Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus
In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.
A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.
User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".
All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also User:Rama/Fair use is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' [4]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term jocker, what he probably means is joker, in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –xenotalk19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you guys recommend I do? Kusma, should I go over to DRV now and request undeletion for this and/or the other images? Or will you guys be doing something? Should I wait? Thanks!. DR04 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –xenotalk19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Wikipedia community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at User:Rama/Fair use, do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content, the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, only states that pictures of people still alive are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a personal interpretation that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --Jayron3220:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect [add copyright information] (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Wikipedia is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own." The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Wikipedia permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --Jayron3220:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. DR04 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did they give permission only for Wikipedia or also for possible reusers? "Only for Wikipedia" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — Kusmatalk20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Wikipedia and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Wikipedia to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Wikipedia to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3" from Template:Db-f3. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free with permission}}. As you can see, permission for Wikipedia tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - [5]DR04 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that User:CBM consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. Dabbler (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Wikipedia, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to WP:DRV. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Wikipedia's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we could be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the WP:BLP policy, except that I think they have handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion.
I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --Jayron3222:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two images (File:Nakheel Tower.jpg and File:Freedom Tower New.jpg) speedily deleted by Rama(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on Rama's talk page), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on File:Chicago Spire.jpg. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Wikipedia editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. Astronaut (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based upon what others have said, we need to list the images Rama created as copyright violations. It is not my intention to upset him, but I am seriously concerned with creating images based on a copyrighted design and someone publishing them as their own work. This is something that could tick off Santiago Calatrava or Shelbourne. DR04 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish people would use the adverb 'arbitrarily' more carefully in these discussions. I fully agree that if Rama were deleting images arbitrarily – "La di dah, I think I'll delete an image today. Ah! This one clashes with my wallpaper, it's got to go — bloop!" – then it would be perfectly appropriate to undo that deletion on a similarly lackadaisical basis. On the other hand, Rama's actions certainly don't seem to be arbitrary in this case. He seems to have acted on the basis of careful thought and extended reasoning. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning is open to discussion, but to imply that his action was whimsical or capricious and therefore subject to instant arbitrary reversal is a very disrespectful approach. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss his actions as 'arbitrary'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ten, I can't speak for Spartaz, but he might be referring to Rama's tendency to ignore other user opinions - something I have found to be very frustrating. It happened when the image was deleted the first time by Rama, it happened again when Rama tried to speedily delete the image again today [6] (this was after much of the discussion on this page was posted) and how he hasn't discussed his shape equivalent theory (as I introduced below) to this thread. It seems as if he detests talking with the community and consistently makes rash decisions. Again, I can attest how frustrating it has been for me, and probably a few other editors/admins dealing with these issues. I understand his perspective - and he might even be right, but won't he please just discuss things first? Sorry I'm done ranting lol. DR04 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Spartaz commented, he has restored the copyrighted image. The commons page still needs opinion on deletion. Also, I have updated the fair use rationale on the copyrighted image. It should be more exhaustive in its argument now. DR04 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Language issue?
Looking at the discussion on Rama's talkpage, I'm wondering if there's a language issue here (Rama appears to be French-speaking from his userboxen). He is interpreting "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed ... " (from s120 of the US code) to apply in a situation where building work has not yet started, and he has interpreted Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteriaNo Free equivalent: as Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use which is completely contrary to what the policy says, but may be based on a mistranslation???Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't think this is the problem at all. I think this admin could end up at RfC if things carry on this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The grey area
I wish Rama would have brought this up in the first place, this would have saved a lot of time. Anyway, as I brought up on the restored image's talk page (I mean the copyrighted one, not the svg), Rama will now claim that per commons:Template:PD-shape, we can just use a geometric shape of the Spire instead of a copyrighted image. In other words, if shapes were free equivalents we could delete the copyrighted fair use image as there would be an equivalent. I'm inclined to say it is not an equivalent. The entire reason that copyrighted images of buildings have been considered fair use in the past (and IMO should continue to be fair use) is because they are illustrations of the primary subject of the article. I agree, copyrighted images of living persons should not be considered fair use. A celebrity or famous person's appearance is not the primary subject matter of the article. However with these articles on proposed buildings, the structure itself, as illustrated by the architect, is the primary subject of the article and therefore fair use. Either the image is sufficient enough to show the work (the copyrighted image) or it isn't sufficient enough (a shape). You can't have it both ways - it is a contradiction. Either it is usable in the article as an image or it is not. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I do not believe an image of the shape of a building is a free equivalent. Other comments please? Agree or disagree? DR04 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, juste like the photograph that we have at Marilyn Manson is not as "cool" as this [7].
Problem is, we do not do Fair Use to snatch copyrighted images that we fancy, without charge, to make our webpage nicer. We take the one precise image that we need because it is discussed critically, like on Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima. All the difference between stealing an honest work. Rama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was snatched here. The copyright owner gave specific permission. Furthermore, the analogy you make is a false one. No one is actually claiming that the picture is included for merely aestetic reasons. The arguement is that the picture you created to replace it is actually the more eggregious violation, because it is a derivative work created without permission, being used to replace the original work which DOES have permission for use. Furthermore, the image isn't merely decoration. The article discusses such issues as building design and location, all of which are uniquely enhanced by the picture. You appear to be inventing policy out of whole cloth here, without the support of the community. If you believe the foundation supports your interpretation, get the foundation to make a statement saying so. If you believe that the existing guidelines need to be changed to a more conservative view, then feel free to initiate those discussions. But to unilaterally decide that your own singular interpretation of policy is the only valid one, without actual support, seems to be particularly problematic here. --Jayron3201:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that even admins who are generally quick to support the NFCC and remove inappropriately used free images are disagreeing with you here Rama. If I were in your shoes I might take pause at that. SpartazHumbug!09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here!?!?
Does Rama have an obsession with deleting images? He really needs to gain consensus on issues like these - what is with the consistent, rash decision making? Rama can respond to this directly and so can anyone else - but is this type of behavior consistent with how an admin acts? If I am out of line, feel free to let me know, but this is getting really irritating, for a lot of people.
[8] This was after admin User:Quadell kept the image in 2007, admin User:Spartaz restored the image yesterday, and after all the discussion here!!!
I have asked them to stop deleting files out of process and also noted to them that if this pattern of behaviour continues, an RFCU may be initiated to gather community opinions as to their approach. For now, I think we should allow the Commons process to run its course and that will inform our actions here as to whether this and similar images recently deleted by Rama qualify for fair use.
Keep following the discussion on Rama's talk page. Somehow, lost in translation I presume, he has come to the conclusion that where the policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", the word ONLY means that fair use can only be applied in cases where there is only one IMAGE in existence and can only ever be one image (eg the Mona Lisa). I simply cannot persuade him that the sentence means that the rule applies where ANY image of that subject would be non-free. This is why he believes it is OK to allow the use of the Iwo Jima image, but existence of several architects drawings means that fair use can never be applied. This is almost moving into an issue of competency, but I think he's just dug his heels in. Is there a discussion area where other Commons editors would discuss this kind of thing that we could take this discussion to?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand
“
Nothing forbids using plans or schematics issued by the architect as documentation. The information that they carry is not, in itself, protected. Rama (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
”
I find it hard to believe that someone who is so hot for Wikipedia's fair use policy (which goes over and above the law) is unaware of the copyright issue raised by this sentence in relation to his drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's confusing simple data with rendered drawings. For example, a basic table created in Excel is not copyrightable, since it has no creative element and data itself can't be copyrighted. An architectural drawing does not fall under this exception, obviously. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at [14]. Can someone explain to me why Rama thinks that s120, which has by now I think been quoted 3 times and says that the architect's design copyright does not extend to making images of a constructed building viewable from a public place, means that he can make copies of the architects plans. For someone so adamant about not "snatching" other people's work, why can he not see how badly his approach breaches US law. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[15] I understand the need to wait until the deletion discussions are over, but I seriously question how someone who doesn't think it matters that by making a drawing of a building that isn't built yet, based on the architect's drawings, he has breached the architect's copyright, can continue in a position of responsibility relating to deciding on the use of non-free imagery. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted File:Freedom Tower New.jpg because of invalid license. What was there had no fair use, just a claim of permission to use on Wikipedia. Whether an email permission (should be OTRS) can override the fair use requirement for minimal use and size would also be an issue for the possible fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone re-uploaded it after Rama deleted it, but didn't add any fair use rationale. Also, isn't it instadeath for any file that only has permission to be used on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia cannot police its use? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If anyone has the source for the image, I would be willing to re-upload it with a sturdy fair use claim - I've been getting some practice lately at fair use rationales lol. DR04 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems the correct course. That's what should have happened with the Spire drawing as well. It's not replacable until the building is complete and a photo or artists drawing can be made based on the finished structure. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, a final discussion point...
I don't mean to jump the gun, but it looks like (currently) there is overwhelming consensus, except for Rama, that the "free" svg image he created at commons is a copyright violation (8 deletes including the proposal for deletion (me) to 1 keep by the original uploader, Rama) and the same thing for fair use of the Chicago Spire image. Of course this thread can and should stay open for as long as it needs to. I'm just worried the commons discussion could close at any time (maybe within a few hours or weeks), and wanted to point out there was one important ancillary consideration (to this Rama discussion) I think deserves a fair amount of discussion. It will have a decent impact on so many other articles and copyrighted building designs on Wikipedia - and I didn't want this thread to be "resolved" as soon as the commons discussion concludes. And the question is -
At what point should copyrighted, fair use images created by architects be replaced by free photographs of the building? In other words, when would a "free equivalent" exist? When it is 25% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? When it is 100% complete? At some other point? Please discuss!!! DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2007 I said about 25% complete (of the exterior) because that seems the point at which the design of the building can begin to be appreciated and understood. I'm not set on that and I've heard others here state that the copyrighted image should say up until the building 100% complete. I could understand that perspective as well, but there probably should be some consistent consensus on this moving forward from this lengthy discussion. DR04 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the scope of the architectural drawing. If the drawing represents an exterior view of the complete building, then it should be removed when an equivalent version of a free image becomes available. Whether drawings at other stages of construction (or other methods of representation) can be replaced depends on the availability of equivalent free images and the purpose for which the drawing is used. Nathan T 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that any use of a non-free image is acceptable in such a case. If a building has not yet been erected, I consider that it is non-notable and therefore should not have a Wikipedia article. An exception muight be made in the case of a commercial disaster like the Bay-Adelaide Centre which achieved notability before it was completed, see Bay-Adelaide Centre stump. If other editors are not convinced by my argument, then any non-free image should be replaced by a free one as soon as the new building is far enough along in construction as to provide a recognisable exterior photograph. Dabbler (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't need to be exist to be notable. If stories have been written about construction, whether it exists or not is immaterial to its notability.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as a useful photograph is available that gives some idea of the nature of the building (in other words, not just the excavation).Butthis should be an addition, not replacement, until the structure is actually completed, or so substantially completed in that the exterior is essentially identical. Buildings under construction can be notable, just as other incomplete projects can be, and even plans for such a building can be notable, again as other projects. It depends on the perceived public importance of the building, as typically measured by the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most ideal situation would be some more unambiguous, comprehensive policy from the foundation which would clear up more of these gray areas in general WRT copyright. However, in this case, insofar as a free alternative cannot be created until such time as the building is completed (enough) to do so, I think that the copyright architectural plans can be used as a stand-in under fair use. Once the building is in a state such that a real, free picture can be taken of it, the fair use claim would then go away. However, there are notable projects that are cancelled, or delayed, or not yet complete, and I think there is a compelling case in THOSE cases for using the copyrighted work, since no free equivalent could exist. --Jayron3221:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think the licensing resolution is particularly unclear, but you're right that it isn't very specific. I'm not sure this is a bad thing; the issue for the Foundation isn't one of legal liability (that accrues to the uploader), but content that is reusable consistent with its mission. Within the guidelines of the resolution, each project (through its EDP) is responsible for making and enforcing its own specific rules. Nathan T 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point basically stems from whether "built visible from a public space" should be interpreted as accenting "built" of "visible from a public space". I believe that the very question exhibits the magnitude of the absurdity that the "built" interpretation entails, leading directly to a Theseus' paradox. At the very least, assuming that the "built" interpretation is retained, which seems likely, we cannot accept arguments like "let's say 25%" proposed without the slightest reason. If we do not find very good and firm reasons to believe otherwise (which I doubt we would), we would have to struggle for safety and, thus, wait until the building is fully commissioned. Rama (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: And I do not believe that "Fair Use" images can be used at all before that point. These images do not constitute the subject of the article, but merely depict the subject of the article. Furthermore they are not unique, but taken amongst a number of other images in port-folios, and clearly not notable for themselves. As such, they are not candidates for Fair Use. Rama (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over at Burj Dubai the image used in the info box was finally changed from a computer generated rendering to this image from Oct '08, which showed the building nearing completion and included many of the major design elements which are discussed in the article. However, in light of this discussion, the earliest I think we could have changed the image, is perhaps to this one from Nov '06; at which time around half the concrete structure had been built, and it was large enough to show at least some elements of the design and the scale of the building. As for notability, I think buildings can be notable while still at the proposal stage, particularly if the proposal is for something that might make it into the tallest/biggest lists if built and it meets the general notability requirements. Astronaut (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama has made a point worth further consideration here. The law is different in different countries - in the UK you can pretty much photograph any 3d item standing in or visible from a public place, and not breach the creator's copyright. So you could take pictures of say the Gherkin at any stage of construction that you could see from the street, or from an aeriel photo. In France, you cannot take a picture of anything for which the creator can claim a copyright, without permission of the copyright holder. It follows therefore that there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France unless the copyright holder chooses to release one. The specific exemption of US s120 appears in natural language to apply only to buildings that have a fully constructed exterior "that has been constructed" - I am not aware of any caselaw precedent for permission applying to images of buildings that are under construction. This means that the decision will depend not only on how much of the building is standing, but where in the world it is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, every single photograph of the Eiffel Tower lit at night is a copyvio under french law, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. Absurd, isn't it. To clarify the rest of the law, it does restrict itself to two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. Which probably means one is safe photographing the Paris suburbs! The issue as always with copyvio is not making the image but publishing it. In Wikipedia's case, I have no doubt there are some images of French buildings that are not free and consequently need a fair use rationale.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each deletion needs to be reviewed, in particular their Fair-Use rationales to establish whether their claim to Fair-Use is valid. Perhaps the easiest way to do that would be to restore the images, perhaps on a temporary basis.
Images deemed to be valid fair-use should also be restored to the articles where their fair use is permitted. That will need someone to go through the log of the ImageRemovalBot and any separate image removals carried out by Rama or other editors. I am, of course, happy to do some of this. Astronaut (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It'll need an admin though.
Of the last ten on the list, only four had plausible source data. That's six gone because having a valid source is absolutely critical and that isn't "I found it on Flickr". Two were of the same design which isn't minimal use of non-free content. That leaves three left for us to look at whether they have a valid rationale. Any that did would need to be re-uploaded in lower resolution. Seems like a complete waste of time. Anyone who really wants to use these sort of things should be begging the architects for a free image of the design. "Didn't bother to ask for a free version" is not a sound rationale for using non-free content. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Rama has caused quite a mess here. While I'm sure some of these images deserved a speedy delete (no FUR, invalid FUR, no source info, no license info, etc.) I'm sure other images probably should never have been deleted and only violated Rama's own "policy". Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to reupload APPROPRIATE images and then put in with proper FURs, source info, license info, etc.? Going through each of these and restoring them, then nominating some for deletion then discussing this would be an enormous undertaking. DR04 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I don't mind spending some time on this. I would be happy to review the FUR, source and license info that existed on the images Rama deleted. I'm just asking for some help from an Admin to temporarily restore the images so I can get started with something to work on. I'll stick {{subst:rfu}} or {{subst:dfu}} on those I feel need further discussion or should be deleted again. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which is better, but I would recommend either re-uploading yourself (find the image, put it up with a new name) or go to WP:DRV - good luck to you and I would be happy to comment on DRVs if you bring themt o my attention.
Thank you for volunteering to scrutinize these images. I have restored them, without prejudice to appropriately conducted deletion processes - such as {{subst:rfu}}. Please do the needful. –xenotalk14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me: You based this drawings on the architect's plans, which are copyright. Rama: More or less indirectly, yes, I do use the plans as the basis of my documentation. And per Article 120, this is permissible. You do the same thing when you photograph a building in the street, the building in a derivative of the plans, and it is copyrighted. Article 120 is all about bypassing this copyright.[18]
There seems to be no sense in which Rama is even prepared to consider for a moment that his bizarre interpretations of Wikipedia Policy or US Copyright law are wrong. If he was an editor persistently uploading content that had to be deleted, and refusing to conform to Wikipedia policies on fair use, someone would block him. Obviously, that's not what needs to happen here, but this is an admin who is speedy deleting and closing deletion discussions, and his understanding of Wikipedia policies and the underlying copyright issues is pretty much 100% wrong. What is the appropriate course of action, and who has the jurisdiction to oversee it?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my possible ignorance, but is the "real" Spire image having specific permissions being claimed as red herring that's misleading us, or is it instead icing on the cake to show we don't a free alternative? In this one case I'd even argue that the created free alternatives are dangerous, with dubious copyright nature and impossibility to claim geometric shape on a one-off building design which is continuously variable in all 3 dimensions. The solely 2-dimension profile is arguably defamation to the developer until construction. With permissions offered on the "real" and better version, why should we not use it? That doesn't happen much. Can we point to File:Freedom_Tower_New.jpg as a very precise precedent to work in conjunction with this? Both are of issue currently. The content owner even extends permission the same way. They need consistency and whichever direction should be considered a reaffirmed consensus. Worth noting that the NYC building has no evil red templates on it. If copyright and fair use are being listed and 100% accurate in any way required, why does this drag on? That means either an RfC and/or change in policy. One has to bend. ♪daTheisen(talk)11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
daTheisen, I love you man, but do you feed all your comments thru a Babel fish :):)? You're quite right, it is better to use the architects versions which they have released on terms acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation, than to mess around trying to make our own versions which may well infringe someone's copyright. Once the building is erected, it is possible to make a free image in many countries. In countries where that may not be possible (eg France, which has no Freedom of Panorama act) we can still use a photograph of the actual building with a proper fair use disclaimer. The only person who disagrees is Rama. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still going on? Any accurate derivative of the original drawings are unlicensed derivatives and could only be used under fair use. The only thing we could draw and upload would be a stick drawing with crayon, or some such other drawing that would not accurately represent the tower, which would make it worthless. The original rendering can be used under fair use and is preferable to a lesser-quality fair use derivative. When the tower is completed to the point that a photograph or new rendering of it would accurately convey it, then the fair use image becomes replaceable. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama hasn't changed his tack. He's still arguing on commons that his image is free and that the architect's drawing can't be used. So yes, in that sense it is still going on.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Elen that Rama's actions are not what I would expect from an admin. Consensus on this page seems to be that he is "interpretation" of policies and laws is not consistent with the communities. And as I pointed out somewhere else - it isn't that he is uber-conservative when it comes to copyright (at first I thought he was) - he is uber-conservative when it comes to copyrighted images with proper licensing, but uber-liberal enough to basically violate copyright laws by recreating copyrighted images and call them his own. I don't really want to get involved with this, but I do wish the admin community would watch his deletions more carefully, limit his deletions or something else to ensure he doesn't force his weird policies onto everyone else. So that is all I will say. It is out of my hands. DR04 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they continue to take admin actions based on their novel and peculiar interpretation of WP policy/guidelines & U.S. law, then I would definite say an RFC is necessary. But I would wait to see how they proceed. –xenotalk16:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they have already had one desysop request made on Commons [19]Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [20] is the desysop request, which was rejected as premature, although there seems to have been considerable sympathy with the person bringing it. If it becomes necessary to take further action (one always hopes it will not) then an RFC - presuming that is within process - would certainly remove the argument that the community had not had the opportunity to become involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ed Poor - POV and COI
For some reason Ed Poor(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has never been banned or restricted from Unification Church topics. He has been engaging in low-level warfare on these articles for years, and has recently been smearing and needling User:Cirt who has been attempting to get Ed to conform to the rules. I won't paste difs here at this point under the presumption that enough old-timers exist to know what I'm talking about - but will begin pasting them if necessary. I suggest that enough is enough. Ed spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia these days anyway. I don't remember the last time he made a truly helpful contribution to this site. I bring this here to gauge community feelings about a topic ban on all Unification church related articles. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Poor 2: A case involving Ed Poor. POV pushing and disruption. Ed Poor was party to two prior cases; the first was closed after Poor resigned his status as a bureaucrat, and the second resulted in his desysopping.
Oppose. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. The Cunctator 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Does not follow Wikipedia policies for stating credible sources for articles such as Demographics_of_terrorism. --Rebroad 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. Ruy Lopez 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above. Exploding Boy 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. 172 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --Axon 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Opppose due to POV-related issues. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I were in violation of site policy, Cirt would provide evidence. Rather, he makes up his own interpretations of the rules. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against the rules, but Cirt just did it here. Announcing what side I'm on doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, as long as I can write neutrally. Give one example of me POV-pushing (rather than telling both sides where there are conflicting accounts), and I'll refrain from such edits in the future. Otherwise, ask Cirt to stop harassing me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the defense you used in the ArbCom case where you got banned from ever editing Intelligent design articles, isn't it, Ed? Do you really think everyone here is that stupid? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm the only stupid one here if it's stupid to think that demanding evidence (rather than votes) would stop me from suffering an unwarranted ban. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This in an example of the sort of personal attack that KillerChihuahua and others have been making against me in recent months. First of all, it's not relevant what I do on other websites but it's false that I'm "rewriting the bible" at Conservapedia or anywhere. Apparently KC is trying to destroy my credibility for some reason known only to her. Please encourage her to stop this.
I have not smeared or needled Cirt, and IIRC correctly making an accusation like that without evidence is in itself a personal attack.
The reason I've never been banned from topics relating to the Unification Church is that I am unusually gifted at writing neutrally about it, despite my affiliation. Barring evidence that I am violated WP:NPOV with my edits, I suggest that KC and the others who are harassing me are (perhaps unconsciously) trying to get their own biased views enshrined in articles and to censor alternative views.
All I do is add information which I believe is true; I'm always willing to dig up online or dead tree sources to back up anything I add to an article. Hardly anything I write on other topics is reverted, despite KC's needling crack above; I suggest an official warning is in order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're just tired of your bullshit, Ed. I think Cirt's tired of cleaning up after you. I pretty much gave up years ago. If we have to I guess we can go for Ed Poor AbrCom 3, but that's an awful lot of work. It isn't like it isn't well known that you mostly edit to push the UC POV. You've even admitted in, somewhere in the past. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had any evidence of me POV-pushing, you'd supply a diff. Should be easy to find in my 30,000-plus edits if cleaning up after it is making people tired.
Support a topic ban from Unification Church topics. Frankly I'm surprised this is the only action being taken against this editor. Crafty (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to suggest stronger measures, I would support that. As seen in the (now collapsed) 2004 ArbCom opposes, he's been a POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot since before I was even registered here. I would support up to and including a full site ban. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The diffs provided hardly justify any action. If they're the worst, they praise with faint damns. The rest seems quite ancient history. Absolutely everyone has a POV. Neutrality is a goal, not something anyone can perfectly practice, and COI is not a reason for excluding competent editors.John Z (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I said "I won't paste difs here at this point" and by the time you objected that no difs had been posted, Ed had already been topic banned. He wasn't banned for any difs posted in this section, but for an overall history / continuing behavior. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not object that no diffs were posted and did notice you said you would not post diffs immediately. I was referring to the diffs Cirt had posted. I was opposing a topic ban which seems to me to have very little basis. The burden is on those desiring a ban to prove their case.John Z (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Kafziel's entry of the new topic ban of Ed Poor from both articles and talk pages related to Category:Unification Church. I'm aware of Cirt being a patient and methodical editor on contentious topics so I find Ed Poor's response to Cirt's well-sourced comment above to be very disappointing. COI situations are often negotiated and can arrive at a good outcome, but Ed's approach is going nowhere fast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a long-time member of Wikipedia, I have a fair amount of respect & automatically extend good faith to three of the parties in this dispute -- Uncle Ed, KillerChihuhua, & Cirt. However, the diffs provided above don't support the accusations, & I wonder if this is a case where the actual conflict is due more to the parties reading intent into the edits where none is intended; Uncle Ed has never made a secret of his membership to the Unification Church. If I'm wrong, please supply more diffs. And even if Uncle Ed is not making edits to the detriment of Wikipedia, perhaps he could show some of that peace-making skills we long-time Wikipedians remember him best for & voluntarily stay away from Unification Church-related articles in order to promote harmony here. (This is the primary reason I stay away from articles relating to US politics.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per WP:COI Ed should avoid editing any article related to this organization. The unfortunate fact that he has continued to edit these articles makes a topic ban the next logical step. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose COI is too often misused as an argument. As long as Ed does not make improper edits, COI is not really an issue, any more than having us declare that Jews can not edit Judaism etc. COI is far too often used by opponents of groups to discourage group members from making any edits, which is not the intent of WP:COI. The issue of "conservapedia" is quite irrelevant, and should not be here at all. Nor are comments from 2004 now utile. Any sanction should apply at most to Unification Church, narrowly construed. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To see a recent example of improper COI edits, see his recent edit warring in a Unification Church article diff, diff, and diff. There also seems to be a lot of recent move warring in UC topics in Ed's move log. The more I look at this the worse it becomes. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant difference between Judaism, which has existed for some thousands of years, and the Unification Church, which has existed for less than 50 years. Ed Poor has been a member of the church for the majority of its history, has met many of the key founders, and has been employed by the church or other Moon businesses. A better analogy would be to early Christians or even apostles editing an article on their religion, had there been a Wikipedia in 75 AD. Members of relatively small new religions are generally much closer to the founders of those groups than are members of large established religions. (While many profess to have a personal relationship to Jesus, few would claim to have met him personally.) Another difference is that established religions usually have developed internal scholarship and mature criticism from external sources, while new religions are often still in an initial growth phase during which internal differences are ignored or undeveloped, making NPOV more difficult. The COI issues are not the same between old and new religions. Will Bebacktalk00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has been a member of a religion for more than half of that religion's history is a de facto fundamentalist. Fundamentalists of established religions are also a problem. But let's not get into an extended discussion of that here. Will Bebacktalk02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions
At Scientific opinion on climate change, User:Tedder reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 [24] which resulted in a warning. I don't think Tedder should have been blocked (as I said) but he should withdraw the protection and withdraw from the dispute: he has become involved.
I agree, Tedder is involved. Being involved in a content dispute, violating WP:3RR and then protecting the page to his preferred version is not appropriate. Since he has become involved I would suggest the page be unprotected to the last version since his protecting and Tedder asked to not take administrative actions on this article. Basket of Puppies22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Contrary to his assertion on AN3 that he had not commented on the article,[25] his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position.[26] He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it,[27][28][29][30] and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version.[31] in blatant violation of the protection policy. -Atmoz (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of these diffs relates to anything but the war over the POV tag, which he originally mediated by blocking those who were adding the tag last week. The tag was removed, and a week later the dispute has not been resolve, so GoRight asked for the tag to be added from the same admin who enforced its removal. When he tried to do that, the other side edit-warred. Instead of blocking them (which he had every right to do), he reverted in the hopes that they would stop. They didn't and then they reported him for 3RR. Verbal and WMC should be blocked for warring with an uninvolved admin, just as GoRight was blocked last week. These games have to stop on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing with me. Tedder took a position on whether the POV tag should be in the article. He then edit warred to keep it in the article. Then locked the page in his preferred version. These are the facts, and they are not disputed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder's previous position was the opposite of his current position! He blocked those adding the tag last week, and when the dispute wasn't resolved, he decided it would be best to add it back in. He has never (as far as I can tell) been involved on the GW pages, and he only came here because of the edit war on the POV tag which was ongoing. That's not involved, that's following up on the dispute. By that logic, any admin who ever protects an article is banned from protecting it ever again. ATren (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. At that point, Tedder stated he would block anyone for adding or removing the tag. Less than 24 hours ago, he changed his position to endorse the addition of the tag.[32]That was when he ceased being uninvolved. If he was truly uninvolved, he would not have done any reverting but would have simply protected the page on the WRONG version. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, please review the diffs. Tedder reverted the first time as well when he blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5. In that case, of course, he reverted to your preferred version. So did you consider that an involved block? Because by your definition above, it was. Yet even though Tedder was "involved" back on Dec. 2, WMC saw fit to request more admin action from Tedder against ZuluPapa5. Why would he seek admin action on Dec. 2 if he was involved? Apparently, WMC didn't think he was involved on Dec. 2. It was only today, when Tedder took the exact same action against WMC's side of the debate did WMC suddenly cry "involvement". Sounds like admin involvement is a sliding scale for WMC. ATren (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder has not been involved on that page. There has been an ongoing dispute on that page for maybe a week now, and Tedder never made a single contribution to that debate. As the debate went on, the two sides were warring over the tag as discussion continued on talk. Tedder blocked two editors on one side of the debate and the POV-tag war ended, temporarily. But the dispute remained.
Fast forward to yesterday, when GoRight asked to add the tag back after a week of no progress in the dispute. Tedder agreed. The other side (Verbal & WMC) reverted him a total of 4 times. Tedder probably should have protected the page, but he has said he didn't believe those editors would revert-war on that tag. He's obviously new to the global warming debate, since this kind of edit warring is common among 3 or 4 editors on the pro-GW side.
In any case, the dispute is ongoing, and Tedder's argument was that the POV tag should remain until it goes through dispute resolution. I have been following the GW pages for a year now, and I've never seen Tedder on any of these pages. His only involvement was last week, when he blocked editors on the other side of the debate. ATren (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. Edit warring the tag in was wrong, sure, we all see that; there is an active meta-dispute and if we can resolve that quickly - great. There is plenty of talkpage discussion, so I really could not care less whether we let the tag abide for four days or remove it now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "four days." GoRight's stated intent (in which Tedder apparently concurs) is to keep the article tagged until all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, up to and including an Arbcom case. That means the tag could stay up for six months or more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I was unclear. On an unrelated note - has this thread been completely derailed from something AN/I can deal with? Four hours and a scant handful of uninvolved editors seems a little light, but I am tempted to ask that it be closed anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. My only involvement on this page has been to stop the edit warring that has been occurring over the {{POV}} tag after it was reported 10 days ago to WP:RFPP. My first involvement was to set up some ground rules to keep the POV tag from being inserted as that seemed the right thing to do [34]. I protected the page, blocked a few users who edit warred after my talkpage rule.
As ATren says, I decided the POV tag should be included when GoRight posted to my talk page, as the POV "issues" hadn't been resolved. I told GoRight to include it, then I re-added it after it was removed by various editors. I specifically didn't ask GoRight or others to undo these removals as the intent was to not have this turn into an editor-based edit war again. My edit summaries on the additions made this pretty clear: "unexplained removal of maint tag" after a SPA, likely "bad hand" account added it, " leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page." after WMC removed it, "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." after Verbal removed it, "as I said, don't edit war over this tag. See endless discussions on talk page." after Verbal removed it the second time.
I've purposefully tried not to be involved in this article, and I've repeatedly suggested it go through the steps on WP:DR, likely WP:MEDCAB. Hopefully this discussion will at least spur some interest from other admins, hopefully some that are better at untangling and resolving these sort of issues. I've given it the best effort I am capable of doing with my adminly hat on. tedder (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without accusing either principal editor involved in this section, I would very much like to ask for more administrative eyes on the whole nexus of global warming/climate change/IPCC articles. Since the email disclosure incident, the onwiki climate has seriously deteriorated to the point where it's headed for WP:PLAGUE territory, with editors acting on the principle that things are right or wrong according to the effect that rightness or wrongness would have on their political beliefs, and judging other editors as culpable or blameless according to the advantage they perceive for some editorial side. Neutral intervention is very much needed. — Gavia immer (talk)00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is purpose of POV tag there anyway? The scientific opinion on climate change is pretty clear. It is also clear that GoRight and a few others disagree with the scientific opinion. But unless you can argue that the article on the scientific opinion misrepresents this scientific opinion in some way, giving the wrong weight to some POVs, then the POV tag shouldn't be there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)
This is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute, as has been made clear. No one is disputing the scientific opinion or even how it is described. That is a red herring of the first order. The dispute over the neutrality of that page is, in essence but not limited to, the fact that there are public controversies related to that scientific opinion. The public controversies are being blocked from the page by mischaracterizing our arguments as we see here. If there are controveries about topic X those controversies are customarily described on the same page that describes topic X. This is clearly self-evident but our opponents simply continue to not hear that. This is the fundamental source of the issue and the reason that this issue was not resolved long ago. I made a good faith proposal, the others ignored it for days, so when I pointed out to Tedder that I can't resolve the dispute if the others refuse to participate he agreed to let me finally put up the POV template.
"What is purpose of POV tag there anyway?" asks Count Iblis. Well if one reads what it says and follows up further to read the essay it directs the reader to, its purpose is merely to alert the reader to an ongoing dispute. It does NOT indicate that the article is NOT neutral, only that someone is claiming that it is not neutral. As the template itself states, it should be left up until the dispute is resolved. That's all we are asking, leave it up until the dispute is resolved. This seems perfectly in line with the letter and the spirit of the tag and its associated essay, yet these editors continue to edit war against its inclusion when there CLEARLY IS a dispute.
I was reluctant to bring this issue here myself, see [35] and [36], because it appears to be a garden variety content dispute, although the use of the POV template and attacks on Tedder are an entirely different matter.
So I ask the independent editors here, what is the purpose of the POV template if not for these exact situations? When is it appropropriate to put the POV template up on a page? What are the community customs and norms in this respect? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This review is an unnecessary escalations, I originally placed the tag, it should reasonably remain on during a dispute. Any admin can review the page and see a valid dispute progressing. The principal complainant has brought their edit war here and I pray for reasonable oversight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the neutrality of the article disputed because people have sourced information suggesting there is no scientific consensus, or is the neutrality disputed because people disagree with global warming? The first is an issue that the tag would be appropriate for, the second is not. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, at least in my case. The neutrality is being challenged because discussion of public controversies specifically centered on the "scientific consensus" are being systematically blocked despite long standing norms on Wikipedia to include such discussions on the pages where the topic in question is described. We all know that the "scientific opinion/consensus" is controversial in the public domain yet we are blocked from using WP:RS to describe that controversy. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, the main issue is that GoRight wants to change the long-standing scope of the article. For a long time (at least a couple of years), the article has restricted itself to statements by academies of science and other bodies of national or international standing. GoRight wants the scope of the article to be altered so that it includes most any individual or organization with a verifiable opinion on whether a consensus exists (e.g., "public controversies" about the existence of a consensus, etc. as he says above). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC
(edit conflict)If such is the case, then said change in scope is inappropriate. If there exist overviews of scientific thought on the matter, then they outweigh individual reports, as including those reports would be OR by synthesis. Grabbing a few scattered reports and deriving statisistics regarding consensus is exactly what the creators of the large reports did, except on a much larger scale and without prejudice to individual POVs. Thus the official reports are more valid than an attempt at sysnthesis of a few reports by an individual editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of comparing sources because the content is being completely blocked. There are no public controversies discussed on that page. I guess by default that means any WP:RS discussing the controversy automatically trumps the empty set. --GoRight (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not necessarily a change in scope, as evidenced by the fact that Scientific consensus on global warming redirects to that page. If that page is not about the consensus, then as I said in my proposal the discussion on that page of consensus should be moved to the overlapping and competing article Climate change consensus and the redirect should be updated accordingly. If that page wants to discuss ONLY an articulation of the "scientific opinion" as documented by the statements of the academies I don't actually object, but then people should not be directed there either by redirects such as the one above, nor should it include any discussion of the issue of "consensus" as that would be out of scope. My position is simple. If an article is prominently utilized to represent the "consensus" as evidenced by redirects and wikilinks to that effect then THAT is where the controversies related to the consensus should be addressed. This is the long-standing custom for how to address controversies on wikipedia and this article should not be an exception. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, how about leaving the disputes at the talk page for the article, and talk about the admin-level needs/admonishments here? tedder (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fine suggestion but I still wish to have an answer to my questions about when it is appropriate to use the POV tag based on community norms as articulated by the independent voices here. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is certainly valid, but AN/I isn't the proper forum for it. The purpose here is to request admin intervention regarding a particular incident, not discuss wikipedia policies. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is as I thought, see my comment [37]. Please note that we were attempting to do as you suggest, [38], when the process was disrupted by WMC and Verbal. Please block them for edit waring after they were clearly warned not to and for disruption so that we can return to the task at hand. 55 hours seems to be the going time frame for this particular offense. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are best advised to take your discussion to one of the forums mentioned. There does not appear to be consensus that an actionable offense occurred. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it ok for admins to edit war to a version of an article they like, then protect that version? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder's reply to the 3RR report seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms. They seem to be working through the RFPP board right now, so make of that what you may. My position, basically, is that we need more admins working in controversial areas, and should try not to excoriate the ones we have without dire cause; I acknowledge the seriousness of the principle involved, but I still see this as a minor incident not like to be repeated; I further acknowledge that I have something of a vested interest in hoping that the community may forgive but not overlook any mistakes I will probably make working the same area. tedder was clearly not involved at that article before today; there are reasonable arguments on either side for involvement status after having expressed an opinion on whether the talkpage debate warranted an {{NPOV}} tag; I really wish that the sides of the present debate did not align so neatly with the battle lines drawn in the topic area of climate change generally. Personally, I lean towards the revert, admonish, and move on solution ({{resolved}}?); I advise against lifting the protection just yet unless there is an enforceable consensus here regarding the tag. Other not necessarily exclusive reasonable resolutions to this thread include: admonish but leave the tag; request that tedder not use the admin bit on that article; request that tedder not use the admin bit in that topic area or with those editors (to be defined more rigorously if necessary); and request that WP:WikiProject Meteorology or WP:WikiProject Environment open a discussion on the organization of these articles (see Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for the antecedent of these). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the POV tag is useful for articles that have only a few regular editors. In these cases, it draws the attention of other editors to possible problems. In the case of the many Global Warming articles and their related BLP's, there are already enough people representing many different points of view. There is really no need to advertise for more editors to get involved. On the other hand, it make sense to place some kind of indicator at the top of the articles to warn readers that these pages are very controversial. I believe that Template:Controversial would be appropriate for that. A better solution might be to create a special GlobalWarming template for these articles, in that way we could agree on less generic text AND provide a link to a page discussing the problems of producing a balanced NPOV article. (Yes, I am suggesting that it is time to have an article about the problems of creating good Global Warming articles. It may be OR, but it could be useful to people using wikipedia.) Q Science (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think Controversial is a better template for this particular article than NPOV. That being said, I suggest we wait until some outcome to the current discussion is apparent before changing it, to avoid further muddying the waters. One issue at a time seems best here. As for the essay, that sounds like a great idea. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally posted to Tedder's talk page, but he has requested I post it here where I presume he will answer: Tedder, "As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks," Verbalchat18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this thread was designed so that the ususual suspects could argue about global warming. Actually adressing adminstrative misconduct was not the goal here, regardless of the fact that that waas the expressed goal. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the protection at Tedder's request. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Tedder to make the block himself, there was an edit war occurring, and there is still a lot of debate on the talk page, so I won't be undoing the protection. I also won't be getting involved in the dispute, so the wrong version will continue to stand as the protected version, and I will monotor for further edit warring after protection expires. You can more or less consider me the protecting admin at this point, as Tedder indicated to me on my talk page that he would not be taking any further action in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You declined to adress if Tedders actions were appropriate. Regardless of results, it was my understand that users were not to edit war, that admins were not supposed to protect favored versions, that admins were not supposed to protect articles they were involved in, and that admins were not granted the power to "bless" tags. Were my understandings incorrect? If they were, we need to update a few pages. I'll get right on that, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, I declined to address those issues. I am not endorsing or condemming Tedder's actions or getting involved in this dispute. I was asked as an uninvolved person who regularly deals with page protection to simply review the protection and take whatever action I thought best, and that is what I have done, and all I will be doing. I think we can assume Tedder has got the message after all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war was a direct result of Tedder's actions. He has yet to acknowledge any wrong doing, and the incorrect and justified result of his edit warring that he forced on the rest of us in violation of 3RR and WP:PROTECT, and without any discussion, despite prior notice, is still in place. I have placed an edit protect request to get the tag removed. I don't think we can assume all admins get the message, especially without Tedder saying he has got the message, we need a clear statement that this is not appropriate. Either he admits his mistake or is told with community authority that this should not happen again (no block, etc needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal and his allies were warring long before Tedder came to the article - and Tedder arrived there as an admin responding to a noticeboard request. The insinuation that the edit war was a "direct result" of Tedder is completely wrong. ATren (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my contribution history to that article, and their is no cabal. I have not editwarred. Do you dispute the fact that Tedder broke editor and admin rules with his action? Verbalchat14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your implication is that two edits ever constitute edit warring, despite my asking Tedder to justify his action on the talk page which he explicitly refused to do, while he went to 4 reverts in 24 hours, after warning, and then protected his preferred version, then please feel free to report me to WP:AN3. However, I feel it will quickly be closed as frivolous. However, you several times pleaded for Tedder to edit the page as a proxy for you, which he then did. Do you acknowledge that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT? Verbalchat20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If your implication is that two edits ever constitute edit warring ..." - Apparently I was unclear, so let me clear things up. I am not implying, I am outright stating that both of those reverts were edit warring and blockable offenses, especially after this was prominent placed on the talk page. And even if I give you the first one, the second clearly was after you got the following edit summary in response to your first: "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, you several times pleaded for Tedder to edit the page as a proxy for you, which he then did." - This is a lie, pure an simple. Tedder was never acting as my proxy.
"Do you acknowledge that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT?" - What I acknowledge, but you apparently refuse to do yourself, is that the 3RR was raised and reviewed at AN3 by independent administrators, and that the PROTECT has now been reviewed by BB, also an independent administrator. Any corrective actions deemed necessary as a result of EITHER of those reviews has already been addressed. It's history, get over it. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Tedder said above FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) . Thus is false. Tedder only asked for the protection to be reviewed. The admin he asked has specifically declined several requests to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Why* don't you want an admin to review your tagging? that is, after all, the controversial bit. Please invite an admin to review the tagging, just as you invited an admin to review the prot William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I invite (present tense) any admins to review my protection and tagging. I invited (past tense) an uninvolved admin to review my protection, as this admin spends time doing protection. tedder (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not adequate. You managed to find someone to review the prot; this is good. That same admin refuses to review the tag; you should *invite* a *specific* admin to review the tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that Tedder has noted The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling[41]. I agree - it is telling. Where are the Admins who agree that Tedders tagging, let alone his breaking 3RR, were correct? Please speak up folks! William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As is made clear in the above section, Tedder is only willing for his protection to be reviewed. However, most do not object to the protection. What is objected to is the editwarring engaged in by Tedder, who then protected the page so that it is stuck at his preferred version - despite being against the consensus, not being supported on the talk page, Tedder not engaging in discussion, and Tedder being warned that he was violating the 3RR. Tedder violated both 3RR and PROTECT, and has not admitted any wrong doing and has only "invited" review of the uncontroversial aspect of his behaviour. His only talk page response is to point people to this derailed ANI thread. What action needs to be taken? The POV tag should be removed to show that edit warring is not tolerated and that violation of WP:PROTECT and WP:WRONG will not be sanctioned. In addition, Tedder and admins in general need to be made aware that this is not acceptable behaviour in any forum, let alone such a controversial area where consensus is clearly against the action being forced. Verbalchat14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tedder is imo a very good admin and editor. Looking at it from a technical point of view it does look a little bit like he got carried away, There is currently a lot of tension around the wikipedia regarding the climate change issue. I would say that there isn't a contentious disputed article on the wiki that you couldn't happily put a npov tag on, so why not just leave it there, to me it just says to the uninvolved that wikipedian editors are divided about some of the content in the article. perhaps it would be better if Tedder agreed not to act as an Admin on that article in future.Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tedder is a good admin too. What is needed is a clear statement that this was wrong and should not happen again, and this can be achieved either by an acknowledgement by Tedder or a reversal of the disputed and unsupported action, with a note that it was improper. Verbalchat18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is needed at all, the article has a tag and clearly the content is disputed and there is agreement that it needed protection, we are none of us perfect Verbal, really this is excessive commentary over a minor issue. The issue was at 3RR and only a comment there and now it is here and there is no support for all this drama here either. Quality editors should not be hounded for the occasional misjudgment..if that was the situation we would all be in trouble wouldn't we. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not minor, unless you are saying that 3RR and PROTECT are minor? If we make a mistake we should be told and admit to it if we are clearly in error. Verbalchat23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) The level of grandstanding here by Verbal and WMC is astounding. Tedder's only previous involvement with this debate was to sanction the editors on the other side a week earlier while changing the tag -- the exact same action he took here against WMC and Verbal. Yet, after that previous apparent transgression went his way, WMC was so impressed with Tedder's actions that he requested that Tedder take it one step further and institute a topic ban.
So, to review: Tedder arrives to this toxic debate as an uninvolved on Dec. 2. His action is to change the tag and block two editors. WMC is fine with this result and asks for more admin action. One week later, Tedder (having no involvement in the interim) sees that the dispute is ongoing, so he changes the tag back and protects the article after others edit-warred -- basically the same thing he did the previous week. The only difference is, this time WMC and Verbal didn't get their way. So all of a sudden, an action which one week earlier was commendable when taken against the other side, is now so controversial that it has triggered long, contentious discussions on at least three pages.
In fact, there was yet another difference here: Tedder blocked those in the initial conflict, but he chose page protection in the latter -- in effect, sparing WMC and Verbal a block. If he had done the exact same thing he did one week earlier to the other side, WMC and Verbal would have been blocked too. So, in effect, WMC and Verbal are raising all this fuss even though they got better treatment than the opposing editors did one week earlier.
This "review" misrepresents the facts. Do you dispute that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT policy? If I was edit warring I should be blocked, however I didn't and wasn't. Tedder, on the other hand, clearly broke 3RR. Please don't pretend anyone was doing me a favour. Verbalchat23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, only the protection has been reviewed. The reviewing editor was quite clear about this. There has been clear admin abuse of tools and this has yet to be addressed or admitted (either would resolve this in my opinion). Verbalchat16:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling
As Tedder put it [43]. So, to put a nice quick close in place - can we have a couple of admins come and OK Tedders breaking 3RR to insert the tag and then protect the article? Once we've got that, I'll shut up. Otherwise, this looks like the blue wall of silence because people don't want to embarass a well-respected admin William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope admins aren't avoiding commenting because they'll hurt my feelings or that I'm respected. My guess is that admins aren't commenting because it's a combination of a minor issue and they don't want to get dragged into the drama- look at the article talk page, my talk page, beeblebrox's talk page, and this ANI thread for proof of that. See MastCell's ELcomment, among other comments in this thread. tedder (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could help by responding to my query above, and giving us a review and justification of your own actions? I hope you asked MastCell before invoking him in support of your thesis. Note that the actions that created this "drama" were yours. Verbalchat23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See ATren's comment dated "18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)" for a decent review. The drama existed before I got involved in the article for the article through the RFPP process. tedder (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that doesn't answer my question regarding 3RR and PROTECT and your violations of these policies. Secondly, ATren's review contains contains factual inaccuracies and clear POV (for example, I have not edit warred ever in this topic area, have barely been involved, and wasn't involved in this article until your edit warring). Please review your actions in light of 3RR and PROTECT, and the clear factual inaccuracies of ATren's statement. Verbalchat00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal, there are better ways I could have handled it. I certainly didn't see any complaints when the original proclamation was up to keep the POV tag off and blocked GoRight (and others) for not following my rule against editwarring on the tag. I didn't see any complaints when I decided not to block WMC for ignoring that rule. I'm not going to get sucked the climate change drama any further- that includes declining your request to write up a TLDR justification for this.
To all- I'm done. Don't bring this to my talk page further, don't imply it's my responsibility to drag other admins into this, leave innocent admins like Beeblebrox alone. Keep it in this ANI thread or escalate if you feel it's necessary. But I'm not going to keep playing this game. tedder (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Verbal, if he had been consistent with his previous actions on that page -- actions which WMC endorsed -- both you and WMC would have been blocked well before it came to 3RR. Instead, he gave you 3 extra chances to comply, chances that he didn't give to GoRight on 12/2, and in thanks he gets lambasted by the two of you here.
In fact, WMC has promised to war on the tag again as soon as protection is removed, see this: "Without prot, there is no need to say "remove the NPOV tag". We'd just remove it." The "we" referred to here is WMC, Verbal, and the other 4 or 5 editors who own the GW articles. The use of "we" in this statement is telling, since it implies that WMC and his allies will edit war in tandem (as they've done previously) in order to get their way without crossing 3RR. That is exactly what happened in this particular case, when the uninvolved Tedder tried to stop the war and WMC/Verbal teamed up to stop him. Tedder should have blocked WMC and Verbal immediately. ATren (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have been blocked as I acted correctly. If Tedder had blocked me then it would have been quickly overturned, as it would have been a clear further abuse of admin tools (blocking someone you are in an active dispute with, especially after he had broken 3RR). It would have ended much worse for Tedder, so I hope we can lay that hypothetical to rest. The tag will likely be reoved as consensus is against it and it has not been justified. What we have here is clear abuse of admin tools, and the admin doing all he can to deflect attention away from his own abuse. Verbalchat11:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you not complain when Tedder blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5, in the exact same situation, one week earlier? What's good for the GWoose is not good for the GWander? ATren (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit being silly. Perhaps Tedder made an error in judgement, but that's all. There's been little admin comment because nobody sees any need to do anything requiring admin tools, and nobody wants to read this whole absurdly long debate over one tiny action. Mistakes happen, the world is an imperfect place full of imperfect people. This whole subsection smells of sour grapes. Please, everyone remove your capes and masks and descend back to ground level. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Please quit being silly" is a great response. Did Tedder break both 3RR and PROTECT or not? He clearly did. Has he been warned not to do this again, or a general statement made that this is not acceptable? Not yet. It needs to be made. Verbalchat07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to be gained from prolonging this. I'm convinced Tedder meant well though he could have handled things better. He isn't the first admin to have been led down the primrose path by GoRight, and unfortunately he probably won't be the last. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I started a new section below, I support close. But if it mustgo on, I've expanded the discussion below to examine WMC's actions here. ATren (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, this crowd sure like the polling. The fact that Tedder backed away from this issue and asked for another admin to review his actions is a clear enough indication to me. What is to be accomplished by continuing to debate what is essentially a dead issue? There do not seem to be any admins willing to block Tedder over this, and I don't see any need for further admin actions in this matter. If you think there is a pattern here, and you can actually get the evidence together to quantify that position, then a user conduct RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, this is just flogging a dead horse Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder protected it for a few days, not weeks, months etc. his protection was reviewed and upheld. Time to relax a bit and keep everything in perspective. It is a shame that the involved editors saw fit to edit war over the tag rather than engage in discussion. Unomi (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tedder refuses to realise that he cannot break 3RR and PROTECT at whim, without justification. He was warned before so this was not a mistake. He edit warred the tag, and reverted to his preferred version before protecting the page. Both against the rules, and an abuse of admin tools. He refuses to justify his actions, which is against admin guidelines. He has endorsed a clearly untrue "review" of events (I was not involved there until GoRight tried to recruit Tedder as a meatpuppet). Tedder's conduct started off bad, and has gotten worse. Admins are not above the rules. Verbalchat11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when you would escalate your rhetoric from merely referring to Tedder as a "proxy", now you are calling him a full blown meat puppet. I think you should apologize for that as it is clearly uncivil. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per Tedder. The lack of admin commnet on this issue is deafening. All we need to close this is a couple of admins to step up and say "yes, Tedder was right to break 3RR and then protect his version". How can it be that such a simple and (according to Tedder, GR, etc) obviously correct statement finds absolutely zero admin support? A second mystery is why Tedder is able to ask an admin to review the prot but for some reason unable to find anyone to review the tagging. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for WMC
WMC: your assertion is that Tedder "protected his version", which is essentially a violation of the rule forbidding admins to advance their position in a dispute, correct? If so, then why did you not report Tedder on 12/2, when he removed the POV tagand then blocked the two editors who were adding it? Isn't that the exact same violation? ATren (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the infinitesimally thin line between great admin action and sanction worthy of a 3-pages long AN/I thread is that in the first case he blocked the users before their continued tag-team edit warring pushed him over 3RR, whereas in the second case he gave you and WMC more chances to comply? Is there any other distinction I am missing? ATren (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Verbal. Also, in that case Tedder gave a warning first and GoRight violated that warning by putting the POV tag back on the article. Another thing is that the POV issue was and is under discussion (and Tedder demanded that we discuss the POV related issues). So you don't then need a POV tag. You also have to consider the fact that there exists many Global Warming related pages on wikipedia. There exists a lot of room for sceptical editors to write about issues they care about here on Wikipedia, e.g. in the Global Warming Controversy page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Another thing is that the POV issue was and is under discussion... So you don't then need a POV tag." - from WP:NPOVD: "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."
I stand by my original point: the only difference between this action and that taken 12/2 against the other side, is that Tedder gave WMC and Verbal more chances to comply.ATren (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To correct ATren again, I was not involved at that juncture and had no horse in that race. Whatever happened then is irrelevant to the issue now, which is Tedder violating 3RR and PROTECT. Note it has nothing to do with the content of the page. Also, warning by edit summary is not acceptable, and I had asked Tedder to justify the tag on his talk page and warned him about 3RR. The POV tag has still not been justified on the talk page, where the only dispute in evidence is the dispute of tag. The point of this discussion is to address the admin abuse of tools. If you think Tedder abused his tools in the past as well, that would be worthy of discussion here. Verbalchat18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal, the question was directed at WMC, who WAS involved then. You took it upon yourself to intervene. I'm still waiting for WMC to respond. ATren (talk)
Tedder broke 3RR to edit-war his preferred version back in before protecting. This is the obvious difference, as ATren already knows - this section is entirely pointless. If ATren's bizarre alternate-reality version of events was correct, there would be admins signing up to the "yes of course Tedder was correct, close this thread" option. Instead we have people signing up to the "this is all too embarassing and Tedder is never going to admit error" close William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the take home message here is to simply block verbal and WMC when they start editwarring over tags. Fwiw I don't see the silence as censure of Tedder, but more as a sign that no one wants to get involved in the thespian antics of a select few who seem to have (hopefully only temporarily) chosen histrionics over constructive debate. Keep calm and carry on. Unomi (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to report me for editwarring, but as I have only ever edited the article twice and attempted discussion with the editwarring editor I will not face any sanction. Calling for bans is hardly "keeping calm and carrying on"Verbalchat08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If WMC's bizarre alternate-reality version of events was correct, there would be admins signing up to the "Tedder was wrong and should be punished" option. Obviously they aren't. --GoRight (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder broke both WP:3RR and WP:PROTECT by restoring the tag and protecting the version he had reverted to, without engaging in any discussion or justification on the talk page and despite a 3RR warning.
Proposal
Tedder is warned that this should not happen again, and/or a general statement is made that this is unacceptable.
I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment[49] on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this[50], which was introduced by Grundle here[51]. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this[52][53][54][55] - and that he is rather proud of it [56](see edit-comment).
Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Wikipedia, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that we as Wikipedia have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we must avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is not however wikipedia's job to connect that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a very serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights [57], etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. ♪daTheisen(talk)23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced controversial information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's a relative term. It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as golden idols for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down really hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of WP:NOTNEWS and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to Tiger Woods and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of WP:BLP all around. etc ♪daTheisen(talk)00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. Direct quotations are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a WP:SYNTH matter of tying two separately-mentioned topics together to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything wrong, we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Wikipedia articles on living persons WP:BLP. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. ♪daTheisen(talk)00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics[58]. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and gluing them together to paint a picture of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to WP:BLPN. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc is referring to my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions:
Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties.
Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it.
A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process,
Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article.
Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate.
Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced.
Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith.
Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution.
Future participation of User Grundle2600 in any BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of this diff which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement.
I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Wikipedia's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) Arkon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this biography and this article (synthesis) into this[59], stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, here, herehere and here which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT, but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I urge the administrators look more closely at the conduct of both sides this edit war. There appear to be several editors on both sides of a content dispute.
The issues, as I see them, are
Is it permissible for the article to mention that the subject has two children, a fact that is stated on the subject's own web site?
Is it permissible for the article to describe editorials that accuse the subject of hypocrisy in advocating a one-child limit, since the subject herself has two children?
Is there justification here for departing from Wikipedia's normal policy of including relevant content supported by reliable sources?
According to one of the reverted edits (I have not looked at the sources), the subject had her children before 1981. If this is the case, that puts any alleged hypocrisy in perspective, since the subject's one-child advocacy apparently began about 28 years after she had her own children in a very different environment. Presenting all the facts, rather than suppressing them, appears to be the best solution, as it usually is.
PhGustaf reverted an edit that added the words "despite the fact she has two children", immediately after the statement about the subject's one-child advocacy, as vandalism.[60]The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock".[61] Participating in a content dispute is not vandalism, and sock puppetry should not be assumed absent some evidence. There were also some statements in the course of editing that were clear violations of WP:NPOV. However, the proper solution is to edit them to neutrality, not suppress the facts.
Please take a look at the situation and intervene to restore compliance with Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. Thank you.—Finell00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the principal BLP issue was resolved when Grundle moved Francis' (cited) family size to the lede and left her (cited) policy statement in a line by itself. Such issues as whether the policy statement passes WP:WEIGHT and whether editorial comments are notable could, I think, be worked out on the talk page.
What was so "egregious" about simply stating the fact that the subject had 2 children? What about the accusation of socking?—Finell06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. You're right. One was a simple statement, and didn't deserve "egregious". The other was pretty bad.[62]. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of[63] because I felt I had done enough reverting already. I've apologized for my quick finger already. PhGustaf (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were not directed at you alone. William M. Connolley reverted an edit that added 3 sources on the basis that 1 of them was not reliable. The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted an edit that added content as "vandalism" and accused the editor of socking. I'm all for being vigilant about BLPs, but calling a content dispute "vandalism" and accusing an editor who agrees with the "other" side a sock (apparently without any independent basis) is improper. We cheapen our policies and damage our credibility by throwing words like vandalism and sock around indiscriminately.—Finell21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indef-blocked
I've indef-blocked Grundle for his behaviour here, highlighted by this edit summary. It appears that Grundle, who certainly knows better, attempted to use Wikipedia to encourage negative public commentary on the fact that a BLP subject has two adult children. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion via Wikipedia, on a sensitive subject, via a clear WP:SYNTH violation (claiming that a 2009 call for a global one-child policy has anything to do with personal decisions to have children 30-odd years previously). I believe this behaviour constitutes an egregious violation of WP:BLP; of WP:SYNTH; and is part of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing.
Although I've indef-blocked here due to Grundle's long-term behaviour pattern as well as the egregiousness of this incident, I'm open to other length blocks, or to an immediate overturn without consultation if another admin thinks I'm way off base. My view is that if BLP is to mean anything, then an editor of this experience and with this history, should be blocked if not indefinitely then for a substantial period. Rd232talk17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur in the block in that Grundle has shown a long-term pattern of behavior that is disruptive and because he has yet again brought up the "questions" that he agreed to not bring up as a condition to his prior unblock. MBisanztalk18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit highlighted by Rd232 is from December 11. The underlying content issue of whether and how to note that a commentator calling for a one child policy has two children appears to have been resolved with a reasonable compromise. There is no ongoing problem. So this is an atrociously disruptive block by an admin with a history of disruptive behavior on one side of political subjects. I think Grundle needs to do a better job of staying on the straight and narrow, but his impressive content contributions stand in stark contrast to the trolls harassers and baiters who haunt his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block looks reasonable. This is an editor with a history of tendentious editing with respect to political figures, and who is already under a ban on U.S. politics and politicians. Apparently, he has chosen to move that tendentious editing north to Canada. It is also worth noting that his insistence on yet again bringing up his 'seven questions' here is a violation of his extant topic ban. This editor does not, at this time, seem prepared to let go and move on. While an indefinite block may or may not be necessary, a minimum of a few weeks away might do him some good. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was resolved. It was a content dispute. Drudging up old issues and dragging people who we don't agree with to ANI is insidious and it's one of the most disruptive and bullying tactics employed on Wikipedia. There was no consensus to block. The clear consensus was that the issue was resolved. This is an outrageous block, and it shouldn't be gone along with because people have disagreed with the targeted editor in the past. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only person who keeps bringing up his 'seven questions' (in violation of his topic ban) is Grundle himself. Perhaps if he weren't so keen to refight old battles and dredge up old fights, then we wouldn't be discussing his block now. Further, your ongoing personal attacks and inflammatory remarks directed at other editors in this discussion are almost certainly not helping to get your point across. I've said my bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the user is blocked indefinitely for the same thing he was blocked for back in November. Am I allowed to put the {{indefblock}} template on his userpage, or will I simply be reverted by William S. Saturn and be accused of "defacement" by Grundle? It would seem Saturn is accusing the blocking sysop on Grundle's talkpage of blocking Grundle over personal bias. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grundle has an unblock request pending, so I think the template would be precipitate. Let's hand on for a day or two and see whether a compromise of some sort can be worked out. (On Grundle's page, not here.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the indef-block template for the above reason, but don't mean to edit war over it. Let's wait until this is all done before blanking the user page, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This use just refuses to get it; the reason why he was indef'ed from political articles is for posting and re-posting the same stupid shit, over and over for months and months on end. And it always boils down to the same things; synthesizing several sources in order to create a particular point of view where none exists, or finding sources to show that it does exist but those sources are not within spitting distance of being reliably sourced. Grundle cannot behave in political articles, thus earning a topic ban. Now the same behavior extends to other areas of the project...where else is there to go but an indef? ChildofMidnight is here to, once again, fan the flames of faux outrage as well, which will not help matters any. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to reduce block length
I disagree that there is nowhere else "to go but an indef": Grundle2600 has never been blocked for longer than 48 hours [65]. Additionally, indefinite blocks are categorically problematic: they encourage evasion by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction ever being imposed. In consideration of this user's light block history, there's every reason to believe that a longer, but time-limited, block might be effective. Therefore, I suggest reducing Grundle2600's block to one month. Andrea105 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the indef block, but am somewhat open to the possibility of some other outcome. While the block log does not look that bad, this is an editor who has been sanctioned by ArbCom, topic banned twice by the community, and indef blocked once before (which was then lifted pending a promise to improve apparently). This most recent incident is, in my view, quite egregious (a synth violation on a BLP, what one can only term a "gotcha edit" about someone Grundle apparently wanted to make look bad), and unfortunately it's part of a longstanding pattern (on political articles from which he was eventually banned, Grundle regularly edited in such a SYNTH fashion where one statement made by someone was put in contrast to some action (often misconstrued) as if to say, "look at the hypocrisy"—efforts to explain the problem with that to Grundle led to a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT replies from Grundle).
The only way any sort of change in the indef should even be considered would be for Grundle to acknowledge the problems with his behavior. I'm not talking about a forced apology (that kind of stuff is pointless), I'm talking about an acknowledgment/understanding that the kind of editing evinced at Diane Francis is not okay and absolutely cannot happen again. Even then I'm not sure that it's not more trouble than it's worth to let Grundle come back to editing. Too many people have tried to help this editor stay within community norms to little or no avail. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a reduction in length upon submission of a genuine mea culpa. Arguments such as whether it is "worth it" to keep an editor around are problematic, as it's really not too much trouble to indef should he reoffend. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General thoughts on bans and indef-blocks: While I'm not well-read on this specific case, my general thoughts are that bans and their associated indef-blocks should be reconsidered periodically, upon petition of the banned person, a promise to obey the rules of the wiki, and either an off-wiki demonstration that something changed or some type of short-leash parole for a few months along with a mentor if necessary on-wiki before they are allowed to edit without restrictions. In some cases, such as harassment of a given individual, or COI or POV-editing, long-term restrictions lasting more than a year before review may be needed. In cases where the editor has a habit of editing while drunk or some other episodic disruptions but is otherwise contributing well, other tools may be required. In cases where the person has a previous history of socking, even an old one, they may need a checkuser to be on standby until all editing restrictions are lifted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely no reason to expect Grundle2600 to behave any differently if he is unblocked than he has behaved all along. My sense is that we should take 1/100th of the effort spent in trying to coax something valuable and encyclopedic from him, invest it more wisely, and move on. MastCellTalk05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logic behind the proposal up above is totally flawed. Rules have no teeth if they are not enforced. Saying that indefinitely blocking someone who has repeatedly been problematic is useless because there are no "more severe sanctions" is backwards, and insinuates that blocks are punitive, not preventative. If we operate under that logic we may as well stop blocking everyone and let Wikipedia become a massive spamhaus and attack site. As blocks are preventative, not punitive, editors who have repeatedly shown to break the same rules over and over and over again, ignoring editing sanctions, etc. should be blocked to prevent them from repeating the violations again. Promising to follow policy and adhering to editing restrictions eliminates the need to prevent someone from violating. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you were talking about the main proposal to reduce the block on Grundle2600 or if you were talking about my general comment that blocks should be reviewed. There are several good ways to give an editor a second chance. The canonical one is to have him propose substantial improvements to articles or new articles on his user talk page then have an established editor who will take responsibility for the edit review it, and if appropriate, make the edit, repeating until there is a good comfort level that this isn't a snow job or an unstable personality on one of his good days. If the editor is unblocked, he can be kept on a short leash, topic-banned, banned from interacting with certain other editors, forced into involuntary mentorship, or under other editing restrictions long enough to make sure this wasn't a snow job, an unstable personality having a good day, or an editor who occasionally edits while intoxicated. In general, once an editor has been editing responsibly and frequently for over a year there is little use in keeping additional restrictions, unless there is the editing equivalent of an alcoholic, where the restriction is in place for the editor's own good to protect him from himself and the project from collateral damage. See Template:Second chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While Grundle's actions have indeed been problematic, and I support the imposition of a block, I don't think he has used his last chance. Keep the block in place and let him compose an appeal to Arbcom. If they decide to reduce his block, then keep him around on a short leash. The primary thing I've been trying to get across to Grundle is that we need to see a change in attitude and behaviour from him. If he's capable of making that change, then by all means let him edit. If not, then reimpose the indef. Either way, I think the best course of action right now is for him to take the appeal to Arbcom. Decline the unblock, and go from there. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite block. Indefinite does not mean permanent, so if he chills out a bit in a couple months, let him come back and request an unblock. Frequently, all that is needed is some time for everyone involved to cool out a bit. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."
That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when he was blocked indefinitely days later. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Wikipedia. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their "history", and hound them off the site.
The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy between her her policy statements and personal choices (something that's been reported widely on if not in the mainstream media).
Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement and so have others.
These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your treatise is based on a convenient fallacy. "Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment." Nope. Tan | 3919:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be convenient for C of M to list out in full (I assume the above list is not complete) each and every editor guilty of one or more of the following Wikicrimes described above: "pernicious and persistent POV"; "hound[ing]...off the site"; offering "complete and utter bullshit arguments"; "consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC"; "hold[ing] our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt"; "abus[ing] this site"; "push[ing] their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree"; "harassment"; "biased enforcement"; "assuming bad faith"; "making accusations and going after them with full force and fury"; "disgusting hypocrisy"; and "[outrageous] censorship". Once there is a full list of all the editors guilty of these dastardly deeds I think it makes sense to proceed to a community discussion about banning the lot of us. Of course there's no need to provide even so much as one diff making the case for such serious accusations, rather we should just take ChildofMidnight's word for it.
Sorry for the snark, it's just that the endless fantasyland accusations from C of M get rather tiresome after the umpteenth time, even if no one pays them any attention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate CoM providing diffs to prove his assertion "These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing.". If CoM has proof of this, then this needs to be conveyed to ArbCom. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, perhaps CoM would like to create a user subpage with the diffs I refer to, and the list of editors referred to by Bigtimepeace. This could be used as an evidence page for the ArbCom case which I'm sure CoM is considering filing in the near future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suppose Arbcom will do about it? All anyone has to do is to set up an "alternate account" (as admin socks are referred to euphemistically) and try adding notable criticism and balance to controversial articles. We are a community and we have to hold ourselves to high standards. Harassment, hounding, and the abuse of admin privledges to advance personal and political biases is totally unacceptable.
Grundle is an excellent editor who has added lots of great articles and content. Occasionally he takes liberties that aren't entirely helpful and these issues can be resolved amicably. If it weren't for the aggressive and abusive tactics employed by many misguided individuals here who use an ends justifies the means approach to advancing their personal preferences and opinions on others there wouldn't be a problem. It's time to stop the censorship and to uphold our core principles and values that notable perspectives should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noticeboard for incidents that require administrative action. What action are you looking for an uninvolved admin to take, and upon what evidence would you suggest they base such an action? If you cannot provide specifics on both fronts then I suggest this entire thread should be closed. No admin seems inclined to lift the indef block of Grundle, and it's probably for C of M's own good for this to come to a close lest he head off into Plaxico B. territory. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized." I think that neatly sums up CoM's complete misreading of the situation and of basic policy. Rd232talk19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.
Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text:
“
By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens[1][2]) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British.
”
You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.
Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text:
You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.
For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntzreverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).
So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).
Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as Gibnewsopenly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.
As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml [66]. I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see [67]. And again [68] and again [69]. Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see [70]. And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see [71]. Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See [72].
Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.
To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. Justintalk00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ecemaml (talk·contribs) seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAITUser:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mathsci. First of all, sorry for not having followed this discussion. Sometimes real life bursts into the wikipedia and a wikibreak is unavoidable. Family matters have kept me away and I must ask for your understanding. Just for the sake of understand your statement. Which is the point I was trying to prove. I've been said that many times and at the moment, nobody has been able to point out to such a point. In this specific issue, what is disruptive from my side? I understand that in articles with different point of views, conflictive editions are unavoidable. But, I can't understand (and I haven't understand yet) why perfectly sourced editions are removed leaving information factually wrong? The only reason to raise this issue here is because this edit war is absolutely stupid. Details are, as you appropriately point out "niggling". But the fact that my work is gratuitously removed is what brings this issue here. Come on, the information currently in the article is false. There were no Maltese guys in Gibraltar in 1753. This is not an edit war on divergent interpretations of a fact but a plain sabotage, not only against me but against the very Wikipedia principles. Again, please, which is the point I'm trying to prove. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, you're referring to "continued postings here". Considering that I was brought here when Justin provoked another edit war (when I tried to "make another point" including some notable Spaniards in the article of a town that was Spanish for several centuries), I can't see which continued posting you're referring to.[reply]
Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious, Narson? "he /does/ have to talk to people". You possibly know that Justin has a different way of interpretation of communication among wikipedists :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, [73],[74],[75],[76],[77]. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. Justintalk21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish' plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (Marseille is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in Demographics of Gibraltar and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In Marseille, rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population by not noticing the word new. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is WP:UNDUE to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like Marseille, which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, Elen, thank you for taking the time in discussing this. I'd just point out some issues. I agree with the statement on the triviality of mentioning a specific census. There are plenty of information available for giving a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the population in Gibraltar for three centuries. That's what the article should include. I agree with it. On the other hand, and answering to Elen, I did noticed the word "new". The issue is that this Spanish population was "new", not the previous. Finally, Mathsci, agreeing on the necessity of having a good section on demographics, the issue remains: considering that your statements on the way to describe Gibraltar demographics are right, why should the article say that in the 1753 census there were Maltese population in Gibraltar? I remember to you that it was the issue I'm raising. The motivation of Justin to simply revert something that he simply does not about is beyond my understanding, but you've claimed that I wanted to make a point. So, in the end, fixing a mistake is making a point, and reverting it to a factually wrong version is OK. I don't understand it. Really. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishesa couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. Justintalk20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't. Factually wrong information remains in the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: it doesn't explain why reversion is used as edit tool, something that Justin hasn't explained yet.[reply]
Alright. Now nationality isn't a factor here. It comes as a relief, to say the least, because I was growing increasingly uncomfortable to read the term "Spanish" repeatedly qualifying some editors/opinions (which usually happen to disagree with Justins'/Gibnews' point of view). As far as I remember, I've never described myself as a Spaniard. I do speak Spanish. I speak English as well, je parle Français aussi, e io capisco un po' di Italiano altrettanto (quantunque io non lo parlo). And yes, Justin, I know already that you are "half-Spanish". You say that all the time to avert accusations of bias but, as you might know "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". Gibnews and yourself are both British (and at least Gibnews is from Gibraltar). However, I've never pointed that out as relevant data concerning our debates, because I value your opinions, neither who you are, nor where you are from. I suggest you do the same, because proceeding otherwise smells like racism to me despite your alleged meta-ethnicity.
As for the reverts thing, whilst I've not participated in this discussion and I hold no opinion concerning the right approach to describing Gibraltar's demography, that certainly wasn't the way to go. Moreover when taking into account precedents like this one. Ecemaml's editions were referenced correctly, and a discussion in the talk page was in order. --Cremallera (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right I see, so is dragging up something from the past that was already resolved helpful in moving forward? See [78]. Something already explained at length. As regards my mother, no I usually bring it up in response to accusations of racism, usually of an anti-Spanish bias. The issue of race has only ever been raised to try and discredit the viewpoints of anyone that disagrees with certain editors, its not helpful and is designed to portray anyone disagreeing as unreasonable. Its offensive and I'm tired of it. If you don't want it raised, I suggest you have a word with the people who raise it as a red herring. I would also suggest you refrain from the bad faith attempt to spin it as an issue I raise, when you know that I don't.
Further, did you feel changing the date of WW2 was a helpful edit, or edit warring to keep the change? Diffs [79],[80]. If you were to perhaps equally condemn that sort of disruption, then to be blunt about it, you'd have more credibility. Just to make the point also, that if there was less of a confrontational attitude and turning everything into a battle, use of the talk page then people might not be so hot on the revert button. Just a thought. Justintalk00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here. However, in defense of my credibility I'll point out that I've addressed him whenever I've felt his comments inappropriate, in concordance with your remarks (!) or even looking forward to your participation in the debate. As for Ecemaml's alleged vandalism concerning WW2 dates, he explained his edition to you in the talk page, and you've read it already as shown by your response which ends stating "Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there". That was rich. Are you half-Argentinian as well?
Whatever. Finally, attribute me "bad faith", lack of credibility, a confrontational attitude and the like, I'm getting used to it. But please stop addressing *any* editor by his putative nationality. Thanks. --Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged vandalism, no. Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism and the explanation was lacking in credibility or reason. I see the point about not raising the red herring of nationality has clearly gone straight over your head as you've done it again. I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation. I may respond inappropriately sometimes when wound up. Again if you don't want nationality raised, then suggest it isn't raised so often as a red herring. :"Are you half-Argentinian as well?", the word is Argentine, no. Somewhat ironic to raise it in such a confrontational manner given your subsequent comment. Don't you think?Justintalk20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism". Yes, that would have been vandalism... if true. However, I never changed the date of the start of the WW2 as you know and as I explained to you (you keep insisting on that in spite of knowing it's false and in spite of having received a duly explanation). For the sake of clarity and for avoiding your usual personal attacks, I'll explain it again (only for you not go on lying). I thought (and think) that 1940 is a better date for "the periodification of the history of Gibraltar" than 1939, as 1940 was the date of the evacuation of Gibraltarians, creation of the Force H, suspension of the City Council and mass-scale fortification of the town... I won't explain it again, although I know that you'll go on lying by saying something as stupid as that "I changed the date of the start of the WW2".
On the other hand, as you hasn't been able to explain yet why factually wrong information must remain in the article (besides your usual small talk, you've failed to explain why you use reversion as edit tool), I'll restore the sourced information that I introduced, along with the reference provided by Mathsci (and removing Spaniards and Portuguese, since its mention seems to be "problematic"). Of course that the section needs to be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already pointed out the information in that section starts in 1939 and it is specifically titled WW2, the date you changed was the date of the start of WW2. I don't find your explanation in any way convincing, particularly as you edit warred to keep it and since you only provided this explanation later it has all the hallmarks of something you came up with it after the event; you didn't mention it at the time.
Equally I've restored the sourced information for the ethnic groups you simply excised from the article, which you could have done. Often successive edits separate sourced information from their cites but as was pointed out to you, you could simply have referred to the Demographics of Gibraltar article and fixed it. You chose instead to cut out swathes of text, that removed useful information from the article. You were of course referred to that article, why you chose to ignore that suggestion to instead start an AN/I thread is a mystery to me. As is claiming to improve articles by removing information rather than correcting the source. That would probably explain the comments here, which acknowledge the POV nature of a number of your edits, not to mention your combative and confrontational style. Anyway this is wasting my time, so this will be my last comment. Justintalk23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry. and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version(tm). I followed WP:IAR and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To state that it's been leaked needs a reliable independent source that says it is Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per WP:C. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, as Guy has pointed out, there is no way to determine whether the document on Wikilinks is the actual document. One might be able to add a footnote stating that a document alleged to be Hovind's doctoral thesis has been posted there -- but just how important is the content of Hovind's work? I'd be more inclined, as a disinterested observer, to accept a mention of the document at Wikilinks if the article had some indication of the subject of his doctoral thesis. For all I know, Hovind wrote about how baseball is mentioned in the Bible. (It's true, didn't you know? In the very first verse of Genesis, in fact -- "In the big inning".) -- llywrch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support blocking Llywrch for that awful, awful pun. The subject of his dissertation is why Creationists are right and scientists are a bunch of big doodoo heads (I hyperbolize--barely). It's pretty central to his public persona, and stands as a fairly damning critique, on its own, of both his Doctorate and the institution that granted it. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I"m going to have to agree with Throwaway on that, Llywrch. Of course, I also plan to repeat the pun, first chance I get. The subject of the dissertation on WL is History of Evolution. Cliffsnotes version: Satan made it up before the fall to confuse humans, and has been pushing it ever since. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support pun block, but only so there will be more time spent with wonderful new arrival. (Congratulations.) P.S. This in no way means I'm not going to drag someone to Arbcom ... after I see if I've successfully rigged the election. lol Meanwhile, happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These quotations under reference 1 as "unattributed" don't come up in a Wikipedia search as being anywhere but at that page. Thus, invented, somehow brought here before being deleted, or as memories of another account as deleted edits. Highly leaning at that last option. Could well be a classic puppet "good hand bad hand" case. Although Drolz09 was created nearly 2 years ago, it's only been active since the whole climate change email bit started. Those quotations and ANIs and all the other junk saved in there might have some meaning or way to tie in to another user. Since Drolz09 was posting at ANI as soon as becoming active, highly suspicious sock. I'll research it. ♪daTheisen(talk)01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The aboutme was put up for CSD G6(?) without notification to the user. I objected with a hangon, only to realize you can't use hangon on talk pages even if it's about a talk page. Put text in a generic notice box. Again, I'm just speaking as a procedural angle or CSD category. Suggest it be looked over and removed if appropriate. I figured ANI incidents were trumped by a CSD tag, thus I wouldn't have removed it under any circumstances without more opinion. ♪daTheisen(talk)02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hangon and text removed. I usually self-impose a "virtual wheel warring" block on any template placing in general. Anyway, I'm going to keep digging into the GHBH puppet. That would end all the separate incident reports at once. ♪daTheisen(talk)02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever else I may be, I'm nobody's puppet; I don't suppose you've any reason to take me at my word on that, but if you do you might save yourself some time. Drolz0911:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what they all say. When an SPI is filed, the opinion of those accused is never a deciding factor in the case, unless they admit to wrongdoing.— DædαlusContribs07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page:
Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)
After this, User:MBK004 twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?)
Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Wikipedia" unless they are destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to you? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to My Life Without Me got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to My Life Without Me. There is no indication that his involvement in My Life Without Me is anything but WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on Varyag? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on My Life Without Me.
Two articles have been semi-protected because 91.55.211.58 (talk·contribs) / 91.55.204.136 (talk·contribs) has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and CVN-79 if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on My Life Without Me, until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow WP:AGF, but I get the impression that you're past that.)
If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, let's play a game: When User:MBK004 blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt.
Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Studies have shown that the wrong version is always protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi, my edit summary noted that the official Sony website (which was already linked in the article) supported the plot description. However, just for you, I have added a second link to the same website, as an explicit <ref> for that paragraph (previously not reffed). Making a legitimate edit (which is all this IP user was trying to do) isn't disruption or vandalism. As for "disruptive IP hopping", are ISPs' dynamic IP assignments now to be blamed on their users? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we mark it all down to misunderstandings, note that tempers got heated, but try to cool them off and go on from there? That seems like the resolution with the best and fastest chance of happy outcomes for everyone. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All a ton of brinkmanship. "Destroying Wikipedia"? Um, a tad much. The later sections including the somewhat disparaging edit summaries from BilCat, including saying "I don't trust vandals" after harmless messages left suggesting a discussions merge. WP:VANDALISM is kind of picky about definition and evoking it is a serious matter. The warnings against personal attacks given from that seem 100% justified given a total ignoring what vandalism means-- actually, those messages were polite in that they suggested just walking away for awhile. Then to here. As to "who started it", IP user technically did but not automatically in bad faith, if not questionable. BitCat dragged on the matter with free-floating use of "vandal", to which any experienced editor would take offense to after feeling they acted in good faith. In hindsight, just a rewording of a few edit summaries could probably have prevented this. ♪daTheisen(talk)02:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Case of a mutual open apology on "destroying" vs vandal; WQA vs ANI closing the matter? This is well within the range of inability to blame either party and since both parties know the bigger picture sanctions would seem kind of silly. 'Tis my suggestion, since no other resolutions proposed. At least one uninvolved agreement needed, please. ♪daTheisen(talk)02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Wikipedia and can seem a bit harsh to new editors. My first impression is a bit of storm in a teacup, the IP didnt explain the edit (no edit summary) and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I suggest we just leave it behind and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read again: I used the word "destroying" as a synonym for vandalism after he wikihounded me to another article. He called my change there vandalism (and reverted me) without knowing anything about the matter. Turns out that my change was justified. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone involved came on too strong: "vandalism", "stupidity", "destroying", and "final warning". Now the question is, can everyone involved lower their hackles and make peace? Or are we stuck at hostilities? 91.55, having taken the lead to bring this up, can you take the lead to calm it down? As you did with Guerillero? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK didnt want to prolong this but had that point not been addressed by User:Sizzle Flambés first comment above. A 91.55 IP changed My Life Without Me without any explanation, it was Twinkle reverted as vandalism by user User:Guerillero, the 91.55 reverted with the comment Reverted 1 edit by Guerillero identified as stupidity to last revision by me. (If you don't know the movie, why don't you just keep quiet? User BilCat reverted the apparant vandalism again with apparent vandalism, and uncivil comments) which was again reverted by a 91.55 IP without explanation but then left a message on BilCats talk page Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?). BilCat removed the comment from his talk page without comment and MBK004 was probably watching BilCat's talk page (assumption) issued the personal attack warning on the 91.55 talk page. All looks reasonable to me an editor makes an unexplained change to an article and then attacks both reverters an admin sees the comments and issues a warning. User Guerillero and BilCat acted against unexplained edits which provoked comment from the IP which was dealt with by a warning from an Admin. All we need is to move on and the IP should use edit summaries in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries are recommended but not required. Labelling 91.55's edit to My Life Without Me as "vandalism" was hasty and mistaken; his edit was not "blatantly wrong", in fact it was not wrong at all, let alone obscene or otherwise vandalistic. Things went downhill from that precise point, and got worse with each repetition of the "vandalism" charge. Now, are we done re-hashing this, and can we get back to the "peace" concept? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I could not accept the point that 91.55s edit was not blatantly wrong and the two reverters were in the wrong. At the time of the reversion it was seen as an IP making an unexplained change which is why two editors reverted the addition as vandalism a fairly common practice with any unexplained edit. After being reverted the IP still did not comment either in the edit summary or on the talk page but attacked both reverters. It was only when Sizzle became involved that the edit was deemed to be factual at no time had the IP explained the change. As for peace fine just accept what was done and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting an unexplained change as vandalism shouldn't be a fairly common practice. If it is, the people doing the reverting need to reread WP:VAND and WP:AGF. The IPs response was rude, yes, but I think the edit summary says pretty clearly that they believed their edit to be correct and that the reverter must not know what he's doing if he's reverting the edit as vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite odd that you expected my to assume good faith, but aren't willing to extend the same to me! Per WP:DUCK, it looked like vandalism to me. Now I know I was incorrect, but at the time it appeared to be antoher part of unexplained edits by the same IP. Note that in my second revert I did say "apparent vandalism", expressing some doubt. As this IP is not a newbie, he should know to be using clrear edit summaries in his first edits, and to be civil in all of them. (Summaries are not required, but it is good sense; civility is, and that edit summary was not in any way.) I stand by my edits, reverts, and comments. While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here. And I have 3 and a half years of edits to show that I generally try to do the right thing on WP, as I've not chosen to hide behind an anoymous IP. My record speaks for itself. - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither edit summaries or editing as a registered user are required by Wikipedia. Seems to me Error in judgement implies something wrong. Nothing huge, nothing requiring drama, but a oops, messed up would be nice. Characterizing an anonymous editor as "hiding" isn't cool. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here."
Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the IP user is acting in good faith. Per the IP's comments here, and the baiting in teh post before this one, I am withdrawing from all discussions in which this user is involved, per WP:DNFT. Admins may contact me privately if they desire to pursue this further. Thanks, especially to Jimbo. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The three IPs, including noew 91.55.230.143 (talk·contribs), should be blocked for disruption in their short communal period of editing wikipedia. See this example of forum shopping.[81] This is unacceptable behaviour. This user is wikihounding User:BilCat and has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia. Two pages are semiprotected due to their actions. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(It still gets better.) This entry here is about the bogus PA warning from User:MBK004. Look above to see me again and again trying people to focus on that.
Your link points to my Wikiquette Alert about BilCat's incivility. There is no room there to talk about a possible admin abuse.
The IPs are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia but to cause disruption. Here is one of a series of personal attacks. [82] Their three editing histories speak for themselves. However, given their knowledge of WP:ANI and WP:WQA, they do seem to display prior knowledge of wikipedia. Possibly they might be a logged off registered user. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument that the final warning was premature but it seems like hair splitting to me. What is the implication of the question? That 91.55 should be allowed 2 more personal attack before being blocked? Gerardw (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do have levels of warning, e.g. uw-npa1 / npa2 / npa3, for a reason. This was uw-npa4im, skipping three levels of warning. No such warning was given to those who made the false accusation of "vandalism", or to the user who followed 91.55 around to revert all his changes (which is after all what 91.55 was objecting to with his "destroying" comment). That does seem rather uneven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.
If you use archive.org, they may not be dead links. The Wayback Machine (as it's called) has archive copies of webpages you can link to, long after the originals have been taken down. PDF copies of old documents, for instance, that might now be found nowhere else on the Web. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of my favorite Javascript bookmarklets; add it to your toolbar and use it while you're looking at a "dead" link: javascript:void(location.href='http://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href) Label it WayBack! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Latest views of what, Will? The latest archive.org copies of any given page? Precede the dead-link URL with http://web.archive.org/web/*/ (which is what the above bookmarklet does), and that takes you to a list of all the saved pages archive.org has. But don't automatically assume the latest date is a good copy; archive.org may have saved a few "page not found" messages. Go back from the end until you find a good copy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archive.org does pick up some of the geocities links, although it misses others. If an EL can't be picked up using archive.org it should be removed, as there's hardly a chance it will come back. If I had my way, a cleanup crew would go around to each of the geocities links and check if they have an archived history which is relevant to the article. That probably won't happen because link cleanup doesn't generate much excitement here, which is probably why noone was enthusiastic about the issue at the other related discussions. C'est la vie. ThemFromSpace11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The URLs shouldn't be deleted simply because they are now dead; they should be deleted because they are Geocities links. Tan | 3913:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geocities was the earliest free web provider on a large scale. Therefore some early adopters used them for publishing high quality information, and never changed later when web hosting became cheaper. I hope that's at least part of the reason we have such links. HansAdler13:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, since the reduction of geocities quality, many geocities links remained until more suitable replacements could be found. The trick now is to actually find more suitable links, rather than simply redirect to a new version of geocities. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most geocities links aren't appropriate here and should be removed anywhere. Unless they could have been verified to have been written by the subject of the article, they weren't reliable sources and their usage as citation should be extremely limited.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Up to a point; you shouldn't underestimate the contributions from dedicated amateurs who put in the legwork but don't want to make a point of it, still less turn their work over to a commercial host. Case in point is a source for many Fairport Convention albums, which is authorised by that band, but has an underlying "fansite.com" address, and fortunately has not been rejected by XLinkBot; it is mirrored by a credible site, but which does not allow the WPCite tool to link to it. Some care is needed in relation to such sites, obviously, but in the absence of other sources, we should be able to use them. Meanwhile, Geocities is being largely mirrored at Oocities.com, and at least one editor is updating the links, without prejudice to them being later found to be inappropriate; but at least we have them to look at, and find alternatives if they don't cut the mustard. Rodhullandemu01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry. When it comes to unreliable sources they're unreliable. WP:V is a core policy on wikipedia and we don't allow links to someone's random site because you can't find a better one. That is why the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Unless the link is to something created by the subject of the article they have no business being used as citations. You may think its reliable, but reader Y has no idea and simply assumes its reliable because it is linked from wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geocities was simply a free web hosting service that offered a dummy-proof interface with lots of tools. While it hosted mostly stereotypical "personal web sites" of non-notable individuals (sudden evil flashback involving "Under Construction" gifs and blinking text), there were some exceptions, even in recent years. "Dedicated amateurs"? Yeah, mostly. But there were some dedicated professionals, too, (e.g., scholars who had republished their own peer-reviewed articles on their Geocities site), notable individuals and organizations of various stripes, and so on—i.e., legitimate external links in certain contexts. If there are still hundreds of Geocities links here, I have little doubt that many of them fall afoul of WP:EL, but I have no doubt whatsoever that not all of them do. Rather than shooting them on sight, trying to verify them through archival sites and then updating the url if they're legit might be a more constructive approach. Rivertorch (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the site, it's about the content and the process of fact-checking. If some well-known authority happens to host a site on a provider that also has masses of junk then that does not reduce the quality of the well-known authority. Where a site is almost exclusively unreliable (as Geocities became) it's fair to request a decent standard of proof that the content is reliable. Where a usually unreliable site is constantly linked then we might very well blacklist it and then whitelist any provably good content. In this case I have to say that I have never found a reliable Geocities link, but Geocities was never high on my list of sites for checking as new links were not really being added at any kind of speed (unlike most of the major blog sites, which are often a pestilential nuisance). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going to archive.org may not be necessary. There are a couple "copy" websites for GeoCities. One could try ReoCities.com and just add end of the website to that. (Example geocities.com/example becomes reocities.com/example). Also there is GeoCities.ws and Oocities.com. Both work the same way, but ReoCities.com seems to be the faster loading and updating website of the three. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geocities archive sites
Ok guys, appreciate the good replies here. as one idea, let's post different suggestions or notations as to where Geocities.com content has now been archived. this can be a semi-official beginning to the efforts to keep links current. thanks.
archive.org - as noted in discussion above, very sizable archive of past web content. geocities is one notable part, and received its own specific effort at this site.
His message may have been a bit abrupt but I think one can forgive Kangolcone for being slightly annoyed. Although not exactly a prodigious contributor he has been here for over three years at least and to see a templated message talking of something which he thought was helpful to people wishing to cite sources more accurately in encyclopaedia articles as if it were a random editing test, would have been vexing to him. It might have been better, bearing in mind WP:DTTR, to have explained in more detail why you thought Template:Cite list wasn't helpful to the encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of fairness to Btilm, have you looked at what was tagged with CSD? It consists of nothing more than a single URL; not exactly what I expected to find in something labelled "Template:Cite list". Maybe the template note did not make the impression Btilm wanted to leave -- I would have left a note to the effect of "This template makes no sense, & for that reason I have nominated it for CSD" -- but anyone, no matter what their experience level (or membership status in the TINC seket cabal), who created a template like that would provoke at least one "WTF???" -- llywrch (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan, no one mentioned anything concerning admins here. Your comment simply makes no sense -- unless it is simply to find an opportunity to kvetch about your obsession. -- llywrch (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is because when he failed to notify two IP addresses that he'd started a discussion about them (because he got sidetracked, fair enough, that happens), I reminded him about it (because I was in the middle of something, didn't feel I had the time, knew he was an experienced user, didn't know he had a good reason for not notifying them), and he got all shirty about my reminding him and not doing it for him. Earlier I had noticed someone else hadn't made a notification and I did it for them, but who notices when Admins do something like that? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I've had to deal with one oversighter libelling my mother, and one of his colleagues not bothering to answer my email to her disagreeing with her decision not to remove the comment. I've had bad blocks, and I've had admins lying both to me and about me on Wikipedia - and don't get me started on two arbs who went bck on their word to me. I try not to use this page anymore, or to have any interactions with admins if possibly avoidable, but in the IP category case I had neither the time or the inclination to sort out the problem without assistance. For my request for help and extra eyes to be met with such a blunt response just served to confirm my suspicions about the unhelpful attitude of admins in general. Then we get this thread, where speedying seems to be considered to be preferable to an offer of help, so I vented here too. I'm sure now you meant your comment helpfully, but it didn't come across that way in the context of the behaviour of many of your admin colleagues. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I hope 'many' is actually a small minority, and am pretty sure it is. I'm probably not the only one who wishes he could do a lot more than he does do (and feels guilty for not doing more content building - I just found a box full of journal articles I really should be using to build up some articles, but will I ever have time?). I also know that my writing is usually terse (maybe I should say succinct). Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or are these IPs who edit war to remove the SharedIP template from their talk page suddenly popping up left and right? Does anyone know of any organized online privacy campaigns or anything like that? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Solution to the problem. If it is a shared ID, grab a post-it note and write this down: "In two days, restore the repeatvandal and whois tag to 66.177.73.86" If its shared, the person who removed it won't be using this IP ever again. If it is static or semi-static, then you'll get the same behavior. Either way, this isn't a pressing issue RIGHT NOW. The best way to deal with this, if its important, is to let them win for now, and then just take care of it when it won't generate a silly edit war. --Jayron3205:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, it is not shared. The host name is c-66-177-73-86.hsd1.fl.comcast.net. By the naming convention used by Comcast, the "c" indicates Customer-premises equipment, e.g., their cable modem. It may or may not be static, but, the policy issues are (a) the "shared" IP templates should not be used, (b) one could use Template:Whois, (c) per WP:CMT, while shared IP templates are on the list of things that IP editors should not remove from their talk pages, non-shared IP templates (like whois) are not so listed, so can be removed.
P.S. I did explain the non-shared nature of such host names to the editor who erroneously added this shared template here and to other non-shared IPs, but I did not succeed in convincing that editor. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the best solution. Considering all the hullabaloo about these whois, sharedip and such templates, I wonder why we still have them? Do they actually serve any useful purpose? In reality, they don't do much except display the IP address and a message to users or to people going there to warn about vandalism. The IP address can always be checked and traced using the toolbar at the bottom. Maybe we should just stop adding the templates altogether? (repeatvandal, on the other hand, is a useful template). <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They probably make sense for shared IP's, as someone might stumble into it and wonder how come it's blocked when he didn't do anything. For static IP's, I'm not so sure there's a point. He knows what his IP is, and the curious can always go to the contrib page and check the whois, geolocate, etc. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(<-)The only benefit I can see for the non-shared templates is (in theory) to prevent editors from marking the IP erroneously as shared. Sadly, this hasn't prevented misapplication of the shared templates.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out a policy change regarding Whois templates only. If an IP does remove the template after it's been added, don't revert the edit. It is no longer an exemption to the 3RR rule, See Template:Whois and it's been reflected in WP:BLANKING. Momo sanGespräch04:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Polanski article again. Editor refuses to stop inserting information to whitewash case
Resolved
– This thread has shifted from questioning the actions of a particular editor to requesting "a ruling" on content issues. As far as ANI goes, there is no issue here, and no administrator intervention is required. Equazcion(talk) 20:37, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This yet again. This was brought up before [84]. You have an editor, Proofreader77, who argues nonstop, filling up a talk page, bringing up the same things constantly, and refusing to follow consensus. See the talk page here [85] for him once again trying to edit the article to mention how old other people said they thought the victim looked. As I and others have pointed out a month ago, and several times already, Roman Polanski already said he understood she was 13, this in the Wanted and Desired documentary even, there no doubt whatsoever about this. To mention that she looked older has no place in the article, and continuously trying to re-add it for months now, and filling up one talk page after another arguing about it, is nothing less than an attempt to try to make his crime seem less severe. Can someone please block this disruptive editor from the article? Please look through the archives[86], he filling up one page after another with the same arguments time and again. DreamFocus17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI is the proper forum for incidents like this (asking for a block). On the other hand, Proofreader77 is pushing for this version of the article in the last link of his first post in this thread. The contentious sentence "On March 11, 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old (two weeks prior to her fourteenth birthday and described by the the police investigator as "looking between 16 and 18") Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.[43][52]" seems blatant POV pushing to me, because neither of the sourcescited documents the quoted statement (of the investigator, i.e. "looking between 16 and 18"). It's reasonable to propose a topic ban of Proofreader77 from that article and the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case given his long term disruption that violates WP:V, and has a tint of pro-pedophilia advocacy.Pcapping06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very, very careful about saying an editor is "pro-pedophilia". That's a pretty serious charge. It is quite possible to be a Polanski supporter and not be pro-pedophile. In any case, pedophilia is the wrong word here. The actual term is hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia, as pedophilia refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents, despite its more common denotations. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strike slander immediately / wrap this slanderous topic up (Complex matter of contentious article and behaviors of specific participants to be addressed in due course with an accurate topic header in the appropriate venue)
The only online source that contains that quote is from LA Times of Sep 20, 1977, and was not cited in the wiki article version you appeared to endorse. Further, the actual quote is: One of the detectives in the case described the girl as "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old [...] You've obviously {{cherrypicked}} the part that didn't suit your purpose (acting as though she were 13 or 14 years). Further, including that quote from a 1977-source that was apparently never considered worthy of reproduction in any other report since then is ridiculously WP:UNDUE, not to mention that it failed WP:V since you didn't cite the source. The fact that you first added that statement, and then removed it is a strange WP:POINT illustration, especially since you later seem to endorse the version because you did not put counterbalanced in quotes in the actual text of your talk page message, although you did put it in quotes in the edit summary. So no reasonable person reading the talk page could tell that you do not fully endorse that ridiculously POV version, unless one looked at the edit history of both the article and the talk page! Playing strange, duplicitous WP:GAMEs isn't going to convince anyone of your good faith, so don't expect any apologies from me. Pcapping09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Futher, reading this tl;dr thread makes it ridiculously obvious that you have been POV pushing for including the "looking 16 to 18" titbid in October, and you were also dismmisive of Polanski's under oath statement that he knew her to be 13. Your behavior there meets my definition of POV pushing: dismissive of the mainstream view, and giving equal WP:VALIDity to cherry-picked details. The fact that you switched to a passive aggressive stance after you couldn't get your POV through back in October, and continue to disrupt that article two months later is sufficient evidence for me that you need to be topic banned from it. if you're WP:POINTy enough people can take your illustrations for more serious disruption. (changed after reading answers to the two questions below) Pcapping13:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short questions for the alleged outlaw Proofreader77 (and his 100-word-max replies)
To all who gather in this saloon today/tonight, grab a beer and listen up: As all Wikipedia cowfolk now, ANI is often wielded like a pair of sixguns in *content disputes* — and yep, that's jest what we got right here, friends. Bullshit, and even outright lies, often ride in with such improper topics. But if we must turn our Christmastime fellowship into a barfight, let's not continue WP:TLDR. Now that I've presented my initial rebuttal, I will return to my "editing restriction" of 100 words per message. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to do the same. :-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question #1: Could you elaborate on what you meant by "counterbalancing illustration"? I'm a little confused about what you were trying to illustrate. Are you saying the current version of the summary needs more balancing? The reason I ask is that if you don't see a problem with the current summary, and don't actually plan to add the stuff in your "illustration", then there's really no problem here and Dream's concerns are just misunderstandings. Equazcion(talk) 11:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Equazcion (appreciate question+length:). No, there's no intent to leave (let's call it) Polanski-defense-POV information in as "counterbalance" to Polanski-prosecution-POV (to achieve NPOV). That diff was to illustrate to those wishing to insert preferred Geimer quote (from decades later) into 1977 events paragraph (between grand jury testimony, and charges selected) what happens if you try to achieve NPOV with dueling information. That shouldn't happen in the summary topic in the bio (perhaps in Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). The "counterbalancing illustration" was a response to arguments quotes couldn't be excluded if sourced. You've seen my last version. That's good. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Purpose of this Wikipedia entry. (Claims of two sides, deleting content, mission of a BLP, asserting bad faith, unpleasant nature of the facts)
That long (and rhetorical) title was followed by an initiating comment of 606 words presenting, yes, the POV of initiator. While rhetorical sonnets may seem odd, full analytic reply was not appropriate or a good idea. Almost responded, WP:TLDR, but instead invested time to respond POV with POV of Geimer's attorney's oral arguments (with links) from 10 December Appeals Court hearing. A rhetorical choice chosen for that circumstance. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Proofreader's answers above, I just want to clarify this issue, because Proofreader is frankly (no offense) not making his intentions completely clear.
The edit that sparked this incident report was Proofreader's attempt to make a point, and he immediately reverted himself. The idea was just to have a diff to link to and show everyone in discussions. The point he was trying to make with it was that that the section in question, which is just a summary of the sexual assault article, would get messy and long if evidence that the victim "looked 13" and "didn't look 13" were both added (possibly in addition to other contentious issues). He's trying to say that such things should be kept out of the summary altogether. He's not looking to add them. The original poster here seems to have been confused about this. Equazcion(talk) 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
The above having been said, if you're (Proofreader) going to use direct article edits to make your point, it's your responsibility to make sure no one gets confused about why you're doing it. Making a point by editing the article and then immediately reverting your own edit could prove to be a disruption, which would violate WP:POINT. This ANI report could be viewed as such a disruption. I understand what you were trying to do, and frankly I'm not sure there was any better way to do it. Nevertheless, I'd take great care in doing so in the future. Make sure to say explicitly what you're NOT planning on doing with the article. It might have allayed fears, for example, if you had said something like: "I am NOT advocating the insertion of any of the edits in my illustration. This is only an example of what COULD happen to the section if these kinds of edits are allowed to remain."
As for the "sonnet": I think that response was in poor taste, and more of a violation of WP:SOAP than the original post to that section. You say you didn't want to invest the time to respond to something so general and dubious (that's how I saw it anyway), and I agree with you there; it was not worth responding to. However that doesn't mean a cheeky retort is warranted instead. If you don't want to respond thoughtfully to someone, I would refrain from posting any other type of response in its place. Equazcion(talk) 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the main article should ever be used just to create diffs showing "this how a really POV version could look like by cherrypicking a source". Especially after the attempt to introduce (a superset) of the contentious information (for real) resulted in a whole archive page that debated just that issue. Add some sonnets to that, and you get more than enough soap bubbles to fill an AN/I thread. I have to stop here before my posts become equally cryptic and soapy. Pcapping13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On whether or not article edits should ever be used that way, I have no answer. They certainly shouldn't be used that way in common practice, but like I said, I'm not sure how else the point would've been better made. However, the purpose of the diff wasn't to show "a really POV version". It was to show a version where NPOV were observed by putting in equal amounts of contentious material from each side; which Proofreader is (rightfully) against. Equazcion(talk) 14:00, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that the contentious version is NPOV. See my comment above about (1) lack of verifiability -- wrong sources were cited (2) cherrypicking the source from "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old" to just "looking between 16 and 18 years old". Furthermore, the 2nd paragraph is obviously meant to discredit Geimer as much as possible: except for one sentence, the paragraph pushes the idea that she doesn't remember what happened, she's just a repeating a story, the real culprit was the media, and that she doesn't want him to go to jail. Completely ignored is the fact that forensic evidence was damning, and the issue was statutory rape, so her recollection wasn't terribly relevant. The whole point of that 2nd paragraph is to make the reader commiserate with Polanski (a confused teenager is accusing him, but changes her mind later). After the reader is emotionally primed, he gets to read about Polanski's ordeal with the justice system, and endorse his flight. He evaded punishment (then) that he doesn't really deserve (now)! Together with the cherrypicking of sources mostly favorable to Polanski, this excellent narrative structure is aimed at manipulating the reader to accept the Wikipedia editor's POV. Pcapping14:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think of that temporary version, it doesn't matter. It was reverted by the author. So the temporary version "wasn't NPOV". And? So what? It was a temporary version. It's not there anymore and no one wants to put it back that way. You're arguing about nothing. Equazcion(talk) 20:27, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
There are two opposing strong stances there at Polanski, has been since the arrest, you could say that one side exists to balance the other, there is constant content creep of single words day by day to attempt to change the expression of the content, Proof is one one side and other editor is on the other side, personally I prefer it if the article was stable after the quite encyclopedic rewrite that Benjiboi did, but they keep at it...I would be wrong to restrict one side and not the other from the article as without proofreaders resistance you would soon see the article swing to reflect the Polanski is a perverted child rapist, kiddie fiddler who should be hung by his balls until dead brigade. I think Proofreader actually doing a good job there, if you restrict his access to editing there you also should restrict his opposite editor, User:Tombaker321 have a look at his edit history he only edits the Polanski article . Just have a look at the recent edit history at Polanski of the constant to and fro-ing between these two editors, as I said IMO it would be unfair and unwise to restrict one side and not the other. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new editor and joined shortly after Polanski's arrest. I am going to apologize now for not presenting this commentary with diffs, which I will add later, but as I am unskilled with the software, this will take time. This thread seems to require a more immediate response.
I had read the article months earlier; at that time it was possible to understand the material which recently,(through the efforts of a few editors who are inflamed by the crime), has been rendered nearly incomprehensible. In the meantime, it is sporadically a popular search from Google, and as such, has not enhanced WP's reputation in its current form. I will address only the most recent issues.
From the time of the arrest, both Geimer and Polanski were maligned. Geimer had pleaded that the media and the judiciary halt. In the intervening months, this has been brought up dozens of times in Polanski Talk. There have been arguments from those whose POV-edits are unquestionably retaliatory towards Polanski, and include details which are unsupported and unsubstantiated. An entire thread about Quaaludes, which included alterations to that article which were then reflected in the Polanski article occurred in the past week with the intention of showing that Geimer was so drugged that she was unable to scream, and that her anus was relaxed so that penetration could easily occur. None of this is supported by testimony or secondary documents. Further, although it occurred in Talk, it violates the BLP injunction to do no harm.
A great deal of original research has resulted in arguments that the Vogue Hommes assignment was a ruse to get Geimer on the casting couch, because "The casting interview, film test, photography session that turns into naked photography, have long been cliche's of Hollywood, as a means of having sex with women, under the premise of future fame." For the purposes of WP (as I understand it, although a novice), the plethora of secondary sources should be the final word. It has been widely reported that he was on assignment, although the VH editorial staff did deny it. This information was gleaned from Polanski's biography. (Although the article incorrectly states that it was for Vogue and not VH, and this itself has been a bouncing edit, sometimes with both V and VH being the employer at the same time. While under the same publishing umbrella, clearly different magazines with different audiences.) What has complicated this article further has been the documented malfeasance, cultural stereotyping and missteps, Polanski's uncanny ability to put his foot in his mouth, and the passage of time.
Further, I have read most of the talk page edits since August, and there is no basis for claiming that Proofreader77 is pro-pedophilia, has any interest in besmirching the victim, or is a closeted fan of Polanski's. His only concern, stated repeatedly, is that there be balance; where the fulcrum is has been determined by those who wish to hang the director prior to conclusion of this newest round of judicial proceedings. There has been little dialogue from the other side, just a continual hammering away about the fiction which is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf, which is to simplify a complex case which is less about the actual crime and more about what happened afterwards, and to discount the adult Geimer who tells us herself that we do not know what we are talking about(Wanted and Desired).
It is possible not to negate the seriousness of the assault while being fair to both victim and and perpetrator. This concept has been lost in a take-no-prisoners atmosphere. The refusal to discuss, but to repeat endlessly the "facts of the case," has resulted in exasperation, and most editors have fled the article, including some notable admins who have said that they are sick of it. Proofreader77's talk and article edits are a reply to that intransigence. His use of sonnetized rhetoric is, I believe, a valid and valuable method, and to refer to it as disruptive because it is different from what is normally done is--in my opinion--intellectual prejudice and does not meet the standards of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." While striving for a civil community, we do not criticize those who fail at correctly using the simplest homophones, nor make fun of those whose syntax errors result in misunderstandings; thus we should not belittle those whose rhetorical gifts lie at the other end of the spectrum. To remove Proofreader77 from Polanski would be a disservice to the greater community of WP users. I urge you to withdraw this from consideration. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request ruling
How old the victim looked should not be discussed CONSTANTLY, brought up time and again. Please take time to look over the long ongoing debate about that in the archives. [87] It is now being discussed yet again. The talk page is for discussing what should be in the article, some of the information previously put in there, but removed, and then debated repeatedly for awhile now. Can we get a ruling that since the director already stated he understood she was 13, that there is no possible reason to discuss how old others were quoted as saying they thought she looked? Other things keep coming up as well, which should not have to be discussed continuously. The rape victim previously had sex with her boyfriend(whether a rape victim was a virgin or not shouldn't be mentioned at all), its legal in some nations for a 13 year old to have sex(nothing to do with America), she had had alcohol previously, she had used the sedative drug previously, or how old someone other than the director thought she looked, should not be mentioned again. Bringing these things up constantly, and trying to get them in the article, is an attempt to make the crimes of Polanski sound less severe, and to do victim blaming or slandering of the victim. One talk page after another has been archived, in a very short period of time, filled up by two editors who keep mentioning these irrelevant things. DreamFocus17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we add in every single thing the newspapers discuss? Does the information have any possible reason to be in there? Should we spend three months filling up one talk page after another(check archives, I'm not exaggerating) with the same argument? DreamFocus19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windhover75 has made only one edit ever [88] which is this one. Someone is clearly using a sockpuppet. Can someone check this one please? Its rather uncivil. DreamFocus19:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to still be missing the point. Proofreader included this info in a version that was intended to be an example of what not to do. So he basically agrees with you. Is there some reason you're still stuck on this? Equazcion(talk) 19:55, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
If you're looking for a general ruling on content that has nothing to do with the actions of a particular editor, ANI is not the place for that. I'm not sure that there is any place where you can get such a "ruling". The matter as far as ANI goes appears to be settled. Equazcion(talk) 20:34, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Hi.. As far as I know, this bot was originally approved here, however, as you can see, the bot was only approved to resolve double redirects. It doesn't appear to have been approved for any other task, and yet, as their userpage says, it's task has been changed to fixing interwiki links. However, that is not all it is doing, it is also removing links to other versions of the page that are in different languages. Don't bots need to have new tasks approved before they are added? Also, I have notified the owner of this discussion, as seen here.— DædαlusContribs09:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion can be closed. Xqbot is a very active interwiki bot, and for this function does not need approval. The operator seems to be very competent. (He is a developer of the Python framework for bots and his talk page on de is very active with bot-related questions.) In this case the bot removed an interwiki to the Newari Wikipedia. (This Nepalese language has 800,000 speakers.) The target article was created years ago and has always been empty except for a category and lots of interwiki link.
LoadMeUp101 (talk·contribs) appears to be the same person as indef-blocked user Sugarlover101 (talk·contribs). Based on User:LoadMeUp101's talk page, it appears an autoblock was applied to the IP address, and the unblock was denied because they were determined to be the same user. But User:LoadMeUp101 continues to edit. LoadMeUp101's recent edits have not been problematic (at least as far as I can tell; apparently Sugarlover's infraction was including copyrighted content, and it's possible LoadMeUp is still doing that.), but it still appears to be an indef-blocked user evading that block.
I appreciate any clarification of this issue. It appears to me that either LoadMeUp101 should be indef blocked like Sugarlover101, or LoadMeUp101 should be officially granted license to edit freely. PowersT13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the IP "coincidence", I think there can be little doubt that we have a block-evading sock here. A comparison of edit histories shows the same interests: lacrosse, Matthew Good band. I'm going to indef block with instructions to appeal at the first account if he wishes to resume constructive editing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not recognize the pattern myself, but I'd agree there seems to be an agenda there. That said, I'm inclined to think s/he has a point: how does a list section titled "examples" in Tyranny of the majority not constitute WP:OR and a POV, unless sources are given to justify the inclusion of the examples? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block's fine (I requested the review in the first place), but going from one day to five days for complaining about the block seemed a little on the long side to me. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse amended block. I hope he will (at least, make an active attempt) to be civil when he comes back or if he tries to discuss this with you again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question and issue
An editor keeps deleting article talk page comments which he disagrees with. please advise.
WP:TALK means you have to stay on topic, the article itself. The fastest way to get ignored is through rants about "those controlling the Global Warming articles." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, editors who aggressively "own" their talk pages may act the same way in articles in which they edit. (WP:OWN). Suggest, keeping the talk on your page when faced with such ignorance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency assistance in BLP violation on the main page
Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident is on the main page as the featured article. According to the article, Brown was not convicted of assault. He was convicted on attempted assault. The title should be changed/moved to possibly "Micheal Brown Okinawa attempted assault incident".
This is time pressing because it is on the main page. Otherwise, a slow and careful discussion could take place. This is a possible BLP violation against Mr. Brown. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue here. The court found that he intended to undertake an indecent assault and happened not to succeed at it. We shouldn't be implying that he intended to attempt an indecent assault and fail at it, since he clearly didn't intend to fail at it. — Gavia immer (talk)23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if somebody had been found guilty of attempted murder when nobody ended up murdered, his actions would not be called a "murder incident", and if somebody had been found guilty of attempting to blow up a building when there was no explosion this would not be called an "explosion incident". -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but "murder" and "explosion" are quite specific, whereas "assault" is pretty general. I guess I'm saying that I don't have a problem with the general term "assault", even where the court found that his actions didn't meet the conditions for a specific type of assault due to his lack of success in that line. The other issue is that I like tight prose and hate needless verbosity - adding verbiage as a defensive measure doesn't seem to be needed here. — Gavia immer (talk)00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin I think I am right in saying that the concept of assault is a common law one, where the word "assault" means, essentially, an attempt to injure someone. The acutal act of injuring them is called "battery". So there is no such thing as "attempted assault", because "attempted" is implicit in "assault". In other words, if you take a swing at someone and miss, it is a successful "assault", but a failed "battery". You can check these facts if you care to.--FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the test of whether I am right or not would be whether a court report or similar can be found saying that someone was ever convicted of "attempted assault". I see that the matter is now resolved in any case, but when did a little trivia ever hurt anyone?--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We may be ok as far as the main page is concerned, but I don;t think we're finished. This article really needs some discussion, probably at BLPN--the choice of vocabulary may not by NPOV, and the very detailed account of the event and the trials probably is undue weight, and might well violate BLP do no harm. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In English law, an immediate threat of violence constitutes assault: pointing a gun at someone; shaking your fist at them, but only if you're right next to them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Range blocking for Rcool35 2
Hello, sorry for making a second thread about this subject but my previous thread did not get a response for my latest rangeblocking proposal. I'm just wondering if the IP ranges can be blocked since these are the IP's that he mainly uses.
76.193.170.00/76.193.255.255
76.197.170.00/76.197.255.255
99.140.180.00/99.140.230.255
99.147.180.00/99.147.230.255
I have constantly reverting his vandalism edits for a long, long time and it has not worked at the least bit. He keeps vandalising the pages even though after literaly a thousand reverts he would of given up by now. Protection does not work as he will literaly wait out protection, even if it is for 6 months or a year, the only type that'll work is infinite protection but that'll take certain cercimstances to get. I have tried talking to him but this guy is just so ignorant and pardon my language but stupid. Sure I can revert every one of his edits but I do not want to do this forever, I'm at the end of my ropes here. Taylor Karras (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize, but I'll restate my objections to a rangeblock of that magnitude: That's simply way too many IPs. Perhaps a C/U would like to investigate and see if AT&T uses dynamic IPs in Rcool's area. Vandalism of this type is usually a violation of TOS, and they might have better luck stopping it than us, particularly if we mentioned that the alternative would be to rangeblock the entire block of IPs. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this has a chance at working. Since a rangeblock is proven to be unviable, your solution might work. Now all I need to do is figure out what C/U means and if this is actually going to happen or not? Taylor Karras (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A c/u is a checkuser. They are editors with a special bit that allows them to look up personal details of editors. They are usually the people who deal with sockpuppets. If there are any checkusers seeing this, a response on the feasibility of my suggestion would be appreciated.Throwaway85 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I don't think a checkuser can be done on him. First of all, the Dynamic IP's that AT&T issues and that Rcool35 uses expires within one day, so he'll be using like 365,000 IP's yearly and that'd be impossible to block, secondly Rcool35 has not had made a sockpuppet since Roccompaq01, a sockpuppet of his, was blocked so I don't think that a checkuser can do any good. But if we can figure out a way to call AT&T and inform them that a user has been violating the TOS by vandalizing wikipedia. That'd be great. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was worth a shot. He himself has proven to be an unbannable user in his own right in the fact that we cannot find a way to uphold the block that he was originally given, every method has been exhausted and yet he manages to outpace us all. Weird. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I like dynamic IPs from a personal liberty POV, they really are bothersome in cases like this. He hasn't "managed" to do anything, he simply figured out /relese & /renew. Can we ban MAC addresses? Input from someone more knowledgeable in the Ways of the Wiki than myself would be appreciated here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MAC addresses work at the physical and data-link layers, they are not present at the network and transport layers, so no, MAC addresses can't be banned. Or more accurately, IP and TCP packets (which is how almost all of us communicate with en:wiki servers) do not have a field for MAC address, so there is no way for the server to differentiate based on it, and I'm not aware of any HTTP header field for MAC address either. However, the ISP would see the MAC address - but it's not all that difficult to change MAC addresses in software either. The ISP would have to care enough to match their log entries with ours and warn/disconnect the actual account holder. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has created the abovenamed article, and re-created despite deletion decisions. The content that gets put up is unreferenced, non-notable etc etc etc. The user may also, given that their username is allegedly that of this non-notable film's creator, have a COI. It is hard to know where to start. This article had yet another deletion proposal that has just been actioned by User:Fences and windows. I wanted to suggest that the user be blocked as well as the article being SALTED, but would appreciate an experienced admin looking over the various aspects of this. See:
I hope that nobody minds me adding my comments to this, but I'm doing so as this user contacted me before looking for advice on this article. He seemed genuinely unsure as to why it was being nominated for deletion. I've no idea as to why he contacted me as I don't remember nominating any article of this name for deletion before. Anyway I explained to him that it seems to be that the article was deleted before and we are having a problem verifying why the film is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. I have told him that it may be that the film is simply not notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. He seems to be understanding this now. I have also now pointed him in the direction of some admins to see if they can userfy the page instead? --5 albert square (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page has only been deleted twice (it's been deleted under other titles as well), so I think WP:SALT and WP:BLOCK are both a little premature. As it looks like he is getting some mentoring now, we should WP:AGF and let him go about his business. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences were true and later modified to be attributed to reputable sources. Once incident of vandalism (Scum) doesn't make the other edits vandalism. The previous edit to the user page was vandalism and the user didn't increment the counter.
As I said in my other comment, the validity of a previous edit should have no bearing on a 100% true and fully sourced legitimate contribution made later. That one edit was made out of frustration at seeing your annoying donation banner for the 7,000th time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the above difs are blatant vandalism, and none are sourced. Also, refering to Wikipedia as "your" site demonstrates, not a desire to be part of the community, but rather a desire to come here and get your POV across. That's neither welcome nor appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, isn't it? Being able to silence all dissent. Shows how much you care about neutrality and accuracy.
Clearly you need to check your facts. One of the reverters complained about not having sources and I fixed that with this edit, which is 100% true and referenced to TWO SEPARATE SOURCES. How exactly is that vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could vandalize with a reliable source, for example if you ignore WP:NPOV. If you cited some article saying there was corruption in the White House, or that the Queen is a drug dealer, adding White House as primary example for corruption, or the Queen as primary example for drug dealing, could be seen as an intent to deface the Encyclopedia and hence vandalism. Sources are no shield against policy violation. Crum375 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wasn't. The only edit of mine that was vandalism is the Scum one. There is nothing you can point to in my most recent edit to Begging that isn't neutral or supported by the facts and sources. Wikipedia's engages in internet begging, it's as simple as that. If you want to call it something else be my guest, but as long as the section and article are called "internet begging", Wikipedia warrants a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. The citation to Ars Technica does not mention the word begging and The Register article only uses it once in the headline. If you continue contributing here in this way, you do run the risk of being blocked for disruption. Charities "appeal" for money, they do not "beg". If you had a registered account, you could hide the banners. Mathsci (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly what I was doing with the most recent edit. It was definitely sourced, so if you want to say it wasn't neutral the only thing that could be seen as such is the article title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rename the article to "unsolicited requests for financial donations" that would certainly be more neutral, but that type of activity is commonly accepted as being called begging. A reputable source has said that what Wikipedia is doing is begging ([97]), and it fully meets almost any definition for begging not specifically designed to exclude Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.204.153 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had a source which described the concept of "internet begging" generically, and used Wikipedia as a main example for it, it would be acceptable to use WP as an example. Otherwise, it is WP:SYN at best, and vandalism at worst, esp. when coupled with your Scum edit, since vandalism is judged by intent. Crum375 (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Mr. IP With Twenty-Nine Edits seems to know so much about how this place works suggests to me that he's someone's sock. HalfShadow03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prods and removal of content from Christian film related articles by User:SuaveArt
I'm worried that User:SuaveArt is placing prod tags on Christian film related articles and removing content from them just to cause a distruption or because he is biased against such articles. He cut about half the content out of Courageous (film) and put a prod tag on it even though it was kept at AfD less than a month ago, and he has added the prod tag back after I removed it. He also placed a prod tag on Facing the Giants, even though it clearly passed notability guidelines (and was a former Good Article), and he's now cut a lot of the content out of it. He has also removed almost all the content from Alex Kendrick, Stephen Kendrick, Tracy Goode, Sherwood Pictures, and I think a few other articles and placed prod tags on them. Its possible he is really acting in good faith to try to fix what he sees as problems, but removing all the content from articles and then proposing them for deletion seems inappropriate, especially since several of the articles clearly aren't eligible for prod. Calathan (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The entire 'Courageous' article was one long promo before I edited it filled with encyclopedia trivia and Facebook and Twitter links. The AFD for the article also only had 4 users involved in it (all of whom are active editors of the article). You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy.
2. All of the other articles you just mentioned (related to Sherwood films) have little or no assertion of notability whatsoever (except for Fireproof, which grossed well, and Facing the Giants, which I removed the PROD tag for after doing some research). The rest of the articles mentioned were entirely promotional and full of trivia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. You should try getting a Myspace or taking these to a Wikia site for Sherwood films.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that have been taking to AfD are not eligible for prod. Please actually read the prod rules. Also, I removed the prod tag from Facing the Giants, not you. Also, when you say I "should try getting a Myspace", keep in mind that I'm not an editor of these articles (other than to remove the two prod tags), am not Christian, and am not interested in Christian films. It just looked to me that you were editing in an inappropriate way. Calathan (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that if you want to advertise these films and include paragraph-long lists of trivia, you should find a site like Myspace to do that. I stand corrected on the PROD for Facing the Giants, however that AFD did only have 4 users comment on it. Everything I removed from those articles did not belong there in the first place, because it was either unsourced or just completely promotional. --SuaveArt (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Calathan. This is clearly disruptive (not necessarily bad-faith though), and shouldn't have been handled this way. I almost reverted all the changes, but didn't want to edit war. All of the articles are clearly notable (with the exception of one or two of the actors, which I created a while ago). The articles should be restored and improved case-by-case (just have a look at all the sources available on Google News about it). Trivia should be merged into the article when sourced, or deleted otherwise. You don't just delete all the good content and PROD'd. I contest all of them. Next time, discuss first. American Eagle (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but if the sources are all over the news, then you could have easily added them yourself when you created the articles.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm highly confused by this. You removed a sourced assertion of bestselling author status (with an edit summary that said, "rvmed promotional spam with no assertion of relevence") and then PRODded the article because "No assertion of notability outside of Fireproof (film), which has an article"? On the face of it, this does seem disruptive. If you were uncertain of the source (which seems fine to me) you might have verified it elsewhere. One of the top hits at google news archives verifies best-selling author status at The New York Times, and best-selling author status is a strong assertion of notability. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the former contents on Alex Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick and am challenging their PRODs. While both of these articles could do with improvement, stripping them of sourced content does not seem constructive, particularly in the case of Stephen Kendrick, where as an outsider I see nothing that could be construed as promotional in the text. With Alex Kendrick particularly, I hope on reflection you can see that removing sourced assertions of notability from an article and then PRODding it because it does not assert notability may not seem like good faith, even if you meant well. Much of Tracy Goode was unsourced, and I'm unsure about WP:BIO myself, but, of course, regular editors to that article should feel free to contest the PROD if they disagree and to add any sourced content that seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content from a biographic article. It's an entirely a different thing to indiscriminately remove all sourced content, reducing the biography to a one-sentence stub, and then WP:PROD it for deletion. The later is simply being disruptive. I've restored some of the sourced content to Tracy Goode and Erin Bethea and remove the prod tag from Tracy Goode as his filmography shows that he could pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I considered the sources removed unreliable and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Like you said yourself, if there are mainstream sources for Kendrick's best seller status, then you could have easily added them yourself. Since your only source for his best seller status was "Christianpost", I considered this unworthy of inclusion unless you were able to provide mainstream sources such as the NYT to back it up. The reason I considered most of these articles "promotional" is because there was little notability for any of those persons out side of "Fireproof" (which mentioned them in its own article), and the articles contained unnecessary trivia and promotional links such as Twitter and Myspace.--SuaveArt (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Again, The Christian Post looks like a reliable source to me. Before summarily removing content sourced to it, you might find it worthwhile to check and see if others agree with you that it's "unreliable and irrelevant", perhaps at a venue like WP:RSN. Even if it is not, though, removing a claim to best-selling author status sourced to it and then PRODding the article because it does not assert notability seems like a questionable action. That particular article did assert notability prior to your removal of the content. If you think these articles are promotional, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to address that (and I'm still not sure about Tracy Goode, as I don't know that his roles are "significant", but I'm not familiar at all with his films). But you want to be careful to avoid even unintentional disruption. Our goal here is to build the encyclopedia collaboratively, and there are venues to get additional opinions if you think that contributors to certain articles may not be unbiased in their construction. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE and WP:BIO are not limited to "mainstream sources". For one, there is no way to judge that a source is "mainstream" and people will disagree on what makes something "mainstream", for example Fox News. WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and by extension WP:V, require are reliable sources. Removing reliable sources from an article is disruptive in most cases. The exceptions are usually related to relevancy to the articles subject or duplication. But the edit summaries you gave for why you removed reliable sources from the article ("spam", "self-promotional") are not acceptable reasons. You also removed links to the subjects' websites, and in a couple of cases removed the entire infobox and or flimography. The logical reason one can presume why you did this is to make it easier to delete the article or your simply engaged in a vandalism campaign. —Farix (t | c) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuarveArt, please realise that there is general disapproval of your actions. All I've seen is self-justification rather than any acknowledgement that your edits were disruptive. Please don't repeat such article gutting and inappropriate use of prods. You seem to be pursuing an agenda, which is not a welcome thing to do on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the really weird notion that there is some serious socking with SPIs going on (see article-history - massive almost identical edits going back and forth), but don't want to embarrass myself by filing an investigation since it's only a gut-feeling. Can somebody have a look? Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az8655605:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing embarrasing about filing a good-faith SPI, even if it turns out that no socking is taking place. I've had an e-mail about this article from another editor, but can't look into it until later today. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a message from Presstvwiki (talk·contribs) (let's leave the username issue alone for now) re the article. Editor claims to be an employee of Press TV and would have a COI if they edited the article. I've given him a bit of guidance re how the company can get libellous material removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've been following ANI you may recall that on Dec 11th, Andrea105 taunted and provoked Malleus Fautuorum, including an edit war on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum.
In retrospect this was clearly an intentional and successful troll of Malleus (and the Administrators, and many others). It is highly annoying that John254 chose to do that to a productive user who has a history of abuse sanctions, apparently trying to goad them into getting sanctioned again.
Another possible problem related to User:Kils. It seems highly unlikely that this editor owns the copyright and has the permission for the pictures found at User:Kils#Students. Highly unlikely as the pictures are of a very low resolution, and given that they look like they were taken from a facebook, the kind most universities allow instructors to access. Pantherskin (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend nominating the images for deletion as they are unencyclopedic. We have no need for low quality images of non-notable people. I think a user can post some images of themselves to create a profile and improve collaboration, but creating a gallery of one's students is a step too far. We're not a hosting provider. JehochmanTalk15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most images are 25 years old. They all have own Corporations in Dubai Monaco Caribbean. Most pay no taxes and have a different passport and look totally different today. All are extremely successful, some are dead. For the low resolution images all gave me the copyright. It is no fun anymore to work for Wikipedia with such users like cert. Now they are even destroying my user page. I have Webpages elsewhere, I dont need space on W. Uwe Kils15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have space on Wikipedia, your user page isn't to be used as personal webspace in that way. Plus we have no evidence you have the copyright for these, and they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. Canterbury Tailtalk15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block review requested.
Resolved
– Oh look over there! It's a rainbow-coloured pony!
I have blocked Dekkappai (talk·contribs) for 48 hours for posting these remarks [98][99]. I saw the comment "you people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. For the harm you are doing to this project, I hope you rot in Hell" and warned him, and then when it was repeated I blocked him. It seemed like a no brainer.
However, I've got some stick about it because apparently I'd !voted in the afd, and thus (I suppose) could be one of the hell-bound people he was talking about. Since I don't want to go to hell, I admit with hindsight, I may have had a conflict of interest here. So, can some people who are not kindling for hell please review my block and consider whether it requires lifiting, extending or otherwise.
No problem with the block. The whole "OMG you posted something in the same forum you are an involved admin" is BS. Tan | 3915:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. Our volunteers don't deserve to be treated as such over a content dispute. Such comments damage neutrality by driving off people with contrary points of view. Our policy is clear on this matter. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it was a CfD (and one concerning pornography). Do I underestimate the delicacy of the sensibilities of those who choose to participate in CfDs? -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was me that wielded the stick.
It's a CfD for Krampussakes. Not quite all's fair in XfDs, but many things happen. People get annoyed. They say things they shouldn't. You then tell them not to. They often say the same things again. You do not then block them for 48 hours, at least unless you've given them a pretty clear warning that (in this case) telling people they're bigots is a blockable offense. And you make doubly sure about this kind of stuff if you think you could be perceived as being in an editorial argument with the editor.
That, incidentally, explains why I'm not unblocking him. I think he deserves to be unblocked, but as he and I have very recently been chatting amicably about, inter alia, the awfulness of Spielberg, if I unblock him it might well look as if the reason is that he's a mate of mine. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you block him? The user has been with the project since 2006, has made many productive contributions, and has never been blocked before. If they got bent out of shape about something, you should have shown a little sympathy and tried to understand why they were upset. It seems like you blocked him for mouthing off to you. JehochmanTalk15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)He was not mouthing off to Scott, he was mouthing off to everyone who disagreed with him by calling them bigots and hoping they rot in hell. I don't consider an admin involved because someone made an insult at a group of people that happened to include him. True, the user has been here for 3 years, they can be here another 3 years after the block expires if they want. Being here a long time does not allow personal attacks. While ideally someone not involved in the debate should have made the call, uninvolved admins have confirmed the merit of the block. Personal attacks do not need warning when they are particularly egregious and the user is already aware of the policy. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the block, but I think it would have been better to leave his !vote and simply excise the personal attack part of it, in terms of the CfD reverts. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user who has been here since 2006 has even less excuse. This is not therapy. If he's upset he needs to go and do something else for 48 hours anyway. I had no idea what his "productive contributions" were or were not, never having encountered him before. I see now he's written a FA, but sorry, I don't see how "productive contributions" excuse that. If you can't work on wikipedia without cursing people, and calling fellow collaborators "bigots", then don't work on wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc)15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should have figured out those circumstances and weighed them before blocking. Do you magically think they're going to stop cursing when they come back from your cool-down block? JehochmanTalk15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hochman, if he's been around for three years with no block, seems reasonable to think that a few hours away will make him think about his actions and prevent recurrence. You may disagree, but calling it "magical" is not helping this discussion, IMO. Its needlessly dismissive of an alternate point of view. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. People have been awfully dismissive of my point of view. They've been layering on personal attacks against me. This whole dialog is so despicable and mean, it takes great effort to avoid getting sucked in. JehochmanTalk16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians". People have proposed that established/vested/excellent/long term contributors be treated differently in regards to personal attacks a few times and the community has rejected the idea roundly each time. The community does not want such a double standard and we should not be considering one. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the sort of logic you will use in arbcom? He was clearly referring to those who were disagreeing with him by calling them bigots. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, when you call more than one person a bigot and hope that they rot in hell, the attack ceases to be personal and becomes impersonal. Tan | 3915:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block, which should have been longer or indefinite (i.e., lasting up until a credible promise not to do it again). Personal attacks and incivility such as this is not to be tolerated under any circumstance whatsoever. A block by an admin who contributed to the same discussion is not objectionable, because disagreement in an AfD does not constitute a conflict per WP:UNINVOLVED. I am very disappointed to see Jehochman, an ArbCom candidate, defending this sort of disruption here and assuming bad faith on the part of the blocking admin. Sandstein 15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, your one-man crusade to attack anyone who has any tolerance at all for what you consider incivility is getting old. Jehochman is not ABFing, he's asking questions and making distinctions. Suggest you AGF a little yourowndarnself. Your escalation and change of focus is not helping resolve the question of this block. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While probably not something I myself would have blocked for, not a block I would dispute, either. Absolutely no objection on the grounds of "involved", that doesn't apply and even if it did this is not an "edit warring" block for which blocking might conceivably give the blocking admin a vested interest in blocking the editor in question. Endorse block, but suggest shortening length as excessive for first offense+ sh. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. That type of comment is just way over the line of what's acceptable around here. We're supposed to be a volunteer-driven project working for the good of humanity. Going around calling other editors (whether as individuals, or in small groups at a discussion) 'bigots' just isn't acceptable. If an experienced editor is making those sorts of remarks, a block – or some other sort of break – is probably necessary. Sometimes experienced editors get burnt out, and if they can't bring themselves to step away from the keyboard and get a cup of tea, perhaps we need to do it for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account his clean block log, and the helpful feedback from here, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. Indeed, I will be happy to unblock before that, given the slightest sign of contrition.--Scott Mac (Doc)15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Next time I'd recommend taking the user aside and say something like this, "You seem to be getting overheated. While this may not be your intention, your excessively strident remarks may put off other users. Could you please refactor. I'm happy to listen to your concerns and help you get them addressed, but first you need to stop cussing." If you're one of the people who's actions have been upsetting the user, you'll need to go find an uninvolved party to deliver this little lecture; otherwise it won't work. Our goal is to avoid blocking users when there are other means of solving a problem. Blocks are to be used as a last resort. JehochmanTalk15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. That type of hand-holding wiki-philosophy is exactly what has exacerbated drama and encouraged people to push the envelope. It is better to say a firm "no" to certain behaviours. People who don't realise that things like that are unacceptable really, in the last instance, don't belong here. The type of social-work response you suggest is utterly counter-productive. Sometimes order, and a better working environment for all, are best maintained by putting electric fences around certain obvious "no, no"s. --Scott Mac (Doc)16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin makes a comment as inappropriate as the one this user did then please do. Consensus is that the prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. I agree with Scott, our first priority is to make a safe environment for our volunteers and tolerating personal attacks drives off good editors who don't like be called bigots or told to rot in hell. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I might have made a shorter block. I had a lovely attack this morning from an 'astrologer' on an article talk page, " I here by send out my prayer that such people including Dougweller personally be slaughter by God between now and Feb 2. ". Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the block could have been shorter or have been preceded by a more overt warning, but such incivility should not be condoned. It is unfortunate to see it coming from a valuable long-time contributor like Dekkappai, without whom Wikipedia would not have such articles as Horse and Woman and Dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't know this user, and so I wasn't going to say anything in this conversation--but it really grinds my gears when I see editors snarking on other peoples' contributions and implying that they're "unimportant" or "trivial". I'm sure if I were to go hunting through the history of your articles, I could probably find something to laugh at too--and what makes it worse, the editor isn't currently able to defend himself. For god's sake, this is NOT--no matter how much it currently resembles one--a junior-high playground. Please stop with the "in-crowd"-style taunting--it's unbecoming of adults.GJC22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block I'm not one to block for civility but pleeze how can anyone seriously object to someone who invites their fellow editors to rot in hell being blocked_ Despite being an almost lone voice in opposition I look forward to the theatre of Jehochman taking this to arbitration but honestly, its impossible to fault the logic of the block. Experienced editors have even less excuse then noobs for this kind of behaviour. SpartazHumbug!16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Endorse block per Gigs, Penwhale, Sandstein, Dougweller, Goodday, Friday, and Spartaz. I think it's humorous that Jehochman (on his talk page) suggested blocking me, while he think a block should not have been imposed here. While blocks are to be used as a last resort, it appears that Jehochman does not appreciate the true nuances of sanctions. Scott was correct in taking this line of action here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback folks, I've taken consensus to be that the block was good - although perhaps a little long for a first time. I've thus shortened it, and don't see any serious complaints with the shorter block. Your discussion has been helpful, but I'd seriously suggest we don't as much as we can here, and that someone now archives this.--Scott Mac (Doc)16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've unarchived this for now - although I agree with you, the possibility that some users will claim that users from a particular timezone could not participate are a problem. Leaving it open for a few more hours would probably make it more solid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask the question though: does leaving it open longer simply give more drama than it needs? We had a situation, dealt with, discussed and adjusted ... further discussion is almost WP:STICKish, isn't it? (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is somewhat similar to yours...but we have to acknowledge (as a form of "fairness", even if it is merely procedural) that there may be objections within the next # of hours (maybe 10?), for reasons which we obviously cannot predict otherwise our rationales may very well have been different. Moreover, if there are developments that lead either Scott or someone else to unblock earlier, then it would probably need to be noted here anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is disproportionate to the treatment we gave so many repeat offenders. A single outbreak in my opinion, only justifies a warning. If people feel that need to make a statement that will be seem more unmistakable than that, even 24 hours is excessive ; I would have said 30 minutes would have made the same statement. I think there's overinvolvement here about it, and I am about to reduce it to approximate time served. I think Scott was absolutely wrong to do the block himself in the first place,since he was having an ongoing dispute with the editor. I'm glad he at lest brought his here, but i had I seen this early I would have unblocked immediately on the basis of his being an involved admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that consensus seems to favour 24 or 31 hr block, and Jauerback volunteered to make the involvement issue moot, there isn't a real principle to unblock on - anything that could reasonably be construed as a cool-down block cause just as many (if not more) headaches. That said, I would support an unblock if the user is ready to cooperate...DGG, can you persuade him on or off-wiki to address the primary concern? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Involved" is a stretch, regardless it has seen plenty of review by less involved folks. Please notice the user's utter lack of remorse on his talk page. The user returned the attack after it was removed, and now "stands by it". The preventative nature of this block is evident. The block has already been reduced per consensus here and to reduce it further to time served would be a unilateral action against consensus, please don't do that. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Scott objects, I'm not going to do it. This would be my first fight over something like this here and it isnt intrinsically worth it. I almost never do blocks, except in connection with vandalism I encounter, and I rarely engage in such discussions here either--because i dislike the hypocritical way they are applied, and I cannot possibly try personally to try to induce change in every possible think I thing wrong about Wikipedia. (I do not mean I think them typically too long--I think they're equally likely to be too long or too short, and the question to consider is the editor's pattern.) As I see it, there is not all that much difference between a cool down block and a short block meant to prevent further harm: the editor cooling down is what prevents the further harm. The practical difference is that a very short block does not work to cool down adequately--if this is the key purpose, it does take something like at 24 hours. If the purpose is to prevent harm, by persuading the person that we take it seriously, a very short block can make the point--it's essentially a step 5 warning. If we find we need longer times to make an impression, then the length must increase; if we find the person intends to continue to do harm, then it should increase very rapidly.
As for involvement, I think it essentially to avoid anything that might be interpreted as such. An angry comment is just an angry comment, and once being punished for it, people do tend to get angry about the punishment and so things escalate. If someone said something like D. did immediately following my comment at a discussion, I would probably ignore it entirely; I advise Scott do so similarly. If it were so serious as to warrant action, or the person intended to continue the harm, someone else would do it. I can see regarding the reinsertion as an intention to continue, and had I seen it , I would have left a very strong informal warning that I would block at the next repeat of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring one editor attacking other editors is a bad idea. These other editors do not deserve to be attacked, and ignoring such attacks is a disservice to those who wish to engage in civil debate. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I think you've raised some very valid points that are worthy of further discussion - the trouble is convincing either you or others (or even myself) to do so, be it on blocking policy talk page, or whichever venue we should be discussing them to clarify the issues and reduce the likelihood of them arising in the future, if at all, like they may have here. But if you're ready to give more discussion a shot (which would be widely appreciated), then please don't hesitate to make a comment to that effect. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse block. Let's see. Editor posts to a talk page of a closed afd comparing delete voters to book burners [100]
McDonald removes edit, suggests editor take it up at DRV. Blocked editor responds with an edit summary of "kiss my ass" and adds "It should do many filthy, narrow-minded little hearts good to know that censorship at Wikipedia is getting to be so much easier." [101]
. He then moves on to a related cfd where he argues that You people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. Rot in Hell. This charming comment being removed once [102] he sees fit to restore it [103]. He is blocked for 48 hours. His block is then reduced to 24 hours with a promise that it will be lifted if he accepts the comments were out of bounds. He responds, in part, I don't consider blocking for a harmless salutation like "I hope you rot in Hell" to be acceptable either... In as much as wikipedia has civility blocks, why do you think this was controversial dgg?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to speak up to support two notions mentioned above: 1) I think its inappropriate for an admin to block someone involved in an AfD or CfD that they have voted in, re a comment directed (in part) at them. That should be a bright line standard that admins comply with -- no matter how appropriate the block might otherwise be. Really, that just requires a modest amount of self-restraint. 2) I strongly second Duncan Hill's comment above. The lack of consistency in treatment that I've seen this past month is more than a little disturbing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This block once again demonstrates the corruption of the word civility on Wikipedia. The lack of courtesy to good faith contributors is disgusting, and it's carried out by the same cast of absuve characters again and again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this is incredibly petty, but....a number of anon and account users have been attacking Tryptofish to the extent that his userpage has been semi-protected for several weeks. This follows extremely acrimonious arguments at Talk:Crucifixion and Talk:Crucifixion in art. At some point in that melee, someone made a truly out of order statement that included Tryptofish, Aspies and people with mental health disorders, and someone else put up a banner advising against that comment.
Yzak Jule, who had been blocked for his comments in the dispute, copied the banner and posted it on his user page. He then piped the Asperger's link to point to Tryptofish instead [104]. I took this down as a personal attack. Later, he replaced it with [105] which pipes "someone" to Tryptofish and is, in my opinion, still a personal attack, so I took it down again. Today, he has put it back up again [106]. Is the consensus that it is a personal attack, and if so, could something be done about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Elen for starting this thread, and I appreciate the concern on my behalf. I think it is worth providing additional information about this user's recent activities. Yzak Jule was recently blocked, and has resumed editing after the block only over the last two days. It is illuminating to observe how he has been focusing his edits in this short time.(1) He has gone to User talk:TJRC, an experienced and valued user who has recently become unhappy about editing, and expressed pleasure at the user's unhappiness [107]. (2) He has made transparent attempts to get back at the administrator who blocked him [108], [109]. (3) He has frivolously placed a 3RR template on Elen's talkpage for edits that were simply reverting vandalism by an IP [110]. (4) He has repeatedly blanked legitimate comments I have made at Talk:Crucifixion in art[111], and then frivolously placed a template about creating attack pages on my talk [112]. (5) And he has configured his user page [113] to be a parody of mine (for example: this user opposes the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative, etc.). One might hope that an editor coming back after a block would attempt to contribute to content improvement, but this has manifestly not been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've edited Tryptofish's comment to number his arguments for ease of response. (1)My comment that his and your actions in the Crucifixion argument has provoked similar feelings on the other side was an attempt to give you two some perspective so a consensus on the issue could finally be found. (2)As noted below, his actions in the two arguments were similar, and I felt it might be noteworthy that it seems to be a pattern on tedder's part and not an isolated incident. Cool Civil/AGF violation, by the way. (3)The IP was removing the material you added that a significant number of editors on the talk page have voiced as a poor source. Elen's actions were edit warring. (4)Per my arguments below, your comments were incivil. (5)Although I did first notice the Initiative on your user page, my concern is that it violates WP:COI and WP:Canvassing. There'd be no point in parodying your handful of userboxes, it's not constructive to the construction of an encyclopedia at all, just like this argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To admins: This is the third time Tryptofish and co. have brought this petty argument to ANI without ever attempting to discuss it via user talk pages (and ignoring any of my own attempts to do so), and I'd like to get back to working on the encyclopedia and quit wasting your time with this. Yzak Jule (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start this report, Elen did. There is a difference between trying to discuss on talk pages, and what this user continues to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yzak has a habit of considering anything to be a personal attack, removing comments from talk pages as well as their own userpage. Here are some examples: [114], [115], [116], [117], as well as aggressively going after anyone who has slighted themselves (including myself and Tryptofish, likely Elen too).tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those first three clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:Civil, specifically sections 1C, 1D, and 2A. The last one you're correct in that I shouldn't have reverted it, although I feel Tryptofish is using Elen as a meat puppet for reverts in the Crucifixion in art edit war precisely to be able to make such arguments. I don't understand what you mean by "going after" you, since all I did was note that your behaviour in the edit war I'm involved in at Crucifixion was similar to the behaviour the above ANI thread is looking into. As for Tryptofish, he has clear issues with the WP:Own policy, in my opinion, and I'm still involved in trying to reach consensus on the page both of us are involved in, so it's unsuprising we're in the same places.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't see anything in WP:NPA it's violating and no one here sees fit to discuss that, instead unilaterally making decisions without consensus. However, in the spirit of cooperation I've removed it for now.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one can determine from the user's replies here the likelihood that the user will or will not improve his editing behavior in the future as a result of this report. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to improve my editing if someone would like to tell me what it is I'm doing wrong. The level of condescension in your comments as well as those of most others involved in this edit war (with the exceptions of Elen and Gary) is staggering and extremely unhelpful, and is why this is a continuing issue.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After this AN/I thread started, I note that Yzak Jule has made what appear to be a large number of in-policy vandalism reverts. Given his stated desire to improve his editing behavior, as well as his stated lack of understanding of why the complaints were started, perhaps a better alternative to a block would be some sort of mentorship? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"SA"
Note something non-Yzak related(?) is happening with those crucifixion pages from an off-wiki website- I don't know what, I've just seen it mentioned as "SA". tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what SA is. Just before Thanksgiving, they started a section called something about how Wikipedia is falling apart (within a section called "general bullshit") showing a screenshot of what was then at Crucifixion, and egging one another to meatpuppet here, amid a lot of hate-speech about persons with Asperger's syndrome. It has been morphing into egging people to come here and harass me and other editors who disagree with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you seem to think this is some official "section" of SA. It is a forum post. Nothing more. And yes, they don't like the article. I've contributed to that thread, shared my feelings, and acted on some things they've said. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand that it's a forum. But that's really beside the point. The issue is what Elen, Tedder, and I have raised above. I already pointed out the SA thing in an earlier AN/I section, now archived, and it simply is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I said above to Golbez, I think the SA thing just is what it is, and Wikipedia can't regulate what happens at other websites. The solution to meatpuppetry is to give meat-comments less weight. The user issue above is a separate issue, one that is not resolving itself (just got a whole lot more incivility at my talk), and I hope that is where uninvolved administrators are looking, not this side-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
– This discussion needs to be closed. There is no consensus for a sanction; quite the opposite. Further comments are an unnecessary diversion of resources from the project. If follow up is needed, multiple users have suggested WP:RFC. JehochmanTalk21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:ChildofMidnight (CoM) from WP:ANI, and possibly other WP:DR fora, for a period of 3 months, on threads where his name has not been mentioned by someone else. This excludes starting threads on issues that concern him, and excludes any existing threads he is already participating in at the time the ban is agreed (if it is agreed).
Reason: CoM consistently inserts himself into matters which don't concern him - with highly inconsistent results. Occasionally it is helpful, more often it is not. This behaviour was discussed recently at ANI, with a block of CoM under discussion; the conclusion was that an RFC would be preferable - but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remains a redlink. In lieu of an RFC, a temporary measure is a drama-reducing topic ban of the kind proposed.
Disclosure: The proximate motivation for this proposal is CoM's posts to a thread above, including this one [140], discussing an indefinite block I made of user:Grundle2600. This is merely the latest example of the way in which CoM's frequent interjections are based on a misreading of the relevant issues, with accusations of bad faith never far away. (I'm sure they will follow here, but I note that the terms of the proposal specifically permit further involvement in that discussion.) PS If it is felt that this ban is not appropriate at this time, could someone, please, take responsibility for starting an WP:RFC/U, which seems clearly needed. Rd232talk19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support not so much as a way to reduce drama here (that seems a lost cause) but as a way to encourage someone who can be a useful contributor of content to spend more of his time doing that and wasting less of it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose I hereby sign my name as placeholder for a profound defense of User:ChildofMidnight (if it is desired by CoM). ANI is currently an imperfect rhetorical space, with oft-occurring breaches of all kinds of propriety. From the fragments I have witnessed, CoM, on balance, can be counted on to inject, yes, "balancing" counter-force to certain situations which are not flowing fairly for whatever reason. This is no assertion of perfection — and I understand that CoM has been sanctioned by Arbcom itself (perhaps more than once). ... And, no I have not "weighed it all." ... But the glimpses I have seen of CoM on the rhetorical field (which, no, should not be a battleground, but we know quite well, sometimes are) ... makes be smile and even tear up from the beautiful power of ... integrity. (Placeholder registered.:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support per the Grundle2600 diff above. While CoM brings a valuable perspective to AN/I, too often it's couched in inaccuracies like 'Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."' in the diff above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on general principle. I think there's a danger that proposals like this can be posted and passed due to irritation of the moment as opposed to being calmly thought out.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if interposing oneself in matters which don't directly concern oneself is grounds for a page-ban, then this page would be utterly useless. It exists precisely to get feedback from the uninvolved. The proposal could just as helpfully be made about half the admin regulars here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose As someone who usually disagrees with CoM on just about everything, I still find it abhorant to ban someone merely for being annoying or unhelpful. The idea that he "inserts himself into matters that do not concern him" is basically bullshit. EVERYTHING on this board consists of inserting oneself in matters that do not concern oneself. I am doing it right now by commenting here, you are all doing it. ANI is a public discussion forum, and all editors are free to give their opinions. That CoM does not often hold opinions that many other people agree with is a dangerous reason to ban him. Yeah, he's usually not in the majority, and his comments aren't usually helpful in establishing a consensus, but seriously, do we all want to decend into groupthink by demanding that only people who agree with us most of the time are allowed to comment. Seriously think what you are doing here. CoM is not disruptive, his comments can easily be ignored or discounted if you don't like them. Absolutely not. We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like. --Jayron3220:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PerfuckingMalleus. I would be willing to agree to a complete CoM ban before I agreed to this extraordinarily dangerous precedent. Tan | 3920:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose ChildofMidnight is a reasonable guy, he doesn't need to be subjected to some big community roast via a ban. Can't we just ask him to avoid drama on ANI and other pages? I agree that more harm than good has come out of some of his opinions, but to subject him to a big, hostile community sanction is just bullying. ALInomnom20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose . A wide variety of opinion is preferable, CoM is not overly disruptive here in my opinion, in fact he is sometimes imo, a voice of reason. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We cannot bind the hand of any editor who wishes to speak his/her opinion, even when that opinion is unpopular to others. There is no precident to do this. If COM is in violation of a particular policy, then by all means take appropriate measures, but to ban an editor from a page that is, by its very nature, going to have heated debates is absurd.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AbsoStrongOpposeOlutely per Malleus Fatuorum. This would generally be a bad precedent. Discussion-page bans should be used only in rare cases, not counting times when they are part of a broader ban. Cases I can think of are intentional disruption/bad faith edits; chronic, ongoing inability to conduct onesself civilly despite good intentions; or the disruption is so profound as to prevent orderly operation. In any case, there should be no ban unless there is good reason to believe the behavior will continue if unchecked. In 9944/100% of the cases, we can either live with it or encourage him to get a mentor to help him think about his edits before saving the page. I recommend "live with it" plus gentle reminders for 90% of editors who are mildly or moderately disruptive but are editing in good faith. Save mandatory mentorship for those whose edits are causing significant interference with the discussions, and save more severe restrictions for those who are acting in bad faith or whose conduct is, simply put, too disruptive to tolerate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong oppose Although I may not always agree with what CoM says, I feel that this would be setting a very unwelcome precedent - as per Jayron, Malleus and JBsupreme -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Davidwr's standards above, CoM has persistently assumed bad faith of other editors (particularly, but not exclusively, members of the admin corps), chronic incivility, and an ongoing tendency to inflame rather than to contribute usefully to discussions on this board. Re to Tan - this action would be far from setting a precedent. In the Everyking 3 arbitration, an administrator was banned from commenting on AN and its subpages for 12 months (save for discussions which directly touched on him or his actions) for a pattern of unproductive and incivil sniping. That was back in 2006; there have been several cases since where editors have been banned from process pages and encouraged to do productive article work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it's a slightly shorter version of the same topic ban I proposed in November. [141] I got flamed for that proposal, but it's well past the time that some sort of action was taken, and these types of topic bans are not unprecedented. For those who were around here two years ago, User:Gp75motorsports and User:Blow of Light were restricted to article space, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request input on topic ban and the following few sections) and they were not the first people to have such a limitation applied to them. (I don't remember names, and don't feel like looking, but someone else's memory may be jogged.) CoM doesn't contribute anything useful to project space, but he is a very good contributor in article space. Horologium(talk)21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromize proposal: Appoint a mentor. On matters that don't directly involve ChildofMidnight, he can only comment on issues raised here after asking the mentor for approval. He has to briefly state what argument he wants to make. If that is seen to be a valid contribution, he'll be allowed to participate in the discussion. If CoM violates such an agreement (e.g. by trolling instead of sticking to the propsed arguments he wanted to make), then he'lll be banned form participating in AN/I discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is rather a lot of disruption here caused by this user. I think we could get the page length down considerably. Not sure if a ban is justified, but CoM is really trying to convince me with that drama mongering nonsense below this thread. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise proposal - keep kicking COM until he's provoked him into doing something blockable. Oh, hang on, I see that's already been adopted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on Oppose Sure, let's take away the first forum a user has for WP:DR. I see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is still red...why? Sure, CoM rarely if ever swims with the flow but clearly he's made more than one user step back and look at the situation; the ones who don't like that, well, that's on them. Grsz1121:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every time I see a post signed by ChildofMidnight in ANI, I know that I'm go to see a post that is trying to raise drama (the section below is a nice example). ANI is not for raising drama and it's not for complicating simple matters. P.D.: sorry, I edit-conflicted with the close without noticing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It should be noted that I do not approve of anyone blaming me for the disruption caused by RD232's initiating a thread to try and have me banned from ANI after I disagreed with his indefinite block of a good faith contributor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to ban any editor who attempts to censor Wikipedia discussions and content by aggressively pursuing those with differing opinions
let this drop. Please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These behaviors violate the spirit of our civility policy and are clear violations of our core Neutral Point of View policy. We can't allow individuals to abusively attack and censor those they disagree with in order to push their personal opinions and perspectives. This kind of intimidation, harassment, misuse of admin tools, and other bullying is unacceptable. Those who engage in this sort of disruption as a means of censorship should be blocked indefinitely until they show respect and toleration for other individuals, including those with whom they disagree.
To "make noise, no matter how nonsensical"? I don't think calling for our neutral point of view and civility policies to be upheld without bias is nonsensical. I think putting a stop to bullying and intimidation is critical to developing a healthy community that can build an accurate and well balanced encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your anonymous trolling aside, that guideline does not require a specific target; the target is Wikipedia itself. Tan | 3920:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely this isn't the right forum for this particular discussion? This would be a community decision, not an admins' decision - and so it would appear to have no place on ANI. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm darn close to suggesting we auto-block anyone who uses "censor" or "censorship" as part of a complaint. They're ignorant of the meaning of the word, and its simply abused here to mean "I want to be able to completely run my mouth about whatever, all over the site" or "I didn't get my POV in an article!". You're not being censored. Start a damn blog and bitch up a storm, heck, link to it on your user page. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think we should punish those who point out instances of improper censorship, bullying and intimidation. That seems like an Orwellian approach worthy of Fahrenheit 451 that would be more in line with the authoritarian book burning and denunciations as employed by fascists. That doesn't seem to be a good model for building an unbiased encyclopedia. A more appropriate response would be to ask for specific examples and to give them careful consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look up censorship. Wikipedia, and its editors and admins, cannot, by definition, censor you. You may start a blog and say whatever you want. Link to it from your user page. Go forth and be verbose! But its not censorship if we don't want to host it or deal with it. If there is "bullying", I direct you to dispute resolution. We are not here to listen to someone kvetch, bitch and complain nonstop. Really. Pick your battles, get your terminology straight, and use the correct venue. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really see what that has to do with anything at all. The issue is nothing to do with copyright law, and the size of the image doesn't matter with regards to whether it can be used in that context... J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move/continue discussion to Music of Final Fantasy VIII please. This is more of an editorial issue and a policy-interpretation issue than a disruptive-editor issue. Several 3rd eyes would be very helpful in crafting a solution that meets both policy requirements and, if possible, consensus of all editors. Help is also needed in deciphering areas where policy lends itself to interpretation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomacy is nice, but there really isn't any need for discussion here. Neither of those images should be in the article as it currently stands. How about I make it a behavioural dispute? Will that stop this bureaucracy? J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy which the foundation endorsed and said could not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored". You came to my talk page and spouted off about rubbish which has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with guidelines and pseudo-policies which "circumvented, eroded, or ignored" real policy. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a rationale for using this non-free content which met policy. It's just cut and paste boilerplated word salad and that was supposed to have been killed off more than two years ago. What is there to discuss? Angus McLellan(Talk)23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To all parties: If you want to continue this discussion with me, please do so on the article talk page, my talk page, email, or on your talk page, with notification to me on my talk page or by email. This is not the place any more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of days ago I was involved in a content dispute with User:KillerChihuahua at New England Institute for Religious Research during which he was siding with User:Cirt, which is more than welcome to do. An even more recent dispute with User:Cirt, which is tangentially related to that dispute, brought me to post at the RS/N regarding the matter. The specific book review under dispute, which is sourced to the Midwest Book Review at Twisted Scriptures is, as far as I know and no one has stated otherwise, only available on Amazon.com. For those who know nothing about The Midwest Book Review it is not a print publication itself, but an organization that prints other publications (under different names) and also writes reviews directly for the web. Anyway, User:KillerChihuahua soon appeared at the RS/N, sharing Cirt's opinion, which of course is absolutely fine once again. However, in that forum, as well as in the previous one, he has been engaging with me in a very uncivil manner from the beginning. Usually I have thick skin and don't go running off to AN/I about such things, but KC is in admin and he is now edit warring with me and issuing me block warnings. He, and Cirt, claim that I am "spamming" ("tendentiously" according to KC) simply because I reviewed some Midwest Book Review attributed Amazon reviews and posted them to the discussion in a subsection -- something I believe is completely appropriate due to statements made by the editor in chief regarding these reviews and the fact that the initial review that brought me to the RS/N can only be found on Amazon. It is the hiding of these reviews that KC is edit warring over and issuing warnings to me about. I tried suggesting, prior to his second warning, that he ask an uninvolved admin to step in, but he shows no sign of doing this. I find it completely inappropriate for him to edit war and and issue these warnings when he is involved in this dispute directly. Rather than escalate it there or edit war myself into a block I'm coming here to ask for advice/help. I will note that I have tried very hard to remain civil with KC over the past couple of days, striking any comment he has remotely taken the wrong way for instance, but it seems like he's out to get me or something. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I"m female, and those are standard warning templates. I have not bothered to ask an uninvolved admin to step in yet, because I am hopeful you'll stop stalking Cirt and engaging edit wars and starting tendentious arguments. There is no guideline against issuing warnings; almost all warnings are from "involved" people because they see the undesirable behavior. As you've brought it here, though, I request an uninvolved admin keep an eye on PelleSmith, whose actions regarding Cirt, and now myself, are questionable at best. Please note, for example, that I am described as "siding with Cirt" not "Cirt and KC held the opposing view in a dispute with me" or a similar non-accusatory phrasing. I for one am tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the content dispute, I don't see how posting warnings is a problem. If you don't think the warnings are applicable then you can ignore them. While admins should not use their tools in a dispute, there's no rule that I'm aware of preventing anyone from warning anyone else of potential policy violations. It's common for involved parties to remind each other of 3RR violations, for example. Will Bebacktalk23:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also without comment on the general issues of the dispute, imo it is totally ok that to warn other users that they are in danger of violating 3RR and any user can do it, and should actually, it is a good faith note . It is not related to KillersChihuahua Admin status. This seems like a content issue and dispute resolution WP:DR is your best location for action. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does the other party in an edit war get to issue 3RR warnings? This is not about 3RR but about her interpretation that I'm spamming the RS/N, and using that as a rationale to hide my comment.PelleSmith (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (second edition ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. p. 225. ISBN0-948466-14-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help):
“
The open frontier helped to increase the Spanish share, and naval links with Minorca produced the small Minorcan contingent.
^William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 143. ISBN0-948466-14-6.. British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; Portuguese: 25
.gif){kind=small}
![[5]](http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:1-c6PQUsA44J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Spire.jpg+File:Chicago+Spire.jpg&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File%3AChicago_Spire.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=330873430&oldid=330873259){kind=link}
![[7]](http://crashrecords.co.uk/online/shopimages/products/normal/marilyn_manson_012.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File%3AChicago_Spire.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=330838246&oldid=330799427){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rama#File:Kunsthalle_Bielefeld.JPG){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rama#File:Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chicago_spire.svg&diff=32956931&oldid=32949185){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chicago_spire.svg&diff=32961123&oldid=32959053){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chicago_spire.svg&diff=next&oldid=32956931){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lindsey_-_fdic.jpg&diff=32859834&oldid=32855813){kind=link}
Resolved