The above article has recently had a weasel words template removed three times by two editors. I would appreciate any input from any independent editors here whether the template is justified. I would also welcome any comments on the talk pages from such editors about the addition and removal of the template, and the reasons given on the talk page and in the edit summaries for both. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I have already advised John Carter about repeatedly adding this template with a 3RR warning here. The latest reversion is likely to be a WP:SOCKhere. Ovadyah (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is to acknowledge that I, as well as John, am aware of the ridiculous allegation made above. If other editors are so incapable of reviewing editor's history as to make this allegation, or are unaware that John is actually a fairly common name, even though it actually isn't mine, they might want to review just how common the name is. As I've said elsewhere, my birth name is Arthur, Dudley Moore jokes and all, which is why I went for the more common one of a fictional character I like. I do wish some of the more recent comments made regarding this article weren't quite so similar to the drunken statements in the Moore movie, but it is good to have a laugh once in a while. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dammit. Every time I get a decent sock account going I get busted like this. Oh well. Seriously, does somebody with CU access want to assure Ovadyah that John Carter and I are not socks? --John (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already apologized for this mistake on John's talk page, so let's get back to the issue at hand. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Without reading Professor Pine's essay ("The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source") myself, I cannot be sure if he quotes or refers to other historians/academicians/scholars within it. On the face of it (and with no direct quotes from the material to support the implied 'more than one' of the word 'some'), it seems to me that the phrase 'some scholars argue' is only referring to the Professor. Since this section of the article is referring to the history of the article's subject and history is usually taken to mean a record or consideration of events (either written or oral), then why can't the writer who has this particular opinion be mentioned by name in the article? After all, other writers and historians are mentioned within the article by name including Justin Martyr, Origen and Epiphanius of Salamis. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, but I was mistaken about which incidence of the text "some scholars argue" was being discussed in this AN/I. I was referring to "Some scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad around the year 1000" (in the seventh paragraph of the History section) not the 'A majority of scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem church"/"Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader after Jesus' death rather than Peter." (in the second paragraph of the James vs. Paul section). Sorry for my confusion, but, in my defense...at the moment there are seven incidents of the text 'some scholars' in the article including two other paragraphs that start with 'Some scholars argue'. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to remedy the problem by removing the ambiguous "some scholars" and explicitly identifying the five scholars that hold this majority view. Thus the original point of the "weasel words" tag is moot. Ovadyah (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And in the process you added material, specifically including a prejudicial statement of "most" scholars, which I believe cannot be justified by policies or guidelines, and have made several comments on the page, none of which seem to actually directly respond to the points raised, and some of which seem to specifically imply that for whatever reason you are not obligated to do so. I am specifically requesting any and all editors who see this thread respond on the article talk page regarding the points raised there. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out previously on the talk page, you were requested by the mediator to come up with sources (even one) that contradicted this view, and you either refused or could not. Therefore, it represents the majority view of the scholars who have studied this problem, until you can produce an even larger list of scholars that advocate an opposing view. Ovadyah (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
For fracks sake, this isn't rocket science. Ovadyah, this dispute can easily be resolved by fixing the wording. You recently changed "Some scholars argue" to "A majority of scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church...argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." If you don't have a single reliable sources that says this explicitly, then we can't use it. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We are attempting to resolve this. I still don't see why saying "Some scholars" followed immediately by references naming those scholars is inadequate. Ovadyah (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "majority of scholars" claim and explicitly named the reliable sources that advocate this view. I have also pointed out on the talk page that no editors have come forward with reliable sources advocating an opposing view. Any such alternative views will be incorporated into the article, as long as they are properly sourced. I assume that is a more acceptable solution than John Carter's previous approach of blanking the entire section and locking the article. Ovadyah (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
– A tentative mutual agreement (of sorts) seems to have been reached, no administrative action required. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I know, this is petty, but it is annoying, and this is the first time I've encountered a situation like this. I read WP:TALK as prohibiting an editor moving talk page (or noticeboard) comments as here.[1], especially when done two more times.[2][3] I was responding to Hobit, not to Jack Sebastian, and this totally changes my meaning. I think the usual practice is to leave comments alone in such situations. If I'm correct, can someone please move it back and advice Jack Sebastian of the protocol on this? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A background note on this: This issue started as a content dispute at The Circus (film) and has turned into an edit war on several fronts with these 2 editors reverting each other several times in several minutes on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard as well as each other's talk pages. Since tensions seem to be running higher by the second between these two, asking them to temporarily refrain from contact between each other may be a good idea. Not to mention that the edit war at the noticeboard is one of the lamest I've seen in a while. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll admit to the "lame," part, but the reversions commenced when my comment was moved. That's the totality of the edit warring, and I self-reverted my last reversion, so as to bring it here. Rest assured I have no interest in interacting with said user. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am the editor in question (watchlisted the reporting user, and not notified, as per guidelines). I did indeed moved ScottyBerg's comments - which (s)he shoe-horned in the middle of my reply to another user - to after mine, following chronological order. ScottyBerg's doing so altered the meaning of my comments, making it seem as if I were replying to SB and not another user. I only moved the comment - which the user indirectly admits are out of order by indenting as if it were after mine. I changed no text or meaning of the post at all. The user has reverted this show-horning back in three times, at which point I was about to report them for 3RR (the user self-reverted their fourth revert), and saw this in their contributions.
Despite my reservations with the user (based upon comments made by himher to other users), I made several attempts to advise the user how to better use our indenting format and identification of reply posts. ScottyBerg has - since my first comment to the user back in November, removed my posts without response. His behavior in article discussion is both attack-y and sullen in nature. I therefore suggested that the user consult with an admin to get some advice. I guess the user thinks the best defense is a good offense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Addressing the original complaint here, I think ScottyBerg is technically in the wrong here as his initial comment was placed out-of-order with the series of talkpage comments. ScottyBerg, why didn't you place this comment after Jack Sebastian's comment where it would usually go? NickCT (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(non-admin commment) On the particular point in question I agree with ScottyBerg that comments on a talk page should not be moved like this as it's against WP:TALK and my udnerstanding off how talk pages work so I've reverted the edit and put the comment back where it was originally left. Dpmuk (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think placing comments out of strict chronological order is not unusual on talk pages. I was responding specifically to Hobit's point on BRD, and was trying, in fact, to avoid interacting with Jack Sebastian given the aggressive tone of his posts. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Dpmuk, I would point out that it was my post that was moved in the first place - a post wherein I was explicitly responding to another user's comments. If dor example, I had wanted to reply to a post out of order, I would have identified the target of my reply, and put it at the end, which is what we all do here. Why does ScottyBerg not have to follow the same guidelines that the rest of us do? Being a relatively new user only excuses so much, esp. when they are repeatedly advised on how to better accomplish simple tasks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also of the impression that posting out of order is not exactly uncomment on talk pages. If a thread gets long it's awkward for everyone involved if a direct reply to a comment is much further down the page (see also my comments at User:Jack Sebastian). But to a large extent that's irrelevant - WP:TALK makes it clear you should not move other people's comments if it changes there meaning. Your move clearly did this as it made it look like they were replying to you rather than Hobbit. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I would also point out that your post was not "moved" - they merely inserted a comment in a place to make it clear who they were replying to, which is normal practice. By keeping the indentation somewhat sensible they also ensured it stayed clear who you were replying to. Dpmuk (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (2x) I would just point out that how I just handled my previous post - identifying the target of the post in the beginning of my response as well as noting such in the edit summary - is not only the accepted format we all use, but simply polite.
Re: Scotty's defense of stating he was avoiding my "aggressive tone", I would imagine that sticking his posts before mine, disconnecting my conversation doesn't seem - on its face - the best way to avoid confrontation. I'm trying to AGF here, but that doesn't ring true. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dpmuk, I agree that inserting comments is not out of order per se, but I would suggest you look at the inserting post edit again. Note that my comment was specifically to another editor. By inserting their comment in between them more than twelve hours after the post, ScottyBerg made it seem like I was replying to them instead of the original target. I would submit that the user did so to accomplish precisely that, and to initiate a confrontation. Why didn't the user simply state in their post - again, 12 hours after the fact - by simply identifying who they were replying to? Why did they feel the burning need to interrupt a discussion I was having with another user? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Copied from your talk page - "I completely disagree - by making sure their reply was indented enough they made it clear that your reply wasn't to them but rather to Hobbit. As such I don't think they violated WP:TALK as it was still clear who you replied to and so it didn't change the meaning of what you wrote. Your change changed who it appear they replied to and so did change the meaning of what they wrote which is in violation of WP:TALK." Dpmuk (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{Just for clarity's sake, these are your comments on my talk page, not mine}. I appreciate your efforts to resolve the problem, but I still don't think I did anything wrong here. I am understand WP:TALK, but I'd warrant that WP:REFACTOR is more on point here. The user did it to disrupt a conversation I was having with someone else, and then fought to preserve that little 'f.u.' that excluded me from my own conversation. Again, the user is tryingt o reframe the issue. You've proposed a solution which would satisfy me, as it follows TALK, but I don't think they will accept it, as it undoes their action. Give it a whirl. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Gah, this conversation is now all over the place. Personally I wouldn't have had a problem with your refactoring if you'd done it in such a way it still made it clear they were replying to Hobbit - it's that change that I think violated WP:TALK not the fact that you refactored, and it's also because of that change in meaning that I reverted. Hopefully they're go with my suggestion and we can move on from there. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, it never occurred to me to add anything to their post (like "To Hobit" or the like), because that would be in violation of both TALK and REFACTOR. All I sought to do was to preserve conversational and chronological flow. That is what keeps the conversations from being "all over the place". Also, waiting more than a moment between replies avoids a lot of edit conflicts. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
More misunderstaning - my comment about discussion all over the place was about the discussion about what to do. I wasn't saying that you should have added anything to their post (as I'd agree that wouldn't be right) - merely indented it appropriately (which I believe would have been acceptable). Oh well - definitely off to bed now. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not this shit again. Jack, read between the lines: when an editor like yourself did this to me many, many times in the past, I asked that editor to stop and they did not, and it led to the same complaint that ScottyBerg is making here, as you may or may not be aware. Let's just put an end to this here and now, ok? There is no need to keep upsetting people by moving their comments. In the future, please don't touch comments made by other editors unless you have permission from the original editor to do so. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I don't appreciate your tone, Viriditas; I don't know you, haven't interacted with you, and don't care about what sorts of interactions you may have had with others in the past. My comments were the ones moved mid-conversation, so I moved them to preserve chronological order. I have no idea why you think I do this a lot, because I quite simply don't. I made every attempt to bring the user up to speed on what they were doing (and should be doing instead). Each time, they ignored the request and continued edit-warring.
Looking over your own history and block log, I can see that you have plenty of history with edit-warring. Maybe, instead of cussing me out, your time would be better spent mentoring ScottyBerg on some of the hard lessons you have learned, so he can avoid them. Thanks for the left-handed advice, but no thanks. Your hard lessons don't really interest me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You most certainly do know me, and you've certainly interacted with me in the past, and the poor editing behavior you've shown with ScottyBerg is the same you've shown with me under your other account, so you can stop with the charade. I have no interest in "outing" you, so keep playing your games as you please, but the irony of noting my "history and block log" doesn't go unnoticed; after all, that's the only reason you created this account, to start "fresh" and clean. Don't bother responding, because I have no interest in helping you dig a deeper hole. Leopard, spots, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hard telling who you're talking about, but you and others here are absolutely right that the editor Jack should not be messing with other users' comments. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll say it again: I was only preserving my own comments, which were shoe-horned out by another user. Sure, could I have instead gne to an admin and complained about it? In hindsight, I guess I should have, instead of going back and forth on it. It takes two to edit-war,a nd I should have known better.
And Viriditas, all I can say is: wow, that's some pretty ugly behavior and bad faith. I have no idea what or who you are talking about and I don't really want to. You are clearly confusing me with someone else you've had some trouble with. Yes, I had a prior account but I retired it in good stead - neither you nor anyone else had anything to do with my departure. Since you seem unable to extend AGF, and have apparently popped in to simply take a cheap shot and make baseless accusations, we don't ever need to interact again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This conversation seems to be getting out of hand. I think we should probably just say that ScottyBerg injected his comments in an unusual but perhaps not unreasonable manner, Jack Sebastian then inappropriately moved those comments. Both editors should just be asked to be more careful and considerate in future, and we can avoid AE. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess when someone moves your comments around, you aren't supposed to move them back. Thanks for the new ruling. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
SB was replying to the same editor you were replying to, and what you call "shoehorning" is a common practice on talk pages to make it clear who one is responding to. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've marked this thread as resolved since there seems to be no requirement for administrative action. General conduct discussions should be taken elsewhere. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
AntiSemitic IP vandal: [[4]]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
31 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've reverted all the vandalism, but a second pair of eyes mightn't be a bad idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a banned user, ThomasK/Thomaskh -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ThomasK/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thomaskh/Archive. The correct ranges to block are 183.23.0.0/16 and 93.82.0.0/20, although I don't see any of his contribs on the 93.82 range this year; I haven't seen any of those IPs assigned to him since November. His editing style is distinctive: antisemitic, right-wing, "death to xxx" (where "xxx"=Wikipedia, Jews, admins, some misspelling of my name ...), and full of shouting and personal attacks. He doesn't like mevery much since I figured out who he was. I was wondering why he'd been quiet -- he may have created sockpuppets after the last rangeblocks expired. Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk·contribs) will not let go of me. More recently, he has undoneseveralboldedits of mine which redirected unsourced BLPs of individual members of Smash Mouth — edits that I doubt anyone else would argue are in the wrong, as they seem to fall in line with WP:BAND. His edit summary called my edits "undiscussed, indiscriminate, inappropriate". The last time I tried to talk to him, I felt that I was civil enough, but he plowed right through my discussion with an edit summary calling my comments "paranoid, incompetent and inaccurate". The most recent discussion on his talk page is KWW warning him not to violate WP:CIVIL. I filed an RFC about a month ago but all we did was talk in circles and go absolutely nowhere. His edit summaries towards other users show that he is just as incivil to everyone else, although I still seem to be one of his primary targets of incivility.
My point is: Hullaballoo has gotten away scot-free with blatant WP:CIVIL violations way too many times. Everyone keeps dropping him friendly warnings not to act incivilly, and he blatantly shuns them and goes back to his same shenanigans. I don't know why he's apparently got carte blanche now, but it MUST stop now. I think it's reached the point where a block is in order, but either way, We MUST find a way to stop his gross misbehavior. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this doesn't fall under WP:BRD.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Because every time I try to talk to him on his talk page, he just wipes out my discussion and calls me paranoid. I can't invoke BRD if he won't follow through on the D part. The issue is far beyond BRD anyway — it's not just his blind reversions of my edits, but also his outright refusal to change his behavior after umpteen warnings and his hostile attitude towards other users in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you discuss it on the article talk page he can't wipe it out. You call it a blind reversion, but it looks thought out to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've notified him since you didn't. I see no benefit to a block in this situation, his comments are blunt but not egregious. He has the right to remove what he wants on his own talk page, and it would be better to discuss it in a more appropriate place anyway. Trebor (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
How about the fact that he's been doing this to me, on and off, for two years? Repeatedly calling an editor "paranoid and inaccurate" isn't an ad hominem attack to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The examples that TPH provided don't cause me much concern: typical editing disagreement. I was concerned by this edit, which does cross WP:CIVIL.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I try to talk on his talk page, no matter how nice I am, he blindly reverts me and calls me incompetent/inaccurate/paranoid. Every time. If that's not repeated, blunt attacking of an editor I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Then focus on that, and provide us with a list of diffs. His reverts of your redirects aren't going to lead to any clear-cut consensus.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just stop commenting on his page. He obviously doesn't want you there, and any discussion of the page redirects and other edits should take place on the talk pages of the article, anyway. I'm not really concerned about HW's blanking of his talk page from you, but if he can't actually discuss things on the correct page, that would be another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'd be happy enough to just start blocking every editor that starts the "stay off my talk page" garbage. It's a sign of a refusal to participate in mature discussion, and is generally a very accurate pointer as to where the real problem in an interaction lies.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well right or wrong I'd advise against that without community backing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not normally a great sign, but we give users free reign to manage their userpages how they want. A refusal to discuss on his userpage is not the same as a refusal to discuss; obviously if he edit warred without being willing to discuss it anywhere, that would be blockable. Trebor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen him discuss any of his reversions anywhere. Check his talk page; there are several cases where he pruned references, including such reliable sources as the New York Times, without explaining why besides "they're not reliable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry: I'm well aware of the distinction between "things I'd like to do" and "things I'm permitted to do". That said, user pages are a fine place to discuss things, and forcing all discussion to article talk pages isn't a reasonable strategy when you are questioning behaviour that spans multiple articles.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
"Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)
And most recently, I politely asked him yet again to discuss his reversal of my redirect, and he very falsely accused me of "harassment". That one is the last straw. Admittedly I'd been rude to him before, but even when I'm civil, he makes the falsest accusation I've ever seen in the five years I've been here. My last edit was in no way harassment, and he has no right to make such a bald-faced lie and get away with it! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is some proof that he almost never discusses any changes made to an article, and is in general very rude when he does:
1.) One of my first run-ins with HW and his refusal to discuss beyond laconic circular-logic arguments was at this AFD. He argued that because it was an "Album released last week by notable group" that it was automatically notable, and pointed to listings at CMT.com and Rollingstone.com that were nothing more than track listings. When I pointed out that the "sources" were only directory listings and that the label's page didn't even mention the article, his response assumed bad faith in my source-finding abilities.
1b.) In between those two sections, you'll find him being just as curt and circular-logical about his blunt removal of generally valid references from countless other articles.
2.)Another time, I asked how he thought that the meager sources in the Jerome Vered article were insufficient. At the AFD, he called my comments "inaccurate" when I told him that I didn't think the trivial mentions in Google Books were enough, and refused to elaborate on his talk page.
3.)The last time I saw him discuss content on a talk page, he replied to me calling a source unreliable. I said that the author "doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" and he redacted it as a WP:BLP violation and usage of "weasel words" when it clearly wasn't. I told him that his edit summaries were vague and didn't properly explain why he thought the source was reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've warned HW that I will block him for refusing to discuss edits. I see that TPH has reinstalled the redirects that HW refused to discuss, and I'm not going to take action now. If he edit wars and won't discuss, I'll take action then, and I will monitor this problem.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, I reinstated the redirects and discussed on the talk page why I think they should stay redirects. (And as an other aside, it also irks me that HW has gotten away with a 465 KB talk page and outright refuses to archive it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that there's an active proposal to give a limit to unarchived talk pages. DGG is another "offender", but I'm not about to block him for it... It is probably about time that Hullaballoo was placed under some editing restrictions, he's been repeatedly uncivil and often edit wars and refuses to discuss edits. Can we formulate some requirements that would keep his excesses in check? Fences&Windows 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)There's a fair bit of dickery going about through all these diffs...some of which, as you have noted, involve some snippish comments of your own...but I don't think AN/I is flexible enough to deal with this sort of thing, though it would be nice for a change if it would. If you're upto the Byzantine challenge, and RFC/U along the lines of what had to finally be done with Colonel Warden recently may be the way to go. If not, then try leaving all of the discussion attempts off his talk page and on the appropriate article talk pages. If he ignores the discussion attempts there and still reverts out of hand, then that would likely gain some traction here. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I already filed an RFC/U and it went absolutely nowhere. There was lots of discussion, but nothing came of it at all. I don't think another RFC/U would help, especially since the last one was about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it obtained the necessary traction: if HW refuses to discuss an edit again, he will be blocked until he agrees to discuss edits. Does anyone really think more should happen at this moment?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I had no recollection of RFCU #1, and I even commented there; maybe this is a good day to quit drinking. Well, if a bright-line "one more and he's toast" comes out of this now, then that sounds good. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/the above comment to the effect that if HB does not wish to discuss the matter on his talk page, that is within his rights, and I would in that situation suggest article page discussion be initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
True enough, but here he is describing a request on his talk page to discuss it at the article talk page as "unwanted harassment". That's refusing to discuss it anywhere.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, if you read the link, you may have noticed that an interaction ban would prevent HW from reverting TPH's edits... T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I am goddamn sick and tired of being treated like dirt here. In the last two years I've made about thirty thousand edits, none using automated tools or scripts, concentrating on BLP and copyright policy enforcement, two areas that are among the highest priorities, as established both by on-Wikipedia consensus and by Wikimedia Foundation action. These are pretty much thankless jobs these days, as my repeatedly vandalized user page and talk page evidence. Yet obviously this counts for nothing, and that quite a few people are never going to give me a fair shake because I became an involuntary Wikipedia Review poster child as a victim of admin abuse over an incident where no less than Jimmy Wales eventually weighed in support of me and the admin who blocked me, for an edit made by another user, stomped off Wikipedia in the face of criticism. It's evident that a double standard is being applied here. With regard to some of the specific points made:
TenPoundHammer claims that he filed an RFC/U against me recently, but that it "went nowhere." That's hardly accurate. The RFC, which wasn't ever even properly certified, ended up with four users endorsing TPH's position generally, five endorsing mine generally, and a dozen or so rejecting most of TPH's claims particularly those relating to stalking and harassment, but finding some of my AFD comments too harsh, in particular my comment that when TPH says he can't find sources on a subject, it's because he hasn't bothered to look for them. (I didn't participate in the RFC precisely because it was never properly certified, so the community's rejection of TPHs accusations was based only on his presentation of his case, underlining just how unfounded the accusations were.) I think my comment is accurate and within the general range of comments accepted at AFDs, but I've respected the expressed opinion of the community and have not since used that formulation. TPH does not respect the community's determination and has repeated, here and elsewhere, the accusations rejected, by a wide margin, by the community in the RFC. The RFC, focusing on my responses to TPH's AFD nominations, reflects a pretty strong community consensus that TPH's deletion proposals are too often destructive. As one admin noted in a lengthy ANI discussion regarding TPH only a few days ago, "I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. . . . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't." [5]
It is absolutely false that I "refuse to discuss edits." My talk page shows scores of discussions, and my contribution list shundreds of talk page discussions. What I won't do is waste my time responding to uncivil, peremptory comments that aren't made with any intent to engage in an encyclopedia-building process, but to make editing unpleasant for an editor who's disagreed with the commenter. Comments like these, from TPH:
"Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived?" [6]
"oh so now you're being a douche too? let's just have a big douche parade across his talkpage" (edit summary) [7]
"and you wonder why I'm never fucking polite to you" (edit summary) [8]
"why are you only ever this big a douche to me?" (edit summary) [9]
"So in other words, what we have is an editor being a single-minded, bullheaded, tendentious douchebag and no one can be bothered to do anything about it." (under the heading "Wolfowitz") [10]
"fine, Hullaballoo Doucheowitz... if you insist on undoing every damn edit I make. Undo this. I dare you." (edit summary) [11]
"*Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION" [16]
"*Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil." [18] (Note that the last five comments were posted over a 45-minute period.)
I made repeated attempts to dialogue with TPH over at least a year. Note the extended discussion in this AFD, for example. After a long period, TPH dropped any vestige of rational conversation and shifted to summary invective. As I recall, the shift came in mid-September, after I posted a comment/warning on his talk page regarding disruptive editing practices -- in that case, reinstating about two dozen disputed redirects, marking the edits as minor, and using edit summaries suggesting he was reverting vandalism. His accusations and nasty talk page posts began almost immediately afterwards.
A substantial portion of TPH's editing, particularly as related to deletion/removal of content, is incompetent, well beyond the point of being disruptive. This is behavior which actively damages the encyclopedia, impairs its value to users, and drives good faith contributors away. TPH admits regularly that his ability to use Google as a search engine is deficient (his own descriptions of his competency level include "abysmal" and "I still suck". Yet he continues to make AFD nominations and create redirects, despite his awareness that his basis for doing so is unreliable. Just yesterday, taking one of the articles which provoked his post here to this AFD, only to have it snow-kept within an hour, shortly after he withdrew another AFD, where he'd claimed no sources "seem to exist", only to be quickly overwhelmed by proof otherwise (leading to his admission "Clearly I still suck at using Google, I would think a reasonable, constructive editor, conscious that his analyses were regularly misleading/inaccrate, would stop employing those analyses until they figured out what was going wrong. TPH doesn't. Two other examples are instructive: TPH nominated Jordyn Shellhart for deletion, saying that "Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources." [19] Yet the Google News search results [20] actually turn up several dozen news hits, some trivial, but many substantial, including full profiles, and showing that the article subject received national press attention for her televised performance of the national anthem at an NFL game. Only today, TPH unlinked the term "sheoque" from an article on Irish mythology [21], claiming "google doesn't know what a sheoque is." However, a basic Google search [22] immediately turns up relevant hits at the top of the search results, as well as, further in what appears to be detailed commentary by Yeats. Nor are the problems limited to Google use. In this AFD TPH claimed "I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations" for the article subject, although all he needed to do was click the appropriate link in the (already wikilinked) article on the award. Here he insists hat an album was released on a "non-notable label," even though the label had an article soundly establishing notability. And here TPH argued that HBO was a "redlinked network," on which no further comment should be necessary. This is highly disruptive behavior, and there's fundamentally no other way to refer to it other than variations on "incompetent." Or worse.
TPH regularly refuses to engage in discussion after I have responded to his attacks. For example, the first time TPH raised similar matters at AN/I, he refused to provide any substantive response to my reply (reproduced below). Instead, he forum shops, abandons discussions when they don't immediately produce the results he wants, then renews them in hopes of finding a more receptive audience. It's not a coincidence that his attacks on me closely follow significant complaints being made regarding his editing practices; he's trying to divert attention from his repeated and very serious misbehavior, pointing to the alleged venial sins of the Big Bad Wolfowitz because I'm not a very popular guy with a bunch of admins. TPH has never responded in any way to my previoys response, which bears repeating here:
I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).
In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww.[23] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.
TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy. [24]
TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.
With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:
My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [25]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[26] precisely the standard he rejects here.
The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.
The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[27] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.
TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [Atlantic Records discography RFD], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[28] In [recent AFD], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.
In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:
TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.
TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song.[29] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.
Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee)[30]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[31]; "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) [32]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[33]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[34]
TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:
Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [35]
Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [36]
Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [37]
Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [38]
Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [39]
Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns
Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [40]
Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [41]
With regard to certain claims of edit warring: WP:BLP and WP:BRD are inconsistent. But BLP is an important policy with strong consensus support, while BRD is an essay. BLP calls for certain classes of material to be removed "without discussion" or "without waiting for discussion"; such material is not to be restored without achieving consensus for its restoration. Similar standards apply to nonfree content. In both cases, enforcing the relevant policies is exempt from the edit warring limits. There are editors who do not agree with the current policies, and believe that BRD principles are more important. But policy says otherwise, and criticizing or threatening to sanction any editor acting under those policies is not appropriate.
I find it beyond sickening that Hullaballoo has been allowed to continue his "editing" practice of constant haraassment and stalking of productive editors. Dozens of editors have been driven off this project because of the actions of this one non-productive editor. I find it laughable that he seems to be proud of his "edits" which consist of NOTHING but harrassing other editors. Hullaballoo is a huge negative to this project, and that the community tolerates this sort of destructive behavior has caused me to leave Wikipedia permantly. And in contrast to Hullaballoo, I have actually contributed something here-- including starting over 600 articles, not one of which has been deleted yet, in spite of efforts by biased trolls such as Hullaballoo. An editor as arrogant, this destructive, and totally non-productive should be banned without question. Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hullabaloo, I have no concept of what you are talking about with the Wikipedia Review stuff. That's probably good, and I will specifically not research it so that I remain ignorant. I haven't threatened you with a block for following WP:BLP or our copyright policies, I've threatened you with a block for not discussing your edits. I can promise you that if you removed material repeatedly based on WP:BLP, you could get blocked for refusing to discuss why you believed the material violated WP:BLP. Similarly with our copyright policies. Both of them encourage boldness, and both of them encourage to act before talking, but neither of them discourage talking after acting. If you are going to edit, you must be willing to discuss the edits. With everyone. You can move the discussion from your talk page to notice boards, to article talk pages, Wikiproject talk pages, AFDs, many places, but you cannot refuse to talk.
No one believes TPH to be an angel. He's been blocked recently, and I think it's pretty likely he's going to see more of them in the future, for precisely the reasons you point out. That doesn't excuse your behaviour, and, if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
And I want to point out that this is not between TPH and Hullaballoo. This is between every editor who has a difference with Hullaballoo's edits. To my knowledge, during my almost 5 years here I never edit-warred with another editor. If I had a difference, we discussed and compromised. Hullaballoo CONSTANTLY refused to do this, always citing his interpretation of the rule-of-the-day or some other discussion to which he vaguely referred. He ALWAYS turned editing into a game of "Chicken"-- who will get blocked for reverting beyond 3RR?-- and he has stated that he believes he has the right to exceed this point. I've found putting together diffs showing Hullaballoo's bullying behavior not only time-consuming, but absolutely futile. Some of them can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#View_by_certifier_Dekkappai . Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
May I point out that the people decrying HW here are the same ones' who did so on the recent RfC/U on HW. That didn't get the result they wanted, so they're back again for another bite of the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the same ones. That invalidates their concerns somehow? 'If at first you don't succeed' seems to be apposite here. Here is another collection of half-truths and lies from an editor with a deserved reputation for arrogance and bullying. If he's not going to be banned then Wolfowitz must be continually watched and challenged at every turn for the common good. --78.101.20.115 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It just might be an indication that HW's "sins" are not perceived as such by the wider community, perhaps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If non-stop edit-warring is not perceived as a "sin" by the wider community of this project, then it ought to be pointed out to any newcomer here that this is not a project interested in collaborative editing, but rather a site for power-gaming, posturing, and schoolyard bullying. As a matter of fact, due to the wider community's tolerance for this sort of behavior, that is exactly the conclusion I have come to after wasting several years here attempting to actually contribute sourced content. Hullaballoo's continued ability to thumb his nose at collaborative editing with impunity is just one of the indications that this is in fact what goes on here. Dekkappai (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since HW's block log shows a single 48-hour block two years ago for "disruptive editing", you might want to consider that your perception of his behavior as "non-stop edit-warring" might be somewhat distorted. It would be quite unusual for an editor to behave in the way that you characterize HW's actions, and not be caught at it by an admin and blocked, or reported for it to 3RR and be blocked. Since that hasn't happened, perhaps your characterization is something of an overstatement? I'm not saying that HW is a saint, and I'm certain there are aspects of his editing style that could use some adjustment – editors that I respect very much agreed with some of the statements about his behavior that were posted on the RfC/U – but I do think that it may be the case that some editors are a bit oversensitive when it comes to HW, and overreact to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As long as the subject of my previous block is under discussion, let me republish a comment Jimbo Wales made about that dispute: The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to [the editor whose comment I removed] for violation of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[42]Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And despite my own serial vulgarity and incivility, my block log shows only one such-- and that from an Admin with whom I was in dispute for restoring a !vote of mine which he had removed. In my experience with Hullaballoo, not ONCE has he been reverted without immediately instigating an edit-war despite my sometimes BEGGING him to discuss his concerns. I've seen him remove good content from articles not under my watch go unchallenged. Why? Because no one cares about those articles. And, since the "wider community" is supposedly involved here, and in light of Hullaballoo's self-righteous bragging about 30,000 edits over two years, not one of which added content, I'll point out that in just a few months, at another project, I've made nearly half that number of edits, and added sourced content with the vast majority of them. Some of these individual edits are of the size of this. Since the "wider community" apparently values non-contributors such as Hullaballoo, and would probably vote to delete that list I've started-- just one of hundreds of other such articles started & planned, and, yes, ENCYCLOPEDIC, despite what the "wider community" here says-- I can only believe that my characterization of this project as one for trolling alone is accurate. I don't wish to be incivil to you, Ken, but I just need to express the disgust for WP that the tolerance of behavior such as Hullaballoo's-- and a few other such Wiki-bullies-- has given me. I wish that this sort of behavior-- and the loss of good contributors and content resulting from it-- were of more concern to the "wider community". Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since Dekkappai is casting aspersions on the admin who blocked him, I'll point out that that admin initiated an ANI discussion on the matter, and the propriety of the block was overwhelmingly (~80%) supported [43]. And Dekkappai also knows that my supposedly improper edit warring was legitimate BLP policy enforcement, since he participated in a 3RR complaint regarding the same issue -- use of porn marketing/advertising copy as a BLP source -- previously [44] (BLP trumps everything regarding notability here. You should know that, DF. No blocks here - AMIB was absolutely correct - even if he's ultimately wrong, he was right to flag a possible problem. Black Kite 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The blocking Admin was in conflict-of-interest, and blocked me for restoring a !vote which he deleted. Because he is one of the leading drama-queens here he has a large peanut-gallery which supports his every move. And Man in Black was a troll who was eventually de-sysopped for trolling. You lie, of course, about using porn marketing/advertising copy as a BLP source. But I do appreciate your attempt to discuss the matter now, two years too late. Have I told you to rot in hell recently? Dekkappai (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is helping himself here. Dekkapai, you know that most people agreed that the images and content you were adding to the Japanese starlet videos was inappropriate: trying to argue that HW was behaving inappropriately over that is a losing battle. Even if he was, it's a losing battle. HW, trying to act as if you are a completely innocent, aggrieved party is also a non-starter. As for Beyond My Ken's position, no, HW doesn't have an extensive block record. Continued refusal to discuss edits will probably change that.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Kww: As I noted above, I don't think HW is a saint, and your advice to him to discuss his edits is good. My point was merely that a number of editors are presenting his editing behavior as being egregiously bad, but the available evidence doesn't support that contention, leaving the possibility that this complaint is largely overstated. I also don't see anything else for admins to do here: you've warned him to participate in discussions or face being blocked, what else is there for an admin to do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there isn't much to do at this point. Be nice if everyone would just back away from the argument, do a quick self-examination, and get back to editing.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kww, the Japanese starlet-image thing was just one of the straws breaking this camel's back. In fact, years ago, when I added them, those images were appropriate according to policy here. I carefully followed policy as it was in place at the time of their uploads. Policy was changed and hours of work was lost. Once that decision was made, I discussed, I lost, and I abided by "consensus". Hullaballoo mis-characterizes sources for plot-summaries as sources for biographical material so that he can remove information on a subject for which he has a clear bias. (With TPH's deletions on popular music, Hullaballoo is an ultra-inclusionist, yet with anything faintly erotic, he is completely the opposite.) This is what pisses me off here: In spite of pages and pages of "Rules" there ARE no rules here. Anyone can do whatever the hell s/he wants, so long as they have enough allies to make a "rule" out of it. I blame whoever is in charge here-- Jimbo?-- for this situation. I am very good at following rules and procedures, but there are none here. It's a constant flux according to what editor or group of editors has the upper hand at any one moment. If what Hullaballoo is doing were set in stone by an actual authority here, and I'd read it when I first came here, I'd have had no problem. Dekkappai (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't deny that I've been rude to Hullaballoo many times in the past. That's no reason for him to continue to be rude to me. As I pointed out, I've finally dropped the rudeness with him, and yet he still insists on calling me "paranoid" again and again and refusing to discuss anything with me or anyone else. (At least he hasn't gone on another redirect-bulldozing spree... yet.) Several other users have testified that HW is outright rude and bullheaded, and is a repeated BLP blanker. And the only thing I don't have an answer for yet is... why has he not been blocked yet? As I said earlier, maybe a temp block would be a wakeup call for him, as it was for me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"I've finally dropped the rudeness"? TPH, you called him a "total douche" less than a week ago. And you're posting diffs from November here to try to get him blocked for civility? Seriously, you've got no business complaining about his use of "paranoid" and "unwelcome" until you start showing a little restraint in your word choices yourself. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer, you probably need to drop this before the boomerang strikes. Those diffs HW gathered above don't place you in a good light, especially incivility, failure to research deletion nominations, repeated fait accompli redirects on notable topics etc. Motes, planks, etc. Fences&Windows 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fences and windows. It seems that neither side's hands are clean. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please look at the edit summaries in Talk:Jenny McCarthy for RevDel? And keep an eye on that article, considering her part in the Andrew Wakefield debacle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Admin deleted two edit summaries and revision text--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, it will need watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
...And the article has been semiprotected for a couple of weeks; that ought to get us past the largest part of the noise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I also use revdel on some article edits. Fences&Windows 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There were two concurrent measures: a two-week sanction under ARBMAC for disruptive editing (for edits which C.*M said had been made by somebody else from his account), and a technical indef block because of the allegedly compromised account. He's now sat out the two weeks, and the "gothacked" block should not prevent him from creating a new account, so I guess this ought to be accepted as legitimate. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll lift the block (and, obviously, if this turns sour again, we'll cross that bridge when we reach it). 狐 FOX 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Fut.. this is legitimate indeed and the user should be unblocked. What's not stated here is that his ARBMAC block in Dec. was obviously imposed by mistake [[45]] because his restriction were lifted due to harmonious editing (from 2 September [[46]]).Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the block was valid at the time. He wasn't blocked for breaking the 1RR parole that had been imposed earlier (and lifted); he was blocked for general disruptive editing after previous Arbmac-related warnings. No other active restriction was required for doing that. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with FutureP if the "gothacked" was a real "gothacked". Given the user's past and the fact that he claimed that someone had hacked his account after getting blocked I'm not so sure about the legitimacy of Coolmartini.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the user's past? To be precise 'harmounious editting' sounds fine to me. I also have to note that CrazyMartini was bitten from his very start by Zjarri. Fortunately he was unblocked when things settled.Alexikoua (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I reported a possible sock that turned out to be him. I didn't know that CrazyMartini was Greek and Proud.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 16:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In general before reporting someone we should check his userpage, where he clearly stated his identity. Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As long as CoolMartini makes it clear on his userpage that it is an alternate account of CrazyMartini, there is no sockpuppetry or block evasion, so he should be unblocked. CM served the two week block for disruptive editing, thus there is no reason he should still be blocked. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree ; the only block still in effect is the one due to the account being compromised; it seems logical that such a block would be against the account rather than the user. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that User:Fox has unblocked the new account. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
New user account User:BaldB0T592 created yesterday, only actions so far were to add fake copyvio notices to their own user and talk pages today, which I have removed. The notices claimed the pages were copyvios of the "Go Fuck Yourself" page at [47]. That doesn't exactly sound like the typical actions of a genuine new user, so I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone recognizes anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And now I've had my User page attacked with the same copyvio notice - [48] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. Thanks for highlighting this. I note his edit summaries included a fake shortcut to Autofellatio. Clearly not someone new to Wikipedia or someone we want editing. Adambro (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
– Article deleted, editor seems to have stopped editing Rehevkor✉ 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Similar problem with this article, created completely by new user Mrstoddart6989 (talk·contribs), might also violate personality rights of the subject of the article. --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite clearly a simple hoax in my eyes. Rehevkor✉ 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged it as such, and nominated for speedy deletion. GiantSnowman 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Which he has removed.. twice now. Rehevkor✉ 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong[edit]
User Frankkfong (talk·contribs) accused me of fraud and made this legal threat on my talk page for having removed new content per possible wp:COI and wp:NOR at article Calvin cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user seems to have no idea about how Wikipedia works although some of the policies were explained and (i.m.o.) sufficient pointers were provided, both on his and on my talk page. I suggested twice ([49], [50]) to propose the edit on the article talk page, but it looks like the user does not intend to do this. Not knowing what to do with this threat, I wonder whether I should just ignore it and remove part of the section from my talk page?
User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I left Prof. Fong a note which might or might not help. A little Googling shows that he was in a complicated dispute with Purdue University in the 1980's, that I'm too bleary to read right now, but it does sound like we have to be careful about COI edits and off-wiki battles that he might be fighting. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, he does seem to be quite capable of reading the wikipedia policies carefully if he is pointed to them. He has some points about the fact that the COI policy does not necessarily mean that he he is not allowed to contribute that bear consideration and response. As to the possibility of a legal threat being leveled here, I would imagine that pointing him to the appropriate guideline will inform him sufficiently and that he will act in accordance with the guideline. If I have a chance, I will leave it for him myself. We all at some point knew little of how wikipedia works; it is not intuitive, and certainly our legal threats policy is not something we can expect people to anticipate unless it is brought to their attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned NLT. Did you see what I left him? Was it ok? 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Editing User DVdm's actions and my inquiries are as found at Message from Frankkfong and Reply to DVdm's Response. The underlying fraud issues are found at The Calvin Cycle Website. Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception, made possible by omitting Melvin Calvin, Francis K. Fong and their co-workers' original papers. It was shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission. In anticipation of his seeking your acquiescence to "ignore it and remove part of it," hours ago I emailed myself DVdm's User Page for incorporation in a report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Director Bobby Hunt, Executive Division of IRS, and Dr. France Cordova, Member, National Science Board, c/o NSF General Counsel Lawrence Rudolph. Respectfully submitted, Francis K. Fong Frankkfong (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The intervening messages above (and the one below) came in as I was saving mine, creating edit conflicts. I have no intention of taking legal action, but would suggest that you do not acquiesce to DVdm's intention to "ignore it and remove part of it." I'm in a meeting, but will respond to all the messages and notify DVdm of the above and other responses on his User Page at a later hour. Frankkfong (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is it "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission"? We require evidence of allegations of this nature. Please see Help:Diff if you are unfamiliar with the process of linking to specific actions on Wikipedia. Without evidence, our policy requires you to assume that User:DVdm and other users are operating with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The note that 67.122.209.190 left you at DVdm's talk page includes a little more detail on Wikipedia's purpose and several other points related to your notes there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Prof. Fong, I'm confident that DVdm didn't intentionally misuse any WP policies. He may have made a mistake with them but in any case, a lot of subjective judgment is involved in handling such things. Also, when he mentioned removing part of it, I read that as meaning he wanted to focus on the article issue rather than raising a fuss because you had (maybe inadvertantly) broken the NLT policy. Note that "removing" something via normal editing doesn't make it unavailable. It's just like editing an article. You can still see the old versions, including "removed" material, by clicking the history tab at the top of the page, and people do that all the time. So he was't trying to cover anything up. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: with "removing part of it", I meant indeed removing the part of the message containing the legal threat from my user talkpage. I know that I can and may do that at will, but I was wondering whether I should do that. Thanks Anon67 and others for looking into this. DVdm (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I left a note at Talk:Calvin_cycle#Fong_papers asking for uninvolved biology editors to look over Prof. Fong's addition and use any appropriate material from it in the article. My guess is some parts of it are usable but other parts not. The stuff from scientific journals directly about the Calvin cycle is probably fine. The stuff about the Purdue dispute really needs independent secondary sourcing, not a blog belonging to an involved party. I'm not able to look for that right now but I might try a Google Scholar search sometime later. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Legal threats are absolutely forbidden. Why is this Carl LaFong Frankk Fong still being allowed to edit? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Because he has clarfied that he is not going to take any legal action in the above post.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The legal threat is still sitting there on the OP's talk page. He needs to go to that page and retract it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He is a new user with what is apparently a valid concern and who is currently in a meeting - I think it is ok to give a little leeway. I am definitely not going to take administrative action as long as his retraction of the threat here at ANI stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He may be 100 percent right from a factual standpoint, but that does not matter. Legal threats are forbidden. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The above comment by Frankkfong regarding saving DVdm's page for forwarding to government authorities (including those related to scientific-fraud investigation and taxes) is also IMO well into the realm of WP:NLT chilling effect. Those groups have no sway over WP content and are not being indicated as reliable sources on the content. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. He should be blocked immediately until or if he retracts anything that looks like a legal threat. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a brief response to ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC). I'm on a short break from the meeting, which may go on for some time. And then I'll need time to digest the input. I have no intentions of taking legal action as stated in the above post. Thanks for your sharing with me an apparently valid concern involving possibly the single most important chemical reaction on earth. Your article on the Calvin cycle was based on one, and only one, paper published in a reputable research journal, Ref. 1 Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950), which Calvin et al in all of their subsequent publications had refuted. Frankkfong (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As the above editor refuses to fully retract his various legal threats, he should be indef'd immediately, pending an explanation. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception. — No it wasn't. Wikipedia didn't exist in 1989. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
How about this:
Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown, in 1989, by the National Science Foundation to be deception.
. The representation that wikipedia shows of the cycle was shown to be incorrect back in 1989. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·,
I have now reviewed the above contributions, including the one left on Mr. Editing User DVdm's User Page by Anon67. (I have yet to read the "new messages" on my own User's Page.)
Having also read, for the first time, wp:NLT, my initial reaction is that, within the meaning of wp:NLT, I never did make a threat of legal action. The sentence, which Editing User DVdm sought to delete, appears to be more in line with that part of the wp:NLT having to do with its provision:
"A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly."
A legal problem such as defamation may have its roots in common law. In the instant case, the problem, DVdm's alleged conduct of fraud, i.e., misusing WP policies in furtherance of the "deception" - as described above by 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) - on the other hand, appears to have its origins in the statutory provisions I cited.
Moreover, in defining the "legal problem" pursuant to wp:NLT, not only I have twice affirmed that I have no plans in taking legal action, I made abundantly clear in the message to Mr. Editing User DVdm that I, individually, do not have standing in pressing a legal action in the "legal problem" I reported, in compliance with wp"NLT. If this interpretation of wp:NLT is incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise, upon further discussion in this forum, "the problem," if it exists, should be "acted on quickly" pursuant to wp:NLT.
In further support, the messages immediately preceding this one by (Uncle Gtalk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) and 65.122.75.14 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC), bring in focus the issue of "deception" germane to the subject matter on fraud, i.e., "the problem" at hand. I note, in particular, the important message posted above by Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC), which I reproduce verbatim below:
"Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV." (link provided)
To that end, I thank you for not acquiescing to Mr. Editing User DVdm's request to remove that part of my message, which proved to be offensive to him. I believe it's important to keep the integrity of this entire proceeding.
Finally, this is going a lot slower than I had anticipated. I am a new member of a community which has a vast following. I pledge to act within the confines of its policies. These I have to learn before I set in writing each and every one of my findings of fact and concolusions of law - all within the meaning of wp:NLT. As a result, I am falling behind in my regularly scheduled work, which I'll need to attend to. After that, I will devote fulltime, hopefully no later than 6 p.m. this evening, to answering each and every one of the valuable contributions shown hereinabove. At that time, I shall anticipate making a showing of my finding of fact - Mr. Editing User DVdm's practice of fraud in furtherance of Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle, more than a decade after the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989 of its being a "product of deception" - in order for you to act on the problem in compliance with wp:NLT.
Respectfully submitted,
Frankkfong (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Understood. To make what you say above abundantly clear to all who read only the mention that troubles Baseball B, and not your above clarifications, you might consider placing the following around the phrase in question, which will add a "strike through" to the phrase and not leave any doubt or room for misinterpretation of your intentions ... Baseball can correct me if that is not what he is seeking ... :<s> (before, and) </s> after.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
He's wikilawyering over the wording of NLT; but the point of NLT is not about specific wording, it's about intimidation. If the admins won't block someone who's making legal threats, the best the victim of those threats can do is to stand up to that user and not be intimidated; to treat anything of that nature as what it really is: bluster and hot air. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
BaseballBugs, with all due respect, stop harping on that. Admins have looked, reviewed, and said their is no legal threat. Especially since he has stated twice now that he isn't threatening. Continuing to harp on that point makes you look shrill and here not to solve problems but to inflate them. Frankkfong is new, sees an issue with an article and is working through the process. He is obviously new to the world of Wikipedia and is going through the maze of policies, procedures, and "legal" wonkery that has been setup. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 65.122.75.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thanks for your comments. I always pay close attention to the advice of drive-bys. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
News flash: El K'Fong has been indef'd for making legal threats. Should I wait for the IP's apology, or should I go ahead and do the dance now? ") ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not so sure we should take this lightly. He makes many highly inflammatory accusations on his website, including against the NSF for an alleged murder plot, and he claims to be acting under the aegis of the US Treasury to uncover "fraud" relating to the Calvin Cycle (with no real evidence of this being shown). His own work has been cited a handful of times, and his position is not accepted by any independent reliable sources. Even if he just stays the right side of "no legal threats, accusing Wikipedia editors of perpetrating fraud violates "no personal attacks". If he intends to continue trying to insert his unsupported fringe view into articles, he will need to be blocked for tendentious editing. Fences&Windows 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Per Fences & Windows, I don't think we can use anything from Dr. Fong's website regarding the various off-wiki disputes he's been in, without enough secondary sourcing independent from the subject to establish notability for the issue as well as substantiate the claims. That includes the letter from the NSF official claiming (if I understand it) that the original Calvin paper from 1950 involved a deception. The letter would be an unpublished primary source that we have to be very careful about. However, Fong and Butcher's 1988 paper was in a legitimate biochemistry journal and is cited by Portis and Perry's historical survey that Fences & Windows found, so I don't have a problem adding a cite to that paper to the appropriate article. I don't know enough biology/chemistry to have any idea whether Calvin cycle is the right article for it, but it sounds plausible.
Dr. Fong seems to show a rather serious misunderstanding of why DVdm wanted to remove that text, though. It was because the text could be read as a threat, which would have resulted in immediately blocking Dr. Fong from editing, making it impossible for us to discuss the Calvin Cycle issue with him further. DVdm instead proposed to treat the text as an error by someone unfamiliar with WP policies, and remove it so that discussion could continue. In other words, it was for Dr. Fong's benefit, not DVdm's. Dr. Fong, can you understand that please?
Anyway, I currently don't feel intimidated. If we can resolve this issue by adding a cite to the 1988 Fong and Butcher paper and moving on, I'm ok with that. We'd have to use Portis and Perry's evaluation of the paper, rather than our own or Dr. Fong's. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: Fences and Windows found a fulltext pdf of the Portis and Perry survey so I added a cite to the Calvin Cycle article.[51] People can find their way to the Fong & Butcher paper (and various other references) through it, and that seems about as good as we can hope for without vastly expanding the article. After looking at the number references in the survey, I now think singling out one of the less prominent ones in the WP article would create undue weight. The P&P article is online and pretty readable as such things go, so from my point of view this is a satisfactory solution. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Admin. ·Maunus·ƛ·,
I address this to you, because I am working on responding to each and every one of the above comments. Here I respond in haste to Fences, who may have identified himself as being responsible for the original legal problem, that of fraud. I submit that if, on my website:
1. I did not accuse NSF of murdering Don MacLauchlan, vice president of Carbon Reduction, sponsor for my NSF Proposal No. 8822928;
2. I showed evidence of my Sec. 7623 contract with Treasury under a directive by Director Bobby Hunt, IRS EXEC, authorizing me to detect the Calvin cycle fraud;
3. I showed proof that the Calvin cycle is a fraud, the result of a work of fiction published in the July 4, 1955 issue of Chem. & Eng. News; and
4. Ref. 1 of your article on the Calvin cycle, Bassham and Calvin (1950), was refuted by all of Calvin et al's subsequent papers, beginning with Calvin and Massani (1952) and ending with Calvin and Pon (1955), all of which have been omitted from your article by Fences, in light of his sponsorship of the Wikipedia article absent the entire body of the relevent literature;
then Fences will have created a new legal problem, that of slander, which you should act upon immediately.
Please note that, contrary to Fences' assertion, an accusation of fraud, or slander, is not a violation of wp:Personal Attack, if it's true.
Frankkfong (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Note. I have moved ([52], [53]) the entire conversation on my talk page to Frankkfong's talk page, with italicised and parenthesised signatures. Please continue any discussion over there or here. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, am I to understand Fong is involved in legal disputes of-wiki in relation to the Calvin Cylce? This is not entirely clear, but if it is true he should be topic banned from that subject here on the Wiki due to a conflict of interest and under the spirit of NLT --Errant(chat!) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Errant, I believe from reading the comments by other editors, admins had already ruled that there is no violation of wp:NLT. Even Fences conceded above that I am on the "right side" of wp:NLT. The entire page here is on correcting the Calvin cycle article, including the lengthy comment above by Anon67. Frankkfong (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This page is not for content disputes; this page is for administrative action. You need to discuss the content at the article's talk page. But you absolutely must stop implying illegal activity (fraud, slander...by which I presume you actually mean "libel") on the part of other Wikipedia editors, and you must stop lodging unsubstantiated accusations against them: "all of which have been omitted from your article by Fences". Here is the history of that article. User:Fences and windows has never edited it. Similarly, you have yet to substantiate where it is "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission". It most definitely is a violation of our policy against personal attacks to lodge "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankkfong, I was referring to your disputes regarding the Calvin Cycle outside of wikipedia. It is my understanding from reading all the material that you are engaged in legal actions and/or extreme dispute over this topic; as such it seems inappropriate for you to be editing those topics. --Errant(chat!) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Errant and Moonriddengirl, Errant's reference to "legal disputes et etc." reminds me of the suggestion by Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC), to submit a forthcoming update to make "abundantly clear" of my clarifications on using wp:NLT to report a "legal problem." There is no "legal dispute" outside of wikipedia. Fong and Butcher (1988) is in support of the missing references to Calvin et al's original papers, which in turn underscore NSF's finding. Please read the above comments on the National Science Foundation's finding of the Calvin cycle as a fraud. Our immediate concern is how to correct the Calvin cycle article with all the missing references to Calvin's original papers in order for biologist Fences to maintain the status quo of the Calvin cycle fraud. Moonriddengirl, please await my showing of proof in support of my report of the legal problem of fraud pursuant to wp:NLT. Frankkfong (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've read this entire dispute and I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing information from the article constitutes "fraud". As far as I know, Wikipedia is not legally obligated for its articles to be accurate (Biographies of Living Persons is an entirely different matter, on the other hand). If there is a content dispute about the article, move it to the talk page of the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Y2kcrazyjoker4, Moonriddengirl's comment above provides the key to my report of the "legal issue" of fraud pursuant to wp:NLT. He wrote: "User:Fences and windows has never edited it," i.e., Wikipedia's Calvin cycle article with the missing references to the entire body of literature, in furtherance of the Calvin cycle fraud. He [Fences and windows] specializes in deleting articles for inaccuracies and other faults, and knew, or should have known, that the Calvin cycle should have been deleted, or at the very least heavily edited. Here let me call time out. I request that you await my presentation in response to your statement, "I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing information from the article constitutes 'fraud.'" Frankkfong (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No one here is trying to perpetuate fraud, so please stop with these accusations. We just wish that the reports you wish to use as citations were independently published and covered by other sources. Just because something is true does not mean it is necessarily verifiable or a reliable source (see WP:RS, WP:V). That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in this entire dispute. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Please be courteous enough to honor my call for time out. It's appropriate for you to say, "I am not trying to perpetrate fraud." But you are not qualified to speak for the whole world, "No one is trying to perpetrate fraud." You and Moonriddengirl repeatedly attempt to prevent me from reporting, pursuant to wp:NLT, the legal problems of fraud and slander (libel). I will not allow myself to command you to stop doing that (unlike your and Moonriddengirl's somewhat uncouth habit for saying things, like, "YOU MUST NOT ***."); but you and Moonriddengirl are obstructing the proceedings of this admnistrative action and wasting everybody's time and resources. So may I respectfully request, again: please give me time, so I can respond to your statement, "I fail to see how a potential inaccuracy or missing informatino from the article constitutes 'fraud.'" Frankkfong (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you find my method of speaking uncouth. Please understand that I am warning you. I am an administrator, as many of the people who respond at this board are, and I will have no choice but to enact administrative action by blocking your account if you continue making unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing by contributors to Wikipedia. I asked you to substantiate your first allegations at 14:14, 4 January 2011; it is over 48 hours later, and you have yet to do so. You compound this by adding new allegations about yet another contributor. You need to muster your evidence before making your allegations, not make them and then indicate that evidence will at some point be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Fong, I don't see anything that we can possibly cite for "the National Science Foundation's finding in 1989" that something was a product of deception. You've posted a private letter from some NSF person whose import (to me) is pretty unclear, and which in any case doesn't come anywhere near the level of verifiability for us to use it in an article. Your issue of "how to correct the Calvin cycle article with all the missing references to Calvin's original papers in order for biologist Fences to maintain the status quo of the Calvin cycle fraud" presupposes there was such a fraud. Obviously we cannot make such a claim without (typo fixed) a published wp:reliable source, meaning something like a scientific journal article or a press release from the NSF, not somebody's website or a private letter in their possession. Fences and Windows found a rather nice historical overview of the subject, that cites your 1988 paper, and it doesn't say anything about a fraud. The article now cites the historical overview. If you've got a different interpretation of history that you want us to cite, you're going to have to get it published in a refereed journal before we can cite it. Actual scientific fraud of the type you describe is quite rare and we need solid documentation (WP:REDFLAG) before we can write about it. See our article about the Schön scandal as an example. Your allegations will need a comparable level of sourcing. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I doubt Wikipedia can easily correct the Calvin cycle article without my help; and honestly I suggest that you do correct it with or without me. I heed your warning; but you just minutes ago disclosed Fences and windows' role. I'd always suspected someone other than DBdm must be behind the fraud problem. Your request of 14:14, 4 January 2011 was subsequently supplanted by demands for blocking me pursuant to wp:NLT. Having cleared that up, only last evening I saw the suggestion byEpeefleche (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC) to make "abundantly clear" my clarifications, which of course, you as administrator already understood.
Now only minutes ago, you disclosed the origins for Fences and windows' fantastic accusations of my alleging murder on the part of the NSF, and of not showing evidence of my contract with Treasury under Section 7623: Biologist (administrator also?) Fences and windows fraudulently left standing with all the missing references, so your Calvin cycle page can be presented to the world as true and tried.
My reporting the legal problem of fraud based on your disclosure is procedurally proper pursuant to wp:NLT. So please do not, again, warn me, especially when you are a WP administrator who ought to know better than preventing me from reporting to the other administrators the significance of your disclosure. So once again, please, try to refrain from your sense of self-importance, and honor my call for time out. And I'll have my account of your disclosure explained before the other administrators, on or before 5:00 pm this afternoon. (We're on NY time.) Frankkfong (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
67.122.209.190 (talk), Thanks for you input. Mrs. Fong read your comments and thought highly of your resonable approach toward reaching an understanding. I'll have all of your questions answered, I hope, in the time-frame above stated, provided that you keep Moonriddengirl under control. Frankkfong (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Fong, Moonriddengirl's warning is entirely valid, you're operating at the fringes of NLT whenever you insinuate any type of legal impropriety on the part of Wikipedia editors, who are doing their best to keep WP's articles properly cited and accurate. You have since disregarded Moonriddengirl's warning and made a new unsubstantiated allegation that Fences and Windows committed fraud. That is completely inappropriate. Re Fences and Windows' mentioning your allegation of a murder plot: I think s/he means this (2nd paragraph). 67.122.209.190 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I just blocked him indefinitely for disruptive editing, including the attacks above ("fraudulently left standing", "refrain from your sense of self-importance", "keep MRG under control"). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunate, but it seems unavoidable. Whatever justification he may feel he has, he seems unable to avoid the battlefield approach and efforts to explain our behavioral policies seem to have failed. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if people like this have any sense of reading comprehension whatsoever. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Being directly accused of perpetrating a fraud on an article I've not edited before is quite something! I think I added some categories... Fences&Windows 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sarek. I think we had exhausted useful discussion, so that was a good time to stop. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, you made a stellar effort, 67... :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I don't know if that's possible. I'm a wild one, me. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. But it did have right from the start all of the signs of a person who was going to be a net negative and nothing but a time sink.
For reference, those signs are: Behaving as if everyone else were just one single amalgamated person. Treating the last person to speak as The Enemy (a corollary of the preceding — note the shift from DVdm to Fences and Windows to Moonriddengirl). A Great Wrong to be righted. Completely off-the-wall legal ideas (e.g. that volunteers from all over the world writing a free encyclopaedia as a hobby are, by some mysterious means, engaging in tax fraud). No demonstrable ability to write encyclopaedically. (This edit to article space is over 50% unencyclopaedic personal editorialization.)
It's a pattern that I'm sure many people have seen all too many times before. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Holy Headlights! The typical vandal couldn't write that badly if he tried. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Re Y2kcrazyjoker4: Frankly, I personally suffered from rather serious reading comprehension in this case, which was the reason why I came here: (1) to get some understanding about what this thing on my talk page actually meant, and (2) to find out what I was supposed to do about it, if anything. I have read through this entire thread many times now, and I still have no clue — and I think I don't even wanna have one anymore.
Anyway, I whish to thank all admins and "passersby" for helping finding out and trying to clarify. I still somehow wonder whether there's anything I did that I should not have done, and/or whether there was something I failed to do that I should have done. Cheers to all and thanks again. DVdm (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it; I think Uncle G is on to something above. We have to try, but sometimes there really is no effective approach. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I too agree that you made a stellar effort, and have absolutely nothing to reproach yourself about. I browsed through the report of his court case against Purdue University - worrying reading. The judge's comments are right in line with comments above. VinculumMan (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And Appendix D is instructive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately, we aren't Usenet, where there really isn't any mechanism for this. We've just demonstrated ours. We show people out of the door. The best thing to do now is to go on about our normal business of writing an encyclopaedia. So: Anyone new have an opinion to add about kitchen utensil or The Lord of the Rings (pinball)? Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
He has reverted my latest removal of his OR as "vandalism", and I don't feel like getting into an edit war with him. (I would also ask that someone explain to him not to throw around the term "vandalism" lightly, as some people would consider it a personal attack) Wikipedia sourcing policies have been explained to him enough times by now, that I don't feel that it's plausible to claim that he doesn't know what he's doing. I'd also note that, judging from the looks of his talk page, his editing history seems to be generally problematic, especially in cannabis-related articles. His edit history shows that he tends to focus almost exclusively on this topic, and is including the same type of OR across a variety of articles (e.g. hemp, Marijuana Tax Act, Jack Herer, etc.)
If someone else can step in at this point and make him stop, I would appreciate it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any egregious NPOV violations. The writing could be improved, but he is including reliable sources to back up everything he's adding to the article. He even added a few sentences which show that hemp is not a good substitute source of paper when compared to well-managed forests. If he were truly trying to push a pro-marijuana POV, he probably would have left that part out. SnottyWongconfabulate 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that there was a WP:NPOV issue, nor did I say that he's "trying to push a pro-Marijuana POV". I'm saying that it's a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:RS issue.
Dala11a is taking sources (many of which fail WP:RS, such as primary documents written by Anslinger) that aren't talking about Hearst, etc. at all, and using them to imply that the academic sources regarding Hearst are wrong (using phrases like "In reality...", "The last claim is in clear conflict with...", "This theory is contradicted by...", etc., followed by claims backed by original research from historical economic data.) But none of the sources actually make the claim citing them -- i.e. that they contradict the previous theory. None of the sources cited even mention Hearst, so we shouldn't be saying the Hearst theory is "contradicted by [insert original research]". To quote WP:OR:
"[Original research] also includes analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by or detailed within the sources."
We've got reliable scholarly sources making a claim, and then original research from historical economic data being cited as a "refutation" -- a claim which none of the sources make themselves. This is the essence of WP:SYNTH, and is unacceptable. (It also happens to be a logically faulty conclusion, but that's not what I'm concerned about here.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, someone doing original research involving cannabis! But am I the only one who would expect him to be mellow & laid-back? Maybe the best solution is no more munchies for this editor until he lays off the original research -- even if that is a buzzkill. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
He's doing this across a wide variety of articles. I'd recommend that someone try to get through to him that this sort of thing is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and insist that he stop. I've tried, and failed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...
AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.
Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt[60], in an attempt to influence a AfD. [61] Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.
The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The author of the photos has been named in conjunction with the license of the photo. To oversight the name would be a violation of that license. Phearson (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Wikipedia 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on wikipedia awhile ago [62]Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear; that's going in my permanent file. An indefinable block. HalfShadow 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doctalk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That wouldn't necessarily justify a ban. My point is this: a block and a ban are two different things. Are you asking for an indefinite block or a formal community ban? There is a huge difference between the two. Doctalk 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing again, I go with Formal Ban (sorry for the runaround, this is a first for me). Phearson (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doctalk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a banning offense, but I do think a block is in order. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have only checked the vector marketing article so far, and I see both the insertion of excess promotional material, and the insertion of way overbalanced derogatory material, along with the removal of what seem to me usable sources. It's important to keep balance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
We can discuss that specifically on the article. To sum up, AkankshaG should be banned, articles created/edited should be placed under scrutiny or deleted, and deal with a bunch of obvious issues in the wake. Phearson (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ban. That's way too harsh. Just block them and move on - Alison❤ 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Anyone else? Phearson (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.
What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”
Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.
I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.
As to the attempted WP:OUTING by Phearson, I’ve hesitated to respond to any of the allegations, as our policy recommends that you not respond to these allegations at all. I had hoped that someone with WP:Oversight would suppress these edits. Apparently that’s not happening, so I’ll respond now: I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove your theorized ruminations about my RL identity.
As to sanfernandocourt, I do have a connection to that editor, which I explained offline to an oversight admin, and that editor is now blocked. Beyond that, I’m not willing to say publicly, because in light of the aggressive stalking exhibited recently, I am concerned for my personal safety and the safety of that editor, and hope that you will respect that. Incidentally, User:Sanfernandocourt removed the offending vote in the Afd, and incredibly, User:Phearson/Cutno put it back in! I have no connection to sherry84, brittponsett, alharismagee, or thekohser.
Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I will respond to these accusations in the order given.
1. AkankshaG and I are indeed in a editing dispute at Vector Marketing. However, this is an issue that needs more discussion between us at the article talk page, which we had very little of before I discovered a wider issue that extends beyond that article. I'm not saying this to avoid the issue, but it is true. If AkankshaG is not blocked after this ANI discussion. I will continue working with AkankshaG on that page, though I admit its not going very well for the both of us. 2. I did attend the unpaid training provided by Vector in which I was instructed I was to be an "independent contractor" however, I did not continue the training after researching this company, nor did I sign anything that would make me an "Independent Contractor" or an employee of any sort. I will be willing to discuss this If editors like to examine any COI issues. 3. It is fact that I did have the name Cutno, however, after reading policy, I understood that slanted views are not welcome on Wikipedia. I have changed my name to reflect this change and have done very little editing to Vector Marketing since. In my opinion, I have become a reformed vandal. 4. Claims of "Fierce and protracted battle" is exaggerated. I have never really been in a real dispute with another editor except perhaps a minor discussion with User:Satori Son over a blog at a related article, but this was before I started reading policy. Feel free to look over my history, you will see mostly removals of unsourced claims & content. 5. The "no response" after saying that she would fix the article to make similar to Apple Inc was a "Lets see if she'll present anything for discussion". I also tagged the article appropriately to encourage any on lookers to see what was going on and to comment in preparation, of coarse the article was instead completely replaced without consensus, and thats where our dispute began. In hindsight, I should of encouraged her to keep the regular editors informed on the talk page, but also, she was creating the article in a sandbox which she didn't tell anyone about, nor ask anybody to come look at and comment. 6. During the time of our disagreement, I looked through her editing history and found COI with evidence on wikipedia itself and other websites regarding unrelated articles. Issues that I believed needed attention of the community VIA ANI. I did respect her request that she would be back soon after the New Year, and decided to confront directly and wait for a response after she got back (this is related to the outing issue, which I will address in my next point) before doing the ANI. I also sent email to an administrator to discuss my concerns. While waiting, a confirmation of a sock puppet was revealed by User:Alison[63] Which stated and I quote, "I got the roommate excuse via email. So I've left the other account alone for the moment and will defer to the community for whatever should be done, but the main account has been socking and votestacking at AfD. There may also be other accounts - I need to check further" and was confirmed formally by SPI [64]. I would like to point out that I contacted another editor to do the SPI, fearing that I would be accused of wp:hounding but since it was taking too long, and at the advice of the emailed admin. I went ahead and did it myself. And I also started the ANI because through the sock, it was assumed that AkankshaG had returned. 7. I do not dispute the direct violation of WP:OUTING. I want to apologize to AkankshaG and the Wikipedia community for a serious violation of policy. I will accept a reasonable punishment imposed if other editors believe I need it. However, I would like to point out indirectly and without linking directly, that some of AkankshaG's photos' licenses for her version of Vector Marketing contain the author's name, and that name is linked to Ciplex, an article created by AkankshaG herself. The source of the photograph was uploaded to mywikibiz, and then almost immediately uploaded to Wikipedia. Check the dates of photographs on both sites for confirmation. I have also taken screen shots, so there will be no evidence tampering. 8. I think that "Stalking" is an overstatement. Any person using the Internet, using their RL name on a public website is subjected to have their information viewed by the general public. I also like to say that I have no intent of making contact with this individual in RL or electronically ever (with the exception that AkankshaG may be this individual on WP). As for the "fear of safety for both her and the mywikibiz editor", this is nothing but a smokescreen to avoid the issues that I have brought up. As stated in #7, I standby the accusation that they are the one same individual. And now Finally... 9. I would like to make it clear that I am not out to attack User:AkankshaG personally over an editing dispute. Infact, I would have never pursued the COI issues on Articles related to Ciplex if there WAS NO ISSUE. Given Akanksha's behavior at the AfD and what I have bought forward to the community. It is very clear what is going on, and that AkankshaG is attempting a Smokescreen maneuver, in order to discredit me and throw out the ANI. At this point, I rest my case. Phearson (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (CUT)
Relisted - Can we please get an uninvolved Admin. here? Phearson (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've read through this all, and I'm confused. What exactly is the desired response here? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed a tough nut to crack. From what I think I'm reading, User:Phearson is on a vengeful spree and was asking for a ban against User:AkankshaG, which was ignored per being silly. No actual action against anyone seems to have been taken. There are copyright issues, however, that is not directly related to whether either user should receive a block or no, so all of that discussion is moot. There's an outing issue, which has been also rendered moot. There remain COIN and neutrality concerns being taken up at the Vector Marketing article, though things there seem to have calmed down.
Assuming the copyright issues have/are dealt with in the appropriate place, and neither user goes on a massive puffery spree at the article again, I personally don't see the need for any further action, nor do I think there's anything that's happening at present that would make a preventative block necessary. ♪Tstorm(talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
When I asked for a ban, I didn't realize that there were two separate methods (Blocks and Bans). But this ANI was originally regarding the editor with Ciplex COI and and the Socking at CJ Environmental's AfD. If Admins feel that no action should be taken, then fine. However, I don't feel that my concerns were entirely addressed here (particularly the socking), though I do thank the acknowledgement by people here that there is indeed puffery afoot. I also will keep my own editing in check. After all, I did like the new style presented by AkankshaG and I will be working with this editor on that if she returns. Phearson (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I know this is kind of a dull conclusion to things, but the issues remaining appear to be out of the scope of ANI and are left for their respective noticeboards. If you have specific concerns with the results of the SPI, etc., you should probably head there for discussion and/or ask the posting admin there if you have additional concerns. Hopefully the oddities are over and you can both return to a semi-peaceful existence of working on the original article. Blocks are really never meant to be given for "misc wrongdoings", are never for "punishment" and are used exclusively to prevent further disruption to the project. ♪Tstorm(talk) 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:92.7.66.173, also operating as User:92.7.89.208, keepschangingsourced figures regarding the proportion of different religions in Eritrea. He does not present a new source, and he keeps the old reference footnote, which contains figures different from his. His edits are not exactly vandalism and there is no 3RR violation yet. He has already been warned under one of his IPs by another user, to no avail. Since I'm not particularly interested in the topic and don't want to keep watch over all Eritrean-related pages, I hope an administrator will grant him the attention he needs.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the IP changes I've semi-protected the page for a while to prevent anonymous edits. Unfortunately this means you will also be unable to edit as an IP, but you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article talk page or create an account to get round this. Apologies for the inconvenience to you. EyeSerenetalk 13:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Sounds like this has already been handled, but for what it's worth, I do consider this to be vandalism. At least, after the first occurrence, it is disruptive if the user continues to do it. Note, for example, the escalating {{Uw-error1}}, {{Uw-error2}} {{Uw-error3}}... (I've seen the same issue recently (with a different set of figures) at Afar people.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Just another one of the chronic problems with articles about this part of the world. I'm always amazed at how much effort people spend on the census numbers (e.g., increasing the number of Ethiopian Orthodox Christians to make them the majority religion of that country, or reducing the number of Oromo people so they aren't the largest ethnic group in that gorup). Sheesh, these are facts the PTB there aren't happy about, & I'm sure they've fiddled the census data as much as possible: if the official census admits these uncomfortable facts, they must be true. (And I wish I had the time to keep updating the relevant articles with the latest census data. Having a life outside Wikipedia sucks sometimes. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:9hofhei and User:Nafunafu may be the subject of the article Fred Hofheinz or one of his relatives. They have been removing and modifying negative material in the article - in some cases fair enough. However, Hofheinz seems to have a conviction which is well-documented and seems significant to his biography. The user(s) has been removing this info firstly and is now changing the wording to reflect a slightly different story not supported by the source (and its a strong source - New York Times).
My approach has been: please discuss this on the talkpage rather than just doing unjustified edits.
Question: am I exempt from 3RR when I revert these edits?
Also, I'd be grateful is someone would take a look at this [65] and User_talk:9hofhei and let me know if I am anywhere near any thin ice.
Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Two comments with different hats on:
First (wearing admin hat), you would not be exempt from 3RR in this case because it's essentially a content dispute. The main exemptions to 3RR are for obvious vandalism, copyvios, BLP violations and illegal material (full list here). You did absolutely the right thing to check, and to prevent 3RR becoming an issue I've protected the page for a week. This should give an opportunity for discussion on the article talk page; if the other editors want to justify their content changes, they can do it there. If there's no support for their changes, or they make no effort to justify them and simply resume reverting/removing content once protection has expired, we can then move to sanctions on the individual accounts if necessary.
Second (wearing editor hat), it seems to me that you have applied both policy and common sense perfectly appropriately. The disputed content seems neutrally written, decently sourced, hasn't been given undue prominence and limits itself to what the sources support. I'd say you've handled this well and with due regard for any sensitivity on the part of editors that may (or may not!) be involved with a potentially controversial subject. We can't let articles become attack pieces but they mustn't be whitewashed either. If I have a criticism to make, it would be that you could have followed WP:BRD more closely in not reverting subsequent times yourself, but you didn't cross 3RR. EyeSerenetalk 13:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (edited 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC))
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind if it becomes an issue again. --FormerIP (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sage advice from EyeSerene. I'll just add, that having looked at some of the sources, I am not sure that some adjustment to our text is not required. Our article currently says "In 2000, Hofheinz was convicted, following a plea bargain, in connection with bribes totalling $1.5 million dollars he had made to aides of the Governor of Louisiana". The NYTimes he was convicted of "failing to report a felony in connection with bribes he paid..". Associated Press say he pled guilty to "failing to report a felony in a case that originally included charges of extorting payoffs" [66], and the Dallas Morning News that he "pleaded guilty in Baton Rouge on Tuesday to a reduced federal charge of failing to report a crime involving the corruption case".[67]. The current version rather implies that he was convicting of bribery, while he wasn't. Slp1 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it does, and it seems to me to be unambiguously sourced that the subject of the article did pay bribes, which I think is the most salient fact, whatever else may be true. On the other hand, I'll admit that I haven't done a thorough review of sources that might be out there and I'm in no way against making modifications that turn out to be warranted (I've got no POV here except that this type of material in a BLP should be neither overstated nor airbrushed). But my general stance is that for alternative sources and critiques of the current wording to be brought to the talkpage is not too much to ask. --FormerIP (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you have other sources, but the ones I've looked at clearly suggest that while he was charged with making bribes, those charges were dropped as part of the plea bargain, and he was only convicted of failing to report matters. See here too[68]. But anyway discussion for the talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, well I don't mind meeting you over there if you have views about this. Although maybe there is an argument for allowing the editor mentioned above a bit of time to come back if they want to, rather that being too eager to nail things into place without them. --FormerIP (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There could be something in that - the current text possibly does imply the bribery was a fact rather than an allegation depending on how one reads it. There's a further post on my talkpage from Nafunafu you may want to look at; their preferred text seems fine as far as it goes, but if the current text goes too far, theirs on the other hand may not go far enough. A compromise should be possible though:) EyeSerenetalk 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Delicious Grapfruit was recently blocked after a tirade on my talk page that included "FUUUUUCK YOU", breeching 3/rr, and all sorts of fun while he was blanking the Glenn Beck article. I get that he is not happy with it but we need to be done putting up with his trouble. One of his first comments back from his block was to comment on a contributor in an obviously disruptive way (while disregarding that his forum shopping actually got some good fresh eyes on the article) by saying that I was acting like his boss.[69] This was done while he still had a talk discussion open in another section. Enough is enough with this guy. Someone needs to mentor him or he needs to be banned from the Glenn Beck article until he has learned a little bit more about the process here. Saying that I am acting like his boss may not seem like a big deal but he has been warned by an admin for personal attacks and I have explained to him that it is not OK to comment on contributors like that over and over again. He has returned form his block intent on starting trouble.
Recently archived discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Wikipedia.[70] That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google.[71] He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- Ϫ 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
depends on which head...--Jayron32 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - Alison❤ 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Tbanks Ali, good call. -- Ϫ 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It's always interesting when brand-new users pop up on AN/I and seem to know considerably more than would normally be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Him being a sock has crossed my mind. He has shown a lack of knowledge regarding process so I doubt it is a long time abuser of socks if that is the case. Not sure though. And I know this is the exact opposite of AGF but I do not believe the user when he says there was not an attempt to use my name. It was one of the only edits to my talk page and the user said he was looking me up on Google. Just seems more likely that it was a veiled jab and not the use of something like "pal" that is hardly ever used and does not show up in their vocabulary in other discussions. But as long as it doesn't happen again I am happy. Does this come across as being a bully? Don;t no and don't care as long as there are no more personal attacks from the editor.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, I never said I was looking you up on google. Nor am I sock puppet. I don't see how my editing history indicates that I am one. What I think is going on is there are a small circle of editors who pretty much run things on these pages. Bully editorsDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not refactor other's comments! I provided a diff and you changed it. Completely out of line.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Disregard. I misread the tabs open. Link is here where you say you have been googling me: [72]Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's see... He said he wasn't googling you, and he said he wasn't a sock. The part about not googling you was untrue. Any bets on the other part? :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And he has crossed 3/rr in his second blank of the page.[74]Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
3 blanks of the page now. Epic meltdown. I've been in the same boat before. We do not do cool down blocks but there is certainly a level of disruption that needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours for now. Feel free to change the length either way without letting me know. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
48h sounds good. I didn't examine the person's contribs but based on reading the user talk page, I see an extremely frustrated newbie who stumbled into a crappy region of wikipedia and got into standard wiki-conflict without having the skills to engage in it. I left some advice encouraging the person to come back after the block, but find a new area to work in. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He hasn't touched the article itself since being blocked, and I don't see any personal attacks or other serious problems with his talk page edits since the block. Your assertion that he must "learn the rules or get out" on the other hand... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
When he comes on to the talk page and starts throwing accusations around then he needs to learn or go away. Enough is enough with this editor. Notice that I actually posted it on the talk page then removed it a minute later after thinking it would be better on his talk page. So although being contrary is fun, an editor who might have tried to out another editor, starts screaming FUUUUUCK YOU on my talk page, forum shops, refuses to get it, then blanks the article multiple times (c'mon: [75][76][[77][78]) should have little leeway. Like I said, anyone want to mentor him? If not, then he should go edit on other articles like several others have suggested. Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see that anything DG has done since his block merits discussion here. TFD (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If him saying that I act like his boss on the talk page is acceptable then so be it. I thought it as a repeat of previous behavior but maybe I am overreacting to the past stuff. I will make sure to return the favor, of course. No worries if someone wants to close this out.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I considered being pointy and calling him a brat on the talk page then though better of it. So if this is closed out, anyone want to make a friendly bet (images of money? :P ) that he will keep on doing it and we will be back here within a week? I would love to be wrong but I don't see it happening. But I don't mind waiting and seeing.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono: I haven't even edited the article, and this kind of rules enforcement is what I mean when I say bullyedit. I feel like you are reporting me for simply expressing opinions and concerns about the article and about the need for more third party intervention. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I also think its worth pointing out, as a third party editor has pointed out to me on my talk page, that Cptnono is enforcing consensus incorrectly. I've read the rules on building consensus multiple times, and I believe they are not meant to be used the way Cptnono is using them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if a user feels you are bullying them and then you report them to ANI over stuff they did before they were blocked and they haven't repeated any of those actions, you pretty much made their point for them. I don't care at all for the tone of the diffs provided from before the block, and I do think the block was justified, but I also think it appears to have worked for once and the user has corrected the problem with their behavior and is now attempting to work in what is clearly a hostile environment on the Glenn Beck page. This isn't the place for content disputes, perhaps an WP:RFC to identify and repair the problems with the article is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, I think you mean well, but your complaint about DG is beginning to get a little pointy. However, as far as DG, I don't think this is appropriate behavior. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC) No, I think the article is what is inappropriate. Seems a more than reasonable response here. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It does look like he went back to his old behaviour. See this edit and this edit. Garion96(talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked him based on that first edit. Clearly not here to contribute constructively. Nakon 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It might be good to put the squeeze on the user and do a sock-sweep. His behavior from the beginning has seemed oddly familiar. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering that Grapefruit continues to post "libelous" or at least BLP-violating comments after his block,[79] you might want to consider revoking his talk page privilege, or at least warning him. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh my God I told you so. When the editor came back and starting commenting on contributors like that I knew we were in for more and then he went and put on a BLP that the subject is a potential Hitler? LOL. Next time, don't be contrary and boomerrang when an editor is obviously bad news. We have had two waves of editors trying to fix potential POV in the article and so far the first wave did little (but it was good) and most of the stuff in this second wave is good ol fashioned cleanup. So feel free to open an RFC but the problems work themselves out.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a lot of ad hominem stuff here, shouldn't individual edits be assessed instead? In general, effing and blinding on talk pages doesn't seem particularly helpful, but would be a shame to lose potential good edits to main pages unnecessarily. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
ANI is so cute. You are right, we should keep edits like this. And all of the blanking was also fabulous work. Boomerrang it. Look to give some leeway to a potentially good editor. Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
DarthKieduss (talk·contribs) is obviously the same person as Lucas Duke (talk·contribs), who I indef-blocked last April for anti-Muslim bigotry. As his userpage indicates, he has a lot of issues. Because it has way too much personal information on it, I've deleted it - a different version involving "Christian extremism" was deleted via MfD in October. The deleted material is rather disturbing. There is no indication that his views have changed, but his present edits are not particularly problematic. Nonetheless, the account has existed concurrently with his other account, so he's technically indef-blocked, and the userpage plus editing interests do not induce comfort. I bring it here for comment. Acroterion(talk) 02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. The other account was pre-existing, but I'm inclined to treat it as a sleeper and he obviously started using it to circumvent his other block. We don't need his kind of nonsense here. --Andy Walsh(talk) 03:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That was my feeling too, and in any event it was an undeclared alternate account. Any passing checkusers might want to look for more accounts. Acroterion(talk) 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to say he has had a 12 hour block for edit warring (which he continues to deny despite the evidence) and another for legal threats, quickly lifted. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that would be two for legal threats -- one was just imposed for (I think) this edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked him for the legal threat in this diff. Accusations of criminal acts on Wikipedia cannot be allowed. If he seriously thinks he is being cyber bullied he can call his local law enforcement agency. --Leivick (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but let's keep this open as he may retract it. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Legal threats are only one part of his problematic behavior. --Leivick (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
3rd unblock request saying he won't take legal action, then another couple of rants about how his block was "illegal" and therefore must be lifted. This is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue, I think; and a wickedWP:COI issue in the articles he's editing (I'll provide no diffs here, but this guy has managed to neatly out himself). From his first communication with another editor to his most recent, it's 99% bile and accusations from this individual. Every single editor he encounters is "wrong". Take his "soapbox" away already: it really doesn't look like he gets it (or ever will). These "cyber-bullying" allegations against any and all editors that try to help him are utterly preposterous: and yet he continues to assert them and that his block is preventing his "freedom of speech". Doctalk 08:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I have made every attempt at explain this as clearly as possible to this user without any luck. I have to go to bed, I have a flight in the morning. If he retracts all his legal threats I would be okay with an unblock if someone else wants to do it while I'm away. --Leivick (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So I have disengaged, and he's found another person to threaten. I'd say anyone who wants to take this up needs strong nerves and needs to be prepared to become subject to this attitude. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 09:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Essentially echoing Doc9871: there's no reason to unblock him even if he does revoke the legal threats (which still are legal threats, no matter how much he wants to argue over semantics and claim that a legal threat is not a legal threat). Through his editing of several articles, mainly Up to Now (autobiography), he has demonstrated that he
does not understand what Wikipedia is and what its editing standards are, and is not willing to learn
An editor who is unable to contribute anything of value to the project and is just going to start a new fight every chance he can? Why should that be unblocked? rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Rjanag and Doc. A topic ban could serve the same purpose, since he only edits article which have a relation to himself or his family, but that would be the bare mimimum. Otherwise, it will be impossible to clean up the articles he's edited. Note that the legal threats are only part of the problem. It may have been brought to a head recently, but his behaviour has been going on for over a year with zero indication that he intends to or can change, e.g. this, the exchanges starting here, and here. The response is always the same. When pointed to relevant guidelines and given explanations, the reaction is "I didn't hear that". Then, if editors do not promptly back off his articles, they are accused of "flagrant policy violations", "harassment", "bullying", "vandalism" etc. etc., ultimately culminating in legal threats. Explanations have proved pointless. Numerous editors have patiently and repeatedly explained the issues and policies to him (far more than are currently visible on his talk page as he regularly removes things he doesn't want to hear or to be seen). Less than 48 hours after being unblocked for making legal threats, he makes more and even escalates them to accusing editors of criminal behaviour and anyone who blocks him of "obstructing justice". Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. "You are free to refer this to another editor. Plainly you are fairly new to editing on Wikipedia.".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I very patiently tried to explain these policies to him before all of this started. He just doesn't understand and wants to cherry pick policies (or essays) that suit himself. I dont think anyone can argue that he is a blantent vandal or that he is being malicious or intending to be disruptive, but his actions clearly are not constructive to the encyclopedia and something does need to be done here.--v/r - TP 14:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, this account's very first attempt at communication with any other editor began with a criticism of her "editing style"[80]. Nothing has changed...Doctalk 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
True, I don't think he's mean-spirited, there's simply a total-with-three-exclamation-points lack of competence here; I didn't even know such a thing existed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think he just needs to come down off his high horse and realize Wikipedia is not about winning. I see no benefit to unblocking. -- Ϫ 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no benefit at all, given this response to the suggestion that instead of creating new articles straightaway, he try editing other articles until he becomes more familar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Clownheadisnotthename appears to be a rather abusive POV-pusher. After reverting the addition of some personal opinions and some vandalism at several articles, I looked back on the history of the articles and it's clear the same editor has been doing the same as an IP. At Siobhán Coady, this happened earlier (with nonsense "references"). It was reverted, then added again here with an abusive edit summary. Both by IP User:142.68.231.142. Then by User:Clownheadisnotthename we see some of it put back again, with more POV, here. It looks like IP User:142.163.151.19 from earlier is also the same person. Same registered editor added this at John Baird (Canadian politician), which contains unsourced claims plus more personal opinion, after User:142.68.231.142 had already added it before and had it reverted. Also vandalised Mike Harristhus. Looks like more than a simple WP:AIV report, as it looks persistent - some digging into IPs with consideration of range blocks perhaps? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And clear copyvio from [81]. The IPs are obviously the same editor. I'll indef the registered account, but I don't know if there's any point in a range block, just keep watch on the articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I've got all three articles watched. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Kimpatriciabax, recently blocked for disruptive editing, appears to be using her talk page to [82] another editor. I have no idea if it is accurate or not, but it probably warrants admin attention. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have RevDel'd it in case it was a legitimate outing attempt and the user in question had never disclosed that information openly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have suppressed the content, and per policy "outing" does not need to be correct for it to be Oversighted - the attempt is enough. In future, it is best to email the Oversight team. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I normally do contact Oversight, but if the problem is ongoing, I sometimes find that only the one diff is oversighted, so I thought this might be a better place to handle both the revdel and the protection that I thought might be needed. Th editor concerned has been persistent in the past. - Bilby (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
LPC appears to be editing under a new IP, though from the same provider. In view of the latest ANI discussion, I have blocked LPC indefinitely and the IP for two weeks. Favonian (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Support LPC's indefblock. He has exhausted our patience with his sockpuppetry. Enough is enough. DarthSjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Support indef block - I suspect we may soon need a ban discussion, since LPC appears incapable of understanding that sanctions on an account is not a method by which edits are made a bit more difficult to execute; that a sanction needs to be served. It is also clear that the disruption will continue - though I suspect we will need to wait for the next instance of socking/block evasion for that discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
– Article deleted as a hoax for the fourth time Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This new "article", created in a single edit by a new user, Mladjo3 (talk·contribs), might be a hoax. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Bambu Rolling paper promoters using Wiki again[edit]
There has been a tremendous edit war at Bambu Rolling paper. A quick synopsis is that the Bambu company links their webpage to List of oldest companies and relies upon this to describe themselves as one of the oldest companies in the world launched in 1764. However the factual references we were all able to find showed that the product was launched in 1907 instead of 1764. These were solid references, from the University of Barcelona department of History and a book written on Bambu – plus Spanish trademark filings. Once this information was posted, it touched off an edit war with use of random IP’s and Sock Puppets (now known as the Bambu Promoters). The Bambu promoters would go to extreme lengths to remove and undo the refernences and factual information posted, without providing any 3rd party references or data to substantiate their reversions or alterations. They would post things like “everyone knows the brand is from 1764” with nothing to substantiate this. Several of us worked to keep the articles factual. The Bambu promoters would be temporarily blocked, and within a short while of the block expiring they always came back and reverted the article to what matches their promotional year 1764 (along with other promotional material). Their website links back to Wikipedia here: http://www.bambu.com/history.php
All 3 of these articles contain the year of formation of Bambu (claimed by them to be 1764 but referenced at 1907), which is why Bambu would have a strong interest in modifying them.
I noticed that other editors have had similar problems with the Bambu promoters going back years including Mrtobacco (talk·contribs).
These Bambu promoters post some very amazing inside information sometimes, which was useful in researching references to refute their posts. For example they once posted:
The brand/trademark has been in existence in Spain since 1764. In the 1800's the Company, owned buy Spanish paper makers went through financial difficulties and was sold to Moorish Arabs from southwest Spain, The R. Abad Santonja group/family.. They printed their name on the papers ( http://www.rollingpapers.net/Bambu/c02_2c1.jpg) ... The business about the 1920's was when the brand was first exported to the United States for sale here. In the early 1980's the Spanish company which was apart of a larger paper conglomerate making numerous forms of stationary, paper, parchment etc. went bankrupt and the distributors in the United States were able to buy the brand and trademark worldwide and restructured the business model and manufacturing to suit modern demand. The paper was still made to the same specifications as older papers along with the all natural glue.. Understand that for many generations paper "glue" was made with a pig fat byproduct, and Bambu being the only natural plant glue for generations... This is why it is everywhere in the Caribbean, because Rastafarian culture prohibits consumption of meat. I am a rolling paper collector and have Bambu papers from the That range from today, to the 80s, 50s to almost 100 years old.. All of them have indicated a Brand establishment of 1764. Do I have documentation from the Bureau of Trademark Registration from Madrid, no.. But all I can say is that it has been widely accepted, and thoroughly researched by the Japanese firm Shoko Research that this is true. As well the company for as long as anyone can remember printed since 1764 date.
However once we checked, Bambu was NOT researched byt eh Japanes firm Shoko Research, they had only researched Japanese firms. Bambu had added themselves to the Wikipedia list of oldest companies. Saying “as far back as anyone can remember” is not a factual reference. However the factual references available seem to infuriate the Bambu promotoers.
I see from other posts here that people write long histories with every mean quote the offending party ever wrote, but I don’t want to that way. I am sure that the Bambu promoters are very upset that we posted references to show facts that contradict their stated year of formation. Regardless of how upset they get, and how many different names they call me and others, they can’t change the facts. What I am asking for is for you to keep an eye on these pages and help keep them factual, with true reliable 3rd party references like they are now.
I’ve used many Wiki tools available to me including asking for editor assistance, Conflict of interest reports and page protection requests. Admins have been very helpful, and the pages are currently ‘safe’ but I’m tired and want to focus on other things. Long term page protection might be needed or maybe you have other ideas on how to stop the Bambu promoters? Please help, I really appreciate it and thank you! Nahome (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nahome, in the future do not post these sections at the top of WP:ANI. Your dispute is no more important than anyone else's. I have put your section properly at the end of the page after I removed it from the top.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Nahome, as you can see on the Bambu rolling papers talk page "It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu). Thus they put 1764 on all of the papers they made. That date is on Marfil and many other packs in my collection. Then when the Bambu brand was sold and the factory closed, it seems the new brand owner is just using 1764 as part of the original Alcoy Branding." As I can see on the List of oldest companies talk page the qualifications for being on this list is that, "a company is as old as it's oldest business entity. Changing the name after a merger does not affect the founding date." You can see this specifically on the Kikkoman section on the list of oldest companies talk page. Therefore, most if not all of the businesses on this list are companies trace their establishment date to the earliest entity of the business. All of this trademark registration non-sense perpetuated by this user is clearly not the logic this article has been found upon. As well I see that Bambu was added to the article in the incunabular stages of the article, by the actual person who created the article. Sincerely, and thanks for you time.--151.205.172.251 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a content post to me. What admin action are you asking for? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The administrator tool action required here was already taken by John(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) on 2011-01-03. The article is fully protected because of the edit warring — the third time that protection has had to be imposed because of this dispute — and the edit warriors have been invited to discuss their differences on Talk:Bambu rolling papers. That's the place that the two of you should be working things out, not here on this noticeboard. There's nothing further for administrators to do here, unless you both demonstrate continued intransigence and willingness to once again start up the edit war when protection expires, as before. In which case, the administrator action to be taken is removal of either or both of your editing privileges — be warned of that now. Get yourselves to the article's talk page and discuss. It's what talk pages are for. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We have discussed it, but they put up posts without any factual references - and the moment the page protection expires they repost their promotional text. I'll discuss it with them (all of the various IP's and sockpuppets) again. However they don't have any references, just long posts about how we're all against them, we're trying to slander their brand etc.. I wish they would understand that they need to use references. References References References, my horse for a reference! Nahome (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a conflict of interest, the company should not be able to use Wikipedia for promotion. LARPing aint easy (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
They were listed on COI and they were warned and temporarily blocked over their actions. However they're tenacious! Just now they tried a different approach. ArnaudMS and the Bambu promoters/sock puppets have struck again. They changed the artitcle Rolling paper to change the year of a company that appeared to be older than them in the article, to make that company "newer" than them. I guess they arbitrarily picked a year of 1910 so it would make the product newer than their brand, which was proven to be from 1907/8. Then they add "citation needed". It's disingenuous and I think it should be reverted. Perhaps the page needs to be fullly protected now to stop them?
here is the change
Old:
Pay-Pay - (Spain 1703) Oldest brand of rolling papers in the world.
Where did this magical year come from? It seems it is because they (Bambu) were found to be from 1907 and this is a competing product. Nahome (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not an arbitrary date This magical year comes from trademark registration site. I simply used the same establishment date (trademark registration site) use to determine Bambu's founding date. link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html . If we are not using the rule of a company is as old as it's oldest business entity, these "trademark findings" should be presented across the board.. Am I wrong?--ArnaudMS (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Arnaud, could you provide an actual link to the date you posted, I am unable to find this 1910 year on the link you provided. What is the trademark number and information you are using? Also, it raised suspicion that you adjusted what seems to be a competitors brand, then added a "citation needed". If you had a reference to use, which you say that you did use then you are supposed to post that reference. Why would you say "citation needed" if you had a reference for it? Please remember that with a COI you should be very cautious when altering pages. It would be better if you would present your requested change to an editor and have them decide if it's valid, and they could keep your COI from being an issue. You have only recently come off of being blocked and nobody wants to block you again, so please obey the Wiki rules. Nahome (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have never been blocked? What are you talking about.. Maybe you should listen to your own advice, and use your own references.. The only one who seems to have a COI is yourself, as you are applying rules to one Brands est. date, and not to others. This is the information from YOUR site. link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html on PAY PAY.. I do not need advice from someone who only edits marijuana paraphernalia sites.. Thank you very much.
TM Office: Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas
TradeMark Name: PAY-PAY.
Application Number: M0017224
Registration Office Code: ES
Kind of IPR:
Application Date: 1910-01-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnaudMS (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Arnaud again - if you had this reference than why didn't you add it instead of saying "reference needed". Just because you blank your talk page doesn't mean we can't see the history of what was there before. I was not able to find this mark above other than in years 1988 and newer using the link you provided which is why I asked you for the information. Again though it is imperative that you ask other editors before making a change b/c of your apparant COI. I know you always try to deflect and say everyone else has a COI but you, everyone else is lying about their years of formation but you. None of us here really care about that except for what is posted here on Wiki. Blaming others does not change what we always ask for - unbiased references. Now please ask an editor to consider making the changes you have requested and give them your reference. I am sure they will be happy to oblige and then that change you wanted will be done - and done properly. Moreover when the PP on the other pages expire please do not use sockpuppets or any tactic to edit them back to unreferenced years and unreferenced promotional text for Bambu Nahome (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In your own words Nahome ""It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu)." (as seen on Bambu talk page).. Where was your reference?--ArnaudMS (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There's been a long term edit war and I protected the article a week rather than block. We could do with a patient admin to look at this and guide the users/attract other views towards a decent consensus. Me, I don't have time right now. Any takers? --John (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
John, I'm the one who asked Nahome to bring the issue here. I've tried to help, you've tried to help, EdJohnston has talked with ArnaudMS, but xe will not accept anything other than his own version and will not accept any reference Nahome provides. I'm at the limit of my ability here, or maybe I'm just tired of ArnaudMS's intransigence. Nahome has tried to get ArnaudMS/Bambu to discuss, but he won't do it. She tried WP:EA to little effect. She's asked WP:COIN to help, and not much is coming of that. We're protecting pages right and left because of this, and I thought more eyes on the problem would help bring more possible solutions. I'm about to pull my hair out over this and I can't imagine how frustrated Nahome must be. I think it's time to talk about a topic ban for ArnaudMS from editing Bambu, rolling papers, and the like. We're losing good editors because of these issues. KrakatoaKatie 06:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This is untrue Katie. If you read what is being discussed and not just your friend Nahome's posts you will see this is a two sided issue. Myself and many others have discussed the issues on the Bambu talk page, along with many other pages to field this argument. I am not an agent of the business as I have told you time and time again, I merely see a blatant attack on this brand by someone who clearly has an agenda (if you look at your friends history dating back of many years of posts).. As well, the "company" never placed itself on the Oldest Companies List, it was actually put there by the article's founder Gunter on 15:40, 18 January 2006, if you look at the back logs.. There are some questions you need to ask yourself before jumping to conclusions... Why is this trademark registration site the only form of the companies est date? It is clear that companies on the list are there because a company is as old as it's oldest business entity. In your friends own words, ""It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu)." If thats the case, then Bambu should be listed at 1764 ---- What is this business with Bambu being linked with Bamboo the plant as proof against its establishment date? I have never seen mor heard of this anywhere at all.. And also if the wiki community decides that the trademark websites are the only form of proof of an est date, then by all means, please make this rule apply to ALL the companies est dates across the board.. Best--ArnaudMS (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
As you can see it's kind of pointless to reply to ArnaudMS, the user just tries to cloud the issue like a good politician without answering the actual questions. When I write "it seems" it clearly is not a reference and was an attempt to figure out (give an explanation) for why ArnaudMS/Sockpuppets claim this 1764 year without saying "it seems they are just lying for promotional purposes". I have asked maybe 40 times for a reference for the 1764 year but ArnaudMS/Sockpuppets cannot provide one so we all went with the year that was very well documented by third parties. Just for effect, I will ask one more time - ArnaudMS/Sockpuppets can you please give us a reference for this 1764 year you claim? Please - just one good reference - list it right HERE for all of us to see and read. Please? Nahome (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Just noting here for future reference that Nahome (talk·contribs) was found by checkuser to be linked to another real-name account, which in turn is linked on the Web to a tobacco company. I asked him to choose which account he wanted to use, and he chose the other one, so I've blocked the Nahome account indefinitely.
ArnaudMS (talk·contribs) and Lostsociety (talk·contribs) were also found to be linked by checkuser. The former was blocked for 24 hours, the latter indefinitely. We're currently discussing on COIN a topic ban of all the accounts from tobacco-related articles. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me put this in general terms: can someone please do something about "User:Слободни умјетник"? He's a troublemaking sock, a single purpose-account or I'm a Dalmatian ;), I just can't figure out who's sock it is. He's edit-warring and vandalizing two articles, removing info and writing-up nonsense indiscriminately. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
He's certainly an SPA but could be a bit more specific about why this is not a content dispute? Fainitesbarleyscribs 00:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
He's removing content based on preferences. Standard-issue Balkans ideological vandalism, really. He likes a particular faction and is removing anything bad Wikipedia has to say about it, don't know how to be any clearer without going into Balkans history details. Its usually IPs, but this time its a sock. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me like he's adding content. He keeps adding Chetniks to the Allies. Otherwise they are in the Axis column with (nominally Allies) after them. I'll have a look at earlier edits.Fainitesbarleyscribs 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Although he is in fact 3RR on it in any event. No doubt he will respond to this shortly.Fainitesbarleyscribs 01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not vandalizing two articles, removing info and writing-up nonsense indiscriminately. I'm trying to find a compromise, because in the article was not neutral point of view. There are undeniable evidence that Mihailovic's Chetniks fought in the war on the Allied side, against the Nazis. As evidence I have provided references. I am not their supporter, I just write the truth.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No you are not trying to find a compromise. You are repeatedly reverting. I am blocking you for 24 hours for breach of WP:3RR. When you return - discuss it on the talkpage.Fainitesbarleyscribs 11:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud, its an obvious single-purpose nationalist sock account, another in a long line I might add. Could someone please check him against User:Свифт and/or User:Иван Богданов? And yes, he's both removing sourced info AND adding nonsense to articles. Just for example: he's "decided" to change the topic of the Yugoslav Front article to "World War II in Yugoslavia", and is effectively "merging" it with the Invasion of Yugoslavia article (when I say "merging" I mean he's just altering the infobox to such an effect). He has also seen fit to simply ignore listed references. Am I really supposed to "discuss" this now with the sock? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 12:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I said I would look at earlier edits and I am but there are other things in life besides wiki.It would also help if you think he's an obvious sock to provide some clues or diffs in support of this. What may seem "obvious" to someone heavily involved in editing Yugoslavian articles is not necessarily "obvious" to anyone else. Besides which - nationalists are legion. If you want a checkuser, file an SPI. Fainitesbarleyscribs 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, ty for your effort. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 15:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This user has been repeatedly warned about vandalism and deletion of content, and received a final warning. I just reverted more apparent vandalism he made to Vladimir_Herzog; see this [diff]. I looked at other edits he's made more recently and it looks like more of the same; for instance, [diff] and [diff]. I recommend the administrators block this user. Dkostic (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe you want WP:AIV. Doniago (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This is more of a back-burner issue, but I wanted to call attention to User:99.227.131.13. He's had a lot of problematic edits (I could list them, but that would pretty much be their entire contributions list), and came to my notice at the Santa Claus article talk page. I haven't had any real interaction with the user, but as I was following up in the anon's usertalk with a little bit of mentoring (to whit, pointing where they were screwing up and the need to tone down their comments while offering my help in learning, if necessary1), I took a closer look at the tone of the user's contributions. I think the user might be beyond my mentoring capability to assist properly, and the user could easily become a full-blown troll or recidivist vandal if the proper steps aren't taken.
I'm not sure what can be done, but I wanted the noticeboard to be aware of a potential situation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, it looks like JoeSperrazza added a heretofore unknown (at least, unknown to me) welcome template. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this individual has made no useful edits to the project since he registered (adding fictional characters to several of the Lists of gay, lesbian or bisexual people), he has recently added a copyrighted photo to a living person's page and when told that he was wrong said "copyright could kiss [his] ass". He uploaded to the Commons, so it's going to be a slow response there, but if he cannot understand copyright law and Wikipedia policy he should not be allowed to edit here anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No useful edits since registering and he's uploading copyvios on a sister project for use here? Whack him. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 07:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Suggest temporary block as a first measure. -- Ϫ 09:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, there probably isn't much justification for a block here. We shouldn't block him for not understanding copyright law. -- Ϫ 09:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just based on the observation of the above-listed revision to the user's talk page, it seems more to me not so much that the user doesn't know about copyright law as much as it is that the user doesn't care about copyright law, mostly due to a lack of convenience in finding a free / non-copyrighted image to use. Just my observation. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct. He knows copyright law in this case. He said it can kiss his ass for one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about blocking here. He might not care about copyright law, and his response was certainly belligerent, but we shouldn't block him for a single violation of copyright on another project. We wouldn't block him for a single violation of copyright on this project. :) I frequently encounter bluster when doing copyright cleanup; my general policy is to ignore it. If the behavior stops, it doesn't matter what they say (presuming they don't cross the line in WP:NPA, of course.) He hasn't exactly been a stellar contributor (his single deleted article contrib was an autobio that was blatantly unencyclopedic), but he seems to contribute one day a year. His lack of understanding of the project is kind of evident in that he created that autobio in March 2009 (when it was deleted) and placed his hangon tag on the space today. (He skipped it during his 2010 visit, when all he wanted to know was this.) I don't know if he's an active threat to the project at this point or just a young potential contributor who hasn't quite grasped that we aren't a webspace provider. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry MRG - as you were writing the above I was blocking indefinitely. I saw no value in their contributions and the "copyright can kiss my ass" comment was, I felt, not indicative of an appreciation that they can't upload copyvios. If they'd said something like "sorry, my mistake, won't happen again" that would have been different.
If you want to alter the block (or consensus here is that I've gone OTT), please anyone feel free to overrule my actions. Again, my apologies, EyeSerenetalk 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No problems with me. :) The "I don't know" really was indicative of indecision, not disinclination. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone has for sure uploaded copyright violations to Commons, what's the normal procedure for handling it within Commons? I'm just getting started there, which is why I asked. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
He's already been blocked there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see...he uploaded the image after he was told not to. Since the image is deleted at Commons, I can't see it's upload log; I didn't realize from your description above that the upload postdated the warning. That's certainly a different story then being belligerent about a prior upload being deleted. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, he uploaded the image at 00:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC), tried to add it to the article here at 00:30, was then told that he was wrong to have done so at 00:37, put the image back at 00:41, and then notified Active Banana that copyright could kiss his ass at 00:46. This was in response to my discovery of several other copyvio images on the commons all the while the one image he did upload we already have a free alternative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much, if a user does not care about copyright law and tells us as such (and is a user to the Commons) there is usually nothing stopping us at the Commons from blocking the user. Images is ALL that we deal with and the only way you can stop uploads is by blocking. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Commons blocking admin)
I don't have any issues with his being blocked, as I told User:EyeSerene above. I was primarily confused by the timeline, once User:Ryūlóng pointed out that the upload I knew about was prior to his warning. You can see why the blocklog would be confusing in that case, I'm sure. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I am declining a merge here, as Inter frame is even bigger then the second one. However, I would like to bring attention to editors here to see if it was justified, and don't want to start something. Thank you for your time. --Hinatatalk 17:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's justified. :) You're free to decline any merges you want. And don't worry about "starting something", being bold is encouraged--if someone takes issue with it they'll just revert and discuss, it's all part of the cycle :) For future reference though, this noticeboard is only for situations requiring administrator intervention, there's nothing for us to do in your situation. I believe the Content noticeboard is what you're looking for. -- Ϫ 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Whenever there is a major death, the BLP goes haywire with additions. Famous deaths should routinely be protected, fully, for the first few hours during the ghoul race. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think semi-protection is better. The number of pageviews for a biography will increase greatly after their death, and often the article won't be in the best shape. Allowing established editors to fix up the page a little is a good idea, as long as someone keeps an eye on things. Trebor (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please look at User talk:193.255.108.20 and see what if anything you think should be done about the rantings there? The IP editor is currently under a week-long block that I placed for making a legal threat and for which Kuru declined to unblock. The block will be expiring soon, but I am concerned that the rantings on the talk page are indicative of a problem beyond a user angry over a block. LadyofShalott 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the polemical stuff to a subpage for now, and added a note to that effect. Good faith notwithstanding, I would regard that as a last chance before a more substantial block is enacted. Bottom line is that the editor either gets it, or he doesn't. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Rod. LadyofShalott 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Was randomly reading through ANI and saw this and looked at some of the IP's edit history. There are a handful of pages that, though not in any way vandalized, had large changes made to them that I would call "un-Wikifying". Things like references removed, "sources" sections added, wikilinks slashed, "See also" and/or category/template issues, etc etc etc. Going to look through them and see that things are in order. The user does have a number of productive edits and I don't know why s/he would deface his/her own contributions. *shrugs* ♪Tstorm(talk) 13:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Updating myself-- fixed about a half dozen things obviously against policy and editing guidelines. Vast majority are constructive edits, however, there are a whole lot of edits that add info without references or have references that may or may not be RS, but that's a different issue. This is further complicated by the fact that much of the unreferenced material was replacing preexisting unreferenced material. Also a vague feeling of some light POV pushing, but again, another issue and further evaluation is for persons familiar with the articles. ♪Tstorm(talk) 13:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In view of continued soapboxing and abuse of fellow-editors on his Talk page following decline of his unblock, I have reblocked for a further month and withdrawn Talk page access. I've pointed towards WP:GAB but it seems that this editor, as pointed out above, doesn't get it. There may be some good, although structurally incompetent edits, but to me, his displayed attitude far outweighs those. Please feel free to refactor block if you fell I'm incorrect here. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
When it's in caps like that, you know they really really mean it.
Seriously, though: do they think it makes them louder or something? HalfShadow 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yugoslav Front - 3rr, accusations of incivility, removal of other user's comments[edit]
Could an admin please take a look at the edit history of this article and the comments on the talk page. Two editors have breached WP:3RR, there's been some heated exchanges on the talk page about a requested move and accusations of removal of another users comments (see here: User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Problems in a move request). Was going to take this to the 3RR noticeboard but given the other issue I thought it best to bring it here - especially given that the two editors appear to have a past history with each other. Dpmuk (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The removed comment was accidentally removed due to multiple edit conflicts (heated exchange indeed :)). It has already been restored a while ago, and replied to, in fact.
3RR violations are a problem, but I for my part had already refused to participate in the edit-war any further. I apologize, and I can only point out that I was merely restoring the version prior to the introduction of highly disputed edits, which were, mind you, done in blatant and uncaring disregard to quoted references, and without regard to the subject and scope of the article. They were introduced by a blocked sock account yesterday [83].
I had already requested [84] that the article be restored to the point before the start of the conflict (i.e. as edited by Cydebot at 01:08, 6 January 2011), and that it be full-protected at least until the RM is over.
I will add that, regardless of any other outcomes of this report, I hope edit-warring will not be rewarded as a means of pushing new edits, and that, if protected, the article be restored to its long-standing state prior to the conflict. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I had already been asking for help to one administrator [85]. Regarding the article, I only restored the other users removal from the page´s infobox of the participants, an edit that that was totally against the ongoing spirit in a related article mediation (Mihailovic mediation). I wasn´t carefull enough and I touth I had 2 edits beside a revert, I apologise. I was thinking to report the situation here if the escalation continued, while waiting for the response of the complain I made to the administrator.
Regarding the comment removal, I have some doubts that were accidental because 2 separate comments of mine were removed, and only restored much latter, first one, that afterwords, another one. FkpCascais (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a user so engadged in an edit-war, that even in a ANI report he insists in continuing the edit-war by doing all possible to restore his edit? FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently so... :) --DIREKTOR(TALK) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Removing a resistance movement and its leader (highly condecorated by US and France for his WWII efforts) from the Allied section, is very close, if not, vandalism. Isn´t it? FkpCascais (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I blocked the editor in question this morning for 3RR on Yugoslav Front, but not for being a sock. It appears to be an SPA. No attempt was made by this SPA to discuss on the talkpage although the same issue has been discussed before ad nauseam. Nearly all of his edits related to putting the Chetniks in the Allied list on this article and in the template. I have checked through some history. Clearly this is a highly contentious,complex area involving many editors with strong views but I cannot as yet see any obvious sock candidates for this SPA unless someone can point me to some.
No - reverting to the original version is not vandalism. FkpCascais, if you had looked you would have seen that you were edit warring to restore a version that had only been added yesterday by an SPA, not discussed, and edit-warred to retain. You are also past 3RR. DIREKTOR - you too - even if you are not the originator - though I note you have ceased to edit war and apologised. If this breaks out again the page will be protected.
Can somebody link me to the mediation results please? Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but my suggestion is that you make a cup of tea first, it's a bit long. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I've read enough of the unfinished mediation to see that the proposed name change is not going to be the simple and obvious issue as hoped by DIREKTOR. I can also understand why tempers fray so easily and exchanges are rather heated. Nothing actionable here as yet though apart from the hopefullt temporary 3RR frenzy. Both of you know better than this. I shall keep an eye on edit warring/page protection issues.Fainitesbarleyscribs 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologise, I was abscent during several hours before returning now, so I was unaware of further posts here. I would like to thak you very much Fainites for having spent time to see the problem in question here. I am also aware about the breaking of the 3RR rule and the possible sanction that could have been imposed, so please accept the gratitude on my behalve. FkpCascais (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I honestly think he should have the ability to move pages removed from his account. This edit/wheel warring is anoying when your trying to edit the article. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin move-protected the article. Kellyhi! 23:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I already said I wouldn't move it today. Those who complain didn't even bother to discuss it on the talk page. I discussed it and was bold to make the change. Then someone else made a suggestion so that was the new consensus. I changed to reflect that new consensus (which was not the same as my idea). Even now people are threatening me even though I said I wouldn't change it more and even though those complainers are not discussing things Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There's plenty of discussion on the talk page, and none of it supports your viewpoint, especially since you moved the page to multiple titles. The only consensus was for the move protection. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Three moves in less then 30 minutes. source Is excessive. I question if a consensus to do anything can form in 10 minutes. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright now guys. It's already been sorted out. This situation is supposed to have been resolved.--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Daniels Weeking (talk·contribs) Pretty sure we have a Wiki brah sock here, based on Kleopatra's response here. Edits are almost all various forms of trolling, including saying that he got out of a mental institution. Anyone wanna block, and maybe delete his inappropriate userpage? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Arilang has persisted with name calling and bad faith attacks on other editors, such as on the Mao Zedong article, where he indirectly accused them of "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government [86]. He also inserted edits on the respective article referring to Mao as a "mass murderer" [87], and suggested that wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department [88].
He has previous issued personal attacks against myself over a content dispute at Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, suggesting that I'm an employee of the "50 Cent Party" [89], that I am burying my head in sand [90], and that I "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept" [91]. When I raised concerns, he claimed that is simply a "friendly message telling me to improve my work skills" [92]. When another user raised similar concerns, he claimed that being a 50 Cent Party is nothing to be ashamed of.[93][94]. He did this again recently at the talk page of the Great Leap Forward article [95], claiming that I am "always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points".
Arilang is also known for his anti-Manchu views, and issued numerous racial epithets against Manchus, being raised by another user [96][97], who he called to "improve his English" [98], and asked him to "read more books" [99]. On the Boxer Rebellion article, he claimed that the Boxers were "barbarians and stupid to the extreme" [100], that the Manchus are also "barbarians" [101], and said he will personally throw eggs on (pro-Manchu personality)'s face [102]. He even changed the lede of the Boxer Rebellion article, calling the Boxers "gangs of xenophobic, anti-Christians and ignorant bandits that had no political consciousness" [103]. He has previously created an article named Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, deleted for original research, as a well as several other linking Manchus to massacres [104][105][106], including a deleted article named Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers.
The issue has been raised by other since he started editing Wikipedia, [107], where he indirectly compared another editor to "holocaust deniers"[108], [109], that the editor is attempting to "paint a rosy picture of these barbarians" [110] and called the Manchus "the most murderous barbarians of them all". He later offered an apology, claiming that the name calling "are just jokes". [111]
Recently, Arilang removed large amounts of sourced material from Great Leap Forward[112][113]. He justified the removals because one of the authors is Mobo Gao, who he claims is an employee of the Confucius Institute, thus his views equal to those of the PRC government. He also claims “PRC sources on the GLF are all propaganda” [114], despite the fact none of the sources he removed even comes from the PRC government. I addressed these concerns on the article talk page, and he replied with a snide remark using a propaganda poster. [115]. He also removed sourced material from Li Miqi, who he claimed is "the modern version of Edgar Snow[116]
He repeated his soapboxing on the talk page of the Mao: Unknown Story article [117], using original research from another Wikipedia article [118], suggesting that because Gao worked for the Confucius Institute in Adelaide, he thus is an employee of the Chinese Communist Party and his views should be instantly dismissed. He called Gao “the biggest 50 cent party of all” with no justification [119]. Quigley pointed out his fallacies, and he replied with an overriding comment asking Quigley to read a certain book [120]. He also had removed critical material from the article in the past [121]. Another editor raised concerns about his behavior on the BLP noticeboard, and he claimed that the labelling "is not a big deal" [122]
Ariliang1234 has a habit of introducing external links, while I believe is in good faith, nevertheless appear to violate WP:EL, [123][124][125], which consists largely of Google translations of dubious Chinese language forums and blogs. [126][127][128][129][130]--PCPP (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This guy needs to be topic-banned for a lengthy period. Some of his comments are so mind-bogglingly racist I'm amazed he hasn't been reported before. Check out this comment on his Talk Page "Beside computer languages, serious science subjects such as Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Rockect Science, Genetics, just wouldn't be there without ENGLISH. Chinese language's contribution? None." No rocket science without the English language? lol! No MATH without English?! This guy has some serious issues. LaoZi81 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Re to PCPP. I do not see anything urgent here. If you have serious concerns about a long-term contributor (like Arilang1234), you should file an RfC about him and discuss the problems if any. Biophys (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing urgent about using racial epithets??? That alone warrants a ban, does it not? LaoZi81 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any "racial epithets" at all. The user is talking about the individual Wikipedia language-specific projects, as in the English Wikipedia versus the Cantonese Wikipedia. To say a Wikipedia project has not contributed anything on serious science subjects, whether it is fair comment or not, is hardly a "racial epithet". There is nothing to force Wikipedia editors to praise a particular Wikimedia wiki's achievements on the rather dubious argument of cultural equality. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Apologies. I misread the comment. He wasn't talking about the Wikipedias; he was, however, talking about the English versus Chinese languages. Still, my original argument stands; there's nothing particularly racist debating the merits vs. disadvantages of particular languages as goes particular fields of academia (irrespective of how spurious the discussion may be). I haven't seen the user say anything to state that Chinese people haven't contributed anything to these fields. I cannot help but wonder about the motivations of the complainants, however, given the lack of substantative erroneous conduct; and whilst I am going to assume good faith, I can't help but see this as rather deliberate muckraking in defence of China's prestige. Whilst Wikipedia isn't the place for the debate, it takes sensitive skin to consider this racism. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Look again Turnbull. If said user had been referring to Black Africans or Native Americans as "barbarians" and "savages", I'm sure your response would be very different. That you're not familiar with the Chinese language or anti-Manchu sentiment should not affect Wikipedia's tolerance of racial vilification. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you have a grievance, LaoZi81; however, I would remind you that you are required to be civil. I am simply an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator reviewing this AN/I request; I am not a disputant in the Chinese language debate, nor do I have any need to have any wider knowledge of whatever this dispute concerns. I see the user being complained about has made some uncivil comments in comparatively isolated circumstances (and has made some strange article edits); but this conduct is at least matched, if not exceeded, by the attitude of the pro-Chinese editors as well; nobody comes out very well from this, at all. In short, what I see is an ongoing mutual disrespect and incivility marked by the pro-PRC versus PRC-critic editors on these article topics, which I suspect is being worsened by one or more conflicts of interest on both sides. I think everyone needs to just get on with article editing, and grind their axes somewhere else other than the English Wikipedia. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Turnbull, you're way off here mate. Look before you jump. The user IS Chinese (I, for the record, am not - which makes your insinuations of being a CCP stooge rather amusing!) - no one's accusing him of being an anti-Chinese racist. The racism is in reference to the anti-Manchurian remarks (See Diffs 145-149). I quoted his "theory" about the English vs Chinese language in an attempt to show how bonkers he is - I guess I should have made that clearer. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't insinuate you were anything at all, actually; I just said I felt there was a conflict of interest at work somewhere. I don't think what I wrote above could reasonably be interpreted as such and I invite you to seek the comment of other editors as to whether I was "insinuating" anything at all. I refuse to be drawn into this and, frankly, your combative attitude does not help me identify what you want me to do about your grievances. Therefore, I will be taking no administrative action. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What? I don't have any grievances - I am also an uninvolved editor, just giving my 2 cents. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry for the conflation, then. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering this discussion is getting heated, I suggest, as an outside viewer, that people read Wikipedia:CIVIL and Wikipedia:TALK before they reply to each other. That is all! ;).--Graythos1 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe the most amicable resolution of this issue would be a community ban along the following lines:
Users editing topics relating to the People's Republic of China and the Chinese language in 1) a combative or tendentious manner or 2) in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies may be indefinitely topic banned by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator. A list of users subject to this broad community editing restriction shall be maintained at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any users to whom this ban is applied who continue to edit these articles may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in enforcement of this editing restriction. Users subject to this ban include Arilang1234 (talk·contribs), PCPP (talk·contribs), and any other disputants identified by Wikipedia administrators prior to enaction of this editing restriction. Users to whom this ban is applied may request community review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Oppose. That kind of discretionary sanctions is normally introduced only by Arbcom. The idea is to look carefully at all issues. This is not a proper place. Biophys (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. Makes sense to me. Same should apply across all areas of WP that are continuously the subject of edit-warring and dodgy practices LaoZi81 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as uninvolved. That's a huge swath of articles, and we haven't seen a major problem with it across those articles the way we have with the Troubles, Scientology or Israel/Palestine. At the moment, this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - requires more discussion and details of major issues regarding multiple users before such a broad brush is required or applied. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Like most of the above editors, I think that the need for such a wide-ranging restriction has not been convincingly demonstrated here. Sandstein 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. All China-related articles? That's an large range of articles, and an action that's usually reserved for Global Warming-level disputes. I think Arilang is guilty of some civility issues, but a cautionary warning should suffice. Let's not go overboard here.--hkr(talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. While the PRC politics article can use some oversight, I don't believe that the entire series of China articles needs editing restrictions.--PCPP (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've interacted with Arilang on the Boxer articles as a third party editor, so I can verify that disputes on China-related articles are very heated, although not as much as the Israel/Eastern Europe disputes. Like many Wikipedians, Arilang is very opinionated. He is steadfast in the promotion of his POV, but he has a tendency to lose his cool when disputes escalate, which results in the incidents listed above. As Turnbull mentions, this occurs often with editors that deal with controversial topics, but it should not be encouraged. And I strongly disagree with Turnbull's tit-for-tat defense of Arilang. The incivility of one POV side is not a valid excuse to justify the incivility of the other's.
As for a response, I think an official warning and a slap on the wrist will suffice, Lao's (a sockpuppet?) call for a lengthy topic-ban is excessively severe. If Arilang's behavior continues to decline, I think a more severe response could be merited, but until then Arilang should be allowed to edit, with a reminder that he should edit more cautiously, and in consideration of neutrality, civility, and consensus.--hkr(talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(Uninvolved) Alright, that sounds fair enough. Arilang, will you be willing to take this into account? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
First and foremost, I like to say a big "Thank you" to user NicholasTurnbull spending so much precious time in supporting me, and I think user hkr's comment is very fair, I like to say "thank you" to him, and also a big "thank you" to all the editors who care to post comments here, including Lao(sockpuppet?). I also appreciate hkr's comment:"China-related articles are very heated", so I always try to add some "cool" comments here and there, trying to take some "heat" away. Unfortunately, some editors could not appreciate my style of humor, like on the case of user PCPP, whom had been called a 50 Cent Party many times by me. Seriously, to me, the label of being a 50 Cent Party does not carry any offensive nor degrading meaning at all, and if PCPP feel bad about it, I hereby offer my sincere apology to him. Arilang talk 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Another false accusation against me is that I am racist because I call Manchus "Barbarians". Calling Manchu "Barbarians" must be seen in the correct historical context, the best way to understand it is to look at the Tianxia concept:Graphical representation oftianxia thought, showing the Emperor at the center, surrounded by major and minor officials and then tributary kingdoms and "barbarian" tribes. Throughout China's 4000 years history, whoever became Emperor of China would automatically regards smaller kingdoms along it's border "Barbarian states". That means when Han Chinese was Emperor, Manchus were regarded as Barbarians, and when Manchus was Emperor, Japaneses, Koreans, were regarded as "Barbarians". Arilang talk 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The British once held the same views. The simple answer is that rather than calling Manchu people barbarian, why not call them 'Manchu'? Am I missing something here? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This response sounds too much like a non-apology apology. It is extremely antagonistic, and not "humorous", to repeatedly accuse editors with whom you disagree of being agents of the Chinese government with no proof. Instead of adding "cool" to "heated China-related articles" (which are generally pretty calm), such accusations, both against PCPP and cast broadly as a conspiracy theory, actually poison the atmosphere of China-related articles and drive out editors who try to compensate for the lacking internet access in China and add balance and perspective to the articles in the field.
>Unfortunately, some editors could not appreciate my style of humor
I assume you're not yet aware of the recent incident involving a United States aircraft carrier captain who was demoted, who used more or less the exact same excuse. I'm not saying that there should be "no fun allowed" on Wikipedia, but there are limits to what can and can't be done, right? Would you travel to Compton, California and use the N-word, and then argue that "some people might not be understanding your humour"? And how is calling someone a 50-cent different from calling someone a Jew or a Gook? "50-cent" is a disparaging term that labels someone as a communist-sympathizing lackey and a political web-warrior. It doesn't quite cut it for me. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail 09:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What I said was:"Well, physically speaking, average Chinese male is inferior to an average Caucasian male", stress the word "physically", not mentally, sexually, intelligence wise. What I meant was, give a pair of boxing gloves to an average Chinese male and an average Caucasian male and put them inside a boxing ring, more than likely it is the average Caucasian that would be the winner. An average Chinese male just does not have the same muscle and bone mass of an average Caucasian male. Mind you, I am only comparing the "muscle and bone mass", nothing else. Arilang talk 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, would you mind scaling back your attempts at humour in future, and scaling back those things which could be construed as racism? This sort of thing can easily escalate into a topic ban, which is the last thing we want. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
OK user Chase me ladies, I shall be extra careful from now on, and refrain from throwing offensive comments around. Arilang talk 08:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As someone with Manchu heritage, I find some of Arilang's "humor" deeply offensive, alongside his numerous name calling suggesting that I am a stooge of the CCP. Nevertheless, if he is sincere in his apology to me, and is willing to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA (maybe WP:EL as well), cease his name calling, and actively engage in talk page discussions, I will assume good faith and accept his apology, and would have no problem working with him.--PCPP (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Aside from civility problems, there are other issues involving Arilang that generally concern me, practices that he should be cautioned to avoid. His tendency to use Chinese language sources, often of questionable reliability, when perfectly available English language sources exist is problematic. Especially if you consider his comments that editors on China-related articles must be able to read Chinese, which doesn't matter on the English language Wikipedia as preference is given to English language sources.
Arilang should also be careful of BLP concerns, and of adding controversial or critical material into articles without discussing it on the talk page, when he knows that his additions are prone to provoke a reaction. The content disputes will likely not escalate if you calmly discuss the controversial material first to establish consensus with other users, before directly adding the content to articles.--hkr(talk) 13:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As PCPP noted in the "name calling" section, Arilang1234's edits have been disturbing. Whats even more disturbing, is that in some of the edits noted, the apologies he offered previously were worded in the exact same manner as his apology now above in this section, sounding sarcastic and claiming its all "jokes".
Another comment by Arilang1234- [User:Дунгане has certainly spend huge amount of time and effort in reading all my past editing records, I would take it as a compliment towards my contribution on Wikipedia, which began in Sep 2008, about 26 months ago, and during this times, many editors offered me a helping hand to improve my writing skill as well as my English. I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all those who help me along the way. "User:Дунгане is saying nothing on his(or her) user homepage, but looking at his pigin English, all I can say is, User:Дунгане does need a lot of help from other more experienced editors"]
somehow for arilang1234, my ability to speak chinese and english flip flopped for him when it was convinient, as he spammed the talk page with massive blocks of simplified text.Дунгане (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid Arilang1234 has a history of offering insincere apologies. He pushes his insolence to the limit, and then suddenly "apologizes" and backs down when his account is on the verge of being reported and blocked. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians Arilang1234 first went into hate filled rants against Mongols and Manchus, not just calling them barbarians, but personally attacking editors like Madalibi, accusing him of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action", of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!),
If we look at this incident, which happened January 2009, and his current apology, you will see him conveying the same, insincere, sarcastic message.Дунгане (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
My thought on this: any name-calling ("barbarian," for example) except in a historical descriptive context is a violation of Wikipedia's five pillars and should be at least warned. In Arilang1234's case, he's been warned enough times that this behavior is unacceptable. While I previously would not have called for this sanction, I now believe that a total block (rather than a topic ban) of a short, but significant, duration is necessary to send a proper message. I am suggesting a week, with an accompanying warning that repeated behavior like this will draw progressively longer blocks. --Nlu (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
But what exactly this block is going to prevent? He did apologized and promised to behave well. Note that a lot of diffs provided by his "opponents" are rather old. Of course if he does not keep his promise, his next incivil comment should result in immediate block. Biophys (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
his rather recent rampage a few months ago on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article was not "rather old". A block would teach him that making provocative, insulting comments, inserting derogatory terms into articles and talk pages would not go unpunished. Since you are not familiar with this case, you should know that User:Nlu dealt in an ANI dispute already with Arilang1234 and has seen Arilang1234's method of argument. Arilang1234 was only blocked twice for BLP warring, not for any insulting comments. I'm afraid that the lack of a block has led him to believe he can continue to insult and provoke other users, he accused me of inserting communist propaganda into articles and speaking pidgin english. I should remind you that the last time he was warned by Madalibi and threatened with administrative action, and then his sudden "apology" came up where he promised not to do the same again. Now when hes on the verge of being blocked again, another "apology" appears, and he claims he won't do it again.Дунгане (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
ANI does not deal with problems a few months old. It exists to fix urgent current problems. Next time, when he accuses you of something, you may complain immediately to an individual administrator, and he might be blocked, unless this administrator decides that it was you who provoked him, or you want to win a content dispute by blocking an opponent.Biophys (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason why I call for a block is that there have to be consequences at some point. Continued warnings without any real consequences suggests that the warnings are not serious (and as demonstrated by Arilang1234's defiant responses in this thread, he does not consider the warnings serious at all). A one-day vandalism block, for example, does not really prevent further vandalism by itself, but it creates a record and demonstrates the realness of the vandalism sanction. I believe that a one-week block here has a chance of showing the same effect. --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I politely suggest to user Nlu, on all the talk pages that the term "Barbarians" were used to describe Manchu people in the past, between 1600 and 1900. I was discussing Chinese ancient history. I have never ever once refer to the present time Manchu people as "Barbarians". And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and yet wikipedia editors are barred from discussion of John King Fairbank's quotation, and it sounds very farfetch to me. Arilang talk 07:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As can be seen clearly in article Hua-Yi distinction, which was created by me with the help of other editors, now it is a c class article. This article is all about "Barbarians" in the eyes of Chinese. Believe me, top leaders in modern Beijing, I have no doubt, still harbor this kind of ancient concept deeply in their heart and mind. Only 100 years ago, Sun Yat-sen was calling : Expel the northern barbarians, revive Zhonghua, and establish a unified government. (驅逐韃虜，恢復中華，建立合眾政府
Revive China Society. Those editors, if you all think that "barbarians" is such a nasty word, have to be censored out of Wikipedia, first thing you guys need to do is go ahead and delete this famous Sun Yat-sen battle call. And, most importantly, of all those times while I was discussing this "barbarian" concept with other wiki editors, it was always within the historical context. I have never called any modern time Manchu people a "barbarian" , not once. If any present day Manchu people feel offended, because I called their ancestors "Barbarians", and feel upset about it, well, my response is, Sun Yat-sen was the one that started this name calling, if they have any grievances, take it up with Sun Yat-sen, not me. I hope I have made my position clear. Arilang talk 04:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I submit that this response is a self-indictment on how he hasn't learned. --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And let me clarify: Sun Yat-sen was not a Wikipedia editor; had he been alive today, and been editing Wikipedia, and been using this kind of language while editing Wikipedia, I'd call for an indefinite block. What he was doing was writing persuasive propaganda, which has no place in Wikipedia. In our "real lives," we may have propaganda as part of our work, part of our passions, part of our being, but that doesn't belong here. --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
user Nlu, "What he was doing was writing persuasive propaganda, which has no place in Wikipedia. " I agree with you, 100%. No editor should be writing propaganda in wikipedia, I know that. On all the talk pages of Boxer Rebellion and Hua-Yi distinction, where "Barbarians" were being memtioned, I was not writing propaganda neither, I was engaged in serious historical discussion with other editors, discussing book written by John King Fairbank, and why is it that it has became "Vandalism", so that you are going to impose long term block on me? And "In our "real lives," we may have propaganda as part of our work, part of our passions, part of our being, but that doesn't belong here", since when has "discussion on book written by Fairbank" become "propaganda" in wikipedia?
Arilang talk 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
you allegedly "Agreed" with maladibi after your "Apology" to him two years ago, yet you still continued with exactly the same behavior you "apolgized" for. You were not engaging in "serious historical discussion", you were engaged in posting insulting tirades against users who do not agree with your POV. Without any provocation, Arilang1234 attacked by ability to speak english and claimed im inserting "communist propaganda" into the aritcle.
On old talk pages of boxer rebellion, in the archives, it was noted that you called manchu ruler a "tribal chieftan", and boxers were "Stupid" "salvages"
Everyone who is unfamiliar with Arilang1234, i suggest that take a look at a previous version of the Yuan Weishi article. Arilang1234 wrote much of the content. Arilang1234 inserted into the article- "were ignorant peasants, and a lot of them were plain robbers and thugs" "the Boxers' barbaric burning, killing and looting of innocent human beings"
Arilang1235 placed Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight POV on the fact that the emperor was manchu, and asserted that manchus were responsible for the boxer rebellion on the boxer rebellion talk page and other articles.Дунгане (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And the barbarian name calling is not the only thing this is about. Arilang1234 claims that his insults towards other people is "cool" and part of his sense of "humor". He claimed to "apologize" to malabidi two years ago for the same type of insulting comments, accusing other users of being the gestapo and denying the holocaust, and here hes done it again, accusing users of belonging te the "50 cent party" and of "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept". I think these insults speak for themselves.Дунгане (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Page 268. The Manchus may be considered as the great conglomeration of the eastern barbarian tribes, and they can also be considered as the great conclusion of the eastern barbarian tribes. During the last fifty years the sinification of the Manchus has advanced full speed, until the 1911 revolution, after which every Manchu was capped with a Chinese name
User Nlu, what are you saying is, when editing article such as Boxer Rebellion and Qing Dynasty, wikipedia editors are not allowed to even discuss the above quote on the talk page:"(Manchus) can also be considered as the great conclusion of the eastern barbarian tribes", let alone adding the above quote into articles such as Qing Dynasty or Nurhaci ?
Quotation is, in my view, acceptable but only if directly relevant. In an article about the Khitan, for example, it might be necessary to quote the Book of Tang, which referred to them as barbarians — but it would be, in my opinion, completely inappropriate to intentionally quote unnecessary quotes just to get in the "barbarian" epithet — which, in my opinion, you were doing. A more modern example (and which I think would be directly analogous to what you were doing) is to unnecessarily quote Chiang Kai-shek's referring to "Communist bandits" at length in a discussion about the Communist Party of China. It would be unnecessary, irrelevant, and using inflammatory language out of intent to inflame rather than genuine article-writing. You've been told enough times not to stuff peas up your nose. You should learn to not even let a pea come anywhere close to your nose. --Nlu (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have make a solemn promise to user NicholasTurnbull that from now on (1) no more calling other editors 50 Cent Party, (2) no more calling 1600-1900 Manchu "Barbarians", (3) no more calling other editors with offensive remarks, and i am making the same promise to you. Arilang talk 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In the below section i have noted why an apology is not enough, and merely an attempt by Arilang1234 to ward off a block.Дунгане (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And the wording used by Arilang1234 is rather odd. He is claiming he will never again use those specific insults, deliberately leaving room for him to insult users with other names in the future.Дунгане (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hua-Yi distinction
The distinction between Hua 華 and Yi 夷 (Sino-barbarian dichotomy[1]) is an ancient Chinese conception that differentiated a culturally defined "China" (called Hua, Huaxia華夏, or Xia 夏) from cultural or ethnic outsiders (Yi"barbarians"). Although Yi is often translated as "barbarian", it could also refer to generic "others,"[2] to groups perceived as culturally different,[3] to "non-Chinese,"[4] or to foreigners in general. Arilang talk 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Arilang, I assumed good faith, at the start of this AN/I thread. However, given the colour of your responses here on AN/I, it is somewhat difficult for me to continue to do so. You are, in fact, being certainly a "barbarian" with respect to the cultural sensitivities of other Wikipedia editors:
"n. an uncultured or brutish person." (Oxford)
They say that people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. You thanked me for defending you, but I wish to make it clear that on no account was this my intention, and your subsequent response has been unrepentantly ethnically discriminatory, and quite the antithesis of conduct intended to result in common compromise. Please be aware that, should you continue this style of dialogue, you will be blocked. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
User NicholasTurnbull, I shall make a sincere promise, from now onward, (1)I will not call any other editors 50 Cent Party (2) I will not call 1600-1800 Manchu people Barbarians, (3) I will not use any offensive remarks on any other editors. And sincere sorry to editors that offended by me. Arilang talk 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As i noted above, Arilang1234 offered a "sincere" "apology", to Maladibi for similar insults directed at Maladibi and other users, and for posting the barbarian word, and promised to Maladibi that he'd never do it again. That was two years ago. An "apology", just doesn't cut it, it just gives Arilang1234 the impression that he can get away with it again, and next time he gets into this, he will offer another alleged "apology". This has gone on for too long.Дунгане (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This would seem to be a good case for a self-imposed restriction by the infringing editor on articles of the concerned topic and talk pages of editors involved. Is the apology sincere? They can return good faith offered by the community by stepping away from the situation for a week/month/whatever. The "terms" of the apology are moot, as its assumed if any are violated it will result in blocks, so things should be left his/her hands, hm? ♪Tstorm(talk) 12:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(unident, responding to Tstormcandy) The problem is that, while I do believe that this user might have sincerely thought in the past that he can control his own behavior, he has subsequently failed to do so despite that. I am not sure that we're not going to end up where we are right now if we let him police himself. --Nlu (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked at recent edits by Arilang1234 and left a few comments at his talk page. As someone totally uninvolved in this area, I must agree with Tstorm: no further action at this point. Let's see if he can do better. Biophys (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that he thinks its humorous to insult people shows that he clearly is not sorry for his actions. I do not believe this apology is sincere. and his behavior is consistent, PCPP and Maladibi never provoked him- Arilang1234 was straight on the start accusing others of being alleged propagandists of (put name of organization here) and then (insert insult).Дунгане (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
the point i am making is that the behavior he exhibited would have gotten him blocked by other administrators already, had they caught him in action. There would have been a solid record blocks and why those blocks were put in place, and it would not leave Arilang1234 with the impression that he can "get away with it". I said already- Arilang1234 was already warned By Maladibi and a ton of other editors, like Benjwong on the talk pages of Boxer rebellion several years ago for his edits inserting insults and name calling into both articles and at other users, the bottom line is- he flouted those warnings, and now your going to let him get away with it?Дунгане (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been no edits from the user for over 24hrs now... if they're backing away a bit that's just fine. I may or may not be giving too much credit to the involved (as I'm 100% not) to think they would voluntarily ask to back away from the disputed topics' articles at risk of near-certain block if violated. Rather, a user agreeing to self-imposed restrictions and following through is a stronger statement of returning good faith than needing to work out any kind of topic or community ban and watching them obey. Per Дунгане, however, I can understand that heavy trouting may not be enough anymore. User pages need some kind of "this is a final warning, and we totally mean it" tag with a link to prior ANI discussions, lol. ♪Tstorm(talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
To me, the following talk page entry at Talk:Feminism looks like the last straw resulting in a block for personal attacks, where User:Cybermud says to Cailil, "Please stop being a disengenius douche every time I make a comment." Ignoring the misspelling of disingenuous, the insulting word "douche" is over the line, in my opinion. This, following a long string of disruptive editing practices and rude talk page entries, calls for stern action. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks? Last straw and stern action? Really? I enjoy editing WP and feel that I make a meaningful contribution to it. I'm not here to look for friends or make enemies, but have little patience for the passive aggressive barbs that some editors like to frequently trade. (Half-shadow is great at that btw.. take a look at all the comments he deletes from his talk pages and the edit-summaries for them, but I digress.) If my efforts here deserve a banning so be it. As far as my comments to Cailil, I'm tired of him spouting the same inapplicable policies, at me exclusively, ad nauseam every time I make a comment on his feminism article. In any case, I expect a lot of pro-feminist editors to come out of the woodwork now to agree on my needing a banning after I crossed the line and said "douche" (oh the horror.)--Cybermud (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Specifically "disengenius douche". Some of us are still trying to figure that one out. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Cybermud does not seem to be treating other editors in a civil way on the talk page. He/she is personalizing a discussion about content using immoderate language. Over a prolonged period he/she has neither been discussing sources in a reasonable way nor been responsive to valid comments made by others. For example, of the source used for the disputed phrase in the lede, Cybermud wrote, "The crap in the lead about men's lib points to this highly polished postmodern turd of a source" [by Judith Butler]. This is disruptive and tendentious editing. Cybermud is using the talk page as a WP:FORUM for WP:SOAPBOXING and making what appear to be unjustified personal remarks to other editors and administrators. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Four points:
It's not "Cailil's feminism article". You're demonstrating Mathsci's very point with that erroneous characterization.
I think that everyone should go back and read some of the 2001 revisions of that article, to get some sense of perspective, not only as to who is involved in disputes over article content but also as to how far we have (and indeed have not) come.
How many people have looked at the article as readers? With my reader hat on, my first question for all of the warring purported content writers is this: Why is there a picture of Virginia Woolf randomly deposited in the middle of the article? It's not mentioned in the text, and has a practically empty caption.
HalfShadow and Baseball Bugs, you're not helping matters.
Thanks Uncle G for the pointer - the article could do with some 'cold readers' for things like this. Cybermud has been reverted by 3 different editors since December 20 2010[131][132][133][134]. If you look at the RVs you'll see that Cybermud has gone from deleting referenced material, to partially removing some, and then tagging as failed verification. It is unclear to me if Cybermud has actually read the source he is editing about. The book does not deal with the men's liberation movement but is about how gender and sex are socially constructed and how that effects people and society (men and women, straight and gay)--Caililtalk 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I must apologize for not giving a term like "disengenius douche" the level of seriousness that it deserves. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I fully appreciate that it's not Cailil's article. My referring to it as such was precisely to illustrate that point. Look at the entirely non-controversial edits I've made there and the huge drama and constant reverts that have ensued, most of which by Wikipedia admins no less.--Cybermud (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that Cybermud is someone that is sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia and contribute in a positive way. In my opinion, some of his or her comments on the talk page have been constructive. However, Cybermud has a consistent history of using disrespectful language, and discussing his or her personal views of sources and content (For example, "I know that feminists like to position themselves as the modern day incarnation of every person and event throughout recorded history that addressed a gender inequity that was prejudicial to women..." and "The crap in the lead about men's lib points to this highly polished postmodern turd of a source...") which just leads to angry and disruptive disputes that aren't even related to improving the article. If Cybermud were to refrain from discussing his or her personal opinion on talk pages and be respectful to other editors and points of view, I believe that he or she could be a very good editor and someone with many valuable contributions to make to Wikipedia. --Aronoel (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the vote of confidence. I actually don't disagree with your characterizations of some of my comments in general, but think they should be viewed in the context of the constant flack I've taken for daring to challenge the idea that Women are always the victim and Men are always the culprit. Viewing my comments without viewing what they are in response to makes for a very jaundiced view of them. I have history with Cailil that predates the feminism article's talk page as I've tried to work on a number of gender related articles to give them some balance.--Cybermud (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Now the person who has opened this ANI, Binksternet, whom I've had no previous interaction with, has reverted a perfectly reasonable edit at feminism as well, demonstrating what I suspected to be the case from the beginning. This has more to do with censoring an editor he/she disagrees with than any real problem with my "behavior." The reverted edit in question is [135], in regards to this source [136]. Even taking the most benevelont view of this source possible, it's WP:Syn and WP:OR to say it says "Feminism works to liberate men."--Cybermud (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made an effort to adopt this user, as I feel that with a little guidance and someone willing to help, just may change his/her course and bring someone over to the good side. Dusti*poke* 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As I noted on my talk page, I do appreciate, and accept, your offer for adoption. Having come to ANI though, I would nonetheless appreciate the feedback from others, on both my own editing, and what I view as the problematic behavior of admin's ideological policing at the article feminism. To clarify, I'm not trying to derail the discussion of my own editing and talk-page usage, as I view these two topics to be intertwined, but I can create a separate ANI section for the latter if that would be more appropriate.--Cybermud (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Cybermud, you have made a series of personal remarks and attacks on me before you came to Feminism. You attacked me on Talk:Men's rights[137] making a series of bad faith assumptions. To which I responded with an explanation of site policy, clearly labelled as a heads-up an explanation rather than a warning[138]. A few weeks later I noted[139] at an SPI you opened, on Sonicyouth86, that you had no proof of socking, and that you were dragging another user, User:Nick Levinson, into an SPI case based on the fact that both users had disagreed with you. After that you made a series of attacks.[140][141][142]
Following that in December 2010 and now you have insisted after being warned by BWilkins for "out of line commentary" in other articles,[143][144] on soapboxing[145][146] and flamebaiting and have now again resorted to personally attacking me. [147][148] You have had months in which to learn the rules of wikipedia - I hope your mentor can help you abide by them. If you have a specific complaint about anyone's edit please go ahead and ask for it to be review but stop casting aspersions about others just because they disagree with you, as you have done above with this spurious remark about "ideological policing--Caililtalk 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing spurious about my remark on ideological policing and I must ask you, once again, to practice what you preach with respect to casting aspersions. If you'll just read the above commentary, I am specifically complaining about the constant reverts I am experiencing in feminism and even linked to one of them above. In fact, it's your very comment on that edit (or my response to it rather) that is the presumptive cause for this ANI report. How much more specific can I possibly be? In response to all your diffs above, I will also point out that in all of them that involve you, you have solely focused on me and entirely ignored the behavior of the editors with whom I was interacting (including yourself.)--Cybermud (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Cybermud, normally I wouldn't comment here, but since you requested feedback, here are my thoughts. Feminism and associated topics are area in which discussion can be contentious. If you want to have a positive impact in those discussions, keeping a cool head and even tone will avail you. I would suggest that you might take a look at WP:ENEMY, as I found a similar technique useful when trying to explain Warren Farrell's works to feminists when I was in grad school years ago. Phrases like the constant flack I've taken for daring to challenge the idea that Women are always the victim and Men are always the culprit and "ideological policing" will only aggravate editors with whom you disagree. I know it can be frustrating, but the only way you can make a change stick is to achieve consensus, and that means convincing others that your suggested edits are an improvement, by swaying them to your view. FWIW, I think it is clear that you are here to help the project and have good intentions, and look forward to working with you in the future. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What I am attempting to show Cybermud in our Adoption Page is the relevant policies that we have in place for: blocking users, verifiability, notability, SPI, vandalism, and more. I'm hoping that by asking him/her these questions, that s/he comes to a better understanding and will begin to collaborate and start leaving talk page messagescivil talk page messages to users, instead of these edit summaries. I'll try to tackle WP:3RR next. Dusti*poke* 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm hopeful Dusti can help adoptee Cybermud find a calm place from which article improvement can proceed at a steady pace. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Niagara mist (talk·contribs), who is already indef blocked as a vandal, has been posting inappropriate content to his user talk page today (nearly a year after his block). Can we elevate the block to prevent talk page editing? (dropping a notice immeadiately after posting this) --MASEM (t) 06:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please speedy close this RM discussion about moving an article that was moved just two weeks ago after a WP:RM consensus decision and a proper close by an admin? We can't just resubmit proposals over and over until we get our way. In this proposal, there are no allegations of improper closing in the last decision. Perhaps the proposer overlooked the previous discussion? Regardless of motives, I believe six months are supposed to elapse before consensus is checked again, unless there is evidence of an improper close.
It should be "Ann Arbor, Michigan", as per the way U.S. cities are commonly named. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the issue here is the procedure, rather than the substance. The discussion should be taken up again either after several months, or, alternatively, after a possible change or clarification of the relevant guidelines. I'd therefore suggest to close the current move discussion with an explanation to that effect. Cs32enTalk to me 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Business-to-Customer has indicated he's willing to devote years to this battle, so a few months will be no big deal. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is this six month rule? Will Bebacktalk 01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I know I've seen the 6 month rule mentioned, I believe by GTBacchus, but I can't find it documented anywhere. It might be undocumented. Anyway, it makes sense. Otherwise, why not submit new proposals for all the U.S. cities that have had discussions recently held and closed? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The previous move was undertaken with only 3 supports and one oppose, but it goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United_States. The previous close looks dodgy to me, because it counts heads rather than weighing arguments, and I support the opening of a fresh RM to allow a wider discussion on whether editors really do want to create an exception to the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The previous move discussion took place during the pre-holiday period, when things are generally slow. It should have been re-listed for further input rather than closed. Also, no policy-based reasons were provided for the move from the supporters, whereas the lone opposer cited a specfic policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If the previous close is being disputed, a discussion on the appropriateness of the close should take place, and a discussion on the content-related question (the move itself) should take place after the discussion about the previous close has been finished. Cs32enTalk to me 01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've mentioned the debate neutrally at both of the relevant WikiProjects, WikiProject Michigan and WikiProject Cities. I'd suggest we leave this open to allow full debate as the previous debate was not very well attended. Fences&Windows 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@Cs32en: WP:BURO. The substantive discussion is underway, and has already attracted more contribs than the previous one. Wider discussion allows the formation of a more stable consensus, so it should be welcomed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This would indeed be a somewhat bureaucratic approach if there wouldn't be an ongoing RFC on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/January/Archives/2011/February#RFC: United States cities. Because of this, the previous move discussion close should be invalidated if found to be inappropriate, resulting in moving the page to the previous title. The substantive discussion should continue on the naming conventions talk page, and any specific discussion about Ann Arbor, or Ann Arbor, Michigan, should take place after the guideline has either been confirmed or changed. Cs32enTalk to me 02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C probably figured he could slip this one through, it being Christmas weekend, and GTB, with typical blinders-on to a given situation, went ahead and did the move despite the fact it was obviously inappropriate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This kind of conjecture is highly inappropriate, BB. I can't speaking for GTB, but I had nothing to do with the original move, didn't even know about it until after it was closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Your intention to take years, if necessary, to impose your will on the naming conventions, is what's inappropriate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well these moves certainly have the markings of some personal vendetta but it wasn't B2C. The same person who did the original Ann Arbor request during the holidays also posted several other [149][150][151][152][153][154] requests around the same time. While B2C is very vocal in his views, he seems to mostly focus on changing the guideline at WP:PLACE. These numerous page moves during the holiday, in circumvention of the guideline, seem far more disruptive. AgneCheese/Wine 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of them were closed as "No consensus" and a couple are still being discussed. I do think that Krauseaj's RMs seems a bit pointy and he should be more circumspect about filing such requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...there might be more to the story. When I went to notify Krauseaj of this AN/I thread I noticed User_talk:Krauseaj#Green_Bay where it seemed that B2C was encouraging him to do a RM instead of taking it to the guideline's talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What you see there is that when I noticed an apparent newbie was trying to move a page by copying text [155][156], I advised him to go through WP:RM instead, and showed him how. What do you mean by "taking it to the guideline's talk page"? There is no requirement for that, and it's rarely done. In that case, it didn't even occur to me. God forbid I ever actually do something inappropriate, you guys are so anxious to hang me. Kind of pathetic, really. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What I see there is that you used a newbie by giving them incomplete info. Even though you were well aware of the existence of a relevant naming convention, which you should know is explicitly authorised by policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, you chose not inform the newbie of the existence of that guideline. You chose instead to leave the newbie with the impression that it was all up for grabs.
I have just replied at the RFC to a post of yours in which you claim that the existence of the guidelines creates instability, and I pointed out that the instability is created by editors who set out to ignore a guideline they don't like. You have just provided a perfect example of you doing exactly that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've replied at the RFC, but here I will add that you conveniently ignore that I had nothing to do with that user's inclination to move the article in the first place. Have you seen his edit summaries, like, "(I want to make Green Bay a page like Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, or Detroit. These cities are so well-known that they don't need the state to be identifiable)"[157]. I have no idea what prompted him, but I know I had nothing to do with it.
As far as notifying him of the guideline, at the time all this was going on, the RFC survey had been open for some time and it was already starting to become clear, not only from the vote count but also from the comments and wide array of arguments, that the current wording in that guideline no longer had consensus support. The fact that some contingent of mandatory comma convention proponents apparently have to be alert to pounce upon any innocent and well-meaning newbie who naturally wants to contribute by moving articles to more concise titles the way most articles in WP are named should tell you there is something very wrong with the situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C, your assertion that "the RFC survey had been open for some time" is demonstrably untrue, and ANI is not a good place for that sort of crude attempt to blatantly misrepresent reality. Your comment to that editor was on 17 Dec; but you RFC opened the RFC on 19 Dec. So at the time you advised Krauseaj to open an RM, there was no RFC, and no vote count.
Even if there had been an open RFC, it is not for you to decide to set aside a long-standing guideline on the basis of your lone interpretation of where it was heading.
We have tons of guidelines which newbies may not be aware, and which they need to be politely informed of (not "pounced on", per WP:BITE). Most of us do it routinely as an essential part of ensuring that consensus is upheld. You choose not to do so in this field, because you prefer to push your own campaign to maximise the number of RM discussions by having everything left open to flexible general principles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My response is below indented at the same level as this comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, I already explained above in another thread how you misread my statements. Search for "misread" on this page to find it. Please stop misrepresenting my position and views. If you want to know what it is, I have nothing to hide: see User:Born2cycle/NamingGoal.
The Krauseaj situation is exactly what I'm referring too. As long as unambiguous titles are unnaturally disambiguated, people like Krauseaj will show up and will want to fix it. That's why the situation is made inherently unstable by a guideline that requires unnecessary precision. Like Agne says, I spend most of my time trying to get the guidelines fixed to be consistent with WP:TITLE and to indicate titles consistent with WP:TITLE. It's people like Krauseaj who innocently and naturally just want to fix things so all naming in WP is consistent. But if you want to believe I'm the problem and if it wasn't for me the situation would be stable, suit yourself, but I assure you, anyone who thinks that is not being realistic. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The normal way U.S. city names are given, except maybe for the very largest cities, is "city, state". You can argue your conformist theories all day and all night, but it won't change that simple fact. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Your point being... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Your "simple fact" is exactly what's disputed, Bugs, and your saying it is a simple fact is not especially convincing to me. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether wikipedians should impose a global "standard" in defiance of common usage. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Bugs, it certainly is in dispute, as dozens of editors (myself included) have commented at the RFC stating we prefer the simple Ann Arbor approach. That discussion belongs there, not here.
@B2C, much as I would like the Ann Arbor title to stand, I can't find any policy that would support speedy closing the second move discussion. I suggest you withdraw this request and let us focus our energies on discussion it at the RFC, where the discussion belongs. Will you withdraw your request for speedy closure, so we can close this section? 28bytes (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It might be "in dispute" for those who don't live in America and are ignorant of the common usage here. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I can assure you that (1) I live in America, and have all my life (2) I'm quite knowledgeable about the common usage here, and (3) this ain't the place to debate it. I'll be happy to argue about it on my talk page or yours, but let's not waste the administrators' bandwidth here, eh? 28bytes (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As it happens, the U of Michigan fired their coach, and the report in the Chicago Tribune website, to no one's surprise except maybe a few editors here, says "Ann Arbor, Michigan".[158] There's a worse problem, though. By doing all this tomfoolery of changing, for example Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, you will need to retain Ann Arbor, Michigan as a redirect, otherwise you'll break every link in any article that says "Ann Arbor, Michigan". And with the redirect, editors will start changing the articles to say Ann Arbor, Michigan, to avoid the redirect. So by trying to foist this European/conformist "standard" on American cities, this will balloon into a huge busy-work project that is of absolutely no use to the readers. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh for fucks sake who cares. There's only one fucking Ann Arbor anywhere. We don't need to title the page "Ann Arbor, Michigan" because the American press's standards say so. If there's only one place with that name, putting anything else in the article title is not necessary. How many Kalamazoos are there (so there's one in WV, but our article only has one sentence)? How many Tallahasees? How many other cities are there that they're the only page with that name but we disambiguate because the AP style book says to?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Explain to me how this elephantine busywork project is going to serve the readers even one iota. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
[This comment is intentionally indented to this level to correspond to the comment to which I'm responding, the one from BrownHairedGirl posted 07:45, 5 January 2011].
BHG, you're right of course about the timing. My bad. I was under the impression I started that RFC over a month ago. I guess it just seems like it's been going on that long... I'm sure you'll agree I've done at least a month's worth of commenting on it...
I didn't set aside any guideline. It is not for me (or you) to judge why someone wants to move an article, or to dissuade them from starting a discussion about it. Need I remind you of the 5th pillar?
The simple fact is that he was move warring, and I encouraged him to find out if there is consensus support before moving. There is nothing wrong with that; I did the right thing.
I agree that we have tons of guidelines that newbies may not be aware of, but I submit that they don't really need to know about them because they are mostly consistent with common sense. It's like traffic laws. Even cops don't really know all the rules, but if you follow common sense you should be compliant. That's why Americans and Europeans can fly across the Atlantic, rent a car, and probably do fine, pretty much without looking up a single law (except maybe whether right on red is allowed, and what some of those funny signs mean). That's why regular non-compliance is arguably an indication of a bad rule (e.g., it's one of the strongest arguments in favor of repealing marijuana prohibition, in my view, by the way).
The only reason newbies need to know about the idiosyncratic U.S. city guideline is because it is (currently) idiosyncratic, at least with respect to unambiguous concise titles. The guidance it gives is contrary to the guidance that applies to the vast majority of articles in WP with concise/unambiguous titles. That's not common sense. I know how to fix that... User:Born2cycle#NamingGoal.
B2C, the substance of the matter doesn't belong here, and lambasting someone because they have not responded in 11 hours is juvenile (there is a fairly simple and obvious answer to John K's point, which I will post later). Applying language such as "annihilation" is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, just like your swamping of the RFC discussion with 122 posts (as of last night).
Back to the procedural issue which at at stake here: you did half of the right thing. You told the newbie to stop move-warring, but instead of reminding the newbie of the existence of a relevant naming convention, you encouraged them start an RM discussion without encouraging them to read up on the convention.
In your case, that omission is not a good-faith oversight, but a handy ploy in your single-purpose mission to remove naming conventions. You clearly have a generalised gripe against Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, the policy which explicitly permits naming conventions, but instead of seeking a consensus on the policy and centralising the discussion per WP:MULTI, you are wasting the energies of other editors by pushing the same argument in dozens of different venues.
You play little or part in content creation, but your sprawling efforts to pursue a single objective at multiple locations causes a missive diversion of the efforts of other editors away from content. Instead of this forum shopping. please centralise your efforts and try to settle the central issue without creating so much drama. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
My "annihilation" remark was made in the context of commenting on an argument made in a civil and friendly debate, not a person.
But now that you mention WP:BATTLEGROUND, I suggest you're the one making this a personal battle which "goes directly against our policies and goals", not me. Perhaps I'm misreading, and I hope I am, but the language you use in your comments about me seems to be dripping with animosity. Am I misunderstanding?
Anyway, I have no issue with Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions, which clearly and wisely advises, "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names". I agree with that, and see no clear benefits to having, for example, Ann Arbor at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Do you? In fact, the only real reason given in support of that move is... compliance with the idiosyncratic rule. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
By moving Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, you've created a second entry with the same name, and you have to keep the redirect or you'll break links. So just what does such a move accomplish? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C, if you think that "annihilation" is part of "civil and friendly debate", you make my point well.
You say here that you support existing policy ... but on your own userpage you explicitly make a blanket rejection of the existence of specific guidelines: "the natural law of Wikipedia is clear: if naming stability is sought, disambiguate only when necessary; otherwise, use the plain natural concise name of the subject. I know of no reason for this natural law of Wikipedia to not apply to any article in Wikipedia".
As requested on your talk page, please open an RFC on your broader objective, rather than forum-shopping it across multiple locations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
BHG, thank you for identifying the source of the misunderstanding. I'll notify you on your talk page (just a short note, I promise) when I get that clarified on my user page. Also, it is not uncommon in English to refer to arguments as being destroyed or annihilated when they are shown to be utterly baseless; I meant nothing personal about it. It was a comment strictly about the soundness and thoroughness of John K's rebuttal to your argument, not about you.
BB, what the move of Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor accomplishes is greater compliance with the principle naming criteria identified at WP:TITLE. Namely, it accomplishes a more concise title, and a title that is not "more precise than is necessary", which "Ann Arbor, Michigan" is. The benefits of following this criteria in our titles as much as is reasonably possible is presumed to be understood, and explaining that is way beyond the scope of this ANI. See WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How do 2 entries for Ann Arbor, instead of 1, benefit the wikipedia readers? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Because then either one takes a user entering either to the article being sought.
Anyway, either way, we have two entries. Either the article is at Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor, Michigan a redirect to it, or vice versa. I don't understand why you think one way there is one entry and the other way there are two. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to do any of that busy work. There is nothing wrong with linking to redirects, which is what a link to Ann Arbor, Michigan is when the article is at Ann Arbor. See WP:NOTBROKEN.
That should eliminate that concern. Do you have any other concerns about leaving this article at Ann Arbor? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You must not be aware of how many gazillion edits have been made "to avoid redirect". There's no benefit to either the readers or the editors to change Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is common usage, to Ann Arbor. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oo, oo, can I play? There's no benefit to either the readers or the editors to change Ann Arbor, which is common usage and concise in accordance with policy, and thus conducive to stability, to Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is, contrary to policy, overprecise and thus conducive to instability. Your turn! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've given you an example, farther up, of common usage in America. You would be hard-pressed to prove that "Ann Arbor" is more common than "Ann Arbor, Michigan". Standard practice in America (of which you show your obvious ignorance every time you open your mouth) is to specify the state, unless maybe it's a very large city, which Ann Arbor and Carmel-by-the-Sea ain't. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose for the purposes of Wikipedia, 'Ann Arbour' should be renamed 'Derry', and be deemed to be located within the 'British Isles' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. That would fix it. And I expect Ohio State would be very happy to have the Wolverines transferred overseas. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there any home that we may be able to centralize the discussion... Somewhere? There is this one, the requested move itself and the US Cities RFC all taking place simultaneously, with a fair amount of comment duplication between them. I don't think there is the support to quick close the requested move, so can call this topic closed? I'm not sure about others, but I think some form of conclusion (one way or the other) would be beneficial and splitting the discussion doesn't help. My personal view is that this issue, although important, is getting a bit out of control. Any support for centralizing the discussion to one place?--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. There's no consensus that the Ann Arbor RM discussion should be closed; best to let the discussion play out there and at the RFC. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you all have been patiently awaiting my commentation on this matter. First of all, I want you all to know that Born2cycle did not encourage me to request that Green Bay, Wisconsin, be moved. He simply showed me how because I was clueless on the matter--I never knew editing Wikipedia was so complicated! Anyway, I had been wanting to move these particular cities to a less disambiguated title for quite some time, before I even knew Born2cycle. I mean, who needs the state in the title of an article about a city--people these days are looking for simplification. I guess that will never be found on Wikipedia until you guys get with the times--Born2cycle is very ahead of his time, compared to you other Wikipedians with chips on your shoulders about these matters. Some day, you guys will think that Born2cycle is an absolute genious. Born2cycle has sort of been my Wikipedia mentor, and he did nothing more than show me how to do something--he never flat-out told me to move Green Bay. Well, I thank you for your time, and I hope you all will heed my advice about naming conventions and simplification on Wikipedia in the near future. -"The NEWBIE," Krauseaj 14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
How does it help the readers to have two entries for Green Bay instead of one? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What are you even talking about, Bugs?? By the way, have you seen the Geico commercial with R. Lee Ermey? Heed his advice. -Krauseaj 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the one where Ermey as an ex-drill instructor therapist throws a box of tissues at his patient and calls him a crybaby? I suggest you refrain from making uncivil remarks such as this, even by passive reference. Such comments don't advance the discussion and make it harder for consensus to be found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a funny ad. Meanwhile, it's clear that Krause hasn't read any of the previous discussion here, or he wouldn't be asking what I'm talking about. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You can change "Green Bay, Wisconsin" to "Green Bay", but you have to leave the "Green Bay, Wisconsin" as a redirect to avoid breaking links. Useless busywork that's of no benefit to the readers. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like it noted that deletion of articles can sometimes be carried out in an extremely high-handed manner, on blatantly invalid reasons. Julian Assange is a high-profile article which may be difficult to administer fairly. However, most editors seem to accept that the accusations of terrorism and death threats against him are worthy of some mention (which they were not until I put them in). Since editors objected to my listing 13 such threats from notable people (only threats from 4 of the most high-profile politicians needed mentioning?) in the main biography, I created a sub-article listing them. This was shortly deleted supposedly to CSD#10, because it "duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject" (bolded text as in original). If articles can be deleted simply because expert editors don't like them, then surely the rules should say that, not give the impression that careful contributions will be torn up. Templar98 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The first steps would be to discuss it with the administrator who deleted it, rather than going straight here. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
My comments were added to the end the previous section on article deletions, someone has decided to separate them from their context. They were intended as a plea to act judicially, not intended specifically to be a complaint about conduct at any particular article.
In fact, this is a second good example of high-handedness for no very good or obvious reason, someone has taken it upon themselves to mess with my words and make it appear I'm saying something different from what I intended to say. Templar98 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You can undo it if you wish, but what you have to say about Assange and your now-deleted Criticisms of... article has nothing at all do to with the case of an obviously non-English user spamming copyvios around the project. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I was not trying to fight the decision (which doesn't mean I'd not do so if there was a visible path to do so), I'm just pointing out that there may be a problem with high-handed deletions. Templar98 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've not had a reply there, despite JBW having presumably seen what I had to say. The lack of anything soothing from that quarter simply raised my suspicion that something out of process had indeed happened. Templar98 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If there are any questions on that article I'd be happy to defend it. Templar98 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The article was a disaster in the making. Templar means well, but is unversed in what Wikipedia is here to record, and has something of a strong POV in this area (the article was a POV fork after consensus developed against the content on Julian Assange). Rather than undelete I think WP:DRV would be appropriate - it is unlikely to overturn the decision and so saves us some process slog. --Errant(chat!) 15:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way: Thinking that one can take an article on a much discussed subject and hive off the "anti" views into a separate article whilst leaving the "pro" views in the original article is a commonly made error, but an error nonetheless. Always think "This must be neutral.". Neutrality doesn't encompass splitting off the "cons" from the "pros". That's a bad way to structure encyclopaedia content that purports to be neutral. Split things up by subject. Do not split them by for-and-against viewpoints. And especially don't encode your own opinion of the viewpoints in the article's title. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You should be aware that the article was originally entitled "Smears, accusations and threats against Julian Assange", this was an accurate description of the content. Your criticism (while interesting and valuable) simply underlines that the whole process was done in a pretty wilful fashion. You should also be aware that I've been repeatedly accused of having a pro-Assange POV (even 97% pro) when I don't believe I have such a bias. I'm much more concerned he be given justice in his own article, I think I can see numerous examples where that is not happening. Templar98 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The article could conceivably cover positive criticism. Nonetheless, it is deeply flawed in execution. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Your comment may cause puzzlement, since most people cannot see what I wrote. Perhaps JBW would care to undelete the article in order that people can judge for themselves. Then people will perhaps be puzzled that there were a number of edits made subsequent to mine, some of them making the article POV (in an "anti" direction) when I don't believe there bias there before. Templar98 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is no tradition on Wikipedia for the creation of "Criticism of [named person]" articles. Criticism of governments, tv-shows, belief systems etc etc, sure, but not of named persons (And rightly so). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Making it even more peculiar that an admin changed the title to read "Criticism of Julian Assange"! The more I see, the more it would appear that some protest is called for. I have taken the precaution of informing JBW about this discussion. I don't know who changed the title, however, so I cannot notify them. Templar98 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
While we do have a number of "Criticisms of ..." articles, we don't have a single "Smears, accusations and threats against..."-articles at all. So it is no excuse for the previous title. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of "Criticism of..." items in the search box. The one I was looking for had to do with Bill O'Reilly, and I see it's now a redirect to the O'Reilly article. I expect a number of them have been handled that way. A "criticism of..." is essentially a content fork, and that goes against wikipedia principles. Some criticisms could certainly go into the Assange article, especially as he's been hoist by his own petard. But a separate article is not needed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean POV fork as the type of article splitting which is not allowed. ActiveBanana(bananaphone 15:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"Criticisms of..." as redirect articles is also ok according to the Wikipedia:Redirect-policy, which allows for more extended POV-naming conventions than what applies for real articles. Also, if an article has a "Criticism"-section, then it would make sense in some cases to redirect to it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you'll find this is exactly what's happened - but that misses the point too, which is:
How would you propose dealing with a case where there have been widespread incitement to carry out an extra-judicial killing? It has come both from prominent people who are not known to have retracted anything they said (other than the one heavily-criticised Canadian) and in the form of anonymous web-calls. Please note, the Rwandan massacres were incited by radio hosts, and at least two of them joined this campaign on Assange in the US - one of them having been convicted (?) for a political crime, Watergate. The arguments that "oh, well, he's a criminal" might seem to make his involvement more notable rather than less notable. Please note that Assange has spoken of threats made and precautions being taken, while a German Sunday newspaper (by Yahoo translation) quotes "ex secret service boss Peter Regli" saying of Assange: “I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident, of one underground-rise on the tracks to fall or at one cardiac infarct would die”. I've not yet bothered trying to web-research just how wide-spread are fears for Assange's life, since there seems to be some resistance to putting it in.
Maybe there's a legal difference in different jurisdictions and that's causing some difficulty in wordings, but that doesn't excuse leaving things out. I can only document the known facts, I'd need help to put in the correct words to explain what's happening. Templar98 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be out of scope for wikipedia to try to document every threat made against a given public figure. If such threats have exceptional coverage, they might be given voice in the article. However, it might be useful to make a general statement that the guy has been subjected to many criticisms and some threats, then link to another website article (from a valid source, such as CNN) that might cover the topic in depth. P.S. If the government really wanted him dead, he'd already be dead. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't weighed in. In passing, I suggested to Templar that the list of Death Threats wasn't appropriate at Julian Assange but that it would have to go at Death threats against Julian Assange. I didn't really expect it would actually happen, and then the Smears, Accusations, and Threats title came up, so I moved it to Criticism of Julian Assange. That seemed an extreme improvement, though perhaps not sufficiently. I then encouraged fixing the NPOV of the article and there was some talk page action happening before it was deleted for CSD 10, which is kind of was but also wasn't, since the content was an expansion of the relatively brief mention in the main article.
Regarding any POV, I believe Templar wants the world to see how Assange has been attacked in the media--not to spread the attacks but to bring them into the light so that others can see who is targeting this presumably benevolent hacktivist (a view I sympathize with but don't think needs any special defense). There was a breakdown of communication between the bevy of users who sensed this article would be a problem, and Templar who was carefully following our sourcing guidelines, though (not intentionally) falling short of NPOV. Half of this problem has to do with unfamiliarity with policies, and the other half is admins assuming new editors have any idea what policies dictate. I think DRV makes sense, as does a userspace draft. Meanwhile most of Templar's suggestions at Julian Assange have been good ones, but there's not yet a clear understanding of where policy dictates inclusion of content becomes excessive.
I generally agree with Bugs about making broad statements without cataloging every instance, which is what the article does right now. I also agree, that if Assange was supposed to be dead, we'd be busy adding [in 2011] categories to his bio. Oh, and it bears mention, that even if we could prevent Assange's death by publicizing every threat made against him, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAPBOX would prevent us from doing so. We have no moral or mission here, only neutral presentation of reliable sources. Sigh... Ocaasi (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the main issue was that it was badly sourced! For example there was a quote from an "anonymous forum member"... and other quotes sourced to their primary location (which is not ideal given the context of the quotes). Attempted discussion of this hit a dead end with Templar. And requests for the main sources which identified the subject as significant were never really addressed --Errant(chat!) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw most of the quotes were well sourced but might have missed those--and death threat BLP vios can't stand, for sure. I believe Templar is mistaking inherent, real world significance (DEATH THREATS), with NPOV significance--prevalence in sources--and that's very easy to do. He recently pointed me to The Satanic Verses controversy as a model for what he'd like to emulate. There's still a Weight issue and a bit of a Crystal issue and a bit of a Fork issue, but it's not a crazy idea. I think we could put the draft in userspace with the understanding that it still might not be Due it's own article. Or is this just wasting time? Ocaasi (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to make it clear that I have not read the deleted articles, so my suggestions were referring only to the article titles and what I would assume such articles would be likely to contain. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If the article under discussion has already been deleted, how can other users join in the discussion? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC).
Also, I see from User:Templar98's page a Jan 2011 'Welcome' message from User:Ocaasi. I don't think the biting newbies issue is relevant here, but it looks like there's a lot of 'POV' accusations flying around. For articles such as Assange/WikiLeaks/Manning, it might be helpful if each of the principal experienced and established deleters/reverters went out on a limb and made their own personal for/against stance clear, even if they are attempting to temper this in their edits, just as a possible additional basis from which the neutrality of 'POV'-justified reverts might be assessed. I also think there's something in the revert policy about wherever possible not simply reverting but incorporating other users' valuable contributions, and I don't think that's always happening. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the warning, and I'm sorry if in my sloppy wording I failed to obviate the possibility of such being inferred. While I am in no way intending to malign any user, I do think one's background and beliefs can colour one's objectivity, and if one were to see a table showing eg 100% of pro-Assange users thought something pro-Assange should be deleted then one might conclude something different from what one might conclude if one were to see a table showing a lot of anti-Assange users wanted the same content removed, even though all will be equally striving for WP:NPOV. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Same answer as always; my POV is irrelevant. I edit from the perspective of objectivity and neutrality, as should everybody (I am not being glib). I do, though, stand by everything I have taken out of that article as junk. Not necessarily deliberate or bad faith junk, sure, but junk nonetheless :)
Look. I could tell you I dislike Assange if you want; but what good does that do? next time I take out some random irrelevant detail someone will just tell me I am trying to protect him. Or I could tell you he is my best mate, and someone would attack edits to remove junk that attacked him. I could tell you both those things (and not be lying, as it happens) and it is all still irrelevant. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Errant(chat!) 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
hah, nope :) though we shook hands once at a conference a while back. Way before anyone (me included) knew who he is or what WL's was --Errant(chat!) 01:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean you must have blood on your hands now too? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ditto what Errant said. And we don't take purity oaths. My BLP warning for Templar was in response to talk page comments that crossed a line. I subsequently had lengthy discussions with the user getting into the background of policy issues. There's still some misunderstanding about what encyclopedia articles are supposed to do visa/vis reporting every quote said about an issue, but that, in combination with aspects of the article not yet developed, was originally mistaken as trying to whitewash the establishment backlash against Assange, which is definitely not the aim. As for incorporating rather than reverting, it happens, but WP:BRD suggests it's just as likely to not happen, especially at controversial articles, and especially when there is extensive work that would need to be done to improve an edit. Suffice to say that a table listing every single 'Assange is a terrorist' or 'Assange should be killed' quotation is not what we put in BLPs. New users can mistake reverts for negation, where it is merely an invitation to make a more constructive addition once kinks have been ironed out on the talk page. Ocaasi (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Here Here, although think you missed my table point. As for my earlier question 'if the article under discussion has already been deleted, how can other users join in the discussion?' is there somewhere I can go on this? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Only admins can see the draft, but you're not missing anything. The quote table is in the history of the Julian Assange article, and the deleted article was basically just that table. A list of quotes on the same topic doesn't warrant a separate article, and I'm not sure there's enough surrounding controversy to justify separating it from Assange. You can give it a shot as long as you know it might not go too far without substantial development. Ocaasi (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for the ctiticisms content, but the list of inciters to kill seems very appropriate to the Julian Assange article. It seems to be well sourced and is not drawing any conclusions, and it is certainly notable. My only concern would be that it might incite someone to actually do it. That is, we may spread the idea further than it might otherwise have gone. Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a neutral third-party, I would like to add my opinion that there is no harm inadding people notable in their threats on Julian Assange. Wikipedia:Notability would need to be given to some of the calls for his death, as in some cases, they have come form sneior U.S government advisors.--Graythos1 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Very few of those so-called "threats" are actually substantive threats, they're just commentators yapping. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't have to prejudge whether nationally broadcast death threats (or accusations of terrorism) are trivial. It would be particularly unwise to prejudge anything broadcast on the radio, which has a special place of honour in Rwanda and the 800,000 dead.
The question is - are these death threats notable? The UK is currently holding Assange, and even the anti-Assange Telegraph (the polar opposite of the pro-Assange Guardian, anyway) has been talking about the death-threats against him.
A German newspaper quotes the ex-head of the Swiss secret service saying that Assange could very easily have an accident. Biden has since called Assange a "high-tech terrorist", so it's not as if this part of the story is over yet.
If Wikipedia doesn't host information like this then obviously it was right to delete this article - but for the moment, we can't even tell because we're not allowed to see what's in it. One thing is for sure, it was not deleted to CSD A-10, which refers to duplicated information. Templar98 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk show hosts are merely expressing opinions. Those aren't threats, any more than was Tucker Carlson's statement that Michael Vick should be executed for cruelty to animals. I suspect Europeans don't understand the difference between a real threat and some talk show host yapping. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Bugs. American media hyperbole is a hallowed tradition. We chest beat with the best of them. How would you explain that visa/vis policy... whether editorial discretion can take into account cultural norms such as the banal bellicose bravado of the blue-blooded broadcast bastions (my apologies)--with a straight NOR/NPOV reading of sources? Ocaasi (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Pretty peppy prose, pal! pablo 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
"Hyperbole" was my first thought when I saw the biography of Ron Paul. I've pointed out the gushing nature of that article to editors at the Talk:Julian Assange page. Have a look at the section on his 2008 Presidential bid.
I have to say that such hyperbole doesn't offend me, I'm an adult, I can make my own mind up, and even enjoy what I don't really believe. What I don't understand is how anyone can write off death-threats made in national broadcasts by top opinion formers, especially when, it would seem, UK and German newspapers take them fairly seriously.
For a period, I wondered whether the reluctance of other editors to fully document these threats was explained by the fact they're already past and maybe there authors were slightly ashamed of what they'd done. However, in the last few days, Biden has again called Assange a terrorist. I don't think this incitement is going away, nor should we act as if it's going to go away. Templar98 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I was the admin who deleted the article. Apologies for not responding earlier to comments on this, but for personal off-wiki reasons I have not been dealing with my talk page messages over the last few days. There is a good deal of very interesting discussion here, but I will restrict myself to commenting on my reasons for deleting the article. The article was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G10 (attack page). I could see a case for that, as it was an article which is specifically intended to concentrate only on criticisms of a living person, but I did not see it really as an attack page. However, I saw no clear reason for separating criticisms into an article of their own, separate from the main article. It makes much more sense to keep different sides of a subject together, so that a balance can be seen. If we have an article just for the negative aspects, does this mean that the main article omits those negative points, making that article unbalanced? Or does that article also contain a duplicate of those criticisms, making Wikipedia's total coverage unbalanced? Or do we balance it up by having an article called "support for Julian Assange"? How far should we fragment coverage of a single person? It seemed to me (and still does) that having a separate article just to list negative views was unhelpful, and a reasonable balanced coverage of all aspects, including criticisms, should be included in the main article Julian Assange. I may have also been marginally influenced in my decision by my feeling that there was an element of value in the tagging as an attack page (though I am sure the author did not intend it as one), but my principal reason was, as stated in the deletion log, that it was an unnecessary content fork (CSD A10). I still hold the same view, but if it is decided that the article should be restored I will not object. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If other editors don't know whether any of these individual events are worth including then I'd be happy for the page to be made personal to me, I will add to it (eg Biden's latest claims) and offer it back to the community when I think it might be acceptable. After recent events it could even become less fashionable to ignore death threats. Templar98 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I pasted the table in an article draft at your userspace. It still needs to follow WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS closely. It's here. Remember that we don't take an issue seriously because of its real world impact but because reliable sources take it seriously.Ocaasi (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
On notability, there would appear to be widely-recognized notable slippage of terrorism rhetoric (and morality/legality of anti-terrorism measures). Indeed due to apparent violations of 1973 UN Convention re an 'attack on the person' of diplomats, under FATF anti-money laundering/terrorist financing provisions Hillary Clinton might be technically a 'terrorist' and the US Gov, IRS etc then guilty of terrorist financing. As Assange has pointed out this slippage is not ideal, especially in an issue where it seems to be simply government accountability that is at stake, and so an article collecting such absurd claims, if properly referenced etc, might be an extremely useful link to terrorism/pejorative use of terrorism pages etc. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The website claims to be "presented" by the National Geographic Channel, surely giving it some degree of respectability...? GiantSnowman 00:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Reliability depends on which Salon article is being cited, who the author of the article is, the topic of the Wikipedia article it's being included in, and the specific statement on Wikipedia that is citing the source. If this information is not being provided, there is no way to determine reliability. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I guess an example is in order [159] my opinion at the time was this was simply an attack article. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't look like a reliable source to me, in that case. It doesn't seem like a serious book review, and is almost entirely polemical. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Even supposing it was a valid review of the book in question, it's not appropriate to cite one particular reviewer's opinions on some entity of public media. If there is a veriably significant body of opinion that the book is poorly written or in bad taste or whatever, then you might have something usable in wikipedia. But since reviews are generally just personal opinions, it would also be necessary to find some positive reviews (if any). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I am going to need help to clean up... the user is prolific... see contributions above. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
When I loaded the site, a giant pop-up ad appeared and it tried to hit me with five new cookies. I am not seeing the National Geographic connection anywhere --Diannaa(Talk) 00:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this a question for WP:RS/N? You have to treat Salon with care in my experience; they sometimes represent a reliable source. BUT the content is partisan and the authors are often extremely opinionated. WP:RS makes clear there are three aspects to being reliable; publisher, author and content. The publisher in this case requires care. Many of the authors are unreliable. This would be a classic example of why care is needed with Salon content :) --Errant(chat!) 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Guess Manning fans might hope the verdict is 'reliable'. Presumably Chomsky can be cited, and he's certainly been opinionated, possibly even partisan, on more than one occasion. Guess official US Gov announcements say wouldn't need vetting on these grounds? Tricky to assess reliability of content on basis of ads and cookies: might these relate to funding/exposure issues US Gov say does not have in being able to deliver its message? Would have thought any content on any platform would need to be assessed for reliability, doesn't necessarily mean they should be damned to oblivion beforehand.BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No, but we can take note of commonly poor sources. Salon is dubious; for example I'd suggest almost anything written by Greenwald on Salon is not reliable (too partisan) for any WP content. --Errant(chat!) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Greenwald is certainly not neutral, though I'm not sure I'd describe him as "partisan". He is intensely critical of both the Bush and Obama administrations and seems to be something of a libertarian. He has gotten some kudos from respected media analysts, e.g. Columbia Journalism Review, the Online Journalism Award, etc. I'm not aware of much history of substantial errors in his writings, and has considerable expertise in various privacy and free speech areas (several published books). His books have been favorably reviewed by liberal[160] and conservative(?)[161] sources alike, and his writings have been in all sorts of outlets.[162] As such, I'd consider him to have a noteworthy (though not neutral) point of view on those subjects, appropriate for inclusion under the NPOV policy which requires representation of all significant viewpoints. I personally find his writing kind of tedious (he belabors each point into oblivion) so I haven't read much of it, but I suppose that approach could be seen as "thorough". I'm left with the vague sense that he's writing important stuff that I ought to be paying more attention to. I'm not impressed with ErrantX's diff[163] which seems to misattribute a particular columnist's opinion[164] to Salon as a whole, and it's not clear to me how Salon's editorial stance relates its reliability as a news source anyway. (E.g. the Wall Street Journal has a very slanted editorial page but has generally been considered a good news outlet). 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconding the IP here - "neutral" is not the same as "reliable." While his bias is obvious (and clearly stated) there are very few voices in English-speaking journalism more reliable than Greenwald. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Reliability is about fact-checking. And Greenwald's fact-checking is unimpeachable, whatever you think of his political beliefs. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hence why I asked the question.... I don't want to start an edit war :-D and I did not know about WP:RS/NCanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's ok I wasn't criticising. I'm off to bed but I flicked through and removed some of the users recent edits and left them a talk page note. We will need to work through the added content because it currently amounts to "spamming" references to pretty dubious Salon pieces. There is some good editing in there, but a lot of issues too. --Errant(chat!) 00:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
See what you mean, fairly prolific... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
As what is being presented by Salon in that diff is an opinion about a book rather than an assertion of a fact, the relevant policy is NPOV rather than RS. NPOV says that an article should present every significant point of view by due weight. So the question is whether that particular opinion of that book is significant, not whether it's reliable. Laura Ingraham has significant admirers and detractors, so a neutral article requires presenting both viewpoints. Her biography's section about her books really does seem to lack much of a critical viewpoint. But maybe something is available that's better-written than that Salon blurb. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes. But there is a question over whether to use a "nastily" written review. It's not good critical commentary and given undue weight. Much of Salon content has similar issues. In reponse to your comments about Greenwald; reliability is not simply about fact checking. It is about tone, focus, intent and (in this specific case) journalistic impartiality. Greenwald does a lot of fact, and also a lot of nasty vitriole. The first is fine, the second not so, as per our usual policy. An article published in Salon and written by Greenwald probably has issues in all three aspects of reliability (content, author, publisher) and, so, should be used with extreme care. --Errant(chat!) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Even as the page as been fully protected, there seems to be a constant switching on the page of whether she is dead or not. I think it is necessary to stop switching back and forth, since it may confuse users reading the article. Haven't been real active for awhile, but this seems like it would be the best place for this matter. Hello32020 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Full protection? High handed much? Oh I'm sorry, I forget, us lowly editors don't have the same rights to edit articles as elite admins of course... Exxolon (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Full protection is warranted, but apart from minor grammatical/typo fixing, there should be no admin edits to the page either while the events play out. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not borne out in the edit history. 40 or so edits by admins since full protection. That's not acceptable under any circumstances. Exxolon (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's way too much. It should be protected now from admin edits also. My God, this is and article about a human being. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Not possible. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Page needs to be unprotected or the admins need to stop making edits. I thought we had learned our lessons from the Michael Jackson debacle last year. Apparently not.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Full protection does not mean administrators are allowed to make whatever edits they deem necessary as if they are super editors. Full protection means administrators are allowed to do edits that have been suggested with consensus reached on the article talk page. If administrators don't understand this, then maybe they should be blocked until they learn wikipedia policy. This is a farce in a BLP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is no need to race an obituary notice to an article. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
BLP requires potentially negative statements be sourced, and they were. Then the source retracted. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is no technical mechanism to lock the page further than fully protected. Posting these opinions to the article talk page might be productive.
With that said - I think we've accepted that even for BLPs, in the middle of a rapidly evolving current events news story there WILL be churn, until the Real World figures it out and has a consistent story. We're not able to do better than that, realistically. Yes, it's a BLP, and we need to be extra sensitive about BLPs, but if national news organizations are going back and forth nobody will fault us for doing so while it gets figured out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly - unless we have a policy to hold off reports of deaths even when the preponderance of news organisations are reporting it as a certainty, what else is to be done? The article kept the pace quite well here and there was no real revert-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is now also 2011 Tucson shooting, so eyes need to be on that as well. I'm trying to follow the reports, and most responsible sources are now saying that the reports are conflicting, but that she is probably still alive and in surgery, so we need to be careful not to prematurely report anything more. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Evil saltine brought it down to semi-protection, now. Are the haters now happy? –MuZemike 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Haters? Us "lowly" editors only want to be treated as if we're on an equal level :) Dusti*poke* 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's best to leave the article fully protected, until her status (alive/dead) is un-disuptedly confirmed. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, it would. But I don't think we can have a special edit war just for admins. It's not fair. Maybe some of the rest of us would like to join in too. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
At this point, full protection has just been restored. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why Full protection? This protection log is the most ridiculous that I've seen. Why is it, how is it, that admins are allowed to protect this so others can't edit it, then continue to edit? This doesn't make sense. Why not just protect it to pending changes again? Dusti*poke* 20:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The answer is that they're not, Dusti. Full protection is to prevent edit-warring from continuing. Admins are only permitted to make minor, unambiguously non-contentious edits during a period of protection. If admins have been making edits which don't fall in this category, that's the behaviour which should be discussed here. The fact that it's such a big edit-warring problem that even admins are involved makes it all the more clear that full protection is necessary, in addition to admins being told to wait for consensus as is proper. Which specific edits by admins during the protection period have been problematic? GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
15:16, 8 January 2011 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gabrielle Giffords [edit=sysop] (expires 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) (Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: (hopefully)) (hist)
14:56, 8 January 2011 Evil saltine (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gabrielle Giffords [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) (things have settled a bit; semi-should be used for media attention) (hist)
14:05, 8 January 2011 Slp1 (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gabrielle Giffords [edit=sysop] (expires 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) (upping this to full protection. Please suggest changes on talkpage) (hist)
13:44, 8 January 2011 CIreland (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gabrielle Giffords [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) (OK, I've seen enough. This is still a BLP. Semi'd for 6-hours) (hist)
13:44, 8 January 2011 Rkitko (talk | contribs) protected Gabrielle Giffords [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)) (Excessive vandalism: due to media coverage) (hist)
Since the full protection has been restored, there have been a dozen edits by admins. This cannot continue. Either we can all edit it or none of us can. Locking the article so only a subset of editors can edit it is UNACCEPTABLE. Exxolon (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point Exxolon; you seem to be saying that admins are depriving you of your ability to edit war. The answer is not allow everyone to edit war, it's to leave the article protected and stop those admins who have been making matters worse from continuing to do so. There is no technical means by which admins may be prevented from editing a page, as has been mentioned above. However, I'm sure the admins involved are aware that they may not make controversial edits to a page while it's protected, so if that has been occuring they shguld be warned. If that doesn't work, they should be blocked, same as any other editor would be. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's one edit of many that have continued. Dusti*poke* 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem Giftiger is: Will that happen? Who's going to warn an Admin? Who's going to block an Admin? Nobody. Dusti*poke* 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite bad. In particular, many administrators added and removed reports of Giffords' death, when avoiding that churn was the entire point of having any protection on the article. If protection doesn't accomplish what it is meant to do, it ought to be removed. There are many editors watching the article now, and consensus on the talk page is clear about what we should say in the article, so stepping down to semiprotection is the right thing to do here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes there are, but that's not stopping the editing. The Full Protection is doing nothing but starting issues, Conflict, and upset individuals. Dusti*poke* 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Dusti, to answer your questions: any user may warn any other user that they're in violation of policy. If you feel an admin has been making problematic edits on the article, the first thing to do is to discuss it with that admin. If that doesn't lead anywhere helpful, the community can discuss it. Like with any other editor, an admin may be blocked if their behaviour is disruptive, and the presence of an ANI thread here provides a venue for discussion. On that note, has anyone actually notified the admins involved in this situation that this thread exists? GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Giftiger - I resent your implication that I want protection dropped so I can start an edit war. I just want the same rules to apply to everyone. Either we all edit or none of us do. Since various admins have repeatedly demonstrated that they are quite willing to edit through the protection then it needs to be droppped so we can all edit. Otherwise we need a developer to lock off ALL editing to the article. Either suits me fine, but I will NOT accept a two-tier editing hierarchy on this article. Exxolon (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't imply it, I said it explicitly. If your argument is that admins edit-warring isn't fair because you want to join in, that's a pretty firm case for leaving full-protection in place. Something does need to be done about the admins who have continued to make such edits despite full-protection, however; they know better and it's unacceptable. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's NOT what I'm advocating. I'm saying that only allowing admins to EDIT is unfair. The fact that some of the edits the admins are naking consitute edit-warring is a separate issue. Exxolon (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is established now she is alive. Is there anything further to do at this thread or can we concentrate on other stuff?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Since ANI isn't about content disputes, the issue here isn't whether or not she's alive, it's about the behaviour of users involved in this dispute and particularly, it seems, about the behaviour of a number of admins while the article was fully protected. At the least, it'd be helpful if those admins who made controversial edits to the protected page would recognise that such actions were incorrect. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want this to get lost in the hubub, even though it's been pointed out above. There are also other pages: 2011 Tucson shooting and John McCarthy Roll, where death by Wikipedia may be happening, and admins may need to protect. When I last looked a few seconds ago, there were IP claims of death at the second of those. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Jared Laughner should be seeded (ETA: per BLP it should not be a redirect). There seem to be a lot of contradicting reports on this and we should simply wait. --FormerIP (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Roll's page semied.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Moving forward, I think we need to focus on learning lessons from events like today, so I have made a proposal here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Love it! I threw together an essay for these types of situations I'm calling "Current Events Editing" which is really a mash-up of how important BLP matters are combined with other general editing policies. ♪Tstorm(talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Instruction creep. Small trout to everyone (admin or not) who got over-impulsive and forgot that we are not writing a newspaper, then get on with editing. Remember next time there is a breaking event with frequent updates, use talkpage discussion to figure out how to handle them. The best approach may vary with the situation. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with regard to WP:NOTNEWS -- lay back and wait for the facts to sort themselves out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Agree ; the only block still in effect is the one due to the account being compromised; it seems logical that such a block would be against the account rather than the user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Done by Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
