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the AFD nomination seemed beyond reason, since the article seems to in no way meet any known deletion criteria at all. This was a WP:SNOW-keep before it even started... I see no disruption OR vandalism on fvw's part. A tad bit of WP:IAR, but I can't say that letting the AFD run would have resulted in any chance of this article being deleted. As such, there was no point to leaving the AFD around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The nomination, as made, is problematic - it seems to imply that books not published in English are inherently non-notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the AFD page should be deleted, as opposed to closing it as speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either. WP:SK gives one condition where the AfD itself may be deleted, where it is made by a banned user with no other good faith contributors. I seem to remember there being some nugget of policy/howto out there that said "wrong forum" deletion discussions could be deleted, but I can't find it now and can't imagine why it would be worth the bother. There is no "disruption or vandalism" but there is also no good reason to delete the AfD. Does Fvw know this thread is going on? Protonk (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If DonaldDuck is intent on immortalising his foolishness by insisting the page remain, who are we to stop him? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. If we must adhere strictly to policy, drag fvw in on charges of zOMGADMINABUSEDESYSOPNOW! over something as minor as whether deletion or immediately closing with a note of "speedy close" it seems moot. The end result is the same, and I see no reason to waste more of our lives deciding which method of killing the obviously bogus AFD we wish to use. What is the real point of undeleting an essentially blank AFD only to note, on the blank AFD, that "This AFD is to remain blank". Think about it. We are all under a general agreement that the deleted AFD was bogus; is there any inherent reason to restore it really?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any "admin abuse" at all. Your summary above covered it. The deletion nomination was seen to be extremely pointy, Fvw closed it, deleted it and warned the user who created it. There is no rule that says he should do that, but it wasn't an abuse of power. I'm just pointing out that all things considered, a nomination that is made to make a point (in the eyes of some) is better left closed or unaltered. There probably isn't too much of a benefit to wikipedia for us to restore the AfD only to close it again. However it is fair to say that Fvw shouldn't make a habit of this. That's all. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Who do I notify? If anyone?

Resolved

 – Mgm seems to have done the needful. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about things like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=mmub0CO1ZOEC. This book is just wikipedia articles copied by an author and published under his own name. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lulu.com is a vanity press, so there is no publisher to "fire" the author. If the book doesn't list the source (Wikipedia) you can retain a lawyer and ask them nicely to acknowledge the source (I mean that literally, not euphemistically) per the GFDL. If they don't do that you can sue them (well, I'm not sure who would have standing, IANAL). Not sure where the midpoint is. Protonk (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is. Violating our license agreement also means they violate Lulu's rules on copyright. If the author gets reported his account can get suspended and perhaps any money earned can be reclaimed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and I'm not sure if there is a "circular references" blacklist somewhere, but if there is this should go on it. Maybe try the Village Pump? Protonk (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirror#Non-compliance_process for some guidance. John Reaves 09:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• A vanity press makes the author shell out thousands of dollars before they ever see a book in print. Lulu only asks a part of the sales revenue on each sale unless you choose to buy additional services (which are entirely optional), so it's self-publishing rather than vanity publishing; there's an important difference that make experts like Writer Beware and real literary agents recommend the place (disclosure, I've been attached to Lulu as a volunteer in the past, but I still have contacts even though my activity there has gone down). I'll drop them a note. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've sent them a copyright violation notice. I should be informed of their investigation results soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to have the third-party vendors (B&N, Amazon) delist the book pending the outcome of the investigation? caknuck _° is geared up for football season 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Afraid not. Otherwise vandals and hecklers could wreak havoc by making false accusations to have books delisted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• I received the following message: "Thank you for the detailed explanation and sources. We have contacted the publisher and informed him of the violation. If a change is not made by January 9th, the item will be permanently removed from Lulu.com." - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Ariobarza

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

---

It seems there is consensus that Ariobarza has violated WP:NOR pretty comprehensively, that mentorship has failed, and that even Ariobarza is content to be restricted, for now at least, to her talk page. Given such equanimity, I have blocked Ariobarza and encouraged her to contribute on that basis, with the usual rights of appeal should she feel it necessary. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, if I am about to be deleted; I just want to say, it has been a good run, I want to thank everyone for giving their time to help me on Wikipedia, and I loved contributing free information, and hopefully I will appeal this, thank you and goodbye. With love, Ariobarza.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Proposed ban of User:Ariobarza

I am proposing a community ban of Ariobarza (talk · contribs) from the entire project, due to her apparent inhability to understand or unwillingness to comply with our editorial policies on verifiability and original research, and the detrimental effect that her general attitude, approach, perceptions and choice of vocabulary have in the editing environment.

The first thing that you notice in Ariobarza is her enthusiasm, and everything indicates that she means well, but (even putting all conduct issues aside) by demanding that some knowledgeable editors spend time double-checking her every edit for personal interpretations she clearly is a net detriment to the project. - In my opinion, using the process of writing Wikipedia articles for teaching basic concepts of research to persons who lack such education/habilities would be too much of a drain on our already very limited resources (particularly in areas like Persian history, where making articles comply with our policies is already time-consuming). Our aim is creating an encyclopedia, not running a school.

A topic ban covering Near Eastern and classical history was proposed by ChrisO in October 2008, and was gathering a general consensus in favour, but ended in an indefinite block for block evasion & disruption (subsequently lifted after a search for a mentor & e-mail exchange -link- that finally resulted in AniMate volunteering as an unofficial mentor -link-). However, a mere 9 days later AniMate himself mentioned that "[his] offer [was] accepted and then completely ignored."

As basically nothing has changed since then, I invite everyone to read the previous ban proposal (with details & diffs.) & subsequent comments by users who have interacted with Ariobarza. It's not short, but it gives a good idea of the general situation.

Examples since the October 2008 topic ban proposal:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris (November 2008):
  A clear example of original research based on Ancient primary sources, previously discussed at Talk:Battle of Opis, and now gestating at User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris (permanent link).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Gordium (November 2008):
  Instead of looking for sources, Ariobarza took the mention that "the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city [of Gordium]" from our Wikipedia article on Gordium (copied verbatim from livius.org, but without inline citation) and the unsourced mention of a "Siege of Gordium" from a Wikipedia template, and combined both fragments into a novel, entirely imaginary "Parmenion captured the city in a little known siege", which even includes his own opinion that lack of sources equals "little known".

  Later during the discussion Ariobarza interpreted the book snippet "Alexander conquered... Phrygia (there he took a strong Persian fortress Gordion)" as confirmation of the siege taking place: "And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right?"

• Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (February - November 2008): Personal interpretations of Ancient primary sources.
• Talk:Siege of Sardis (547 BC) (February - December 2008): More of the same.

Deleted entries in Ariobarza's userspace:

• User:Ariobarza/Battle of Pasargadae — (AfD: redirect to Pasargadae)
• User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Marsyas — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Median Fort
• User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Siege of Doriskos — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Siege of Pasargadae Hill — (AfD: delete)
• And the possibility of much more of the same.

Although directly related to me & this ban proposal, these comments illustrate Ariobarza's general approach, perceptions of other editors & choice of vocabulary: diff. & link

Based on all this, I fear that a topic ban covering Near Eastern and classical history would not be enough, for the inhability or unwillingness to comply with our core policies would be detrimental to any article on any topic.

I also fear that a ban from articles (main namespace) & templates only (allowing Ariobarza to participate in discussions) would still result in a drain on the time and patience of our volunteers, who would still have to cope with Ariobarza's general attitude and original research-based proposals.

Thus, I propose a community ban from the entire project. - Ev (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I reluctantly support this proposal, based on my interaction with the user at my talk page and at Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. User is clearly very intelligent, but combative beyond belief, cannot work within the bounds of intrinsic policies and guidelines such as NOR, OWN and CONSENSUS, (let alone WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT, we must get round to writing that one). Article ended in being protected because, in line with WP:POLE, another combative user came along with different POV. A huge shame, because someone with such strong grasp of primary sources is a rarity here, and very useful, but not if the sources will be used selectively, in line with POV and, worst, as a battering ram. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • NB This user and this thread have inspired me to create WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Constructive comment and edits welcome. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I have observed Ariobarza on now deleted Siege of Doriskos (see above for a copy), Cyrus, Mitradates and the Battle of Thermopylae. In all cases she misinterpreted well-trodden passages from the historia of Herodotus, explained in numerous secondary sources. In the article on Doriscus, where Herodotus appears to be the only primary source, she made a claim about a particular siege and the escape of the governor, citing "The Athenians and their empire", a paperback by Malcolm McGregor which I subsequently acquired: the claim was not in any way supported by the book, which only mentions Doriscus in passing. Similarly it took a lot of effort to get the legend of the early life of Cyrus into a reasonable form. The discussion about numbers at the battle of Thermopylae seems to have been a similar attempt to wear down another editor's energies. Underlying her edits of articles on ancient history, there seems to be a pro-Persian, anti-Greek agenda, based on the misuse of secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

'Response; Ariobarza's topic ban'

Please read the entire message with an open mind, so Ariobarza does not have to repeat it.

Hi Ev, talk about deconstructive comments. This is uncalled for, I thought we had put this issue behind us. Since November 2008, I have quietly gathered sources, and minded my own business. And now you want to propose a topic ban on me? This is dissapointing. First of all, for the Siege of Gordium I have giving up, and no longer care if it happpened, because overall consensus of the users here determined probably nothing happened, and I have even agreed with them, so Siege of Gordium is over (I was not the originater of the idea, like I said a thousand times, I copy pasted the info, added 1 sentence from the Gordium article itself). And at the end of the deletion debate, I agreed to delete Siege of Gordium.

You forgot to include the full meaning of my last message which I said at the deletion debate;
And here it is, others edited this article too, (while) your accusing me of the wrong things here, [1]. Why don't you contact this fellow, the actual creator of this red link, which I made blue, User:Brandmeister, he named it "Siege of Gordium", I read history, and I have never heard of a siege there, except Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right? Don't worry I am improving, this is a old forgotten article.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

And this too, the last official sentence;
Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk'

For Battle of the Tigris, this issue was between me and ChrisO (which I now Do Not have anything against or any problems with that user [and respect him for pointing out my problems here]), it is not your business, I suggest not to involve yourself in this highly sensitive article which I am sure you know nothing about. I NOW have damning evidence of what I said before as the mostly the truth, yet now that I am so close to presenting the evidence, you come up with a topic ban for me, nice job.

I consider your proposal to be highly rude and disheartening at this time. You are attempting to waste my time and others for the next month over a topic ban debate on me. I am tired of waisting my time on quite frankly stupid (I don't care anymore, I said the word stupid, big deal, I am guilty as charged) and endless debates with revisionists with no lives, other than to waist others time.

Misrepresenting the issue, and presenting false information is not helpful here. I {suggest} if you have a personal grudge against me to say it to my face on my talk page. And not spread "Off with Ariobarza's head" pamphlets around the town. You stalking my movements on Wikipedia to see if I am breaking the rules has itself inspired me to leave Wikipedia. Coordinated group personal attacks on me shows how much Wikipedia is in danger of developing close nit gangs within its topics.

Of course its not Wikipedia's fault, its the fault of users that don't know squat on a subject, then when they see something they ThinK is OR SYN, they jump on that user without looking or researching the evidence for it. So when Ev assumes its OR SYN, and later gets proven wrong (this time by another user who presents the evidence), Ev develops a grudge, and revenge sets in when out of nowhere a topic ban on Ariobarza pops up! A coincedence?

If you do not stop (what I consider a personal attack from you), I will never stop until your true intentions are exposed, possibly an RFC for your other menions too. You spending months on this issue to get me banned from the topic shows how determined you are to get rid of me, actions speak louder than words.

Me being not in contact with my Unofficial mentor or continueing making deleted articles in my userspace is not a violation of any law here. So with the little good faith I still have in me, I ask you to abandon this inapropriate proposal, you must either present the ancient crimes I commited here (which everybody got over) or present new evidence, which does not exist.

I am not saying you have a grudge against me, though it is a possibility. Anyways, I urge you to please stop this, and if you have any concerns with me, to come to my talk page so we can work something out, can we agree? Thank you.

Further comments on conclusion, by Ariobarza; It is not my fault that certian users think I am doing original research, they lack knowledge in the area, and think every claim is unbelievable, history is history, sometimes the sources are old, but if it is not contested by new sources and its reliable then its okay to include them, this was part of another point that I want to make about history articles, citing old sources, we cite Herodotus, his source is 2,500 years old, but a 100 year book of modern history then should be of no problem, and that if (refer to what I said above). I have not done OR for almost 3 months now. I put information there so I could later back it up with references. I know [this] mistake has caused others trouble (not the trouble you saw in Battle of Opis, but deletion articles), and I already said I was sorry and have made some improvements. But now, I HAVE the missing evidence that will shouw WhateveR I said about Battle of the Tigris was true. The end (for Battle of Thermoplyae, Dougweller locked it in mistake, there was no dispute, maybe over Helots, but I came to an agreement with the other user before the lock ended. So the end. I cannot allow you to take this chance from me, no matter how nice you try to act, and say your intentions are good, I can see through your real intentions. I have just a tiny winy bit of good faith left in me for your actions, so I ask you stop. Your only going to waist more of all the users time here. You need to get a life, you have too much free time. YouR NoT HelpinG WikipediA. Bye! And no thanks.

(Ariobarza considers himself the real Operation Enduring Freedom, he has endured annialation attempts by users for months now, and is still standing strong, hopefully a coalition of the willing (whoever reading this) can give an helping hand, so he can survive for the sake of Wikipedia. I will not go quietly into the night, I'm going to survive, I going to prosper... Last stand here I come.)

"Go tell the Wikipedians, passerby; That here, by Persian law, User:Ariobarza; actually Ariobarzan RIP."

--Ariobarza (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Note: Most of these comments (except the third & two last paragraphs) where originally made at my talk page from 05:16 to 14:19, 17 Dec. (UTC), and then copied here. I replied there at the time. - Ev (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Ariobarza: further discussion

• I strongly object to this ban as Ariobarza has been working on articles in her own userspace as she was instructed to do. She has honored her ban by working quietly and not initiating arguments or being disruptive in the mainspace. Her edits have been good faith edits . Since when do we check peoples' userspace for working edits? This sort of ban would set a very bad precedent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy Ariobarza's claims that "people are out to get him".

It is Ariobarza's fault that he is doing original research.

It is Ariobarza's fault that he is refusing to learn from advice given to him what Wikipedia's policies on use of sources is.

I have heard the "I will provide sources soon" canard so many times that I've stopped looking at anything except what's presently provided, and his request to me to review his sources for the Battle of the Median Fort did not show much improvement in either politeness or quality of research.

Sure, less time would be wasted on him (I don't believe his self-professed claims of being female any more) if he were banned from Wikipedia. But he's an irritant, not a pest. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Has Ariobarza been inserting significant amounts of problematic material into articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she has. See comments on Ariobarza's contributions and examples of articles she created and were subsequently deleted (some also userfied) in the previous ban proposal (e.g. Nickhh's comment) and in this one. See also ChrisO's comments in his userspace. - Ev (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious example is the edit-warring on Battle of Thermopylae at the end of November, which resulted in the article being fully protected until 10 December. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I am not sure I understand what we exactly propose to ban an enthusiastic editor for. For working on articles in her user space? For an editorial conflict of a few months ago? Can somebody mention recent problems in the article space with the user? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For being consistently unable to work within the bounds of our core editorial policies on verifiability and original research (and defending enthusiastically her personal interpretations), resulting in inappropriate content and a drain on our limited resources (i.e., our knowledgable editors working on these topics having to dedicate time & effort to clean-up after her, and argue with her). – See Nickhh's comments during the deletion discussion of "Siege of Gordium".

Someone unable to grasp the meaning or unwilling to follow our core content policies cannot positively contribute content to Wikipedia. In my opinion, we can't ask our knowledgable editors to contribute extra time & patience so that we can accomodate everyone. - Ev (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I don't think you understand that Siege of Gordium was one minor mistake on my behalf, and the end I agreed to delete. I think your addicted to that article, You did not answer this guy's question rightly, Can somebody mention recent problems in the article space with the user? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC) and you mislead people when you say YES, [I have not made any disruptive edits or caused RECent problems in the article space. When your continueing to pull that dead article out of the ground, it stinks up the place. I suggest you stop saying Siege of Gordium... Siege of Gordium... Until your tongue falls out. You also forgot this comment, Final Comment: I too have looked for sources, and can not find them, it seems this time you guys are right and that I am right too, because I said I do not have a opinion of FOR or AGAINST the deletion of this article. Whoever added those sentences of the siege, in this (Gordium) article, should walk the plank. Because ChrisO has blindy accused me of using my imagination, (guess this is another thing I will add to list of ChrisO misconducts, which will be published in a book and will be a worldwide best seller, and will bring a revolution of freedom to Wikipedia by studying if the rules can be improved for future generations) of that person [I added what they wrote] to this article, and therefore it turned into blue and came to life. Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk, I barely cared then, and I do not care now if it got deleted. That issue is over, so I am going to be banned for Siege of Gordium, right? I am wrong, I waisted time, your right, is that what you want to hear? My problems are over, I am restarting anew, let go of your hate, and come into the light. These whole issues ended with after my block, and from now I kindly ask you to make your new messages at the bottom of page, so users do not have to look for new messages in the middle of this page. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ariobarza, Nickhh's comments, as well as mine, were not about that entry in particular, but about your (and certainly others') conduct contributions & involvement in Wikipedia in general. - Ev (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Clarified meaning: conduct → contributions & involvement.-Ev (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Earth to Ev, do you copy. Conduct in general. I know how polite Nickhh can be, trust me. And for Alvestrand the Negative, he has a tendency to say sh.. u. a lot. But I want to be clear, that is his rights, and I wont interfere with that. I already confessed my sins of waisting a couple hours on Gordium, but I AM afraid this is not enough to get me banned. If you want silence me, you have to find something that I did recently, and put it here. Until then no thanks, I'll skip the guillotine. Thanks buddy.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Oppose ban. The "gestating" article on Battle of Tigris looks sourced to me. This looks like a content dispute. Those who have a content dispute with this user should employ the well-developed and finely-tuned procedures that Wikipedia has for resolving difficult content disputes. Oops. Well, they need to find a way to deal with it, anyway. But a ban of this user is not the right way. If it makes anyone feel any better, there are people I'd like to see banned, desysopped, etc., too, but it isn't so easy. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Let me be clear, though I do care what happens too me, If I had the choice of sacrificing my articles for myself, I would not do it. I will rather let my contributions to my articles survive, than myself. I am just afraid that if I get banned, all my hard work will lost. If one thinks about it, Ev is looking for a shortcut to delete my userspace articles, if I get banned, than all the articles will be gone with me (as soon as I am gone, he and others will propose speedy deletions on my userspace articles), dust to dust.

  The problem is I served out my block, I have not made any major edits since my block, I only edit in my userspace. And you have to wait until the end of the week to see if Battle of the Tigris is good. I will not be forced to produce a good article in my userspace ASAP. No one can force me to do that. And I read the earlier comments on Ev's page with ChrisO (a user who I do not have any problems with now). I said if you continue to do this, I will not accept. I did not say I was going to do something drastic or mean. There is absolutely no reason for me to be banned now. So many people are getting driven away from {revisionist} users who are narrow minded, and fail to see the bigger pictue, the people cannot stand anymore of the hate, so they just leave Wikipedia, driving potentialy good faith users away from editing is unwise. People get banned for the worst of reasons, I have done nothing!

  I may be busy in the next 3 days plus I am on the verge of present good evidence for my articles, I cannot waist more time here, I feel like I could be improving my articles now, but I have to come here. This is highly dissapointing to me, that a user is putting so much time and effort in waisting his and ours time, in order to get me banned for issues that are already resolved and or are in the process of being improved, what a shame. Best regards to all.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Okay... so let me ask a question. Ariobarza, the problem that people seem to have with your edits is that they contain a lot of original research. Can you tell us what 'original research' means when it comes to Wikipedia, and why we don't allow it? // roux   06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It means this... Original reseach includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

And in the Original research article, it says in the SEction: [Unclear Boundaries] that Some narrowminded users might mistake new classification with OR. Which means it is sometimes good if a discovery is made, it is okay to include it on Wikipedia. That is all. I am trying to advance a position that the historians on the battle have [already] advanced for a 100 years already, they say it, I put it. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Well, I tried. // roux   17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(using odd indentation because I'm commenting late) I checked the page Original research, and Ariobarza is misquoting it; the word "narrowminded" does not appear there, and I believe the text as written does not support Ariobarza's position; it's calling out the fact that the periodic table is original research, despite being, at first glance, a compilation. If the person is misrepresenting sources we can all check when discussing Wikipedia policy, why should I believe his representations about ancient Persian history, where my ability to check is far more limited? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me highlight a sentence: Which means it is sometimes good if a discovery is made, it is okay to include it on Wikipedia. That would be no, it's not.

Disinterested readers may wish to consult--or at least skim--this dogged example of original research, where Ariobarza energetically attempts to spin up an entire battle up out of a few fragments of translated text. The pose of martyrdom, further above, should also be sufficient to give the disinterested pause. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"The pose of martyrdom, further above, should also be sufficient to give the disinterested pause" For the record, I am not a muslim(if thats what you mean), and I do not appreciate you making a simple epithet, into a martyrdom scandal, Ariobarza is not that crazy. You failed to grasp what I ment.

I will not go quietly into the night, I'm going to survive, I going to prosper... Last stand here I come.)

And I said RIP Ariobarzan, it is another person.

I can't wait to see the look on your face when you are proven wrong. You are wrong CalenderWatcher, just read my biggy message on my talk page, and evolution will set in. No original research, did you ever question "How did Ariobarza come up with such an idea?" It is because most of whom that translated the inscription (with materials they have and we don't) have come to the conclusion that at least the first military engagement between Babylon and Persia occured. It is not up to you or me to decide, based on what we think we know, that the battle did not happen, its up to the Scholars with experience in their fields to decide for us. This line is interesting, "The army of the Persians made an attack," is this a fragment? Thee end.--Ariobarza (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Yes, it is a fragment. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it is a complete statement, is this a fragment to, actaully an ilegable text to say it better, "The army of the U.S made an attack" This is not a fragment. You need to look into books about the last part of the inscription, there is no destroyed sentence after it, therefore it is a complete statment.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Ariobarza asked my meddling in my talk page,but I'm not familiar with topic ban. What does it means ? what will be outline of that topic? Are you asking to ban Ariobarza from editing in any historical article?or does it means a ban on creating such topics? or only the battles of Cyrus the great ? Anyway , I do think he still needs some help in being familiar with Wikipedia's roles --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The scope of a ban is defined during the discussion. My initial proposal calls for a ban from the entire project, from all of Wikipedia (read the very first & very last sentences of the proposal). Below AniMate proposes a ban from editing articles (main namespace) only (I assume that including templates also), thus allowing Ariobarza to participate in talk page discussions & work in her user space. - Ev (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. Rather put on restriction for creation of articles related to the classics for a a duration of 6 months. Or a general 6 month ban on creation of new article. The user can create the articles in his userpage and then ask for it to be evaluated. The article on the user's page: "the Battle of Tigris" seems to be partially sourced:[2], but user is urged to strongly provide excerpts from the sources he is quoting. Overall, the amount of articles the user is creating in his userpage is a good sign. He should ask other users for feedback to these articles and then ask them to post it. Also other positive contribution of the user should be highlighted which is providing sources to various article. The issue discussed seems to be from two/three months ago and the user has done a better job since then. At the same time, he is urged to review WP:OR and WP:Synthesis and follow those principles. Succintly summarized with regards to Ariobarza: 1) Do not intrepret primary sources (Herodotus) unless backed up by secondary sources. 2) Check to see if the article the user wants to initiate exists in other Encyclopedias(Britannica, Iranica, etc.) and books (if an academic author ahs written a specific article on the subject matter). If it doesn't, do not start it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban. Without a major change in attitude, this editor is never going to make a positive contribution toward building an encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• For anyone who is unsure of the situation and or wants to Ariobarza's information read the smoking gun at the end of the page, and from now on comment always at the ends of the page, so we can easily find new comments here, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Link: The Smoking Gun Evidence For All: The Best Of The Best, Sir!. - Ev (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban. The problems with Ariobarza's contributions are numerous, and not just limited to article space - hence the proposal immediately below to restrict Ariobarza to talk pages will not work. To recap:

• Ariobarza does not follow the basic premise of no original research. Her research method consists of finding fragments from Google Books and combining them into a new synthesis. There's no better example of this than User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris, a userspace copy of a now-deleted article. No book on ancient Persian or Babylonian history discusses such a battle. The page is pure OR. The fact that it still exists, in any form, shows that Ariobarza simply does not accept the premise of no original research. This isn't any longer a question of a lack of awareness or understanding - it's wilful and congenital. Her edits are fundamentally untrustworthy.

• Ariobarza's talk page participation is no better. She wastes everyone's time with long, rambling, aggressive and tendentious screeds. We've seen that in this discussion.

In short, she may be enthusiastic but she's simply not capable of being an effective contributor - she appears to have neither the intellectual nor the social skills required, and wastes a great deal of other peoples' time in the process. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban First let me say that I believe the rule on Original Research is often interpreted as being too restrictive, much in the "because we can't find a source that states the nose is located on the face between the eyes & the mouth, so writing that is OR" sort of way. Having said that, I am convinced by the following comment made above that Ariobarza is unable to understand the intent of therule against original research: "I will rather let my contributions to my articles survive, than myself. I am just afraid that if I get banned, all my hard work will lost." If a person adds content to Wikipedia which is not present either in verifiable sources or confirmed by common sense, it will be deleted. If anyone is afraid of their hard work being lost due to other editors, start a blog. You'll be far happier publishing your research there than on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• The problem, User:ChrisO and User:Llywrch is in utter denial of the evidence that was presented here. ChrisO all I can say is that your a disgusting person, you should be ashamed of yourself. For once, I have the damning evidence for the battle, and you forcefully remove it. Nice why to hide under the rug. I advise you that when you have at least 20 minutes, to go on my talk page and read it there. There you can reflect on it. So when you come back here, YoU can apologize to me and all of those that you have spilled your ignorant lies too. I already apologized for my inexperienced edits almost 3 months ago, and only 2 users, including yourself is pushing this request to get me banned. Everyone got over it, apparently you are still hostile towards me and others. Now that I am finally gathering the sources you jump on this opportunity to get me banned, your delusional and clearly a threat to all progress on Wikipedia, your true colors show here, {As a medical doctor , my profession does not permits me to edit in the best manner in the historical articles . I can advise you not to confront with the users like Chris ,since they may have some prejudices about certain ethnicities and nationalities [3] and confrontation with them and their provocation may result in wasting our time and efforts. Let the time wash away their sensitivities.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC).} I am telling everyone to read the full full, The Smoking Gun Evidence For All: The Best Of The Best, Sir! which answers every question you have! As for ChrisO, I hope he can evolve one day.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Please remember WP:NPA. Also, to allay your concerns re: the collapsible text, its use is not a sign of hostility, merely of manageability and they are used often enough on Wikipedia (see the end of George W. Bush for example) that the users here know to use the "show" button and read the text. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher, please say if you support ChrisO's false accusations, or that you oppose the ban. This page is getting to large, and I appreciate your willingness to come to compromise, its just I no what kind of person he is, and lets say it stops progress on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• I'm afraid Ariobarza has *still* not understood that it's his conduct that creates the problems around him, not his viewpoints. The way the "smoking gun" "evidence" is presented is a good example of his conduct, which I find unacceptable. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban Per the arguments above. Does nothing for the credibility of this encyclopaedia.--Folantin (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. This user seems to have a somewhat flawed methodology (although, based on other comments, that may have actually improved), but also presents sources and tries to work within the rules. I don't believe a ban is warranted. Everyking (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, simply trying to work within our content policies is not enough: editors contributing content to Wikipedia have to be able to actually do so; and in this case Ariobarza has been consistently incapable of doing so (plus the attitude issues). – The price Wikipedia pays for allowing such editors to continue trying is a constant drain on the time, energy & patience of the knowledgeable editors who have to do the clean-up & the arguing, when they could be doing more productive & gratifying work. See Dougweller's comments in this discussion. - Ev (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not simply Ariobarza's methodology - and contra other comments from editors who haven't interacted with Ariobarza recently or at all, it certainly hasn't improved. The rants we've seen on this page and talk pages are just as much part of the problem. Ariobarza simply doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, NOR. I and others have spent months trying to explain it to her, without success. Advice is consistently ignored. There's a constant "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Challenges and (constuctive) criticism produce long tendentious rants and accusations. It's impossible to collaborate effectively with an editor who behaves like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• If ChrisO wrongly assumed such an event never happened, and derailed users for it, does he have good conduct? Why isn't he here to pay for his supposed sins? Secondly, I find it highly contradictory to NoW say I am doing OR by saying that the Tigris battle happened, when I now have evdence for it which makes it not OR. It is OR on ChrisO's part to assume with no evidence that such an event did not take place. Until ChrisO can find 1 book that denies the existence of such a battle, it is his POV to say it never happened. He is either stubborn, or denying evidence. This user has driven away many potential good users from ever editing Wikipedia with ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

  His other great acts are removing sourced materials, from the Opis battle, and half of my deleted articles that he wanted to delete had sourced material in them when they were deleted. The tendency to corner users has become somewhat abusive over time, and he apparently likes to do that. Though I admited to my wrong doings and even thanked ChrisO for his advice, it seems he is now jumping on the opportunity to get me banned. Restarting wars is not good for human progress. I have been editing quietly in my userspace and making minor edits to articles, plus engaging in some good faith debates since my block. There no one great reason for me to get banned, only old accusations, which at least half may be true. I hope users reading this will not take my word or ChrisO/ Ev's word on it, I hope they take what smoking gun evidences word for it, which has evidence. I could not be more sincerely clearer than that, my baby cousin could even understand this, many thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Support ban rather reluctantly. I had hoped a restriction to talk pages would be a viable solution, but her posts here and on talk pages have convinced me that this isn't possible. The threat of being banned from the project has to be hard to handle, but Ariobarza has consistently handled conflict with other editors poorly. The rants on this page and other talk pages recently come to mind, as do her contributions to AfDs. Sorry, as I really would have liked to have helped you, but keeping you around at this point is a net loss for the project.AniMate 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support; shows all signs of being a problem editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Ariobarza is well-intentioned, but consistently fails to understand why we must not form articles from synthesized material. To quote policy:If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research and we must make each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Ariobarza finds sources that passingly and vaguely mention "Battle X", cobbles them together, and makes an article asserting that "Battle X" definitively happened. What he doesn't seem to understand is that none of the sources he uses "explicitly makes [the] claims" that his articles make. I previously offered to help him work on articles in his user space to avoid him being banned, as I think sourcing is probably my greatest strength on Wiki. The offer was accepted but never acted on.

As the user hasn't acted on offers to help him approve and still doesn't appear to understand that his articles are simply synthesized original research, I think a restriction from editing or creating articles is appropriate. Having Ariobarza limited to article talk and user talk would take out much of the harm this user is causing. By having Ariobarza post potential sourced changes on talk, experienced editors would be able to check the claims at their leisure without having to scramble to fix any of Ariobarza's original research. If an experienced editor agrees that his proposed addition of material is sound, it would be added to the article. Additionally, when he feels that the articles he is editing in his user space are ready, another editor would have to look over them to see if they're actually ready to migrate in to article space. I think with restrictions like this in place, Ariobarza would be forced, for lack of a better word, to understand and follow Wikipedia policies without any risk to disruption to the actual articles. AniMate 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I suppose stating that this proposal is a restriction to talk pages might be a little more clear. I see no reason that he (or she) should have to leave the project, but her problematic edits must be curtailed. AniMate 20:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think something must be done. A number of editors, including myself, have made considerable efforts to help her to no avail. It has gotten to the point where I avoid looking at her edits because I don't have the energy to engage in a long tangled discussion with her about them. I'm not at all sure we will ever be able to get her to understand our OR policy. Her article-space editing does not help Wikipedia and indeed harms the articles she works on. Sorry Ariobarza, but that is how I see it. Limiting her to talk space would help a lot. She is energetic, which is good, and seems to have a number of sources, and if we can find a way that she can still be a contributor but not an article editor or creator I hope the project will benefit. dougweller (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong somewhat Oppose
  I have the sources cited that explicitly reach the same conclusion, and or the sources cited are directly related to the article subject, then I am not engaged in original research and I have made sure that each claim is attributable to the sources that explicitly make that claim.
  I accepted since October 2008 that I will follow the WP guidelines in WP:Original Research. From now on. So if I have not done anything paticulary wrong since then, why should I now get banned. Either say your for it or against it, please do not be vague! An hour ago I had my 4 wisdom teeth taken out, and have Non-Woven Sponges lodged into my mouth to stop the bleeding, so I eat baby food, and need some sleep. But, I guess I am going to lose some sleep over this page, {NOJOKE}. Thanks you all!--Ariobarza (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have the smoking gun on my talk page, which is the last message there. Tommorow, after an final revision to it, I will post it here. And God said, "let there be light!" And the light was good.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The Smoking Gun Evidence For All: The Best Of The Best, Sir!

Hi, these are examples of why Ariobarza should not get banned (this is the whole kit and kaboodle), and how User:Ev is currently waisting time, but accuses me of waisting time, very interesting. This is since the October 2008 topic ban proposal, I kindly ask of anyone who is reading this to; by following the directions below, to please look at these neat links which I have provided, and come to your own conclusion. You will know whether it is OR or not. And it is also not synthesis to comparely mention these sources for the Tigris battle, BEcause if the historians (which if you check the links they do) mention other historians (who by the way are in the article already) in relation to the Tigris battle, then the historians have already done synthesis for me! Therefore, there is no reason for me to do synthesis, which currently I have not done, and the synthesis allegation was an old one. So by comparing their collegges{friends} findings, they are trying to indirectly prove that such an event happened. I ask everyone reading this to please be patient with this message, because it is a interactive thrill ride. Prepare to be amazed!

Collapsed in the name of sanity - don't clog up this page with massive copy and paste dumps, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris, I said months ago, that for the invasion of Babylon, {two} battles happened by the Tigris River, the Battle of the Tigris, and Battle of Opis (which is also by the Tigris), then all of Babylon submitted to Cyrus; Virtually all of the translators and historians agree, that Babylon and Persia had some sort of military fight with each other (you will realize this later in the message). However, they are divided on whether it involved the Babylonian king or another king by the Tigris, because of the year the tablet dates from, that year is known to historians as the year Cyrus invaded Babylon. At the time, there was (other than the Babylonian king) no other king (there was Gobryas{satrap} and Gadates{nobleman} and they defected to Cyrus, and Cyrus fought a battle on the Tigris to free Gadates, this is according to Xeno, funny coincedence huh?) by the Tigris, so that fringe theory contradicts the known history of Babylon. The historians who translated the event are as follows (similar words boldened); Date Translator/ Historian Text Source 1925 Sidney Smith "... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech{or Uruk} ... of the sea-land(?) ..." Babylonian Historical Texts 1950 A. Leo Oppenheim "... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..." Ancient Near Eastern Texts 1975 Albert K. Grayson "... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..." Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles 2004 Jean Jacques Glassner "[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia{ns}... the troop]s [...]." Mesopotamian Chronicles 2007 Amelie Kuhrt "[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia{ns} (?) ...]" The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period Read the last sentence of page 144, book is from 1998, and bases it's finding's on the inscriptions, not Xenophon. I will keep bringing up the question of Xenophon's reliability, to show that I do not even need his approval, User:Alvestrand keeps mentioning that he is not reliable {which I agree}, I am even willing to omit Xenophon account on the Tigris battle. But I want to stress the point that Xenophon appears in only 1 of my references, and all he does is further confirms the battle, so I consider Xenophon's account as unreliable, but still worth mentioning. I wanted to get that out of the way, and so here is the link that has nothing to do with Xenophon. [4]. Now I only use Xenophon(note:his other works like "The Persian Expedition" are mostly history, and some of his battles, such as Battle of Thymbra has also been confirmed by Herodotus and others, the Cyropaedia however is as Ev says, [partly] true) his accounts appear on Wikipedia's battles already, so why not include for the Tigris battle? His account only ConfirmS what is already said on the inscription. This book compares fact and fiction and uses SeCONDARY sources, plus say's Herodotus' and Xenophons' versions of events both describe the same event, not seperate invasions (Gobryas and Gadates were together by the way), and is from 1993. Read pages, 255-6, 257, 259, 263. [5]. This book is from 1988. The next books down this list of sources for the Tigris battle are AlL scholarly books (they include thee best and award winning scholars in the fields of Near Eastern history, no jokes folks, go to main page of the Tigris battle and click on their names). read the first paragraph of page 121. Then, look for Note65 in the last sentence of the first paragraph, which the explanation appears near the end of that page. This is new and damning evidence that now shows, that out of the 5 translations, only 1, which is the most outdated and oldest translation, mistakes Persia for Sea Country (by the way if it was Sea Country, the tablet say's "on the Tigris", the Sea Country people were on the Euphrates more than a 100 miles south of the Tigris in northern Arabia, not in northern Iraq(Babylon)! The old translation even calls Uruk, Erech, so the oldest translator has problems. Therefore, virtually all of the new translators and historians (plus other authors who STUDIED the tablet) agree it was the Persians, if you go to the Tigris article, and look at the translations, you will see this. I said months ago that maybe the translation refers to a Persian advance party, therefore meaning Cyrus invaded into Babylon near the end of 540 BC(February 539}, not September 539 as User:ChrisO believes (he went to the {city} of Babylon in September, but entered the {country} in February 539. [6]. Though this link is not the strongest evidence, this book makes the mistake of saying the sixteenth year of Nabonidus was in 539 BC, but the fact that it say's sixteenth year (FacT:meaning the end of 540 BC), would then mean he is refering to the inscription (it is the only inscription too that has end of 540 BC on it) that describes the Tigris battle. He is saying Cyrus BegaN his invasion in the end of 540 BC, not 539 BC, so by February?, the battle or some border scrimage happened. The book is virtualy from 1900, but even then historians were pretty sure when the invasion happened. [7]. Amélie Kuhrt's 2007 book, is by far the best evidence. User:ChrisO, who I remember I had a minor (as compared to other users) dispute over whether Cyrus killed the people or army of Akkad in the Battle of Opis, he even thinks she is the best for translating these texts, and because most historians believe Cyrus killed the people which she agreed with, he said Lambert's translation(note:it is also interesting that users say for the Tigris battle, that there is no consensus on which translation is right, so the Tigris article should not exist, Yet for the Opis battle, there is AlsO no consensus for the best translation, so why is there a article for it?!) for the Battle of Opis is a fringe theory (which I now agree with). Now for the directions, on page 53 read NoteS 4, 6, 7-8. You could say, "but note.4 is refering to something else." BuT, note.4 say's Von Voigtlander (1963: 194), and in note.6 it say's Von Voigtlander (1963: 194-5) again, note.4 and note.6 are describing the same event. Here it is, I know it sounds complicated, but be sure that you know the directions before you do this, or you will get more confused. I am sorry I can not make this simpler. [8]. Some have even said Herodotus' invasion story is purely false. Yet, in this 2006 book, we now have evidence that he mistaked the Median Wall, with the wall of Babylon. And that he does not mistake Darius' invasion of Babylon for Cyrus,' he mentions them as two seperate events. Therefore some positive changes could be made the Battle of Opis. Basically meaning it is better if a tale is confirmed by Herodotus than not confirmed at all. Although I agree that Herodotus is not that reliable either way, page 356, 358. [9]. For this book, it is from 1989, and spends one full page on the supposed battle. It states that there is some truth to Herodotus' via Xenophons' account, and that the Persian army was doing something on the Tigris in February 539 BC. The only thing he does not mention is the fact that on the inscription it says the "army of the Persians made an attack." He notes that then the Persians had to have already begun the invasion near the end of 540 BC to already be stationed on the Tigris by February 540 BC. And their march on the {city} of Babylon was September to October (therefore this sentence does not conflict with the known history of Bablyon). Do not forget to look for note.3 on page 44, the explanation for the note that is at [the bottom of the page] and say's Grayson, which is one of the translators, prefers reading it as Persia not Sea Country. So now 1 translater (the outdated and oldest, plus possibly dead guy) does not agree with; me, the four other translatiorns, plus at least five other historians that believe the event happened (this does not mean that only ten people know about this, more undiscovered people and books are still out there. This looks like a 90% consensus that such a event did happen. That is why all they think is that probably the border patrols of Babylon had a minor encounter with the invading Persians, and were driven away. And also, in the bottom of that page too, it say's the translation for Persia in its thesis was written in a unpublished paper on the inscription. [10]. There is a snippet link for this one (but do not worry, you will see everything that is here, there too). The late, yet renowned historian, Olmstead, is pretty sure of what he is talking about. I have this book from 1960. It say's this, and you are welcomed to find this book yourself to confirm what I say here as the truth. Furthermore, a passage (in page 40) from Olmsteads book (History of the Persian Empire) reveals that upon Oppenheim's translation, he agrees with him in coming to the following conclusion... Heading of the page reads; "FOUNDER CYRUS[it is actually in capitals in the book]: "Conquest of Babylonia" "The way thus paved by the dissaffected elements of the population, Cyrus made ready to invade the alluvium as soon as he had returned from his eastern campaigns. Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He (Nabonidus) suffered a defeat {on the Tigris}, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March.[91] Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins." Here is the semi-full link, [11]. On the next page (in page 50), Olmstead say's, "Cyrus fought ANOTHER battle (this time) at Opis." I also checked the note.91, and it say's, "Chron,. col. III, 11. 1-2." And found out it is refering to the inscription that records the Battle of the Tigris!!! Here is the jaw dropping link, [12]. Overall, Olmstead argues that when the inscription say's, Ishtar of Uruk, and as we all know Ishtar was the goddess (statue) of Uruk, Nabonidus wanted divine help from her. As we go more into the future, the inscription gets more worn off. So when it was legible in the 50's, it was mostly complete. And to this day, no historian has come forth saying what Olmstead say's is wrong (so it is a reliable and unrefutted source). The historians however, now because the inscription is not legible, neglect mentioniing the battle in new books. That is why {only} the best scholars on the subject know about it, and other less experienced authors do not mention this battle. So we know now that Olmstead and most others believe and explicitly say that two battles happened, and the first one was a real but minor battle with no specific details. The book is referenced like this, Olmstead, A.T., History of the Persian Empire, University of Chicago Press, [1948]Paperback edition(1959) p. 49-50. ISBN 0226627772. Conclusion on Battle of the Tigris: Well, what can I say, I could say that the Tigris battle, with this much material has the potential to be a long, debatefull, good sourced, and interesting article. I might even change the title to be more appropriate. And totally revamp it, to make the content in the article more neutral. By presenting ExcatlY what every historian/ translator has said about the inscription. {The fact that such an event is support by MosT 90% of the top notch scholars who are the best on the subject and the most reliable sources out there, plus ancient accounts, archaeological evidence, and even recorded on a tablet from Babylon, makes it hard to deny.} If anyone denies it, they are baised at best, and that is the inconvenient truth. I do not know what is going on out there, but know someone or something is indirectly suppressing this information. Whether it is part of a broader agenda, or a grouped of user(s) with grudges, it is a real mystery to me. Keep in mind, that the scholars have better materials with them, than is available to us, so a smoking gun was discovered, and they agree the some vague but true battle had occured. Finally, I hope this information I provided was enlightening, and wish the best for all. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Gordium (November 2008): Almost a year ago, instead of looking for sources, I accidently (I thought the "siege" word had been sourced) took the mention that "the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city [of Gordium]" from the Wikipedia article on Gordium (copied verbatim from livius.org, but without inline citation) and the unsourced mention of a "Siege of Gordium" from a Wikipedia [13] Later during the discussion I interpreted the book snippet "Alexander conquered... Phrygia (there he took a strong Persian fortress Gordion)" as a POSsible confirmation of the siege taking place: "And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right?" I never thought it had happened for sure, and I already explained in my first big message here, that Ev chose what part to take out of my message, thus misrepresenting what I had said (he did not include what I said after and at the end of the issue). Again, this is explained in my first big message here. You are welcomed to look at it. Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (February - November 2008): Actaully the edit block on the article was a mistake by User:Dougweller, I had one small dispute with User:MinisterForBadTimes (a user that I always respect for expanding the article) on the number of Helots in that battle, I gave him links to books that have different numbers for them, it was never my own personal interpretations of ancient primary sources. He disagreed that it would change the format, and I disagreed. But BeforE the block had ended, he proposed a deal, I accepted and proposed an extension to that deal. After the block expired, I let him edit freely, and he let me make minor changes to the article, issue solved. Talk:Siege of Sardis (547 BC) (February - December 2008): I think Ev didn't bother to actually read my message on that page, which I clearly gave evidence on that siege taking place in 547 BC. I was never argueing with anyone, I put it there for everyone to see. Deleted entries in Ariobarza's userspace, which it is arrogant on Ev's part to say that these articles are much more of the same, when I have only started. And he is suggesting we put a due date on them, I guess he likes to rush people. User:Ariobarza/Battle of Pasargadae — (AfD: redirect to Pasargadae) User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Marsyas — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Median Fort User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Siege of Doriskos — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Siege of Pasargadae Hill — (AfD: delete) And there is a possibility of making these articles to, [only when I am finished making the ones above, and I wont request to make the articles, until they have been approved by multiple users.

This is one of the final messages of User:Ariobarza on this page, he is currently tired of spending 3 hours to make this message. And hopes that users will finally realize what is finally going on. The readers are now welcomed to take deep breaths. Thank you and good bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

All that time that I supposed waisted the time of other users is already compiscated, because I patrol my watchlist, and prevent vandalizing and look out for other articles, while I edit in my userspace. For once I want to thank you Ariobarza, because no one here ever mentions how much you contribute to Wikipedia. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Oppose ban - the User is not not entirely detrimental, and errors can be fixed. See WP:GRIEF. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Experience has shown that 'fixing' takes an inordinate amount of time. Are you volunteering? dougweller (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed. Experts shouldn't have to waste their time on crankery, especially if encyclopaedic content suffers. Wikipedia is not therapy has some cogent things to say about this whole affair. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper canvassing by Ariobarza

I note that Ariobarza has responded to this discussion by canvassing a number of other (presumably fellow Iranian) editors to intervene. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. That's clearly improper canvassing, and it's not a sign of good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a WP:CANVASS violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to the full comments Ariobarza made between 12:57 and 13:01, 18 Dec. (UTC) at the talk pages of Alborz Fallah, Kamranmirza, Wayiran & Xashaiar: "The time has come, you can go here, administrators' noticeboard to oppose my ban, I need as many votes as I can get to survive". - Ev (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Shamefull misleading of information with lies by ChrisO

Improper canvassing and threats to more than one user, [20], I'm sorry, is this the best evidence to get me banned? If your going to accuse me of something, make sure you have not done it yourself. I was notifying the users in Iranology to come on this page freely, and decide if they are for or against my ban. Only on one or two of the messages, I thought the user was against my ban, and I found out he ultimately was. So in this case, you have nothing better to do, but exaggrate my actions again. Your not sticking to the points I am making on this, changing the subject is unwise.

I would be ashamed of myself to list old errors as a ban page for ChrisO or anyone else, because I know that renewing old hostilites will hurt progress on Wikipedia, but apparently Ev and ChrisO LIKE doing this. I presented evidence here that the Tigris battle happened, and he has yet to acknowledge that he's wrong. This is a content dispute, not a user dispute. Below is a list of what ChrisO has done that he acccuses me of doing, plus more, I have removed the signed comments of other users for the protection of their privacy. I do not want to change the subject of my ban, but I have to get this off my chest. I have collected the information recently because I was appauled at what I saw. I am sorry I am putting this information here, but I am tired of ChrisO's hypocrisy. After reading the below message, you will hopefully be more aware of this issue, and hopefully wont waste your vote, thanks.

Collapsed to not clog up page.

Sorry, this message is long, but I saw that a user complained about an admin on the ANI page, about he getting blocked for not even violating any rules while messaging, well, it happend to me too. Hi, I saw that some admin was imperiously using their powers, were you commented in the noticeboards incidents, well the same thing happened to me. I had recently, well a lot of people too, have complained about the admin ChrisO, please do not contact him. I had been blocked for being a little mean to him. I was not experienced and I started making unsourced articles, which half got deleted. Now I make them in my user space. He has formed some sort of gang of 4-5 admin that will do anything he says. Ever since last month he came here, saying he is neutral, then trying to point his own point of view here, he was blocked once for excessive redirects. He has made various pages with a list of users to be punished, especialy calling me an iranian nationalist, for editng persian related articles. He is a major source of disruption, I and someone else got blocked for two weeks. Then now he has gone through so much length to prove us wrong, I know he has an agenda. Then I got blocked for saying he is too strict and wants to add PATRIOT ACT type laws to Wikipedia, FOR THIS SENTENCE, I was blocked by one of his minians. He is very strict, he told me to shut up. And other users like him say occasionally bullshit, crap, and other mean words, then saying I am uncivil and attacking them, I am losing it. They just come and delete articles not contribute. If you can help form a study group if you have the time or agree to make with me an investigation of these users, I would appreciate it. Specialy ChrisO here is some rules he has broken, note: he has ties to the top of Wikipedia, making a ANI page for him will be hard, because he has a lot of supporters, some good, some bad. HE HAS a POV OWN revisionist policy that is making editing on Wikipedia a hell, he mostly and only accuses me of OR, which later I get the sources and prove him wrong. So going back to the story I was blocked for the patriot act sentence, can you believe that for a day I was blocked. I do not really have the time to make an ANI page, people let him get away with a lot of things as an admin. He ignores me when I come to solutions. Here 75% of the wrong things he has done, plus canvass, spy, and threaten... A) ChrisO deleting comments from valid sources (including Briant) from the archives: [21] and then files claims in ANI about my so called original research! I have hardly edited this article. I am discussing three valid sources and why they are not included in the aftermath. I am not discussing Lambert, I consider that part to have been partially resolved (we can of course add his linguistic arguments to the reference). I am wondering if the three sources I mentioned from published textbooks are WP:OR that ChrisO deletes them from the archives before they have been put in the article? B) Note the three sources which were deleted from the archives by user ChrisO: 1) "In the month of Tesri(October), says the chronicle, 'Cyrus did battle at Opis on the Tigris against the troops of Akkad' One battle broke the Babylonian king's paid army; and there was no popular resistance anywhere. Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984. 2) Pierre Briant: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously and the important part is "those who attempted to resist" which is not covered in Grayson's translation but it is scholarly intrepretation by Briant). 3) "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007). C) ChrisO quotes Kuhrt in half(deleting the crucial part of a sentence) and cuts off half of her sentence: [22] and then deletes it from the archives when this is pointed out: [23] D) ChrisO violates 3rr as an admin and gets two hours and simple warnings. Sometimes he is just let go. E) Finally ChrisO has been driving away different users from contributing in this and various other articles. In the last two months, he has had problems with at least 5 different users. I believe he adopted a policy of WP:OWN with regards to different articles and uses his administrator power to enforce WP:OWN through threats of permanent bans on non-admin users. In the last month or so, he has had problems with several users (Iranian, Jewish and etc.) of variety of backgrounds and constantly labels them. Obviously as an admin he can be rude to these users. F) I made a mistake for not reporting him another time for 3rr violation. Partly due to what I thought was a veiled threat by another admin [24] but partly I was just trying to resolve the issues nicely in this article. Unfortunately that was a big mistake by me and I should have reported him. G) I will take a break from this article, since with the effective bureaucracy, it is obvious what happens to those who point out ethical mistakes by the user who is also typically rude (behind the monitor). Amazing someone can delete three valid sources from the archives, cover his track (when caught deleting half a curical sentence) and delete other parts of the archives, break 3rr when he feels like and violate WP:OWN. Sure he can cross out his own comments or delete them, but he should not delete comments by other users from the archives. Specially considering the treatement of other users( Tundrabuggy and etc.). The ChrisO (talk · contribs), an administrator who is heavily involved in some content disputes at Middle East-related articles, is maintaining a subpage in his userspace which seems to be violating the Wikipedia attack page policy, User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I attempted to remove the infringing sections,[25][26] but he has simply kept putting them back, and has now used his admin tools to protect the page to prevent further "vandalism".[27][28] He has now passed 3RR,[29][30][31][32] is maintaining a policy-violating page in his userspace, is misusing his admin tools,[33][34] and is accusing an admin trying to enforce policy, of performing vandalism. He also just threatened to block User:Elonka.[35] So if he's misusing his admin tools in this way, more admin eyes are definitely needed. The list of articles is not the problem. The issue involves personal attacks at other editors, such as referring to them as Iranian nationalists. Those were the sections I was trying to remove,[36] and still feel should be removed, per WP:ATP and WP:NPA. This is part of his larger effort to paint a legitimate editing dispute as a policy issue. Chris has also canvassed dozens of editors to watchlist the page, essentially turning it into a vehicle for vote-stacking ([37]), stalking, and defaming other users. Many of the people involved in this discussion were canvassed earlier as well ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], and a dozen more). As for attack pages, again, how about the section misconduct issues on Talk:Battle of Opis and the one 'pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" at the discussion page[46]. This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each other up even it means twisting statement. I did not call ChrisO a liar. I said: "pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" which is stating an opinion on his opinion about me (his opinion is in violation of WP:ATP, specially when he started that page, he had targed 6-7 editors[47]. Please note ChrisO even accused me of edit warring, which is a lie. I hardly edited those pages. If anyone was edit warring, it was ChrisO who is an admin and yet broke 3rr on that page. Possibly, I broke 1rr but not even 2rr. Stating an opinion on an opinion is fine in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Personal Attacks are not fine, but that was comment on content. Of course ChrisO has constantly called anyone who disagrees with him as an "Iranian nationalist". For example I have listed some Iranian nationalists here starting from Plato, Herodotus, Xenophon and etc to modern Western scholars:[48]. Trying to change the topic now will not work and change focus. How about this comment by ChrisO with regards to me: [49]. Please note his threats and intidimation. The whole comment violates many rules of Wikipedia. " Carrot first before stick?" shows complete arrogance (due to administrator power) and WP:OWN mentality and I even believe that is how ChrisO feels about who disagree with him and are not fromt he same area. Or how about this: "could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback". This is a threat for permanent banning and it is intidimation. All this, due to a content dispute (and I hardly edit any of these articles before discussing them and I have never reverted in any of these articles or broken 3rr like ChrisO). As per the issue of the Kurdish literature template, I have no doubt it is related. Incidentally if I was an “Iranian nationalists”, I would not create a Kurdish literature template. I have already mentioned templates which include: [50] [51][52] and have existed for some years now. Why were those not put to deletion after two-three years? So what I have done is create a parallel Kurdish Literature template when I saw Urdu, Turkish, Persian and etc. templates that have existed for some years. If there is a Turkish literature template, Urdu literature template,..etc., why not Kurdish literature template. If I was an "Iranian nationalist", I would have just let there be a Persian literature template and then redirected Iranian Literature to Persian literature instead of making that page a dab page. As per ChrisO being knowledegable in the classics, when it comes to ancient Persia, I also have a knowledge of Old Persian language as well as have read many history books and articles. So that does not give an execuse to misue administrator power. ChrisO has abused his administrator power to intimidate other editors and has violated WP:ATPWP:NPAWP:3RR numerous times. When he disagrees with them, he labels them instead of concentrating on content and this leads to an atmosphere of intidimation(of course since he is an admin and he knows the other side knows he is an admin, this makes the threat credible). You are trying to change the subject. I commented on content and not the person which is common to Wikipedia rule. ChrisO had made the comment here. Neither unlike ChrisO, I have intidimated users and threatened to ban them or treat them as inferior animals(carrots or sticks comment) or have canvessed 40 users to my talkpage and then defamed 6-7 users:[53] and then used my administrator power to lock the article which defames individuals. I hope that clears things up. As per the Kurdish Literature template, it was the tone of nominator which was the problem. Note the nominator said: This navbox appears to have been created by a tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. The template relies on a nationalistic definition. Most of the entries are not linked. . ChrisO then puts "per nom". The reason for deletion should be given without labeling the editor. And the template had no agenda. The template follows regular patterns in other Wikipedia templates that have existed for many years (Urdu, Turkish, Persian literature templates..) and there was no agenda by a tendentious editor following a nationalistic definition! Now if those other templates that have existed many years are inappropriate, then reason should be given rather than labeling editors as the nominator did. As per bias, I'll leave it to other editor. Lets not get into semantics. If statement is wrong, then it is a lie. It could be an intentional or non-intentional lie, but it is a lie. One definition of lie in my dictionary is:an inaccurate or false statement. Now, if somethings falls under a label "editors of concern", the word "lie" is appropriate since it is an inaccurate satement! Per Wikipedia rules, you can make comments on content but not label editors. You brought this matter up, but as you noticed, it does not go against any Wikipedia rule since I am commenting on content. As per 3rr and ChrisO, it occured twice, not once. Breaking 3rr twice is edit warring, specially in the same topic. But one revert is not edit warring. So ChrisO has called my editing pattern for that article as "edit warring"(which is a lie: false/inaccurate satement) where-as he broke 3rr twice on the same article. He was blocked once, but then he did it again, I was about to file a report, but I withdrew (out of good faith)[54][55]. So I did not continue it. And it was right after he broke a 3rr before. As per me edit warring on battle of Opis, no I did not edit war. Predicting banning and then putting my name constantly next to a banned user, is intrepreted as a ban threat. Grouping different users and putting my name next to a banned user is an intidimation tactic. Also "Carrot and Stick" is intidimating comment as well as arrogant. I am sure you would not like such comments applied to you. There is no need for me to repeat myself and I think I was clear. If you disagree fine. I think that such pages as ChrisO's are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia, definitely not appropriate for an administrator to have (who is supposed to appear neutral as an administrator), reflects POV and possible SOAP problems, and violates many editorial ethical concerns. I think, at the very minimum, such pages should be immediately deleted and the user warned against creating such thing in the future. They are not compatible with consensus, civility, or any of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is about working together, finding unity in which all people can be agreed upon, and not the place for one person who has "truth" to pass blank judgment on all others without actually getting into discussions, focusing on specific events, wording, phrasing, etc. Because that list focuses on content and not the contributor. It's also worth pointing out that that particular contributor was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and was completely banned from the topic area for a year. The problem with ChrisO's subpage is not the list of articles. Having a list of articles that need cleanup is absolutely okay. The problem with ChrisO's subpage, is that it is also being used to snipe at other contributors. If he removes the personal attacks, the page is fine. I am not sure if you have read everything here, since this is about behaviour. I did not concentrate on content but on actual mislabeling of editors and their defamation. Yes we need to dispute content, use RfC, follow WP:OR and WP:Synthesis and etc. But ChrisO has been having problems with 6 or so editors within one month and has used many labels for these editors and violate 3rr and etc. Again I think it is simply best to forget this whole episode and concentrate on content in articles. But it is very important not too label editors whom we disagree with and not use comments such as "carrots or stick" and etc. for them. Then the whole atmosphere is ruined. So let us follow civility rules and not label editors, but work on content and use RfC and etc. Threats and intidimation and etc. should be stopped. The main goal of editors in Wikipedia is to create an Encyclopedia that is reliable, so lets work on that goal rather than labeling editors or choosing sides/making groups. I have always tried to be civil and polite and I do not appreciate comments like "Carrots before sticks" or "has edit warred"(when I hardly edited that specific topic) and etc. Thank you. The main problem is that ChrisO mislabels people instead of concentraing on content and various labels in order to render input from other editors with diffing viewpoints as null. His "Carrots over stick" comments I believe shows arrogance and WP:OWN. Also by defaming people originally and then canvessing editors to look at the defamation, he has created a poor atmosphere. Also as an admin who broke 3rr twice on the same page, he accusses me of edit warring (I hardly edited the topic). Overall though, we can use his help for these articles, but I he should not abuse his admin privilidges to induce an atmosphere of intidimation. I think RfC and mediation when there is content dispute is the best way to go. Also scholars can differ in viewpoints and the main goal is to represent a variety of differing viewpoints based on weight. I myself have emphasized quoting specialists. So when I pointed out Wieshofer/Kuhrt are not specialists in Akkadian (and we found out that Wiesehofer did not make a translation even unlike what originally ChrisO said), I was ignored. So to cut it short, if ChrisO stops mislabeling/defaming editors, then these articles can be fixed keeping in mind pertaining wikipedia guidelines. The matter should not go beyond a content dispute. It's a personal review. In fact the user had some very good ideas which you did not address. I agree with his view of this completely. How does labeling other editors as "bad editors" help you "fix" the problem? Simply because you disagree with the perspective of others does not make them "bad editors." Making such statements about good faith editors shows a lack of AGF as well as of Civil, a core Wiki value. The page should be refactored without name-calling and disparaging remarks or else completely deleted. Well said. The mislabeling and disparaging remarks about editors should stop. Lets not forget this originally started when the page he created had disparaging remarks about editors and then he canvessed 40 or so people to view the disparaging remarks. So if the intention is to improve the quality of articles, lets discuss the problems of these articles in an appropriate wiki-project rather than a userspace which can be locked. Doug - "This page disparages the contributions of other users. Are we going to delete every page that discusses problems with other editors?" This page does not list others, cite where they have problems editing, and keep that list up for everyone to see. Any list that collects editors and criticizes their editing ability instead of working to form a consensus is highly inappropriate. If ChrisO had a problem with those editors, he could either work with them or come to ANI. Furthermore, an admin compiling such a list can be very problematic, as it would remove all ability to view their actions as neutral or looking at the situation neutrally, and it can have a chilling affect as a pseudo administrative warning to those editors without going through proper channels.

--Ariobarza (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

off the rails

I support a full ban of Ariobarza. The problems with his misunderstanding of the no original research policy have been amply demonstrated here, as is another problem: any "discussion" w/Ariobarza quickly gets spammed with vaguely relevant wall-o'-text posts, which render the thread completely useless. This is a form of disruptive editing, not to mention a gigantic waste of time, both for Ariobarza and whoever actually bothers to read through the thread. Let's put an end to it, shall we? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah wow. I was willing to give some latitude, but my patience is well and truly exhausted. User would rather obfuscate the issue than learn. Time to say goodbye. // roux   03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, me presenting evidence of why I should not get banned means I am off the rails, wow, your funny. So a bunch of users are going to decide to delete me because of my wrong impression, I would like a bigger audience to decide if I am about to be deleted or not. bye.

Yes, Akhilleus lets put an end to Ariobarza (in the same way T-1000 puts an end to other people), if I'm about to be terminated, I will spread the hope of salvation for future generations, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Other than producing your own rants, why Dont You look at the sections smoking gun and misleading, and all your questions will be answered, is that too much to ask? Why do you people like to fill up this page with uneccessary comments that fuel lies. If you done this in the begining, you would not say I do OR, SYN, CIVIL, like I said, you will be amazed. Use common sense for once. Why make things so complicated, so I can get mad? And give you an excuse to ban me? How mean, how very mean of the supporters that want to ban me, my feelings and wisdom teeth are hurt. I am still not sure why I am going to be banned, I not did break any rule, edit only in my userspace since my block, resolved issues with old conflicts of other users. This is an ELITIST and Opinionated page dominated with uncommon sense users(I am only refering to the users who are for my ban). When I type, I say things straight forwardly, so I am not afraid to hide my true feelings, and act in a taboo matter to just follow the herd, I am not sheep. My all be enlightened. Warmest regards.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Okay, new suggestion

Block Ariobarza with the caveat that he may use his talkpage to develop articles. Anything good that is developed may be added to extant (or new) articles, properly attributed of course. Anything not good may simply be ignored. Ariobarza gets to keep contributing, edits get vetted without any concerns about OR or SYN being introduced into mainspace, everyone is happy. Endorse/oppose? // roux   04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I totally agree with your independent input on my ban, and glady accept your proposal if that is what it takes for me to contribute free knowledge to Wikipedia. I want to give you my greatest thanks for giving me one final chance to redeem myself. I have already evacuated my userspace articles on my own Ark, so just in case I was to be banned I could email them to proffessional historians to be peer viewed. Like I kinda said before, I will request my userspace articles to be created, only when they have been reviewed and accepted by multiple users. I am willing to take other users advice to heart, and I will do my best to learn from them. Thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Who is going to spend their time reviewing Ariobarza's contributions and arguing with her about why they're unusable in articles? Ariobarza has already spurned Animate's mentorship and ignored all the advice she's been given about following NOR. Are you willing to spend weeks or months on it? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said Ariobarza is going submit all the information at once so it will take a long time for others to review it? If I am giving this chance, I will submit my contributions piece by piece, so it will be easier on others. The reason I have not really looked into me being mentored by Animate, is because he himself said he was not going to be a full time mentor, and at the time I did not need his help. I only need my mentor for reviewing what I submit, but before I could submit anything, Ev proposed a ban on me. So I have to constantly waist time coming here to see what becomes of my fate on Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedian's interested in Iranian related articles look optimistic in helping me, and I already favor a broader community to review my work, so it will not have any POV in it. So finally all the work I submit will be verifiable (no OR or SYN), plus it could be neutral and fairly balanced. Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• While drafting the ban proposal I did consider restrictions like this one (user space only) & AniMate's alternative (user space & discussions). I concluded that in all likelyhood it would not work, for two reasons:

  1). It requires a volunteer willing to devote the time needed to review Ariobarza's contributions thoroughly (and do the arguing), because any original research moved to articles for a lack of proper vetting would still be a drain on the time & energy of other editors, thus probably reducing the magnitude of the problem but not solving it.

  2). I really don't like the idea of declaring someone's user space an original research heaven especifically destined to promote novel ideas (Wikipedia not being a blog or webspace provider, or a memorial site for martyred editors for that matter). Keep in mind that Ariobarza has consistently engaged in personal interpretations, and appears unable to grasp or adhere to the concept of "no original research". - Ev (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support this new proposal. I can't see anything wrong with it. Other people use their wikispace to work on articles. Ariobarza clearly has something to offer wiki. She is not vandalising articles, or POV-pushing, like so many on wiki do on a regular basis. If Ariobarza can find other users who will review her contributions it should not concern those editors who are not involved. I, for one, would be willing to be one of the editors to at least take a cursory look at anything she is ready to submit and offer criticism. I am sure there are other editors here, more experienced than I, who would do the same. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: There seems to be broad agreement that Ariobarza, over a period of many months, has engaged in persistent original research, and inserted huge amounts of material (sometimes entire articles) into Wikipedia based on their own speculation and guesswork about events in ancient history. This has made WP articles about ancient Greek/Persian history extremely suspect and unreliable, and has caused far better editors to waste hours of their time (both in terms of locating the errors, and then working through WP's cumbersome procedures for removing anything which is not blatant and outright vandalism). Several of those articles were - correctly - deleted. However we seem to have offered those articles a get-out-of-AfD-free card, since they still exist in Wikipedia and come up as the first result in Google searches, albeit they are now in Ariobarza's userspace. This proposed arrangement would formalise and validate that situation, and in fact encourage Ariobarza to continue adding nonsense articles and made-up information into the system here. Ev is 100% right of course about WP:NOTMYSPACE. Nor is it a question of giving Ariobarza time to find sources or build these articles into mainspace-worthy pages. When many of these articles were deleted, it was because there were no sources to be found - they were mostly about entirely fictitious events, as other editors had to show by doing their own research into the issue. Most of these articles are never going to "come good", yet they remain here with Wikipedia's imprimatur. And even if this were to be possible in some cases, who is going to vet and approve every single sentence of every one of these articles? I note Tundrabuggy has offered but given this comment in one of the AfD debates (the diff is actually to my response to that comment), I doubt that would help much. I don't feel comfortable about demanding bans of any sort, but I don't see this userspace proposal as being a workable or happy compromise in any way. --Nickhh (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Implementation of Roux's new suggestion by Guy

My apologies for the lenght of this post.

Guy, you have implemented Roux's new suggestion (diff. & diff.). Although I don't want to extend this discussion more than necessary, I'm unsure whether such action corresponds to whatever degree of consensus has developed so far in this discusion, and I'm pretty confident that it isn't the right solution here. – At least not in its current form.

Akhilleus, AniMate, ChrisO, Dweller, Folantin, llywrch, Looie496, Mathsci, Ncmvocalist & myself support a full community ban.

6SJ7, Bearian, Everyking & Nepaheshgar oppose any ban. But only Nepaheshgar appears to have given some thought to his opinion. –– The fact that 6SJ7, Bearian and Everyking don't see any significant problem here (and basically view the situation as a regular content dispute) leads me to believe that they simply didn't looked enough into the issue (I refer again to Nickhh's comments during the previous ban proposal). And please allow me a short rant: I simply cannot understand how someone would consider acceptable continuing to subject our knowledgeable unpaid volunteers to the monumental waste of time & energy that dealing with Ariobarza through our normal dispute resolution mechanisms entails.

Only Dougweller, Roux, Tundrabuggy and Ariobarza herself support the implemented restriction to user space only (or something along those lines). It is specifically opposed by Nickhh.

Moreover, significant questions about Roux's new suggestion (raised by ChrisO, Nickhh & myself) remain unanswered:

1). Who will review Ariobarza's work (and do so in a competent and thorough manner, to actually free other editors from this task) ? – Tundrabuggy volunteered to "at least take a cursory look" into Ariobarza's contributions; but his previous experience at this very task doesn't look promising.

2). How will we manage Ariobarza's user space content ? To which extent are we giving Ariobarza permission to use her user space to freely engage in original research (something that, in my opinion, implies using Wikipedia as a blog) ? Because that is what she has done consistently until now, and will continue to do for the forseable future.

a). Should we impose time limitations for how long each proposed article can exist in her user space ? Should we use standard deletion mechanism (MfD), with all the time it would consume ? Or should they be allowed to remain in her user space "forever" (as Ariobarza's personal compendium of novel ideas) ?

b). What can we do to eliminate -or drastically reduce- the dissemination of that misinformation (through Google, Wikipedia mirrors & such) ? Excuse my total lack of technical skills. – Do I need to remaind anyone that providing the resources to disseminate misinformation to the world blatantly contradicts the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation ?

And on a more general note, probably not to be answered now, just pondered:

c). Are we establishing a precedent that further denigrates the importance of our core content policies of Verfiability & No Original Research ? Is the understanding of & compliance with those policies not relevant for "articles" kept in user space ?

So... wouldn't it be better to re-open this discussion for a few more days ? - Thank you for your patience. Best regards, Ev (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty presumptuous for you to say that I (and a few others) did not look closely enough into the situation. Perhaps you are not being objective because you are one of those involved in the dispute. There is one other person involved here (not you) whose involvement leads me to believe that Ariobarza is being railroaded here because he/she does not agree with this other person. That is this other person's standard operating procedure. I'm not naming any names to avoid further drama. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I did look again at one of the copied over articles (Siege of Doriskos). It does not have the edit history for the previous version of the article; so my edits - the links, sources and "Account of Herodotus" - look as if they were made by Ariobarza. The lede - all that Ariobarza wrote - is completely incorrect and, as I mentioned above, the claimed source does not support the material there. I don't see why any editor should have to devote their time to ironing out the problematic WP:OR contained in the lede.I assume this applies to other articles. There are other untagged articles still out there like Battle of the Persian Border which are probably also WP:OR and improperly sourced. Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's very much the case. I suggest asking Ariobarza to work on those pages off-wiki and getting them deleted via WP:MFD. Draft articles on completely made-up subjects, such as battles that aren't described in any published history, are never going to be suitable for inclusion in article space. There's simply no point having them around, since there's nothing useful that can be done with them. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, I note that you wrote above: "The "gestating" article on Battle of Tigris looks sourced to me." That tells me straight away that you indeed didn't look closely enough into the situation. If you had, you would have seen that the article had been cobbled together from fragments in various sources, with Ariobarza's personal interpretation providing the glue. Furthermore, there's no reliable source of any kind that anyone has been able to find that describes such a battle between Persians and Babylonians (it helps if you know something about the subject matter). The problem here is that Ariobarza simply doesn't accept NOR. As soon as "Battle of the Tigris" was deleted from article space - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris - it was copied into Ariobarza's user space. She continued with exactly the same OR-based work that resulted in the article's deletion in the first place, and showed no sign of paying any attention to any of the advice and instructions she was given about not engaging in OR. The same pattern has been repeated with several other articles deleted via AfD that are now in her user space. As I've said above, they're unusable. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Blocks are preventive, and we have a significant number of experienced editors here stating that they are having to spend a lot of time cross-checking edits to mainspace for original research and other issues; the user in question seems comfortable with the idea of a block to prevent them getting into more trouble, so I really don't see the problem. There are people working with Ariobarza, and I am confident that if and when they have fixed the problem at source they will come back here and inform us that the block is no longer necessary. But right now I would say it is needed, because what we are protecting here is content and one of the most important policies we have. Similarly, if Ariobarza's user space edits step over the line into blog or MySpace territory then we can review that as well. The solution as proposed seemed to me to represent progress and some kind of a middle way, with the open invitation to redemption. What exactly would you change about that situation? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add that comments that Ariobarza's material appears "sourced" and that this is simply a series of individual content disputes prove exactly why this situation is so problematic. That is indeed how they often appear at first, yet proper inspection would reveal that this is totally wide of the mark. A common trick is for Ariobarza to note (accurately) that a particular town or city is recorded as having been under the control of the Persian Empire at some point, then to create an article called "Siege/Battle of XXX" which speculates about how and when that control might have been acquired. Cites are provided to tangentially relevant sources, which however - when you actually go to read them - do not mention the event in question. Nor do those sources appear to be out there in the real world. Obvious hoaxes and vandalism are quickly spotted and reverted here - subtly misrepresented or totally made up material with "ooh look, 27 footnotes!" has a veneer of authenticity. That makes it a) harder to spot and deal with; & b) more likely to mislead even the more sceptical passing reader, and hence make a laughing stock of this place. --Nickhh (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Danza

A few more eyes on this might be useful. According to one and only one report he's died which may lead to more of this. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if it's fake news or something. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, talk about embarrassed. I even managed to miss the "tony.danza.swellserver.com" I am now off to yell and swear at my boss, that always makes me feel better. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault! There was one of these a while ago that caused quite a bit of a scrap - seems the trend today is to fake death reports and try to use them as reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid-on-demand. See [56], [57], [58], etc. Might be a good reason to blacklist these domains, at least in article space. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, that'd be an excellent idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested here. Matt (Talk) 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And done Matt (Talk) 02:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the place to report an admitted soapbox editor?

Jed Rothwell has been posting a lot of text on the cold fusion discussion page, and recently said this: "My decision not to edit the article is final. .... While I would not touch this article, I enjoy bothering skeptics from time to time, until you throw me out again. From time to time someone should let the "skeptics" know how the researchers feel, and that you are not fooling everyone." [59] He seems to be saying that he has no intention of improving the wikipedia article, so I said, "Jed Rothwell, if are not trying to improve an article, the honorable thing to do is to stop posting on talk pages." [60] In response, he said this:[61]. Should something be done about this admitted use of wikipedia as a soapbox? Olorinish (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, the dictum that "no one who posts their credentials in their signature is to be taken very seriously" seems to hold true. Has he been informed that you started this thread? My suggestion is that we shouldn't roust editors from specific topic areas unless they are being actively disruptive. In his case he should be welcome to edit the talk page (why doesn't he edit the article?) so long as he can separate content from contributors, respect consensus and make it a better place generally. If he continues to be obstructionist for the sake of it, you can move along the dispute resolution pathway to get him to leave. I'll take a closer look at most of the contributions, but right now I'd want to move slowly lest we stir the up this perennial hornet's nest.
• As for the "right place", AN/I might be better, but so long as you are here, I don't see a reason to move the thread. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well he seems to be using a dynamic IP so there's not much we can do. Maybe just revert his comments when they show up? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ahh, nuts. didn't look close enough. This is Jed Rothwell, who 'vanished' and returned and has some record of being difficult on these articles. A review of his talk page shows some previous collaboration w/ Pcarbon and numerous civility issues. And I've looked closer at the various responses he's given to polite prodding. My vote is semi the talk page and move along. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, I've requested semi-protection, which will hopefully stop the disruption or at least force him to use his account again. Verbal chat 11:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think that a topic ban for Jed Rothwell would be entirely uncontroversial, since he is infinitely worse than Pcarbonn, who is topic banned. In fact, I thought we already had banned Rothwell as a disruptive spamming POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The request for semiprotection was denied. [62] Is it OK if we just delete all future messages identifiable as Jed's? Olorinish (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. A textbook case for WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Fru23/User:KingsOfHearts

Resolved

 – Serial sockpuppetry means it's unlikely any admin will unblock, which is the definition of a ban. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has recently been an ANI thread on Fru23 to propose a topic ban where the editor was tendentiously editing and making WP:POINTs. which resulted in a checkuser (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts) revealing several socks. Following a continuing trend of making socks and sleepers, there's emerging support for a community ban. As such, I'm proposing it here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - of course. But sockpuppetry basically results in a community ban anyway, so is this necessary? // roux   02:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• It depends on the nature of the socking, it's not an automatic perma-punt. rootology (C)(T) 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I should have added 'abusive' in there for guaranteed puntitude. Puntery. I'm going to have to use the word 'punt' more. Punt punt punt. Love that word. // roux   05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fru23 just asked me on IRC to endorse this, saying "if it goes through faster their [sic] is less chance some other people go and write long complaints" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• endorse User has exhausted community patience. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Further Comment Fru23 also told me that KingsOfHearts is his brother. Having not been involved in case, I'm not sure whether to believe this or not (see this). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This was claimed on the ANI thread earlier. This was found to be not a credible claim. See Wikipedia:ANI#IRC_transcript and Wikipedia:ANI#Just_when_you_thought_it_was_over. This aside from the fact that the checkuser found additional socks. The checkuser also stated that it looks like they are editing from a group of computers that are nearly identically configured like one would find in a cluster or office. The notion that these are edits made by him and his brother is just hard to believe. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• endorse rootology (C)(T) 02:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse not because he asked me to (I would have endorsed either way), but because he's flat out lying to us about some of the socks. The evidence really isn't in his favor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong endorse - Nothing I can say that hasn't already been covered ad infinitum at WP:ANI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse (Insert obligatory "Worst Person in the World" segment) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse although it would be nice, though not required, to find out what "Fru23" stands for (a way of saying "fruit tree"?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note Seeing as how there's consensus for a formal ban, I've added KoH to the list of banned users. ([63]) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Do we mark both accounts as {{Banned user}} in this case? Or do we just leave this as a de facto ban as the {{resolved}} above would suggest? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific journal wants authors to add Wikipedia articles.

See the journals new submission guidelines. Given the previous problems we've had with large-scale attempts by other organizations to add in new articles and the history of having issues since Wikipedia doesn't function very much like academia this has me slightly worried. I think it would be helpful if we got together a bunch of long-term editors possibly admins and volunteered to the journal to be willing to help out any scientists who are doing this. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a Wikiproject for doing precisely this sort of thing, here. // roux   02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

there is a bunch of chatter about this on the mailing list.Geni 02:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)Hm....the journal does ask that the articles be placed in the userspace until the article itself is published (to satisfy WP:RS); they also do a fair job of illustrating how to create the article. Of course that doesn't mean the people writing the articles will be familiar with our other policies. Still, it would be nice to have more academics who know how/don't mind writing Wikipedia articles. I'd be happy to volunteer to help a few of them get settled on Wikipedia, though I'm afraid I can only help with the generic (e.g. non-science-related) aspects of it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case someone may want to contact the journal and let them know that we have such volunteers. I'd be willing to help out also. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly familiar with academia, and fairly fluently tongued in Wikipedish. As such, I'd be interesting in assisting this effort, should it materialize. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone have an objection to an IAR creation of said Wikiproject (at least to provide us with a central point to help coordinate assisting the journal)? I am obviously biased in favour of creation, which is why I'm asking. // roux   05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a Good Thing(tm) and we should extend every effort to help them along. If we're there to hold their hand this has the potential to be one very great net positive for the encyclopedia; if there are rules in the way then we need to fix those rules, IMO. — Coren ^(talk) 13:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go quite that far...but if someone wanted to be bold and create the project I don't think anyone would mind - just remember to post the link here! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They already have a WikiProject - Wikipedia:WikiProject RNA. Further, this wikiproject iss associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. --Aude (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood above, but I was under the impression that Roux was suggesting the creation of a "let's introduce academics to Wikipedia"-type project rather than a content-specific project. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's more along the lines of "Let's find really great potential contributors and help bring them onboard." Academics would be just one example. I should have the bones of the project page up within an hour or two. // roux   17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, on the whole. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• All interested, please see WP:OUTREACH. I've only just created the skeleton of the page; perhaps we could start discussions on the talkpage based on what I outlined as what I think the goals should be. Add more! Critique! Etc! // roux   20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What happens if a banned editor wants to publish in that journal? --NE2 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a great idea. Academics have access to and familiarity with reliable sources that the general population does not, and thus are potentially GREAT additions to the Wikipedia family, if they can be taught to use the system we have, then we stand to benefit greatly from having an easier method from introducing academics to Wikipedia! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Encouraging academics to contribute is super, but using Wikipedia as an adjunct to journal publication has a potential to raise serious COI and WP:OWN issues. Looie496 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Which we will happily nip in the bud :) // roux   21:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, if they can be trained to understand the Wikipedia system, then having academics around is a Good Thing(tm). However, I never said anything about affording them prileged status. As long as an individual is willing to work within established frameworks of behavior, professional academics can be a major PLUS to Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

← FYI, there has been some discussion about this toward the bottom of the Medicine WikiProject talk page, where many of the same pros and cons have been voiced. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete function question

Something I've always wondered about the Delete function (not specific to en.wp), and I'm wondering if this should be changed on MediaWiki or if there's a good reason for it. An example delete log from my Commons userpage:

• 02:10, December 19, 2008 Rootology (Talk | contribs | block) restored "User:Rootology" ‎ (76 revisions restored: all set)
• 02:10, December 19, 2008 Rootology (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Rootology" ‎ (just testing something, restoring in a moment)

On the initial delete, why doesn't it list the number of revisions deleted? It's the same apparently on all our sites. rootology (C)(T) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you can do a selective restore, but not a selective delete. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You can, it's just not enabled yet :) ^demon (talk)

O rly? Was there a discussion on meta yet to get that ball rolling? rootology (C)(T) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• It should be. Selectively deleting an edit puts a lot less strain on the server than fully deleting and doing a selective restoration on edits you can't even properly scroll through anymore. Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Lar and User:Tznkai are leading the effort to write a proposal on the topic. There is also a Bugzilla open on it. MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll ping one of them for an update. rootology (C)(T) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This will be so helpful when it shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this wouldn't be a uniformly positive idea. So I'm hoping this would just be a quick trip to the VP, a nice little straw poll and bob's your uncle... isn't that how everything usually goes here? :) Tznkai wanted to check on some technical thing or another first though. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For more information about RevisionDelete, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&diff=prev&oldid=1311615. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Valery Kobelev removed from DYK

Why is Valery Kobelev gone from DYK? I can't find anything in the history that says why. So Why? The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at WT:DYK, not here. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_11 --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a pretty good idea, actually. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "gone". Looks like the Valery hook has been promoted, and now is enqueued (see T:DYK/Q1, or if it has already been updated, this diff). That means that it should automatically be transferred over to the main page within the next 5 updates (within a day and a half). They've changed the DYK process since last I was volunteering over there, so hopefully I got all that right.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicholsy = Trouble

As you are aware, before i started spending time on wikipedia, i spent a lot of time on Smallville wiki. There i met disruptive user: Nicholsy. For several months he destroyed the wiki. Untill i accused him of being a vandal, ever since then whenever he would be blocked (which was a lot, look at his block list), he would blame me. So now he's followed me to wikipedia, and today he left this on my talk page. Dave did a lot of horrible things (see contributions and i've listed on User:Bignole's talk page.) on Smallville wiki, and now i think he plans to do it here. Elbutler (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on what happens on other websites or as to whether this is actually the same user, but the message on your talk page was pure harassment and spite, so I've indef blocked Nicholsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) right off as that won't do at all. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but if any users or IPs show up as Saffron1992 or 92.8.157.86, block them, they're sockpuppets of Nicholsy, this was proven on Smallville wiki. Elbutler (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid I can't speak for off-wiki actions nor take action based upon them; however, if you were to receive that type of nasty message again from any other new user, or present a pattern of harassment, I'd be inclined to block immediately again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Elbutler's taunt on Nicholsy's Talk page doesn't seem appropriate. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, that's uncool in the extreme. I've left a note. // roux   00:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Person Tag for "Religion" Has Inappropriate Display Label

Resolved

 – Wrong venue Guy (Help!) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When defining a person's religion in a person infobox, the display label for the "religion" tag gets displayed as "Religious beliefs." My proposal is that the label should simply be: "Religion."

Religions have various approaches to the role that "belief" plays. In addition, religions have different approaches to the importance of belief in whether one can consider oneself an adherent to that group.

For instance, in Judaism, belief plays a relatively minor role in defining your membership to the group. Even when converting to Judaism, the role of the converts beliefs is not a central part in the process. In Christianity it would seem that belief is relatively more important in determining one's status in the group.

I would argue that Wikipedia's current approach in this matter is skewed toward a Christian paradigm of what it means to be a member of a particular religion. That, of course, then breaks Wikipedia's NPOV approach.

To reiterate, I am proposing that the display label used for the "religion" tag in an infobox for a person be changed from "Religious beliefs" to "Religion."

Sam* (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a matter for admins. Raise it on the talk page and if there is consensus then use {{editprotected}}. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear... are you saying I should raise this on the talk page of a specific article where I have the problem? Are not the tag name -> display name relationships for infoboxes defined somewhere generically? Sam* (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go to the infobox's talk page, i.e. Template talk:Infobox Person.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on fair use policy

An RfC has been filed regarding an application of fair use policy. The RfC may be found at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RFC:_Use_of_logos_on_sports_team_pages. It was requested after lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem. At the core of the argument; should sport team logos be permitted to be used for identification purposes on articles other than the team's main article, such as seasons, rivalries or specific games. Your participation is welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock cleanup please

I've just nabbed a fairly obvious sock of Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Codyfinkerosettastone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and am wondering what to do with the user's contribs. I don't know the whole story behind this guy, but know that he's been a long-term problem; however, some of the edits here look okay, and I'm not sure what our current policy is with regards to rolling back banned editors. Could someone take a look, and give me a sense of what to do there? Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to get someone's online store site removed from a number of articles and blacklisted?

Just spotted an attempt to add a link to tulumba.com and then found a slew of articles with links to this store [64] - is there a fast way to deal with it and make sure it can't happena again? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Either report it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, or find Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all references to the site in articles. Kingturtle (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I initially blacklisted it - but quickly got a request from a long-term regular editor to add it to the whitelist for one article.. which suggests that it may indeed have some legit purpose.. I have removed it from the blacklist & placed it on XLinkBot's revert list instead. --Versageek 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that it certainly looks like spam. It's not clear what legitimate purpose is served by linking to an online marketplace like that. Still, let's wait and see. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Creation protection as a pre-emptive measure

Hey all. Referring to this request for page protection I have to ask whether it's reasonable and okay to use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, if the pages that should get protected are grawp targets. At first I declined that request, as our policy clearly states that creation protection may not be used as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events. However User:SWik78 left this comment a bit later. Whilst I think that User:SWik78's rationale is quite reasonable, I don't feel comfortable acting “against” the policy, at least not before having achieved a consensus here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 19:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who protected the page. As you can see from recent ones like њ.а.6.6ея ? and .њ.а.6.6.ея?, which were create protected immediately, its become standard to do so, or at least that was the impression I was under, and this one should have been--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I just pointed out here I left this comment here at the noticeboard before I noticed that the request was done already. However, I think we should find a general course of action for requests like this for the future. — Aitias // discussion 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What about using common sense? Majorly ^talk 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what about staying civil and beeing a bit more polite? I emphasised it more than enough in my comment above that I consider it to be reasonable to protect here. However, what is wrong with asking for some different opinions to be on the safe side? — Aitias // discussion 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I wasn't civil or impolite, by the way. I seriously think you should use common sense over policy. When will that particular article ever need to be created? Why have the risk? Majorly ^talk 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, Majorly, I completely agree regarding the protection. However, I still don't see what was wrong with asking here in order to be on the safe side. — Aitias // discussion 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying it was wrong to ask here... Majorly ^talk 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Using &action=protect is silly. Use the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which allows for things like regex and such. Protecting individual page title variations is like pissing in the ocean. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

People who have no wish of learning how to use the complex regex there will want a simple way to protect a page. Please explain the disadvantages of protecting the page. Majorly ^talk 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there's almost an infinite amount of possible combinations of punctuations and characters that look like H, A, G, E, and R. Using the title blacklist, thousands or millions of combinations can be protected with one line, protecting one page is basically pointless. Normal protection is fine for protecting pages that are expected to be recreated soon, but in this case, it serves no purpose. It will not slow down page move vandalism at all. Its a pointless addition to the database. Mr.Z-man 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you have decided on that request for page protection, Mr.Z-man? — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

...I'm still not seeing what negatives there are in protecting the page. If someone came along and presented a big list, perhaps I'd be less inclined to disagree, but what's the harm in fulfilling the one? Most people won't have a clue how to edit the title blacklist, and wouldn't dare edit it for fear of breaking something. Majorly ^talk 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC) "It serves no purpose" Apart from stopping a vandal moving an article to that page, yes, you're right. Majorly ^talk 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would stop a vandal for all of 2 seconds. Then they add/remove another period, or a space, or anything, and they can finish their vandalism. As MZMcBride and I have said, protecting one page out of millions of possible targets will have no noticeable effect. In that case, why do it? There aren't really any negatives, but there aren't any positives. A big list would be more effective, especially if it couldn't be shortened down to a regex or 2, but 1 page is useless. We shouldn't encourage people to just start reporting every combination they can think of to RFPP. Its not so urgent that it can't wait for someone who does know how to write a regex. The "I don't know how to do it correctly, so I'll hack it as best I can" attitude toward protection vs. the titleblacklist is not helpful. I would have declined the request or referred them to the titleblacklist talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that page have already been create prevented by the black list ".*(\pP{2,}\PP){4}.* <moveonly|errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-pagemove> #Antigrawp, works by blocking titles with overused punctuation (eg H..A..G..G..E..R)". The title seems pretty much the same as the one in the example. Guest9999 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:

• Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Pé de Chinelo. requesting immediate block

(also posted on incidents page, not sure where to post, sorry.)

Dear Admins. Pé de Chinelo is currently undergoing an RfC ([65]), of which he is fully aware (as he has been editing specific sections of talk pages with warnings to him about it - in the section) and is refusing to comment on the RfC. He has been reminded numerous times but is still making disruptive edits (all listed on the RfC), including blatant POV-pushing, edit warring and even edits bordering on racism, some happening as recently as today - almost 3 weeks after the RfC was opened. It doesn't look as if he is going to change, and I feel that for now, and unless he explains his edits and says he'll stop, he should be banned from editing articles until the end of the complaint/RfC etc process, maybe further.chocobogamer mine 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The RfC page is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo. The user has not responded at all to the RfC and instead has continued in POV-pushing, edit-warring, and vandalism. The user has also been notified multiple times of his behavior on his User talk:Pé de Chinelo. I think it is time to discuss a ban on this user, as he clearly shows that he will not take any sort of advice from any other user. MuZemike (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone's crusade against flag Icons

Frankly, I'm not interested in involving myself deeply in this, but user:84.48.92.248‎‎ is off on some crusade over Flag icons in Infoboxes, specifically in "Foreign relations of X" nation. S/He apparently believes that flag icon are not allowed in such uses, and s/he is on a mission to remove them all with no discussion. See this diff as one example in dozens. Reverted a few, but I'm really rather tired of this aspect of Wikipedia. T L Miles (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For yuks, I looked a bit at the history of one of these. The same user appears as User:84.48.93.123, doin the same thing last month. He really doesn't like flags...T L Miles (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not commenting one way or the other, but it might do to have a read of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Avoiding_flag_problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have: can you point me to a decision regarding this? I looked first before doing anything, and it seems pretty clear that using a national flag with a national name in an infobox about the government of a particular nation is not only allowed, but kinda the purpose of these icons. The anonymous removal of all of these from templates, multiple times, without discussion seems frankly a sign of mental illness. Unfortunately, this sorta thing seems all too common in Wikipedia, especially amongst those uninterested in actually developing article content and much more interested in debating/rewriting policy. It's really rather annoying for those of us spend our free time writing things and doing research. /rant T L Miles (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete

Resolved

 – Jayron32 closed it. Thanks, Jayron32! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has turned into a bit of a mess after an edit war on the article caused it to be protected. I'm too closely involved to do anything, but some neutral and experienced eyes might be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, this AfD really needs an intervention by a previously uninvolved admin. The currently protected version excludes all the improvements, including substantial additional sourcing, that had been made to the article earlier today, see this pre-mess version[66]. If the article is to remain protected, preventing further improvements to it, at the very least future AfD !voters need to be looking at the version that has reflected partial improvements that had been made already but were subsequently artificially gutted out. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Phone number on Breaking Dawn

Resolved

Hello, I just reverted a vandal who put someone's phone number in the article. Do you think that should be deleted for privacy reasons? Thanks. LovesMacs (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done And a email has been sent to oversight. Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, Wikipedia is not a directory. Phone numbers should be removed on sight. Kingturtle (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that "Wikipedia is not a directory" covers this issue. I also don't understand why "phone directory" is something they actually mention there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher

I think someone needs to have a word with User:EuroHistoryTeacher about the language he uses on talk pages. The incident I am currently involved in is not the first, if one reads his current talk page:

An extremely inflammatory message was posted to Talk:English people by an anonymous ip editor. This can be seen to be a rather sensitive area if one reads the previous discussions on the talk page. I warned this anonymous editor for the language used and the misuse of a talk page, and also posted a warning to everyone not to indulge in such messages on the talk page directly. The next message posted to the talk page was by User:EuroHistoryTeacher which was also unacceptable as it I judged also inflammatory in nature here are all these messages. I warned the editor but on reading his talk page, I realised that there were numerous incidents of his use of inappropriate language that had been discussed with him before (see User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher), so I judged them to be sufficiently frequent that an immediate final warning was justified to help prevent further inappropriate messages being posted by him [ here]. This yielded an angry response, in which hyperbole was used to attempt to re-cast my warning as a threat, with a comment that he would report my personal attack, and a comment which talked about me "ranting", and that I sounded mad, etc here on my talk page, including later responses, and largely repeated here on EuroHistoryTeacher's talk page.

Since I am getting too involved, it might help if another administrator had a word with him about the proper use of talk pages.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much anger here. People who react to relatively minor provocations with such fury are basically bait for every troll that comes along, and doomed to have unhappy Wiki-careers. This Spanish ancestry stuff is just trolling, laugh at it and go on. Looie496 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DDStetch you templated a regular - always a bad idea. The littering that you speak all seem to come from the one other editor as far as I can see, but even if it hadn't you shouldn't have templated him, it comes across badly. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I reject the idea that one should ignore violations of WP:TAL here and inflammatory messages. I note that there is a suggestion that I should not have templated a regular, but that is no excuse for that editor's behaviour there or subsequently.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he shouldn't have left the original message on the talk page but that you issuing a final warning was way OTT. His behavior towards you since then is somewhat understandable although rather too angry. Having said that i don't think anyone need do anything. Just chalk this one up to experience. He will calm down. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

John Larroquette

Can someone revert and protect John Larroquette - there is *no* reports of his death on any news site and Wikipedia could get in trouble. Paul Austin (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only one user posting it. If they continue, they will get blocked. No real need for page protection. Resolute 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt to use one of those create-your-own-dead-celebrity sites. That's going to be fun as those things spread. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I dearly wish we could make the propagation of those rumors a block-on-sight offense, like Avril vandalism and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. GJC 08:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but I have to assume that some of the folks doing it believe the sites are real, and figure some stern warnings are better unless they persist. If it's obvious they're doing it deliberately, then yeah, pull the plug, I say. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We had apparent consensus to treat it as block-on-sight once, but the first time I tried to use that consensus to actually get someone blocked, I found it was a pretty shaky consensus ... essentially non-existent. I'm still in favor of "immediate indef, unblock upon a coherent explanation" strategy.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Happypower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a "fake-death-rumors-only" account, so I don't see a downside in blocking.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the editor has made only three edits, and those before any notification that the site was bogus - it's entirely possible that the editor believed it was the truth. A friend might have suckered them in, who knows? I don't mind insta-blocking obvious trolls, but WP:AGF suggests at least giving one warning first when it's not blatant nose-thumbing. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fvw (2)

(Might be in the wrong spot here guys, please forgive me if so).

I spotted a couple of obvious socks on Talk:Leeds. They are:

• Pr D Phillip (talk · contribs)
• Owl Night (talk · contribs)
• Traceylovell (talk · contribs)
• 84.92.92.218 (talk · contribs)

Notice the spelling, lengthy bodies of text and the immediate agreement these accounts have with each other. Another two administrators are also in agreement with me that these are single-purpose socks [67], [68]. I left a warning on User talk:Pr D Phillip about WP:SOCK.

Fine? No - User:Fvw left me a message on my talk page that it was a WP:COI, something which (despite that insulting me somewhat, and I consider a breach of WP:AGF) I countered eloquently on his talk page. I stated that the evidence is obvious and that I would not be willing to unblock these accounts unless a check user is carried out first. After a little discussion in which I justified my actions, and stated possible routes forwards (including how unblocking was inappropriate for him because a) it gives the wrong singles to these accounts, and b) he's too involved), User:Fvw unblocked the accounts, telling the users I had a coi. He has not filed a check user and not explained his actions to me. I consider this a breach of:

• WP:SOCK (one user, one account is broken here)
• WP:AGF (Fvw failed to assume good faith with me)
• WP:WHEEL (I believe Fvw unblocking the accounts from a compromised viewpoint)
• WP:POINT (Fvw is unblocking these accounts, despite my opposition, to prove a point. In turn this is allowing sock puppets and is harming WP).

I'm very displeased, and told the user so (whole discussion is here). As User:Fvw has not justified his actions, nor filed a check user and also undermined me by telling these socks I had a coi, I am raising this here. I wouldn't mind being challenged (we all make mistakes), or having the accounts unblocked, but user Fvw has disregarded the obvious evidence, disregarded my wishes to carry out a check user request first, undermined me (saying I had coi lacks any tact at all, and was un-necessary even if true) and so is harming WP by violation of WP:POINT.

Having waited for justification from Fvw, but not had any, and having asked him to reinstate the block but not seen it happen. I have no option but to raise this for review. Suggested ways forwards here? I'm just not seeing any spirit of cameradrie from this gentleman, and I'm totally shocked by his unwillingness to be patient and work with others. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

He suggested that you shouldn't block people who sock on an article that you are active on? What's wrong with that? He's right. Don't do it, instead come here and ask someone else to do it for you. A way forward. I dunno couldn't you just take his advice and move on? Theresa Knott | token threats 14:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not active on the article - I was invited to pass comment when other users where struggling with the socks. I spotted them and blocked, and would do it again. Does that justisfy unblocking obvious socks, disregarding my request for a check user, and also telling them I have coi??? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No you are definitely active because you are discussing what should be done about the article and the "socks" are disagreeing with you. There are other ways of dealing with suspected sockpuppet accounts. The simplest being to note their edit history on the talk page like this User has made no other edits to the encyclopedia except for this talk page so that other people can see that they are suspicious. Or you could come here and ask others opinions, or you could ask for a checkuser. The trouble with your approach is that while they very well may be socks, it is possible that they are not and WP:AGF demand that we wait for the evidence to mount up before blocking. It's also possible that some are socks but others are innocents who get caught up, and there is no way to tell the difference. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That the socks agree or disagree with anyone is irrelevant. The relevance is that they are socks, and WP:COMMON dictates here. My gripe isn't that they've been unblocked (we could've worked out a consensus, and no consensus = no change), its the circumstances in which Fwv has done it via WP:POINT and now is ignoring my greivance. If no explanation is forthcoming I'm quite prepared to reblock these again per WP:COMMON; I already had/have the backing of two other administrators that they were single purpose accounts, and that Fwv disagrees because, well, he feels like assuming I'm not capable of making rudimentary judgements, whilst also sluring me to bad-faith accounts, is just not on. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking the socks was a bad idea. They should be reblocked. In general, hyper-obvious socks can be blocked by admins who are involved just as an involved admin can block socks that have been confirmed by checkuser. There's no real issue there. However, it is best if one is going to block such socks to post either here or at ANI noting that you did so so someone else can look over it. Theresa's solution of getting another admin to do it is not a bad idea either even if it isn't always necessary. And in any event unblocking such obvious socks is clear WP:POINT and not helpful to further construction of the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

TracyLovell is adamant that she is not a sock. Personally I err on the side of not believing her but my personal suspicion isn't enough for her to be blocked. If she is to be reblocked i suggest that it isn't done without a reasonable consensus to do so on this page and it really shouldn't be Jza84 who does the reblocking . Let someone else do it. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that this account is a meatpuppet not a sockpuppet, and there is no way we can expect the whole world to know that meatpuppetry is deprecated here, so although I have reblocked the account to ensure the disruption remains contained, I am perfectly happy to be talked out of that or to unblock if the user is happy to stay away from Leeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until the dispute has been settled by more experienced editors who should have a better understanding of the policy and consensus models which should apply there. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since the sockpuppetry is pretty obvious, I have reblocked the accounts as a completely uninvolved party. That said: yes, blocking people where you are active on the article (other than as a janitor cleaning up abuse) and there is a decent chance of getting someone else to do a sanity check first, is a bad idea. However, unblocking because of who blocked, and in spite of evidence that the block is justified for the reasons given, is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Still think a CU req should be filed. I'm unable to "see" the puppet master at a quick glance - at the very least they should be informed that the behaviour is not what is required. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a message at User talk:Pr D Phillip about sock puppetry a day or so ago following a few concerns left on my talk page about a sock, but yet more accounts appeared. I agree totally with User:JzG and User:JoshuaZ on the whole incident. That said, I'll be satisfied if the socks are dealt with. I'm staying out of the content issue from here-onwards (there are three other administrators there who'll have to pick this up). Fair enough I've been challenged and learned a couple of pointers (meatpuppetry depreciated? - the wording remains at WP:SOCK), but I failed to see how we can allow obvious socks to be allowed to game the system as well as undermine fellow admins in the process. I hope that User:Fwv has learned more so in this respect; unblocking socks without due consensus (well, just unblocking socks actually) was a very bad call. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for TracyLovell. It could just as easily be something spilling over to WP from an external source, though. It's unhelpful, of course, whatever it is. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Herby asked me (via email) to pop in and take a look from a CU perspective. I ran some checks. I'm not seeing any technical connection among the 4 listed users. ( Pr D Phillip, Owl Night, Traceylovell, 84.92.92.218 ) other than a fairly weak geographical correlation (which is understandable if we assume they all lived near the topic of the article in question... oddly I edit Michigan related articles more than I do, say, Manitoba ones, for some reason... ) so...  Unrelated would be my finding if I were asked formally. If there are behavioural issues or if it seems that meatpuppeting is involved, I'd address this with the users, gently but firmly, and leave it at that. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that is interesting, and goes to show that it's always a good idea not to rush to blocking socks as "obvious" isn't always as clear as one might think. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, there is a long-established tradition that those whose behaviour is indistinguishable are treated as a single user - meatpuppets and sockpuppets are not distinguished. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is why I wish I had programmed "block on behaviour" as a keyboard macro way back when... think of all the keystrokes I could have saved! ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAr in re. Moreschi

The request for arbitration named above has been declined as superseded by motion: Based upon the events of December 16, 2008, Moreschi (talk · contribs) is admonished:

(A) Not to reverse blocks imposed by another administrator without the consent of the blocking administrator or on-wiki consensus;

(B) Not to reverse actions taken by or on behalf of the Arbitration Committee acting as a committee, and to consult with an arbitrator if he finds the status of an action unclear; and

(C) Not to make disparaging comments about other administrators in log entries of his administrator actions.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is clearly an organised group of impostors at work - once again ArbCom has delivered the right result with no significant drama. This cannot be permitted to continue. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:RFCU is thataway... :) ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I see Captain Obvious' been busy lately. A truly ground-breaking and enlightening motion. Миша13 17:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean it's ok for the rest of us to make disparaging comments about other administrators in our logs of our administrator actions? I mean, it would be pointless passing a motion saying he mustn't do something no one else should do anyway. Or should we take this as an admonishment to all administrators? dougweller (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It means that Moreschi must only make disparaging remarks about non-admins in his logs. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On the .0001% chance that the above weren't sarcasm/humor/satire/irony (as I should point out that my comment WAS)... No, it means none of us should make disparaging remarks in block logs... about ANYONE, admin or no. Stick to the facts, and keep NPOV in mind. Even when writing block log summaries. People HAVE been desysopped over disparaging remarks in block logs before... the irony here of this coming full circle, as it were, is not lost on me. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that a block log of "vandal", "POV-pushing nationalist", or "clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia" are disparaging, but they're used as a matter of course. Are they OK because they're generally true? If so... Black Kite 17:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of degree, to be sure. But I think avoiding disparaging remarks nevertheless is for the best. Some of those three are more so than others. If you think I've went over the line in the past, ([69]) please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fair for us to challenge ourselves on this and see if we can't be more objective in block logs, but "vandalism", "block evasion" and so on are often as objective as one needs to be. Where there is a debate, it's good to leave a permalink in the block log. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Juuuuust a couple of things; firstly, there was quite a volume of opinion given before the Arbs decided to decline the case and then issue what appears to be an ArbCom finding on it... and, er, is this going to happen often in the future, and are the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages likely to be MfD'ed as obselete any time soon? I know it is coming up for Christmas (and who wants to get indigestion after wading through one of my ponderous meanderings to some ignorable point?) but I am uneasy about decisions being reached by what appears to be fiat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I think Moreschi violated m:DICK and was trout-slapped as a result, which is the right result. I do find Giano exasperating - he is a really good guy and has a sense of humour as well as tremendous dedication to this project, but he does on occasion seem to deliberately provoke people just for the hell of it. Someone as intelligent as Giano obviously is could very easily avoid these issues if he wanted to, and there is a pretty strong indication that the community does want him to be a bit less aggressive. That said, I don't think I have ever had a problem communicating productively with Giano even when we disagree, so I do rather wonder why this keeps recurring. Perhaps I am OK with him because I respect him, whereas many others here are entirely resistant to the idea of respecting anybody at all, and the more mature and authoritative someone appears the more people will poke at their soft underbelly - a natural reaction in a community which includes large numbers of teenagers. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note in Jimbo's very recent announcement of the ArbCom election that he not only expresses a desire that the ArbCom works with community participation but that he will overturn upon appeal to him any decision that has been reached after only internal discussion (um, that is how I read it) - which is what I was commenting upon above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nabilus junius' racists remarks, disruptive edits, personal attacks and edit warring

When reviewing Anti-Arabism, I started a discussion about the Algeria section. But, the user User:Nabilus junius has been causing disruptive edits and undoes, including edit warring, racist attacks against a whole race: ..Il est interessant de voire comment les arabes vivants en europe savent user des failles de la démocratie chrétienne pour imposer leur lois (bien plus loin que ce qu'ils leur est du).. (It is interesting to see how the Arabs living in Europe know how to exploit the vulnerabilities of the Christian democracy to impose their laws..); imagine if the same was said for Blacks or Jews, personal attacks (see talk page), accusations of Conflicts of Interest, a hostile tone, writing in a language other than English (I think Kabyle + French), misusing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and refusing to reach a consensus on the topic. Finally, I doubt there is a sock puppet between this user and the IP address 81.66.129.219 Bestofmed (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Newbie needs a mentor

DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has pretty swiftly ended up indef-blocked for WP:BLP violations, possibly as a result of letting righteous anger get the better of him. I don't feel comfortable unblocking without a mentor, but it does look to me as if an unblock would be safe enough if a mentor can be found. Where do I look for one? Guy (Help!) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think unblocking this person is likely to result in any positive impact on the project. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* I considered mentoring the editor but I'm declining. I'm having a bit of trouble AGF about User:DD2K. Something is just off about the phrasing. Sorry. Cheers, Pigman☿ 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ho hum. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• If no mentor, would the editor accept a topic ban or other restriction (like posting a suggested edit on the talkpage first to get agreement?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Might be a problem, he appears to have a bee in his bonnet about perceived racism. That is rather a large set of potential articles. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The two subjects I noted were African-Americans (is this the correct terminology, still?) and connected to "Deep South" expressions that may be considered derogatory. I don't know how many articles might fall under this remit, and such a wide range is not going to encourage mentorship. I would think that requiring this editor to discuss such edits before making them might be a reasonable condition of unblock if no mentor turns up. Violate this "agreement" and the account is again indef'ed with little chance of further "chances". LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Sitenotice reminder

Just a note that sometime in the next 43 minutes, MediaWiki:Watchlist-details should be updated to say one of "Arbitrators have been appointed" or "Arbitrators will be appointed shortly after the heat death of the Universe". Franamax (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom election 2008 results in

See Jimbo's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

The results are in, and are posted on Jimbo's talk page. Majorly ^talk 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the results section here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008#Results as well. I also corrected a minor error made by Jimbo (EGADS!) and left announcement notices at WP:VPM and at the Signpost Tip page. Otherwise, updating the site notice to the official ACE2008 page would be nice... (hint hint hint). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder reminder

Ahem. I was asking for someone to update the sitenotice, hint hint. Even if there's some tranchability problems, it's not December 20 anymore. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx MZM. Franamax (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Noob admin question

Resolved

Say I want to write a new article on "Subject XYZ" using material from it's previously deleted incarnation, but I am not going to write it over the specific page where the material was deleted (so I can't just restore the old revisions). What do I do? Do I write the article, note the source in the edit summary and then restore the old revisions to the source article? Or do I somehow move those revisions to the target articles and restore them there then just recreate the old article? Also, how do I do that?  :)

In case anyone thinks I'm being sneaky I'll come out and name the article. I want to rewrite Dragon kill points but the old revisions are in DKP, which is now a disambiguation page. I don't want to steal the dab page because I don't think that dragon kill points is the most common meaning of the three letter acronym "DKP". Thoughts? Pointers? ZOMG wrong forum comments? Any help is welcome. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess--and I', a n00b too, so take it for what it's worth--would be to restore the deleted article, then do a rename, then make your changes u nder the new name. Does that sound like it would work, or did I not understand something about your question? GJC 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be my guess too. But then I am left with recreating the disambiguation page and not leaving those edits in the history. Or is that just sovlable through noting on the talk page where the edit history went? Protonk (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's just all of the deleted revisions of that page that you need, you can move DKP to something else (like DKP temp), restore the deleted revisions of DKP, move DKP to Dragon kill points, move DKP temp to DKP over the redirect, and delete the redirect left at DKP temp. WODUP 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Here's the new article: Dragon kill points. :) Protonk (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A change has been suggested to our MediaWiki watchlist page

It was suggested by Economicsguy II that Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey be advertised on the Watchlist, as it is on Template:Cent, for more visibility--not everyone sees Cent or it's grab bag of pages that use it, and I think this is a good idea. It's a major site-wide shift which affects everyone, not just the nice folks that loiter/stay often on Wikipedia-space (if it happens) that even Jimmy Wales has now endorsed.

Would someone mind updating MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New user - first contribution vandalism.

Check here [70]. The guy's name is User:Woot511. I'd block him. Kalajan 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We also have user:Someone5489, for another vandalism: [71]. Kalajan 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking steps to improve ArbCom co-ordination

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Improving ArbCom co-ordination for how we are taking steps to improve the efficiency and co-ordination of the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)