Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Donner60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found some instances of WP:SYN on Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War which I tried to address without much success with the editors involved, User:Donner60 and User:Rjensen. In the process I started finding plagerized statements from one source that I happened to be able to read via Google Books, Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. (2009) ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6, page 59-63 google books. I've found nine instances of plagiarism so far which I detailed on the talk page. I haven't researched all of them, but a few were added by Donner60 on February 20th - diff.

While reporting the copyvio, apparently Rjensen decided to simply delete the template and keep editing the article. I documented 7 more instances of plagiarism, including a second source, and today I restored the page to the copyvio version, and I'm reporting this as an incident so the copyvios get 7 days to be researched.

This article contains mostly sources that are only available in print, and there are hundreds of citations to check. Some statements were plagiarized before these two editors were involved, then while they were trying to add citations simply cited the plagiarism making it easy to find - I don't understand why they didn't rewrite the statements at that point. One plagiarized statement is in the oldest edit from 2004. No one wants to blank the article but it would be very complex to remove the individual instances of plagiarism; especially considering the editors involved don't seem to take wikipedia policies seriously. Thank you for your assistance. Kirk (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Copyright problems a more useful place to post this. (And spelling the word "plagiarism" wouldn't hurt.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read his post? He followed the instructions on wp:copyright problems, but ended up in an edit war when trying to place the {{copyvio}} template. I will place the template again and suggest the page is protected and relevant editors warned if it is removed again. Yoenit (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, spelling things right would have helped, sorry about that! I already reported this & Yoenit understood my request. ThanksKirk (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Forever true

I came across this user (Forever true (talk · contribs)) who seems to be using Wikipedia mainly as a vehicle to promote his book, and as a battleground (insisting on debating either Richard Dawkins or other editors, I can't tell).[1] They've even removed material from Talk:Richard Dawkins and replaced it with debate challenges.[2] Somewhere in their user talk page, which mostly consists of incomprehensible rants, there appears to be what may seem like a veiled legal threat, but I honestly can't tell what is meant. Kansan (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This user has actually made legal threats (I had to warn him on one), and is spamming incomprehensible arguments that, if we get rid of the article on his book (which is at AFD and currently trended deletion as non-notable), he's threating we should get rid of other articles on various topics that surround the science-vs-religion debate. I would at least AGF until the AFD closes, after which if he continues to engage, blocking would be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Pure Logic now speedily deleted as spam. Related user page versions at User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic and User:Forever true/Pure Logic also tagged for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's edits as 96.55.192.149 (talk · contribs) are also self-promotional and confrontational. I think there are severe WP:COI and WP:COMPETENCE issue...here are some choice edits:[3][4][5][6] I think a block of the account & IP, perhaps with a standard offer, is appropriate. — Scientizzle 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Forever true (talk · contribs) indefinitely and 96.55.192.149 (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. I provided some reading material and suggestion in the block message... — Scientizzle 16:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So...so he's Forever Gone, then? HalfShadow 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:)

User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Kwamikagami has a plan to rename all the ship class articles from the format "XXXX class ship" to the format "XXXX-class ship". This contentious move is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Bot_request.

At 22:10, 30 March 2011 User:Kwamikagami agreed to stop making these moves at User_talk:Kwamikagami#Stop_moving_ship_class_articles. Nevertheless he is making these moves on 31 March 2011 - showing bad faith.

I know that User:Kwamikagami is an admin. One user has told me that User:Kwamikagami using his admin tools to make these moves (see User_talk:Toddy1#User:Kwamikagami).

Please can User:Kwamikagami be halted in his endeavour until WikiProject_Ships has come to a conclusion on whether these moves should be made.

I do not know whether using his admin tools to make these moves - if he is misusing them, is it appropriate that he have these abilities?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. We have an eight-year-old consensus on this. I agreed to stop making wholesale changes just to bring articles into line with our naming conventions, and I have. However, when there is other reason to move an article, such as caps, plurals, or omission of the ship type, then I'll hyphenate as well. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not, as you claim, have an "eight-year-old consensus" on this subject. Indeed we don't have much of a consensus at all and there has been an inconclusive discussion ever since you made the original bot request. You are making a pretty blatant attempt to impose your own view, disregarding the views of others and ignoring repeated requests to wait. The Land (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a complete outsider to this issue, I'm a bit confused. What was the other reason to move VMV class patrol boat to VMV-class patrol boat? [7] There doesn't seem to be any change except the hyphen. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To summarise; Kwami is strongly of the opinion that these articles ought to have hyphens in the titles and requested a bot to do so. Others, myself included, asked for a discussion about whether that was a good idea, which has happened largely here, which has yet to reach a conclusion. There was a previous discussion about this issue last November, which concluded that ship class names should generally have hyphens, but only about 5 editors participated in that conversation. There is only one person who seems to think there is an urgent need to change all of these names with no further debate, which is Kwami. Most ships editors (regardless of their views on hyphens) are happy to let the debate run its course and then, if necessary, have a bot update the titles. The Land (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Kwami, I am now to this dispute, but I can't see how your statement here is valid when I see moves like VMV class patrol boat to VMV-class patrol boat or TID class tug to TID-class tug: they don't match "when there is other reason to move an article, such as caps, plurals, or omission of the ship type, then I'll hyphenate as well.", but only add the hyphenation. Can you explain how these (which are just the most recent examples) are examples of your agreement above? Fram (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Kwami, this is not stupid. That kind of behavior (specifically, trying to shoehorn your change in with other edits) would get you blocked for edit-warring if this was a content dispute. You've been around for far too long (not to mention the fact that you're an admin) to play dumb about this. Let the discussion run its course, then we can move pages if we decide to. This is not time-critical, nor is a fait accompli an acceptable tactic. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, those last couple (Moonriddengirl) were among the remaining few on a short list[8] along with some that needed other fixes. That's a valid complaint. But the hundreds of red links in the main lists[9][10][11][12][13][14] are articles I've left alone. If I'd wanted to shoehorn in my edits, I would have moved or a substantial fraction of them by now. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Initially I was closely following this debate when it started a week ago. However arguments over using "hyphens" versus "en dashes" and "uses as a noun are not hyphenated" versus "uses as an adjective are hyphenated" quickly put me to sleep. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What form is used by sources?

I just had a quick look at two of the classes mentioned above; one was wholly unsourced (surely a more pressing problem) and the other had sources which preferred an unhyphenated name.

It seems unlikely to me that all sources on hundreds of ship classes around the world (different countries, different ship types &c) all use hyphenation in exactly the same way; in which case such mass moves guarantee that some articles will be moved to a new name not used by sources. Just for the sake of consistent use of hyphens between articles even though lay readers would never want to compare a hundred article titles like that. Faithfulness to sources is much more important than lining up hundreds of articles neatly with the same particle of punctuation at the top; I fail to see any overriding benefit that justifies such mass moves. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are for facts, not usage. You will find hyphens mis-used by hundreds of sources, and that doesn't make them right or wrong. Wikipedia has its own guidelines on hyphens, which Kwami is following. Personally I don't think Kwami is showing much good sense in antagonising the rest of WP:SHIPS, but what he's doing to the article names per se is not wrong - it is in fact in accordance with both WP:HYPHEN and WP:TITLE, so far as I can see. The original question was whether a bot should be used to mass-move the ship class articles to incorporate (what was at the time considered to be) the consensus. In the meantime we've had some editors questioning the original guidelines and the (apparent) consensus on their use in titles, and Kwami has been busy doing manual moves of these articles. Personally, I'd wait, get consensus and let the bot do the work, but I can't see that his moves are actually wrong as such. Shem (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME I'd say sources are pretty important in choosing the name as well! 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a choice between "XXXX class ship" and "XXXX-class ship" for a range of thousands of articles, not a choice between "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton" (to choose just one example from WP:COMMONNAME). Furthermore, it's got nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, which is about moves conducted by one editor. So, I'd say WP:COMMONNAME is far from "pretty important". Shem (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Whether I agree in principle with hyphenation (incidentally, I do) is neither here nor there. We are talking about multiple page moves in the absence of a clear consensus. To start moving pages in huge batches today based on an "8-year consensus" is clearly as poor a show as doing it without consensus at all (WP:CCC). IPs and new users who go around moving pages on a whim get indeffed; and Kwami is an admin who, dare I say, has a less-than-exemplary record of edit warring and abuse of WP:ADMIN (just one example here). Need to start thinking about locking him up and throwing away the key. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the hyphenation: it is easier for our readers, especially non-experts, who don't see these compound constructions every day and are assisted by the joining of the double adjective. The sources out there are no doubt mixed (= in a mess, as is typical), and the MoS is quite clear about the need for a hyphen. If Kwami is using admin tools to do it, he should at least have posted his intention at WT:MOS and the appropriate WikiProject. There has been at least one recent case in which he used his tools while WP:INVOLVED, at the locked page WP:MOS. He did revert after several warnings, and I am willing to take on trust his explanation that he did not realise the page was still locked. But do be careful, Kwami ... Tony (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've no opinion about hyphens or ship classes, but: Making mass changes, such as by bot, to many articles without prior explicit consensus, is disruptive. But apparently Kwamikagami is now only making these changes manually in conjunction with other useful edits. This does not strike me as disruptive, as long as the change follows WP:MOS, which it is claimed to do.  Sandstein  16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Way too much energy is expended on wikipedia arguing over the names of things. I'd like to hear an explanation as to how the presence or absence of hyphens benefits the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to have answered your comment: "I'd like to hear an explanation as to how the presence or absence of hyphens benefits the readers". Not commenting myself on the merits of hyphenation, but Tony1 seems to clearly explain just above how the hyphen is useful to non-expert readers. Jenks24 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument, then, would be that the "benefit" to the readers is to see it worded "correctly" (or at least "correctly" as far as wikipedia's manual of style is concerned)? There's certainly no benefit when searching, as the search window ignores punctuation anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Is there another option to using or not using the hyphen?? :) - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, did I forget to mention the n-dash, or whatever it is? The option that was forgotten here is to leave the bloody thing alone. With or without punctuation, an item can be found in the search box. I'd like to see the hyphen-obsessed editor explain how all his busy-work helps the viewing public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That's utterly besides the point of the thread. If I were you I wouldn't draw too much attention to the subject of editors doing things which aren't useful to the encyclopedia while dropping in yet again to add chatter to a random ANI thread, Bugs. FWIW I strongly support a censure here, based on Kwami continuing to move pages after agreeing not to yesterday on the rather flimsy subtext that nobody would presumably mind if the moves in question could be described as copyedits. As others have said, a non-admin who acted like this would have a less than spotless block log by now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I understand that the primary complaint is about moves without discussion, and it's certainly a legitimate complaint, but it's only a symptom of the real problem. Editors wasting countless hours on the names of things, which is the real problem, is a direct quote from a trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If you want to fix the real problem, lobby for removal of move rights from regular editors like moi, and leave that up to the admins. That would require discussion before moves occur. It would also take away the ability of characters like Grawp to rename articles to something stupid, thus saving even more wasted time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Large repetitive actions without prior consensus are disruptive and improper per WP:MEATBOT regardless of whether actual automation is involved. Kwami, please discuss operations like this on the relevant talkpages and wait for discussion to conclude BEFORE starting the operations. Also, the hyphen-vs-endash thing is complicated ad I urge the discussion participants to reach a firm consensus on it before going ahead with any renames, so as to avoid yet another mass-move operation sometime in the future if the first one wasn't decided carefully enough. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Baseball Bugs: certainly not an en dash. It's either hyphen or space between the compounded words. Tony (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Biophily does WP:POINT editing to "test" me (reported by User:OpenFuture)

• Biophily (talk · contribs · block log)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs · block log)

I'm at a loss about how to handle this, so I'm going here directly. Full story:

The Jacque Fresco article previously contained pretty much only information on The Venus Project. I moved that information over, and what was left was only a unreferenced stub, so I instead redirected it to The Venus Project. Some people took issue with this, including Biophily. However, he was already then working on a new version of the article, which he recently put up. There has been some discussion on what to include there, my main problem is that many of the claims made are sourced indirectly to Jacque Fresco himself, via interviews in papers and in one case some YouTube videos. I've tried to discuss this to build consensus, but I didn't really think we were getting much forward in the discussion, and was planning to take that another level soon, via a Third Opinion as the number of people involved is pretty much me an Biophily.

Yesterday I reverted an addition as the source of the claim was clearly not reliable. A motivational speaker was used as a source about Jaque Fresco's economic ideas. This prompted the following reaction from Biophily: [15] The relevant parts are these:

"When you delete praise which you claim is illegitimate, yet you don't delete clear and obvious libel which I intentionally included to test you, suggests you may have a bias. Beware of the experiment."

That's editing to make a point. It's also a sort if baiting I guess. He is intentionally including information he thinks shouldn't be there, to try to somehow trip me up and prove and point. That seems like a very strange way to behave. How much of this article is now some sort of bait? This one was extremely subtle as he thinks he made a negative claim, while I thought it was positive. Does he do this with other editors? It's going to be very hard to Assume Good Faith with an editor that readily admits that he doesn't do things in good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may defend myself, I didn't include the information thinking it shouldn't be there. I included it *uncertain* of whether it should be there. I expected editor consensus to determine if it should be there. Despite pointing that out, no one responded to me. The statement I made (you quoted above), I would restate as, "When you delete praise which you claim is contentious, yet you don't delete equally contentious criticism, it suggests you are not fulfilling your duties as an editor, to either change it or discuss it." This is the actual fact of the matter. I didn't create the article with a plan to bait you, it was merely an exagerated whimsical after thought used to make a point in the Elaine Smitha discussion to suggest that you were not being balanced in your editorial conduct. Though I realize the difficulty in redeeming my previous statement that you quoted. It does look bad. But I was BSing. At this time I have not moved on to edit other articles until I am finished with this one. This is the first article to which I have given major contribution. Therefore its impossible for me to have tried to "bait" other editors as you have suggested. I recommend the administrator look at my history of edits to verify this.

Regarding good faith, I did enter with good faith from the very beginning, however I noticed a pattern in your responses to other editors (now archived) that made me wonder about your own good faith towards others. You were very sarcastic and discouraging in some cases, believing that a new Fresco article could not be made.--Biophily (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unsure if much of it should be there. And I have responded to these things. I've also already said that I don't think that Fresco himself is a good source for the claim that he converted a group of KKK people. It does seem to me to be an acceptable source for the statement that he was involved with the KKK, as that is not a self-serving claim. Your attempt to pin some sort of bias on me therefore rests on entirely fictional grounds.

Indeed, I didn't believe that there would be grounds for a new article, and I was wrong. I didn't think you could do it, because you repeatedly claimed that sources for notability could be found, but yet you refused to produce one such source. As a result I thought you didn't have any. Sarcastic, no. Did I say "So, do it then" a lot, yes I did.

Before you claimed to try to test me. You now claim that you didn't try to test me? One of the statements is obviously false. You lost my trust, and will have to regain it. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, joining the KKK is not a self-serving claim. However that is only half the claim. To include it would be incomplete and a manipulative attempt to portray Fresco in a libelous light, which I believe is what Sloane may have tried to do when he first introduced the KKK claim.

I realize that I have stupidly jeopardized trust (thanks to my lack of sleep and deterioration of rational judgment), but my initial concern still stands: Why did you delete an opinion of praise, but not delete the KKK claim even though they are both contentious by your judgment? Aren't both unreliably sourced and doesn't the KKK claim defy Wikipedia's policy for libel? From this I suspected bias and tried to pin it on you by claiming to have rigged something to show it. I regret it, but my initial concern still stands as stated above, though I don't know if I have the right to ask why you do and don't do something. But I have the right to wonder.--Biophily (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have answered this on the talk page now. From my viewpoint this issue has now been handled as best as it could, and the issue is now closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured article link on main page reads "Fanny scratching"

Resolved: read this: April Fools' Day — Scientizzle 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... but links to article on Cock Lane Ghost -- the ghost in question's given name apparently was "Fanny" and she was known as 'Scratching Fanny' but I'm thinking some enterprising vandal inverted the order from "Scratching Fanny" -- it makes it sound like a practice rather than a person. I mention this here b/c it's the main page and is protected -- apologies if this isn't the correct venue. Thanks. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And if that *is* in fact correct then I recognize it's a content issue and doesn't belong here. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*wandering through the page* Buttscratcher! Get yer buttscratcher! *wanders off* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's intentional - it's April Fools Day, remember, and Malleus and Raul654 composed the summary, complete with Fanny Scratching. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of precisely why we need to end this annual "April Fool's Day" b/s. It consumes more bandwidth than it's worth and most of it isn't even funny. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea from that April 1 pranks were supposed to be funny? Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Malleus Fatuorum made the most significant start to the blurb. Raul and Malleus hammered the rest out between them. I think the blurb's most preposterous wording was the best. I love April 1 tomfoolery and heartily endorse it. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In American vernacular fanny refers to the buttocks but in the British it refers to the female genitalia. So basically you have an April Fools joke about female masturbation to your British audience. For an international resource that is just classy. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who's name indicates xe is urinating on the curry monster.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cock Lane...*pfffft*... HalfShadow 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that was intentional (...Cock Lane) since I've heard that the UK meaning of fanny is now familiar in the US. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume this was especially popular along Gropecunt Lane... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a real legend, I went on a ghost tour in that area and it's an oft told story. And yes there really is a Cock Lane in London, it's near St Paul's Cathedral --Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I screwed up a move and made a redirect by mistake

Resolved

 – Favonian (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Index of ancient Egypt-related articles

Please speedy delete it per G6.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat

I am a member of Wikipedia Farsi and English, a few days ago I became target of known vandal in wikipedia farsi after reverting his bad edits and reporting his sockpuppeting accounts. This user attempted to speedy delete topics which I was heavily involved with in Wikipedia Farsi, and then here. which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) usually this should have been defaulted to speedy keep as the user along with his suckpuppets were banned immediately after the AFD. however User:Wuhwuzdat voted delete in what I can only assume was in good faith.

Wuhwuzdat was the only editor with delete comment on the article, following this I wanted to know how i can improve it up to his standards so I left him the following comment in his talk page,

"Hi, Thanks for your vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA), I appreciate your honest comment and will attempt to make it a less of a "steaming, stinking, pile of self referential spam" in near future. I would like to argue that while you may have 0 interest in such topic, Wikipedia is a place for information which might prove useful to public, and sharing a search able network of million of records is in the interest of scholars interested in Persian heritage. so is sharing information regarding free open source software and accounting software being used by a thousands of companies. In the article there has been an attempt to be as specific as possible and stick to the facts and the technical side as much as possible. either way I appreciate your honest opinion and will try to improve it.

Please also remember that while you may not care about who put up the article or why, according to Wikipedia, it is wrong to recognize vandalism, the user in question is a very well known abuser of the system in wikipedia Persian with more than 30 closed accounts and ips. Thanks 2:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

His response was to flush my edit, and say "you are correct, i have little interest in this subject". So i reflected this in the article for deletion as it seemed like he didn't care and the article was a good candidate for a snowball clause. at which time he decided to make things personal by breaking WP:OUTING rules and linking the article to removed edits by the banned user, also by proposing AFD for other topics edited by me such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park, editing my user page, and finally by reporting me to intervention against vandalism falsely, which was removed by administrator.

I did notice that he was very good editor when I approached his talk page with good intentions originally but he has so far harassed me and made it very personal, breaking Wikipedia:HARASS and WP:OUTING rules and abusing the intervention against vandalism system. Could you please intervene as you see fit, and also remove the links and history of the personal outing as put forward by banned user and mentioned in Wuhwuzdat's post? also I would highly argue speedy keep at least for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park based on WP:DENY as it is clearly an important technology park as referenced by United Nations document, and it is clearly a case of personal harassment. Thank you very much  Rmzadeh  ►  20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• People are allowed to remove messages from their Talk page if they wish, and you should not use that fact to turn the AfD personal - the AfD will be decided by consensus, without any need to personalise things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and I don't see any evidence of outing - could you please provide a diff? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no indication that Wuhwuzdat has done anything even remotely close to a breach of WP:OUTING. (The same may not be able to be said for the original nominator of the AfD or a sockpuppet thereof, but that's not the user under discussion here.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course anyone has the right to do with talk page as they please, that is not why I'm reporting this here, I am reporting him for harassment as outlined by him tagging other articles which clearly do not qualify as afd, and as him outing, and reporting me falsely for vandalism. this is clearly harassment

Isn't sharing a link to outing link the same as outing?!! so if a user wants to share personal information without getting cought all he has to is to make a user and share personal info, get banned and then link to that outing with his main account?! that does not make sense! he has clearly shared personal information by sharing a link to someones else's edit which shared personal information.

he has provided a link to a deleted history of outing in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) in an edit today starting with "In light of a deleted contribution by a sockpuppet, alleging COI"  Rmzadeh  ►  20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's not outing - there is no personal information disclosed about you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's borderline, Boing, but I would say there was one tidbit that falls within the spectrum of possible outing. This would be less messy if Rmzadeh had put it a timely request for oversight rather than airing it here. I have revision deleted the edits in question (including one of my own, which came in between the posting of the information in question and its reversion off of the page and am putting in a request for oversight of the material. I will not comment further via talk page about the material in question (though if Wuhwuzdat or a user who feels (s)he was potentially outed by the edit would like to email me about it, I will respond). —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. it looked to me more like an unconfirmed question to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and where did he report you for vandalism? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

here [16], I had a rollback shortcut in my user page as I was under the impression I could rollback! his edited my user page, and following that reported me to be inspected for vandalism. the edit was removed by admin as it was clearly not a case.

honestly you can't see any harassment in what he is doing? am I to believe him nominating a 2nd article edited by me for afd when it clearly does not fit the category and him reporting me as a vandal and "not" quite outing me by sharing a link with intention to put up personal information is not wrong at all?

Thank you C.Fred for removing the outing history, I was not sure which board to use, I found here to be a good tool. I will use the other board next time.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes, that was kinda pointy - but it was quickly resolved and I see no need for further action about it here. What I'm seeing here is two people getting a bit too heated with each other - and I have to say it looks like it was you who first turned it personal by taking the spat from his Talk page over to the AfD. You should have just ignored that (because he is entitled to remove your messages from his Talk page if he wishes) and not inflamed it further on the AfD. All I think that is needed now is for you to stick to discussing the actual article on the AfD page, and drop the personal arguments. And the second AfD? I'd suggest just letting it run - if the subject is considered notable, it won't be deleted. Both just cool down a bit, because nothing very bad has happened here - and I don't see any need for any admin action at this point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will drop it here, it is however a little unusual that you are letting the 2nd afd run its course and not closing it due to its personal nature. Thank you both for your assistance in this matter, I will update you if the user makes any more personal attacks and will refrain from any attacks of such nature, as I have so far.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I've undone [17] Wuhwuzdat's {{spa}} tagging of Rmzadeh's comments at AfD. Wuhwuzdat's edit summary was "spa tag an editor who has made this article a major part of his wikipedia editing over the last 4 years" [18] which was followed by a comment with the edit summary "is there a COI?" [19]

  This type of tagging is highly inappropriate and is tantamount to using tags and templates as weapons. Such COI claims are also not appropriate and appear to be nothing more than an attempt by Wuhwuzdat to discredit Rmzadeh. From Rmzadeh's contribution history it is readily apparent he has worked on other articles and has been around awhile. While Rmzadeh might have a vested interest in an article he spent a great deal of time editing, that does not necessarily mean that there is a conflict of interest.

  Given Wuhwuzdat's editing patterns and interactions with others, this AfD nomination and other edits such as [20] and this failure to assume good faith [21] this seems to go far beyond simple incivility and begins to appear as though Wuhwuzdat is persecuting Rmzadeh. At the very least, Wuhwuzdat's contribution history seems to indicate a systemic pattern of bullying others. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the above assertion. Earlier today when I was patrolling new pages I noticed there was several pages where Wuhwuzdat was placing both a CSD and a BLPPROD tag on at least two articles less than 10 minutes after they'd been created, and then tagging them for cleanup. (I can't link to any particular articles since they've all been deleted.) After attempting to explain to him that it's likely best practice to only tag for the most pressing issues (i.e., only the CSD) and leave the less pressing ones for later if they're necessary, he simply deleted my comment on his talk page with a somewhat noncommittal edit summary. Perhaps it's not entirely relevant to the discussion at hand but it speaks to his character. elektrikSHOOS 02:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I also agree with the removal of the {{spa}} tag - there is no reason to suspect Rmzadeh's contributions as being anything other than good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wider Implications

• Please notice that with my outing history removed, and with both articles on afd in no clear danger of deletion, I consider the personal case between me and Wuhwuzdat resolved, as the user has been online, he has been informed of the proceedings, and there has been no further personal issues. The only reason I approached Wuhwuzdat talk page in the first place was due to the fact that after seeing his user page with the mass of self awards (which i did not know existed btw), I was under the impression that he was a very respectable editor of Wikipedia whose rather sharp and toned opinions must be valued and discussed, at the time which I approached his talk page there was no danger of removal of the topic in question either way.

• However also please note that in the past few days I have reviewed Wuhwuzdat's contributions in detail and in the spirit of keeping Wikipedia a great place for all parties interested in sharing knowledge, I would like to share my findings and plead for appropriate assistance to new users and articles plagued by his general overzealous behaviour, filtering, and arguably rude tone.
• Wuhwuzdat 's long editing history is almost entirely made up of patrolling and tagging pages for deletion, while I admire him for his countless hours spent patrolling Wikipedia, an act which is both encouraged, and appreciated, I find his actions to be of bullying nature and against the spirit of creating a growing community interested in sharing useful information. His behaviour as previously discussed in the following archived AN/I cases Amy Fisher reported by Wuhwuzdat (Result: 12h to reporter), User:NE2 reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: Both parties warned), Wuhwuzdat on a CSD spree, User: Wuhwuzdat, and User:Wuhwuzdat could be seen in many of recent edits, not using myself as an example, i invite you to look at an example of his uncalled aggressive approach in dealing with articles such as [22] in which he tags csd, and BLPPROD for an arguably notable article within the same moment of its creation, or the following case in which he has requested csd for user sandbox draft of the article before its formal creation[23]. Imagine the shock of the victims of such action, the dissatisfying feeling that it creates for the new user whose article which they just spent hours writing will have no chance of standing against the force of a seemingly qualified agent of Wikipedia who has in practice told them in different and repeating formats that they have no chance of being useful in here, that we are not going to look at the article in detail, we are not going to help them make it viable, we are not going to give them the chance to do so either, we are just going to delete it because they are a new user creating a page.

• Is this really the attitude that Wikipedia likes to approach new users with? Do you think they stand a chance against this type of bullish response while not familiar with Wikipedia? Is it unreasonable to think that this will result in either user leaving Wikipedia or trying to get in touch with the editor, at which case as examples in his talk page and records [24] show, often such users get frustrated from his lack of appropriate response, end up using inflammatory language in response to him or even consider creation of more accounts to voice their opinions, at which time he reports them to be banned. While I Conquer that such behaviour is never acceptable, I would argue that new users are really being put in a corner by such aggressive contributions. I have been around long enough that I know the right venues for voicing my opinions against what I consider bad behaviours by editors such as Wuhwuzdat, you have to consider the fact that Wikipedia is a hard place to become familiar with and many will not know of such venues when they are just starting in here. I beg of you to ask this user to relax his treatment of new articles and users so they too may have a chance of creating useful information in their topics of interest within the confines of this great encyclopaedia.

• I have also found out that Wuhwuzdat's area of interest lies in articles related to railroad transportation, I read these articles and I greatly appreciate his contributions to these articles however I must voice my concern that being an editor who knows the rules very well and deletes topics frequently based of lack of sources and similar issues, much of his own contributions lacks both notability and credible sources as seen in GMD GF6C,Railpower RP14BD, Railpower RP20BD, articles with no references, and his other contributions with geocities as primary source on reference. Even more harmful is the issue with his uploaded images [25] such as this image [26], which in my honest opinion, suffer major copyright issue as they have been taken from Western History Department of the Denver Public Library and published with fair use tag and the claim that the "The department actively encourages fair use of its images for educational purposes" the link provided to the copyright information does not work however upon researching the centres website I found out that based on their updated copyright page here [27], they have clearly stated that "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees." not only there is not a clause allowing educational use, there is also a clause specifically prohibiting these purchasable images from being reproduced for any reason without specific consent. I have not tagged or acted on any of these pages as I am not experienced enough to want to edit his pages and I do not wish to flair the fire any more then absolutely necessary, but I do expect an editor to hold himself to at least the same standards and he does a new user with no knowledge of the rules.

• In closing, let me make this clear that I still believe Wuhwuzdat to be a very accomplished editor and I do not wish to belittle his value in anyway for he has done much for this community, the purpose of this article is not to go after personal vengeance or punitive measures, infect I am very well aware that being a newer editor with fewer friends, I am risking my own standing in this community by going after such veteran editor, and probably should expect some throw backs very soon, but it is just this editors honest opinion that attention of the powers that be must be brought, to what in his mind, equates to an example of an editor with unjust attitude towards new users. I shiver of the day that Wuhwuzdat becomes an administrator before changing his attitude and tone of comments. I'm afraid to do so again, so I ask you, please talk to him and take appropriate action to save new articles and users. Respectfully yours  Rmzadeh  ►  21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  If you want to seek community opinion on an editor's long-term editing patterns, the best place is probably WP:RFC/U - this ANI forum is for requesting specific admin action in response to specific incidents, and I don't think any admin action is needed at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat was launched last year and it led to no result, with the user User:Amanda.nelson12 leaving due to harsh treatment and inability to get any remedies and Wuhwuzdat taking a break and becoming "semi-retired". Quoting from the RFC/U, it "was summarily and impolitely dismissed by Wuhwuzdat,[28] since he believes that only administrators should be able to question his actions.[29]". A previous Wikiquette Alert was also filled and closed as stuck: [30], concluding that "attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has".

I really think the only people capable of talking to this user are Wikipedia Administrators, there are a dozen cases everywhere regarding him and non have so far led to any change in his behaviour. Hence I think this requires an administrator intervention, be it an admin seriously discussing his behaviour, warning him of such behaviour, or applying stopping measures. If history has anything to teach us, is that users trying to talk to him have not been able accomplish anything.  Rmzadeh  ►  00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think ANI is the forum for it, as by its nature ANI is for dealing with individual incidents. Admins don't have any more say than the rest of the community, they just have access to tools with which to enforce the community's policies and decisions, so I think this would really need to go via the various steps in the dispute resolution process if you wish to pursue it. (I'll leave my thoughts at that - others may disagree with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've noticed that User:Wuhwuzdat often makes poor nominations at AFD. For example, on observing this thread, I checked his contributions and his most recent nomination was Linda Lusardi. She was quite a famous pin-up and so I instantly recognised her name. There are lots of sources out there which confirm this and so it seems clear that no due diligence has been done. In other words, when the nomination asserts that this topic is "not notable", this is a blatant falsehood. This pattern of negligent editing is disruptive and so action here seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like he's been on a spree of nominating lots of articles about models for deletion today, with a cursory "non notable former model" reason - despite a number of them still currently being models, and some having made TV appearances, and there being GNews hits. No apparent WP:BEFORE done on any of these. I agree there's a problem here - just not sure this is the best venue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

From my experience in dealing with similar issues with this individual (indef blocked after years of problems), and these two individuals [31] [32] (both accounts abandoned after they were sanctioned) I became painfully aware that we do not have a system in place here on Wikipedia to deal with such individuals. Bullying here on Wikipedia is an extremely widespread problem, but one which has been largely ignored and I'm not really sure how we can fix it.

I also noted "busy-body" tagging and disruption [33] as one of four types of tagging behaviour at WP:VPP in this discussion. It is extremely easy to make massive number of edits using automated or semi-automated tools, so a high edit count is never indicative of how productive an editor someone is. Take for example the User:Mhiji sockpuppet that racked up 28,077 edits in 4 months (October 16, 2010 - January, 16 2011) using automated scripts. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm going to get killed for this...

I'm not totally anti April Fools Day, but can we at least stop nominating the main AFD page for deletion? We are on a recruitment drive, we really need new editors, and the last thing we need to do is confuse new editors. Can we maybe limit it to less visible pages? Kansan (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I AfD'ed the AfD page for AfD. But then someone AfD'ed that. Seriously, though, I suspect the new editors can figure out from the "this page is humorous" boxes that this is just some harmless April 1 fun. As long as the articles are kept strictly off-limits for the funnin', I'm not too worried about the project pages containing some temporary levity. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You can have the AFD ... but you don't need a confusing notice at the top of WP:AFD to do it. Just transclude it in the daily AFD list or put a notification on the talk page or something. When you put a banner like that at the top of a major process page, you confuse users. --B (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think B's compromise seems very sensible. I'm not trying to cause problems here at all; I'm just remembering how confused I was when I was new to Wikipedia and trying to navigate through the site, figuring it out it works. I probably would have seen that and assumed there was a serious community proposal to shutter the AFD process. Kansan (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So... Fanny Scratching doesn't confuse new editors? And since I haven't seen a case yet where someone was actually "confused" by the AFD... I find it ridiculous to think that a new editor would be driven away from the project from a simple tag at the top of a page. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between providing a silly but accurate hook to an article and putting up a statement that is false. Yes, nobody has said they were confused by the AFD, but the type of person who would be confused is a brand new potential editor who would either not know where to bring their concerns or who might just assume it is for real. You may say it is "ridiculous", but I tried to get a friend of mine to edit, and she told me she was too intimidated by the way the site works. While much of our current system is inevitably going to be complicated, in general, the less confusing the better. Kansan (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think you are confusing a relatively harmless (but dumb) prank on a process page which new users rarely see with general UI complexity. I'm also a bit confused about the "we are on a recruitment drive" statement. We always want new editors. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm referring to the new outreach campaigns being initiated by the Foundation in response to declining editor numbers, as well as their attempts to determine what keeps potential editors from staying around. Kansan (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• It's one day a year. I hear CostCo is doing a special on senses of humour. tfeilS (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That assumes that AFD-ing the same pages every year is funny. Surely there's someway to freshen April 1st up? Slapping AFD tags on high profile articles and making odd RFA nominations is kinda old and not all that funny. RxS (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, someone did delete AfD.Thread about it from WikiEN-l. Anyone else remember it? -- llywrch (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I remember, that was funny.....think it got Uncle G in some hot water. RxS (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Me too. But I think you'll find that it was Ed Poor (AKA Uncle Ed), not Uncle G, who got in hot water. Graham87 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember the day. Votes for Deletion was deleted, and replaced with the very-near-identical Articles for Deletion, following much Wikidrama. The Land (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RM closure requested

Resolved

 – Discussion closed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states has gone stale. A heavily involved editor attempted to close debate, but I undid this, as it was a violation of WP:RM/CI. However, I do believe that this discussion has run its course. As such, I kindly request that an admin put this debate properly to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And while I am here, I would also like to request that an admin merge the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys, as these histories have become rather messed up as a result of overzealous cut-and-paste moves. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And while you are doing this I also request undoing a salted controversial move of Template:Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar, and warn Martintg not to do this again. I believe that he was already warned not to salt controversial moves and deserve a harsher sanction, but I am too busy to search through history of his talk page. (Igny (talk))

I thought it was a requirement to categorise redirects per WP:RCAT. If I misread that guideline then please explain the guideline to me in plain english so I don't err again. Also please clean up this categorisation [34] too if neccesary. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread has been sitting here for a week now, but it is still somehow languishing in obscurity. I would like to reiterate the requests I made above. The contentious move discussion at Talk: Occupation of the Baltic states has long since fizzled out into no-consensus land. It would be very much appreciated if this were to be resolved with all due haste. It is just taking up space at this point.

Also, the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys have become rather seriously screwed up as a result of disruptive cut-and-paste moves by User:Iaaasi, who is being considered for a community ban below. There is currently a move discussion (proposed by the same user) going on which would risk destroying much of the editing history if it were to be closed without careful examination of page histories. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've closed the RM. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Messy MOS proposal subpage

Could someone sort please out this mess? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What mess? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/clergy is a subpage in the Wikipedia namespace, but it contains a discussion. That discussion had been copied to the associated talkpage, but never removed from WP space. It's sat there for years and is even linked to from more mainstream guidelines. There's a circular redirect with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy). Both are orphans, linked only from talkspaces. Yech! In any case, they're superceded by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles).LeadSongDog come howl! 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Danielclements

The account Danielclements (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) has an obvious singular purpose of promoting the website www.pendulumofmayfair.co.uk. See brief contribution history, previous warnings,[35] and User_talk:Jeffro77#Nebuchenezzar_Edited_link. The editor has previously made reference to "a clock we have in our collection",[36] indicating that the editor is directly affiliated with the promoted website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (The editor also e-mailed me using Wikipedia's e-mail function, with the same [benign] text as at my Talk page. I have not replied. The editor's e-mail address is the e-mail address on the website promoted by the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Some of the pages at the site to which other Wikipedia articles have previously been linked by the editor have been modified to say the particular page is 'for Wikipedia research only', though the purpose still seems to be to direct traffic to the site. It is my understanding that if the site is notable as an information resource about grandfather clocks then independent editors would be linking to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

After your hurtful comments, I do wonder why I bother. Again I promise you I have never tried to use this site for commercial purposes, even though i know many other dealers do. We provide many hours helping people that have never even met us, valuing and providing info free of charge on their clocks. Like I have said previously my father was editor of the Millers Antiques Price Guide up until 1984. I have been on national tv about clocks. By the way I blanked the page because again someone misunderstood the reason for a link. They see a commercial site yes but do not realize, not everything is based on selling. We do as I have said provide f.o.c. help for people. The link you deleted just ask within the section if they think it would have been useful within that section. I can guarantee they would have had a different view to you. Nevermind. From this time forth, I am not going to bother waste my time trying to provide useful information for this site. It is your loss, I do not need such ridiculous incorrect and hurtful comments as to you and the other editor once provided

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hurtful? There's a policy, and you're not following it. All of your edits to articles have been in relation to adding an external link to your own commercial website. If you were merely concerned about providing information, you would add article content with a reliable source. That's all there is to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Achmednut321

• Achmednut321 (talk · contribs)

The editor continues to try and add unsourced information to the Mad episode list. I have asked the editor to stop, but they continue. Even going as far to removed a reliable source and replacing it with an unreliable one. The editor has been reported on this once before. Sarujo (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BruceFisher at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

There is zero possibility that an administrator, including the fabled "uninvolved" one whose status lasts exactly as long as they make no comment, is going to act upon this matter. Take it back to the various dispute resolution boards, or on the article talkpage, or whatever... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am concerned about the conduct at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher on the part of BruceFisher (talk · contribs), who has just started a new thread (see base of this diff) with the sole aim of calling for another user to cease editing the talk page's associated article. Without substantiation, he claims that the user in question has "compromised himself by posting on an advocacy site" and has "clearly shown bias", finally ordering that he "recuse himself from editing". This development is merely the latest incident in a catalogue of uncivil behaviour from BruceFisher, who has issued similar demands in earlier edits within the last week and has made attacks on other editors, again without foundation. His most recent actions strike me more for their complete disregard for the purpose of talk pages – namely, that such pages are intended for discussion about the topic of an article as opposed to a user's (alleged, if not improbable) misconduct. In the spirit of discussing content, not contributors, I initially considered blanking the entire section of the talk page as a long, baseless personal attack. However, since I am an involved editor at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and talk page, I have decided to seek a second opinion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I feel that this tirade cannot stand, and that a warning on the subject of this kind of behaviour is now firmly warranted. Regards, SuperMarioMan 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I am concerned with SuperMarioMan's conduct. He seems to be more concerned with policing Wikipedia than he does about helping to create accurate content. He recently went to Candace Dempsey's talk page simply to point out minor infractions. He wasn't there to talk to Candace. In fact the only comment he made to her was in reference to her infractions on her talk page. It is clear that he went there simply looking to see if he could find anything to complain about. I am new to Wikipedia and I understand there are guidelines. I apologize if I have broken any rules. SuperMarioMan has made it very clear that he is not happy with all of the activity on the Meredith Kercher article. It appears to me that he may be using Wikipedia's guidelines as a way to threaten people to be quiet. The Meredith Kercher article has been poorly handled for a long time now. So much in fact that Jimbo Wales felt the need to get involved. I understand that SuperMarioMan may be upset with me because it was my blog that brought the issues of the article to Mr. Wales attention but I don't feel that it is appropriate for SuperMarioMan to devote his efforts to picking apart every word that myself or others that may not agree with him have to say. I would think in the spirit of Wikipedia, the energy should be directed at creating accurate content. BruceFisher (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Not being familiar with all these blog sites, I thank Wikid for the clarification and context. Nevertheless, I don't see how initiating a new talk page thread simply to demand that someone stop editing a particular topic falls within the boundaries of good user conduct - that is at the heart of my original post. Bruce, I would respectfully like to point out that as 85% of the 4000 edits that I have made to Wikipedia since 2006 have been devoted to the article mainspace, your allegation that I serve only to "police" the site seems curious at best, especially given that I have never held administrator status. I also fail to see how CandaceDempsey comes into this particular dispute. SuperMarioMan 08:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I would like to add that I think Bruce is confusing a conduct dispute with a content dispute. For one thing, I'm not aware of actually having expressed any personal opinions on the topic of the article. Hence, I reject the insinuation that I am somehow waging war on particular editors on ideological grounds (e.g. by "using Wikipedia's guidelines as a way to threaten people to be quiet"). What I will not allow to go unchallenged is a section of a talk page created specifically to attack another user. SuperMarioMan 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Mario, can I ask why you haven't taken action against Hipocrite for this post, which was designed specifically to attack another user (a user who had not been engaged in a long history of personal attacks as FormerIP had? [37]LedRush (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC) First of all, I should state that I was not originally aware of that particular post from Hipocrite. However, much of it is devoted to discussing general editing at the topic, and in contrast with this scenario, I fail to see Hipocrite demanding that another user refrain from editing the article. That same day bore witness to incivility that was, in my mind, of an even greater degree, exemplified in this offering here. SuperMarioMan 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I feel like we are looking at different diffs. Bruce very politely asked that another user which appears to be an advocate (and one who has been quite disruptive in the past) recuse himself from editing the article. Bruce has already outed himself as an advocate and refrained from editing the article. Hipocrite, on the other hand, doesn't point to problematic edits, he instead engages in personal attacks on a specific editor, as an example of why his insults to a general group of editors is destroying the article. It is far worse than Bruce's.LedRush (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite has contributed to discussions on source reliability, as can be seen here. Is there a personal attack in this particular diff, or is Hipocrite instead pointing out a "problematic edit"? Also, how is the edit in that particular diff an example of Hipocrite being "far worse" in his behaviour than Bruce, who took it upon himself to air his concerns about another user on an article talk page instead of using a more appropriate venue? That doesn't sound like "very polite" conduct to me. SuperMarioMan 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) The user FormerIP (talk · contribs · block log) (as user with the most edits to article "Murder of Meredith Kercher") has posted to the advocacy site Truejustice.org with what appears to be a self-identified personal-attack rant against User:Jimbo Wales and the talk-page "Monkeys" and this is just scary. The post to blog Truejustice.org is near the bottom of their webpage: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/evolution_of_the_wikipedia_article_on_the_murder_of_meredith_kercher/ A self-identified claim for that post was put under a closed-discussion topic @User_talk:Jimbo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=421757391&oldid=421754931 - by FormerIP 02:37, 1 April 2011 The initial message on the blog-page, by a "Gwaendar" username, basically claims Jimbo Wales cannot hope to influence any improvements to the MoMK article, by claiming dire concerns about "prospects for Jimmy Wales if he can indeed have any effect on the editing process - set up so that even he essentially can’t." All of this is just disruptive to the mood of working on the article. So, when User:FormerIP (the editor who has deleted more article text than any other), joins into the negativity, then proudly claims that blog post in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, the result is unsettling. He has already systematically deleted hundreds of phrases from the article, and now, in a confrontation with the "founder" what will this user do next. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) What exactly is disruptive from side of FormerIP besides your "flowery" views of what actually happened?TMCk (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) You act as if Jimbo's opinion should have greater weight than the rest of us, when it is Jimbo himself that continually states that he should be treated just as a normal editor. Personally, I agree with Gwaendar and that blog post, but that is neither here or there. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to be made to the article in question, not for discussing user conduct even if it is in relation to the article in question. Thus, I have removed the section on the talk page. If Bruce wishes to discuss actions by FormerIP, then he should go through the proper channels of doing so, such as the very place we are at right now. SilverserenC 08:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well, I was thinking that refering to the article's talk-page as "Monkeys Go Crazy" and saying that normal editor User:Jimbo_Wales has hamfisted his way into the article might reveal a, perhaps, slight intense hostility, but whatever. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) That's true, but my comment wasn't about FormerIP, it was about the subject line on the talk page. Bruce may very well be justified, but he should be reporting it through the proper channels. SilverserenC 09:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well that's not what he said (he quoted someone else) and he didn't say it on wiki and if Jimbo takes offense by the off-wiki "hamfisting" remark he is absolutely capable to defend himself. Still, you seem to see no problem with Bruce's talkpage behavior or do you?TMCk (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Just for completing the record, let's also point out that SPA BruceFisher (talk · contribs) runs his own outside advocacy blog, Injustice in Perugia, and that the totality of his actions here are limited to WP:ABF, attacks, insinuation and innuendo against other editors, loud calls for recusal, and attempting to get their own book added into the article. MLauba (Talk) 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Nice to see you again, MLauba. This article should probably be noted also. SuperMarioMan 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well, perhaps one person's view as "insinuation and innuendo against other editors" could be considered another's defense against insults to User:CandaceDempsey and User:Jimbo_Wales, both of whom have shown remarkable restraint in expecting insults to stop, although the current prospects seem grim AFAICT. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC) However, starting a new section on the talk page simply to order another user off the article seems more than just a little heavy-handed as a "defense against (perceived) insults", does it not? SuperMarioMan 10:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It seems like you're looking for excuses for Bruce's behavior though.TMCk (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It's a "foot in mouth" comment (by FormerIP), certainly, but looks fine to me... Bringing it up on the talk page like that is a big no-no. Does BruceFisher have a constructive history at the page? (i.e. in terms of discussing content). If not is an appropriate sanction some form of topic ban? It might resolve some issues if he was restricted from the Kercher topic for a bit (say, 3 months?) --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I'm happy to apologise for any offence caused by "Monkeys Go Crazy". It was not meant to be aimed at anyone in particular, but as a comment on the state of things. I think editors on that talkpage in general, not necessarily excluding editors of any rank or faction (or myself), could benefit from reflecting on their conduct. However, I can see, given the climate, how editors who saw that comment might have taken it differently. --FormerIP (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Okay, FormerIP, I thank you for that apology because posting to a forum-blog website about the article's talk-page was beginning to seem very extreme. I think if you posted some alternate ideas for the article-editing process, writing ideas somewhere inside enwiki, then that would seem less hostile. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC) According to BruceFisher's contributions page, he is an SPA that has pretty much only edited the talk page of said article for his entire Wiki-life of one week. That doesn't bode well in itself. SilverserenC 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I agree with the conclusions of MLauba, who quite rightly states that Bruce's contributions to the project have consisted solely of attacking and barking orders at other Wikipedia editors while pushing to have his own book put in the article. The Murder of Meredith Kercher topic has unfortunately been no stranger to disruptive single-purpose accounts with these kinds of advocacy and agenda issues. SuperMarioMan 10:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I am little surprised by this discussion. The MoMK talk page has been a source of contention for a long time. Generally, though, the site has been dominated by a group of editors who seemed to be protecting a specific POV and who engaged in bullying and Wiki-lawyering to prevent other editors from editing. To me, this looks like another example. Bruce's edit was not very helpful, nor, do I think, it was very off base. User Hipocrite basically did the same thing, [38], except it was merely the beginning of a series of personal attacks and disruptive editing. I really hope we don't fall back into the bad old days when one group of editors which seem to have one view on the article/case gain control over the other through means like this.LedRush (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Also, User FormerIP has engaged in a binge of personal attacks on the site, making his POV very clear. I believe Bruce's statement asking for FormerIP to recuse himself is also based from that fact. This information is not furnished to either excuse any bad action by Bruce (which I don't think was that bad, BTW) nor to instigate any admin action against Hipocrite or FormerIP - this is merely to present some context for people who may be looking at one post in isolationLedRush (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC) The problem is that like many other contentious topic areas, one "side" feels that NPOV is achieved if both are presented side-by-side equally, even when one rests largely on conjecture and accusations of conspiracy. We have a case here of a dead girl and several people convicted in a court of law for the murder. We unfortunately have a very small and very vocal cheering section for one of the convicted criminals, a section who thinks that every perceived discrepancy and alternate theory for what happens should be worked into the article. Equally unfortunately is Jimbo's recent involvement to insist that the concerns of some advocacy blog's "open letter to Wikipedia" be addressed, which has now made him a part of the story. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well, unfortunately, it's the ideas behind this comment which are actually the problem. A small group of editors has decided that despite the incredible amount of controversy surrounding the case, they want to present an article which states only one side of the story. In order to achieve that end, they bully less established editors and engage in endless Wikilawyering (while breaking WP policy in the process).LedRush (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but that is the truth. Fringe conspiracy theories don't get weighted the same as, y'know, facts. Otherwise, the lead of the Barack Obama article would be rife with Muslim/Marxist/Kenya innuendo. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Observation: Not taking sides here, but this is not a fringe theory. If I understand Italian law correctly, Knox is not convicted and continues to be considered innocent during the appellate process. This is very different from American or British law and we are treading in places where presumptions shouldn't be made. Knox & Sollecito are not considered guilty yet under that system although they would be elsewhere. Fringe theory is not applicable here based on your above arguments. She is not fully convicted yet, correct? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Convicted but not fully sounds about right although we still haven't found a good source that really explains the details on how it works.TMCk (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC) This is WP:OR I know, but as I understand it the pair have been found guilty at the trial, but have not been convicted (i.e. no sentence imposed) pending the appeals made by both parties against the verdict. Thus they are not convicted, but neither are they not "not guilty" - the status of innocent is a technicality to ensure they are not sentenced in the meantime... I think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC) How can Bruce's comment reasonably be described as a 'tirade' or 'uncivil'? It is neither. None of Bruce's posts have been uncivil, unlike the many extremely rude posts I have seen from people like FormerIP and Hipocrite.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *COUGH!* HalfShadow 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It must be slander season for this new (?) user[39].TMCk (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I removed it BTW [40].TMCk (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Is it really libel (slander is spoken)? It's just a question. Seeing as many people make claims about what editors who favor a more pro-defendants view (or more NPOV...depending on who you talk to) do in the real world, including the attacks against Bruce above, why is that any different? I don't particularly see it as relevant, but it doesn't seem bad to ask that question. And it seems that there is quite a selective process of going after WP "infractions".LedRush (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well, I hear people talking when I read them so... let's call it defamation. The difference for me lays in "a personal attack can but must not be defamation while defamation is always also a personal attack". Where I draw the line (yes, I do have a thin line that I draw ones in a while) is when one comes from nowhere to a talkpage of an article making wild accusations about an editor's business (and it is the editor's business) outside Wikipedia not only without any proof and links and in the wrong place but also drawing a very unlikely conclusion because of a simple first name. It's like I would ask if Cody if he's the same Cody that's hiding at this real nasty porn-site for perverts and telling him at the same time to recuse himself from editing on a related site. Now would that be appropriate? I don't think so and since this is an example of what that editor basically did the "not appropriate label" fits. BTW, there would've been nothing wrong at all to ask the editor on their talkpage if they are indeed the person in question.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)There is something wrong with this text but I don't get it.TMCk (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I'm new to Wikipedia so I apologise if my comment was made in the wrong place. I don't think my claim was 'wild'.The editor in question has a fairly distinctive username and the odds against a person with that exact name editing almost exclusively the MOMK page on Wikipedia and posting almost exclusively on Amanda knox videos on YouTube seem somewhat high. I'll try to work out how to speak to the editor directly as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I don't understand why you say it is a 'wild accusation' when he provided the exact quote found here - http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/evolution_of_the_wikipedia_article_on_the_murder_of_meredith_kercher/#comments. And unlikely conclusion that the FormerIP talking about the case on the talk page is the same FormerIP in the comment section?, not unlikely at all. I doubt there is another FormerIP anywhere. Bruce Fisher brought the comment up in the wrong place, this is a simple correction of telling him where the correct place to post is. As far as his statement, well it's true. Adding to that how many editors were blocked by admin Black Kite for Meat Puppetry, it does lead to questions on how fair those blocks were when editors are openly posting on guilt sites about the case. Perhaps now is the time to un-block those editors. Issymo (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Issymo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I was talking about CodyJoeBibby.TMCk (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC) FormerIP took full credit for his comments posted on the True Justice site. This information is all available on this page. FormerIP also took time to post a note on Jimbo Wales' talk page that he posted the comments. I did not make a wild accusation. With that information known, it is up to the others here to decide whether or not his comments were appropriate. Keep in mind that FormerIP has recorded the most edits of any editor on the Meredith Kercher page. For the record, FormerIP continues to participate in the conversation at the True Justice site. I am an advocate so therefor I don't edit. FormerIP has shown himself to be an advocate also. BruceFisher (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I frankly do not understand what this is all about. I agree with Issymo above. If the post was made in the wrong place, then let's make that clear and be done with it. Mr. Fisher comments are, after all, verifiable. I second Issymo's suggestion that it is time to unblock-editors who were unfairly blocked. We are now in the process of improving a very flawed article. The true remaining injustice is the sheer number of editors who were blocked. When I read Wikipedia's rules, they seem like common sense. It is dismaying to see the amount of wiki-lawyering that goes on some time.PietroLegno (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Improving a very flawed article? What I see is that the current version...or at least the version of ~1 week ago...was a fair representation of the case and some reflection on the disagreements and arguments of the "Knox is innocent" side. Since then we've seen timelines, floor plan graphics and detailed forensic rebuttals either in the article already or proposed for addition. All of this is pushed by a handful of editors and a seeming legion of redlink-name single purpose accounts. Anyone who has been banned from the article should remain banned, and the list should be added to, quite honestly. The POV-pushing going on around this topic makes the Obama article area look tame. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I concur with Tarc. With all the trouble this article's caused on various noticeboards the last few weeks, I'd be in no hurry to unblock anyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Attempts by some above to present this as an attempt to violate WP:UNDUE by covering both sides equally because one side is WP:FRINGE is exactly why the article has had a huge and still very substantial POV slant. This is not a WP:FRINGE topic in the slightest, as outside experts pretty much are split (with perhaps a greater number favoring the idea that Sollecito and Knox are innocent, at least in recent news coverage). The appeal is not over, and the judge granted the appeal has said the appeal can cover the totality of the original case. There is not a single part that is not currently under active legal dispute, and even if the trial were over this is clearly extremely controverial. Rather, it is the editing by some editors, as well as a couple of admins who aren't hesitating to throw their admin status weight around in making threats to block (and in the past even outright blocks) based solely on POV, that is pushing one side as if it were the only side that is making this article so incredibly unbalanced that it got User:JimboWales' direct attention. Let me just point out that the part in the lead even mentioning that the case is controversial was not allowed there until very recently after several editors tried to remove all mention of it. In fact right now the wording there is WP:WEASELly. On top of that we still do not have content supporting the most notable critics of the case, like Douglas Preston, Steve Moore, outside forensics experts, Candace Dempsey and so forth in all but the briefest of mentions. This is a POV stranglehold in the extreme, and it seems to be enforced by rushed, sloppy and slanted actions taken by WP:INVOLVED admins. Please, can we get admins who are WP:UNINVOLVED to take a look, as some of the comments above are absurdly slanted -- probably not intentionally, but that's why bias is so damaging. DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

63.17.39.245 mentioning the religion of my birth with (seeming?) derision

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I am engaged in a vigorous editing dispute with another editor (that happens to be a wp:SPA) who seems nice enough, generally, but s/he is just now beginning to edge into something akin to a personal attack referencing my ethno-religious identity. (See diff.) I don't think the offense is too far over the line but am concerned that it may escalate to that and wouldn't want this editor to suffer those kind of consequences. Can a kind, passing-by administrator send him a politely worded caution, on my behalf? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have NO IDEA what your religion or ethnicity is. You have deliberately fabricated quotes by manipulating a source. I checked your history and saw that your interests included Glenn beck and Mormonism, both of which are interests that obviously might motivate a deliberate fabrication in an area related to Big Bang theory. I wildly guessed that your motivation was based on some allegiance trumping your ability to NOT FABRICATE SOURCES OR LIE. If you are offended, I suggest in the future you do not discredit your "ethno-religious identity" by fabricating sources.63.17.88.27 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP alleges that I fabricated a source. In fact, I provided a transcript for a statement in a talkpage comment from a YouTube video. I didn't say where the transcript came from however, its ultimate source was apparently a newspaper article. (I got it from a blog essay.) In any case, in my provided transcript for the statement, I changed a comma, which I believed to be in error, to a period, which I believed to be the correct transcription, for meaning and clarity.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment - whatever other articles an editor edits isn't important. It's borderline Ad Hominem. Exceptions are occasional, for example single purpose accounts should be evaluated a bit more carefully. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A poster's transcript of a YouTube video is not a "source" when THE VERY SAME VIDEO is transcribed in AN ACTUAL SOURCE," i.e., a newspaper article -- which, incidentally, was one of only THREE SOURCES ALTOGETHER for the article in question.

Here is what the OP posted, supposedly quoting the source: "The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon? Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth. Made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here."

Here is what the actual source published: "The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon? Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here."

Do you see the ESSENTIAL difference? The discussion concerned the ignorance of earth's chemical composition -- earth is NOT "made mostly of carbon." The misquotation was clearly a deliberate attempt to cover up the ignorance of the claim by suggesting that "we" (people, not earth) are "made mostly of carbon." There was an agenda at work in this deliberate misquotation, and I attempted to identify its source. But how can I be charged with "a personal attack referencing [someone's] ethno-religious identity" when I had NO IDEA what it was? The OP should be more careful in his her fabrications of sources, not more vigilant in his/her indignation about non-existent insults. 63.17.88.27 (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi 63.17.88.27. This forum here is NOT for carrying on the argument from the AFD. This discussion is about your making personal attacks on another editor. I have just been over there to check and I agree that your attacks are unacceptable. You should discuss the topic itself, and the actual content of people's arguments - you should NOT argue by slagging people off personally. If you continue to post personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec x2)The above is a content dispute, which is not what this page is for. The specific comment by the OP is that you stated (not inferred, suggested, theorized) that they were of a particular religious and political background, and then inferred/suggested/promoted that their views were then inherently inferior. That is not how this project works. Dispute of content is fine, provided that the appropriate resolution solutions are used, but comments upon other editors are not. Please do not do it again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks seem to suggest that the user might be a sockpuppet (not necessarily intentional) of User:Negi(afk) who was blocked for making personal attacks on the AfD. I've opened an SPI investigation (see there for links to previous ANI discussion related to personal attacks made on this AfD). —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, Negi(afk)'s block expired this morning and suddenly personal attacks start appearing in the AfD. That's why I opened the SPI investigation: if I'm right about the sockpuppetry, he's not evading his block (since it has expired), but moving from one account to an IP in order to not get speedily blocked for carrying on the same behaviour. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Your theory doesn't hold water since I've been logged in to my account all morning. I'm also not afraid of getting speedily blocked. I'll personally attack you right now, if you want, just to prove my point. Negi(afk) (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD discussion getting out of hand, need an uninvolved admin to hat some nonsense

I've already commented, so I am recusing myself, but could an uninvolved admin please check by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett, perhaps "{{hat}}" the irrelevent side discussions going on, and also perhaps drop a clue on those participating in them. Its getting a bit distracting... --Jayron32 06:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, but the discussion has three more days to run. Let's see what happens. -- llywrch (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

India vs Pakistan cricket match removal from ITN

Usually for the first offence I wouldn't take something to ANI as I don't generally think its productive and people do make mistakes.

However I'm making an exception in this case due to it affecting the front page and being a gross misreading of consensus. Prodego (talk · contribs) removed this item from ITN with the claim that there was no consensus for posting it. It might have been a little borderline when it was initially posted - although in my view (as nominator) and the posting admin clearly thought the support arguments were strong enough. Additionally after the item was posted there were several further support !votes with good rationales. The discussion thread is here. Therefore the claim that there was no consensus is highly dubious.

The discussion of [41]'s talk page has been unproductive so far, except to that it seems that the admin in question was "supervoting" which is unacceptable.

I'd like the item to be reposted and for the admin in question to understand consensus better in future - in this case it wasn't even borderline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" should be renamed to "Community forum". –MuZemike 07:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? This is a case of a poor admin action. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's unhelpful, MZm. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it unhelpful? It WAS poor admin action. Admins aren't gods. They can be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't making that point at me ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I read MZm's comment as being negative (I thought he meant the complaint doesn't belong here and would be better suited to a "community forum"), but it might have been a misreading of it, in which case I apologise to MZm. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A blatant display of WP:IDONTLIKEIT petulance against consensus by an admin, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the admin in question was WP:INVOLVED as they !voted oppose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

FFS the final is over in a few hours. What pointless drama. This whole thing was a mess: ITN gets posted after drive-by supports and 68 failed attempts to draft a simple blurb that passed WP:V. Then essentially a WW on the main page (as much as I agree with the substance of what Prodego did). Sometimes it is helpful to draw a line under things rather than escalate conflict mindlessly. Much like India and Pakistan. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Drive by supports", are you serious? Every single support was well argued and they continued after the story was posted. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus to post - and then it should stay on the front page. We're actually trying really hard to make ITN work, and admins coming in and removing items which have a clear and strong consensus to be posted is driving the progress backwards. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I take offence to those accusations of drive-by support. That's not mature debate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve here? Having the item back up for, what, five hours? Or just drama-mongering? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I want the item to go back up and I want to make it clear that the behaviour from this administrator is unacceptable as they violated a clear consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That is surely the important point here. The admin's action (and accompanying stupid statements and insults to cricketers and fans all over the world) was unacceptable. That must be acted upon. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone has removed something from ITN like this either and its extremely annoying each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with Mkativerata that the path of least resistance here, with the final going on right now is to wait for the conclusion of the final and to post that, assuming there's a suitable update (which is another reason to focus on that). That said, I'd disagree that the India-Pakistan cricket match was posted on the basis of 'drive-by supports'. Still, I suggest we take a pragmatic way forward.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why reverting a poor admin action - even if only for a limited time - would be a path of high resistance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that we shouldn't have two hooks on the cricket world cup at the same time and that the final should, I think, take precedence. Cenarium (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems reasonable - so when the final goes up then this can come down, however the match apparently isn't over, and the update hasn't been made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just a thought - how do those who don't consider this a significant story feel about yet another random baseball player image being used as today's 'featured picture'? What does this tell us about Wikipedia's attempt at world-wide coverage? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The "worldwide notability" isn't the fact that it was a cricket match. I have only a vague idea what cricket is for pete's sake. My rationale for strong support (after it was already removed from ITN) is that the match led to a warming of relations between two nuclear powers who have nukes specifically for use against each other. Also they now want to work together to investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks, likely perpetrated by Pakistani extremists against Indian innocents. When was the last time a sporting event did that?

But, seeing as the final is soon to be posted, I propose a compromise: We include the final and a blurb about the India/Pakistan match causing the warming of relations. For example, "X wins the Cricket World Cup, while a semifinal match between India and Pakistan results in a warming of relations between the two rival nuclear powers and a pledge to jointly investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks." If that isn't worldwide significance, I don't know what is. N419BH 17:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What I get from reading this is that the problem here is not about the cricket match, but about the principle of admins having much more power over ITN than regular voters do. This case is not a lone occurance either as just last week an admin overturned/created a new consensus on the Geraldine Ferraro, stating something along the lines of 'admin X counter argued the opposers therefore it will be posted'-signed admin Y. Passionless -Talk 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do think in that case the consensus wasn't clearly in the direction away from the decision made by the admin and as an opposer I think it was within admin judgment to post Geraldine Ferraro. If there had been 3 post posting opposers and only one supporter in this case I wouldn't have started this thread - even if I thought their arguments were poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment about the lack of decisions made

I have to admit I'm not liking the lack of decision on this item. I'd much rather be told that this case was frivolous and unnecessary than be left in this kind of limbo. Limbo creates drama.

I refuse to believe that no uninvolved administrators haven't seen this section in the getting on for 12 hours since it was originally started. On WP:RUP where I have been fairly heavily involved we usually seem to manage to "solve" protections - even if just to say that it needed to be raised with the admin making the original protection, within 12 hours or so (if not a lot quicker), and usually the issues bought up are long term or indefinite semi-protections, so they don't have the same time pressure that an item like this which is on the main page does. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be making mountains of molehills. I obviously strongly disagree with Prodego's analysis of "no consensus", and, even more so, with his rationale for concluding that. But, as was previously stated, the Cricket World Cup final will be on ITN in no time, replacing the original India v. Pakistan match. This ultimately comes down to an issue with Prodego's conduct specifically and the wider, albeit minor, issue of admins usurping obvious consensus. But the latter is a rare issue, usually overturn by another admin, and the former is... frankly... not worth my time unless he does it again. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Tariqabjotu when you say that this dispute isn't a massive one, to be clear this isn't the reason I've made this subsection. However this dispute is also simple, either this complaint wasn't worth making or the admin in question had made a mistake - in which case its trivial to put right. There is also probably a reasonable middle ground - and maybe this case falls there, but then comments from uninvolved administrators stating that would still be useful feedback for everyone.

We've lost one of the projects best contributors over not catching administration issues early, if you don't catch them early you might let off some people who make an occasional mistake (such as hopefully in this case) - but if like RUP its low drama then that isn't an issue, and then there is also much less chance of the issues spiralling and becoming big - at which point they are almost impossible to solve well.

Most unprotection requests are when it comes down to it trivial, but we seem to be able solve them productively, quickly and in almost all cases appropriately.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anon adding Unsourced Information to Numerous Pages

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

The above linked anon has posted unsourced information to numerous television station pages. Normally in the form of station slogans and station branding. This has been going on for probably a year and is found on all television station pages, none of which is sourced. Could an admin look into it and lock down the range (as it is coming from multiple IPs) if necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the insertions are national network slogans that quite a few stations didn't bother to use on their air at all or just used in time-filling circumstances when they needed to fill a minute. I would prefer to ditch the slogans entirely myself. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this yesterday when I was on Huggle. I decided against reverting them all, although I don't remember seeing sources, because they weren't vandalism (and it was April 1, so there was plenty of vandalism to deal with elsewhere). I would support getting rid of all of those slogans. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified the anon about the thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support the removal of all those slogans and newscast names. They aren't necessary or sourced. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

ooops, forgot about that. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you rename an article and completely change the content?

I hadn't realised that a user without sysop privileges can delete an article, but if you rename an article and completely change the content so that it is in effect a brand new article, you've deleted the old one. See the history of WhosBusiness [42], which was an article about a book (created I think and certainly heavily edited by the book's author) and is now a blatantly promotional article about a new advertising company. I've been in China and am still on Shanghai time and am suffering serious sleep deprivation and my brain has shut down, hence my bringing this here. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the puffery - it is now just a stub. I suspect we'll get some feedback from whoever made the changes that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)AGF here says this looks like a mistake. The same user made changes to the novel article which shows he clearly knew it was a novel; the move looks like he screwed something up. The best course of action would be to split the history and return to two articles; I wouldn't assume he's trying to do anything nefarious; it looks like an honest and innocent fuckup if you ask me. Lets just fix the problem without recriminating the mistaken newb... --Jayron32 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, piecing together the history, I have figured out exactly what happened:

• User:Adam grose creates a userspace draft for the book Cosmogenesis: The Chronicles of Quongo, and when he moves it to the articlespace he leaves the option "leave redirect behind" on. This confuses him, because when he clicks on his username, it now redirects him to the article of the novel.
• Thinking he is working in his userspace, he starts a new draft (which is actually in the articlespace under the name of the novel above) for WhosBusiness. When he moves this to the new title, we have the unfortunate event where both articles share a history, and the previous article he created gets accidentally deleted.

What we need to do is to split the history of the two articles, restore both to seperate titles, and educate him on how to move an article without leaving a redirect behind, so this doesn't happen again. A clear case of Hanlon's law if I have ever seen one... --Jayron32 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone check my footsteps, but I have reorganized everything so its all back where it was. Other than informing the user in question how not to make this mistake again, I think we are back where we need to be... --Jayron32 21:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That was quite a tricky bit of editing the user managed to moved things around like that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought moves without redirects were an admin-only option? 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I saw Jayron's explanation is pretty spot on and all done in the best possible faith. I think he made three move edits and moved his user page to an article that already existed which created some disambiguation issue...he seems a good writer we should show him the Wiki Cup. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no complaints about that... just wanted to make sure we don't tell him "next time, click the 'move without redirect' option" if there's no such option available for him to click. 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see that option if I go to move an article - rather better tell him to ask at the WP:Help Desk if he is unsure, its one thing being WP:bold but that was outrageous - Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I was just too tired to figure out what to do. I'm impressed by the way it's been handled. I didn't think there was any malicious intent by the editor, just lack of understanding. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CANVASS violation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour

Is [43] an improper CANVASS being phrased in substantially non-neutral terms?

Now an anti-union editor wants to AFD Anti-union violence, so they'll only be left with an article that lists attacks by union members, and no article listing attacks on union members.

Please weigh in. And help to improve both articles, while you're at it.

I rather think it is a very non-neutral CANVASS to be sure. Meanwhile, I would like to note I have some strong family ties to unions, making the charge not only non-neutral, but wrong in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

First time in five years of editing that i've been listed here. My apologies, i will review CANVASS guidelines. Richard Myers (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of non-free content policy

I'm being repeatedly reverted while trying to enforce the non-free content policy on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the non-free image File:2001child2.JPG is being used as a top decoration (see the article's history and the file's history).

The fair use rationale's says the image is necessary because one of the article's sections discusses a certain passage in the movie captured by the image. But not only the discussion is obviously not about the "visual aspect" of the passage, but the image is also not even placed on the mentioned section.

I'm reporting here because I can preview the outcome of being reverted again, being myself reported at 3RR, and being blocked for that. I hope someone with a better reputation than mine could interfere to do the policy enforcement. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on the actual merits of the image, but just saying, you probably should not add speedy tags to an image that has either survived a previous deletion discussion or is currently being discussed. If you still want it deleted, you should start a new FfD with an explanation of why the "keep" !voters in the previous one failed to address your concerns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking it to be deleted. I'm just removing it from the article where it's used as a decoration. --Damiens.rf 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, did somebody hack into your account? --RussNelson (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Why do you ask? I miss the point with the link. --Damiens.rf 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not misreading that tag on the image, are you? It clearly says "This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed (..) Unless this concern is addressed (...) the image will be deleted or removed from some uses." Was that your problem? --Damiens.rf 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because 1) the image otherwise conforms to the basic requirements of NFCC (has a rationale, licensed, and used in at least one article, in addition to the use you are contesting), and 2) it is a disagreement over whether the image is really needed or not (eg does it meet NFCC#8), it is not a good idea to edit war on image removal. You should try discussing the image inclusion on the talk page, and, failing that, at Non-free content review to discuss that specific usage. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I observe that you have not engaged editors on the page about this topic. Please try discussing your objection to the image before outright waring to have it removed. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether a fair use image is validly used or not in an article is a content dispute that should be resolved through discussion (WP:DR), not by reverting. People may in good faith disagree about this, and edit-warring about this matter is just as disruptive as edit-warring about any other content issue, such as whether any content is original research or has undue weight.  Sandstein  17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article's editor's will always want to put as much images on "their" article, and nfcc would never be respected. I don't thing enforcing a policy needs to be discussed on talk page, since it's not an editorial decision. I'll try the non-free content review link you posted. Is it really active? --Damiens.rf 17:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps the complaining editor should have discussed the issue on the article's talk page, where other editors were discussing it. Dreadstar ☥ 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't try to create an animosity. You know I've discussed the matter with you. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Considering the nature of the star-child, I doubt very much that someone's attempt to "describe it" is adequate. The visual speaks a thousand words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The "visual" is not discussed in the article. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Why not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Probably because no one found a reliable source that does that. --Damiens.rf 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
            • The image is discussed in the article, check out the lead and the section it's currently in. And if you don't think there are plenty of sources for that most iconic image of the entire movie, then you really haven't looked at the 2001:A Space Odyssey articles at all. Dreadstar ☥ 22:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• WP:Concensus, try it. If several editors are against you in the interpertation of policy, it could be a sign that you're not reading it correctly. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• This has been listed at WP:NFR, and that's the best venue for the discussion. fteSil (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Round two

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Facepalm Damien is again pulling the same stunt at Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear over some text The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

• The issue has now been listed here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:2001child2.JPG. Dreadstar ☥ 22:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (revised 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
  • What the fuck? I was advised here on this thread to bring it up to Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:2001child2.JPG. Stop making a confrontation out of everything. I'm sick of you treating me as a second class editor. --Damiens.rf 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (Thanks for retracting your text, Dreadstar! --Damiens.rf 16:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
    • This language is not helpful, but Dreadstar, that is indeed the place for this debate to happen. Talk pages and even ANI are not for detailed copyright discussions, as I learned recently over the Khaled Said image. No comment on the image itself, or Damiens' behavior, but there's no question that forum shopping doesn't apply to getting to the right place. Ocaasi ^c 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Damiens you were advised to address it on the article's talk page before bringing it ot NFCR, you didn't do that,first second so save the profanity for elsewhere. Dreadstar ☥ 02:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Besides going against WP:CONSENSUS, the point is that the editor has been forum shopping all along. Lucky now that it's in the right forum, eh? And none of this excuses Damiens edit warring. This isn't Damiens' first rodeo. Dreadstar ☥ 02:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim Thomson and issues of age reporting

Resolved

 – WP:forum shopping by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - nothing at all in need of administrative action - Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we get more eyes at Kim Thomson. It is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but needs broader participation. What we have is a truth versus verifiability problem. Sources list Kim Thomson as age 50 in 2010. People feel in their heart she is much younger. "Circa 1960" is being disputed as WP:OR, but OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. The other argument is that the references must have gotten the information from Wikipedia. A third argument for the removal is that birth dates have to be autobiographical, that she has to "out" her own age, or it violates her right to privacy. These issues need more eyes on them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be more of an RfC or Third Opinion matter then requiring admin attention at the moment. ZooPro 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"People feel in their heart she is much younger" isn't calculation, it is guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BLP states that we must not give a date of birth unless it's found in publicly available secondary reliable sources. We don't out people, even celebrities. This woman also does not hold a position where her birthdate could have any legal effect, as it would for a member of the US Senate or the Canadian judiciary. So why are we giving even a range of age until reliable secondary sources chime in? WP:BLP has to come before opinions masquerading as "truth", no matter how dearly held those opinions are. Age is very hard to determine: this editor was carded at the liquor store last night despite being forty-seven years old. --NellieBly (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Islamic POV-pusher

Zubair71 (talk · contribs) has been pushing an Islamic POV into the Qur'an article, taking stuff such as "Muslims regard the Qur’an as the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood," and turning it into "The Qur’an is the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood." He's also been censoring well sourced information (a work cited in the Cambridge companion to the Qur'an) just because it doesn't support his POV. He accuses me of vandalism and POV pushing for undoing his POV pushing. I'm actually trying to work with the only other editor involved so far on making the article neutral. I've had it with Zubair71. He's been blocked for POV pushing before, and clearly doesn't get that this isn't a website to push any worldview. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson has already done five reverts in one article "Quran" during the last 24 hours (in 1 day). It is only he, who has reverted my useful NPOV edits. None of the other editors of this very important article has shown disagreement on my edits. Infact, it is User:Ian.thomson who is just reverting any useful edits to push his personal or Christians' POV. I already has mentioned all details on the discussion page of the article. Zubair71 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Ian.thomson's edits are correct. WP tries not to take a stance on the truth value of particular religious statements. Suggesting that the queeran is proof of anything is a misunderstanding of the WP reliable source guidelines (mainly because the thing is an obvious fabrication, at the level of the Mormon bible). Sources that assert their own reliability are not reliable. Negi(afk) (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We should just ban all religious people from editing this website, ya know what I mean? Negi(afk) (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To Zubair71: "useful NPOV edits"? How is treating Islamic beliefs as universal facts not POV? As for your accusations of me pushing a POV, I have a log showing that I push against Christian POVs, and you have yet to show any examples of me pushing a Christian POV. The other editors have been sitting with their thumbs up their asses, and they haven't been disagreeing with me reverting you. When you reported me for edit warring, the admin didn't block me and said you were becoming a disruptive editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To Negi, I'm religious, I think it's more that any editor who can't allow others to hold to a worldview different from than their own that should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look over the recent changes to that page, and yes, Zubair71, you are trying to push Islam as being correct - changing it to so that Islamic beliefs are presented as fact, and adding extra unsourced comments about how good the Qu'ran is. So to you, stop it, or you'll be on the receiving end of a block for POV-pushing. And to both of you, stop the edit-warring - edit-warring is never acceptable, even if you're right, and 3RR can only be set aside for things vandalism and blatant BLP violations, not for POV-based content disputes. The best thing to do in such cases is revert a couple of times at most, and talk to the other editor - on the article Talk page or their own Talk page. Then if that doesn't work, bring it here. The article is being closely watched now, so we'll stop any further disruption. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And to Negi, suggesting that all religious people be banned is just as wrong as condemning all Muslims because of the actions of Al-Quaeda, or all Christians because of the actions of the crusaders (or Fred Phelps!). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess Negi was kidding. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Err, is "Suggesting that the queeran is proof of anything" a typo? His recent Talk page track record suggests it's not a typo - shouldn't be revdel'd?DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

At least, the proposal to ban religious people looks ridiculously funny to me. No comments on the rest of his contribution. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't warrant a revdel (if it did, now all of these edits to ANI would need to be revdel'd as well). It does, however, sound like this editor is requesting a block for themselves. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's completely different from the rest of this thread. In what way is "queeran" not "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", particularly as it manages to be both gratuitously insulting to muslims and homophobic at the same time (quite a feat!). DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't understand who one can have a NPOV article about religion at all. If you assign the proper weight to all sources, then that would lead to a Wiki-article one any religion having to say that this religion is nonsense. So, at least to some degree, all Wiki-articles on religious subjects violate the NPOV rule. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, no - it is not the aim of Wikipedia to present any judgment at all on whether a religion is true or false. We should present sourced information on the documented histories of religious movements, and present sourced descriptions of what they believe, without trying to deduce whether or not they are correct -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Z71 is now accussing IT of vandalism [44] so could do with a stern word from an admin about civility William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And he has immediately blanked it, but he's had the warning and has effectively acknowledged that he's read it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, actually, I see he had already had a number of warnings and had blanked them - no need for further action at the moment, I don't think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is, I would say, indicative of a significant conflict between this editor's editing outlook and the interests of the 'pedia. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's just a bit of frustration after being labeled an "Islamic POV-pusher" - it's easy for a disagreement like this to become quickly polarized, and we need to make allowances for that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

one edit summary and second edit summary and another third summary what will you say about User:Ian.thomson ? Thanks. Zubair71 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A lapse of politeness from both Ian and Zubair but I still think Ian is correct in the POV issue. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree - that's a regrettable lapse too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Same with the above. In fact any religion, true or false, can call themselves "the true (and only) religion" and call others as fakes. E Wing (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: And I think the edit summary is just from pent-up/accumulated frustration. If I were him, I'll just revert those edits as vandalism. Also, for both POV-accused editors (especially User:Zubair71), please see WP:Religion. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I meant his warnings were bullshit. Religion didn't factor into my actions (boy howdy would my grandfather agree). I already keep a list to show that I suppress Christian POVs, it's POV-pushing that I have a problem with. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter harrassment

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

We're done here, Baseball Bugs is absolutely right, there's nothing to left to be done. Courcelles 06:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I just noticed this edit by Berean Hunter: [45]. I don't believe that kind of edit and summary is appropriate, except as the formal result of a sockpuppet investigation. He is trying to publicize what he thinks is my IP address. He is continuing to announce that I am a sockpuppet even after an "SPI" on the matter was closed. Aren't there some rules about IPs, named accounts, privacy, continuing to make accusations after a matter is closed, and so on?

This is part of ongoing disruptive activiy that has come from his obvious dislike of me. It's a free country, anybody can dislike anyone, but the dislike shouldn't keep showing up where it doesn't belong. He sends things off-track in this ANI [46] Regardless of how important and fasciniating he finds Nolop and me to be, it just doesn't belong in that thread.

He previously followed me to Lara Logan for no other reason than to oppose me. I addressed this particular incident here previously: [47]

Somebody send him a message about harrassment please. Mindbunny (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh no. I placed the whois tag during that last ANI thread where it was stated as a given that you are User:Noloop. I was pointing out that you are a liar in that thread. You are the one that keeps trying to stir something up. You have chosen bad faith when it was already explained to you that I didn't follow you to Lara Logan (Convenient hearing problem again?). The SPI was closed as a matter of administration...in no way should you infer exoneration from that. The one trying to stir the pot is you...for example starting this thread now rather than handle this during the ANI thread. Stop whining. You haven't tried to discuss anything on a talk page but instead head here. A checkuser would reveal your other socks you are using currently.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so, the attitude above clearly indicates an inclination to continue this behavior. The place to "handle" the SPI issue was in the SPI, not every thread on Wikipedia where Berean Hunter and I meet. If I give my 2 cents in an ANI thread on whether an editor of Legume is biased against lima beans, Berean Hunter will jump in and demand I "handle this during the ANI thread." Eventually, it is going to lead to antagonism and escalating behavior. Mindbunny (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be continuing the same behavior...there's nothing wrong with it. Don't try to chastise me silly rabbit. I've been hanging out at this bar a lot longer than you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that edit summary. I can find loads of problems with the rest of Berean Hunters comments here though. I would, if I was an admin, suggest you both tag down and back off. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't looked into the history of this or seen where Mindbunny keeps trying to antagonize me. As was stated some time ago, I have no good faith left for this wikilawyering sockpuppet. Maybe you missed the thread posted above where four admins said they would have no problem blocking Mindbunny. I imagine the count would be higher. I was wikignoming today until this began. Bunny doesn't do any real & positive editing...Bunny is here to disrupt. The real edit-to-crap ratio is high with this one. Try looking at the number of blanked warnings on Mindbunny's talk page...then check mine. Huge difference...especially considering Mindbunny supposedly started in December and seems to have a plethora of problems with other folks. When it occurred to Baseball Bugs that Bunny is a sock, Bunny accused him (along with me) of being disruptive. I noticed his/her most recent edit as an IP was reverted as vandalism. Mindbunny is hoping some sucker will fall for the bait...don't be that sucker. As you've said, there was nothing wrong with my edit summary but here Bunny is...trying to get mileage out of it. Think about it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It was actually another editor (I forget who) that pointed out the apparent connection between Noloop and Mindbunny. Not technically a "sock", in that one stopped editing and the other started later. As I recall, I thought it would be good to block the original account, but no action was taken on that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The way you keep responding here makes it pretty clear that posting here was a better option than posting to your Talk page. You're obviously not going to agree to leave me alone ("I will be continuing the same behavior") or show a basic level of respect ("the real edit-to-crap ratio is high with this one"). So, what had value to me was getting an idea of outside views, and if the community discourages your behavior. If no sensible advice about your attitude is forthcoming, the implication will be that such behavior is condoned--for all. You need to realize that even if you were right about what an awful bad editor I am, being right doesn't justify initiating edit wars that are found to violate BLP principles, as you did on Lara Logan, or disrupting unrelated discussions on ANI. Mindbunny (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@Berean: History is no excuse for derisive and rude comments. I don't care what Mindbunny has done, you are breaking WP:CIVIL. You should stop that, especially if you think it's his intention to antagonize you. If you know he is baiting you why are you taking the bait? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@Mindbunny: I'm not the one who started this thread. You will get respect when you've earned it. You have a history of trashing admins...I see them as people who are often targeted and sympathetic to the oft thankless job that they do. I have never edit warred on Lara Logan and you may not understand this but I'm happy to be "defeated" on that page because it means that a consensus of WP editors was in place rather than a consensus of one (as you have stated that you would control it, "My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously".). I will submit to any consensus there as I will here. I am not above reproach and if the community admonishes me, I will try to take it and learn from it. Ever since I learned of 3RR, years ago, I have never violated it...I challenge you to find a circumstance where I have.

@OpenFuture I don't believe that I am. What do you see that I don't? I don't see incivility in my comments (snarky maybe). You may be assuming that I should use good faith with this one. I defended Bunny on good faith but was subsequently burned. I will let the community tell me if I'm doing something wrong...and I appreciate your efforts. :) I'm surprised you haven't offered me tea. I will abide by the community's wishes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Linking a user to an IP address without there having been a public link made by that user is considered to be "outing". The edit summary is not acceptable. Berean Hunter, please do not repeat this behaviour anywhere in the project. Edit summary suppressed. Risker (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, this user responded on their talk page (Mindbunny's) publicly here. That is is no way a case of outing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So? First, that's the IP's post. Second, that's my Talk page, not the IP's Talk page. Third, what does that have to do with outing? You seem to think that if an IP leaves a comment on a user's Talk page, this proves the IP = the user. That makes no sense. Regardless of whether that really is my IP, your behavior violates policies in a pretty straightforward way:

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.[1] [48] I haven't "self-disclosed" any links to my IP. Please stop harassing me. Mindbunny (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. There is absolutely no personal info anywhere in this. The IP contribs are public documents. I can read fine. Thank you for pasting that here as it makes my point. As far as I know, there has been no personal info posted by any involved account nor have I posted any form of personal info about you.

2. There is no harassment. You started this thread. If I were harassing you, I would be at your talk page or following you around to other articles you edit. The Lara Logan article is one that I came to on my own and has nothing to do with you...further, I haven't edited there in how long? Several weeks?

3. Anyone who has hunted sockpuppets will know how to draw conclusions. I'm not the one who introduced your previous account in association with you in the prior ANI thread. Several editors have reached the same conclusion. An SPI was held where you were accused of being User:Noloop, and then after that, you revealed your IP address. It just so happens that this was the same address used by that very user in a conflict at an earlier date. The odds of that are infinitesimally minute unless you were one in the same. You were under scrutiny at the time you switched up but since then you have violated Clean Start in a manner that does not afford you a veil of protection. You keep getting into the middle of other peoples' messes making trouble as well as making trouble in many of your own messes.

4. I find it humorous that you are stating that isn't you in one breath and in the next you are trying to now use quotes from WP:OUTING. You can't have it both ways. You grasp at anything to try to wikilawyer some position. Sounds like the guilty dog is barking. You're self-implicating.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's straightforward. You believe you know my IP address, and you are posting it publicly. If IP addresses are considered private by Wikipedia, then you are attempting to "out" me. End of story.
• What I object to is not the information. One can care about privacy even if one has nothing to hide. It is that you have this attitude toward me that is harassing. You're injecting it in the Talk pages of IPs and ANIs about unrelated matters, and stating an intention to continue doing so while making derogatory comments about how full of crap I am.
• The rest of your comment is full of distortion: I did not reveal my IP address. The evidence that Nolop used that IP address is minimal; I did not violate "cleanstart"; all of the socking stuff was already investigated and closed. Whether you watchlisted Lara Logan is irrelevant. Your active involvement in Talk and reverting of edits was directed at me and motivated by a desire to oppose me, and you stated so yourself repeatedly. It contributed to locking the article and general edit-warring.

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block."[49] Mindbunny (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary was deleted. Somebody agreed that your behavior met the definition of "outing" (which is harassment). Please adjust your understanding of policy accordingly, and leave me alone. Mindbunny (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You made your IP address visible through your own editing. Don't blame others for something you did yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)(re to Bunny) I'm not buying what you're selling and I'm not here to bicker with you. As you said above, there is interest in hearing others. There is no connection with outing and I believe that was a quick read and good faith mistake by Risker. No one else has reached that conclusion and this board is a sufficient place as a review of actions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not a "good faith mistake", Berean Hunter. The IP address is dynamic, and as such your edit summary could be tarring any number of people with the same brush. Do not post usernames that may or may not at one time be associated with a specific IP address into the history of the IP talk page. Absent an active SPI, this was completely unacceptable. Risker (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As of a week ago, anyway, the IP in question was almost certainly the OP's IP. What his IP is today is anybody's guess. But the OP's gripes about being "outed" are a falsehood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny outed himself. There is no "outing" issue here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Hard-block the IP that the OP posted in his complaint here, for a week or so, and see if Mindbunny is suddenly unable to edit for a week or so. If he's not actually on the IP that he brought to our attention, he should be fine, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just leave Mindbunny alone, personally.. this isn't the means of launching a sockpuppet investigation or whatever. Given the history of the editors, this almost seems combative and as such, relatively pointless. Kansan (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Then box up this section and be done with it. The OP's claim of "outing" is false, and his comments about the SPI are deceptive. So if there is no action to be taken against the OP, then there's nothing further to discuss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 4 April 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.

Vito Palazzolo and Wikipedia's unwitting defamation of a living man

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Text_removed_from_article_on_May_28.2C_2009

Regarding Palazzolo and the biography written about him (see above) by Don Calo (Mafia Expert), I wrote this originally at the Admin Noticeboard but was told to open a new thread here. This case is very complicated and we have been batting it round for a while. I don't wish to be tiresome or slanderous because that is precisely what I am complaining about, viz. Palazzolo. But I do want him to get a fair, transparent hearing, without bias or prejudice, from which he has suffered for nearly 30 years, and which Don Calo perpetuates because he uses newspapers as his source for information.

Regarding what has been written before there is and never was a legal threat to Wikipedia. Let me clarify my purpose, which was to observe that the legal documentation fron the last 30 years gives a precise record of the case for and against Palazzolo. When I mentioned lawyers it was with a view to collecting and collating that mountain of documentaion they have, for an arbitrator to review. Right now Palazzolo is taking the Sunday Independent of South Africa to court. They quote Wikipedia as a source, who use newspapers as their source. So there is a quite obvious loop of misinformation here. Can you see that? For the purposes of validation and verification of information (of which there is a mountain on Palazzolo) I wish to put his side of it, fully documented and proven.

Newspapers often do not substantiate their stories. They publish what they wish and Don Calo uses them in turn, as his sources. Which creates an enormous problem for Palazzolo which rests squarely, by virtue of their size and pervasiveness, on Wikipedia's broad shoulders.

Don Calo and co report allegations and facts that are unfounded and unsubstantiated and most often, amazingly, have been thrown out of court as inadmissable. And if they don't report it directly it is implied, suggested or inferred. They say palazzolo was "allegedly" in the Mafia, or traded in drugs, or supplied arms to the apartheid regime, or framed Pik Botha with pictures of a black prostitute. Which leaves the unknowing reader with the strong impression that he did those things. In this manner Palazzolo has become cannon fodder for the press and Don Calo, using the press almost exclusively, in his "biography" of him, turns the fire into a bonfire.

It is a fact of human dignity that we get a fair hearing which, sadly, at Wikipedia, for complex reasons, Palazzolo is not getting. What to do? We could take the Wikipedia article, point by point, allegation by allegation, inference by inference, and I will answer them, backed with legal documentation, including all the judgements made for and against him! Wikipedia is not the forum for that, obviously, but until it is done there is no way of knowing the truth about him. And it is into this void that the Press and Don Calo leap, casting their aspersions and defaming (effectively) a living man.

Palazzolo has no fear of an argument about his life in the open, but objects to the veiled aspersions and attacks that have been made on him by the press and, unwittingly, by Wikipedia.

How can we deal with this? As for me I am compiling evidence for a biography on him, which is explicitly NOT a hagiography. I will present his case, substantiated by evidence and fact. I wish to do this, to begin with, using the august organ that is Wikipedia. There is nothing unreasonable about my demands for transparency and, frankly, a fair shot for a man who has been suffering the arbitrary injustice of the Italian (and South African) judiciary and hounded by the press.

Thank you and I look forward to your reply with instructions as to what to do and where I can make my case.

Alexander Fircks 41.3.128.156 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 41.3.128.156 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 41.3.128.156 (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be saying you want to use your original research in the article, which is not permissible. Court papers etc would be primary sources, and shouldn't be used. Before you go any further with this I suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant Wikipedia policy: No Original Research, and, since Wikipedia is not the place to correct "the arbitrary injustice of the Italian (and South African) judiciary", you should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Advocacy. You say that Wikipedia is being used as evidence in a court case. I know nothing about the case but it is extraordinarily unlikely that any court would accept a Wikipedia article as evidence. DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It happens. We have a page on it, Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source. The cases where it's noted that the judge acepted the facts presented from wikipedia its because it was a simple definition or uncontroversial history not disputed by the other side. Taemyr (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a divide between the full story of a man, or woman, in distressed circumstances (say, caught in crossfire from the Mafia), and what the Media write. That is all I am saying, and therefore imploring you (Wikipedia) to take heed of it. The Palazzolo case Court documents over 30 years will give you as close a version of the truth as you will find. The tabloid Press will not.

I am not saying that Wikipedia is the place to correct "the arbitrary injustice of the Italian (and South African) judiciary", but it is the place to balance negative pronouncements (by the courts) with positive ones. In other words, write a balanced, neutral BLP that answers all of Wikipedia's own rules.

I have taken my case for Palazzolo to the NPOV - see NPOV for Palazzolo.

Thank you for your consideration

Fircks (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

April Fools' Day article

So I remove a ginormous example farm from April Fools' Day, explaining quite clearly in my edit summary that there's "no rhyme or reason to what is and isn't included". And now, not one but two editors blindly plow through my edits with a click of the undo button — never explaining why they undid me. First of all, I'd like to know — am I right in removing this? It had been tagged as an example farm for 11 months and had only continued to get longer and longer over time. Looking at User:Mikeymike2001's contribs, it seems he's gotten a lot of warnings for blindly reverting others' edits, but has done nothing about it. Mikeymike2001 at the least should be put to a stop. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but add me as another person who has reverted you. That information has been in that article for years, and if you think it should be removed, the first place you should have gone after the first person reverted you, was the talk page, not another revert, per WP:BRD.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion opened. I don't believe in BRD because every time I try to D, no one ever joins me in the D. Even when I beat the D over their heads, they still BLATANTLY refuse to discuss anything with me, ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? Bold - Revert - Re-revert - Touching 3RR - ANI/AIV? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually what that sounds like is that you want Bold-Revert-Discuss why everyone else is wrong.JOJ ^Hutton 21:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The examples certainly overwhelm the article. However, the links to the articles of the most well known examples certainly offer some encyclopedic value. Personally, I would recommend creating List of notable April Fools' Day pranks and moving over the bulk of the referenced (anything not referenced or not related to an actual article should be deleted). Then leave a hatnote with a summary paragraph in the April Fools' Day article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Mikeymike2001 does seem to have a habit of reverting without edit summaries. Another example of this behavior can be found here.--Rockfang (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: What on earth are you doing? You're deleting valid content. Even worse, you've broken 3RR.[50][51][52][53] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes he did. Wow, seems that there may be a 3RR report in order.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Nope -- one edit, 3 reverts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? At one point, obviously, the article didn't contain this content. Therefore, he's reverted back to this prior state 4 times now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a grey area. Clearly a first edit adding content isn't a revert, so if you classify a first edit removing content as a revert then the rules become incongruous for the different types of edits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR is just a line drawn in the sand. He was obviously edit warring, if not officially breaking the 3RR rule.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are probably too many examples, and a spinoff article might be better. But an edit summary of "screw it"[54] is no more useful than the default provided by an undo. And the OP's argument against BRD, on the grounds that he can't get his way, says a lot about the OP here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find TenPoundHammer's explicit refusal to follow WP:BRD troubling. If this is the way this user edits on all of the articles they're working on, I suggest a 1RR restriction. Edit-warring is NOT the way to handle content disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Long outstanding CFDs

(Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long outstanding CFDs Timrollpickering (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC) )

User:HCPUNXKID

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

This user has been edit warring on 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests for some time and has already been blocked once. He has continued his combative editing style and furiously reverts anyone who makes an edit to be neutral as if he owns the article per WP:OWN. Many try to discuss the issue with him but he always chooses to continue edit-warring and making false accusations. TL565 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing that catches my eye is the excessive use of the word vandalism, which seems to be bloody common these days while we even have a policy on the situations where it is appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be long-term edit warring by HPCUNXKID. The edit history at 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests since 29 March shows him re-adding a large block of material seven times. This material is reverted out each time by a variety of other editors. Clearly he does not have consensus for his changes. He was blocked ten days ago for edit warring on the same article. Afterwards he left this comment for the admin who blocked him ('Thanks for the blocking!'). Though his account has existed for two years, he seems unwilling to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that the articles related to the Western Sahara generate large discrepancies. But it is not fair because the user add information, I think that even well-referenced, that disagree with his position being accused of vandalism. For example, the user Yusuf ibn Tashfin made personal attacks on another users here, but was not blocked. Why yes HCPUNXKID block it? However, I do not think the blocking is a solution. But look because some are accused of vandalism and not others, and because some are blocked and others not. I think it makes sense to block the edits on the article 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests to avoid edit war and continue arguing about the same, to reach agreement. To accuse of vandalism and block users, we will not solve anything. Thanks and regards. MauriManya (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that he has already engaged in edit-warring and pretty much claimed ownership of an article. I assume your his buddy, but let me tell you that many many users have tried to discuss with him, but he never listens. Only his POV matters and will revert anyone trying to make a compromise. It has nothing to do with vandalism (which he falsely accuses), it is long term edit-warring and combative attitude. He has also personally attacked me plenty of times. A longer block seems to be the only choice and is better than letting this continue. TL565 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that he is doing, again, the same thing for which he was blocked a few days before. This user is closed to any consensus, he considers his PoV as the truth and accuses of vandalism people who consider his edits as PoV or revert these non-consensual edits.

Imho, an admin, maybe before blocking him, should warn him that this kind of comportment is clearly aggressive and that we can't participate by this way to a collaborative project like WP.

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is simply incredible. This is RETALIATION. How curious that the only two users who had reverted my edits on the article (Omar-Toons & TL565) are the same that had pushed to block me for the discussion on the 2010-2011 Middle East & North Africa revolts. They had never entered or contributed to the article until my blocking. How would you call that?. I would call it vengeance or retaliation, simply. Then, the lies. When they say "anyone who had tried to discuss" anyone means only that 2 users, who are coordinated to delete as much information as possible. There's no discussion with them, simply they delete as much as they can, review the edits. They tried to avoid the information I searched on the 2010-2011 Middle East & North Africa revolts, and finally some good users tried to reach consensus adding a new subsection including NOT MY POV, but a POV by relevant sources. That's the difference, some try to construct, others to destruct. On this concrete article, they accussed me of WP:OWN because the whole majority of the article was wrote by me. OK, but in opposition to them, I had accepted without problems the few info and sources given by Omar-Toons, for example. As they arent capable to bring more information or sources, do I have to delete the info I got to made it "more balanced"??. Come on, thats not neutrality, that's censorship. There are several examples of lack of good faith by Omar-Toons in this article. As can be seen on the history, he had changed in near all the article the term "Sahrawi" (refering for example to "Sahrawi sources in X" or Sahrawi human rights organizations) to "POLISARIO" (POLISARIO sources), when clearly not all the Sahrawi people are member of the POLISARIO. Is that a NPOV??? Of course not, its a political-driven personal POV. He had also practiced Source Gambling, as can be seen on the Smara youth clashes subsection, when the sources talk about "Moroccans" and "Sahrawis", he changed it to "pro-Moroccans" and "pro-Sahrawis". It is not my opinion, but what the sources stated!!. More examples, now double standars, he claimed that Afrol News is not a "neutral" source, but it seems that Jeune Afrique is "neutral" to him. Another example, one of the excuses given to remove relevant sourced material, is that is "not related", of course, not related according to their own POV, without giving reasons to exclude it. Other excuse is that the information is "not relevant", but of course the relevance is decided by them, for example the incidents at the WSF Dakar 2011 between the Sahrawi & Morocan delegations is not relevant, but remarking the political affiliation of a French politician is so relevant to them. I had invite them twice to contribute to improve the article, but that couldnt be done by deleting the information wich we personally dont like. That's not improving, but destroying. As I said, for the actions and attitude of this 2 users and some of their friends (It seems that ultimatelly what counts is how many friends you had in WP instead of having good sources or improve articles), I see that they dont have good faith, as this is simply a continuation of the harassment that began on the 2010-2011 Middle East & North Africa, where curiously I was not allowed by some users to put the Unbalanced tag that I had to admit in this article. More double standars, it seems that some users had more rights than others. As it can be seen comparing versions of the Sahrawi article, the result of their revertions is that they had erased more that 20 sources, making the article poorer. Is that a NPOV?? I will continue to edit the article to add it as much information as I can, and I exhort them again to contribute to the article with sources and information, instead of trying to ruin an article because political POVs or personal differences with other users.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I just want to post a few links to the two precedent threads on admin's board [55][56] and the precedent discussions on WP talk pages [57][58][59] (these talks are related to this issue) to let admins see how it is hard to contribute to a project while HCPUNXKID persists on adding his PoV.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread has been open for 48 hours. No admin besides myself has commented in this thread, and no uninvolved person has supported this editor's rationale. I find HCPUNXKID's defense of his repeated blanket changes at 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests to be completely unconvincing, so I'm blocking him one week for long-term edit warring. If your edits of a contentious article are being constantly reverted by others (six times since 29 March), you need to stop and listen to what the others are saying, and not keep restoring your own material. HCPUNXKID was blocked ten days ago for edit-warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with this block EyeSerene^talk 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenbay1313 forum shopping

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

this has become a content dispute.. which is not appropriate for AN/I, please take it to the talk page. Editor in question has been warned to stop using language that relates to possible legal action by the BLP subject (as pointed out, a form of chilling effect, and poor rhetoric). If he keeps it up someone will block him --Errant ^(chat!) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

---

As you can see from his contributions it appears as if this SPA registered solely to oppose another editor Ronn Torossian (talk · contribs) (who it turns out hasn't made any edits at all) Ravpapa (talk · contribs) on the BLP article Ronn Torossian based on this one edit and has posted to numerous boards to spuriously attack the other, including Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and the WP:BLPN noticeboard. What should be done to curb the forum-shopping? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment this user appears to have been warned about this earlier today -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How else do I receive a forum if the same users seem to continually be violating BLP ? These users open up Wikipedia to a possible lawsuit from the subject of the article. Am not meaning to break rules simply want eyes to review site. 199.19.186.9 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can Editors simply review the article ? Its a living litigious person whose bio has sources which arent permitted per Wiki guidelines. 199.19.186.9 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually warned this editor (who is obviously also the IP above) several days ago [60], and spelled out for them the proper channels to make their voice(s) heard. Obviously my suggestion didn't take. Dayewalker (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As well as the giveaway SPA interest in Ron Torossian and his company 5WPR, this IP and account are also exhibiting (including here in this ANI discussion) some of the telltale stylistic giveaways that were shared by most of the accounts blocked as sockpuppets in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive (there's yet another SPI open right now, in addition to those in that archive). To add to WP:LEGAL, WP:COI, and occasional edit warring, there's also a request open regarding this sockfarm at WP:CCI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the forum-shopping and account-hopping going on related to Torossian and 5W have consumed the time of now close to a dozen regular editors over the last two weeks, and has passed the point of disruption imo. The Interior (Talk) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've opened up a related thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Community ban proposal for Babasalichai. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This may be a silly question... but is there any merit to the BLP complaints? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I had my doubts about it because usually the NPOV is specifically the POV that doesn't require an army of socks to push it. Then I checked the article. Yes, it contains negative material, but it all appears to be properly sourced - I randomly checked a few sources to see whether the article is faithful to them, and found nothing to complain about. If there's something wrong, it's in the sources themselves - however, there are several different sources so it's not likely. My personal verdict is that the article is sufficiently neutral, but please elaborate further if you feel I'm wrong. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, This started as a promotional piece. But after a number of AfD's it was decided that the NYT article proved the subject marginally notable. As a result it ended up being properly sourced but like the sources - not positive about the subject. I would hope this might serve as a warning to other PR firms, but they probably think there's no such thing as bad publicity... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The gripe seemed to be about sourcing. But if the sourcing has been fixed, then that's pretty much of a wrap. The risk of creating a promo page on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", is that anyone can edit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment If any sourcing issues have been dealt with and we are only using high quality sources it sounds like the most likely BLP issue that could be here is WP:UNDUE. On the face of it, the amount of content on this doesn't look to bad, perhaps the bigger issue is the lack of content on anything else. (Unfortunately that's often a problem since as I guess any PR person knows controversy sells so the media love it so it tends to be a lot easier to find sources about controversy.) However this has been at WP:BLP/N multiple times so I would suspect these issues are being or have been considered so I wouldn't worry about it too much. I will say the IP hopping, sockpuppetry and whatever isn't likely to be helping convince people there's anything here worth looking at. As others have said, this is perhaps also a helpful reminder to some that wikipedia isn't a PR website and so not everything is going to be positive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging from the amount and variety of sources concerning the issue I'm pretty sure that they are notable because of their negative image. Not saying that we shoudn't add positive stuff if it's found, just that we shouldn't force ourselves to "balance" the article by removing negative publicity they obviously have. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. There appears to be some suggestion It isn't correct. For example, I doubt their negative image was the cause of their selection as 'Semi-finalist 2010 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of Year'. I'm not sure how significant that is but the existence of the award is mentioned at [[Ernst & Young] suggesting it's not completely irrelevent. I've also seen suggestions in the talk page from people other then the sockpuppet farm they are considered significant in the field. In fact if the sole claim to notably is the negative publicity, I would suggest an AFD since the sourcing doesn't suggestion it's really enough to be the sole reason for an article. Notably there is a NYT profile from 2005 which discusses him and while it does discuss his sometimes controversial style it's not inherently negative. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks he is relevant for owning a PR agency not for Israel work. Why isnt that the bulk of the article ? He was semi finalist for 2010 Ernst & Young Award and none of the positive PR content is profiled there. Even the Israel work is inaccurately referenced ? He represented both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert & Benyamin Netanyahu when they were Prime Ministers: http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback

That isnt included and article makes him sound extreme. Works with Mayor of Jerusalem in 2009 is that relevant and thats not included but negative comments from a random Rabbi is ? http://www.trcb.com/news/israel/general/mayor-of-jerusalem-nir-barkat-to-hold-press-conference-on-the-13377.htm http://newsblaze.com/story/2009032411430200002.pnw/topstory.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10029606.html Torossian is noteable for owning a PR agency and ask editors here to please review his page and what it was before Ravpapa edited. There is human decency and BLP issues here. greenbay1313 (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Our friend Greenbay has made several threats that legal action against Wikipedia is imminent. We should be aware that the subject of the article, Ronn Torossian, has a history of entertaining lawsuits on a variety of subjects.

On the one hand, there is nothing libellous in the article, it is all based on reliable sources, and it is, IMHO as one who has done a bit of investigation of the subject, an accurate reflection of Torossian's life and work. On the other hand, in order to avoid litigation, perhaps the best course would be simply to delete the articles on Ronn Torossian and 5WPR. I realize this would be pretty contrary to just about everything Wikipedia stands for, but I would hate to be the one, as one of the principle authors of the current version, to cost Wikipedia a bundle in legal fees. Is this something for the Foundation to be involved in? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Any litigation would be unfounded, as the article is sourced from several newspapers etc - they would have to be sued as well. Removing the article is not good in my opinion. I think that the best solution here is comparison & compromise: Greenbay can draft their own version of the article on their user space, and when it's done, it can be compared to the current version and see which is more reliable (sourcing etc) and neutral. User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox would be a good place for this, provided the link so they'll find it. Any objections? Zakhalesh (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Litigation will surely not be unfounded as the articles absolutely do not state accuracy and are single articles which wont hold up.

Our Jerusalem never ever worked to push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem as The Forward States. Someone took out citizens now and came up with their own definition. Its libelous and very inaccurate and I imagine would do damage to Torossian's co-founders of Our Jerusalem, 2 current Members of Knesset both of whom he's recently held press events with them with and one would venture would support his offline legal activities as this statement is damaging to them. INACCURATE AND WRONG AND SLANDER. READ THE JERUSALEM POST or any of the other sources: THIS IS WHAT OUR JERUSALEM WAS: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. Why not use This source ? Additional sources: Sources on Our Jerusalem (from current Deputy speaker of Knesset with whom he co-founded organization) http://www.dannydanon.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=26 During that time, Danon founded the ‘Our Jerusalem’ organization, which focused on strengthening the bond between Israeli citizens and Jerusalem. http://christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/mar98/briefs.html http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/Apr-06.htm NONE OF THESE SOURCES SAY WHAT IS CLAIMED THERE ALL LIES AND LIBEL AND SLANDER

Where is any proof that Torossian is a supporter of Israel ? They are clients of the company. Lead should be changed. Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."If allen speaks about 5W why would that and the next sentence be on Torossian personal page ?

Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. (THEY ARE CLIENTS - ANY SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE ?) - Who says Torossian works closely with Christian supporters of Israel - Clients of the firm.

read the source regarding why Torossian opposed Netanyahu its not as you state. Am writing to protect Wikipedia as yes the subject has a long history of litigation and this would likely assist him as he would claim anti-Israel activity. Why not fix it rather than be inaccurate ? One statement cant be used against a living person if theres any doubt of its accuracy. This also is compunded by the fact that Torossian represented both Ehud Olmert & Benyamin Netanyahu when they were Prime Ministers: Is that relevant ? http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback And the info clearly is biased to include only Israel info. Why not clean it up and avoid this unnecessary battle. Simply review the Torossian page. greenbay1313 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

At suggestion of users posted a proposed Torossian article here for compromise. Welcome feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threats, Or At Least The Chilling Effects

This entire matter is getting ridiculous. Greenbay1313 has now posted this comment [61] where he states

"Also at your request asked Torossian to contact you. I have urged him not to take legal action as you are accurate that he is litigious and has often used lawsuits to accomplish business goals. Would hate for wikipedia to have an unnecssary lawsuit due to libel."

Two minutes later, he posts this [62] on Ravpapa's page.

"Should this matter not be rectified amiciably I'd venture Torossian will resort to legal means immediately."

Followed less than an hour later by this [63]...

"You arent leaving this guy with any choices but to take outside legal action. Subpoenas here will work against all who contributed to the page and damaged."

Greenbay1313 has done this before with vague legal threats, but always speaking as if the subject might sue. These diffs seem to show he's got a connection with the subject, and is directly attempting to use the chilling effect of a threatened lawsuit to influence editors to leave his versions alone.

And it's working. I doubt I'll edit them again. I would suggest this account and all sockpuppets be blocked, and both pages be locked down. Dayewalker (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. There's a big difference between expressing concern and making threats. The guy is in violation of the legal threats rule and needs to be blocked until or if he rescinds such threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks: Its libelous statements. All of you are commenting plenty on sockpuppets and the like but why is noone commenting on the actual article and its countless slanderous mistakes. User Ravpapa is the one who asked to have Torossian contacted him and stated Torossian was litigous. greenbay1313 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments sound like legal threats, and legal threats are not permitted here. If you've got concerns about specific statements being BLP violations here, then address those concerns specifically, one by one, and without the legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not intending at all whatsoever to make legal threats. Was responding to User Ravpapa who initially stated Torossian was litigous. I dont know what he will do and I am simply trying to protect Wikipedia. Is this the forum to raise concerns or should they be done as they have been on Torossian and 5WPR page ? Have raised the repeated issues which exist on torossian page there are many inaccuracies (seperate from the complete lack of balance). greenbay1313 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Information inaccuracies should be discussed on the article talk page. Cease all references to libel and slander, and just focus on verifiability and sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you folks mind reviewing the talk page regarding these issues? Wont raise libel and slander. Am I permitted to post and ask new Editors to review so its not same people ? greenbay1313 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right here and now, please list your top 3 specific sentences in the article that you consider to be inadequately referenced, and why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that he is noteable for owning a PR agency and named to Ernst & Young noteable list and winning every 40 under 40 award so the article isnt balanced, specific sentences inaccurately referenced:

1 - The reference of pushing Arabs out of Jerusalem is attributed to The Forward and its factually inaccurate and 1 source (which has been changed multiple times by same users). Such a movement in israel does not exist. Accurate version would come below: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. 2 - In the lead it states Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They are clients where is a source stating he is an active supporter - and similar further into the piece with Christian supporters of Israel. 3 - Torossian work makes him seem as a fringe extremist - In reality he has worked for Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel, current Mayor of Jerusalem and Likud Party http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 has has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback He has also trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ greenbay1313 None of those are deemed important enough for the page. But some no name Reform Rabbi criticism is included ? Thats not noteable at all. He works with ruling government folks of course someone may criticize but its surely undue balance. Folks you got upset about sockpuppets that doesnt mean the page can be so off. Thanks so very much for the attention. Appreciate and Thank you. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, the experts need to weigh in here. Never mind the side issues, focus on content: Do any of these complaints have merit? If so, this discussion should perhaps be closed here and should go back to the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The legal threats seem at the moment to center around the nature of the organization Yerushalayim Shelanu, which is described in the article as "according to Nathaniel Popper writing in The Forward, worked to push Arabs out of Jerusalem". While it is unclear what wording would satisfy Greenbay, here is what the sources say about Yerushalayim Shelanu:

---

"Torossian, 34, is proud of his right-wing political beliefs. When he lived in Israel after college, he founded an organization called Yerushalayim Shelanu, or Our Jerusalem, which worked to push Israeli Arabs out of Jerusalem. (Nathaniel Popper, "Birthright Scored for Picking P.R. Firm Tied To Scandal, Hard Right Politics", Forward August 19, 2009)

---

"After college, Torossian moved to Israel, where he got his first taste of his future career on the front lines of activism. He founded his own organization, Yerushalayim Shelanu, or Our Jerusalem, with two young friends, and discovered he had a knack for attracting media attention. The organization’s boldest stunt came when they led a phalanx of bulldozers to Har Homa to reclaim for Jews a disputed plot of land in a Palestinian area of East Jerusalem." (Nathaniel Popper, "Publicist Scores With Rappers, Right-wing Politicians", Forward, April 2 2004)

---

"Working closely with Ateret Cohanim is Yerushalayim Shelanu ("Jerusalem is Ours"), a new group of mainly secular Jews founded one year ago to "ensure a united Jerusalem under Israel." Fifteen of its members escorted 3 Jewish families into the house of American Jewish philanthropist Irving Moskowitz at Har Hatzeitim (Ras Al-Amud) last year. Several were injured in the ensuing Arab riot, while others faced the scores of international press which descended on the site. Recently, they have demonstrated peacefully at Har Homa and Orient House.

"A visit to Orient House was marked by friendly glances between our tour host, Ronn Torossian of Yerushalayim Shelanu, and a guard at the complex gate. Torossian related they knew each other from a recent protest when his group "kindly chained their gate shut." Yerushalayim Shelanu is demanding Israel shut down Orient House, efforts complicated by then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres' secret 1993 letter to the PLO pledging to maintain the status quo of Palestinian institutions in east Jerusalem as part of the original Oslo deal. Orient House is one of as many as 25 sites reportedly operating as PA ministry offices in Jerusalem in violation of Oslo. Among these sites is said to be office space in the American Colony Hotel used by the PA's West Bank security chief Jabril Rajoub for various activities of his security apparatus in Jerusalem." ("Jerusalem is Ours", Middle East Intelligence Digest, May 1998, Vol 9 No 5)

---

"During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem." (Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, "One on One: 'It's all about shaping a story'", Jerusalem Post, August 5, 2009)

In sum, I think we are on pretty solid ground when we describe Yerushalayim Shelanu as an organization that works to push Arabs out of Jerusalem. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"pretty solid ground" - Why is that ? None of the sources above say that the organization pushes Arabs out of Jerusalem ? Its factually incorrect and absolutely wrong and absolutely slanderous.

Why not use what Jerusalem Post says about "a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem." Furthermore, using simple logic if the man works now with Mayor of Jerusalem and both former Prime Ministers wouldnt it seem impossible that he worked on such an extreme mission as stated in current article ? Its wrong and incorrect.

Amazingly more incorrect and unsourced material was added overnite - what is the source he worked for Binyamin Elon ? he worked for Tourism Ministry. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, "One on One: 'It's all about shaping a story'", Jerusalem Post, August 5, 2009)

Folks there are a number of major BLP issues as a user seems out to malign Torossian. 1 article states not many blue chip clients and every other feature states otherwise. 1 single source should be removed immediately. Please assist. Also no source regarding especially Israeli clients, nor about the Our Jerusalem issue which Ravpapa himself temporarily corrected and then changed back. These are serious issues. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest using as a compromise (which I still object to) the Our Jerusalem description which Ravpapa used in his sandbox page ? Its not libelous and not as inaccurate (I'd fight about how Jerusalem is defined, but as you have it now is libelous and inaccurate). Torossian works for the Mayor of Jerusalem and Prime Ministers - The statement of kicking arabs out of Jerusalem is like saying to kick muslims out of america, instead of saying muslim terrorists. If you intend on keeping Arabs, so say the Palestinian Authority, or PLO (political leadership)- Not Arabs as blanket statement. Its wrong and dangerous. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Muslim terrorists? You want to describe families that have lived in their homes for a couple generations as terrorists? I don't think there is any hope in working with someone who pushes that type of POV. As for Torossian, there doesn't seem any doubt that he has worked to push Palestinians out of East Jerusalem(1,2). The same Irving Moskowitz that Torossian mentions in the first link is the man who has used Israeli courts to claim ownership of Palestinian homes, and replacing them with Israeli settlers.(1,2). And with that quick search, I am sure there are more than enough reliable sources out there for the statement you object to, as well as expanding on it. Dave Dial (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did I call families in homes Muslim terrorists. Nowhere. Using courts and replacing them with settlers is much different than kicking Arabs out of Jerusalem. The guy is a PR guy not NOT a Israel pro. greenbay1313 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You stated "The statement of kicking arabs out of Jerusalem is like saying to kick muslims out of america, instead of saying muslim terrorists", which is linking the ejections of Palestinians from their homes and replacing them with Jewish settlers to America deporting "Muslim terrorists". How is that not comparing families in Jerusalem to terrorists? Unless I'm reading it wrong. Also, how is using Israeli courts to evict Palestinian inhabitants who have lived in their homes for 55 years different? I think "pushing" is a very lenient word for this, as the United Nations recognize Jerusalem as being occupied, which would make any Israeli court decision null and void. In any case, this is leading to a content dispute and doesn't address the blinding problem. Which is your socking, threats and disruption. Dave Dial (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority is not the Palestinians nor Arabs. Its a government entity. This is not a debate about Jerusalem its a debate about what media says on a BLP of a living person. This is a PR person who is prominent because of PR not because of 1997 activities. Muslims being kicked out of America is different than Muslim terrorists being kicked out of America, just as kicking Arabs out of Jerusalem is different than kicking the PLO out of Jerusalem (as they were). greenbay1313 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Why has this report turned into a content discussion? One thing that has come to light though is that Greenbay1313 is a SPA who edits tendentiously, likes to play semantics, treats wikipedia like a battleground and definitely cannot be collegial. --Blackmane (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet Another Legal Threat

(OD) Well, the argument from the article's page has now extended over to this page as well. Meanwhile, Greenbay1313 continues to use vague legal threats in what I would seriously consider at attempt to silence discussion [64]. Saying "Dearest Sir you are the one who wrote about Torossian's legal fights continually. You'd be well pressed to remember them." is clearly an attempt to intimidate through legal threats. He's promised not to do this twice before, but he obviously doesn't intend to stop. Dayewalker (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Left them a very strong note to the effect of "stop saying things like that please" on their talk page :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is the third time in recent edits that a warning has been given. Dayewalker (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well in fairness, he was told not to make legal threats, and he explained they were not direct threats (per se). I've given him a "final" warning specifically telling him to stop talking about legal actions etc. If he continues someone will block. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposed revised bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox - Welcome feedback - Can we solve the issue ? greenbay1313 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 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.

Filing a report on: User:Seb_az86556

Resolved

Filer indefinitely blocked by Boing! said Zebedee, SPI confirmed by TNXMan. IP blocked for a week by Boing! said Zebedee. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am -User:Swe41

Reporting-User:Seb_az86556 for abuse and harrasement.

Let me stress that this is not an act of bad faith, or revenge, I HAVE evidence of abuse, and if you look at his discussions page, he did swear at me, so please consider this in a unbiased fashion. Thank you Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• He has been recently found vandalising an article, and that same article was vandalised in the same way, by the same IP address, shortly after that. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Though this is somewhat irrelevant to do with this case, he insulted me by calling me a pest, when I was just having a conversation with another user, which was private, and ordered me to "stop", which i find offensive. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• His Vandalism activity recently has been high, under his IP address obviously, which further backs up my evidence. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• In his discussion page, he swore at me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seb_az86556), which i find offensive, and this further implies his crude nature. I also intend to report an abuse claim against him Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you also look at his contributions history-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seb_az86556 -nearly all of his contributions made to an article has been requested for deletion, which further backs up my point that he is committing sockpuppetry, as these articles that were all wrongly edited by him were under his IP address, but sometimes not under his username. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, on his discussions page, I warned him that if he continued to swear at me, I would have no choice but to report him, but he started goading me-(quote)"go for it", which I deem to be inappropriate and slightly offensive, since I was only trying to politely warn him. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, on his discussion's page, he clearly provoked me to filing the report after he swore and refused to let it go. Swe41 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me stress that this is not an act of bad faith, or revenge, I HAVE evidence of abuse, and if you look at his discussions page, he did swear at me, so please consider this in a unbiased fashion. Thank you Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swe41 (talk • contribs)

The stuff above appears to be a direct copy from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seb az86556, which appears to have some problems as well. Boomerang launch detected? Zakhalesh (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Huge boomerang indeed. And yeah, that's for notifying me and all that... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's not Bite here. New user right? And besides, that investigation is confirmed if I ever saw one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can tell, the only real concern which has been raised in the above "report" is the swearing. Sure, it wasn't very offensive, but if a user asks you to not swear, the best response is always to simply strike what they had issue with, and leave it at that. It is not to provoke them into filing a clearly frivolous report. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is a copy of the sockpuppet investigations is irrelevant, the accusations still stand...Swe41 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well... Let's talk about the WP:BOOMERANG here in terms of WP:HARASS on Dr.K's talkpage and the whole story before that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! He's annoyed that he's not allowed to put his own theory into Lucid dreaming to give it a chance to catch on! Helpfully, he adds that "the creator of the theory remains unreliable". DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Swe41, if you want anyone to look at this, you'll have to provide some diffs to show this alleged vandalism and alleged abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er, right, and how exactly did shouting "STOP", calling him a "pest", and what he was doing "shit" help to de-escalate the issue, Seb? Really you should know better. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stop" in bold is not offensive when someone has been warned numerous times over the past two days (see his talk page history). Linking WP:HARASS to "being a pest" gives an explanation of what I mean. "Shit" is what I call it, but won't use again if the user is offended. Threatening me with an SPI... well, I don't know what I should have said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stop" in bold is fine, in all caps (what you actually did) is not acceptable, I suggest you review Wikipedia:SHOUTING. Calling another user a pest is a personal attack, and is also not acceptable, despite the circumstances. I'm glad to hear you won't be calling what he's doing "shit" again. What I'm trying to point out here is not that Swe is in the right, it's clear that he is not. But rather that when you find yourself in the right, it is more productive to explain politely and without aggravating the other user, than to effectively laugh at or tease them, because that only leads them to being even more stubborn in their position. The manner in which you convey your message can be as important as the message itself. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Next time, after someone has been warned for edit-warring, has a final warning for harassment, a final warning for personal attacks, a final warning for original research, one SPI — I'll come to ANI right away and him/her blocked, as I should have. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Swe41 has clearly reached a breaking point, Given the long history of warnings on his talk page it would be safe to assume this is an act of desperation though it is not clear what he hopes to achieve by false sockpuppet investigations and ANI reports. Perhaps Swe41 it would be best to step away from wikipedia for a few hours and calm down then return here and perhaps try work some stuff out? ZooPro 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• I've had a look back on this. As far as I can make out, it started as a content dispute after Swe41 tried to add some new ideas about lucid dreams to the article Lucid dreams. The additions of the ideas, which one of the edit summaries admitted were brand new, were properly removed as being original research and not supported by reliable references. Unfortunately, it looks like we have a new user who felt bitten by that, got into an edit war, and it all went downhill from there. I think Seb perhaps has been a bit bitey, and Swe41 has gone over the top with sockpuppet accusations. But I think this is all down to misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than any malice on anyone's part. I agree with ZooPro - Swe41, you should take a little time off and cool down, and then have a look through the appropriate policy pages which discuss original research and proper sourcing. I see no need for any admin action here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (Struck part of my comment, above - on a closer inspection and after more thought, I think Seb has actually been quite restrained in the face of what is clearly not entirely innocent newbie mistakes as I had first thought -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
  • In terms of boomerang I'd like to add this diff by Swe41 [65] which does show a sort of malice in my point of view. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That was well into the dispute, and though it was indeed wholly unacceptable, I suspect it was more from frustration and anger than premeditated malice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Whatever the justification for this was, it was vicious and harassing for the recipient. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Yep, and my sympathy for a "newbie" editor has been diminished following my examination of those further diffs, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That's probably a fair assessment; it is most likely my flaw/fault that I cannot comprehend how someone seems unable to understand so many warnings and still keep going. I expect some sort of bell to ring, but instead the user keeps up the harassment (see diff provided by De728631 above). And admit when it doesn't ring a bell, it eventually drives me nuts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, your frustration is certainly understandable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This person has been on a long campaign. Some examples:

• deleting a section from my talkpage where he asks for a one-time favour to be allowed to publish his not-notable theory on Lucid dreaming
• Threatening to file a report against me
• I warned you not to mess with me.
• dont go to war with me. You will lose.
• another threatening one-liner
• Out of interest, what is your IP address??

Finally, I wish to thank Seb for his assistance in reverting this harassment from my talkpage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, yes - another edit like those and I think we would be looking at a block. And it's interesting to see that in the first of those diffs, he does actually admit to being the author of the theory he's trying to push -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And I think these diffs (I hadn't connected them properly earlier) make it clear that it isn't just that he doesn't know the ropes - he made it clear that he knew his sources weren't acceptable and that his theory wasn't notable enough for inclusion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. For more details see here; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swe41/Archive. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow thats not newbie ignorance that is blatent malice. ZooPro

(FWIW, I need to say this) And this is what drives me nuts. We let someone run wild like that for days, because, y'know, they're "new" and we don't want to bite, so we add warning after warning to the talk page — and when one of us loses it eventually, we chastise the "established" user who "should have known." We seem to assume that new users come from a different planet. If you did similar stuff on this planet in the real world, you'd be called out on it much earlier... Tell me on what planet the above diffs aren't reason for a much earlier block. Can't be this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

^^Wow. Favouritism of the "established" Users. Swe41 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those diffs were reported anywhere, were they? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of them were in the SPI, after that, he was allowed to keep going. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes - I think part of the problem is that this has been disjointed and all over the place, and nobody has brought the whole thing together in one place until now (and ironically, it was Swe41 himself who brought it here). I can see how each individual thing, without seeing the overall picture, might not alone be considered cause for a block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the diff in which he asks me what is my IP address is particularly disturbing and creepy. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And as one more manifestation of the returning flying stick thing, I see he removed the evidence of his own sock report and his block from his Talk page. (Editors are allowed to do that, but it doesn't look good when you then go on to launch spurious sock reports about others) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

^^. Again Zebedee, remember, always assume good faith, remember?? Swe41 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good faith only goes so far - and you lost all assumptions of it once it became blatantly clear that you knew what you were doing was wrong all along -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add to that this diff. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a topic ban is in order. ZooPro 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure that's needed really - we can simply block for repeated OR/RS violations, or repeated edit warring, or repeated harassment, should he do any of them again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

True, I have struck my comment as it is to much effort to go through for something that can be achieved with a block. ZooPro 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself again, I opened this case only to talk about the swearing, shouting, goading and provocation. No other cases were opened against me (eg. Dr.K ), so therefore, everything else is irrelevant. Swe41 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI. When an incident is under review, we review all aspects of it - including the actions of related, semi-related, and (often) entirely unrelated editors. The reporting party is under particular scrutiny. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the background of an ANI case is always relevant, and that background extends to investigating what you were doing that provoked the reaction you were complaining about - And so your prior disruptive and uncivil behaviour was very relevant. You should have a read of WP:BOOMERANG before you think of filing new ANI cases against editors you are in dispute with -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Block requested

This is enough now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we be sure that's him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; look at the contribs: same style of threats, same IP of previous SPI. It's a duck. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, same IP - OK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I've also filed an SPI - probably not necessary, but confirmation would be useful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He's appealing the block now, claiming it must have been someone else on his LAN who made that attack (similar to his claims in his first SPI). I'd prefer it if someone else could review the request, if there's a volunteer - though it might be worth waiting to see if the latest SPI can unearth anything more -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

TNXMan has declined his unblock request on the grounds that the IP and Swe41 have used the same computer. We can mark this as resolved now. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, for the love of god, do something about User_talk:82.34.156.44

This is my second attempt to get someone to pay attention to this IP address... he's been blocked twice already and after both blocks, continues the exact same behavior that got him blocked last time. I filed an ANI before, he doesn't care, someone please take care of this... it's just insanely annoying to see this guy's edits he makes in bad faith and that serve no purpose only for others to continually revert them. I refuse to continue adding links to diffs, it's already in his history ... Here's the last ANI I filed for him... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparently_blocks_aren.27t_enough_for_User:_82.34.156.44... This guy isn't interested in being productive on Wikipedia and only seeks to make numerous ridiculous edits for no reason and with no explanation. Just check out his history and talk page... That should cover it.... I've just had it... I've had it. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Extended vacation issued (1 month). –MuZemike 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I appreciate that. Thanks for the quick response. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain why these edits warrant a month-long block without even bothering to tell the editor what he did wrong? Since his last block, he has repaired an unsourced result (I've restored this with a source, and it supports his numbers, not the original ones.) This edit listed the fighters in the order they appear at the mmajunkie cite. Since it is not obvious which order is "official", I didn't revert, but still don't understand the block or the blocking admin's description of fixing errors in unsourced content as "continued abuse". 76.244.155.165 (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be that it's a shared IP address being used by multiple people. In any case, a month does feel a bit long, though I'd still say given the previous block it needs to be in excess of one or two days.elektrikSHOOS 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate you guys taking care of this. I understand the concern for multiple editors using this IP to make edits, but if you look at his recent edit history, it's been the same edits over and over again for over a month which leads me to believe it's the same guy and not multiple people making edits. In that regard, I feel a month isn't too harsh seeing as how 72 hours didn't even phase/deter this guy. But I digress... thanks again. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Madjewelvisor

• Madjewelvisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.26.216.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Rastamouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Madjewelvisor appears to be an account that has been created to WP:EVADE the indefinite block [[66]] placed on User:Rastamouse-ting. Also appears to have been making edits under IP 86.26.216.41, in particular a personal attack here: [[67]]

I will point out however, that conduct has improved in so much as the personal attacks are less offensive in nature, but they do continue as does the constant assuming of bad faith, and general WP:OWN behaviour with regards to Rastamouse. Further thoughts on Talk:Rastamouse#user_Rubiscous_.26_Episodes_data. Rubiscous (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

user:rubiscous appears to want to disrupt the RASTAMOUSE page & publish incorrect info & not want to be corrected. Note his account has been warned TWICE BEFORE about disrupting the site. This will continue no doubt. I will not publish my reasons for his poor attitude here. He wants to disrupt any user of this page & links me to another unaware Rastamouse was getting 3.5k hits a day. Tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjewelvisor (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The content dispute is not the issue here, and should be confined to the article's talk page. The main issue is not even your conduct towards myself and other users, it's that you have created a new account to evade the block on your old one, the correct procedure is to appeal the block. I may disagree with some content you add to the article but I do not disrespect your motivations for editing. All I ask for is the same courtesy. Additionally, as you, User:Rastamouse-ting and IP 86.26.216.41 are the same person, I have had no dispute with any other editor of Rastamouse.

The "warnings" of which you speak were merely automated responses from a bot with regards to my good faith edits [[68]] and [[69]], and were duly reported as false positives. Rubiscous (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User Rubiscous & Rastamouse

as stated in the answer to my page this user RUBISCOUS appears intent on causing errors to be published & thinking this is correct. Note on his user page he has already BEEN WARNED TWICE of similar behaviour. Why he picks on Rastamouse is open to wide speculation. It's a nice kids TV shows with Black characters & has been popular & sadly also the subject of vandalism, of whch RUBISCOUS can be seen to be part of. The other users he knocks down ADDED much to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjewelvisor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Rubiscous is acting in bad faith toward this article. Concerns about article content should be addressed at the talk page, not at AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All my edits are made in good faith and I assume good faith in others' edits. User:Madjewelvisor's complaint appears to be merely retaliatory because of the above complaint, note that he has made no attempt at a defence, and has done nothing but use the opportunity to attack me. Rubiscous (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: this was previously a separate topic at the bottom of the page. I moved it up here, comments intact, because I believed it to be related to the above discussion. If anyone else feels otherwise, feel free to move it back. elektrikSHOOS 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned User Returned

This banned user is apparently back again in a new incarnation...

This guy, who threatened both me and an admin, just keeps creating new accounts...

New edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rock&RollSuicide

Here's the sockpuppet investigation of his various old sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gypsydog5150/Archive

His editing pattern: politician - Tom Corbett; rock bands - Van Halen, Poison, and Anthrax, don't leave much room for doubt that this is the same guy.

Looking at the Tom Corbett edit history, it looks like he came out from under his IP cover to avoid an edit protection that was imposed as a result of his anonymous edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Corbett&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He deleted the ANI notice I posted on his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rock&RollSuicide&diff=prev&oldid=421890203

John2510 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Old thread (from 11/9/10):

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

This is too complex to solve at ANI. I recommend that you reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gypsydog5150 and add the new IPs and registered accounts that you think are him. If you can demonstrate the behavioral similarity a checkuser may be willing to assist. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you should open a new case @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gypsydog5150, and we'll see if a CU is needed. If it's not opened in a few hours, I will copy paste your evidence in to a case. (Because I'm busy doing Homework right now. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

IP removing stub templates

Please see 68.199.204.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Don't know if this is some sort of subtle vandalism or what. --Lyncs (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started reverting (TW). This is the first time rollback could come in handy; it's tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done others with rollback. I didn't of course check every single edit and instead presumed the random sampling of what I saw which in every case appeared to be removal of the stub template without discussion and where the article does appear to be a stub represented all the edits. I hope no one bites my head off if it turns out I removed the one constructive edit there somewhere Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should give the user a warning; and if the user continues this behavior - (s)he will need to be blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the edits on the second page as far back as March 23rd ar 19:00ish UTC, and reverted the stub tag removal edits. Please note that on March 23-24' there were a few edits of other types. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot to check if there was another page. Thanks for your help. I have asked the user not to continue to mass remove stub templates from articles which are stubs without discussion and informed them continuing to do so may result in a block. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Good job! --Lyncs (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this was last discussed, the IP in question has removed stub tags from three more articles. I've given the IP a more stern warning this time, albeit templated, and reverted the changes. elektrikSHOOS 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's really not acceptable. Their explanation, "too many stubs" would seem to indicate they do not really get why we tag things as stubs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And here they go again. Final warning has been issued on their talk page, feel to issue a short block if this continues. elektrikSHOOS 03:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible POV pushing of gay image in Kiss

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

Content discussion really needs to take place on the talk page, not on AN/I. This should have never been brought here.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here; see my comment below. FYI, Wikiwatcher1, it takes two to edit war. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by User:Wikiwatcher1

Page: Kiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Problem: Edit warring over image and placement
Goal: Prevent continual POV edits and keep the article neutral.
Diffs of edit warring

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
  

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73] including an RfC and comments on User's talk page:(see bottom, "allegations" and again, "Notice of COI report.

The user has violated numerous guidelines, some very serious, besides edit warring. See Talk:Kiss. His comments and edits should be reviewed - otherwise they may set a precedent relying on PC fear tactics to push non-neutral images, in addition to Gaming the system.
Another editor has restored his image and even posted a "final" warning template on my talk page, a clear misuse of such warnings under the circumstances. Some neutral reviewers would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert in the first place? If you don't like it, don't go to the page. Simple as that. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I contributed substantially to the article and added many sources (article before I worked on it.) I have never, even in this matter, attempted to express "ownership," just simple Wikiwatchfulness over corrupting edits. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the dispute is about making the same-sex kiss "too prominent" in the article. It could be redundant, given the heartwarming embrace of Leonid "Chuckles" Brezhnev and his buddy from East Germany. Also, being a classic-cartoon watcher (how could you tell?) it seems to me there's something missing from the article, and that is the "Insulting kiss" which Bugs Bunny used to plant on Elmer Fudd all the time. That's a bit of antiquity, but WB didn't make it up: They got it from a Charlie Chaplin movie. So I have to figure it was already old even when Chaplin did it. The article is currently protected, though, thanks to this bickering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Brezhnev kiss clearly tries to Push a pov about Communists. Put in Jesus and Judas instead.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. You have my support. I added it as a photo image since the original editor/uploader posted a much more radical illustration image, and this photo was added as a compromise. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The earlier AN3 report was closed as not actionable. The article has been full-protected for five days. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, and an RfC is underway on the talk page. Nothing to see here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

for clarification purposes, just so I don't admit myself to a mental institution, this is closed, right? Dusti^*poke* 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Think so.... I love how no one has responded to my to my observation and as a Side note I thought this whole thing revolved homoeroticism in the pictures of Kiss (band) when I read the thread... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"...just simple Wikiwatchfulness over corrupting edits"... Did Wikiwatcher really write that? Are we all going to turn into rampant homosexuals after seeing a picture of two men playing tonsil-hockey? (apart from those of us who already are rampant homosexuals of course...) Is this 2011 or 1950? This of course begs the question - if Wikiwatcher thinks that this sort of smut (LOL) corrupts, and yet he actively seeks it out, what is it doing to him? I'd suggest for his own sanity he should look at other topics instead (or even watch cartoons, as Bugs suggests - except that even these are full of subliminal homo-eroticism if you look hard enough, I'm told). Wikipedia doesn't need 'watchers' against corruption, thanks all the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh, you don't know the half of it, chummer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote corrupting edits, not images. The article is (was) a neutral, well-sourced and widely-viewed coverage about the subject. But when an editor drives by and posts a non-neutral image "in your face," (as another edit described it,) in a location where it does not belong, that's my definition of a "corrupting edit." For support of why it's "non-neutral" by all guidelines, read the user's own comments and edit rationales.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see about the kisses is not the gender of the kissers but the POV about what type of kiss it is. The homosexual couple currently labeled "Affectionate kiss", is an open-mouthed kiss that strikes me as more lustful; indeed, in the diffs presented it was initially subtitled "Tongue kiss". A grandma kissing her grandson on the top of the head is a fine example of an "Affectionate kiss", and I think that a big open-mouthed tonguing should be labeled for what it is, with affection being shown as something less carnal. Which is not to say that a gay couple sharing an affectionate kiss should not be our image, just that this isn't that image.

As to changing Communists to Judas, I think the point of what an article like this would be advised to convey is that there are more than baby kisses, Wedding day kisses, and porn kisses, nor whether or not we show a homosexual kiss (of course it is POV not to in an article that has a dozen photos), but that there are many cultures where males kiss affectionately without a hint of eros or romance (not just Communists, but including them—would you prefer Muslims?), and that there is a counterintuitive "Judas kiss", as in the expression "kiss of death". In other words, show all of the above, but more accurately labeled. Abrazame (talk) 04:26, 5 April 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.

Just a heads up.

So most people know, this AFD has been the subject of excessive canvassing (on facebook and associated blogs) by the subject and sockpuppeting. Furthermore the article was created by the owner of the con just look at the upload and declaration and who started the article   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian detained by campus police for taking pictures

I was taking pictures of buildings of a two-year public college in New Jersey called Union County College (UCC) when I was detained by campus security for a half an hour. Most pictures were of buildings, classrooms, plaques on walls, an empty gym. I was going to add them to the UCC article. Two pictures had students (all over 18 yrs old) in it (but I got their email addresses and permission to use their photos). Campus security said: no pictures. Officer John Britton took my drivers' license for information. He only told me his name; he wouldn't show any ID or badge. I got the impression that if I kept taking pictures they would either forcibly remove me from campus or arrest me. They didn't take my camera. About student pictures, I am not sure what the overall rules or legality is, so I won't post pictures of students. But buildings? Empty classrooms? Paid for out of taxpayer dollars? A public two-year community college in New Jersey? Sheesh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm wondering how to do this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not really think this is an issue that theEnglish Wikipedia can handle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they have the legal right to, that rarely stops cops from detaining people over taking pictures. Sorry, just the mistrustful of government cynic in me showing through. As to ArbCom, all the information is on this page, where you can find info on contacting them on-wiki, opening a case, and even contains some of their personal e-mails. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to get any relief from ArbCom on this one. NW (Talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you get your drivers license back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you remind them that its a public school?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Copping an attitude with cops is typically not the best approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not me, I'd give them attitude. As long as I know that I'm not breaking any laws, I would give them as much grief as lawfully possible. Most likely they know that they can't do anything to you, but will go as far as they think they can go, before going too far.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your funeral, as they say. :) My philosophy is to never argue with somebody with a gun and/or club attached to their belt. :) In the case of these cops, my guess is that they are under orders to disallow picture taking, and they might not be at liberty to say why. But if a cop told me, "No pictures", I wouldn't launch into some spiel about civil rights or something. I would simply act surprised (or maybe I wouldn't have to "act") and then ask, "Really? Why?" and they'll either tell you why or they won't. If they won't, then a call to the administrative office might clear it up. But as I've found out from past experience, you'll get a lot better karma with cops if you treat them like folks with a job to do, and act friendly and cooperative toward them, than if you treat them as adversaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not much we can do here. Be honest with them and they shouldn't give you trouble. They're just ensuring the security of campus. Tell them what you're up to and unless you caught him before his coffee and donut you'll be okay. N419BH 01:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the New York City area, where there is probably still some terrorist-threat mentality. And who knows what kinds of incidents they've had that may have impelled them to disallow picture taking. Howeover, what Tom ought to do is contact the administration and ask for permission to take snapshots. Get something in writing and hand it to the cops if they bug you again. Above all, be friendly and courteous to the cops. Don't do anything that they will see as impeding their ability to do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for advice. Yes got Drivers license back. Basically not much to do, but be polite, etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that being paid for by tax dollars doesn't mean what it sounds like. The jail is paid for by tax dollars, but you can't just wander in it and start taking pics, right? Drive around taking pictures of the fence that tax dollars put around the airport and there is a fair chance you'll be questioned. In the future, maybe get in touch with the administration (or maybe the computer science dept) and get someone to tell you it's all cool. It could save time in the end. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So, no student at the school has ever used a cell phone to take of a photo of the place, even if only as incidental background to the usual teenage snaps? Silly policing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he wants more photos he should call the school's administrative office and ask what the deal is. Some of us would like to know. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the buildings possibly being protected by architectural copyright, I would say upload away.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have new pictures. Upload? I was thinking along these lines. I was told drawings are okay. So I could substitute drawings of the buildings for the pictures. Then UCC will be happy. Wouldn't this be a good solution? I sometimes think of myself as a great arteeeste (nobody else thinks so!). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time, try taking pictures of the buildings at USC.[74] ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that it was the Daily Trojan reporting...how apropos is that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks Will. Great story. Here's what I was thinking:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add a small likeness of a brownshirt standing guard. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see picture above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to an outline of the law as it applies to photography in the United States; it's been extensively circulated among photographers and is useful to keep with you [75]. However, a college campus isn't exactly public space, and much depends on what's a public street and what's not. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're posting in the wrong place; there's nothing an enwiki admin can help you with here. I'd suggest contacting a licensed legal professional. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling the school would be the best option. Probably have to wait until Monday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I think has hit on the answer. Please keep in mind that even if you don't give cops cause to arrest you, they don't have to stretch the truth very much to make your life miserable. For example, when they took your DL, they probably called in to check for warrants. He can take his time about doing that, and what are you going to do? And I don't even want to start on patdowns and automobile searches. I would be polite, say something like "I didn't know that, thanks." Don't get smart with them, get out of their jurisdiction pronto, and Monday morning, if it's worth making an issue over, call campus information and start looking for the responsible official. Don't call the campus police, let the official do that if you are lucky enough to get action. And if you then go back (I would not, I would ask your students for help if more images are needed), take a printout of the email in which he says its OK to take images on campus.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And, btw, a college campus is not a true public place. There are generally statutes or ordinances which allow them to restrict access. You don't want to be restricted from campus, that sort of thing goes into computers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise good points, and something else just occurred to me: You know how cops will sometimes pull someone over due to "a taillight out" or something like that? As a policeman acquaintance once told me, that's a "pretext" to justify pulling over someone that they've got an odd feeling about. So it's possible that the cops, for whatever reason, thought the OP "looked suspicious", so they used the camera thing as a pretext to running the ID through their system. Dollars to donuts, that's what was actually going on there. It would be good, next time, if there is a next time, to have documentation permitting photography. That will legitimize your being there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• And as the Supreme Court has upheld many times, pretext stops are perfectly fine. BTW, making a cartoon and calling them "dicks" is really kinda childish, don't ya think. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe they have a bugaboo about photography on campus because of some incident or other. I would not assume you'd get a different deal next time, especially if you run into the same cops, who might make an issue out of general principles. Only go back if you have your ducks in a row.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some places are odd that way. Do you know it's illegal to take a photograph of the New Jersey Turnpike (at least from Turnpike property)? I seem to recall an incident where someone was cited or arrested that caused me to look up the Turnpike regulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, photography restrictions on private property are a non-copyright restriction, which basically means you may be illegally trespassing to take the photos, but if you pull it off, we'll take them (without necessarily endorsing your actions). Also, in the US, architectural copyright falls under freedom of panorama, so there is no copyright issue in uploading photos of buildings; moreover there is no US law restricting candid photographs of persons (personality rights law only restricts the use of a person's image for promotion), and our policy on identifiable people does not restrict any photograph of a person taken in a public place where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

As for the cops, personally, I'd consider placing photography restrictions on a public school campus as a gross abuse of the government's responsibility to represent the interests of the people in places and functions where public funding is involved, and if that happened to me I would lawyer up and talk to the press about it too. But that's a big investment and your response is up to you. :-) Dcoetzee 04:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not really an admin idea, but I'd call the local media and see if a reporter wants a 'freedoms being denied' story for this week's paper/broadcast. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with age I've learned that not every windmill is worth having a tilt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said earlier, get your ducks in a row before taking any kind of action. And one of those ducks would be to find out whether they have such a policy, and if so, why. I'm tempted to call them myself on Monday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Even better: their student handbook says that College staff can take pictures of anyone, anywhere on campus; these pictures become the property of the school, individuals depicted have no right to compensation. — they wanna take their own pictures and market them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks you've found the "smoking duck". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

...and the smoking dicks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's actually fairly reasonable. They don't want to worry about compensation and rights when assembling school materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Release forms need to be signed or else the pictures can't be used. What they're doing won't stand a chance in court should someone sue them (that's AZ, maybe NJ is full of dickheads). In any case, this whole thing is ridiculous; as long as there are no identifiable people on the pics, the OP should happily keep uploading them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, as mentioned above, if the building remains copyrighted under Freedom of Panorama, then it cannot be uploaded as a free image. Secondly, as far as the cops are concerned, yeah, I would be a little concerned as far as their actions, but there are several things I would like to comment on right regards to that. There are only two things that come to my mind as to why the campus security would come down on the user in question: first, terrorism; second, stalking (i.e. I don't need to go into much reason why it is illegal to take any pictures in locker rooms in gyms.). That being said, both reasons I gave are fairly weak and would be poor reasons to apprehend a person just because he/she was taking pictures of buildings and other miscellany.

All that being said, File:Union County College Police.jpg needs to come down, and now. That is a blatant attack image and is hence deletable under WP:CSD#G10. Moreover, it gives a bad image for established Wikipedians, who, despite our collective "rebellious" nature, should not be stooping this low to launch such attacks outward like that. Moreover again, it is extremely bad taste to be posting such images. I understand the user is frustrated and certainly has the right to complain, and while Wikipedia should not be the sole place for that, we should not be openly attacking other organizations or otherwise be complicit in that; such open attacks should be taken elsewhere on the Internet. –MuZemike 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit) I just realized the image in question was uploaded to Commons. However, the same deletion rationale applies, and it should still be taken down due to its vindicitive nature. –MuZemike 07:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit confused. Freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright law which (in the US) permits two-dimensional reproductions of copyrighted architecture (but not of sculptures, posters, etc). Dcoetzee 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I was just gonna say that. Otherwise, we could all trash whatever cameras we have in urban areas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomahegan Hall is the largest building at Union County College.

I sleep, wake up and this thread is still going strong. Thank you everybody for your intelligent comments -- it is a highly instructive lesson. You people are sharp and smart and what makes Wikipedia great (my OR); I appreciate the attention because it suggests on some level a kind of support. So, what I'm getting is the attack-cartoon is counter-productive (yes I'm being somewhat childish); if I choose to upload the 17 pictures of buildings (no people) which are in my camera it will be cool with Wikipedia, right? That is, Wikipedia probably won't delete them. (Although if they're posted perhaps I might get in further trouble with Union County College? -- yes I'm willing perhaps to put up with this). Monday I should call the administration and followup on this. What about drawings of buildings? (see picture to the right) Last, I used to be a local reporter, and my reporter's instinct says that whenever people are exerting effort to block pictures, even asking police to detain people taking pictures, there may be something they're trying to hide. And even last, I think we're all wanting to wind down this thread, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

None of us speak for Wikipedia, but I don't see any valid grounds for deletion, and really doubt anyone is going to ask for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to spam, but here's the section from Common's Freedom of Panorama for the US [76]: Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date.
However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.
This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the photograph is taken from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans (so one is free to do anything short of reproducing the building with another building, but the style elements such as gargoyles and pillars would not be individually protected). For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed from public places.

So the questions to ask are: are the buildings completed before Dec 1 1990? If so, you have every right to photograph them regardless of where you are located. If they were completed after that date, you can only take photos from public areas. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "public area" here mean "publicly accessible area" or "not privately owned grounds"? The wording you just cited, where "such interior public spaces as lobbies" are included, would point towards the former, right? In that case, a campus area would obviously also qualify as public. If he could walk into those areas unhindered, it was evidently publicly accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's generally what is meant: if you aren't restricted by any physical or personal means from entering the area, it's considered open to the public, and photos of anything taken from it are completely legal, and thus the only question becomes the copyright issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that a campus, an outdoor area, is akin to a lobby, it's a public space that people pass through freely and that also contains areas the inside of which is private. Access can be restricted if necessary, but for most, most of the time, people come and go as they please. In other words, it's not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I'll copy & paste the section about freedom of panorama to use if necessary, if challenged.

Thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably focussing on the wrong thing. It isn't a question of copyright, or freedom to take photos, the issue is going to be one of trespass. Would the campus and the inside of buildings be thought of to be the same as a shopping mall? If so they have the right to ask you to stop taking photographs, and if you persist to have you removed. John lilburne (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Even so, don't go without something from the administration. All you need is some cop with what do I care about something off the internet I told you not to do that, now you're coming with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of the photos you took, your treatment by camous security sounds like a serious infringement of your rights, and I strongly suggest that you speak to lawyer about what options you may have for launching a lawsuit against Union County College, the security guard personally, and the company that he works for. In my opinion, nothing you have described would give a campus security guard the right to detain you. It sounds to me like you may have been unlawfully detained by campus security and you may have a legitimate claim to made for damages, including punitive damages. Seek out a torts lawyer and get legal advice. As for your photos, my understanding of copyright law is that if you took them, then you own them. Best of luck. 72.175.231.30 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Union County College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_County_College#Reply_from_Union_County_College

-- Avanu (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Avanu. Appreciate. The only commotion that I saw was in the minds of the marketing people worrying that some reporter might make their school look bad! :) I've been doing a revamp of the article; since it's SO contentious, I'm leaving it in my sandbox until I get some guidance. Here's the proposed Union County College revamp. Gotta drive my daughter to you know where. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to discuss WWI genocide issue

As part of copy editing an article on alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians in WWI, it occurred to me that the article might be badly named/disambiguated/categorised, which isn't really my field.

Because of Turkish-Armenian sensitivities about this topic, I wonder whether there is a senior editor/admin with some expertise or interest in WWI or genocide who might discuss with me how I best go about not just abandoning this article to obscurity or pseudo-orphan status after the copy edit. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an incident. It was moved here by an administrator who didn't think it should be on the admin noticeboard. What I actually seek is input and advice, not action, resolution, or rule interpretation. So I've placed a adminhelp template on my talk page. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you need input from an admin in particular i.e why it belongs in either admin board Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Because -

1. Where else will I find lots of admins (searching help for contacts is futile)
2. Admins sometimes complain about hasty, unilateral actions by editors - something I want to avoid
3. Editors are encouraged in many communiques from Wikipedia big-wigs to ask before doing something pre-emptively
4. I didn't want to leave behind me a mess for someone else to find and clean up (that might be you, mightn't it?)
5. The topic is sensitive enough to warrant input from someone senior and/or au fait with policies that I may have no knowledge or understanding of (sounds like admin, smells like admin, is it admin?)
6. The topic is complex enough to deserve the attention of someone with an interest or expertise in doing it right
7. I want to know how issues like this are approached by Wikipedia seniors (sounds like admin ...)

I have a question for you: Is administrator input not something I can seek legitimately? If this is the wrong place, delete the entire thread. If you don't want to help, don't, but maybe you can suggest where I can find that help.

Finally, now attempt to block out for a moment your admin subjectivity and all you know about how things are done here, including the pain-in-the-arse workload you no doubt face with real incidents. Reconsider for a moment everything I have said and done, including not posting this here in the first place, and put yourself in my shoes. What conclusions would you reach about my experience with this request? Your question to me is that I answer for you precisely the questions I want to discuss with a senior Wikipedia contributor (read admins, the people who are supposed to know). Why would I seek that assistance if I already had the answers? Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If your editing of the article in question is likely to be contentious, then it is better to outline your proposed edit on the article's talk page and open a discussion. Admins are no more expert in a particular subject matter than any other editor, and in many cases, a non-admin may have better expertise on a particular subject. A relevant Wikiproject may also be a good venue to discuss issues and proposed edits. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Wince (shoulders slumping in discomfiture). Once more. This is not a dispute, edit war, or fire that needs to be put out. I did not put the request here - that was done by your admin colleague Jayron32, Skomorokh (sorry Jayron32)who moved it from vanilla admin notice board to here. The editing is done. The assistance required now is discussion on what to do with the article next.

I repeat, if this isn't the place for my request, or no one really gives a toss, please just delete the whole thread. What I'm trying to do here is prevent making decisions that might become someone else's headache in future, but without shrugging my shoulders and abandoning an article I know is ill-named or orphaned. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So you originally posted to AN and it got moved here -- that's no big deal, the overlap in readers for these two noticeboards is probably considerable, so there's no need to keep complaining about that move. Good or bad, it's here and it's not going back.

What I'm reading from your request is that you have concerns about an article's naming, and you want to talk to generally Wikipedia-knowledgeable editors about it, so you reached out to admins for help, but you don't seem inclined to post your request to the article's talk page, where you could talk to editors who may be generally less knowledgeable about Wikipedia, but who edit the article and are therefore interested in the subject, and possibly even knowledgable about it. Nor do you seem interested in talking to people in the WikiProject(s) that cover the subject matter.

I think the answer, obviously not the one you're looking for, is that if you have questions about the name of the article, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, or on the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject, and stop attempting to avoid discussing the issue with people who may disagree with you. Being Bold is one thing, but being bold when you clearly have concerns that your actions will be disagreed with and will not have consensus behind it, so you want to CYA in advance with some generic advice from admins, could be seen as being deliberately disruptive.

Discuss on the talk page, get a consensus there, then act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have now ripped from my stooped shoulders the cunning disguise of St Wales's cloak of good will, I hereby confess to my nefariously subversive intent. In my black conspirator's heart I deliberately ignored the fact that the discussion on the actual page is dead, that prior to me arriving as per GOCE request to copy edit, the last comment is more than a year old and indicative of a nationalist animus between the previous editors active there. So in my devious effort to subvert the project by re-igniting a nationalist edit war I passed up the opportunity to poke a stick into a hornet's nest and came here instead, drawing all attention to my obviously dishonourable intentions. It was a calculated risk, because I could have just taken it to the Turkey Portal, thrown it in there with a box of matches and some shellite, and ensured a renewed ethnic/nationalist edit war between Turks and Armenians. Instead of doing that pre-emptively, I managed to get you to advise me to do it, right?

As a dastardly conspirator I am particularly proud of my ability to have manipulated you into semiotically transforming a request for help into an open accusation of deliberately disruptive behaviour. There was, of course, the risk you might have passed up the opportunity to patronise me by actually looking at the page and gaining the impression that I was seeking advice about the right way to approach the issue without starting an edit war or ill feelings unless and until all the options had been explored. But us conspirators love to take 'hot dang' risks. Conspiracies wouldn't be fun without them, would they?

I thought it was pretty devious of me to pretend that I was acknowledging other people might have greater insight in preventing conflict. And wasn't it just a brilliant stroke of genius for me to engineer this admin semiotic reality-adjustment machine (ASRAM, us conspirators loooove acronyms) to ensure that all administrators in the known universe are now watching me for evidence that I'm doing something sneaky rather than trying to think proactively about helping the project? Conspiracies are more fun than sincere attempts at exploring options, right?

But my absolute masterstroke in this plot has been my uncanny ability to prevent anyone here from having any sympathy for the encyclopaedic project and the topic itself, thus engineering an ironic and truly destructive recreation of the post WWI bureaucratic failures that led to this topic becoming a major thorn in the side for people in that region to this very day. Was I not magnificent at obscuring the hot tempers on that article's talk page a few years ago, when the page was first created. Could I have done better at re-igniting those hostilities than getting you to direct me to throw the page back at the antagonists, thus ensuring that no one would first consider, at a remove, the best available options for the article and the project.

My conspiracy is complete. I have deviously managed to blacken my name (ooops ... when did that become part of my plot?), prevent a proactive approach, underpin admin support for nationalist edit wars, and waste my time for a few hours the way I always wanted to (didn't I?). So, I give myself up. Grant me one last cigarette and I will be ready for you to lead me into the courtyard to face the firing squad. I shall stand proudly next to my fellow conspirator, the tribunal article, and shall not blink as you execute the sentence. (Evil chuckle and conspiratorial hand-rubbing: 'Heh, heh, heh, little did you know that being executed, too, was part of my evil master plan'.) — Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: Discuss on the talk page, get a consensus there, then act. The rest is silence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If I do that and no one responds, say, within a week, would my sole vote there to seek advice here then count as a consensus to do that? BTW, your user name seems apposite. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you attempt to start a discussion there, and in the very unlikely event that no one responds after a reasonable amount of time, I think you are in the clear to be Bold and try your change. Just be ready for the deluge of responses it may bring on, and remember that the paradigm is WP:BRD: be Bold, get Reverted, then Discuss. Don't revert back if someone objects to your action, engage in discussion: you do not create a new status quo with a Bold move.

Regarding your parting remark,if you think that I don't know beans about surviving on Wikipedia, just go ahead and ignore my advice and see what happens. After all, personally experienced empirical results are the most convincing lesson. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Allrighty, just on the remote off-chance that I really didn't express this clearly enough the first time: I am not proposing changes. I have no proposal or agenda in mind at all. I don't want admin endorsement for anything. I am seeking advice from an admin on what might be a way of moving ahead so the article doesn't just die on the vine. I am not going to be BOLD. There is nothing to be BOLD about. My sole concern is to not leave an orphaned article behind, shrugging my shoulders and assuming this is someone else's responsibility.

If the metaphorical gun on your hip is weighing heavy and tempting you to do the sheriff bit, go ahead. It ain't a threat that will put me off. What are you gonna trash me for? Disagreeing with your 'assessment' of the situation? I am acting in good faith. I am astonished - no, gobsmacked - that a request for advice has become this bizarro assumption that I want to pursue some hidden agenda, waste everyone's time and that I'm looking for a 'showdown' just so an admin can smack me upside the head. Take a break, then a reality check. Remove your preconceived notions about my intentions and look again at this one simple statement: I want advice. And the bureaucratic, shoulder-shrugging response that I should go somewhere else for that advice isn't convincing because the one thing I have thought about carefully is where to seek that advice: from a senior Wikipedia contributor, not from a forum where ethnic tensions are high.

This whole thing has snowballed into some absurd and meaningless confrontation because every admin involved in this thread since Skomorokh has simply assumed bad faith. Isn't that a breach of one of your cardinal rules? Or have I misunderstood and asking for advice from an admin is now against the rules? Oh, and the parting remark was intended to convey the message that you know beans about my intentions, principally because you haven't, thus far, tried to understand them. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been getting "bureaucratic shoulder shrugging" because no one was sure what you were asking. There's no assumption of bad faith but, your questions really didn't make sense. If all you want is for more people to participate in editing/watching the article, try a WikiProject related to the subject. Of course, anyone with an interest in your subject likely already has been involved in the ethnic-conflict issues here.

Finally, calm down, maybe have a nice cup of tea. People have been trying to understand, but AN & ANI don't typically get requests for admins to simply watch a new page. Usually it only comes up if there's repeated vandalism, or threats of POV pushing from off-wiki that admins need to be aware of. I can understand your frustration, but lashing out at the admins really doesn't help you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks THTFY. I thought your cup of tea idea was a nice touch, though I prefer a whiskey, a cigar and the Moonlight Sonata in that context. Because I liked your response so much, I thought about responding on your talk page, but I think my words are appropriate for all administrators who care to read them. Setting the scene: armchairs, Moonlight Sonata, me with whiskey and cigar, you with whatever your equivalent is. Sotto voce, genteel talk.

I think there's a tremendous irony in me coming here to ask advice on how to ask appropriate questions, and that no one could figure out that this is what I was doing, that my intent was philosophical and abstract rather than specific and agenda-driven. That's probably my fault. My command of English is considered by some as pretty good, but it obviously failed me this time.

The more I persisted that I wasn't seeking an intervention, ruling or imprimatur, the more it seemed this was assumed to be precisely the case. In fact, even you, THTFY, assume I want someone to 'watch' a page. Where, in all my words, did you find that inference? Maybe I'm blinded by my own subjectivity to what my words actually say.

It doesn't really matter now, because I found the help I was looking for serendipitously elsewhere. But on my journey to that place, I also found a couple of other, oddly jarring discourses.

The first was a Wikimedia Talk page, where academics, Wikimedia big-wigs and passers-by like me were discussing the statistics about declining editor numbers, and the possible reasons. One of the posts there was the proposition that some administrator behaviours here are synonymous with those of street gangs, intimidating and driving away world-class subject matter experts with clumsy handling of assumptions and personal interactions. Hmmm. It's a matter of personal experience, I suppose, and I'm no world class anything. But I suppose the opinion came from someone suggesting that one singular experience can be difficult to expunge even after thousands of positive ones.

The other, possibly even more jarring discourse was a most eloquent and passionate, if somewhat mournfully pessimistic reflection on the futility of rationality once two or more administrators have determined that an editor means X rather than Y. I found that discourse jarring because its author was Beyond My Ken.

There is an admitted level of difficulty attached to any question about how to ask questions. But I won't apologise for being inclined to ask it, or for not knowing where to ask it. If I owe apologies it's because I was unable to communicate that question to anyone, including you, THTFY.

So, having finished my whiskey and cigar, and the Moonlight Sonata now winding down, I express my sincere thanks to all who spent time on this matter, extend my apologies to all who were offended by my approach (except for the one who commented 'into the hell mouth with you', whom I shall see there some day), and leave you with this thought: I know you all work hard at doing the best job you know how, but what that looks like to everyone else in practice is up to you. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Catherineyronwode

There is a limit to my patience. "fuck you" is beyond that limit. Catherine has been previously blocked for personal attacks. Rami R 19:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The exchange is here. For the record, there were 18 instances of random, mostly IP vandalism on Sundae on 3rd April before the protection. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding. Catherine was working hard on the Sundae article as an IP. Meanwhile there had been significant random IP vandalism that day. Rami R protected the article against IP vandalism. Catherine took umbrage on the assumption that Rami R meant her editing. Rami and another editor have tried to explain the situation to Catherine. Catherine does not appear to have accepted that explanation and still feels aggrieved and insists she personally was called a "persistent vandal", hence the edit summary "fuck you". Daft. No doubt Catherine will see it that way herself when calmer. No admin intervention necessary beyond a message.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Y is a personal attack and uncivil discourse a reason to block anyone? 140.247.141.137 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because as we are a collaborative environment we have to be civil to one another. You wouldn't tell your boss to fuck off, and if you told a policeman to fuck off you'd be highly likely to find yourself arrested - and in most countries you'd probably get the shit kicked out of you as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Catherineyronwode's sole block is from 2006, not long after she registered her account. Whether or not there are ongoing civility issues that have not triggered blocks in the meantime, I cannot say. On the other hand, I do find Catherineyronwode's lecturing tone a bit rich: "Rudeness is such a turn-off when your staff consists of volunteers." Indeed.

Sorry, Rami, Wikipedia's non-admin volunteers are allowed to curse out admin volunteers for any reason or no reason whatsoever. We can't do anything to help you, because that would be 'abuse' of our 'authority'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a good thing :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok but why are these silly cases of rudeness, uncivil things and personal attacks ok? Are they ok? 140.247.141.137 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not OK ... TenOfAllTrades was injecting some humor. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what User:TenOfAllTrades is talking about; we block people for persistent incivility all the time. In this case, it looks like she mistakenly thought she had been accused of vandalism and prevented from editing. Shortly after that, she logged off (which is exactly what one ought to do when too pissed off to be civil). I don't see any sign that she has read the note on her talk page or this discussion. She probably doesn't know she was mistaken yet. I'd kind of like to give her a chance to understand what happened and apologize, rather than immediately blocking her right now, when she may or may not cause any further problem. Don't you agree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine's complaint seems to be that the article was semi'd and she couldn't use her IP to edit the article anymore. So why wasn't she logged on in the first place? Semi has no effect on an established user ID. Seems to me she grossly overreacted. However, Rami is not faultless here either. "F.U." is not OK in and of itself, but the emotional state of an established and sincere editor has to be taken into consideration. If a redlink or a little-used IP says "F.U.", that's usually trolling, begging for a block. That does not seem to be the case here. The admin and the editor need to have some more dialogue on this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a note for Catherine on Rami's talk page.[77] Catherine got a little heated but try to apply some understanding to the frustrating situation she was in. This is a "wikiquette alert" situation at worst. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait Rami is an admin? Would someone explain to me then why we're discussing someone on ANI who has not been notified? If the feeling was further contact may just inflame the situation which is the only real reason I can see for failure of notification then this should have been noted in the original message surely? Also is it really fair to say someone should have just logged in when we have no idea if the is a reason they couldn't have logged in, like editing from a computer they do not trust and when in any case policy is clear we do not require users to have an account or use it if they do provided they aren't engaged in abusive sockpuppetry? Wouldn't a far better message have been something like 'I'm sorry that you were unable to edit as an IP, unfortunately as you can see from the history semi-protection was necessary. As you already have an account, hopefully this does not create too much of an inconvenience. If you are unable to log in due to security concerns, you may want to consider creating an alternative account for such situations.' Yes it would have been easier if 'Catherineyronwode' hadn't go so worked up in the first place but remember if you're an admin you are expected to keep your cool even when others don't (or failing that, don't respond). Incidentally I agree with ToAT and others. If the only problem is 'fuck you' which appears to be more reflecting frustration then anything else and was directed at an admin anyway, and the last and sole block for personal attacks was in 2006 when a user had just started editing, at best a WQA. And I would note even if Catherineyronwode doesn't apologise but also doesn't continue I still see no reason to block. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rami notified Catherine a minute after posting here.[78] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to Rami, I forgot the discussion was going on in Rami's talk page not Catherine's. However the rest of my statement still stands. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That attitude, Nil Einne, is precisely the problem that I bemoaned in my first comment. Since the 'fuck you' was "directed at an admin anyway", for some reason it counts as less inappropriate or offensive in the minds of some editors—you, apparently, included. Why is that? Why is it that we should be more tolerant of abuse directed at the volunteers our community has judged to be responsible and trustworthy? Why is it less okay to 'fuck you' a non-admin? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rami made this request ;). Given she made the 'fuck you' comment on Rami's talk page, and given it was explained there before that comment that she wasn't the vandal, I'm not sure it was appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the 'fuck you' was appropriate. However just because a comment was inappropriate doesn't mean there's really much that can or should be done about it from an admin point of view (remember this is WP:ANI). In particular, as others have said it's not even clear it was really directed at Rami as opposed to a more general expression of frustration at wikipedia and the people here. And even if it were, while incivil it's quite questionable to call it a personal attack. Note that while the discussions was going on at Rami's talk page you had responded before the 'fuck you' came. And while an attempt may have been made to explain to Catherine that the 'persistent vandal' bit wasn't directed at her it appears it was not understood. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously suggesting a block are they? Rami notified Catherine. I looked into it (see above) and left a message on Catherine's page in which I expressed the view her behaviour had not been appropriate. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion over notification, I have struck my comment. Anyway to the main point, bearing in mind this is WP:ANI not WP:WQA (or any of the other places you can go to for non administrative help in dealing with a situation although give the existence of talk page stalkers it's not even clear if even that was necessary) and the original message was 'There is a limit to my patience. "fuck you" is beyond that limit. Catherine has been previously blocked for personal attacks.' Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was uncivil and a personal attack directed at Rami. That doesn't inexorably lead to a block. We don't ( or shouldn't) rush to block editors in good standing because they have a bit of a snit in a moment of frustration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to sleep, came back and wrote another 1.5 hours on the sundae article. Then i wandered off again and only came back to check for typos (and corrected them) and saw the AN/I note. So here i am, a day late.

Rami clarified that nothing personal was intended in the term "persistent vandalism," and i will clarify that the term "fuck you" was not an "attack" nor was it personally directed at Rami; it was simply an expletive expressive of a late-night combination of pent-up frustration and aggrieved virtue. I apologize for any offense caused; my intention was self-expression, not incivility per se.

To the question of why i log in from my IP address -- it is a personal choice. I would not get into this here, in the midst of an AN/I response, but the question was asked, so here is the reply:

I am not a social person and have never claimed to be, but i study human social interactions in order to learn how to "be" a social person. I am a writer, and i've been working here for 5 years, doing scut work for no reason other than that i like the idea of a large encyclopedia. As "notable wikipedian" catherine yronwode, i am often treated with deference and courtesy when i identify myself as user Catherineyronwode. The polite treatment is appreciated, but i also hear from newbies who are just trying to start editing that they get snotty responses from long-time editors, and i wonder what it feels like to be them. I use my IP to see how i will be treated as an IP compared to when i log in under my real name. I am curious about these three levels of my reality: notable wikipedian catherine yronwode / user-editor-writer Catherineyronwode / anonymous IP 64.142.90.33.

The experiment has been interesting. My IP user page 64.142.90.33 (talk) specifically identifies the 64.142.90.33 (talk) IP as an alternate for my Catherineyronwode username and links to same, as well as providing a running total of how many years i wave worked here. Yet despite the clear identification, the 64.142.90.33 (talk) page has on several occasions been decorated with all manner of fatuous auto-reverts and "try the sandbox" auto-guff that has, in fact, never been posted to my Catherineyronwode page.

In other words, by not logging in, i am testing the WP system in the same way that a "mystery shopper" tests a chain store's customer service implementation. I am not going incognito -- the links on my IP page are quite clear.

Most of the time when i write and edit as an IP, everything goes well. In fact, at times, i have worked for weeks or months as "Ol' 64" with no condescending auto-messages left on my pages and no lock-outs or auto-reverts. Other times, i absolutely get hassled just for being an IP writer. The auto-reverts, lock-outs, and auto-messages arrive at the whim of editors who don't investigate first -- they just fire off their negative projections at me because i'm not logged in. My writing is the same, my code is as clean as always, my research is just as acceptably reffed -- but as an IP, i get splattered.

The fact that i was writing at night, just after google had made the sundae page a click-magnet, should indicate my interest in improving wikipedia articles, and the fact that i got angry when i thought i was being called a "persistent vandal" should let the psychologists among you know that i was caught off-guard and taken unawares while i was in the middle of a self-perception of myself as a fun-loving, virtuous, hard-working, happy volunteer.

Cordially, catherine yronwode a.k.a. 64.142.90.33 (talk) a.k.a. Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

When an article is locked for whatever reason, before getting angry at the locking admin you should check the article's recent history and see what else has been going on besides just your edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseballl Bugs, i did that. I had been editing on the sundae page (and related pages, like Royal Ann cherry, linking them together) for 1.25 hours, during which time i had made perhaps a dozen page-saves, six of them on the sundae page, and i saw no vandalism and no other editors at all during that time. Then the page was suddenly semi-protected for "persistent vandalism." I checked a few previous edits and they did not look to me like vandal edits, so since i was the only one working on the page at all, i thought that the lock-out was aimed at me and i was being called a persistent vandal. These are the edits i checked, to see if the claim of "persistant vandalism" was being made at me:

• six edits by me, over a 1.25 hour period, preceded by the following edits NOT by me:
• someone removed New York (state) after Buffalo (city); that was a style matter; large cities often don't get states after their names
• someone fixed a typo on "pecans"
• someone changed "named for" to "named after"
• someone changed a date from 1882 to 1892. I thought this was a math problem; it might have been vandalism or restoration from vandalism, but in fact there were numerous conflicting and disputed dates in the article (that is, the fact that the dates are disputed was the point of a good deal of the page's text), and math is not my strong suit
• someone capitalized the word "blondie" to "Blondie" probably thinking of the singer or the comic strip and assuming the name of the blondie cookie should be capitalized; a style call (i later de-capitalized it), but a legitimate error
• i added a description of turtle candies

So i checked, and the past 12 edits did not look like vandalism to me. Seven of those 12 edits were mine. I did not arrive lightly at the conclusion that the remark was directed at me. I did check. I have accepted Rani's statement that the term was not aimed at me, despite the fact that i was the only one working on the article at the time of the semi-lock-out. It was not the semi-protection that angered me -- it was that it looked like there were no vandals -- and in fact no one had recently been near the article but me. Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not used to say "Fuck you." Doesn't matter how good a content creator you are or not - no excuse for it. You're not going to get blocked for your poor use of them, but you shouldn't do it again. Why is this still here? Use edit summaries for what they were intended for, and move along. Doc talk 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to Catherine:

Looking at the sequence of events during the 3rd, the key facts you overlooked were the request for page protection, the timing of the vandalisms, and the timing of the fulfillment of the request for page protection:

1. I'm seeing questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 23:47 on the 2nd, then on the 3rd at 01:00, 01:28, 01:29, 02:03, 02:19, 02:28, 03:04.
2. I'm guessing Google posted their thing no later than 04:00 UTC, as that would be midnight EDST in the US.
3. More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 04:16, 04:20, 04:23, 04:55, 05:05, 05:22, 05:47, 05:48, 06:04, 06:26, 06:41.
4. Tbhotch requested protection for the Sundae page at 06:47, due to the Google thing.[79]
5. More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 06:49, 07:25, 07:34, 07:49, 08:17, 08:20, 08:22, 08:25, 08:29, 08:31.
6. Your first edit as an IP came at 08:33 and the last at 09:46.
7. Rami fulfilled the RFPP request and semi'd Sundae at 09:48.
8. You begin editing using your login at 09:51.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV has been backlogged for several hours now, could an admin take a look please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the well sourced text

A user Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has replaced a large piece of text with his own text, and thereby removed relevant and well sourced information from the Communist terrorism article[80]. This removal has been done without proper explanation on the talk page and without adequate edit summaries. The attempts to remove this text has been done before by the same user under dubious pretext[81], or with a misleading edit summary[82]; they also argued that the sources used by their opponents are "junk" [83], [84]. However, the discussion on the WP:RSN demonstrated that the Tentontunic's statement that the sources used by their opponents are not reliable, non-mainstream and non-academic was incorrect [85][86]. The discussion on the WP:NPOVN also demonstrated that the sources Tentontunic seeks to remove are mainstream, and that due weight should be given to them in the article [87][88].
It is necessary to note that the article is under the WP:1RR, so repeated removal of the same text, even with the intervals loner than 1 day is the edit warring.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you, in response to this recent removal, attempted to start a conversation with this user? --Jayron32 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the NPOV board most certainly does not back your assertion. And I have used your sources in the rewrite. (did you not notice?) This is another frivolous complaint from a user who has persistently block shopped when he does not get his own way. If he has an issue with my edits to the article he ought really take it up on the article talk page. I will also point out I made it quite clear on the article talk page I was rewriting the sections in question. And that this user making the complaint has also removed well sourced text several times, but I did not go block shopping because of it. Tentontunic (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32. The talk page conversations with this user are tens thousand kilobytes long, and I have no hope that additional conversation will lead to somethong useful. The last massive changes of the article's text has been made without any attempt to discuss it on the article's talk page, and the fact that some (just few) of my sources have been used in the new (truncated) version changes nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic should avoid removing and inserting text while there is disagreement. It amounts to a slow edit war, but it is edit-warring nonetheless. TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how rewriting content so it flows as a decent narrative and is not a disjointed selection of statements is edit warring. If siebert can remove content and rewrite it as he sees fit then I may also do so. I will also point out that TFD has been block shopping also, filing a spurious enforcement request against me. Tentontunic (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And this on top of sieberts constant personal attacks really does take the biscuit. He calls me a liar around 5 times and no action taken, I edit an article he has ownerships issues on and he files this. What a joker. 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how removal of the large piece of text, which was supported by good quality references (also removed) can be considered "rewriting". Per WP:3RR it is a revert, and, since this revert is repeated, it is slow edit-warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "liar". Obviously, I never called Teonontunic a liar. However, since some of their statements were false, I characterised them (under "them" I mean the statements, not Tentontunic) accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly accused my of being a liar. And have yet to retract your attacks even when it has been pointed out to you why you were wrong. And as for removal of large sections of text, were? As near as I can see the only content you had inserted which is not currently there was In December 1956, the South Vietnamese communists, had been attacked by Ngô Đình Diệm's troops who initiated a "Anti-Communist Denunciation Campaign" leading to numerous arrests and executions, frequently via beheading or disemboweling.[42] The Communists, who had been driven into remote swamps,[43] decided to revive the insurgency.[44] because it is wrong the insurgency had not ended, so how can it have restarted? Tentontunic (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, since the content removed by Tentontunic (by this edit[[89]]) includes, for instance, this fragment:

"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda to deny the partisans' political legitimacy, to locate the Malayan Emergency in a broader context of the Cold War and to preserve a British business interests in Malaya, which would be heavily affected had the British administration conceded that they faced a full scale anti colonial insurgency. Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures. "

it would be probably correct to characterise their last post as false. By writing that I by no means want to characterise Tentontunic themselves. I may provide other examples, however this one is sufficient, in my opinion.

Re " because it is wrong the insurgency had not ended, so how can it have restarted? " Although this is more a dispute over a content, let me point out that this statement is also wrong, because there were (as far as I know) no Communist insurgency in Southern Vietnam before Communists had been attacked by the government.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And the viet minh were? Which I have added to the article in the rewrite. The majority of the content remains the same, it is just easier to read now. You are just block shopping because you want control over this article. You have removed reliably sourced content quite a few times and added content with no consensus, tell me please why you feel I may not do this? Tentontunic (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, by comparing the Tentontunic's version with the previous one it becomes quite obvious who removes a reliably sourced context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not answer my question? Or do you deny removing reliably sourced content? Tentontunic (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although my post about the Malaya has been left unanswered by Tentontunic, I'll try to address their question. Regarding Vietnam, the previous text:

"In December 1956, the South Vietnamese communists, had been attacked by Ngô Đình Diệm's troops who initiated a "Anti-Communist Denunciation Campaign" leading to numerous arrests and executions, frequently via beheading or disemboweling. The Communists, who had been driven into remote swamps, decided to revive the insurgency. This insurgency had been supported by the North Vietnamese Communist leadership. An assassination campaign, referred to as "extermination of traitors" or "armed propaganda" in communist literature, began in April 1957. The campaign targeted political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military. During the Vietnam War, between 1965 and 1972 the Viet Cong had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. In Saigon terrorist actions have been described as "long and murderous". Tactics by the Viet Cong, such as the beheading of the village chief and cutting off the arm of his 12 year old daughter in Binh Dinh province, were designed to intimidate and frighten the citizenry. The prime minister of the time Tran Van Huong was shot in an attempted assassination. "

has been replaced with

"At the end of World War II the Viet Minh who had fought the Japanese began operations against the French colonial forces. After the armistice signed between the two forces in 1954 terrorist actions continued.

Carol Winkler has written that in the 1950`s Viet Cong terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. "

In connection to that, the question (addressed to me) "Or do you deny removing reliably sourced content? " hardly deserves a detailed answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This was the question, You have removed reliably sourced content quite a few times and added content with no consensus, tell me please why you feel I may not do this? Please tell me why you feel it is reasonable for you to remove reliably sourced content but not I? Tentontunic (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is quite simple. We (Tentontunic and I) worked together on the talk page on the same draft. Tentontunic was unsatisfied with the modifications proposed by me, and requested new sources. When I provided the sources Tentontunic claimed that the sources were junk (this claim was later refuted on the WP:RSN), and stopped to respond. After that Tentontunic added their own version of the text, completely ignoring my modifications and the sources I added, as if no discussion between them and me occurred. Of course, this unilateral step could not be left unanswered, and I added my version, which was an extended, and more neutral variant of what Tentontunic has proposed. In addition, I always explained my edits on the talk page, provided needed arguments on the appropriate noticeboard, whereas Tentontunic continued to argue even when their arguments had been exhausted, and when others explained him the flaw of their position. If an uninvolved admin will need in some diffs, they will be provided upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And again you evade the question put to you, please respond to this. Please tell me why you feel it is reasonable for you to remove reliably sourced content but not I? This is the third time I have asked this. Tentontunic (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My answer has just been deleted by another user[90]. Is it in accordance with the rules?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral observer who responded to a comment at WP:NPOVN, there appears to be some ownership issues on this article. It seems from some of the comments that there is a patterm of Disruptive Editing per WP:DE in that questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits are repeatedly ignored. It certainly warrants closer examination by a neutral admin. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm also an involved user, I am disappointed that Paul Siebert has taken the "enforcement" route to have his way on content. There are only several active editors at the article at the moment. Requesting enforcement based on contentions of superiority of one's own content and aspersions cast on one's editorial opposition are poor conduct indeed. Editor Paul Siebert has attacked me on the talk page of said article over content I have not even yet created, that is the level of antagonism currently being dispensed to editors even just anticipated to have some alternate editorial POV. FYI, Paul Siebert eventually agreed to wait and see regarding my anticipated edits (see my talk); however, the general pattern of attempting to control content by attacking one's editorial opposition appears to continue elsewhere unabated. I'm commenting here because I had hoped we had made some progress on a more constructive approach to a potentially contentious topic. Clearly I was mistaken. I regret feeling an obligation to comment in the negative on an editor whom I have stated in the past I respect. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll try to abstain from answering on that. Despite this your comment, I still respect you, and I would like to preserve this my attitude in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Another case of "I can't win on the article talk page as I do not have consensus so let's try AN/I as another place to ask"itis. This is one of the worst uses of AN/I possible, and with a bunch of editors who appear at length on the article talk page opining at great length here. Collect (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This ANI discussion thus far essentially boils down to, anyone who is agreeing with Paul is on his side in the debate on the talk page. Anyone who disagrees is on the opposite side of the debate. This is a content dispute and a clear example of users in a dispute attempting to use discretionary sanctions against each other to remove the users that don't agree with them. Silverseren^C 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The content dispute is a dispute over a content. This thread is about something else: independently of what is being said on the talk page or noticeboards, some person, which seems to participate in these discussions just pro formae, unilaterally inserts their edits, and removes the edits of others. This is definitely a dispute over conduct, not content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is primarily a splendid example of forumshopping on your part - as others have also noted. Collect (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul has removed huge sections of sourced content in the past [91],[92],[93], Paul also has a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with him as "disruptive"[94]. There has already been a complaint about Paul's behaviour here, and he undertook to restrict his interaction with some editors just a day ago[95], and yet here he is at it again. --Martin (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As I has always explained before, the alleged removal of the text was the move of the text to another article, which was preceded by prolonged discussion, and the consensus was to move. Please, avoid misleading statements in future. BTW, the later example is a pure content dispute, because noone can point at any problems with anybody's conduct during the discussion of that move.

Re "Paul also has a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with him as "disruptive"" given that just one example has been provided, such a degree of generalisation is hardly justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I appreciate your attempt to point an uninvolved administrator's attention at this issue[96]. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me summarize

During this discussion following users expressed their opinions:

1. User:Tentontunic;
2. Martin;
3. User:Collect;
4. PЄTЄRS J V;
5. User:Silver seren
6. TFD
7. Wee Curry Monster
8. Jayron

First four users are deeply involved in the dispute over this issue, which has one month long history. Some of them (e.g. Peters) openly and honestly declared that. The fifths user is not currently involved, although they were involved in the similar disputes in the past. TFD is also involved, but they belong to the opposite party. Jayron de facto abstained from participation in this dispute. The only really uninvolved user, Wee Curry Monster expressed an opinion that the issue should be analyzed by an uninvolved admin. In connection to that I would appreciate if some admin analysed this incident in details. I am ready to present all additional evidences upon request. In addition, I have to return to another issue: my post has been deleted during this discussion[[97]], and that was supplemented with an insulting edit summary. In connection to that, I would like to know if I have to report this case separately, or it can be considered as pa part of this story?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that there is a bizarre content dispute here. Tentontunic, Collect and Vecrumba are trying to portray the forces that fought against the United States during the Vietnam War as "Communist Terrorists", an anachronistic reference to the Cold War terminology abandoned by the U.S. in 1972 (!) While there are editors who defend POV definitions, it is rare to find any insisting on interpretations of history that were abandoned decades ago. TFD (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would love it if you represented my position accurately. Tha above claim with regard to me is false, and is a straw man argument at best. I invite anyone at all to look at my edits on the article and say if there is any sign that I believe anything other than that WP policies and guidelines should be followed. Saying an editor said something which he did not say is a teensy bit iffy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the content dispute should be resolved via talk page discussions, RSN, NPOVN, NORN and RfCs. What we have here is a conduct issue, concretely, a user deleted the content they disliked, despite the fact that it was properly sourced (according to the RSN discussion), and neutral (according to NPOVN). This situation poses a serious danger for Wikipedia, because it demonstrates how current system can be gamed to remove the content that is disliked by just few Wikipedians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of your comment, Collect commented inside of a minute of when you did, so I think we can safely chalk that up to an honest mistake. Cheers. lifebaka 04:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As this revision shows [98], the text was successfully added to the page, so its accidental removal due to the edit conflict is highly unlikely. I never faced such a glitch before. However, if Collect openly and clearly explained that the removal has been done unintentionally, it would be sufficient for considering this part of the incident resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul - try AGF someday. I did not intentionally remove anyone's comment at all, nor would I. You assumption of bad faith is in line with your posts about me, however. Kindly stop. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find Paul's statement "This situation poses a serious danger for Wikipedia, because it demonstrates how current system can be gamed to remove the content that is disliked by just few Wikipedians" somewhat ironic, given the massive deletion of sourced content without concensus, as discussed here, here, here and here. This matter ought to be referred to the Arbitration Committee to sort this mess out. --Martin (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Chumchum7 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Starting with disclosure, afaik I've never had anything to do with Tentontunic, nor have I had anything to do with the 'Communist Terrorism' article. I have interacted both with Martin and Paul Siebert, primarily at the 'World War Two' article. Unless I'm mistaken, it appears that this topic on Tentontunic opened by Paul Siebert is a continuation of their interaction from an earlier, still unfinished, topic on Paul Siebert opened by Tentontunic at administrator EdJohnston's Talk. So it's difficult to constructively chime in while these two topics are open at the same time. As such, the two should be merged in some way, in a new place, before analysis is undertaken and conclusions are drawn. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the claim that I am "deeply involved." My position has had little to do with content, and a lot to do with WP policies and guidelines which are violated on a regular basis. Mr, Siebert misses no opportunity to levy the "involved" charge at me, and I am getting a tad tired of it - it is done to discredit anyone who posts independent comments on the article talk page, and is getting tiresome in the extreme. Counting edits on Communist terrorism for example finds Siebert with 60 edits, Tentontunic with 60, and so on -- with my total a huge 8 (primarily not all that major). For the talk page. Siebert and TFD dominate by a huge margin: Paul Siebert (692), The Four Deuces (515), Justus Maximus (325), AndyTheGrump (266) ,Tentontunic (199) and me at a modest 168 - virtually all about WP policies (see [99] where TFD insists that every part of an article must be sourceable to a single source, for an example). And [100] and many other places where he asserts that folks who call themselves "communist" and who commit "terrorist acts" can not be called "communist terrorists." That I demur with the requirement that any article be sourceable to a single source does not make me "involved" as anything other than a backer of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Paul Siebert and TFD, on the other hand, provide the huge majority of material on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just added up the amount of material added on the talk page in last 499 edits -- Paul has contributed 98K thereto, Second is Vecrumba at 35.5k. Third is TFD at 25.5K roughly. Fourth is Tentontunic at 24.5K. Fifth is Martintg at 13.8K. I do not even make the cut at 8K. Paul TFD = 123K . (over 60%) Vecrumba, Martin, and TTT add up to 73K. (under 40%) Collect (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WRT being an active editor - my last edit to the article was [101] on 3 April 2011. I am willing to have anyone at all who is uninvolved look at that revert. My immediate previous edit was [102] on 12 Dec 2010. Again I invite any neutral party to examine that revert (adding "citation needed" to every noun and adjective in the lede did seem a bit pointy). My prior edit [103] on 29 Nov 2010 seem to have aroused Paul's ire. I ask anyone to state with a straight face that cutting an article from 30K to 3K is not a "deletion" :). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Annually renewed series of group/role accounts; newest, User:Psyc3330 w11, has just been reported at UAA

Somebody reported this a couple of months ago, and the discussion just dwindled off without any kind of resolution. If we are going to allow the creation of group/role accounts by anybody claiming to be a class of college students, then we need to explicitly say so. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking the account outright would certainly not be productive nor good for our public image. However, if we can get in contact with the professor leading that class, and perhaps explain to them Wikipedia's policy regarding role accounts, it might have a better outcome. It's clear they're not interested in notices on their talk page, at least for the moment, so we might have to try another route to get in contact with someone of authority. elektrikSHOOS 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference, previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Apparent annual creation of role accounts for a class assignment. Cheers. lifebaka 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, someone else should take a look at Psyc3330 w11's recent page moves and fix the titles. Many have parentheticals after the title with no space between (see Memory(self-related), which I've fixed, and Memory(social interactions), which I have not) and need to be moved to better titles. Cheers. lifebaka 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the second one you mentioned. elektrikSHOOS 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the name/email/phone number of the prof who runs the class, email me if you want it. Passionless -Talk 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, could you email them directly and let them know about this discussion? It's not going to go anywhere if they're not even aware it's happening. elektrikSHOOS 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent him an email asking for him to take part here, I hope it works. Passionless -Talk 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all-- happy to see that the contributions from my yearly Memory course have generated a number of positive comments. My emphasis with the class has been on generating quality content on topics that are lacking or in serious need of expansion, and to do so within the highly constrained period of time available to us. Hopefully the end result has outweighed any concerns associated our unintentional violations of protocol. We continue to improve our adherence to policy as we learn about it, though, to be honest, there is a fine balance between the rewards of contributing (which are very real for the students) and costs of investing time/effort learning the rules and how to adhere to them (which are more salient for me as the instructor). Regarding the primary issue at hand, if we continue to contribute in the future, we will try to find a way to use individuals accounts that isn't too onerous. --User:Psyc3330_Prof —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, you have it spot on. I don't think anyone was concerned with the quality of the content other than minor nitpicky concerns – I don't think any serious Wikipedian would shun positive contributions to the project. The biggest issue addressed was the use of a role account, which isn't allowed under Wiki policy. However, since it appears you'll be addressing that concern, it appears all is well.

In general, I'd refer you to Wikipedia:School and university projects which has a helpful guideline of what is and is not allowed as it pertains to school and university classes. It also contains several contacts to people who are more than willing to answer questions and help facilitate projects. elektrikSHOOS 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You could always create a number of accounts named "Psyc3330 w<some year> <some number>" based on the number of students in your class on any given year. Tracking them all would be fairly simple, then, either manually or using RSS feeds (like [104], which is terribly huge 'cuz I've been writing comments on this page). Creating the accounts themselves won't be too difficult; you can either request the number you need or we can grant you an account creator flag so you can do it yourself (normally only a certain number can be created per day per IP address, to avoid abuse).

As far as learning the rules goes, it's something that you, as the professor, will probably want to do, but don't worry too much about it with the students. It seems like anything they might select to write about will pass our inclusion guidelines easily and we always enjoy good content, so anything that needs fixing (to comply with our less-intuitive rules) can be flagged as such. You'll just need to make sure that your students don't see such templates on their articles as an attack on their writing--we flag things we identify as issues so that people can correct them, not to assign blame.

If you have any other questions, Psyc3330_Prof, feel free to continue this thread, request help by adding {{help me}} to your talk page, or ask me on my talk page. Cheers. lifebaka 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all very helpful. Thanks. --User:Psyc3330_Prof —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

Perpetual disruption by Rosanacurso and socks

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

Rosanacurso (talk · contribs) is now community banned from Wikipedia. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Since the beginning of March, we've had a basically constant disruption from Rosanacurso (talk · contribs) and their socks. It's been confirmed by checkuser that this editor has been wardriving around their town, creating socks, and causing general problems. One common thread is that they all tend to edit the sandbox, but of course we're not going to protect the sandbox for a long time. You can look at the SPI case archive to see what's been going on, but I'm bringing it up here because we have to do something about it. Checkusers have stated that we can't do any sort of IP blocking since it's all over the place, so that's not an option. Is there anything else we can do? Or are we just going to have a perpetually open SPI case? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One could attempt to gain support for a temporary community ban of some sort, which would allow users to revert-on-sight and bypass WP:3RR. elektrikSHOOS 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I will note that Rosanacurso has created 194 socks within the past 3 weeks. –MuZemike 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread not to enact a community ban (though that's fine on its own), but to see if there's something on a technical level that can be done. Or are we really just relegated to having to constantly RBI? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the checkusers were right. If there's a wide range of IPs being used there's no way we can block one user without also potentially blocking a large group of helpful users. WP:RBI is the only way to go, though if it persists for some time you could file a report at WP:LTA and see if the users' ISP could be contacted. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great question from HelloAnnyong, is there anything else that can be done, to keep this from happening? It's not really showing any sign of slowing down. The only idea I have, which would only make a marginal difference, would be to semi-protect WT:Sandbox, which seems to attract some of the edits--and this is really a redundant page, anyway. Note that I am not suggesting semi-protecting WP:Sandbox--that's the main sandbox. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Elektrik, contacting ISPs won't help us if the user is driving around town and stealing WiFi from people. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor am I suggesting that would help. However, if most of the vandalism is being performed from one or two locations that use dynamic IPs, the ISPs who provide service to those locations could be contacted for abuse as a last resort. elektrikSHOOS 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I wasn't paying attention to the wardriving aspect. Carry on as if I hadn't said anything. elektrikSHOOS 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How many articles are being affected, other than the sandbox? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BB, it seems to be getting more erratic. At first it was mostly Tea (meal) and Talk:Fish and chips, but it seems some of the accounts since then have moved to other, more random articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say more than 20. Here's a sample.

[105]

[106]

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111]

[112]

Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for community ban

And not a temporary one. 112 socks = indef ban, end of story. At the time of the previous ban proposal, I recall that while Rosanacurso had 50 suspected socks, only one was actually confirmed. When the problem gets that much worse in such a short period of time, you know it's time to eliminate it at its source. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I re-tagged them all as actual socks, as it's bloody obvious that they all are. –MuZemike 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support a community ban. It's been a while, and at 100 socks, all of them disruptive, it's clear that this user has no interest in improving the project. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They're just going to be indef-blocked when they show up anyway, so what's the point of a ban? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would be more of a formality at this point than anything. But still, it would allow editors to revert-on-sight, etc. Beyond that I don't really see anything we can do other than WP:RBI. elektrikSHOOS 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I guess it would mean that once they are socked and blocked, their edits can be reverted without requiring any further reason. I'll support, then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - not to mention this has to be the most fucking retarded reason to be wardriving. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I completely agree with the diagnosis of wardriving. With that said, could it be possible that more than one person is involved? There is still massive sockpuppetry, of course. The sock names often refer to students at a particular school--maybe it is actually more than one student at a school. With that said, the edits are so similar that it is easy to believe that it is just one person. Unfortunately, none of this gets at the issue of reducing the incidence of this problem. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is the most pointless use of wardriving in human history. --NellieBly (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Completely ridiculous. Ban and let editors revert on sight. Heiro 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Kcowolf (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment maybe an edit filter could be developed that stops edits from new accounts from that IP range. That would have much less fallout than a range block. If the person is obstinate enough to keep editing the sandbox consistently, the filter could even notice that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't an IP range that could be used - the editor is driving round and using all sorts of different unsecured wireless networks, so there are lots of IP ranges -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. But the edit filter might be able to figure out the geolocation. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe some of the edits have a common thread, like they are all from the same school ("ITE"?). Or with over 100 SPs, have some IPs come up repeatedly? I am sure this is wardriving, but even a partial block would slow this down. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Beyond time to ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Such flagrant thumbing of the nose at the community cannot be allowed to continue. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can see no benefit from doing otherwise. (In the unlikely event that it's a group of people rather than one individual, well, the group have all been behaving disruptively and only detract from the encyclopædia). bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 5 April 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.

Violation of WP:Consensus at Titanic (1997 film) article

Resolved

 – Resolved per Flyer22.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Ring Cinema continues to insist that there is no consensus regarding a recent dispute we have been engaged in at the Titanic (1997 film) article, and steadily tries to get his version into the lead in part...or in whole. Per the Manual of Style (film) discussion, I objected not only to his the placement of the material but to the wording as well, and sought consensus as to whether or not his version of the lead is better. In the Manual of Style (film) discussion, consensus was reached, and is further displayed in the Towards a consensus section...with yet another editor weighing in and supporting the previous version of the lead. Today, I tweaked the lead,[113][114] per concerns from an IP (two IPs, but likely the same person) that there was some weasel wording going on. Though I tweaked the lead, I left it as the consensus version with just slightly different wording. After my tweaks, Ring Cinema showed up to "tweak" it further, but by adding back in his disputed version of the lead, just lower. Not only did I dispute that wording of the Academy Award nominations information in the Manual of Style (film) section and sought consensus to get it changed away from that, another editor objected to the wording at the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section. I reverted Ring Cinema, per the consensus on the talk page and his wording being confusing and not specific enough.[115][116] He reverted me on the grounds of his version being "perfectly clear", despite the concerns raised. He also removed the fact that Titanic became the highest-grossing film of all time on the grounds that it is misleading...even though the wording says "became," not "is," and is noted lower in the article as well, and is stated in both places that it was surpassed as the highest-grossing film of all time. The lead still makes clear that the film was the highest-grossing until Avatar, so that is not a main concern of mine.

I firmly believe that Ring Cinema continues to revert me for personal reasons -- a past debate we got into on the same article, which turned very heated and nasty (our first big dispute with each other at the article). I cite policy and guidelines. But all he cites is his own preferences, basically WP:ILIKEIT. He reverts me and then accuses me of WP:OWN, when I follow policy and guidelines, such as following the film style guideline and maintaining the consensus version of the lead. He even reported me to an administrator, who clearly told him that I was not owning the article and that he should give up on his version of the lead if he could not convince others to support it.[117] Any time an IP or regular editor makes an edit because of dissatisfaction with the lead, Ring Cinema uses this as an excuse to reinsert his version, either in part or in whole. I feel that this is a clear violation of WP:Consensus and senseless edit warring. I clearly disputed the wording he recently added back, which is part of the consensus discussion. Yet Ring Cinema says the consensus was not about that -- even though consensus supports the previous version either way -- and that there is no consensus[118], despite seven editors being against his version. This was/is not a straw poll. Seven editors gave valid reasons for their objections to his version. Of course, I responded to the "no consensus" bit.[119] We have tried talking this out with each other plenty of times, but it always leads into arguments of belittling and the like. Administrative intervention is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this process and I don't ignore consensus. Flyer22 has tempted the boundaries of WP:OWN in regard to the Titanic article for some time and this complaint is another example of her efforts in this regard. Her version of the situation is tendentious at best. There's no solid consensus on this matter, although we have three or four viewpoints about how to handle the lead section. What seems to have annoyed her was my offer of a compromise edit that tried to accommodate the viewpoints expressed. She immediately accused me of bad faith. There were some criticisms of my draft, but I believe I answered them adequately and the chore of finding a solution fell mostly to me, Flyer22 and BettyLogan. Flyer complained to EdJohnston about our continued work on it and he pointed out that we were working toward a consensus. Subsequently, Betty expressed her agreement with my position, at least in part. That indicates that my compromise offer might be most acceptable. In any event, I repeatedly asked Flyer22 to offer her own compromise and she refused with further misplaced accusations of bad faith and warring. In fact, I'm simply trying to include the extant views, including hers. If an editor won't offer a compromise and won't accept any editing of their contributions, what can other editors do? There is plenty of middle ground here to recognize the various reasonable viewpoints. That's been my approach and I think that's what we're supposed to be doing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To other editors, please read the above and look through the discussions and links. The only one who has accused me of WP:OWN is Ring Cinema. His accusations are not valid anywhere in my edits. But my accusations toward him are, I feel. He is currently violating WP:Consensus by changing the lead partially back to his disputed version. Further, as I stated above, and as shown now in his reply, he continues to insist that there is no consensus, despite seven editors being against his version. He is the only one for it. Now he changes "no consensus" to "no solid consensus." As I stated in two places now: "[H]ow many more editors does it take to declare consensus if this is not a straw poll? Would we still be having this discussion if 10 editors had agreed on the same thing? How about 18? We simply don't have that many people weighing in on this matter, and must take what consensus has been given." I did not go to EdJohnston first. Ring Cinema did. I only went to EdJohnston to defend myself against Ring Cinema's WP:OWN accusation. But either way, EdJohnston agreed that I was not violating WP:OWN. Betty is one of the editors who supports the previous version of the lead. And in the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section, she also quite clearly expresses concern regarding Ring Cinema's Academy Awards nominations wording. If Ring Cinema were "simply trying to include the extant views, including [mine]," he would not be insisting on keeping such confusing and inadequate wording. What "seems to have annoyed" me about Ring Cinema's arguments is that they are never based in guidelines or policy, he continues to insist that WP:Consensus means everyone must be satisfied, that I must offer a compromise in any case, and acts as though I have never compromised. Not to mention...he is constantly using any objection to some part of the lead to add back in material he knows is disputed (such as now). That is what has annoyed me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Give it to me in one sentence or less: What is the dispute here? It's possible that the lack of response is due to a tl;dr error. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just read the entire talk page for Titanic and I think I can summarize for you Ultraexactzz:

• There was a dispute about what should go into the lead of the article.
• Consensus went strongly with an approach not favoured by Ring Cinema (talk · contribs).
• On the talk page, Ring Cinema filibustered. At first he adopted the pretence that consensus was with him and now asserts that there is not a consensus.
• Concurrent with the dispute, there has been edit-warring over the lead which lead to a page protection; the edit-warring continues.

CIreland (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel that my initial comment was too long. I looked at a few other cases here, and saw that those sections were initially one or two paragraphs as well. Some were even longer than that once others started to weigh in, but the administrators were still able to see the issue and take action. If a summary is needed in only one sentence, my first sentence sums it up. But there was no way I could adequately describe and back up my complaint without most of the detail and reference links that followed that first sentence. CIreland sums it up well enough, though. WP:Consensus is a policy that should be followed. Seven editors are for the version prior to Ring Cinema's recent alteration of the lead. And if seven editors to one is not consensus, what is? Right now, it's like consensus is not determined unless Ring Cinema says so and is satisfied. We need the article to be at its most stable, and less disputed, and that is the version that most editors are okay with. The discussions going on right now about it are in the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section and the Towards a consensus section. In the latter, two editors have reaffirmed their positions -- the lead all seven editors agreed on is best...but perhaps without weasel wording. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the facts are misstated here. I haven't ignored any consensus and I haven't filibustered. I left it to BettyLogan's judgement about when or if my compromise draft should remain in place. When she moved it, I didn't interfere. There are two elements to the compromise I put forward: the placement of the film's awards information and the specific phrasing. Betty agreed with me on the phrasing but not on the placement. I'm acting consistent with that. I'm quite sure I have observed the niceties regarding the straw poll that EdJohnston said seemed to be 5-3, which is not a very strong consensus and worth further discussion. Flyer refuses to participate despite my repeated offers that she offer her own preferred compromise draft. In what way does this go outside best practice? As far as I know, I'm doing what a good editor is supposed to do. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is the post where BettyLogan indicated her agreement with me: "I think the record nature of the achievement should be "brought out" more regardless of whether the information is relocated; you are correct on that point. Personally I'm even open to moving the information up the lead, although not to the first paragraph since I think the first paragraph should solely define the film. I think it could be incorporated into the second paragraph ahead of the production information, since the box office/oscars are definitely more prominent information than the background production info. Is that something both you and Flyer would contemplate? Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)" --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The facts are not misstated at all. Any editor can simply look over the matter and see what is going on. CIreland read through the entire talk page and pretty much stated the same thing I stated...except in lesser words. You state that you haven't ignored any consensus, when, clearly, you have -- stating that seven editors to your one is not consensus and is a straw poll. No, seven editors opposing your version with valid reasons is not a straw poll, and don't even act as though EdJohnston backs you up that there is no consensus. He did not seem to notice that six editors were already in agreement. You already stated that consensus must satisfy all editors, which is just laughable and is not how Wikipedia works. You keep stating that Betty agreed with you on the phrasing just because she didn't object to it. No, it is not agreement unless it is made clear that she agreed. You keep sidestepping the fact that Betty also stated the problems with your phrasing, suggesting that the previous phrasing was best, which you shrugged off. Betty has also recently stated that the stable/consensus version of the lead should be reinstated. You keep saying I refuse to participate just because I won't let up on my preference for the lead, which is also laughable. I stand by the consensus version; it's as simple as that.

And as for Betty's quote that you just cited, she did not agree with you to have the placement at the top of the lead. She never went back on her support of the consensus version. She only stated that she was open to having it higher as a compromise! She clearly still had a preference for the version I supported and still support, and stated that it is the superior version. In either regard, you are not bringing out "the record nature of the achievement" more prominently by removing specific mention that Titanic was nominated for 14 Academy Awards and won 11. You are making it just like any of the many films out there with your "equaled records" wording, considering that plenty of films have equaled records in nominations or wins. You are currently understating Titanic's success and leaving the success ambiguous, as "equaled records" does not specify anything. The matter of the fact is that seven editors are for the version I support, while you are the only one against it. Uh, yes, consensus was achieved. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm afraid you have it wrong on EdJohnston, since he said it was not an strong consensus: " A vote of three out of five is not terribly convincing as a consensus. If you can shift that one way or the other, you might get somewhere. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)" 2) Subsequently Betty made the remarks I posted above, which clearly states that she was looking for middle ground on both placement and phrasing ""I think the.. achievement should be "brought out" more...; you [Ring] are correct on that point. Personally I'm even open to moving the information up the lead." 3) You don't seem to know what's in my edit. I am including the information on 14 and 11, which are both record-tying. No other film can make that claim. 4) You are wrong that I am understating Titanic's awards success. I'm stating it precisely, without any peacock language. 5) I am the only one taking my position? But Betty agrees with me, so that's wrong, too. So that's five significant errors in the space of about a dozen lines. Is that really what your complaint is about? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm afraid you have it wrong on EdJohnston, since he did not agree with you that there is no consensus and was citing three out of five. There is no three out of five. There is seven to one. 2) While Betty made remarks that she was looking for middle ground, she did not agree with you to place the information in the first paragraph and also criticized your phrasing. The criticism is there in the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section for all to see. And she has clearly stuck by a preference for the the lead I support. 3) I do seem to know what you are including in your edit. You are not including information on 14 and 11, since 14 and 11 is not specifically stated. "Equaled records" is what is stated, which other films can make claim to. 4) I am right that you are understating Titanic's awards success for exactly that very reason, as another editor recently stated pretty much the same thing. It's not peacock language to specifically state the number of nominations and awards. In fact, it is clearer, as four editors (myself included) have stated, and it showcases Titanic's success a lot better. 5) Stop saying Betty agrees with you. Do I have to ask Betty to come in here and speak for herself? Betty does not support your version of the lead. That's true. She offered a compromise, which neither of us accepted. She was open to that compromise, but does not support your version of the lead, and has criticized your phrasing. So that's five significant errors how exactly? Yeah, I thought so. My complaint is clear from this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the dispute, allow me to state it succinctly: Should the article on the film Titanic include in the lead the fact that it tied two records for Academy Awards, and, if so, in which paragraph? So there are two aspects: what information to include and where to include the information. I hope that helps. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this is not the place to ask other editors on how to build the article. And as for tying records, your version doesn't even clarify. Stop diverting attention away from the matter at hand -- your claiming that there is no consensus when seven editors dispute your version. All you have shown here is your belief that consensus is not achieved unless you agree with it, and that you must always be right. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I may be reading this wrong, then, but it appears to be a content dispute. The sole area where administrator intervention may be profitable is page protection, but the page is already protected. What specific administrator action are you looking for, here - a third opinion, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Have alternative forms of dispute resolution been sought? Such as a request for comment?--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The article actually isn't currently locked. But on the matter of disputes, I don't view this as simply a content dispute, but rather a matter of WP:Consensus. This is a policy which should be followed unless new consensus is achieved. I mean, it's pretty much like CIreland stated above. I'm looking for that policy to be enforced. Surely, seven editors to one, opposing with valid reasons, is consensus. There is only one editor continuously disputing the version that all other editors have agreed on. What is the point of dispute resolution when editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film have already been brought in and have agreed to one version of the lead? I am asking for the article to be returned to its stable, less disputed version -- this one (before the IPs' weasel-wording objections) -- so that any changes one wants made to the lead after that must be worked out first. To go against consensus, one must achieve new consensus. There has been no consensus for the current version of the article. It makes sense to me, as editor Betty recently stated in the Towards a consensus section, that we return to the stable/consensus version and then work out the kinks from there. Also in that section, Betty has offered a new compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What is an editor in my position to do? I have shared here the views of other editors which show that my position is joined by others, yet Flyer22 continues to erroneously state that it never happened. As I've demonstrated, she doesn't have her facts right and she offers nothing to support her claims of bad faith. Simply because she complained doesn't imply that she's correct. I repeatedly asked her to propose a compromise, but she claims it's merely "antagonistic." Do I have any recourse when she offers nothing but intransigence? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not adhered to the views of others. Others state their views, and then you desperately try to hold onto yours, like now, with the lead and reinserting part of a version that is disputed. Yes, it is disputed; I disputed it, and three other editors expressed concerns with it. I am not erroneously stating anything. It is a fact that the version of the lead I support is the consensus version. It is a fact that you are the only editor continuously disputing the consensus version and never offering up any valid reasons for your stances other than preferring it. As I demonstrated above, your "facts" are wrong. One editor above read through the entire talk page and saw the exact same thing I saw, that I complained about here. And what do you do? Go to that editor's talk page and complain about his comment, insisting he read it wrong. No, everything must always be your way and you are never wrong. That is what I and others have to constantly deal with in regards to you. We must compromise with you, and if we don't, consensus does not exist. That's absurd! And is not the way Wikipedia works. I don't have to propose a compromise if I prefer the article a certain way and have achieved consensus for that version. Maybe you need another editor to inform you of what WP:Consensus entails and that every editor is not always happy with achieved consensus, not always or even the majority of the time. You are antagonistic because you proceed to insist that I must make you happy and that if I don't, I am a bad editor. You continue to state "Flyer, you must compromise" even after consensus has already been achieved. That is why you are antagonistic. That and your belittling. You beat a dead horse and can never accept things as they are. The lead should be returned to its less disputed version. Or Betty's new compromise should be initiated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting you mention Betty's compromise. I have already accepted her compromise. I accept your offer. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You must not be speaking of her new compromise, where she suggests that both our versions be merged into the lead -- the exact number of Academy Awards nominations and wins and the "equaled" information. If you are speaking of that compromise, I don't see where you have accepted it on the talk page. If you are speaking of her previous compromise, you already know I rejected that (and you didn't accept it back then either), so bringing it up and saying you support it does not help matters. What helps matters is agreeing to her latest compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: The dispute is now resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)