Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive455

User:Tony1

Resolved

 – Comments restored and formatted, all involved advised to continue with a cool head, bringing issues to the attention of administrators. LaraLove|Talk 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments [1]? I feel that only an Admin can sort this out. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Tony1 of this discussion and advised him to keep it cool and bring such situations to administrators' attention rather than cause talk page disruption. LaraLove|Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The refactoring at issue: : first removal, restoration, second removal. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) shouldn't have just removed Tony's comments - twice. Gimmetrow 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rasied this issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Tony1 (which is what I most likely should have done). But this latest comment from Tony1 worries me [2] when in no way have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of lacking "good faith" in total disregard to the outrageous behaviour of someone else, who has stripped away my contributions to the discourse twice: that's good faith is it. I repeat my accusation of POV on your part. Tony (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of not assuming good faith nor have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "just remove" his comments. This is an over-simplification of events. User:Tony1 refactored my comments[3] which I reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and advice I was previously given some time agao at WP:WQA. I explained the reason for reversion in the following post.[4] When another editor again refactored my edits with User:Tony1's comments I again reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and the WP:WQA advice, again explaining the reason why.[5]. Why should it be OK for him to refactor my comments, making the converastion unclear and not OK for me to return my comments to the way they should have been left? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like you removed the comments. It's OK to object to interspersed comments. Although they are commonly used, Tony's indenting there is confusing and he might have noted the comment splitting. You think Tony is messing with your comments, and by removing them, Tony thinks you're messing with his comments, a vicious cycle. One way out of this cycle is to move the comments as a group to a location after yours. Another is to ask Tony to move them. Maybe do one of those next time. Gimmetrow 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could have refactored his comments but that seems inappropriate and since he was the one who made the mistake it's really his responsibility to fix it. It's not as if I just deleted his comments forever. I did explain, civily, why his edits were reverted. It would have taken him a lot less time and been far more productive to re-add his comments properly than it has been to complain for the last two days, in which time he has been bullying, threatening, aggressive and not assuming good faith. If you were to make the same mistake I'd probably do exactly as you've suggested because you're being civil but Tony1's attitude has been such that there is no incentive to do the same for him. One only has to look at his response to Bidgee for simmply suggesting he assume good faith to see an example of that attitude. I have no doubt now, having watched his posts over the past few days, that had I done as you suggested he still would have complained so I feel comfortable in the course of action that I took. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, thank you for retrieving those links. I've left a message for AussieLegend notifying him/her of this discussion and also warning to refrain from reverting comments of others.

Tony, can you please provide some diffs of the POV pushing you refer to? LaraLove|Talk 14:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV is the comment directly below my entry in a new section, which s/he is now attempting to recast as "reminding both of you of assuming good faith". I don't see that, given the words, the location and the timing. This page is hardening my attitude towards these people. Tony (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. I'd like to recommend that you remain calm though, so this can be settled in a polite and positive fashion. Synergy 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is silly. AussieLegend deleted Tony's valid comments, which in my opinion is vandalism and not acceptable. Removing obvious personal attacks and archiving tendentious off-topic comments is fine, but simply removing valid comments because they're interspersed with earlier comments is aggressive overreaction. From other talk pages, I've noticed that the best way is to refactor such comments by repeating the original post italicised, while adding the new comments. I've done that, hope that suits all concerned and normal hostilities discussion can be resumed in a more amicable way. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Which didn't give him the right to be uncivil, and assume bad faith to me. I never pushed a POV nor have I refactored. I feel that Tony1 owes me an apology for the unfounded accusations (Also see the edit summary)[6][7]. Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What Tony1 did is a breach of etiquette listed at Wikipedia:Etiquette and, from my (albeit limited) experience at WP:WQA, what I did isn't considered vandalism. I find your accusation that returning my comments to the way they should be in order to avoid confusion is vandalism to be offensive. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from AussieLegend's comments above, and here, he is quite agreeable to Tony's edits being restored, provided they are separated out from his original comments, rather than interrupting them. And judging from this comment of Tony's, he would also find a restoration of this form acceptable, but he is unwilling to perform that restoration himself. Perhap's I'm being overoptimistic, but it seems to me that if some other editor were to restore Tony's edits in the form that both editors apparently would find acceptable, that might go at least some way towards resolving the dispute. I am willing to volunteer my services to do this, provided there are no objections from any of the parties concerned.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave's already done it and I'm quite OK with the changes. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

David, I agree that such would be helpful.

I've got discussions going on with the involved parties on their respective talk pages. It seems to me that everyone involved has made at least one error in judgment here. It's a heated discussion with some failures of AGF throughout, a bit of confusion and some misunderstanding. No formal warnings have been issued, just some casual reminders, as we all have misunderstands and lose our cool sometimes. I think everyone here was acting on some level of good intention, so I recommend that everyone take a break from this, perhaps for the rest of the weekend, cool off and regain poise. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in the following week. LaraLove|Talk 16:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that your conclusions and what you've suggested is quite reasonable. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable – "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" and WP:TALK#Others' comments "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." You will note that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" do not include "he messed up the formatting of my comment", on the contrary they specifically include "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution..." However, that advises using a template, and it would have been better had Tony done that, or repeat your original post italicised. Glad you find the latter acceptable, and agree that there's been a breakdown of good faith here. Don't see any reason that can't be resolved with the acceptance that there was error on the part of both parties. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

168.208.215.220 mostly vandalizes

Resolved

 – Last edit from IP was on July 14. Added shared IP notice. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know if I'm barking up the right tree here... but I was correcting some vandalism to a page today by this IP address, and I noticed it had gone uncorrected for nearly two weeks. So I started looking in the IP's history and noticed there is a pattern of vandalism. Occasionally they do a valid edit, but about 3/4 of them are vandalism, mostly of the "Darren is awesome!!!!" type.

So I don't know if you guys ban editing from IP addresses or not (this one seems to be the gateway for an entire company as far as I can tell), but here's a heads-up.

--Plumpy (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's kindof the wrong tree. We only block IPs when they are actively vandalizing. But if this IP is actively vandalizing after a final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. –xeno (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since their last edit was July 14, I'm tagging this resolved, feel free to drop by my talk page in the future if you have questions about stuff like this. By the way, you were right, it is a shared company IP. Thank you for your diligence and future efforts in cleaning up vandalism. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with rollbacks and restorations from user Inclusionist

Resolved

 – Discussion continues elsewhere regarding possible mergers. –xeno (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. They seem to have made quite a few pointy edits that undoubtably would be seen not only as controversial but disruptive. They have made systematic changes to templates, userboxes, project pages and finally merged all three in some fashion. If someone could help us get much of it restored and rolled back would be appreciated; also page move protects may be in order. Unsure if semi-protect would help since they seem to be an established editor. Banjeboi 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notified user. –xeno (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure if AN/I is really the best venue for this. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and has no place on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I agree with Protonk.

User:Benjiboi please WP:AGF to say that I don't approve of the work of these fine organizations is absurd. I find this sentence particularly offensive because it is so untrue: Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. Look at my username and my user page. How are these pointy edits? What point am I trying to make, please WP:AGF.

User:Benjiboi, I am deeply troubled that you did not discuss your concerns on the talk page or with me personally before you posted here.

I explained in detail my changes in detail on the talk page. I want these pages to flourish, that is why I took the best parts of all of the pages and combined them into one. Inclusionist (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that AN/I might not be the best venue. It should be easy enough for non-admins involved in those projects to restore them to whatever they were before the bold moves. What puzzles me, is why, before taking six hours to do this huge merger, didn't you ask people if they thought it was a good idea? Seems like a huge waste of effort should you encounter resistance (as you have). –xeno (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist has greatly disrupted and made massive changes against three wikiprojects for which there was likely little or no support. I'm quite active at ARS and was stunned to see our project essentially hijacked in this merging/ deleting/changing spree. If this isn't an incident I guess I'm unclear what would be. Banjeboi 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As creator of WP:WICU, I've had to restore the talk page and undo other very unwelcome edits by this user. I believe he should be blocked, at least temporarily. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How is deleting and redirecting our projects member list[8] a content dispute? Banjeboi 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking wouldn't really be in line with the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. His changes, while apparently unwanted, were done in good faith. If there's any deleted stuff that needs admin restoring, let me know. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete any significant content, like self proclaimed deletionist User:Realkyhick.

Benjiboi, are you going to apologize for saying this:"Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion?" Obviously I have the best interest of inclusionists and this project in mind, do you?

Again, User:Benjiboi, I am deeply troubled that you did not discuss your concerns on the talk page or with me personally before you posted here. Is this tactic the way you usually reach consensus? Does it work?

BTW, the first person to dispute these changes was blocked indefinetely as a sock. Inclusionist (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Who brought the issue up first has no bearing on the propriety of the issue. Furthermore, stop attacking editors in a sinister fashion a la "I didn't actually delete any significant content, like self proclaimed deletionist User:Realkyhick". Your feelings about another editor's wikistance do not pertain to the matter at hand. Don't inflame this issue more than it already is. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

outdent. Hmm, you're "deeply troubled" that I "did not discuss your concerns" yet you felt no issue with merging three projects - likely to be met with exactly this reaction - with no discussion at all. Thanks to your efforts the ARS talk page, which was pretty functional no has discussions from all three projects. This seems to fly in the face of BRD as well, which I'm unclear if that applies to projects as well as articles. In any case there certainly wasn't any discussion and I know the ARS page is quite active so even the smallest note about "Gee, should we simply merge these three project" would have certainly got a response. Sorry I see this as awfully disruptive and pointy. Banjeboi 20:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If Inclusionist had the "best interests" of these projects truly at heart, he would have discussed his proposed actions for a substantial period of time before he took them, so as to gather a consensus among those involved. Instead, he posted reasons why WP:WICU should be merged into the other projects, then — only a very brief time later — redirected the talk page to that of WP:ARS without warning. When I posted a {{uw-v4im}} on his talk page, he posted one on mine with my forged sig. It is obvious that he is trying to hijack WICU and ARS for his own purposes and otherwise acting in bad faith. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone is here with WP:Inclusionists but they've seemingly wiped out that project altogether. Banjeboi 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on their link or see this. Banjeboi 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I really would like an admin to rollback or undue the mess that is now the ARS talkpage. It was pretty clean[9] before this disruption. Banjeboi 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, The only uninvolved editor, User:Xenocidic, thought this was the wrong place for this dispute, so did Protonk, why not try and talk about your concerns on the talk page. I would have happily reverted the changes myself if you weren't so agressive and went right to ANI.

Benjiboi, you fired the first volley, by posting this ANI. With no previous discussion and no comments.

I didn't go to ANI and argue that these changes should be made. I posted my changes on the talk page, and was very careful not to delete any content. As I meticulously explained on the talk page, I merged the four articles together, bringing the best of all three articles together.

I vowed to correct all mistakes on the talk page. I want to work together with all incusionists to help save articles. This ANI and the piety template wars, etc just waste everyones time. No one is discussing the content changes, instead they are posturing, throwing template warnings, selectively enforcing wikipolicy, etc.

Why have three articles whose purpose is the same duplicated on wikipedia?

Benjiboi, You called my changes vandalism, which is a personal attack on me, and violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Should I quote Wikipedia:Vandalism? In this ANI, you stated things which are completely false on there face, and patently absurd:"Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion"

Again, Benjiboi, do you usually reach consensus by going first to ANI?

Protonk said himself: "I don't think that he approached the merger with the intent to do mischief. ", and yes Protonk, it matters if Benjiboi first sentence in this ANI section is patently false. this entire ANI's tone is set up with a lie.

Lets be realistic, I have been around wikipedia long enough (3 years) to know how it works:

1. There is going to be no apologies from Benjiboi for his false statment, and
2. Realkyhick and Protonk will continue to defend that false statment,
3. Just like there is going to be no warnings on Realkyhick page for adding the same template I cut and copied on his page and then got warned about by Protonk.
4. In addition, Protonk will continue to defend the indefinitely banned sock, who started the whole argument and set the tone.

LOL Inclusionist (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've undone, as best as I could, the talk page. It seems that this merger is opposed by all the related projects, except WP:Inclusionists, and there wasn't a post on that project's talk page since 2007. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Trusting you guys are now in the (hopefully civil and productive) discussion phase of BRD, can I tag this resolved? –xeno (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Most likely. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • • Actually Inclusionist is still reverting; could you also look at their changing our project page here I don't want to violate 3RR and these changes aren't particularly welcome either. And to Inclusionist, I came here because your work pretty much rendered the ARS Talkpage a messy chaos of several projects' discussion. It had been quite clean and functional up until today. When I looked at the other projects' pages ... they all redirected to ARS. I do appreciate bold but the changes you made, the merges, the redirects all need a bit more diplomacy. If I haven't used enough of that myself I apologize - even if I feel this has been disruptive you may have some valid points about these projects working together more. Banjeboi 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

      Yes, I noticed that, but before I got around to talking with him about it, he reverted himself. So... if you guys need anything further, let me know. =) –xeno (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson

Resolved

 – The removal of contents from one's own talk page is supported by written policy, using rollback to do it has been supported by consensus for some time now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is the place to discuss this matter; if not, my apologies. I have concerns about the behaviour of the user S. Dean Jameson (talk · contribs), with whom I was recently in a dispute over the article Ashanti (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). S. Dean Jameson removed my comments on his talk page regarding the issue using the rollback feature [10] [11], in violation of the instructions at Wikipedia:Rollback feature to only use rollback in response to nonproductive edits. When I voiced my concerns about his behaviour, he again removed my comments from his talk page, writing "if you took this to ANI, you'd get laughed off the board". [12] I don't think this is conduct becoming of a user who has been entrusted with the rollback feature. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. His removal of your comment can be taken as an assumption that he has read it. –xeno (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern regards his misuse of the rollback feature, not the removal of my comments from his talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the restrictions on use of the rollback feature are intended to prevent people from edit-warring with it. However, since S. Dean Jameson is fully within his rights to remove your comments (and in fact you were acting inappropriately when you restored the comments) there is no potential for abuse. I see no problems with using the rollback feature this way. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback feature states: "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism." An editor who removes legitimate comments on their talk page by using rollback is essentially indicating that they feel those comments are as nonproductive as vandalism. I don't feel that this is acceptable.

I should also note that I did not restore the original comments that S. Dean Jameson had removed; I responded to comments he left on my talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. While it may not be exactly polite, I don't think it's an abuse of the rollback feature. –xeno (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, such a ludicrously strict interpretation of the rules is seen as Wikilawyering. We know what the rule says, but it would be a travesty to censure a good faith user on such an absurd technicality. He did not in any way violate the spirit of the rule on what the rollback feature can be used for. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I thought the "spirit" of the rule was to prevent legitimate edits by good faith editors being marked in edit histories and on Special:Recentchanges as nonproductive. Why should user talk pages be exempt from this? 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally vouch for S. Dean and feel any use by him of the rollback feature is in good faith. Beam 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. While I don't suggest editors do either, removing comments from one's own talk page (and using rollback to do it) are both ok. The former is supported by written policy, the latter is supported only by current consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So if he had used the "undo" function and spent an extra second and a half, this thread wouldn't exist? Sigh. Rollback causes so many discussions, issues, investigations... for nothing. Tan ǀ 39 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Tan, which is to say, I think rollback should only be used to revert vandalism (which is what the policy says), but the consensus for use on a rollbacker's own talk page is otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't commenting to you; I was making a general observation that rollback is treated like it's a big deal, when it's really not. Tan ǀ 39 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I knew you weren't commenting back to me and I think we agree again: If rollback was indeed only used to revert vandalism (as the policy says) it would be much less of a big deal, since any admin can take it away from an editor (I should add that I'm not talking about User:S. Dean Jameson, who acted within policy and consensus in good faith). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify that the main reason I believe that this was a misuse of the rollback feature is because, in the context of edit histories and Special:Recentchanges, rollback has the effect of indicating to other editors that one or more "blatantly nonproductive" edits have been undone. I don't understand why the use of rollback on user talk pages should be treated differently when it has the same effect. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism but there is an unwritten consensus about a rollbacker's talk page, which you didn't know about and couldn't read in the policy because it's not there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. If this consensus was an established part of the relevant project pages rather than in its current unwritten (and essentially invisible) form, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem—there would be less editors assuming that all user talk page comments removed via rollback are nonproductive, and less editors feeling affronted by their user talk page comments being rolled back. As it stands, I think there definitely needs to be a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature about this. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Only as background, this consensus stems from long before rollback was being given to non-admins, when some trusted admins got into the habit of using rollback on their own talk pages. It's never been recommended or encouraged, though. Hence, after rollback was given to some non-admins, every now and then someone would ask, "Hey! How come rollbacker (or admin) X can rollback non-vandal comments on their talk page!" It would get talked about here and at AN and thus came the consensus as unwritten policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per your suggestion, I've made a slight addition to the misuse section. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as desired. –xeno (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I feel like I should comment here. I had told the IP user that I didn't want him posting on my talkpage, he posted there anyway, and I rolled it back. Since it appears that many people consider this impolite, I will not do so in the future. I'll simply use the undo feature, and be done with it, as I try my best to work within the framework of collaboration and politesse, even when I don't particularly enjoy working with a particular individual. Sometimes I fall short of that, and this may have been one of those cases. While I don't feel I misused the rollbacker tool (and this has been supported by those above), I apologize for any frustration or anger this caused to the IP when I rolled back his comments on my talkpage. S. Dean Jameson 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• I've updated WP:Rollback to reflect the consensus above, in the hopes that it will forestall future such issues. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  The reason I put it in the "When not to use" because while it's not presently prohibited, it's still in the realm of "probably shouldn't use it" (WP:CIVIL concerns). –xeno (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio at Thiagarajar College of Engineering

Resolved

 – removed copyrighted text, warned user, and semi-protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Content of website of this college gets copypasted by dynamic IPs into this article time and time again. Please compare this [13] and this [14] etc. Whole text of this article violates copyrights of www.tce.edu I think Semiprotection would help fot a while. M0RD00R (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive block?

Resolved

 – Endorsed block - premature thread.

User:Jkliajmi was blocked indefinitely yesterday, after editing a series of articles about EU agencies (see Special:Contributions/Jkliajmi). The reason invoked for the block was "blatant vandalism". Well, is this really blatant vandalism? Jkliajmi is claiming to have acted in good faith... I must admit that blocking him indefinitely seems rather excessive to me. WP:BITE here? --Edcolins (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that posting this here what WP:BITEs rather than taking it up with the administrator directly firsthand. JBsupreme (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Ed, this is a little premature. There's an as-yet unanswered {{unblock}} template on the user's page, and no one has asked the blocking admin, User:Sandstein, about it (and he hasn't been notified of this thread). IMHO, best to nip this thread in the bud, and deal with this the way we normally deal with unblock requests. I'll go take a look, if someone else hasn't already. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. May be a little premature to post here, sorry... But if somebody could review the matter (one unblock request has already been declined), so that we do not loose a potentially knowledgable new user (User:Jkliajmi), I'd be happy.. --Edcolins (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the situation, made a comment on the user's talk page, and left a note for Sandstein. I have some questions for the user I'd like answered before I unblock. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking admin here. I strongly oppose an unblock. Edcolins, I think you have been trolled by Jkliajmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user has in very rapid sequence changed the official abbreviations (if any) for a dozen or more EU institutions to Newspeak-style monikers that he seems to have outright made up. Then he provided bogus references for these changes. For instance, he added the supposed short name "Euro lang" to the lead sentence of Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, and provided "http://www.ogmios.org/234.htm" as a reference. That website indeed makes reference to something called "Eurolang", but (as is obvious from context) that refers to something else, the "Eurolang" news agency (http://www.eurolang.net). All other "Euro-" contributions follow a similar pattern.

This is systematic, large-scale, but non-obvious and therefore particularly harmful vandalism. I am having difficulty to believe that someone is that incompetent that he would make good faith mistakes at this rate and to this extent. The concerns voiced by Ed Johnston on the user's talk page of this being either a "Carol Spears" situation and/or a return of a banned editor are also worthy of consideration.  Sandstein  18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a previous block history, I guess a topic ban wouldn't be a sufficient alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would, if we had any indication that the user is inclined or capable of observing it, or indeed of contributing positively in any way. Based on his other contributions so far (which mostly seem to involve pushing some sort of POV with respect to Taiwan and/or geopolitical classifications), I doubt it. Topic bans can be useful for editors that are capable of contributing positively except where their particular ethno-nationalist (or other) blind spot is concerned. I don't think this user fits the bill. But if an admin urgently wants to topic-ban, unblock and babysit him, I'll not stand in the way.  Sandstein  18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already commented on the user's Talk page, and support continuing the indef block. The blocking admin's suggestion that this is subtle but clever vandalism is quite believable. It is hard to intuit any good-faith motivation for such a massive burst of illogical changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked at the second unblock request and it has put me off - it's hard to see any good coming out of unblocking him for any alternative remedy. Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism

Resolved

 – See below.

According to a friend of mine from college who works on the Report, Steven Colbert has discovered that any article he mentions on Wikipedia is immediately locked. Consequently, they are going to do a bit on Monday where he reads a list of articles to see how many viewers can get to them before they are locked. Appearently the joke is to say that each thing is not really that thing, but really something else. For example, aardvark is not really an animal, its a hard coating on the outside of a tree. They continue revising the script right up until they tape the show so the list may change by Monday evening, but as of now it is as follows:

• Aardvark
• Bulgaria
• Charlie Chaplan
• Don King
• Elephants (yes we've seen this one before)
• Frank Lloyd Wright
• Gilgamesh
• Hoisin sauce
• Italy
• John McCain
• Kremlin
• Leopold Kronecker
• Marrakesh
• Niigata
• Orcas
• Polo
• Quebec
• Randolph Carter
• Silver
• Tarantella
• Uganda
• Victor Victoria
• Winnipeg
• Xenon
• Yellow Sea -- I can only imagine what this one is
• Zwide

Just thought you guys should have a heads up. -Anon colbert watcher (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Funny guy. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list--we don't protect articles preemptively, but we'll keep an eye on the Report. --jonny-mt 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We have protected articles pre-emptively for Colbert in the past. I fielded a specific request from Jimbo prior to one of his appearances to lock a few. [15] for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya get the feeling Colbert is not taking wikipedia seriously? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil, while I think your preemptive protection back then was right, I also have to agree with Jonny now. While this anon's warning is good to have, any action before "air" (that is to say, taping) could be used against us. It's kind of a live grenade, in fact. Anything we do or do not do proactively, as well as anything vandals might do proactively, could rebound. I think letting it go and keeping our eyes open is not only the safest, but least show-worthy thing we could do. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the wikipedia policy, if any, regarding action to take, if any, when there is knowledge of impending vandalism? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR? I suggest someone watch the show and report back here. John Reaves 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe we should bite back. whatever words Colbert ends up using on his show, let's work them into his article - for instance, if he mentions 'aardvark', I think we should edit in some scandalous information about his pet aardvark Humphrey. that'll teach him to mess with wikipedia...  ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lol I completey agre. The only way to fight and exortation of violence is to vgiorously violate WP:BLP as oftne as we can :D

w/re: Bugs's quesiton, if there is soid proof of impending vadliams, (as opposed to a threat by a user or forum), i think that an admin might watch out for that article. we dont want to wind up locking down a whole article just because omeone MIGHT mention it and oter people MIGHT come and vandalism it; we want to respond to actual evidnece of malfeasance force. Smith Jones (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuck that guy is funny. I suggest we let the articles go haywire for a couple days till they get bored, then we revert back to the good version and carry on. Lets not feed the really funny trolls. And to the fella who suggested Colbert was not taking Wikipedia seriously, I suggest that he only mocks serious subjects. Chillum 04:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are enough administrators who are also Colbert fans that they will react accordingly when they have to. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And subjects that take themselves seriously while having major failings that he can use to show hypocrisy. Like Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the show is taped ahead of time, I doubt there's much to worry about. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to float an idea that popped into mind: why not use this opportunity to give reversion flagging a trial run? All we need is the devs to turn it on temporarily (it's already installed and in use on the German Wikipedia), and then an admin to go flag the current versions as stable, and set stable versions to display for those articles. Then people can vandalize to their hearts' content, and it won't show up to the general public. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a nice idea. Enable it as a trial run for a couple of days, then turn it off again. It would be a nice test in any case, but timing it to coincide with a predictable vandalism burst would be icing on the cake. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days? The Harding thing went on for like 2 weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning on a major mediawiki extension because a new user's friend might work for Colbert and they might do a bit about Wikipedia on Monday is over doing it. A trial run of flagrev may be warranted but not because there might be vandalism in the future, that's already a given. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protecting these at around 11pm on Monday, and leaving the protection for 24 hours would not be unreasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that the vandal-patrol is up to the task regardless of how much he dishes out. If we semi-protect preemptively, Colbert wins. What we should do is keep an eye on the articles, and only semi-protect if it gets bad, just like any other page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Because then he'll say, "Look, we got them to react just on rumors!" Leave the pages alone until or if something actually happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert is not our enemy. He is not encouraged by how successful vandalism is. He's encouraged by whether people laugh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And if any Colbert-driven vandalisms are dispassionately reverted just like they were any other vandalism, then there's a good chance the humor factor goes away... and so does Colbert. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why... would... we... want that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. We love Colbert. We welcome his vandalisms. It will help reinforce the wikipedia motto, "any moron can edit". He could be our poster child for that motto. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I do love Colbert. He's funny. The vast majority of his viewers get the joke, and recognize that nothing he says "in character" is seriously intended. I have no doubt that he does not support vandalizing Wikipedia. My understanding is that he loves us and thinks we're a great resource. And he draws lots of attention to us. That he does it on his own terms - as a comedian who plays a specific role - is not a problem, nor is it his fault that a tiny minority of his viewers are either oblivious to the joke or complete assholes who want to cause trouble. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. In any case, he'll be watched. Bring 'im on! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the only page I see in that list that would be a huge problem is John McCain, and that has been semi-ed since March. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't underestimate how far-reaching our article on Hoisin sauce is. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um has no one thought to question whether the anonymous friend of a supposed Colbert employee is really a reliable source here? This could just be a joke to make us protect a bunch of pages out of paranoia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or to see how much time and effort will be put into discussing the matter. Perhaps Wikipedia's shameful inability to get anything done without pages of discussion and disagreement, frequently resulting in no consensus to do anything, has become public knowledge. Either way, I'm saddened that I no longer have Comedy Central. It's been over a year since I've seen an episode of The Colbert Report... and I used to watch every episode. :( That said, I'd just protect the BLPs that aren't already protected. The rest should follow the protection policy. LaraLove|Talk 14:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are on the internet Lara, I am sure there is some way to watch the episodes hehe. Chillum 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They have 'em all online now. :) krimpet✽ 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

O!! My life is now complete. The void in my heart has been filled, and the hunger of my starving soul for humor that only Stephen Colbert can satisfy has been relieved! You never fail me Krimpet. *snuggles* XD LaraLove|Talk 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He should have done it before the creation of Huggle. If this is true, I don't see it being a big deal. --CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be better for him to guide his viewers to this thread instead. That is to show how wiki admins get their [WP:TEA] while taking a break. It would be an opportunity for admins and viewers to share some of it here together. Colbert's viewers can have some temporary fun (for a couple of minutes - hours would still be ok) "messing up" with any article they'd choose. One condition... viewers have to undo all their fun edits once the party is over; and this is to let our respected readers have some fun as well. Wikipedia invites. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a regular Report watcher, so I think I'll watchlist a couple of those pages on the list just in case Stephen pulls something. We have no undeniable evidence though, so we probably shouldn't prot them until it gets really bad. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious if this is considered resolved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. I think we've decided there's no need to pp it at this point, so it's taken care of. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Dollar Food Vandal

The Bottom Dollar Food article has been the traget of a persistant ip vandal. Now that the page has been semi protected the vandal has moved onto vandalizing the user and talk pages of any editor who has previously undone the vandalism. This is teh list of ip's that have made the same edits to the article or have vandalized other editors pages after reverting vandalism by them:

• 161.58.16.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 161.58.16.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.35.79.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.21.48.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.254.248.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.41.126.43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.162.176.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.235.20.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Most of the ip's have been blocked for the moment but the user is persistant in returning and carrying on his attacks on other editors who have undone his work. Assistance with this is appreciated as I am tired of reverting mine and others talk and user pages constantly. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend they be semi-protected, the vandal will soon lose interest. --neon white talk 17:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Neon white, the page you are looking for is WP:RPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive image tagging

This post is in reference to recent mass tagging of images for deletion by User:OsamaK. I've tried to talk it over with him here but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).

The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, this one. The subject died 201 years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about this one? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... It has been discussed so many times before. See HERE, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, these images are clearly PD, regardless of their lack of sourcing. Someone with automation tools needs to undo these tags, which should never have been placed. Losing all these images will be detrimental to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How to discus while you undoing my edits?--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I have to undo all of your undoing. Stop now!--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The first couple I checked, I don't think it's disruptive, I think it's a fair cop. No matter the age of an image, it still needs a proper source, and those items didn't have one. No image comes from thin air. Maybe threatening to delete in 7 days is a bit much, but the rules are what they are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, George Dawe will rise from the dead to sue Jimbo and Wikipedia over Image:Aleksey Arakcheyev.jpg. You are free to believe this, but please don't flood my talk page with this useless clutter and loud deletion threats. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not likely, but you still need to provide a source. I've been told this many times about images regardless of their age. Maybe it came from a website, maybe from a book; but wherever, it did not come from thin air, it had to come from someplace. You need to provide a source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need a source in that sense. You do need enough information (author or publication) to verify public domain status, though, and being really old isn't enough. If someone was born in 1840, took a photo in the U.S. at the age of 10, never published it, and died at the age of 100, we have an 1850 photo that's copyrighted until 2010. --NE2 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but really, how likely is that? At some point (pre-1900?) we ought to err on the side of assuming PD. Requesting source information is fine, but threatening to delete within a week when they've sat there for 4-5 years with no problems is rather counterproductive. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I stopped arguing with these guys after they deleted the equivalent of Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 058.jpg because "the uploader needs to prove that it is a rembrandt" and not the work of a modern forger. I suddenly realized that browsing the web archives for a website where I had found the image years ago was not worth the effort: they will still find something to torment me with, say, that the attribution of Rembrandt paintings is highly uncertain, or that a reproduction may not reflect the original color scheme quite faithfully, or something else. In short, I can't prove that it is a rembrandt to someone who is determined to expose what a cheat I am. Let them have their way. I still firmly believe that the activity aimed at sourcing=deleting obvious (and in many cases hard-to-find) PD-art stuff is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

extreme view. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a copyright extremist. I (and many others) just read Wikipedia image policies and try to apply it. Simply, because it is our interest. Well, if Mr. Biruitorul ,or anyone else, think that image source policy has to change, I'll discus, and I may agree for better image hosting, but it is not my job! I think currently policy is fair enough. It is ugly to say: "a troll", "extreme view" or "Definitely disruptive". It is not my mistake when I try to apply Wikipedia policy.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never accused you of trolling. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, you did not.--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that documentations tell us to note you by default. It is easier to skip you and others, and tag image page only. Once, I had a problem in Wikimedia Commons, I filled some inactive user talk pages with these notes, which makes my browsing so slower. I taught about skipping all user talk pages. After few days, an user undid all of my edits and my hard work lost! For that reason, I note all users. Read this documentation for more.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If an image is so old it's OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY in the public domain (say, photos of people that weren't alive at any time when a copyright would still be valid), no source for the image is needed. It's trivial. Doesn't matter where it come from, no matter how or when it's public domain. Tagging countless images we have a perfect right to use to be deleted based upon stubborn kneejerk adherence to a policy just adds countless hours of work for people to go through and try to fix them all for no good reason, assuming they get caught before deletion. Blind adherence to a pointless policy when someone knows that it's considered bad behavior is not even an attempt at good faith anymore, it's just being stubborn. If OsamaK wants to help Wikipedia he'll voluntarily stop doing these things. If not I think he should be temporarily blocked so he gets the idea that what he's doing is wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

you cannot say that yourself. you cannot even block me for a minute or less. you cannot reexplain the clear policy to be compatible with your view. People in everywhere delete unsourced images since image policy created; here, in Arabic Wikipedia, and in Wikimedia Commons (at least). Please be civil.--OsamaK 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from seperate section below

Ed Fitzgerald doesn't stop removing my image tags without discussion or even change the default edit summary. I asked him three times (one, two, three) to stop doing that, and he didn't respond and still redoing. last moment he undid Image:AR Sevier Ambrose.jpg and Image:Apelles.jpg. I want someone note him to stop doing that for last time until the end of discussion above.--OsamaK 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookin' at his contribs, that looks unhealthily like stalking. It's only in the last 50 or so edits, so it's not a major problem right now, but I'll go have a word with him. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this section up into the main thread from a seperate section below. The problem is that this editor is tagging obviously PD images because they are in technical violation of a absolutist reading of policy, and if they are not untagged, they will be deleted, at a detriment to the project. The editor has had this explained to him, and continues in his actions, so no edit summary is necessary on each seperate revert which, because I do not have automation, I am doing by hand. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a copy-paste edit summary, then; it'd be rather easy to hit tab after editing then paste it in. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just one side. I'm talk about losing my time without discussion! We have a week to get a solution.--OsamaK 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to wait a whole week if a solution is presented before then. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been discussion -- just look above. Your actions may be in strict adherence to a dogmatic reading of policy, but they're not helpful to ther project. You really should stop and help to undo the tagging you've done so far. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no one! He is removing my long time tagging, he is ignoring and breaking above discussion! He is explaining the policy as his personally view to it and trying to impose it on others? Note: I stop tagging ages ago!--OsamaK 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You say you stopped tagging ages ago but, actually, I see that you reverted Ed's removal of your tags about an hour ago: [16]. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean ages. Last new tag was this one, on 19:30, 21 July 200.--OsamaK 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. You're losing your time, I noted you many and many times, I stopped tagging last 36 hours at least: I'll undo all of your undoing.. If any admin wants to take an action, (s)he should review his edit first. This is a stupid game.--OsamaK 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a stupid and disruptive game and you're playing it. Consensus here is clearly against you, and yet you continue to waste the time of a number of editors by reverting. Since you seem to be unable or uninterested in discussing the issues (as opposed to complaining about other's actions), and you've now upped the ante by using Twinkle, the only solution may be for an admin to block you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:). I asked you many and many times to stop it. I'm not here for playing. You will not put the ball in my court, I have more comments there than you, Can not I discus? So, in your view, you can undo all of my edits with invalid reason, but I cannot restore them. Are you kidding? --OsamaK 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning the images were as they were, then you came along and tagged them for deletion. People objected to that, began a discussion and removed your tags, returning the images to their original condition and that's how they should stay while the discussion continues. if the discussion goes against you, the images are in the condition they need to be in, if the discussion goes for you, you can revert the untagging which you have been doing anyway, so it's no additional work for you. This is the reasonable and proper procedure to follow. You seem to want to have the discussion continue while the timer ticks down on the images and they get deleted, meaning they would have to them go to deletion review, more work for everybody.

So, yes, the answer to your question is all of your tagging edits should indeed be undone, pending the outcome of the discussion -- which, incidentally, is clearly going against you -- after which they can be restored if that's the consensus. Please use your script and remove your tags, and avoid the necessity for others to do it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by alnokta

Jello,

Can we please get over with this issue? I don't see any harmful behavior by Osama here. he is just following the current policy, whether you like it or not. you should be thanking him for applying the policy not blame him. any image needs a source, how hard is that? if you don't like the tagging, provide sources, search the web and provide sources. or the other way around, go change the image policy regarding sources for public domain images. stop the game of reverting please.--Alnokta (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

fair enough :)--OsamaK 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. Yes, sources for images are crucial. But when a picture is obviously PD, we do ourselves a disservice by deleting it and not simply requesting a source. There's no legal benefit to be derived (since no one is going to sue), and no ethical one either (since the copyright has almost certainly expired). Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean?--OsamaK 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an essay, not policy. And anyway, since strict interpretation of the source requirement is in this narrow instance (obviously PD images) a hindrance to improving/maintaining Wikipedia, we can safely ignore it. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. but the question is: Who governs successfully of politics? Anyways, I think we're in a loop!--OsamaK 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant edit warring

OsamaK has now reinserted a tag on Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg for the sixth time since July 17. Argue respectfulness towards WP:3RR all you want but this is blatant revert/edit warring. If it wasn't disruptive before, it most definitely is now. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so unfair. Let me be honest, before undoing the tag there, I reread WP:3RR to check if my restore is legal or not (Is 3rd or 4th illegal?). The policy says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts". For that reason, I restored it last time.--OsamaK 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's under discussion here, and it's obviously controversial, I'd strongly recommend not tagging at all until the issue is resolved. You're essentially telling everyone here trying to discuss the matter that it doesn't matter what they say, you'll continue to edit in a manner considered disruptive by some here. And that's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is simple as 1-2-3. Stop undoing, Stop tagging; I stopped tagging since 19 July (Lazy to check), but Ed doesn't care about that. There is no stopping unilaterally, and if so, this is unfair.--OsamaK 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not unfair. If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I conceded that you did not breach 3RR but I do consider your reversions on the above mentioned image as constituting an edit war. 3RR does not need to be breached to constitute an edit war. And also, I think it's very condescending to other involved users to continually argue semantics about how you stopped tagging 3 days ago when you're still restoring the tags that were removed after you. There is no difference between adding a tag for the first time and hitting the "undo" button after someone removes your tag. You need to stop re-adding those tags until someone here starts agreeing with you. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, We're in loop. It is unfair, because I didn't start it. and what about Alnokta, who agrees with me? I believe that there is no AIR with copyrights issues, and then, no one should restore my edits before ending of discus because he is ignoring rules (Wow!), they even want to block me as a troll, becuase they ignore rules!--OsamaK 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We're only in a loop because you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your actions. Under your theory, your tags would remain in place while discussion takes place, until, finally, the clock ticks down and the images are deleted -- this is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the proper procedure, since your tagging is conroversial, is for the original status quo ante (meaning the images in untagged condition) to be preserved while the discussion proceeds. If the discussion goes in your favor, then you can reapply the tags, and the images will be deleted. In fact, though, with one exception, the discussion is going against both your actions and the necessity or advisability of your tags. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Breaking tagging every time, everywhere is a well known story. Dear Ed. If you really want to change, open an issue, write a 'bata' policy and it may applied.--OsamaK 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With the Tschaikovsky picture, it's indeed possible that a 20-year-old photographer in the 1890s could have been alive late enough to renew the copyright. For the Sterret picture, though, it's not physically possible for a copyright to be in force. Hence, tagging it is disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in his latest round of mass reversions (using Twinkle), the editor has accused those who are removing his unwarranted tags of breeching WP:POINT. Of course, no "point" is being made here. What is happening is that editors are attempting to prevent useful images from being lost to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't using Twinkle, it was using my own script. Anyways (let me skip POINT issue), Let us have a cup of tea in #wikipedia-en. Could you come there?--OsamaK 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC):

I don't do IRC. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my view will be discounted because I take a relatively liberal position of the use of NFCC in interpreting the rules--while accepting them, of course--but it does seem to me that Osama is not in the right of it here, and is taking an over-literal view of things--as is easy to do when using any sort of automated tool. In any case, to insist on large scale tagging over multiple objections is disruptive, and should not be continued until there is some consensus that it is being done appropriately. DGG (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your option. Wikimedia policies are illustrating each others. In Wikimedia Commons, we delete all unsourced image no care if it is (PD-old, PD-art, etc..); Everyone knows that. Are we taking an over-literal view of things? No for sure! Another point: Our policy says clearly about source for all images, and we must apply it to be compatible with Wikimedia Commons' one, do you believe that problem when bots uploaded many PDs from English Wikipedia without source? That's illegal in both policies.

Finally, I think we had a long discussion there about this issue, and we may have to deep think about wider discussion to review image policy, I think some people there cannot understand it well.--OsamaK 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I Think we've hit the crux of the problem here: you're applying Commons' methods to Wikipedia, which you should see by now is not going to work. If you want a wider discussion on that, go to Wikipedia talk:NFCC. In the meantime, please stop your tagging as it is disruptive on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. I just give an example for the answer of a question from DGG. Please, read my reply again. Another point, you have to understand that these images are NOT NFCC and we cannot discs them in your former link, note that not I who started the long discussion there. Last point, I have frieze my tagged since 19 July.--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that a strict and dogmatic reading of policy is overriding both rational decision making and what's best for the project. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to be a repository for policy, policy exists to make Wikipedia better, and if it's not doing that, then rational consideration of the situation needs to prevail. If an edit, of any kind, is not helping the project, then it's hurting the project. The project would be diminished by losing the use of those images, which are clearly public domain, and therefore enforcing the strict letter of the law is detrimental and should not be done. We are not here to enforce policy, we are here to make an encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Images lock like Public Domain, but for more trusting, more verifiability, and better academic usage policy requests sources, this is not a bad read of it! I want to note all people there, that Biruitorul has a very great contributions for fixing sources. Just take a look for these as examples: Image:Bellayguillaume.jpg and Image:AnthonyWayne.jpeg. We're all believe that sources is well needed, let's try to fix all of them rather than long boring discussion, that will improves trusting of our wiki (That anyone can edit!).--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like there's only one solution that will make OsamaK happy. Delete every PD image from Commons and Wikipedia, and let him relocate and find all of them, and replace them. He won't of course, leaving us with a dearth of objects, and the continued insistence that PD needs attribution. It doesn't, per the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision quoted ad nauseum in prior similar situations. This is simply a copyright activist gaming our rules to make a point. He should be charged with personally replacing every single image he tags and succeeds in deleting, and if he refuses, banned from the project to preclude further disruption. ThuranX (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really :), And we should do the thing makes project better, not OsamaK happy! An image + clear source + correct licenses = Good information, Kept; That's making me happy, making the project better. I'm very clear from first, and you're trying to put the ball in my court, and showing me as a troll. You still revolve around a single wrong point, called "Ignore all rules, always".--OsamaK 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I havent' called you a troll at all, but that I managed to SHOW you as one makes me feel like an amazing success to hear you admit it without any prompting from me! However, this notion that every image is not really PD because of titanic counterfeiting conspiracies whose sole aim is to discredit Wikipedia is asinine. Unless you've got proof that most PD images are actually copyrighted counterfeis, I think you really should find other goals in life, maybe not on Wikipedia, because the amount of blatant and disgusting BAD faith you are heaping upon every uploader to the project is a serious issue, as is your constant disruptions to wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you talking like that? Stop your bad offend to me! I'm a volunteer here .. Come Together "v-o-l-u-n-t-e-e-r" easy, no? People who want to help wikipedia of real, don't attack such as yours! You're unable to rating my volunteering. It is enough to me to be civil (You're not) and away of personal attacks (You're not too). Timeout. I (And others) lose my (And their) time here. Sorry to say that, they do not you have plans to rectify the situation on the ground.--OsamaK 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WHy are you talking like that? Half in broken english, half in american slang like 'rectify the situation on the ground'? I am able to 'rating your volunteering'. It's lousy. You violate AGF all over with these taggings. As noted below, you tagged self-made images fully released per the GFDL just because you didn't find a three word phrase, even though the meaning of those three words was already in the text for that image. I think you lack a full command of the language, and that inability to read english fluently leads you to tag a lot of images that don't need tagging. ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OsamaK's bot-like or bot-using tagging or images is IMHO annoying. User:Tuxraider reloaded uploaded a pic. Although he had tagged it as created himself and released under the GFDL, Osama threatened to delete it and templated Tux's talk page because he hadn't needlessly also added a mere three words or something to effectively say what the tag already said- that he made it himself. As a new editor, such automatised behaviour would seem unfriendly, nit-picking and does not reflect well on Osama. If someone just left a brief message rather than a template, it would be much friendlier but of course that would take too much time which is being spent on such gripping activites of taking policy so literally and retentively. Sticky Parkin 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{GFDL}} means nothing about the creator. You have to add the creator when you putting an image under GFDL terms.--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just really starting to get ticked off by his incessant claims of I stopped tagging on July 19 (or variations on that statement) when he is still very cleary tagging PD images for deletion. Why do you bother saying you stopped tagging? This last image was tagged today. It's really frustrating trying to have some sort of a constructive discussion with you when you're talking to everyone in here like they're complete idiots. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I tag it as no-source?--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why sometimes User:OsamaK's comments are idiomatic English (or very close to it), and other times they look very much like they were written in another language and passed through a mechanical translator. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I need a second cup of coffee this morning but I fail to see what your point is with this last statement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's primarily an observation more than a point, but the wierdness of some of the language does make it difficult at times to figure out what is being said. And, I have to say, I do generally have a bit of a problem with people editing English Wikipedia without sufficient command of English to do so. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, and the editor does seem to focus primarily on image-work, but it's something of a sore point for me, so perhaps I'm more sensitive to it than others. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. I can't say you're wrong in your thinking but, If I may, I'd like to suggest to keep focus on the issue at hand (OsamaK's controversial image tagging) rather than letting the community lose sight by branching out into general complaints and grievances against OsamaK. In the end, we're discussing the editor's actions, not the editor, right? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of topic.--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should stop and another one be started somewhere else (everybody knows where; policy talk page). Your stances vis-à-vis policy application are clearly polarized and obviously you cannot solve that here. My opinion is that all parties stop doing what they have been doing and discuss the issue in a constructive manner at the policy talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that before. Someones are still thinking that my edits are illegal in their own view.--OsamaK 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your tagging is being described as disruptive, not "illegal" -- in fact, the point has been made repeatedly that the problem with your tagging is that it's been done with an extremely narrow and dogmatic view of policy without taking into account the specific circumstances of images that are patently public domain. Therefore while your tags are "legal" in the sense that you can quote chapter and verse from policy to support them, they are harmful to the project because they will result in the loss of useful and available images.

More to the point, multiple editors in this thread have objected to your actions, while you are pretty much alone in your defense of your actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good that you had said that but I don't think people describe your tagging as illegal. Anyway, please discuss it in a constructive manner there but the tagging/reverting cycle should stop and not just temporarily. After all, we are not in a rush to tag/untag all of the disputed images. Discussions come first and, of course, they have to stay on topic as per SWik78. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional images ready for tagging by User:OsamaK

I'd like to point out that the editor in question has about 400 other images lined up and ready to be tagged, and that keeping things in the status quo ante should apply to these images as well, not just the ones that have been under discussion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Ready for reviewing.--OsamaK 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you review the images you tag? Then why is it that I just fixed two images that you tagged in which the uploader had used the non-free FUR but neglected to add the non-free fair use license? To an editor like yourself doing bulk image work, it should have been obvious what the problem was, and fixing them would take just about as much time as tagging them and posting notices. So why didn't you? (I'm referring to this and this.) It's really very rude to tag an image that you can easily and in good conscience fix, and detrimental to the project as well, since you take the chance that the uploader won't see your notice in time and the image will be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lest anyone think this is an ancillary issue, it's not. Both this case and the larger one of bulk tagging clearly PD images for deletion shows a lack of good editorial judgment and a preference for rote activities over rational evaluation of what's best for the encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking with you is useless. Did you have a quick checking of tagging page? Tell me if it is including ANY un-free images.--OsamaK 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

After seeing [17] and [18], I agree also that OsamaK should not be tagging images, as he is obviously getting the tags wrong. Those two images were very easy to save, and instead he got them tagged for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is uploader job, all these images was uploaded on 24-hours or less. That's meaning: the uploader will definitely see the note. The images was without a copyright tag, and I added {{nld}}, tell me if I did a mistake should let me not be tagging images.--OsamaK 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that fixing images is any one person's job - after all, the encyclopedia is a collective project. Yes, there are situations where the uploader is the only person who can provide the information needed, but there are others -- and the two images I mentioned above are clearly cases of them -- where it is absolutely clear, without a doubt what the uploader intended, and in that circumstance any editor can make the correction, just as any editor can correct a typographical error or a broken link. You, as the person who noticed the problem, have an obligation to fix the problem if you are going to do anything at all about it, not just to tag it and foist the problem on somebody else. (If, indeed, they see the notice in time.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just block him? He is fully aware that his actions are extremely disruptive, and frankly, violate WP:POINT and WP:COMMON because he knows full well that he could fix some of those, but won't, and as such, there's no good reason for him to be allowed to continue. ThuranX (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If he'll agree to stop tagging PD images, and instead work to help uploaders fix them, and fix obviously repairable image problems himself, then there's no real need for a block, I would say. If he won't agree to that, then I don't see any other solution, really. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't agreed in four days, why would he start now? BLOCK. ThuranX (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of rudeness: this edit summary, in Arabic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just shut up, talking with you over for ever. You're not exist. As long as you're not civil.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Block for this is obvious. He's continuing to tag, continuing to edit in opposition to consensus and wide community disapproval. ThuranX (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Osama, you said you've already stopped it and agreed to go discuss it at the policy talk page. There's clear consensus here that you stop tagging and discuss. It doesn't seem that you are stopping as I understand from links Enric provided. You are also dismissing calls for fixing some instead of tagging them. This is not how stuff should be done. Discussion is above any questionable action. So you better stop and take this issue to the policy talk page for serious discussions. Failing to do that would lead to a block.

Ed, the Arabic edit summary translates to "time is gold" and yes that is a bit uncalled for but you would better have avoided focusing on the issue of English. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Mr. FayssalF. You may could be our Jack ;). Just a minor note: I have not started this issue here. So, I'll not moved it.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I ran it through Google Translator and got the meaning -- but I disagree somewhat that it's not relevant. Sure, there's a policy issue, and that can be discussed at the proper place, but there's also an issue of an editor's behavior, and it seems to be that it's all of a piece: tagging an image instead of doing an easy fix, tagging PD images about which there's little or no copyright concern (whatever their source) and posting an edit summary in a language which the majority of editors cannot read. Taken together, they indicate a lack of judgment about what the right thing to do is, and a certain rudeness that is either deliberate or the result of lack of understanding or cultural differences. Either way, they don't indicate that this editor should be doing that kind of work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a friendly warning for OsamaK. I will leave a stronger warning if he carries on with tagging PD images. As for language, it can indeed be a worry. In my work I often see businesses lose time and make wrong decisions because of small interpretation and translation mistakes made by highly educated people. Good faith users should never be put down (or put out) over how they write English on talk pages but there is nothing untowards about noting that an editor's use of English may be slowing down or thwarting communication. I should also say that OsamaK's take on image policy may not only be swayed by linguistics, but by cultural background. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I hope to skip the level of stronger warning. Thanks for you advice.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Does that mean you agree not to restore any of the removed tags, or tag any other PD images while this discussion is ongoing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So long as OsamaK is only tagging images that in fact have no source, then his actions are correct and he shouldn't have to stop. If he's making errors, though, that's another matter. Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree, and your opinion is clearly not the consensus of the participants in this discussion. Dogmatic insistence on following policy to the letter is not the best course of action in this situation, but whether or not it is or not, he should hold off on any further tagging of this type while the discussion is ongoing, since reverting the tags put the images at risk. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the best way to prevent these images from being "at risk" is simply to provide the required sourcing information. It doesn't matter what "consensus" is among the handful of participants here. For one thing, local consensus does not override the larger consensus of site policy. If you want to change the policy, make a proposal at the policy pages. For another, consensus cannot override legal issues such as copyright. See WP:CON#Exceptions for what I'm talking about. Kelly ^hi! 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, except some of those images have been up for years, and some of the uploaders are no longer active, or are semi-active. So, we'll just snap our fingers and like magic the sourcing information will be provided? No, a good proportion of those images once tagged are doing to be deleted, and you know it.

As for changing policy -- this is not essentially a policy issues, it's a question of how policy is enforced. Is it enforced like an automaton without any consideration of circumstance or effect, or is it enforced rationally with what's best of the project in mind? Clearly, both you and OsamaK are in the former camp. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that something can be in good faith and arguably correct under policy and still be disruptive. Correct or not, these edits are clearly controversial. And you shouldn't do something that is controversial on a mass-automated edit level, even if you think that you are correct under the policy because it is disruptive. Now is the time for discussion, and I think it is imprudent to encourage OsamaK to continue as he has without addressing concerns. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's sensible. With something like image sourcing, though, I believe it's more than "arguably correct", the policies are basically there in black and white that the images must be sourced. Not a lot of room for interpretation, though I'm open to any dissenting views. Kelly ^hi! 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you possibly be "open" to dissent, when you're flat out saying that there's nothing to discuss and nothing to be done? Please, your pose is killing me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, please don't put words in my mouth. Kelly ^hi! 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, please don't deny the essence of what you've said below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)Alright, let's stop. I think we can both agree this is getting us nowhere. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Kelly

If I could, I'd like to make a couple of points:

1. Regarding tagging images for deletion that are easily fixed - yes, absolutely this should be done whenever possible. I wish we could tag images without sources in a way that did not place them in the deletion queue. There used to be a tag for this (it was called "PD-no-source" or something like that), but the template was deleted after a community discussion because Wikipedia policy is that images must have a source or face deletion.
2. It's an unfortunate fact of wiki-life that many (most?) image uploaders will not address questions of copyright/sourcing until and unless the image is facing deletion. Not a condemnation, it's just that are probably more interesting things they would like to do than jump through the legal/policy hoops.
3. Osama is correct that images need a source, regardless of how "obvious" it may seem that they are public domain. There are several reasons for this...the primary one is not that we going to get sued for using an old photograph. First, just because something is old or was obviously made before 1923 does not automatically mean that it is public domain. The key fact is that copyright is established when a work is published, not when it was made. I have run across photos from the American Civil War that were still under copyright, because they were put away in a family album somewhere after being taken, only to be published by the heirs decades later. It's even more problematic with paintings. First, you don't know a painting is old just because the subject of the painting is long dead. People are still making paintings of Jesus Christ and Elvis Presley, even though they've been dead a long time. If someone made a painting in 1803 and put it a private home, and in 2008 the great-great-great-grandaughter of the painter displayed to the public (i.e. "published" it) for the first time, the painting would be copyrighted.
4. Why is this important? Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for free information and media that anyone can modify and use for any purpose. If someone complains to Wikipedia that we are violating their copyright, it is very easy for us to instantly remove the offending work. However, if someone trusts our statements about copyright, and re-uses our content in a published book, it's not very easy for them to rectify the problem after the book has been published, and they would likely face a financial liability because of our error. This would damage our credibility as a free media resource.

Just a few thoughts I had. But please, could everyone calm down and assume some good faith? I think we can all agree that OsamaK is not trying to destroy the encyclopedia by deleting good content. And we can also all agree that people who upload images they sincerely believe are public domain, but lack all the sourcing details, are not criminally-minded copyright violators intent on stealing copyrighted work. I'm not sure why the rhetoric gets so heated over images, but I'm sure a path can be found that satisfies both policy and the community's etiquetee norms. Kelly ^hi! 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though a "pending source" disclaimer tag for these unsourced PD images could be helpful. As I said on OsamaK's talk page and as Kelly said above, these images should have source information since PD is indeed swayed by date of first publication, not creation. It is also true that most of these images are clearly in the public domain and it would be disruptive to embark on a mass deletion until a consensus is reached over how this will be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thing: fair view, Kelly.--OsamaK 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, it's not that images should have a source specified - they must have a source specified. This ultimately traces back to WP:C and WP:V, two of the five pillars, and is outlined more specifically in WP:IUP (in boldface right at the beginning) and WP:CITE#IMAGE. The policy that OsamaK has been following is WP:CSD criteria I4, which says that images with unknown source will be deleted after seven days, regardless of when uploaded. This is why the old disclaimer tag was deleted before. Perhaps OsamaK could go about this more diplomatically, but his actions are solidly based in longstanding policy. It's wrong to condemn him - we wouldn't sanction someone who spent their time tagging articles on bands for speedy deletion under CSD A7.

For those that are calling for OsamaK to be blocked, we don't block good-faith contributors who are following policy without even the benefit of a Request for Comment - I urge anyone who has a grievance to follow dispute resolution. (This would be appropriate if, as stated, OsamaK is tagging images erroneously - not just for correctly tagging images with no source.) Also, I think it's unjust to warn image taggers for what they're doing, when we're not similarly warning people who don't include required information on their image uploads, or who refuse to go back and fix this information when asked to do so. In those cases, the taggers are following policy, the uploaders are not. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I was aware of the word choice between should and must. I never said OsamaK was "tagging the images erroneously." This is an implementation worry and weak implementations against consensus can be disruptive, hence the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, Gwen, thank you. But a few people upset about a policy does not a consensus make. My sole point is that OsamaK shouldn't be warned if his actions are within policy, which I believe they may be. Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The pith is, following policy to the letter, whilst skirting common sense, can be highly disruptive. Most of these images are not copyright violations, yet they should indeed be sourced. Mass deletion would clearly be disruptive unless an overwhelming consensus for this action shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you are clearly not an "uninvolved editor" except in the most restricted sense that you haven't participated in this particular discussion until this point. What you have, in fact, managed to do, is to take a situation that seemed to be moving not to a resolution, but to a place where some profitable discussion could take place, and thrown a whole lot of fuel on the fire, and then fanned the flames.

Your actions are regrettable, since they obscure what is the main point here: images which are valuable to the project, and almost entirely certainly in the public domain, were in danger of being lost because an editor chose to follow by rote the dictates of policy as if it was handed down on tablets of stone, instead of using his own rational facilities to evaluate the circumstances and adjust his behavior accordingly. You may think that robotic following of policy without the slightest consideration is laudable, but I don't, and I'm much more interested in what's best for the project than anything else.

I was planning on engaging what I thought was an interested editor's view of the situation, so thanks for revealing your agenda before I bothered to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dogmatic deletionist"? Ed, I would vastly prefer to keep the images. I have stated that, if the image problems can be fixed by the tagger, they should be fixed by the tagger. My point is that we shouldn't demonize people for following policy that is pretty clear-cut without making some attempt to change the policy, or to demonstrate that the person is not following the policy. You're making this way more personal than it needs to be. And so far I haven't heard any arguments as to why sources for the images can't simply be provided. Kelly ^hi! 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your reference to the participants in this discussion as a "lynch mob" over on User talk:OsamaK, and your advice to him to go ahead and tag orphaned PD images because no one will notice, so please don't tell me how you would "vastly prefer" to keep images. If you prefer to keep them then don't tag them, instead work with the uploaders to fix them, or fix them yourself if you can. But, in any case, you've pretty much blown any good faith multiple times now. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So I guess it's your opinion that if I mispell something in an article, I'm the only one who can fix it, right? After all, I'm the one who uploaded that mistake, so the thing to do is not to correct any mspellings you come across, but instead tag them as being mispellings, notify the uploader that their edit is in danger of being deleted, and then 7 days later, if they haven't fixed the mispelling, revert the edit? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the "lynch mob" reference is tongue-in-cheek, and anyone who has worked with image tagging would understand it as such. If you were offended I apologize. I didn't say to tag orphaned images because nobody would notice, I said do it because it does not damage the encyclopedia. And so far as I can see, OsamaK has tried to work with the uploaders to fix the images, by notifying them of the sourcing problems, and letting them know they have at least a week to fix them. It's the only path allowed him by current site policy and processes. I'm sorry for blowing away your assumption of good faith, it wasn't intentional. Your misspelling reference seems to me to be hyperbole. As I said three times now, if the tagger can fix the problem they should, but with image uploads, often only the uploader knows the source. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you're stirring things up here by calling this discussion a "lynch mob" or that OsamaK is being "demonized." Neither is true, please stop the name calling. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended - apologies. I'd be greatly appreciative if you also asked others in this conversation to tone back their rhetoric, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok :) Yep, everyone, please stick spot on to the topic with neutral wording, skirt needless characterizations, more'll get done here if this happens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of dealing with these two contrary, good faith notions, trying not to gut the encyclopedia's images in the meantime. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Gwen, I don't see how the issue can be solved here. I suggest that the discussion either be moved to WT:IUP (if it is the image sourcing policy that is disputed) or to Requests for Comment (if it is OsamaK's behavior that is disputed). I don't think either is clear-cut enough to resolve in a conversation here. Kelly ^hi! 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem, from your point of view, that neither discussion can possibly be productive since (1) the rules is the rules and (2) Osama was just following the rules. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, that's the way I feel from the conversation so far. I didn't say my mind couldn't be changed if evidence the other way were provided. :)

(ec) Kelly, I didn't say it could be resolved here. However, a mass deletion against a consensus at ANI would clearly be disruptive until a clear community consensus has been found. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I understand. But I don't understand what permanent consensus will result from a conversation here at WP:ANI if there is no corresponding change in policy. A look back through the archives will show this has been discussed before. The normal result is that an image patroller finally throws his/her hands up and gives up on the copyright policy. Situation resolved until the next time. I suppose if the objective is to force OsamaK to stop tagging images the situation could be resolved here. :) I guess the questions boil down to éither Did OsamaK violate Wikipedia policy? or Is the image sourcing policy bad for the encyclopedia? The answer tells us which forum we should go to for a real resolution of the problem, rather than yet another flamewar. Kelly ^hi! 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your take on this, Kelly. I don't think OsamaK has strayed from Wikipedia policy. Nor have I seen any hint of opinion that the image policy is "bad" for Wikipedia. As I said before, this is an implementation flaw and if, after being warned there are worries expressed in a thread at ANI, an editor were to carry on with a good faith mass deletion, even by following a close take on undisputed policy, this would indeed be disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What would be your suggested alternate approach? (question to anyone) Kelly ^hi! 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already said what I thought about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I get you - but that was already rejected by the community. (darmit, I'm still trying to find the old template!) But my argument would be - the uploader is currently notified that he/she has a week to fix the sourcing. WP:IUP says the images must be sourced. WP:CSD says unsourced images will be deleted after that week. Are you advocating a tag that says "Although this image is unsourced, we think it's OK because the image is likely PD"? Or would you advocate lengthening the amount of time from tagging to deletion? I think if the uploader doesn't fix the problem in a week, they're unlikely to fix it at all. (Totally apocryphal from my own experience.) If they're on wikibreak or something they can get the image undeleted when they get back so they can fix it. Kelly ^hi! 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The community may not have understood what the outcome would be. Meanwhile, please don't infer utterly unhelpful template wordings from my remarks (why did you do that?) and do keep in mind, there is no need for any mass deletion of images to begin tonight, tomorrow, or next week. Let the discussion carry on, in this thread for now, and maybe later on another project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to substitute any alternate wording; I was just trying to drive at the gist of the conversation. I think discussing here is likely pointless, so I'll disengage and will wait for a more productive discussion elsewhere - this one will peter out with no result and disappear into the archives, I think. I'm positive that any attempted block of OsamaK for simply tagging unsourced images would likely be quickly overturned. Kelly ^hi! 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of our disagreement is, I think you're still stirring things up rather than helping to find a settled path through this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh start

Let's try that everything above this point stays there, this is a fresh start. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What I suggested earlier, but got lost in the excitement, was that instead of immediately tagging an unsourced PD image, which involves leaving a message on the uploader's talk page, that the image-worker simply put a different kind of note on the uploader's talk page, one saying that there are problems with the image, a clear statement of what's missing, and perhaps some tips about how to fix it. Then, after some time has passed and the uploader hasn't fixed the problem, then the 7-day delete tag can be applied. (And why 7 days, specifically? Why not 14, or 30? Is there some kind of rush I'm not aware of to get rid of unsourced public domain images?)

This is essentially the same as Gwen's suggestion, except implemented informally without a specific "pending" tag. It seems to me that if the point is to fix images rather than to delete them, either scheme provides some more chance of that fix coming about. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be 90 days. There is no rush. The pith would be to helpfully disclaim that PD status was not yet wholly confirmed, which would both warn re-users and give the project time to track down sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush at all. It is clear that this is not a BLP or any other sensitive issue and it is my opinion that this is also a reason for this "fresh start" to be started where it belongs. Anyone against copying and pasting this at the policy talk page? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't.--OsamaK 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, although you should probably provide some context for it when you do. Could you also post the address here? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Great from both of you guys. Well, 4 days have gone since user:HandThatFeeds "hit the crux of the problem" here. If it was lost between the lines then here it is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. You may use Wikipedia talk:Image use policy as well or start from the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Resolved

 – Already fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the main page article is T206 Honus Wagner but the "(more...)" link at the bottom of the article goes to T206. Could an admin fix it? Thanks! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.178.250.89 adding false box office information to film articles

71.178.250.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding false information to both film articles as well as articles found in Category:Film box office. I've reverted all the List articles in the category, but was hoping someone could either revert the others with a script or rollback or something. This apparently has been going one unnoticed for a while. Thanks to anyone who can help. JPG-GR (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp vandalising Commons

Resolved

 – Vandalism vanquished. Beam 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lundeunge.jpg - apparently a vandalised template, though I'm having trouble working out where the vandalism has been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have been fixed now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a persistent and consistent vandalism; I've seen it maybe half-a-dozen times in the month or so I've been patrolling. is it the same vandal? also, would it be possible to write a bot to watch for it and snip it (and the IP that posts it) as soon as it pops in? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that some of these moves are being done by copycats, some are targeting specific targets more than once, Grawp constantly jumps to different topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

well, the Grawp thing usually aims at templates (which would limit its range of targets), and it's a very elaborate bit of code, so it must be pre-fab and might be passed around between different vandals... it would be nice if we had some data on how often and where it pops up, and maybe from where, to see if we can localize the region it comes from. any admins bored enough to want to do the grunt work?  :-D --Ludwigs2 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it's tough to say where all these trolls are coming from. nevertheless, Each of us should Deny them recognition. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(Comment removed) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Paranoid much? Sounds like Grawp has already won if this is the mentality that you all revert to. Chunkiermunky (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Denying him recognition, or throwing accusations towards a known troll site that has a running beef with us (I have spake with Xeno since; it's not who I thought it was vandalizing Commons; thus, comment above removed)? In either case, we are understandably paranoid - he's recently taken to email bombing people, hoping he hasn't found someone who's heard of a spam filter. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]He found the account creation mailing list a while back, yikes. Let's just say I don't look forward to the day he figures out the ORTS system. As if those poor folks don't deal with enough nastiness... L'Aquatique[talk] 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, ideas... Tan ǀ 39 03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women

Guys and gals, we badly need more admin eyes on Comfort women, our current Korean-Japanese hotspot. This is worse than Liancourt Rocks. (Not least because it's a much more serious topic and having continuous edit warring on it really looks bad on Wikipedia.)

I made the mistake of expressing an editorial opinion (gasp!) on this article while trying to deal with a tendentious sockpuppet (thanks Moreschi for blocking User:Lucyintheskywithdada), so I'm currently not in a good position to wield the banhammer as I'd wish. That means the article is without any close admin scrutiny right now.

There's Japanese tendentious editing in trying to include a long undue-weight passage trying to relativise the Japanese crime by sharing the blame with the evil Koreans, and there's Korean tendentious editing in trying to spice up the article with unencyclopedic emotionalising material such as long repetitive lists of atrocities, detailed witness reports with all sorts of colorful details and so on.

Top of the to-be-blocked list right now are Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Northwest1202 (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I have just topic-banned Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Danceneveril (talk · contribs) from all Korean-Japanese articles for two months each, for their activities on Liancourt Rocks, Korea under Japanese rule and elsewhere. We need very forceful admin intervention in this field, as per the latest discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take it on my watchlist for a while, as I've never edited in this area (I think). Are there any on-point ArbCom remedies covering this area, or is it basic blocking policy only?  Sandstein  06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected the article for a week to stop the ongoing editwarring; this should give it some breathing space.  Sandstein  06:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only officially the article probation on Liancourt Rocks (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks). I'm of the opinion that we should just act as if it covered the whole Japanese-Korean mess, Balkan-style. I can't be bothered to ask Arbcom to endorse it though, we should just do it on admin consensus alone. Why not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. We should be able to deal with this here ourselves as well as they can, unless there's dissent about it. DGG (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese-Korea article area is getting more and more problematic. I support the topic bans. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited or read the article in question, but will gladly watchlist it. If I am accused of a pro or activist bias in either direction, as I have been on other articles I never actively contributed to, I will resign from Wikipedia. This is an important topic, and deserves full neutrality across the board, as any Encyclopedia (and this wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, no?) should do. Feel free to decline my offer if you think I cannot be neutral in disputes. Jeffpw (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems Logitech95 has edited the article again, despite Fut. Perf's sanction - I don't think it officially passed when Fut Perf. notified him though (it would've, had a draft sanctions idea like the one below, passed). So I'm going to warn him again - if he continues to edit in the area after that warning, someone needs to block him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It seems Fut Perf. beat me to the warning and blocked him already for 2 weeks. I do think it's excessive, given what I said just now, and that after 2 blocks, 1 week is the usual duration for the next block. Anyway, I'm recording the topic ban as I noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Declined the unblock, but I think a block of one week is more in line of this offense. Feel free to refactor the block or whatever, and monitor his replies on his talk. seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I check his latest addition and really begin to wonder whether he falsifies information with sources to all articles that he edited. Please take a look at Talk:Korea under Japanese rule#Logitech95's addition.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Logitech has a separate section on this ANI page now - the block was extended to a month for block-evasion/sockpuppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Japanese-Korean disputes, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be notified of these provisions by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing these provisions will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Talk:Japanese-Korean disputes/Sanctions#Log of blocks and bans.

---

Modified from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, removing inappropriate references to the arbitration process. Two things to consider: interaction with the Liancourt Rocks arbitration and I'm not particularly sure whether the bit about the AC and desysopping is appropriate. Hack away. MER-C 10:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

• Past ANI Archive38 on 2channel and Nanshu

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[19] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[20][21][22] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[23], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[24], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[25][26] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[27][28]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet at AfD

Bernard Edlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a near-certain vanity autobiography by Nexusb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sockpuppets are appearing on the AfD: Charicoo3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chiewan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A pound says Yama88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user. I have warned but not yet blocked Nexusb, I have not done anything about Yama88 because I'd like someone else to have a quick look, though I feel this one is a definite candidate for the duck test. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the socks, but I'm not sure that Nexusb is Bernard Edlington. I know first-hand that living in Japan can affect your English writing skills (unless you keep them up by editing Wikipedia on a regular basis ^_^), but a lot of these edits strike me as being made by a non-native English speaker. At any rate, while I think Yama's contributions basically prove they are not a new user and point strongly to their being another (slightly more sophisticated) sock of Nexusb, it might be worth waiting until the debate has closed an filing a checkuser request in order to confirm this suspicion and make sure that all the sock accounts are properly dealt with. --jonny-mt 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I said "is or is closely associated with" - Edlington's company is called Nexus, and his initial is B, but that is circumstantial only. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We ned some eyes here

Taken to WP:AE. --Elonka 04:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:AE#User:DreamGuy numerous violations of ArbCom decisions

DreamGuy is back editing the Jack the Ripper article - or rather, edit-warring the page and discussion again. First, he starts adding in the same edits (1) he failed to find consensus for two months ago. I understand that, following BRD, when this is reverted (and the massive changes were contentious), the final component is discussion, which was - as always - lacking from DG. When alerted of this on his usertalk space (2), he removed the message (3) noting "removing bogus warning from harrassing user from this page, posting warning on his talk page." This was followed by the "warning", which was pretty much both a personal attack and a threat (4).

Simultaneously, DreamGuy has been undoing a recent archive of months old conversations - again without consensus or discussion. He apparently feels that conversations made back in May and June to continue to be active, simply because he disagrees with their assessment (and consensus). He ignores requests to start a new section regarding his concerns.

Rather that continue down this very familiar path of DreamGuy, where he eventually gets hauled in front of either ArbCom Enforcement yet again (due to his behavioral restrictions) and he mini-retires only to start the same disruptive editing yet again, I thought it best to bring the matter here right away. While I am definitely tired of this extraordinarily disruptive user's continued presence in Wikipedia, I realize that we have to give him yet another chance to fix his behavior, and maybe he's turned a new leaf, and simply doesn't know how to act politely when facing dissent. Maybe a few folk familiar with this user's past could stop by, have a spot of tea and help the fellow along. He is certainly not going to accept it from anyone who's pegged his behavior in the past. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will have a word with him, if no response is given, we should assume his actions are to deliberatly harm Wikipedia, and he will be dealt with accordingly. Chafford (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused here. User:Chafford isn't even an admin. Why does he think he gets to assume someone is out to cause harm and needs to be dealt with? What about WP:AGF? DreamGuy (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had issues with DreamGuy for years, but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that his actions are to "deliberately harm Wikipedia". I believe that he's acting in good faith, he just gets carried away on some issues that he cares alot about. He's done off-wiki writing and other work on the topic of Jack the Ripper, and feels strongly about it. Having said that, however, it's worth remembering that he is subject to ArbCom restrictions, specifically, "If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked." He has violated those restrictions, especially with edit summaries such as these: "rv bad faith effort to close discussion on topics still under dispute", "rv bad faith edit", "removing bogus warning from harrassing user from this page". Obviously, reverting another established user with an edit summary of "rv bad faith", is a pretty clear violation of the ArbCom ruling, and would warrant a block. It has also concerned me that I have never seen DreamGuy acknowledge the legitimacy of the ArbCom ruling, nor has he ever promised to do better. And the banner at the top of his talkpage, in my opinion, is a violation of the civility ruling on its own.[29] My personal recommendation, especially considering DreamGuy's long block log,[30] would be an indefinite block until he promises to abide by the ArbCom ruling (and clean up the incivility on his talkpage). However, because of our history, I'm obviously not the administrator who should be making that call. --Elonka 17:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For most of your comments, Elonka, see below. Regarding the sction on my talk page being incivil -- other admins have not had a problem with it, and the ArbCom was aware of it when the ruling you mention was being made and did not make any mention that it could not be there. In fact it was exactly the same kind of warning that additional posts from certain people told not to post there anymore that you ignored and which was deemed harassment when you got blocked way back when, so you know for a fact that such a warning is valid and has been recognized by other admins -- and it explains why you especially are upset by it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Arcayne is just here doing a first strike because I said I was going to start the process to have him disciplined. I was hoping to talk to various admins for advice first, but it looks like he wants to just jump in here with his misleading accusations again.

The basic situation as it is now is that Arcayne has in the past tried unsuccessfully to have me banned from the project on several occasions, and has said that if ArbCom refuses to do anything he will do it himself. He has taken it upon himself to perform actions that in practice essentially ban me from editing the Jack the Ripper article. No matter what edits I make, or how I explain them with edit comments, he as a matter of routine over the past year, has always reverted every single last one and demanded I gain. An old ArbCom decision said I had civility problems, and, yes, it was true, and I have made great strides in remaining civil in the face of supreme levels of highly aggressive uncivil behavior aimed at me. ArbCom did not ban me from editing any articles, and indeed admins who have looked at my edit history say that my edits are in general a great asset to the encyclopedia, other than an unfortuante history of conflict, which from my view largely comes from my tackling spammers and people who introduce POV and uncited claims in articles that tend to attract some nutty ideas. Why Arcayne thinks he can set up his own personal ruling that I be banned from editing an article is beyond me, but I think that admins ought to make it clear to him that such behavior goes way beyond acceptable behavior.

As far as Elonka, she has a long history of choosing to interpret anything I do as a violation thanks to a longstanding grudge based upon her getting permanently banned at one point (clarify: obviously it didn't, as she's here now. when I saw that she had been indef blocked after I reported her activity, I was the first to say I thought her behavior did not warrant such a severe punishment) in the past after she had left harassing comments on my talk page for months. In this particular instance, Arcayne has clearly demonstrated bad faith, and my pointing that out is not "assuming" bad faith or personal attacking him, it's just the natural conclusion of what he has been doing for a year. Insisting that he has to personally approve all of my edits before I make them is arguably bad faith, but when he reverts all of my edits with the claim that I need to discuss things on the talk page first, immediately after he has just deleted the conversation off the talk page, I honestly don't know how anyone could possibly justify that as anything but bad faith. I would think that if Elonka took the time to get past her animosity and investigate the edits in question she would agree that Arcayne has made highly inappropriate actions. Here are edits to show what I mean:

Here are my recent edits to the article (note that I made these individually so that single ones could be reverted if someone had an issue -- Arcayne just reverted back to an old version of the article -- and that I provide edit comments):

"Removed uncited claim that's just wrong", "Writing on the Wall: change to Goulston Street Graffito, per reliable sources -- three quoted and plenty more could be provided.", "Goulston Street Graffito: no source given the Scotland Yard preferred this interpretation. In fact we know that it was not favored by a majority of officials", "Goulston Street Graffito: trying to fix screwed up ref tag so article text between it and next ref tag actually displays in article", "Goulston Street Graffito: probably a better way to fix the ref, but this should do it", "Modern perspectives: the geographical profiling being mentioned here was not done by Scotland Yard, it was done by Dr. Kim Rosmo (sic - Rossmo), and his conclusions were misrepresented on the documentary", "Goulston Street Graffito: "the wall writing" is just awkward", "See also: no real reason to list this one on a JTR page... if we list all unsolved serial killers, or even somewhat famous ones, we'd have a long see also list", "Additional reading: certainly not recommended as additional reading by anyone in the field, the book is almost universaly panned"

Look at those edits, and tell me if those look to be improper in any way.

Arcayne shows up later and first deletes almost the entire talk page: "archived older/concluded discussions" despite that some of the removed posts where added just that very same day. He then reverts all of my edits in one fell swoop: undo a lot of changes that appear to not have a consensus for change. Use the discussion page to build one, please note that many of the changes were to recently added sections, like the part about the geographical profiling, so Arcayne had no way to think those did not have consensus. he then moves to post a "warning" to my talk page "Please use the discussion page: new section") which says I should use the talk page of the article -- the same thing he had just erased! (Plus Arcayne has been told several times that his "warnings" on my talk page are not constructive -- both myself and an admin have in the past told him that he should no longer post to my personal talk page and please leave all discussion to article talk pages, because continuing to do so was being harassing). So I tried to bring the article talk page back to what it was so recent discussion could be restored, but he reverted and claimed: "no, I am sorry. The most recent of the archived conversations was concluded over a week ago. Please stop being disruptive" which is simply not true, it was active as of that same day. I also restored the article to the edits I had made, saying that Arcayne did not have the right to blind revert the entire article. After that a number of other editors made changes, but when Arcayne saw that I had put my changes back he undid ALL of our edits: "then add them, after finding consensus, one by one. Don't add them in and expect us to swallow it en toto. You are being disruptive, and you will not be asked to stop again". He then added a very uncivil comment to the talk page (this edit) where he tries to restart an argument by making claims that had already been responded to and disproved on the version of the talk page that he had erased, and which he rants that authors on Jack the Ripper are all money-grubbing amateur hacks that should be ignored (this is a constant theme of his on the talk page), despite several of the authors I have added cites for over the years (Martin Fido, Philip Sugden, etc.) being highly respected professional academics and historians.

And this is not new behavior. He's been doing this for about a year now. In the previous flap the edits I made which he reverted included spelling fixes, changes where I added new sources for sentences tagged as needed sources, fixed spellings of author's names and all sorts of things that nobody can have any reason for assume there'd be "no consensus" to do. More diffs can be provided if necessary, but a look through the history of the article and talk pages brings them up pretty rapidly.

So, please, admins: what are the rules on WP:OWNership of an article? I know what they are, but despite my pointing it out to Arcayne and other editors on the page, Arcayne still just takes it upon himself to declare that I am never allowed to edit the article, and that if I do he'll revert each and every change. Would someone please officially let him know that such behavior is not allowed here? DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have moved to WP:AE. I recommend closing this ANI thread. --Elonka 04:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (redux)

User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about deleting a credible/reliable references (such as a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel".This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.

I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation on January 14. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to lawyering and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".

I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with User:JimBobUSA directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. Grant | Talk 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've participated in discussions in both Yamashita's Gold and Japanese War Crimes and corraborate Grant's description of JimBob's behavior. JimBobUSA appears to be either unwilling or unable to correct his behavior so administrative corrective action is probably necessary. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No satisfaction on the previous complaints, so here we go again, eh? Grant65 fails to mention that he is the only one who has warned me, for removing his false references. I will post below (again) from the only source used to support his reference(The Seagraves novel), a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books.

• The Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate
• Are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese
• The book is full of errors
• One of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity
• The Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have take the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book

Maybe I am over thinking this, but what part of the above makes a novel scholarly. Moreover, it makes for a grand novel, with bits and pieces of real history, fictional characters and buried treasure. Nevertheless, it falls way short of “proving” the Seagraves conspiracy theories are anything but storylines in a novel.

Here is the last complaint thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D Jim (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To balance out the complaint, I would like to copy/paste this editor posting to Grant65:

"You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign." Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above can be found [here]Jim (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, JimBobUSA has merely demonstrated the point that had been made about about his selective/biased use of sources. He refers to the Seagraves' book as a "novel" (some novel) and misrepresents the tone of Johnson's review. He has also failed to post other admins rebutting Guy's comments on January 29. QED I think.

And I will keep re-posting this until some kind of action is taken. Grant | Talk 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Attack post/defamation on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

Hi. There was a rather defamatory post made by an IP (Special:Contributions/122.109.146.74) at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page (dif). I've reverted it from there, and Zzuuzz picked it up on another page, but I'm wondering (given that the person's full name is mentioned) it should be removed from the history as well. Thus, I raise it here. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any obviously identifiable personal information; still, it can't hurt to pass this over to WP:OVERSIGHT for review. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed oversight as the pages are high traffic and admin deleting them will likely cause server lag. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't worried as to which way it should go, but figured it was worth raising here either way. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) again...

Resolved

 – indeffed --Rodhullandemu 12:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned user now editing as Heteroguardian (talk · contribs).--Ave Caesar (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

banned user Logitech95 (talk · contribs) again...

Resolved

 – see note below

Logitech95 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) currently banned by Admin Future Perfect atSunrise.[31]

This banned user now editing as Factmen(newbie), Shawnjw15(newbie) accounts.

Logitech95's edit [32] reverted by Future Perfect atSunrise [33]

Factmen (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) [34][35]

Shawnjw15 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) [36] Manacpowers (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's blocked for two weeks not banned (block-wise) though he is topic banned. Anyway. This looks obvious to me so I'm blocking the socks indef and tagging them. Plus extending Logitech95's block two weeks, to total a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Property is theft!

Resolved

 – Article protected for a bit and participants pointed at DR. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a slow-burning edit war at this article primarily between Jemmy Button (talk · contribs · logs), who wants certain reliably sourced but possibly irrelevant or misleading information removed from the article, and SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · logs), who maintains the material is well-referenced and relevant. They have been reverting each other and talking past each other for about a week, although only reverting at a rate of about twice a day. I had enough of it and posted comments to both of their talkpages and on the article talkpage to the effect that the edit-warring should end and they should agree, pursue mediation, disengage or be faced with a bloc. Shortly after Jemmy reverted without bothering to leave a comment on the talkpage or explain why he was reverting in the edit summary. I think this merits a block, as he obviously does not intend on ceasing edit-warring: "Of course I am edit warring! What else can I do when the other editor will not respond and is edit warring?". Failing that, a final and unequivocal warning to cease or be blocked from an uninvolved admin would help matters.

Disclaimer: I am involved in the content dispute, and have generally favoured including the disputed material, so don't take my word for any of this. Your attention is appreciated, Skomorokh 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article and pointed everyone at dispute resolution. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggernaut and Phil Sandifer

This is being discussed by phil sandifier and others at WT:CMC. - jc37 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 75.51.224.162‎, and the Empire of Somple...

The IP address 75.51.224.162, as well as his/her/its username User:KenshinHolstein‎ and suspected sockpuppet (who admits to at least being a meatpuppet) User:SompleGovern‎, created Empire of Somple (a non-notable micronation with absolutely no mention anywhere other than 2 self-published articles on other wikias and a freeweb website). The article was prodded, 2nd'd, then wound up being CSD'd. The entire time, he/she/it has been argueing that the micronation is notable. Between the IP and the 2 usernames, he/she/it violated 3RR on a couple different pages (List of micronations, Republic of Molossia‎, and Micronation). He/She/It refuses to listen to any explaination of WP:V, and since the article was salted, has now started pasting a copy of the deleted article to Wikipedia:Sandbox [37] [38].

I'd just like to get a third (or fourth) party opinion on what to do about this situation. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

nonsensical RFCU

Resolved

 – already deleted. –xeno (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at this request for checkuser because it makes absolutely no sense. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

11:52, July 27, 2008 C.Fred (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CWii" ‎ (G3: Bad faith request created by apparent sockpuppet of indef blocked user) (restore) –xeno (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a Threat for Ban in Violation of the Banning Concept.

Resolved

 – 18:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to report a complaint for an administrator's violation of the statement "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." ? I have recently been insistently threated by User BalkanFever to be banned for punishment due to variance of opinions on the article Aegean Macedonians. Please visit my personal discussion page. User_talk:Dimorsitanos#Your_comments.

Thanks you. In expectance of your response.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BF isn't an administrator. I'll be happy to notify him of this thread though. Beam 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I read it, you were warned that you may be blocked, not that you may be banned (there is a difference), and the reason for the warning wasn't a variance of opinions, but because of what BalkanFever perceived as being a personal attack by you, on him, not once but twice. _GB^T/C 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning in that case was fair. Let's all try to drop it and move on to articles, please.--chaser - t 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not focusing on whether it is fair or not. But, I do know this was in violation of this page's statement "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." and obviously this so-called personal attack did not aim to disrupt the course of the wikipedia project. It aimed to avoid using expression as "crap" against a nation's sensitivity towards an offensive, as stated at the wikipedia macedonian-related conventions, term of "Aegean Macedonians". As for what a user perceives as personal attack is up to his comprehensive abilities.

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are considered disruptive in and of themselves. When you interrupt another editor's rhythm to call them names, they lose train of thought, have to spend time responding, either by asking you to stop ro getting admins, who in turn have to interrupt their editing, or else let the offending editor continue such assaults until they become a bully, or are thoroughly ignored, at which time it's likely that they begin making directly disruptive edits to articles to get their way because they are being ignored. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not disagree with that. But please inform me of what offensive means in wikipedia. A remark of crap, or a question of civilazation. I know this may disrupt your editing course for a while, but I believe matters of proper conduct are significant enough for the wikipedia course, as they are being mentioned at the wikipedia policies.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

When you find yourself in any kind of disagreement on Wikipedia, don't make comments about other editors at all. Comment only on article content or the topic at hand, along with any sources. Even what you think of as the mildest of nudges or hints about another editor can (and likely will) be taken as an overbearing slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is what Gwen points out bad enough, but then some overzealous user (or even worse admin) will get you blocked for such a thing. Even if you were right, the comment is barely uncivil in the strictest interpretation of WP:CIVIL. Beam 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If my sensitivity towards a wikipediately recognized as an offensive term is treated as an unacceptable uncivil personal attack, it's like admitting this community is a lobby shieldind overzealous administrators. That's what I wanted to know. You proved my point. Thank you for that.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessary take what Beam says as proof that Wikipedia is saturated with overzealous admins. I don't think any admin would block you for saying "Are you civilized?" and I agree that calling other people's positions "crap" wasn't really WP:CIVIL, but I would take what Gwen said into consideration. –xeno (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dimorsitanos, likewise I must say, you weren't blocked and would not have been for such a mild remark. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know, thank you.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that with a mild remark made like that, by anyone, should not be blockable via WP:CIVIL. But some administrators get trigger happy and at the slightest proximity to WP:CIVIL you get a 24 hour for it. Or, worse, an admin who is arguing with you or just doesn't like your POV, or is friends with the other party in the dispute, and you say a "mild remark" you might get blocked. Beam 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SYSTEM BUG: rollback replaced a page by an irrelevant page instead of reverting

Resolved

 – Being discussed at WP:VPT.

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history .
  • In page Unidentified flying object, at 02:13, 26 July 2008 User:68.6.121.57 replaced a word "they" by "there". This was a good-faith edit, but wrong, so at 04:18, 26 July 2008 I reverted it by rollback. But the rollback mechanism, insteads of reverting, replaced the page by a copy of an edit of page Massoud Rajavi (which is a page which I have never edited).
  • At 08:25, 26 July 2008 User:Rursus noticed the change and reverted it, and complained to me in my talk page.
  • In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history , the automatically-generated edit info line "04:18, 26 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (75,793 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.6.121.57 (talk) to last version by Kingrook)" gives the page length of the UFO matter that should be in that edit, not the page length of the Massoud Rajavi matter that is in that edit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happened earlier today, see here. It replaced the page with Henry Cavill in this case. As above, the byte size was consistent with what the editor intended to do, not with what was actually in the article. Someone needs to do a Bugzilla report I guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me as well, except that, instead of replacing Talk:Pikachu with another page, it blanked the page. I didn't realize it had done so (I could see the edit I made and didn't see a blank page) until User:A Man In Black reverted it. However, in my case I was editing normally, rather than using rollback. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more instance I encountered today of the same bug. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread over at WP:VPT discussing this issue: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug: revisions/pagesizes/pagerendering/wikisource not matching up, resulting in blanking or page replacements. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, rollback is for obvious vandalism not something that was done in good faith. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Filed at bugzilla as bug 14933: "New revisions occasionally created with wrong text on enwiki". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per DeadEyeArrow, rollback in such circumstances was inappropriate. "Undo" would have had the same expected result (and may not have corrupted the page as did Rollback) or by editing the previous version. In this one matter it was useful in finding a possible bug, but was rather naughty. I proclaim that Anthony Appleyard look a bit sheepish for not less than, oooh, a minute for misuse of the tool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem rollback has anything to do with this bug: most of the examples given so far have been ordinary edits. As for the inappropriateness of rollback, I'd say undo without a custom edit summary would've been no better: neither gives any explanation of why the revert was done, leaving the original editor to figure out by themselves why they were reverted. Undo with a custom summary would've been better, though. (Incidentally, if you find yourself doing a lot of such reversions of good-faith but mistaken edits, you may want to consider installing TWINKLE and using its "AGF rollback" feature. It's even available as a gadget these days.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "AGF rollback" is any better than a regular rollback or undo without a summary. Without an explanation as to why the edits need reverting, it's like saying "I see that you were trying to help, but you were wrong for reasons I won't explain."--Father Goose (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF rollback allows for a custom edit summary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, sorry. Point taken. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Still seems kinda patronizing to me, though, and I've seen it used without edit summaries, which makes it doubly so.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The "AGF rollback" edit summary comes across to me as saying "No offense meant, but I'm going to politely slap you in the face with this trout. I hope you don't mind." --Carnildo (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, SORRY. I won't do it again. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Starstyler

Resolved

 – Blocked.

I seek an Admin's assistance as this above-mentioned disruptive USER has left a degrading racist remark on my user talk page even though I had politely cautioned him repeatedly not to use weasel words on any articles of wikipedia. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified him of this thread? If not, please do so now. Beam 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That comment's not racist. I'm so sick of people here abusing the term racist. It's a stereotypical comment (i've never heard of that stereotype though) but it is not racist. Please stop calling things that aren't racist, racist. It may not even be stereotypical. Maybe it's him just being a jerk. I don't feel any admin action is needed, a warning would suffice. Beam 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is racist slur and I had cautioned him previously on three separate occasions on three other editors but this is the last straw, note also I am not a newbie, I had left him a note telling him of this. Check before you speak, please. Anyways, he has been blocked following a series of copyvios, disruptive edits and personal attacks of his own doings. You may strike off OR archive this section later. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User blocked by User:Toddst1. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the racist slur? I'm not being rhetorical, please tell me. Beam 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

here slightly modified here. –xeno (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that racist? That's bullshit! So saying Ameriwhore or a Ameripoor is racist too? This isn't even funny. It truly bothers me when people cry racist for stuff like this. It actually degrades the victims of actual racism. Beam 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling somebody's opinion bullshit isn't really going to help... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't call anyone's opinion bullshit, and I'd appreciate you not insinuating I did. What is bullshit is the mindset that any slight of that nature is racist. As I said, would using the term Ameripoor be racist? Beam 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether racist or not, it is a grievous personal attack, and deserves a block.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it grievous, and I wouldn't consider that alone worthy of a block. Combined with all of his other actions, a block is more than deserved. Beam 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, what you may consider grievous is not important - racism is in the eye of the beholder. You appear to fail to understand that other people have value systems that differ from you, and are not therefore helpful in situations like this. I think you should read more and opine a little less often in the immediate future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you need to not patronize me. I have every right to read and opine. And my "value system" has nothing to do with this instance. As Bugs, and Ramdrake point out: Ameriwhore, and Ameripoor are not racist. I'd ask for an apology, but you'd probably tell me that my value system is wrong again. Beam 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a slam against Singapore. How does that make it racist? Is there a Singaporean race? I'd call it uncivil and biting, but it's not racist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you so much Bugs. It's appreciated, especially after vanU seemed to try to belittle me. Beam 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• GUYS, please read up on Ang Mo & Sarong party girl this two terms, they are considered as racist remarks in my part of the world. This user had made just such a remark on my user talk page using those two terms and I deemed it as an insult too if you fail to see it that way. But as we are all entitled to our own views of things, I will respect it and leave it as such same time wished you'd do the same too. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That's why I asked what was racist. I figured it was something like that. If it's true and those terms are considered racist, that I wouldn't contest it. But to say Singawhore or Ameripoor is racist is ridiculous and sad. To attack my "value system" and morality because I feel that way is even worse. Beam 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of concentrating on how others mislabeled the words as racist, perhaps you can instead think about why someone thought it was insulting to them before simply dismissing their complaints as "bullshit" or whatnot? When you handle complaints like these, don't just accept or dismiss based on the face value of the complaint. —Kurykh 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Way to not read the thread. I said the idea that "Ameripoor" is racist is bullshit. Which it is. Beam 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were wrong about that, did I? I'm just saying that your method of handling complaints is poor. —Kurykh 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if you had simply wanted to know what term was racist, especially since you apparently didn't understand some of the terms used, perhaps you should have asked and waited until you received a response, seeking further clarification to make sure you understood precisely what part was considered racist and why, before making assumptions? Bearing in mind your second comment (first was asking him to notify the other involved party) was "That comment's not racist. I'm so sick of people here abusing the term racist. It's a stereotypical comment (i've never heard of that stereotype though) but it is not racist. Please stop calling things that aren't racist, racist. It may not even be stereotypical......". You did ask when Dave responded but again after Xeno pointed you to the whole comment, rather then waiting for a response or seeking further clarification (e.g. you called have asked which specific part of the statement is racist), you simply said again "How is that racist? That's bullshit! So saying Ameriwhore or a Ameripoor is racist too? This isn't even funny. It truly bothers me when people cry racist for stuff like this. It actually degrades the victims of actual racism." If you really feel you can't wait for someone to respond, perhaps do your own research of terms you don't understand before making such presumptive comments...? Also, I don't see anyone attacking your value system. What one person has said is that in his/her opinion, your value system is not relevant to this discussion since in this discussion we are concentrating on user Dave and the poster of the attack, and their value systems. You are welcome to disagree with this view, but please don't accuse someone of attacking your value system because they feel it is irrelevant to the discussion. P.S. You may want to read WP:AGF. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That was sure one long post. Maybe you didn't read Xeno's post in depth (all two lines of it). He said what was racist was Singawhore. I said the idea of that being racist is bullshit. The original poster did not specifically point out what was racist. I take racism very seriously. Saying "Singapoor" or "Singawhore" could be a stereotype. I didn't think people from Singapore were stereotypically poor or stereotypically whores which is why I said I had never heard of that stereotype. Maybe if you read what you asked others to read you wouldn't write a 1400 word post like that. I'm happy the person got blocked, I'm unhappy this turned into a "Beam sucks, I left my good faith on the floor, so Beam definitely sucks." So unless you need the last word, or someone else wants to attempt to show how I suck, archive this. Beam 12:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I think you just don't get it. Yes, Singa-whore is way out of line, so is amerawhore. When you take somebodies ethnicity and alter the way it sounds to make it an insult then that is a ethnically based insult. I have seen your interpretation of other personal attacks before Beam and I think you should probably stick to other areas because you seem to be off base more often than not. If people criticizing your point of view bothers you then don't subject yourself to it, but nobody has said you suck, nobody has attacked you as a person. It is only that you keep contributing to an area where your understanding is not compatible with the rest of the community. Good block. Chillum 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes Beam Ameripoor is out of line too. To pick an insult that draws attention to a nation's failing economy like that is a bit of a low blow(grin). Chillum 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and on a more serious note, saying that something isn't racist because the group of people being slammed is a country instead of a race, while semantically correct, misses the whole point. We condemn prejudice based on ethnicity as well as race folks. Chillum 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that the comment is based on prejudice, as opposed to satire? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Singawhore? Satire of what? Singapore or prostitution? Chillum 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Satire of an apparent stereotype that Singapore is overrun with prostitutes. Vaguely reminds me of something Dennis Miller said about our very own Washington, D.C.: "The city has more Escorts than Budget Rent-a-Car." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Docmartincohen

I previously expressed concern over this user - my concern is, at this point, deepened - it appears to me that the sole or primary purpose of this user's editing Wikipedia is to promote his own work, and denigrate that of people he sees as his opponents. Since having his page '101' as a teaching method for Philosophy deleted, which was a promotional article for a book he wrote, he's been making numerous edits promoting his own work: [39], [40].

In addition, there have been serious problems with him seeming to crusade against other people in his field - tagging two articles as COI with little evidence, and maintaining a page that is seemingly slated for deletion as an attack page.

I'm not sure what to do here - as someone who nominated one of his pages for deletion and tried to courtesy blank the attack page, I feel too close to really step in, but I think somebody needs to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The attack page has now been deleted per consensus, so that is now moot. With only the diffs provided, I don't see the actions as being self promotional but rather providing a basis on which to hang original research comments into the article - I am stretching the meaning of WP:OR to including material supported by off-Wiki (even if published) references that were created by the editor. As such I feel that the problem is more about introducing WP:OR to effect a bias in the POV, in so much that only Docmartincohen is presenting that viewpoint. Under those circumstances perhaps a request for comments should be attempted to see if there is any consensus for either the viewpoint or its supporting references. Once there is consensus it isn't, then it may be removed and any reverting be regarded as vandalism. At that point the services of a sysop may be required. That is my thinking, FWIW. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's an academic with reputable publications. It's not OR for him to add those - I've added references to my publications into articles that needed discussions of their academic coverage. But I have always been scrupulous about notifying relevant WikiProjects, making mention on the talk page, and clearly flagging my COI. This isn't OR, and it's explicitly not OR.

The difference between his actions and mine are that my contributions to Wikipedia span much more than that. The degree to which this user's edits have been to promote his own publications is problematic, and it is a COI problem much more than an OR problem - I suspect that his work is notable, and that there are areas where it should be discussed. But his involvement in the matter makes it harder, not easier, to figure out how to appropriately engage it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While commenting that I am unfamiliar with both the subject and the schools of thought (sic), it still seems that the article involves value judgments which are sourced back to self authored references. It would be more appropriate for this editor to reference a comparable publication, if one exists. If one doesn't exist, then my point of the content being OR remains. I took the deletion of the article regarding his publication/theory as being evidence of no independent review establishing notability, but perhaps you could comment on that? However, it is apparent that this is something that a discussion on an Admin board is not going to resolve. I suggested that an RfC may be appropriate, but perhaps you might try for a third opinion instead? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I should declare an interest here. I'm Jeremy Stangroom. I'm the subject of many of the accusations of Docmartincohen. (I should say straight away that they are all absolutely false; I have no interest in my Wiki entry, and to be absolutely honest, not a lot of interest in Wiki. Sorry!) Anyway, I'm building a dossier of his activities because there's a good chance that I'll pursue legal action against him - though not, I should say, Wiki. If you want to get a sense of what's been going on then you should check out the activities of these users - some of them now blocked (note I am not saying that these are all the same people; that is up to other people to decide): Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels. You might also be interested in IP ranges that begin: 86.220.*.* and 90.17.*.*. If you're really very keen then the User "Flash" on Wikipedia Review also makes for interesting reading. If you want to check some links out then these are worth looking at (just search on my name):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive447#Baggini_and_Stangroom:_The_problem_of_.27living_persons.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.62.211.186

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/VivianDarkbloom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HandThatFeeds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Ophelia_Benson.2C_Jeremy_Stangroom.2C_Nick_Mallory.2C_VivianDarkbloom

I know people tend to think that there are two-sides to every story, that there's no smoke without fire. But actually in this case there is only one story: the accusations against me have not one iota of truth. Happily the evidence supports this proposition, and I also think that I have enough evidence to support a legal action. Thanks.

--Jeremy Stangroom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.75.237 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartincohen, Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels all confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked accordingly. The users are a strong match per checkuser, and the consistent attack targets, and those of the associated IPs, make it an idiot certainty. Admins should expect this person not to quit any time soon, and to sigh, revert and block as needed. I would suggest IP blocks be kept to no more than 24 hours, though - David Gerard (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how does someone get a doctorate in philosophy with spelling that bad? - David Gerard (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I resembel that remark. (Although my doctorate is in Mathematics. Now, a doctorate in Englist literature....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In some places and for some people (although I am not saying this is the case here), as long as the signature on the cheque or credit card slip matches the one on the piece of plastic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify him of this ANi. Beam 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr, have you notified him of your personal complaints that you lobbied in front of this notice board? Beam 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having had some involvement with the editor in question I have notified them of this discussion. Also would like to extend some concerns about Falcon's edits as some are POV pushing. treelo _radda 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, but as Treelo says above, they've been notified. Since nobody seems too concerned one way or another (i.e., only Beam has replied to this ANI thread, the editor in question is quiescent at the moment, and nobody has approached either me or the editor on our respective talk pages), I'm guessing it's nothing to deal with. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time to look at the situation, I'm just a regular jerk, but I'll still give my recommendation. What action do you want to see? Beam 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My query here was a rather generic can someone look into this, rather than any specific action, for a reason. Three people have raised their eyebrows over this editor, adding unsourced, controversial, and point-of-view material, and getting into involved in edit wars when their contribs are in question (reverted, or brought to the talk page). Since I'm emotionally involved with the subjects at hand, I wanted ask for a deteched person to examine this. That would be a routine review of the editors contribs, talk pages, and interactions with (and from) other users. Since my own messages have not elicited a response, maybe someone else can get some cooperation. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy does seem pretty focused on adding unsourced opinion and game guide fluff. He's already been warned for edit warring, though; I'm not seeing any additional actions that can be taken against this user at this time. He would likely benefit from finding a mentor; however, if he continues this behavior, I'd support a short block to get the message across. GlassCobra 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me a bit, and I'll give it some attention. Beam 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" [41] [42] [43] [44].

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. [45] [46] [47] [48].

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks [49], he ignored [50], prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him [51], however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages [52], yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. [53] McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Wikipedia's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is for an AN/I discussion that falls off the page without having been addressed by an administrator. I am reposting it. McJeff (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussions seem inappropriately personal for an article talk page, but fall short of what would be termed personal attacks, so I cant see how to intervene as an administrator. I'd suggest simply treated them as if he meant to comment on the article by saying the same thing, but didnt know how to word it. DGG (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to increase the civility of the discourse between myself and Theserialcomma, but it's not working very well. I admit I started this discussion incivilly, but I am trying to amend that - he is not reciprocating yet. [54]McJeff (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TSC's editing is a bit brusque, but in light of soem of what's going on at that page, like the hiding of an RfC, and contravention of the results, which read like more of a R3O than RfC (in that only one commenter appeared), I can understand the frustration. For clarit,y the 3O went for TSC's position, so three other editors asserted a consensus that TSC was opposing, and did exactly what they wanted before the RfC. Basically, there's a group of Tucker Max fans who won't let anything bad be said about the guy, and an editor seeking to include fairly reasonable criticism: That When confronted for proof, tucker max could provide no evidence of the truth of some of his stories. As Max is pretty much famous for telling such stories, proving him a liar about those stories is certainly notable. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculously off-base. First of all, there was never a 3O - Theserialcomma filed the 3O and RfC at the same time, and the 3O was deleted before it could be addressed. And, the reason the criticism section isn't included is because no sources that met WP:BLP could be located, not because "a bunch of editors won't let anything bad be said about the guy". And there was no "hiding" of any RfC's - the RfC is over, finished, and Theserialcomma's side won, the My Election Analysis article is no longer included as a source. McJeff (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A nationally syndicated radio show is a reliable source. The worst fault there is that it's probably closer to a primary source; additional sources might be needed. However, that's not the same as a lack of any sources. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: i could spend hours searching up diffs and trying to prove mcjeff wrong, and try to show that he's guilty of the the same things he's accusing me of, but i feel that would be an inefficient use of my time. if any admin takes these cherry-picked claims from mcjeff seriously, i suppose i will have to respond. but until then, i don't think the claims look strong enough to really respond yet. by the way, mcjeff had to bump this ANI from the archives because literally no admins responded the first time. it really makes me seem like he has some personal animosity against me. to any unfortunate soul willing to look at the Tucker Max situation and take the time and effort to really examine the reality of the situation, i will honestly salute your efforts regardless of the outcome. it's messy. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff claims "the rfc is over, finished, and ... (the article in question) is no longer included as a source." what he fails to mention is that he simply moved the anonymous blog from a source, down to an external link, and now firmly reverts any attempt to remove it. those are the facts, which were not mentioned Theserialcomma (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorty b

Twinkle misfire. The article is indeed a copyvio of this webpage. I was using twinkle to csd the thing but instead of speedy tagging it, it made me delete it. So do you think I need to restore it and tag it for speedy or should I leave it alone?--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So you wanted to just tag it to get someone elses eyes on it? Twinkle ought ask an admin if they want to tag or delete, because I know sometimes I'd rather tag things than delete, when I'm not sure. If it's blatant copyvio with nothing salvageable, I'd say leave it deleted. –xeno (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few eyes won't hurt. But I think your advise is sound so I'll just leave it alone.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect request for Bleiburg massacre

Hi all. There's an exceptionally stubborn IP (89.164. ...) constantly removing the entire "Background" section of the Bleiburg massacre article and claiming its a "lie!" and that he knows The Truth. Pretty standard in these kind of articles, and normally they give up quickly enough, but this guy has been annoying other editors and me for weeks now. Could someone lend a hand by semi-protecting the article? The User ignores warnings and shifts his/her IP.

• Bleiburg massacre History page: [55]

• Used IPs (on Bleiburg massacre):
  • 89.164.37.8,
  • 89.164.1.50,
  • 89.164.27.224,
  • 89.164.5.220,
  • 89.164.0.246
  • 89.164.13.113
  • 89.164.7.135

• Warnings:
  • [56],
  • [57],
  • [58]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism is only occurring every few days and there does seem to be another legitimate IP address there. Plus, he only started on the 16th, so I'm just going to watch it and suggest more eyes on the article. Also, I suggest going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for a faster response next time and try going to the IP addresses' talk page (especially if he just edited); he might not be seeing the edit summaries. I realize it's highly doubtful but still worth a try. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'll do that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo

There's an edit war at Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo between User:Longchenpa and User:ZuluPapa5. Both seem to have agendas in mind and both of them seem to be trying to own the article. However, Longchenpa is at least being relative reasonable and backing up his edits with sources, while ZuluPapa seems to be trying to whitewash the article by any means necessary. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The war was about whether she has had trouble for "10 years" or "23 years"? I just put it at "trouble for years" and left it alone. One of the lamer wars ever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills article

Does every section need this? [59]. Does my head in just looking at the first two <!-- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - do not delete referenced sentences --> and <!-- This aricle is up for a GA review - please respect that --> . Bidgee (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

seems like something best brought up at Talk:Heather Mills. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hopefully this will be discussed on the article talk page but meanwhile I've removed the hidden messages as clever, good faith GA spam. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were reverted back in. I took them out again. Twice. That someone would think this was appropriate, let alone necessary, is a bit depressing. Nandesuka (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave up after one try. Anything I could think of to say about it seemed too shrill. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any guideline anywhere on Wikipedia about when hidden text should or should not be used? I see it in lots of different articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of but come to think of it, I think there's something to draw from in WP:OWN. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ignorer

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to see here. 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Zocky has twice redirected the article Central South Slavic diasystem to Serbo-Croatian language, without explaining it on the talkpage.
He also never contributed to the article.
Here's the history of edits on the talkpage [60] (only my two edits). Despite my explicit recquirement for discussion, that user ignored that (or he hasn't read the articlecontent and especially the discussion, which is also the violation of rules in heated topics).
Here's the history of edits on the articlepage [61].
At last, there're separate articles about this diasystem on other Wikipedias (and I'm not the author).
I ask admins to prevent any further ignorant redirects (I still don't want to use the term troll or vandal, but after this notice I'll change that, if necessary) that "kill" unwanted article and unwanted topic. Kubura (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for content disputes, and Zocky hasn't done anything requiring any sanctions on himself, you, or the page itself. He's since posted at the talk page of the redirect in question, and I suggest you work it out there. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed, there isn't anything for administrators to do here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming.[62][63] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[64] Request outside opinions. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• [65] and [66] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, [67], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [68].
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [69].
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [70], [71], [72], [73] as well as on his personal blog, see [74] and [75].

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question: If I beat the shit out of him for his comments about us 'pedians than yes, I should not edit his article. Beam 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not weighing in one way or the other. I am only offering up evidence for consideration by others who can be more objective than myself. If this evidence amounts to nothing then simply ignore it.

On the narrow issue of this having an effect on Wikipedia's ability to offer objective criticism, if the criticism in question is only supportable by one individual (or a small handful) I would question whether that criticism belongs in the encyclopedia in the first place. At that point it begins to look very much like someone (or a small group) using the encyclopedia as a forum (basically Solomon's point) rather than it being truly objective criticism. The encyclopedia has many voices and we should rely on them all, not just a few. I very much doubt that those supporting the consensus view are so limited in number as to worry that the elimination of a single voice on a couple of pages is going to cripple their ability to offer criticism. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority as we keep hearing. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is simply a guideline for editors who have just arrived at wikipedia, who are not yet familiar with the wiki rules who may have a conflict of interest to stick to, in order to make sure they don't violate the usual wiki rules like NPOV when editing wikipedia. If WMC is violating NPOV or does something else which is objectionable, then that should be discussed. WMC is, of course, a very experienced wiki editor, and WP:COI doesn't apply to him. Arguably, WP:COI is redundant and should be deleted. Most editors edit anonymously anyway... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis is correct that WP:COI does not apply, or, rather, that it does not apply directly. However, editors with very strong feelings about a topic are generally advised to exercise caution with regard to it. The situation which is raised by this report is a serious one, and there is an appearance, rather easily seen, of a cabal supporting Connolley. I am not claiming that there is a literal cabal, but it became clear to me when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight that there was a troubling pattern of what appeared to be tag-team reverts, uncivil edit summaries from the beginning, all the way up to improper blocking by an involved administrator. Attempts to bring this to the attention of involved administrators, on my part, were met with incivility and what I can only describe as arrogant dismissal. I have avoided, so far, forcing any issue, hoping that these editors will recognize the damage that is done to Wikipedia when a group of editors, and especially if it includes administrators, become attached to some POV as being NPOV, with any new editor with a contrary POV being, then, a "POV-pusher." NPOV, actually, is not in opposition to any POV, but transcends them; another way of putting it is that it includes them, though, because of WP:UNDUE, it isn't quite that simple. In any case, I'd highly recommend Connolley avoid editing, in way likely to appear controversial, articles on his critics! While it is not literally a COI, as described in WP:COI, it is, in substance, and it could come back to haunt him. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing to look at is conduct. If he does anything, then deal with it, but until then, let it ride. WMC is generally a pretty cool guy, or at least he has been in my interactions with him. Jtrainor (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a pattern here of administrative abuse and a lack of consensus in Williams edits.

Based on past edit history, it will not be long before William starts blocking Lawerence as he has before, dozens and dozens of times.

What I can't figure out, is that other administrators get their admin friends block editors they are in edit wars with. I guess some admins can act with total, open impunity on wikipedia.

Lets be honest here, William has enough supporters who will back him up no matter what he does. Those supporters will tell say "let it ride", as above, and this dispute will be quickly forgotten, just like the dozens of others.

PS, please no admin threats on my talk page, lets keep the discussion here. Inclusionist (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that articles on scientific topics are different in nature than articles on politics and require different rules. We have had bad experiences with uninvolved Admins protecting the Global Warming page until editing disputes were resolved.

By consensus we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources. If a few new editors come along arguing that this consensus violates wiki policies and start edit wars, the last thing you want to have is a neutral Admin who has no background in science, who sees this as a content dispute. It is far better to have Admins who are experts in the field like WMC and Raul to use their Admin tools to protect the integrity of the global warming articles.

It may be that this is a bad idea for politics articles, because there you usually have equally valid POVs. But in case of scientific articles the only valid POVs are what you can read in the peer reviewed scientific papers.

On the global warming page itself we don't have problems anymore, because everyone (including the few sceptics) has accepted the consensus and sticks to it. But there are related articles like the one about the book by Solomon, in which ridiculous claims are made. All that WMC has done is to make a few edits directly related to the topic. E.g. he wrote that some of the people Solomon calls scientists are not scientists. This is something that is verifiable. There is absolutely no conflict of interest here.

Conflict of interest can be potential problem. but not in this case. You can e.g. imagine that WMC and Solomon were rival scientist (working on some other topic than global warming on which there is no consensus), supporting different theories. Then you could imagine WMC writing negative things about a book written by Solomon in the wiki article about that topic, citing his own papers. Count Iblis (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a very serious problem in Count Iblis's comment, an approach and attitude that, in fact, is causing quite a bit of difficulty with the global warming related articles.

articles on scientific topics are different in nature than articles on politics and require different rules. We have had bad experiences with uninvolved Admins protecting the Global Warming page until editing disputes were resolved.

We do not have different standards for sources on "scientific topics." Topics, in fact, cannot be neatly divided into scientific an "other." Global warming is at the same time a scientific issue and a social issue. "We have had bad experiences." Who has had bad experiences? I can tell you, someone with a POV different from that of the "involved administrators" may well have had a bad experience running onto ownership of the articles by administrators, and Wikipedia process requires that article protection, blocking, and other use of admin tools be by uninvolved administrators. Further, there is no exception to the rules against edit warring for "science articles." What's the "bad experience?" Let me guess: the article was protected in the "wrong version." But that's easy to fix: just find consensus in Talk. The foundation assumption of this comment is that there is some consensus that is being violated by interlopers. Show it, and it should be easy to get an uninvolved administrator to change the article. What I've seen, though, is an article being protected and then an involved administrator has changed it to the preferred version, on his own initiative. This is no different from an expert in any field using tools. Should experts on politics use their tools in service of what they know to be true? Are, indeed, administrators charged with determining "truth," or what the "scientific consensus" is (which is a different creature than Wikipedia "editorial consensus," though certainly there is interplay.

By consensus we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources.

Again, what consensus? It should be realized that "global warming" has been construed as covering a wide range of articles, including biographies of various individuals, articles on the public controversy, etc. Sources for what? Biographical information? Peer-reviewed sources, generally, are superior to other sources in quality, but there are exceptions, and no universal rule can be stated. Ultimately, Wikipedia process makes decisions through editorial consensus, and any group of editors defining themselves as the experts and thus as better able to judge than others is inimical to this. What has happened is that a group of administrators have treated some editors, immediately upon arrival, as "POV pushers," with uncivil edit summaries, and then, even though involved in edit warring with these editors, have used their tools. Admin tools must be reserved for usage by uninvolved administrators, and if some exception is to be made to this, it had better get past ArbComm. In every other field, experts in the field are cautioned against COI, even if it isn't formal, because individual expertise is no substitute for reliable sourcing, and expert editors, while respect is certainly due, do not have any superior rights. Why would "science" be an exception?

If a few new editors come along arguing that this consensus violates wiki policies and start edit wars, the last thing you want to have is a neutral Admin who has no background in science, who sees this as a content dispute.

But it is a content dispute. If it were truly a consensus, there would be no difficulty at all maintaining it, problems would be rare. First of all, is there such a consensus? How was it obtained and where is it documented? To what articles, specifically, does it apply? Who or what process makes that judgment? I'm afraid that what this looks like to me is a group of editors deciding that their opinion is "consensus" because, they believe, it is supported by "peer-reviewed" articles. But peer-reviewed articles don't have any opinion on Wikipedia editorial policy; to think that they generate some kind of automatic approval for one POV and disapproval for another is synthesis. Nobody should start edit wars; but what happens is that a new editor comes in and makes an edit which appears to him to satisfy policy. And, let's assume that Count Iblis is correct: it would satisfy "ordinary" guidelines, but this is a science article, it has -- he claims -- different rules. What really happens is that the edit is immediately reverted, and the new editor is presented with a brick wall. The initial edit summary is often uncivil, a not very subtle message of "Go away, your kind is not welcome here." And some new editors go away at this point, convinced that Wikipedia is dominated by some particular POV. Others will revert, and will be promptly reverted again. A standard group of editors participates in these reverts, and I haven't seen much attempt to negotiate consensus with the new editors. Edit warring happens on both sides. Edit warring is not how articles should be maintained. And none of this assumes that the new editor was "right" and the "consensus" was "wrong."

It is far better to have Admins who are experts in the field like WMC and Raul to use their Admin tools to protect the integrity of the global warming articles.

Count Iblis, are you aware that if what you are asserting is what has been happening, these administrators have been violating policy and, if they don't recognize this and change their ways, they would almost certainly be desysopped?

On the global warming page itself we don't have problems anymore, because everyone (including the few sceptics) has accepted the consensus and sticks to it.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they gave up. If it works, it works. Do the skeptics have an opinion that the global warming page reflects consensus? Or could it be that this article has simply come to reflect consensus, that skepticism is treated fairly there?

But there are related articles like the one about the book by Solomon, in which ridiculous claims are made. All that WMC has done is to make a few edits directly related to the topic. E.g. he wrote that some of the people Solomon calls scientists are not scientists. This is something that is verifiable. There is absolutely no conflict of interest here.

Is there "peer-reviewed source" for WMC's edit? What, indeed, is a "scientist?" There are various definitions. WMC may not have a formal COI, but he pretty clearly has a POV. Further, Count Iblis seems to have confused COI with being right. I.e., a COI editor may make a correct edit, verifiable, and it would still be a COI violation if it is controversial. Does WMC have a COI with respect to global warming articles? Well, if he has a professional reputation to defend, he might. That is, his profession creates a COI. I'm not prepared to assert that this means he should not edit those articles, but that the COI issue isn't simply stupid. More to the point, an expert administrator, of any kind, should probably refrain from using the tools based on personal expertise in a field, i.e., content decisions. And this seems to be precisely what Count Iblis is asserting should happen. He knows the field, the argument would go, so he would be better able to recognize what is POV and what is NPOV. This is, in fact, a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole concept of NPOV, and of editorial and administrative policy. I'm an expert in certain fields, and, as a result, where I once might have been neutral, I now have some strong opinions. Some of these opinions are based on extensive personal experience and familiarity with the literature. It does, in fact, enable me to recognize propaganda from advocates in a field, to distinguish that from what is widely accepted among the knowledgeable. But I would not dare to use admin tools, if I had them, to enforce this in articles. I'm involved in the field. I must do what any editor does, find reliable sources -- I'll state my opinions and experience in Talk, but that's not a source, merely background -- and find consensus with other editors who may have very different POVs from mine. Even if I think -- and maybe even correctly know -- that I have ten times as much experience and knowledge as they do.

I want to thank Count Iblis for expressing this position. It makes it very clear what has been going on. --70.17.152.24 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of this comment is, of course, totally off topic and a distraction. You and WMC want to assert that certain people are not scientists yet you offer no WP:RS to WP:V that claim despite your assertion here that this is WP:V. If you have the sources to verify your claims then use them, otherwise the assertion is WP:OR. And if you wish to consider The Deniers to be a "science article" because it is related to global warming science then your sources have to be in peer reviewed journals by your own standards as articulated in your comment above.

We have already noted in the conversation on this topic that if WMC, as a notable person, wishes to level this particular assertion at the people he claims are not scientists, then let him do so and go through the process of having that published. Nothing is stopping him from doing so. And, if he successfully completes that process we will then have the WP:RS source required to WP:V the claim here in wikipedia which we can duly record as his opinion. Absent that, it remains unpublished WP:OR which, as a wikipedian, he is not allowed to introduce into the article. For some reason this basic point seems to escape those trying to assert the claim.

Regardless, this issue is not germane to whether or not WMC has a WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)