Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

ThuranX

I was told on WP:WQA to bring this here if it continued. Thuran X has been uncivil and downright impossible to work with on the Glenn Beck talkpage and doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF at all. This behavior has also taken place at the Carly Fiorina page, as was brought up at WQA. In the initial WQA report I included the following examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Carly Fiorina talkpage,Carly Fiorina the last of which earned him a warning. His reply to the warning: shows that he learned nothing, and has been supported by his edits to the Glenn Beck page after the WQA was put up (he was notified on his talkpage of it being there): [6] [7] [8] (With reply: [9]), [10], [11], [12]. Finally one editor snapped, and ThuranX continues to accuse everyone of having an agenda. I ask that something be done so that civil editing can be resumed. Soxwon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor, but there also appears to be a clear-cut instance of WP:CANVASS: [13]. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving the canvassing thing to the side because I see that as minor and not relevant to the main point. I've been monitoring the Glenn Beck page for a little while now, and did recently have to warn ThuranX about civility (it's not the first time I've done that unfortunately). Obviously his block log points to an ongoing problem there (I have blocked him, recently, for a 3RR violation but not for incivility), and I believe there was a recent ANI thread about this very issue though I'd have to check. ThuranX arrived at the Glenn Beck article angry about the content, which I think was understandable since there were/are serious problems, but his editing style has not done him any favors there, and indeed has proven a significant hindrance to collaborative editing.

From what I've seen, ThuranX is a conscientious editor who has made a lot of good contributions to the project. But he (I believe "he" is correct) is also often a bit of a bull in a china shop, and tends to inflame situations unnecessarily.

History has shown that we simply do not deal with these situations, and I think we can all think of any number of examples where a good contributor is disruptively uncivil, repeatedly so, and we simply cannot come up with a good way to handle it. I don't think ThuranX will appreciate this thread or care much what is said here, but I'm wondering if there are suggestions (assuming others agree in seeing this as a long term problem) for how to proceed. A user-conduct RFC would be a logical step at some point, but I'm not sure we're there yet. If Thuran would simply agree to chill out/tone it down there would not be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that will happen given past interactions I've had with him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In the general sense of what do we do with good contributors who are too abrasive, we do the same thing we would do with a so-so contributor who is too abrasive. There is no provision in any of the policies that say "If you contribute X good edits, you get a free pass on Y civility or personal attack violations". Editors who feel that way absolutely boggle me. a single incident of incivility might be enough to drive 1 or more contributors from the project. This concept of "net benefit" is also ridiculous. Because the moment they make another editor unhappy with editing here, I don't care how many good contributions they've made, they are not a "net benefit". This is a huge problem on wikipedia. I've seen editors complain about this before, and I've seen news stories and other social media stories pick up on this as well and the complaints it generates there. There is a general perception that some editors are protected no matter what they do, and it has a grain of truth. Think about some of the wheel wars and drama we've had over certain users. In pretty much all of those cases they were in clear violation of policies, yet they were coddled, snuggled and given cookies by some editors for months or years before they were finally (if ever) cut off. Yet another user doing 1/10th of what they did was indef, the key was thrown away, and unblock requests or appeals were quickly shot down and everyone carried on with their day. Wikipedia is a big project and if people can't work with the project and discuss things civilly then the community needs to do something about that. There are lots of existing editors and new editors everyday to do the job. The project doesn't live and die on a single editor but it does live and die on how the community feels.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's time for an RfC so much as it is for an indef block, or maybe a six month timeout contigent on this user firmly agreeing to mend his ways. His block log shows many instacnes of incivility but, as far as I know, he has apologized for few -- if any -- of them. That other users annoy him is reason enough to write (as a mild example) "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." [14] Alternatively, as ThuranX has been complained about again and again and again and nothing is ever really done, perhaps it could be made clear that he has special dispensation to act as he does without consequence. IronDuke 02:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should start WP:Protectedusers so people can refer to it before they file a complaint to see if there is any point? It might cut the drama down significantly. It would also be a handy one stop for news organizations. In all seriousness, if short blocks don't do the trick, do we have an admin who can make the hard block and take the next appropriate step?--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure ThuranX falls under the "protected" editor category. He's been blocked eight times by my count and unblocked twice, with neither of those being drama-inducing "wheel war" blocks from what I can gather. Editors who are "protected" generally get away with incivility without being blocked, or if they are blocked someone swoops in and unblocks. I don't think that's really the case with ThuranX, and I'm not sure he has any particular protectors. The fact that he is not an admin removes one possible layer of protection, since administrators are (regardless of protestations to the contrary) far more protected from blocks or other sanctions then are non-admin editors.

I don't think general comments about "protected editors" are particularly helpful to this thread. I fully agree, and said above, that we have a problem dealing with veteran editors who also have issues with civility and the like. The problem stems largely from the fact that people disagree about how to proceed in those kind of situations. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. I have no idea if someone has brought ThuranX to ANI before and said generally, "what do we do about this behavior?," rather than specifically complaining about one incident. If a previous general complaint did not result in any sort of attempted solution, perhaps it will be different this time, but that would require us to discuss the specific issue before us. IronDuke puts forward the possibility of an indef or otherwise lengthy block, and that would be one option. If others have specific suggestions that would be great, but if there are general complaints about our ability to deal with long-term editors who don't abide by certain guidelines then I'm not sure this is the place for that. For example complaining about the "net benefit" argument does little good when no one here has invoked it, implicitly much less explicitly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, there are many previous AN/I threads regarding this user (with whom, I should say, I have interacted negatively in the past). A sampling of the complaints: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]... There's more, I think, but, well, nuff said. IronDuke 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful, and obviously the notion of giving ThuranX a long term block or starting an RFC or ArbCom case has been broached before. I'd like to hear from other (particularly uninvolved) editors and admins on this, and also of course from ThuranX, as to what can be done about this long-term problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just read through the August part of the Glen Beck Talk Page--I try not to get involved in these topics, but I couldn't escape knowing. It seems clear that Thuranox , while trying [to bring some degree of NPOV to a previously biased article, has gotten overinvolved. I'm not sure I blame him--the POV pushing done by most notably BigTimepeace Bytebear is some of the most outrageously biased article editing I've seen here. I think we can deal appropriately with this issue by banning BTP Bytebear from this article & talk p. and all other articles and talk pages related to GB) indefinitely --or, if indef is out of fashion, 6 months, I generally think than an angry response to provocation is as wrong as the provocation, but in this case, the provocation is so great that I think I'd be prepared to say that any reasonable person might have gotten upset in dealing with it. But the language Thuranox used was out of control, and I don't know any way of impressing this upon him that would be effective. If BTP Bytebear is gone from the article, that'll certainly help things. There will still be some fighting there, and if Thuranox continues editing there, he'll have to do it with more restraint. If not ,we should take the preventative action of having him stay away from the articles also. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

← That's a pretty strong accusation DGG. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the interruption. Upon clarification I strike my comment. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling, indeed I very much hope, that DGG (whom I quite respect) is confusing me with another editor whose handle also begins with a "B," namely User:Bytebear. ThuranX and that editor have gone toe to toe at the Beck article, and Bytebear's editing has indeed been very problematic, as I have pointed out on the article talk page and on that editor's user talk page (I also blocked them for edit warring). I have only been acting in an "adminly" (as opposed to editorial) fashion at Glenn Beck (trying to put a stop to the edit warring and calm the waters a bit), and while I have the article watchlisted and have made a number of edits there in the past I have not edited the article since March. So I think this is just a case of mistaken identity and if so then no worries at all, but I would hope DGG could clarify that, because I certainly don't think "outrageously biased article editing" remotely applies to anything I've done over there.

Operating on the assumption that DGG meant to refer to Bytebear (right-DGG) , I would also be willing to consider some sort of topic ban. Indeed I was working on a formal proposal along those lines a week or so ago (gathering a bunch of diffs to show what I took to be a seriously problematic pattern) but decided to shelve it to see if Bytebear's editing improved. If we are having a conversation about a possible topic ban I can present the diffs I put together (no one else should bother gathering them, what I put together is pretty comprehensive), though personally I'd like to see if progress can be made on the article talk page first.

I don't think Bytebear's problematic editing means ThuranX gets a free pass, and as mentioned that editor's civility is a longer term issue, though a recent comment by Thuran is, to me at least, encouraging. If we our going to talk about Bytebear (or about me!) we might want to start a subthread just so this doesn't turn into a complete muddle, as Old Stephen would say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I did indeed mean Bytebear. I apologize for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To BTP, since we've out dented already, Actually I got that impression from the mention of how many times its been brought up at AN/I and nothing really being done. This is the second thread on this page dealing with a long-term editor who has civility issues that no one seems to want to do anything about. See the bungie section up above as another example. While no one has wheel-warred over him, no one has rushed to deal with him because he's a veteran. DGG suggests excusing it because there was apparent POV pushing, but I still fail to see that exception in the policy. When we get into that thinking, where do we draw the line? This user was really really really annoying so it was okay for me to chew him out. How many "really"s makes it okay?Do we need 3? how about 2? what if its only 1? We get down to a subjective interpretation of how annoying some user was and who thinks the other user was justified in snapping. Sorry no. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that poisons this community. It will always be the people with the buddies who gets the pass because the other guy was more annoying. Subjective application of these policies doesn't help a single person on wikipedia. There is a reason those kinds of exceptions aren't in the policy. I don't care if the other party is talking about what he did with your dead relative's corpse last night, its the internet. Report them and move on. If someone is supposedly POV pushing, start DR, get third opinion, report it to the relevant projects, and move on. There are millions of articles out there. Conduct the debate civilly, though passionately if you want, or don't be involved in it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

normally I'd agree with you, Crossmr, and very strongly. I think this case is an exception. the initial state of that article was so much of a panegyric that the subject would have been unrecognizable. Bytebear wasn't the only person getting it that way, but he as a major and continuing and very persistent influence. A number of people tried, and I think it actually took Thuranx's intervention to get things going sensibly. Strong medicine, in this case needed. Maybe a little too strong, but the only other way of handing it would have been to topicban Bytebear at an earlier state--and we didn't do it. I think that ThuranX should take great care he doesn't do this again, when they probably will not be so well deserved. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a majority of the comments have been directed at myself and Morphh who have tried to be cooperative and act for the good of the article. There's also the matter of his comments at Carly Fiorina as well, which seem totally unjustified. If Bytebear was the problem, he certainly missed the target. Soxwon (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see that at all. There still aren't any exceptions, regardless of what he thought he was trying to accomplish. The ends doesn't justify the means when it comes to civility. In addition his comments at Carly Fiorina completely invalidate that argument. If this was a one time issue with no priors and no other issues on other articles, you _might_ (in the smallest sense of the word) have a case. But this is clearly not a problem restricted to this article in this case.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say that I'm the editor that snapped (not my proudest moment, but I did redact the profanity and clarify it). I've been personally labeled by ThuranX as "disingenuous", a "fanboy", "whitewasher", "pov pusher", "pretender", bad faith editor, and essentially Bytebear's meatpuppet. I don't think I've deserved any of the labels, but that's beside the point to this discussion. The uncivil behavior was unacceptable and created a hostile environment. I don't agree with DGG that he really helped this article move along, in fact, I think his discussions have been disruptive and created more conflicts and issues than needed to move the article forward. I got there a couple weeks before ThuranX, who arrived on August 15th[24] and at that point we were already moving toward some good progress in including the criticism.[25][26][27] I think it was primarily the work of civil editors working together that moved things along. I think these changes would have happened with or without ThuranX, and likely faster without. I'm conflicted as I would like his perspective and opinion, but we can't get there if he's always leveling attacks and avoiding the policy discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Give ThuranX and Bytebear ultimatums: Any further incivility (broadly construed -- in fact, so broadly that it would be safer not to comment on editors at all, just on edits, and comment carefully on them) or edit warring at Glenn Beck/ Talk:Glenn Beck will result in both a one-week block and a six-month topic ban on the article. If BigTimePeace wants some kind of different solution, it would probably be a good idea to give it to him. If Bytebear is POV-pushing, too bad for Wikipedia, because AN/I has no tools to address that, but sanctions on incivility and edit warring can be ratcheted up. This is a "solution" in that it makes the admin's job easier, but it is no solution for the article or the editors: they are allowed to game the system by baiting the other side into edit warring or an incivility violation. The editor who blows his top first loses the game. It's a sport, not a solution. There is no solution, and I started a section below to start groping for an answer. But in the meantime, without a solution, let's make BigTimePeace's job easier: Give 'em ultimatums. -- Noroton (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since you're considering equal punishment, I don't know that I've seen Bytebear be uncivil or issue a personal attack (could be wrong). He's just been very strict with policy interpretation, so it makes adding content more difficult. ThuranX calls it the Civil POV Push. On the opposite end, ThuranX has been very loose with policy. So aside from politics, you can see where we get the huge clash between these two editors. I don't know what the best course of action would be, but I thought I would clarify what I'm seeing. Morphh ^(talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I really didn't intend to cause such a stir. I have apparently been to strict with my interpretation of WP:BPL relying on the exception for 3RR on such articles, thinking my reverts were in compliance with the rules applied. Rather than applying the rules to facts, I applied them to POV. The edit war in question was an issue of WP:SYNTH where two facts were presented side by side and a direct conclusion was heavily implied. I reverted in the hopes that someone would reapply the information more fairly avoiding POV, but it didn't happen, so I continued to revert assuming the 3RR did not apply under the rules of BLP, and eventually modified the text to a more fair version, which was promptly reverted. I think I have edited in good faith, if not misguided. Since my ban, which I take full responsibility, I have been discussing the issue at length trying to gain a more complete understanding of how BLP applies in this case. I still disagree with some of the assessments by Bigtimepeace, but I am willing to discuss them. ThuranX on the other hand dismisses every suggestion and comment I make with accusations of conspiracy and protectionism, even when other editors agree with me. I think my points are valid, and I admit to having strong convictions about them, but I don't think I have demonstrated a inability to discuss and work with other editors, other than the unfortunate butting heads with ThuranX. Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, ThuranX is by no means the only person who takes Bytebear's editing behavior to be protectionism. Sometimes this seems to take the form of a WP:TAGTEAM with other like-minded users who, like Bytebear, have received warnings and bans related to Glenn Beck and/or other US Politics topics. This obviously does not excuse any of ThuranX's behavior, but it is certainly a frustrating experience trying to improve this article. There is a larger problem here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the original post in this thread: As the admin. who issued the "warning" to ThuranX I suppose I should say something here. Yes, I saw his reply. No, I didn't feel a need to respond and inflame the issue. I know the rules fairly well thank you, and I suspect that ThuranX does too. American political articles are going to elicit emotions here, everyone has their own POV. I suggest that all parties simply stick to the facts, the reliable sources, and address the topics and not the editors. All ya'all just need to cool it. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any provide any diffs of Bytebear being uncivil. If they have been, someone should provide those diffs, if they haven't, then why put this odd restriction on them? Thuranx's behaviour extends beyond this article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Bytebear has really been all that uncivil, or if so only somewhat. The issue with that editor is POV editing, not incivility, and that was not why the thread was opened which is probably part of the confusion..

This thread has gone pretty far afield from where it started, jumping over to the editing behavior of another editor, and moving into a general discussion below. I doubt anything will come of it now, but that's fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wider picture: a new set of rules is needed for this widespread problem

I've said this before and I'll risk sounding a bit like a broken record and say it again: Wikipedia has a problem with its Wild West atmosphere on articles with controversial content (mostly politics, nationalism, probably religion, I think). We treat them like we treat any article in terms of what guidelines and policies editors are supposed to follow, but our rules are inadequate. POV pushers are attracted to these articles and inevitably offend editors who also have strong views on a subject, and there are plenty of these editors when a subject is very controversial out there in the world beyond Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough BigTimePeaces to try to keep the peace, or enough admins like DGG to even recognize that there may be more than one problem. As a result, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are, frankly, a disgrace. And that's after many editors have wasted their time on them and many admins have wasted their time dealing with the problems.

We'd lose a lot of good editors if we ban all of the ones who have a difficult time with civility, but who mostly keep it to a minimum. It's extremely hard to identify a POV-pushing editor unless you are also well-acquainted with the issue, and it takes not just you but a consensus to do it. That's hardly ever gonna happen. Article probations are complicated to set up, involve too much work to maintain and can be gamed by POV pushers.

What needs to be done is to have some kind of different set of policies and guidelines for editing on articles & talk pages where we find we have excessive fighting and a lack of constructive consensus-building. The rules should involve how editors treat each other and how consensus is formed, they should encourage calm, rational, cordial discussion and encourage more editors to participate (overwhelming POV pushers with reasonable editors from the broader community who are interested in thoughtful participation that actually improves an article in an NPOV way -- this is not really too much to ask: it's what we're asking now), and the rules should be very easy and clear for any admin to enforce or editor to understand (unlike the rat's nest of an explanation we have for WP:CONSENSUS and related pages and WP:CIVIL and related pages).

AN/I threads are fingers in a very leaky dyke. Instead of this problem coming back to AN/I over and over, with different editors at different articles, the dyke needs to be fixed. -- Noroton (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise good points here, but I worry it's impractical. And you'd get a lot of pushback from editors about two sets of rules, how we determine which article goes in what cat, etc. I also think we lose more editors due to the toxically uncivil environment that prevails here than the few who would storm off in a huff after being told no, they really can't tell other editors to "fuck off." I'd also note the editor in question has made no move at all to suggest that there's any kind of problem with his approach, and it bothers me when people take a sort of "Hey, let's move on" attitude as if the person in question had actually said he was sorry and promised to be better in the future. IronDuke 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I already decides on article probation, as does Arbcom, so we could let them decide whether to put a contentious article into this probation-like status. You'll get no more pushback than we get now, another avenue would be to let a consensus of editors decide at an RfC. All three avenues should be available, just as we would do now for article probation. You don't set up the new rules for any particular article until we see problems with the article and get complaints. This isn't a plan or even a proposal, of course, just an idea of the type of thing that might be done. The real point is that some different kind of set of rules is needed. I would think admins would be happier with an easier system. IronDuke, if you scroll up to my proposal for this particular case, you'll see that I'm not excusing any conduct. POV pushing does not excuse incivility, but solving the incivility problem does nothing to solve the POV problem (by removing editors you may make the POV problem worse). I think the real trick is to channel discussions into calm, reflective, civil exchanges that won't be distracted by comments on editors and where editors will decide on content and decide what to say based on what they really think a neutral article would look like. That's the hardest environment for a POV pusher to succeed, for edit warring to succeed and for incivility to seem right. It's the kind of atmosphere that happens in civil, even cordial discussions, but even in hot, contentious discussions when there is some force or authority, understood by all and seen as fair. You get that kind of atmosphere when you have rules and enforce them consistently, Wikipedia doesn't do that and doesn't get that atmosphere. Editors know that POV pushing and edit warring can succeed, and incivility may or may not result in sanctions. If we can attract more editors to take part in civil, focused discussions, POV pushing will be much harder, and we're more likely to get better articles. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Noroton, we have loads of guidelines on how to behave, and an escalation policy. The lack of structure on this particular page makes this problem a recurring one. I am not thrilled about the layout of RfC but it is a logical next step. One can also make a community proposal here, or refer to the arbitration committee. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner for part of the year, and hope to be timely later on :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And what we don't have is effective enforcement. Who the hell wants to spend a month (or two, or more) in front of Arbcom until all else has failed, unless the editor is already stark, raving mad and the case is no longer about saving the article but has instead turned into a feud in which the goal really is to get the other side punished? By the time something gets to Arbcom, Wikipedia has already failed, often in numerous ways. The articles are what this website is supposed to be about, and they need much more than some Arbcom judging. AN/I is inconsistent. RfC is an enormous investment in time and effort. None of these avenues provide editors clear, consistently enforced regulations for conduct in contentious-article discussions, nor do they encourage good conduct -- they just discourage bad conduct in the sanctioned editors you're watching. Really, Casliber, this system sucks. An analogy: At a busy downtown intersection the authorities have set up four stop signs. But the intersection is so busy, and enforcement is so light and inconsistent, that plenty of people ignore the signs, plenty of accidents result and good drivers come to understand that using the intersection is dangerous or maybe a waste of time, so they use other intersections. Drivers seldom call the cops, sometimes even after an accident, because they see little good coming from that. Should the judges say "we have loads of stop signs telling drivers what to do, and laws in place to sanction traffic violators. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner ..." I have a personal metric (I think it's an easy example to understand): On Wikipedia, Bill Ayers can't be even said to have been called a terrorist -- the thing he's famous for -- despite his being called a terrorist by every reliable source in creation (New York Times, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, dozens of scholarly and other sources, in fact, just about every source, regardless of political outlook and going back decades -- I've got the proof). The only time "terrorist" or "terrorism" appears in the Ayers article is when we quote him denying it. And it's not as if we didn't have an RfC, an AN/I report and have it brought up in front of ArbCom. I should not have had to go through Wikipedia's clunky dispute resolution system to enforce a 2/3 consensus. Nor is it my fault that after months of effort, followed by weeks of anguish, I gave up. It's only one among many, many POV problems where Wikipedia has failed. We don't need any more guidelines in how to behave, and it's not just a problem of whether authorities will enforce -- it's a system that runs off the rails because it doesn't now have the means to encourage good discussions and effectively, quickly discourage bad behavior on discussions that are inevitably contentious: something like a closing admin, perhaps a better definition of consensus (and possibly a lower bar for consensus), an easier way to canvass more editors, stronger incentives to propose compromises. That's a pretty long list of changes, but they're essentially based on what we already do and tweaking it. Just don't tell me we don't have a problem when we have articles looking like Bill Ayers does, even after the contentious discussion and 2/3 majority. This is just one failure of the system, which has resulted in widespread POV-related failures. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we don't have effective enforcement. Far too often are veteran editors allowed to insult people willy nilly because they think they're "right". They have a group of friends who will back/unblock them if anyone questions them, or have found the admins to be indifferent to their antics. We really need a page which describes how many edits it takes to trade in for a pass on the various policies.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility applies to all articles. There are many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil. If an editor can't do that, then they should go do something else. If they persist in putting themselves in situations where they become uncivil, then they damage the project. Uncivil editors push away other editors and at times cause some editors to leave the project. I don't care what they think justifies the behaviour, nothing does. We don't need another set of guidelines. Use dispute resolution, get third opinions, ask for a wider consensus. if you can't do that, go to other articles. If you still can't calm down on other articles, go do something else entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Some article topics will be more contentious than others. This often results in lousy, biased articles on Wikipedia. In fact, bad discussions go hand in hand with biased articles, which should not be the case when numerous editors have been involved in editing and discussing an article. Civility enforcement does not always apply to each article. There are not many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil if they are constantly confronted with POV pushers. You want the most committed editors, the ones who have a passion for explaining a topic in an intelligent, neutral way, to be productive, but they are precisely the editors who will be most driven away by POV pushers or who will turn to bad behavior because they are the ones who care the most about a particular topic -- along with the POV pushers. Drive away the good, passionate editors and you're left with the passionate POV pushers. It happens a lot. It happens because Wikipedia's set of rules and enforcement of them encourage it. It's systemic. You should not be complacent about it because it hurts the encyclopedia enormously. (I know, this is really not the place for this thread. I need a blog.) -- Noroton (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here, perhaps this clip from scrubs can clear it up [28]. Civility not only applies to every article but it applies to every single page on wikipedia. Why is it that passionate POV pushers can be civil and passionate "good" editors cannot? If POV pushers are being uncivil, deal with them equally. If they're not being uncivil, why can they argue their side without that? There are many people who are good editors who can argue their point without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. There is nothing wrong with passion. There is a problem when passion degenerates into personal attacks and insults. If "good" editors can't explain their side of the debate without using insults, they have a problem. that isn't systemic. They need to walk away and form a larger consensus and deal with it appropriate. Incivility is never acceptable just because you think you're right. Right is very subjective and we don't apply rules like civility subjectively.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a civility policy on a Wikipedia page doesn't work by itself. And it isn't just a problem of inconsistent enforcement (although admins have found by experience that the policy can't be enforced with absolute consistency -- an unwritten policy that Wikipedians can only know through familiarity). For you to say that we should simply deal with POV pushers the way we would with anyone else is fine by itself, but you've ignored the fact that POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility. It also happens to be the prime instigator of biased articles. Much of this is concentrated on contentious articles (often on very prominent subjects), which also happen to generate a large number of complaints at AN/I and ArbCom, although the problem goes far beyond administrator/Arbcom workload. With our current set of policies, contentious articles generate a huge amount of problems and at the same time the huge amount of time and effort that goes into them generates incredibly little good content. The waste is simply enormous. So is the stress.

In the real world beyond Wikipedia, there is a reason why some people have had a longstanding ban on conversation about sex, politics and religion in dinnertable talk they want to keep polite. There is a reason why certain spots on the Internet are notorious for their toxic manners, and a reason why we have Internet-era words like "flame wars" and "trolls". The reason is that when you combine a lack of clear rules and inconsistent enforcement even of them with contentious topics, you get nastiness and a breakdown in necessary consensus building. It is simply not true that we have an unlimited supply of editors for any topic who are capable of long-term civility in the face of constant POV pushing. (And don't forget that even editors who can remain civil are put under quite a bit of strain by having to put up with POV pushing.) The good editors not only find that their facts and reasoning falls on deaf ears among POV pushing editors who are simply determined to bias an article, but they find that Wikipedia puts up roadblocks to dealing with POV pushing: WP:CANVASS makes it difficult to recruit non-POV pushers to discussions; discussions can go on forever and be difficult to read for newcomers; there is no clear, bright line showing editors when consensus has been reached (or exactly what the consensus is) or where civility is breached or where edit warring begins and ends or where discussions should end -- this informality is fine for noncontentious articles (it usually works best), but it is toxic for contentious articles. Think about it: a casual lack of rules is never the case outside Wikipedia when there is no hierarchy of people (who have the power to enforce ad-hoc order) and where the goal is to get something done regarding a contentious issue. Instead, we appoint chairmen, secretaries, etc., and adopt Roberts Rules of Order (not that I'm proposing any of this). At Wikipedia, enforcement of what few rules we have is often left up to the editors on the page who are already debating the substance, so one editor's citing of a policy like WP:CIV or WP:BLP isn't trusted by the editors he is arguing with (and it's often a strained application of those policies anyway). We have a few areas of Wikipedia where discussions are more structured: deletion discussions (XfD), ArbCom cases, Requests for Adminship and elections. They all have their creaky faults, but they all work better than our more contentious articles. Something similar should be set up for articles identified as so contentious that normal talk-page regulations and other policies aren't enough to keep them orderly and productive. This would improve the articles, make editing an happier experience (or at least avoid some of our sadder experiences) and, overall, be easier on admins. This discussion has gotten too long for AN/I, and I think I'm straining the good will of people who come to this page for its main purpose, so this will be may last comment. At some point I suppose I should come up with a proposal, or at least an essay, or maybe find another place to discuss this. -- Noroton (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility Here is your problem. You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. If you feel so out of control that you cannot control what words you type on a screen, then wikipedia isn't for you. The rules are very clear. Discuss the content, not the editors. Don't resort to personal attacks and insults in an attempt to make your point. There are plenty of steps to DR, and none of those are disallowed by CANVASS. You can use third opinion, posting on relevant projects also shouldn't be an issue for CANVASS. Posting on individual talk pages, coming to AN/I for content disputes, going to the village pump, help desk, other article talk pages, etc. may be. The problem here is that you seem to find fault with the POV for making you or anyone else uncivil. They don't make you do anything.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. That's not what we're disagreeing about. Obviously, many people are baited and many take the bait. POV pushing acts like baiting to anyone who cares about an article. I've said repeatedly, including repeatedly here, that it isn't an excuse for somebody else being uncivil. When the same problem crops up again and again, it's time for Wikipedians to look into the causes and try to do something about it. Your position is simply to let certain editors get into tangles that could be avoided. But of course, reducing the temptation to incivility is not the only reason to try to make Wikipedia more difficult for POV pushers to influence. There is that other concern we have, the actual articles. I've explained all that, and you've ignored all that while personalizing the discussion, and even described my position as the exact opposite of my position, even after I've pointed out the difference, so it's time to stop replying to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My solution is to let them seek DR. If there is a problem with the DR process deal with that appropriately. A problem with DR doesn't excuse civility. Whether POV pushing is the cause, a cause, or some cause all boils down to the same thing, it isn't a cause at all. The only cause of incivility is the user failing to control themselves. In a brand new user we issue warnings and work with them. An editor who has never before been warned for a problem also gets a warning. like baiting to anyone who cares about an article it comes down 100% to personal responsibility. If someone is baiting you, don't take the bait. If you agree there isn't an excuse for incivility then there is no reason for Thuranx to get a pass on this. This is a long term problem he should be well aware of the issues he's had in the past and stayed out of those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr - POV is not the cause. Everyone is POV pushing somehow whether they realize it or not - in the above for example you certainly have stated your POV about Bill Ayers and that you are sorry that consensus didn't allow it to be represented in the article. No one can say - my POV is the neutral point of view and you people are all biased. That is why we have policies to determine as objectively as possible how to weigh viewpoints in articles. However one can argue in favour of a point of view without being incivil, and that is what we all have the responsibility of doing. PArt of being civil is standing back when one sees that the majority does not agree with one's arguments, and to recognize when better arguments are being made. I don't mind people with agendas as long as they engage in civil discussion, try to reach a compromise and do not stubbornly stick with one particular way that they want things to be.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing is not the cause, but it is a cause. Isn't there a definition of POV pusher somewhere on Wikipedia? Maybe in an essay? You're confusing having a POV with pushing one. Of course I have a POV, but what we're supposed to want in articles is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say on a subject. That's the difference. Is my estimation of that affected by my own POV? Sure, but it has a limited effect, especially since I try to keep the two things separate in my mind. It isn't that difficult to deal with an editor with a different POV and also different idea of what a neutral article would be. For one thing, both of us will want just about the same thing, usually. We can also direct the discussion toward the facts (that is: What do the best sources and the "consensus" among the reliable sources say?). Discussions about facts can generally reach a consensus. After a while of assuming good faith, you know whether or not the other party is looking for a neutral article or pushing a POV. If the other party is a POV pusher, that should offend the rest of us. And that's a temptation to incivility, and it's more of a temptation when the good editors often don't have effective means to counteract that POV pushing. What matters in the Bill Ayers article is what the sources say, not what I personally think. It's a good example because it's very clear, it seems to me, whether or not the WP article reflects what the reliable sources say. (Having a goal different from pushing one's own POV allows an edditor to add positive information about a subject the editor generally has negative feeligns about. I've been able to do that with Bill Ayers, his wife and Obama in Wikipedia articles -- I want that information in the articles if it helps the readers understand the subjects better.) -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Noroton & Crossmr both have parts of the answer. First, there are people who can't be reasoned with effectively: although they may come across as polite & willing to work towards a consensus, they still are pushing for content which does not accurately reflect the subject in a manner which is useful to the average reader. (One case I recently encountered was an anon IP who objected to my adding some text to the article on Ethiopian Christanity which incidentally mentioned local pagan influences -- although various pagan [or non-Christian] influences have been identified & are commonly accepted in almost every branch of Christianity, & the material in question was taken form the Library of Congress website. His POV was that Ethiopian Christianity had no paganism in it, QED. The conflict was resolved simply by outlasting him -- not an optimal solution.) Sometimes article parole is the right answer.

Then there is the problem of dealing with POV-pushers for too long a time; Nietzsche's words about "beware fighting monsters, for you may become on" is appropos here: deal with too many people who are clearly editting in bad faith, & you start to assume everyone is -- or are naive to the fact many are. WikiBurnout then affects for the person, which can be uglier in some cases than others -- but is almost never pretty. This is not a healthy solution in the long run.

On the other hand, I don't think the problem is so much civility, but respect: it is not that hard to learn how to be disrespectful without be incivil, so only the newbies & the careless get caught up in civility problems. And many volunteers here are not confident enough about being "real" Wikipedians to no never see sarcasm or condescension where none is meant. And we can respect other Wikipedians without agreeing with them, or even liking them: part of the secret is to disagree with an attempt at politeness, not being by being snide (even though that can be a lot more enjoyable & fun to read). Yet to talk about civility, assuming good faith, & respect, one has to acknowledge that there are some who do not deserve it.

(Crap. I tried to explain this as a polar situation, with Noroton's & Crossmr's statements as the two opposing points, but I fear I am rambling here. I only hope something of my intent came across. I'm not going to post here until I've had a couple of nights where I average much more than 5 hours of sleep.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure people who argue with people they don't like for too long will sometimes end up being uncivil. However annoying they are, that still is no pass on civility. No one made them do that. It should be clear to many people fairly early if one side is going to compromise or not. If not the good editor needs to step back and engage DR and other editors. If someone is trying to push a non-legitimate POV giving the discussion a larger audience should solve that problem. We may understand why the user became uncivil in that situation. If it is the first or second time, a strong warning may be warranted, but if the user has a history of getting in debates and becoming uncivil then they no longer get a pass. I would never call for a block on the first civil offense, but if its a 3 year old problem with many warnings, a reasonable editor should have realized he has trouble in certain situations and stay out of them before he gets too hot under the collar to apparently control himself. The editor is responsible for his or her actions. We may understand them in the situation of a new editor who is learning or an editor who has never made that kind of mistake before, and offer guidance, but when faced with a long term problem, we can't chalk it up to inexperience at dealing with those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution for controversial subjects is to insist on verifiability and reliable sources. This has the effect of producing quote-heavy articles with huge numbers of footnotes. The Israel-related articles are a good example of this. That's where our policies take us, and it works, more or less. In the footnote-heavy articles, there are disputes, but they're over things like whether some reporter at the Manchester Guardian or a book by a pot dealer in LA should be considered a reliable source. Those get resolved eventually. Editors should be encouraged to edit along those lines. --John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that (example, and elsewhere on that page there's much more). Doesn't always work. Conclusion: Wikipedia allows its many POV-pushed articles to suck, articles be damned, readers be damned, editors be damned. If the only solutions are to look the other way or ignore the facts in order to worship consensus or walk away, then there is no solution. Wikipedia: We Make The Internet Suck a Little Less. Except When We Make It Suck Just As Much, If Not More. Not even a mountain of quotes, and various foothills elsewhere on the page I just cited, nor a 2/3 consensus could overcome Wikipedia POV pushing. It isn't the POV pushers mostly at fault, it's the system that empowers them. It's Wikipedia. What type of person would be satisfied with an encyclopedia that, essentially, lies? How much discomfort with a lying encyclopedia can you handle and still want to participate? At what point do the lies subvert the morale of the whole project? The editors spouting uncivilly at POV pushers are your coalmine canaries -- you won't see the editors who decide not to contribute to an article or who get disgusted and leave entirely. -- Noroton (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light

A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have pushed absolutely no fringe viewpoints unless you consider NIST BIPM and J Wheeler as radical. In serious discussions like this one, it behooves you to get your facts straight. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Wikipedia cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

llywrch: Veiled implications that a sloppy editor's confusion between D Tombe and myself indicates some subtle connection does not reflect well upon you. As for assessing whether there is in fact a lynch mob at work, or at least a bunch of editors that refuse to follow the rules of normal WP discourse, these matters are not settled by cute aphorisms or Aesop's fables, but by looking at the facts. I do not believe a lynch mob is normally considered to be a conspiracy (a feeding frenzy is more like it), so Extreme Unction's first law is not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So how would you explain his confusion while assuming good faith? If it was a mistake, he should have apologized before now. As for my link above, it was simply a gentle way to let you know that just because a large group of people are opposed to your view, it does not mean there is a lynch mob, either metaphorically or physically. But we are growing weary of your repeated insinuations of its existence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not someone else's. And, call it a lynch mob, or a gang, or a gaggle, or a crowd, there are a bunch of hectoring, haranguing editors that are impolite, make denigrating sneers, and who do not try to address the issues at all. Whether they are in cahoots, or feed off of each other's horrible behavior, the result is the same: no attempt to deal with substantive issues, just more harangue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are such experts, let me ask you this: If I were driving my car at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: With the lights on, you might see the error of your ways?? Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so you don't know the answer. I thunk so. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only take action against Brews, if we first have a consensus on the talk page that the discussion on the revant issues are closed and that any further discussions would be reverted on the talk page. If Brews were to start a new discussion that is very similar then we could revert that. If he were to revert that change or keep kicking off new discussions that we would ahve to revert again and again, then we could come here and raise this issue.

But the current situation on the talk page is not like that at all. In fact, other editors are still starting discussions on related issues, see e.g. here Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue about content, but behavior. After being admonished a couple weeks ago by an uninvolved admin for "a blatant violation" of WP:OWN, Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility, plus created a content fork of the article outside of consensus or prior discussion. As for myself, who has contributed minimally to the article or discussion page, his opinion is that I am disqualified to contribute to the page. My response to this personal attack is here, as I saw no need to add to the toxic environment at the article talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba's claims that "Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility" is unsupported, and his frivolous attitude is well described in his own words, quoted here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people that come running to AN/I to get their opponents blocked from a debate on the talk pages are those who are not confident about their own arguments. It is gross cowardice to try and win an argument by getting the opponents blocked on the basis of empty allegations such as 'incivilities', 'disruption', and of course the all time favourite 'assumption of bad faith'. This thread is yet another case of it. Unfortunately a precedent has already been set that demonstrates that this shameful tactic can be successful. Tim Shuba has now entered the debate, and he has already demonstrated that he knows very little about the topic in question. His major contribution so far has been to delete a paragraph in the history section which deals which the convergence of the directly measured speed of light with the speed of light as determined indirectly from the measured values of the electric and magnetic constants. This was perhaps the most significant fact in the entire article, because it dealt with how James Clerk-Maxwell concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave. That is easily the most important historical landmark in the history of the speed of light, and it has now been deleted by Tim Shuba who is posturing as a poor innocent victim who has only contributed minimally to the article. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have upgraded David Tombe's page ban to a topic ban covering anything related to the speed of light article.[29] If there is any further gaming of the rules, disruption, or advocacy of theories about the 1983 redefinition of the meter, blocks should follow. Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite my lack of sympathy for David Tombe, I'd like to point out that this is misdirected. Except for his posts here & on user talk pages he hasn't been contributing to anything related to the speed of light -- & there only because because he can't defend himself unless he mentions it was for his edits to his topics -- for his last 100 edits. Except for a few edits to luminiferous aether, they've all been to articles on Canadian currency. He has been staying away from the topic. And as for editting user talk pages, unless he's been posting to them after being told not to, I can't see how that's become an issue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Jehochman should be censured for this unwarranted act of a topic ban on D Tombe which has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if my opinion on this matters. I pointed out here that an editor was violating an ArbCom ruling, & was brushed off with the same reasoning that would allow David Tombe to make these edits on Talk pages. Maybe my ability to reason is defective, maybe I need more sleep, or maybe Wikipedia policy is enforced more rigorously for some than for others. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Speed of light (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There are suggestions above that Brews ohare has engaged in tendentious editing at Talk:Speed of light. Can anybody present a selection of diffs to substantiate that claim? Brews ohare, why is your editing any different from David Tombe's? Why would you expect different treatment if you commence editing in the same style? Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, You clearly haven't investigated this issue at all. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Brews ohare is in good faith, that he (like Tombe) believes that what he is saying is correct. However, he keeps repeating the same argument over and over on Talk:Speed of light, and it is getting beyond tiresome to keep dealing with him, although I just made another attempt here. I count 16 talk page edits by Brews on 31 August (UTC) which isn't over yet, 32 on 30 August, and 25 on 29 August. He edited the talk page 578 times in all of August, which puts him in first place by a comfortable margin (Martin Hogbin is in second place with 225).[30] Scanning the Talk page, with all the back and forth, would give you a better idea of the character of his participation than diffs; I added the talk page info as the third item under this section's heading. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned Brews ohare about his behaviour here: responses can be seen in this talk page section. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you wish to advertise your attachment to me of sentences you have fabricated all by yourself. Very sloppy, at best, actionable at worst. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His comment about your username was uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fabrication of fake evidence is more acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why I am singled out as "keeps repeating the same argument over and over", instead of those that respond over and over (in effect, not their exact words) "We don't have to agree with sources Wheeler; Jespersen;Sydenham; we don't have to support OUR views; we are RIGHT."? I have written a carefully sourced presentation of my views in the subsection of speed of light - Speed of light by definition - which has not been accused of being "crackpot science" or "fringe viewpoint" (and various other complimentary terms) even though it proposes exactly the same viewpoint contested. This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead, come what may, whatever its merits. I have explained sufficiently to them that their proposed lead is poorly conceived, and very readily understood to contradict the subsection Speed of light by definition. These editors don't care about that.

As far as I am concerned, these editors are free to mangle the introduction as they wish. I will not address this subject on my own initiative any longer. If I am asked about it however, I will state why I don't like it. That is not "pollution of the Talk page" (another complimentary term), it is just being polite. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Brews' is quite welcome to take a voluntary wikibreak from Speed of light whenever he/she likes.

I hardly need to look through thousands of contributions: after all, Brews has made more than 500 contributions to Talk:Speed of light in the last month [31]. It is sufficiant to look at the arguments that he/she makes at each occasion. The proposed lead is not in contradiction with the section on "Speed of light by definition"; Jesperson is in favour of fixing measurement units to fundamental physical phenomena, just after the passage that Brews decides to quote; "This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead" is hardly the case, given the length and depth of the discussions.

Brews' editing statistics alone support the case of contentious editing; anyone who wishes to look further (brave as they would be) need only look at the pages to which this editor has attached his/her attention. Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you so much Physchim62 for your apologies regarding fabrication of evidence. Your theory that statistics can demonstrate contentious editing is pure nonsense, and your reading of Jespersen is illiterate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, 583 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light during the months of August 2009… 428 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light 15–31 July 2009… It's interesting that I have to go back from 15 July to June 10 to find Brews' previous comment (the last of 37 comments he/she made on the page in just over two days). Anyone else wishing to contribute to these pages must read through tens if not hundreds of kilobytes of Brews' comments (often very repetitive, but you can't know until you've read them) before then can hope to add to the discussion. This manner of editing is obviously not constructive, it is simply spamming, the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster.

I said that I found the gap before 15 July in Brews' comments quite interesting: what happend on 14 July? This complaint was raised at WP:AN/I, concerning a separate article but similar behaviour (I quote: "The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users!") and also concerning Brews ohare. The gain for the editors at Talk:Centrifugal force seems to have been the loss for those interested in Talk:Speed of light!

I think it is time to call time on Brews' disruptive editing. If it can't be done here, I shall take the matter to a forum where it can be done, and I shall not be so indulgent as to limit my request to articles related to the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to present a little more than the number of edits as evidence of my causing trouble? Please don't invent them. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of edits *are* evidence of causing trouble ... not automatically actionable, but the article talk page is clearly being subjected to unusually high activity from a small set of users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So I should not correct grammatical errors, punctuation or add second thoughts to a response because that increases my count? I should limit myself to one edit a day, and respond to all and sundry in a listed sequence within one edit. That would fix things, eh? OK, if that works for you. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Headbomb

Ilywrch: First, I did not confuse Brews Ohare and David Tombe, as you claimed. In fact, I specifically mentioned that this was not the same case, see my words: "This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you hadn't, a lot less drama would have ensued. I came here looking for advice, not heads to be chopped.
Brews/David: I am not a "Example text", nor a "Example text" and do mind WP:NPA. I'll leave it at that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then mention the person you are complaining about, not who that person behaves like. Your sloppy writing caused any Wikidrama here, & if didn't understand what you wrote you need to accept at least part of the responsibility for that. And I only responded after it appeared that no one else would offer advice -- so kindly turn down the attitude when my only motivation was trying to help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Brews because I wanted a neutral look at what was going on. I take no responsibility for people reading something else than what I actually wrote. There's no need for personnal attacks, so please refrain from making them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb - Perhaps you will take responsibility for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and only the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Is that how things are best done? Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

It has degenerated into a full blown edit war over the Speed of light article again. This article and its talk page are an object lesson in how not to Wikipedia. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war: there is a simple hijacking of the page by an unruly mob that does not use the Talk page, removes sourced material without comment, makes nasty pejorative comments to get the temperature up, and insists upon a narrow stance contrary to sources. Very professional, very understandable, if you are a hit man. I hope this example is useful in getting WP to adopt a process with appointed editors that can eject those that behave this way. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just referring to you, Brews. The Talk page is very much in use, but not in productive use. The same people who are arguing about everything on the Talk page are reverting each other's article edits and substituting their own singular visions without any semblance of consensus at to many issues. That is what I understand to be an edit war. No one has hijacked the page any more than anyone else; it's a free-for-all. One issue on which there is broad consensus, though, is that your contributions to the article and the Talk page are misinformed and are not supported by the sources that you cite over and over, and that your behavior is tendentious. —Finell (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

James Caan (entrepreneur)

Resolved

 – Khan became Caan as a change of spelling without altering pronunciation. This is now well enough documented if it wasn't before and any further attempt to change it should be considered vandalism. Rd232 ^talk 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can someone help me on the James Caan (entrepreneur) page? There's some disagreement over whether his previous name was "Nazim Khan" or "Nazim Khant". The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of "Khan", and I've set this out on the Talk Page (before my IP changed just now :P), but it's still getting repeatedly reversed, without explanation or engagement in discussion.

There has to be a possibility that this is simply vandalism. Clearly false former names have been added in the past, and (whilst of course I don't have a Wikipedia account myself) the vast majority of the "Khant" edits are made by anonymous editors. One non-anonymous editor has also supported the "Khant" change, but they've only made one edit not to the James Caan page (also to a biography of a living person), and this seems a bit suspicous too. However I don't want to jump to any conclusions, which is why I've come to this general page.

I hope someone more experienced will be able to help!

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it. You might wish to try WP:3O if you feel no consensus can be achieved on the article talk page. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Aditya (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I can determine, there's no good-faith dispute at all here - the "Khant" changes are simple vandalism. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but I can't see any decent sources that support that spelling. If this behaviour continues, I'd generally suggest semi protection of the article, but that would prevent all IP editing, including the original poster here - have you thought about creating an account? ~ mazca ^talk 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP making the changes seems rather static. If the behavior continues, we can simply block it. — Jake Wartenberg 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"I was called Nazim Khan, and it suddenly struck me that I could spell my surname in a different way". No dispute here. – iridescent 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon 82.6.15.242 and Macgrissom currently edit-warring the page attempting to keep the Khant spelling. Possibly one and the same and he logged out to try to avoid 3RR, hard to tell. The anon's edits look like they're basically all trying to slip it in, with one other BLP Vandalism as the only other thing to his credit. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your help and advice with this one. It does seem clear that this is vandalism, and I'm afraid it's continuing. I guess some way of protecting the page from both the anonymous and named vandal may now be needed. I do recognise that this will stop me editing the page too (and yes, it probably is time I get an account!), but I don't actually have a particular interest in James Caan! I just value the Wikipedia project, and don't want it to be undermined in this way.

Rather worryingly, the "Khant" spelling found its way into the Independent yesterday (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/james-caan-a-dragon-in-his-den-1779143.html), and this is now being cited by the vandals. Unlike the Daily Mail's "Khan", this time it doesn't come from a direct quote, and my concern is that the Independent journalist has drawn their information from the vandalised Wikipedia article.

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens on Orly Taitz

Resolved

 – Jclemens and Viriditas are interacting cordially after agreeing to reset the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since 28 August, and for the last several days, I have been discussing the good article nomination of Orly Taitz by User:Jclemens on his talk page. I have not edited the article in question, but have concerns about stability, sourcing, and NPOV. Recently, I took my concerns from Jclemens' talk page and raised those same concerns on the article talk page. (See my comments over at Talk:Orly Taitz) In response to a heated discussion, Jclemens has declared that he has "topic banned" me from this article[32] after I have explicitly stated that "I intend to continue to maintain my neutrality by staying on the talk page" and not get involved in editing the article. To recap, Jclemens nominated the article for GAC, I responded on his talk page asking why I shouldn't quick-fail it, and then I placed several criticisms and suggestions for improvement on the discussion page, noting I had no intention of editing. Now, Jclemens declares I am topic banned. Jclemens is currently the top listed, primary contributor to Orly Taitz, with 106 edits.[33] I have been actively discussing his recent GA nomination, and several issues on the talk page. While I'm sure it is tempting to topic ban critics of our work, I don't think his topic ban declaration against me is legitimate. Could an uninvolved administrator look at this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, the topic ban is inappropriate. For established users like you, it takes community consensus, not one admin, to impose a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will voluntarily stay away from the page for 24 hours to let things cool down. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's totally inappropriate. While a topic ban isn't a use of the tools exactly, it's pretty close. He's involved in the article (heavily, as you note) and shouldn't be 'banning' people from it, not least of all for suggesting that it be quick failed. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Per my message at Viriditi's talkpage and my notice to Jclemens I have unbanned Viriditas from Orly Taitz related pages. As noted in both comments, I express no opinion on the appropriateness of Viriditas' actions but only that Jclemens flawed use of admin authority (as they are involved in both editing the article and interacting with Viriditas' in regards to it). I note V has voluntarily agreed to withdraw from the issue for 24 hours, which will permit Jclemens time to commence a topic ban request should they wish to pursue that course of action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses

Well, despite WP:NOTIFY, no one seems to have waited to hear my side of the story before rushing to judgement.

• User:Viriditas has engaged in unprovoked, repeated and disruptive incivility against me and another editor, (diffs: "wikilawyering and obstruction", "Civil POV pushing and Wikilawyering", "wikilawyering and obscructionism", and "cherry picking sources") despite multiple warnings to cease doing so (diffs: [34], [35], and [36]), has asserted that objections to his conduct are simply "an attempt to change the subject" but despite those protestations, his incivility is the sole reason I topic banned him: (diff: [37])
• Having said that, this entire evolution raises several questions:
  • Protonk, your assertion that I topic banned Viriditas for suggesting the article be quick failed may coincide with his version of reality, but certainly was not my motivation, and in fact, I told him to go ahead and fail it if he wanted about 16 hours before his attacks began on the article talk page. I'm no stranger to WP:GAN as a nominator or reviewer, both before and after becoming an administrator, and it seems quite illogical to presume that I'd try to use a topic ban to boost an article's chances of passing. I'd appreciate it if you'd care to qualify your statement in light of my explanation.
  • Per KoH's comment, is it within the purview of an individual administrator to impose a topic ban, or not? Practice seems to have been that admins could do so per their discretion, subject to community or arbcom review, even though no such mention is made at WP:TOPICBAN.
  • I am unclear how my editing of an article restricts me from acting in an administrative capacity to enforce appropriate policies. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say anything about "if you edit an article, you can't take action against someone who is incivil on the article talk page"--rather, it says quite the opposite. I doubt a full reading of the record will find my actions objectively unreasonable: ("When you're ready to discuss problems, rather than editors, simply drop a note on my talk page asserting your desire to so focus in the future. Note specifically that you are not expected to change the content of your objections for this topic ban to be lifted, merely their presentation. Dissent is absolutely welcome, assertions of cherry-picking, wikilawyering, and the like are not"). If such interactions are now considered by the community to be "totally inappropriate", then may I suggest WP:INVOLVED be updated to reflect such?
  • Speaking of community involvement, I provided what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable, policy-based condition (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) condition for the removal of the topic ban. Is there a particular reason why this remedy was deemed to be inappropriate, and another admin unilaterally reversed the topic ban without waiting to hear my side of the story? Isn't this discussion substantially moot, in that Viriditas has agreed to essentially the terms of the topic ban anyways? Topic bans, like all tools, are designed to promote collegial editing. If Viriditas is going to return to the talk page and present his arguments in a logical, dispassionate manner and cut out the accusations of bad faith and misconduct, then my entire goal in enacting a temporary topic ban has been achieved. I still view temporary topic bans as a more appropriate and lower-level response than blocks for repeated incivility which doesn't rise to the level of vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a continuum of problems that we deal with in articles. I consider myself 'involved' in about 3 dozen articles (give or take). If I revert vandalism and block the user on Adam Smith, I am neatly in the right. It is (almost) literally impossible to imagine a reasonable person who could view "Adam Smith eats poop" as anything other than vandalism and see a block for a named account with no contributions save blatant vandalism as anything other than a VOA. It is another matter entirely if I see an editor who is editing tendentiously or disruptively on Adam Smith or being obstinate and disputatious on Talk:Adam Smith and I block/ban them from the article. There are no shortage of different views on what might have been going on there. Perhaps another outside observer would see the situation as a dispute between two editors. Perhaps another observer would see the editor I viewed as disruptive as correct in their interpretation of sources. It is impossible for me to disengage my perspective of the content from my judgment of the conduct. More importantly, it is impossible for me to show to others that I have done so. You are involved in the Orly Taitz article. If you don't see yourself as involved, then others do. As such, you shouldn't be taking any admin actions there which could fall into gray areas. If you don't see your action as being well within the gray area, then accept some feedback: it was. I may be wrong in my quick summation as to the impetus for the topic ban. If I am I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion. But I don't feel I'm wrong about my interpretation of INVOLVED. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Apology accepted, thanks. If I implied that I thought I was not involved, then that was not my intent. I most certainly am involved in the article and any assertion from anyone that I'm not is laughable. Having said that, I believe where our viewpoints diverge is that I haven't interacted with Viriditas in any administrative capacity: there's no history that could be construed as historial bias against the user in question. Thus, if I am uninvolved with the topic banned editor (Viriditas), and the topic ban has nothing to do with the content of an article with which I'm involved, there's no particular reason for me to avoid dealing with a problem. I realise that the last clause is important and disputed, but maintain that both my words and actions demonstrate that the topic ban was related to incivility rather than article content. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The problem is that your involvement with the article precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance. The appropriate response to perceived incivility on the article talk page would be to get some input from another admin. They might disagree with your read and suggest that you too seek some dispute resolution. If you were just two editors involved in a dispute you would have to go through some route like that. But because you are an admin you 'can' (distinct from should) skip that and remove him from the page. IMO INVOLVED was written to proscribe a course of action like that. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • So there are two assumptions which I challenge: 1) that my involvement "precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance". Really, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know the difference between civil discourse and personal attacks. I dislike unprovoked accusations of any sort, and I don't think you'll find my actions in this case inconsistent with those in any other. I see no logic in the presumption that I am incapable of telling incivil users to take a time out until they can comport themselves civilly. 2) That INVOLVED supports the recusal of admins in all situation in which they're involved. In fact, it says absolutely nothing of the sort--there are no prohibitions in that section, just a recommendation that administrators may want to seek others to perform blocks. The clause that you're probably referring to, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." is up the page a bit, but there's still nothing applicable there: one has to seriously torture the definition of "advantage" or "comflict of interest" to include simply expecting civility in a dispute. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
            • The first one wasn't completely an assumption. In my opinion, you topic banned someone with whom you should have entered dispute resolution. Obviously you and I hold differing opinions about it, but I imagine that your involvement with the article might have led you to undertake an action you otherwise wouldn't have undertaken. That said, it is also possible that you felt WP:TOPICBAN applied neatly and also felt that literal involvement with the article didn't preclude the use of the tools (broadly). I also am going to repeat my charge that this falls well away from obvious problems on the continuum of unpleasant editor actions. The diffs you provide above are either garden variety wikilawyering, warnings from you to him, or responses to warnings. Where is the clear and actionable incivility? Protonk (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Your definition of actionable incivility differs from mine. At any rate, Viriditas and I have come to an understanding about the article and how to amicably promote forward progress, so I'm unsure of the need for future discussion on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps?

So, two questions remain, and here is as good a place to discuss them as any:

• Is a topic ban a tool administrators are entitled to use?
• Does WP:INVOLVED no longer reflect community consensus? Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Those don't seem to be relevant, as these aren't actually in dispute; these, in fact, seem to be framed less as a way of discussing any actual issues as they seem to be a way of steering towards a pre-determined conclusion justifying your actions. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, no, actually, it was my intent to see if I was misinterpreting policy or misunderstanding consensus on the topic. The justification of my actions is up-page a bit, after which post only one editor has seen fit to call my actions questionable. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, no, actually, since neither of those "questions" are actually in dispute, the answers are obvious. The purpose, again, appears to be form of rhetorical framing: "Do you agree with X? Do you agree with Y? Yes? Therefore I must be right!"

As for objections, I see at least two clear objections above, and if you'd like, I'll add a third: yes, it's very obviously a misuse of admin authority to declare a topic ban for the purpose of winning a dispute on an article for which you are heavily involved. It's not even borderline here. Are there a minimum number of objections you need before you are able to take this on board?

Also troublesome is your "archiving" of the Talk page discussion without any actual archive I can find, an action which seems indistinguishable from plain blanking or deletion. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it unfortunate that you assume bad faith on my part, presuming that the topic ban was a content dispute rather than a civility issue, rather than taking my statements at face value, especially in light of the fact that Viriditas has apologized on my talk page for his phrasing, and I've endorsed his content concerns. Feel free to follow-up with me or him on our respective talk pages, but I'm pretty sure this ANI thread is done. Oh, sorry about forgetting to add the archive box--someone's done that now. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't think there's a problem with a single admin enacting a topic ban without discussion (which means basically "you edit here again, any admin should be blocking you")? A single block of an editor for being disruptive I can understand and support but to go around and say that you alone can declare that editors are not allowed to edit certain topics without discussion with others seems highly aggressive. Add in the fact that you look like you could be involved. I actually don't care if you have a real conflict of interest, it's the perception to a neutral observer that it could be an issue that's concerning. Block individuals if you like for being disruptive but don't act like you have the authority of the community to enact topic bans until you actually have it. Banning policy only considers topic bans and other discretionary sanctions appropriate for areas that the Arbitration Committee has designated and even then admins are still required to report said bans. Is Orly Taitz in some Arbcom-designated area that allows for discretionary sanctions? Then the issue is simply a matter of putting a notice in the proper place. I'll drop this though if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar

Xandar (talk · contribs · count). The main points are:

• The issue in question is whether we must use the name which an entity prefers for itself in its article title instead of the common name of that entity. Xandar's interpretation of the naming conflict guideline is that the preferred name must be used, rather than the common name which is suggested by our WP:NAME policy.
• Xandar is involved with the Catholic Church article (top-edited pages: 498 - Catholic_Church; 61 - European_wars_of_religion), and is editing Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict to remove changes that may 'restart disputes' at Catholic Church. This includes reverting of basic cleanup.
• I assert no conflict of interest. I am uninvolved in the Catholic Church discussions, and my position on the Naming conflict guideline was initially the same as Xandar's, until good reasons against it were provided by other editors.
• There is a Straw poll to help figure out some of these issues. Xandar has notified at least 11 biased editors of the poll (see contribs), using language like "Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance" [38]. All of the editors that I've checked are either involved with the Catholic Church or various religion pages, or have expressed some level of agreement above with Xandar's position in the discussion. Most have been canvassed on not one, but two occasions. At this time all of those !voting with Xandar on the two issues have been canvassed (except Kraftlos, I believe).
• Xandar's attitude towards this issue is generally inappropriate, for example see here.
• Xandar has been warned on this same issue just several days ago, see also this, so he is perfectly aware of what he is doing. I have also made a section at the naming conflicts page outlining most of these issues, which Xandar is aware of.
• Xandar (and others he has called to the discussion) have been reverting changes to Naming conflict throughout the discussion on the basis of 'longstanding consensus' (a misinterpretation, and WP:CCC). I tried undoing one of these reverts, and Xandar responded by informing Anietor, who promptly reverted the page back to the original version. [see also here] This is continuing despite numerous warnings against meatpuppetry and votestacking.

Some help with this seemingly controversial situation would be greatly appreciated.    M   23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would; most of his edits in the last few days have been reversions, fulminations in FULL CAPS about how we are conspiring against the Papacy, and requests for proxies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • User:M, (as when he made comments about me on the Consensus talk page,) has totally misrepresented the situation. PMA's comments about me, "defending the Papacy" seem to show where he is coming from on this issue, and the distortions being used. I have had to face multiple instances of breaches of WP:CIVIL on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming conflict page, while I have tried to stick to the arguments.
    • M is one of a group of several editors, including PMAnderson, Kotniski, Philip Baird Shearer and Knepflerle, many of whom have been active in the Catholic Church naming dispute, or who have expressed strong views on that dispute, who have suddenly decided to unilaterally alter the longstanding text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict Naming convention so that it supports their views. They have threatened, edit-warred, forum-shopped and vote-stacked in order to try and obtain the fundamental change to the guideline that they want, without consensus. This seems to be the latest step on that road.
    • PMAnderson is currently under sanction for disruptive editing, and User:Kotniski has had several complaints about agressive editing on policy issues. In fact PMAnderson was called deliberately into this dispute at Naming Conflict by Knepflerle, who complained about the use of this guideline in the Catholic Church naming issue. Knepflerle and PMAnderson, with the support of Kotniski, M and PBS, then radically changed the Naming Guideline to suit their agenda, and instead of accepting a revert to the standard consensus version, and discussing until community acceptance of the radical reversal of policy they proposed was obtained, then began an edit war to enforce their own desired policy. The page had to be protected for a week, and almost immediately after protection was removed, realising that there was no consensus for their changes, M, PMAnderson and others started again on the same tactic of radically altering the meaning of the guidance and edit-warring when an attempt was made to restore the longstanding consensus version.
    • It is clear WP practice that substantive changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines should attain community consensus before being made. However this clique are attempting to circumvent that consensus for reasons which are as ChrisO, one of the original writers of the Naming Convention has said, must be because of their involvement in a naming dispute.
    • My role in this is because I have been using the long-standing and never-before-questioned Naming Convention in the mediated debate on the naming of Catholic Church. I found the guidance had been unilaterally and substantially altered, and reverted it. Other affected people were informed and later took part. A discussion was begun, which was then moved to another forum, without telling anyone on our side, in a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPping. I was informed of this, and informed other participants. Failing to gain consensus on the Naming Conventions talk page, they reverted discussion to the Naming conflict talk page AGAIN without informing the opposing side. I again had to inform participants of this, and of the "Starw Poll" they set up - the incident wher M says I mailed 14 people. I did. SINCE THESE WERE ALL THE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO HAD NOT BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE "POLL". It was after this that the edit warring began again.
    • I would therefore state that it is M and his allies who have been disruptive on this issue. Their indecent anxiety to change a Naming Convention that has been stable for 4 years has led them to the disruptive activity I have referred to above. There is no need to unilaterally reverse this long-standing guidance without gaining proper consensus. Our side has been ready to discuss the issue, while defending the principles upheld by the guidance, and subject the result to the approval of the Wikipedia community. Ms side has not, wanting their own way at once - with or without consensus. I would ask that this important page be again locked on the longstanding version reverted by Anietor or StormRider until a real community consensus can be obtained to fundamentally change it. Xandar 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • "Our side"? I can't believe this is still going on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it's become that - with the aggressive strategy of some people to destroy the Naming Convention. Xandar 02:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want this ANI request to become a giant discussion about the naming conflict page. If Xandar has any issue with the behavior of other editors, he can start his own ANI. Even now, with an ANI open on this issue, Xandar continues to revert [39], this time apparently past 3RR. He has undone this (summary: "restoring a controversial new version...") after being informed that it will result in an immediate block. There seems to be more than enough for a block here, given WP:CANVASSING and the numerous prior warnings, some by admins. It would be preferable if Xandar was banned from reverting on that page, and from canvassing for support or 'informing' other editors of 'controversial and undiscussed changes' being made to the 'longstanding guidance', but I seriously doubt that this would put a stop to his activities. This pattern of editing has been going on for about 3 weeks now[40].    M  02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My this is a surprise and such a very skewed perspective. I assume that I am one of those "biased" editors because I have edited the Catholic Church article; please review my editing history and you will see that I am first a foremost a Latter Day Saint. More importantly, if I have a bias it would certainly be heavily slated toward the LDS Church. The claim is preposterous and without merit. I submit that it is also representative of the rest of "M's" claims. He has closely collaborated with the editor that has most egregiously violated all sense of civil discussion, edit warring, and consensus building, Septentrionalis PMAnderson. Before this moves forward, please review M and Pm's talk page discussions.

All that is at stake here is Pm with the assistance of M is the reversion of a long-standing, stable guidance on the preference that preferred names of groups be respected. Not a single editor has recommended that reliable references be ignored, but that when all things are equal, the preferred name be used. Pm and M are determined, regardless of consensus or the views of anyone else, to cram their opinion on the rest of Wikipedia. I reject their efforts, their manner of ignoring all other positions, their edit warring, and this silly, personal vendetta that M is pursuing. He has presented that he is not biased, but his opinions and his position has always been from Pm's position. I reject his claims in their entirety and I recommend that others do the same. --^StormRider 04:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I just have to chuckle at all of this. Can I say I told ya so, now? In my (not so) humble opinion, this whole matter, lock, stock, and every user actually involved, needs to go to Arbcom. I haven't actually seen anything about this since I posted the above linked to discussion here, but I can see that time hasn't helped the situation at all. Everyone just needs to walk away for a while, probably.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• It has long been about deeply entrenched "sides" and "camps"; unless some of them learn to compromise, understand consensus building, or walk away, I think you're correct that it is likely to end up at ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has been involved in this dispute, if it DOES reach arbcom, please let me know. Would It be out of my league for me to request it? --Rockstone (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: 3RR makes exceptions for obvious vandalism and edits against consensus I believe. --Rockstone (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus at that page. Once the RfC is over, we can start talking about consensus. In the straw poll, there were about two uncanvassed participants supporting the old version. Including the canvassed, it was about even.    M   20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An RfC would be much more appropriate. The conflict isn't about how to apply policy and good practices (Arbcom) but what those good practices should be (the broad community). Xandar's activities are appropriate to ANI - he has been warned repeatedly about canvassing, and persists - an Admin needs to do something about this. This would be yet another warning or a short block. Xandar's canvassing aside, there seems to be very little support for Xandar's interpretation. He has, however, been very vocal and persistent in opposing changes to that page, often drowning out the points made with large blocks of text, repetitive arguments, and unsubstantiated accusations. An RfC would be an easy remedy to this, but I don't want to start one until the people involved very clearly understand that canvassing will be dealt with appropriately.    M   20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Xander is supporting the text that has been stable for years. You and Pm are seeking to change that stable policy to something new and you are attempting to force your change without consensus and ignoring all others statements and comments. There is an easy solution...STOP changing the artcile until you have reached consensus. This is conflict resolution at its most very basic. --^StormRider 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm Very close to requesting an Arbiration to solve this whole mess. They can't change a core wikipedia policy without Consensus. --Rockstone (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The key sentence in dispute was drafted by ChrisO four years ago; until this, it was never discussed on the talk page; I'm not sure anybody much read it. In four years, it's been quoted about 17 times in naming disputes, and most of the citations, like the ones using it to demand we move Kiev, haven't been successful. This isn't a core policy; it's an obscure part of an otherwixe useful guideline that a handful of SPA's have been using in a single content dispute.

Then again, I suppose that does make it The Most Important Thing; doesn't it? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The guidance on self-identifying names is important across wikipedia, affecting articles that might otherwise, for example, be called Mormon Church, Calcutta, Canadian Indians Untouchables, etc. etc. It should not be changed by a small group of editors against consensus. Rockstone may have the right solution that would enable non-emotional and considered community involvement of the issues concerned. Xandar 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as soon as I can tomorrow, I'll request an arbitration unless anyone objects. This has gone on long enough to become silly. :) --Rockstone (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR is up early! Wikipedia:Rfar#Catholic_Church_and_Renaming --Rockstone (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great step in locking the policy. Could an admin please reiterate the points about canvassing and meatpuppetry, so that it is clear to Xandar what is or is not acceptable?    M   05:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be upfront about this: I requested the full protection for the Wikipedia:Naming conflicts page, and Kralizec! (talk · contribs) decided to honor the request. My suggestion to everyone is to take the time to really start talking about the changes that each thinks needs to be made to the page. There's an awful lot of (somewhat backhanded) personal commentary (their not quite attacks... yet) going on around all of this. As long as that continues, this isn't going to be resolved regardless of what anyone does.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there something about working on the Manual of Style which drives people nuts? One more reason to consider it a guideline -- or even a collection of best known practices -- rather than policy. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marktreut edit warring and disruption

User:Marktreut is continuing to edit war and be generally disruptive at the Lupin III article, as well as Characters of The Adventures of Tintin. He has already been blocked three times for edit warring, sockpuppeting, and being disruptive. He regularly adds his own personal opinions and OR to fictional articles, then when he is reverted, edit wars until he's blocked or the article is locked and makes personal attacks at anyone who doesn't let him have his way. At List of InuYasha characters he turned around and vandalized the article after his OR was rejected, resulting in the first of his blocks. At Lupin III, despite the extremely clear and unanimous consensus against his continued attempts at OR on the article talk page, he continues to revert and readd the information, generally waiting a few days, the coming back and adding it again in a slightly modified form. In the last month, he's done this no less than 15 times and at this point he seems to be doing it just to do it. He shrugged off his blocks as ineffective and stating "funny how a suspension from wikipedia also coincides with a well-earned week's holiday abroad",[41] and has repeatedly stated that he will continue this actions until he gets his way, claiming that "we" made him act this way by not allowing original research and unverifiable information into articles just because he feels they are facts and that he is "protecting" Wikipedia. He also tried to aid the Disney vandal Bambifan101 at The Fox and the Hound after following me there. At Characters of The Adventures of Tintin, first he edit warred over the removal of excessive non-free images, and now he is edit warring and interfering with editors efforts to clean up the excessive plot and WP:OR there. Warnings and discussion have proven ineffective with this editor, who refuses to accept that Wikipedia works by consensus and who laughs off Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the blocks he has received. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be a routine content dispute in which User:Collectonian's own behaviour has been poor. Complaining here seems to be just gaming the system. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Inserting the same content over and over to force a point across against consensus on the talk page on a constant, regular basis is not a content dispute, it's blatant disruption. Especially when its just making the exact same edit repeatedly. And making null edits just to take swipes at other editors is beyond absurd.[42] Marktreut makes a mockery of attempting to resolve the issues raised by (eventually) involving themselves in the discussion, then ignoring it completely to make the exact same changes time and again. It's impossible to assume good faith, because they have shown time and again that they are only interested in what they perceive to be important, not the consensus of other editors. As stated Marktreut has already been blocked for edit warring on the very same article, yet the only thing that has changed is the time between edits. Complaining about an editor who shows repeatedly that they have not learned and continues to disrupt is not gaming the system. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who is doing the disrupting. The view of consensus, especially that of User:Collectonian, appears to be that her opinion is all that matters and that if one or more editors agree with her then the matter is closed. I'd like to point out that WP:CON states that "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote" but on "attempts to convince others, using reasons" and I have not been convinced by the reasons of her or others so consensus has not been achieved. In fact it is I who has tried to seek compromises that would acceptable to everyone, but even that has been denied to me. I don't really feel that I am ""protecting" Wikipedia" (if those are my words), I'm simply trying to provide information which I think would be of interest to others and which she is denying. I have never knowlingly provided false information or OR, my edits have always been based on good sources, including the original books, films, comics or TV series. In the case of Lupin III the issue is this: his creator, Monkey Punch, based him on a famous French literary character Arsène Lupin but failed to inform the copyright holders. As a result the character was renamed when mangas or animes based on him where published or broadcast outside Japan, even in France where the name "Lupin" is as famous as "Holmes". I've tried to point this out and put in plenty of outside sources in order to make my case (someone on the talk page even mentioned that it was of "scholarly interest") but others have constantly rejected this simple fact based on reality. I've tried to compromise — coming up with a new form of words in order to explain the facts, but am constantly turned down. The only compromise that they appear to accept is: don't contribute at all.

In fact it is Collectonian who appears to have appointed herself protector of many articles, especially ones dealing with cartoons and animes. For someone to put in just a simple little detail which is common knowledge is anathema to her: she'll dismiss it if there is no outside reference; if a reference is provided then it is not good enough; and if it is good enough then the matter is so "trivial" that it is dismissed anyway (see The Fox and the Hound talk page for just one example). She emphasizes the "encyclopaedia" aspect of Wikipedia and thus implies that articles should be reduced to simply a few sentences and paragraphs of the sort we find in printed books, which is limiting and restraining. If she sees a recent edit which she does not agree with then she will undo it there and then. If I find a contribution that I do not agree with then I usually try to rephrase it in order to make it more acceptable — not take it out completely. Her talk page has been filled with users literally begging for permission to contribute and/or start up other articles based on the originals and being turned down and refused any kind of compromise. People should not have to do that: beg to another wiki editor and being trampled underfoot.

Now to my own sins in this matter: "At List of InuYasha characters he turned around and vandalized the article after his OR was rejected": I'll admit that that was a moment of frustration on my part because I was being constantly denied on the grounds of OR which was actually based on watching the original series. Quite frankly it was all-out provocation on Collectonian's part that made me do it and the first time ever in almost five years of editing Wikipedia. The same applies to the "sockpuppeting" incident. I was hoping that under an alternative name my contributions would be accepted — but sadly it was not the case. Until I came across her I have never had these kinds of problems before.

"Warnings and discussion have proven ineffective with this editor": I have tried to discuss the issues, you can find whole talk pages about them, but the point is that Collectonian and others will just not accept reason or compromise. Wikipedia should be a place that informs and develops over time, not be cast in stone and/or trimmed down to nothing.--Marktreut (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only going to talk about the Lupin issues as thats all I'm involved in. There are four editors involved on the talk page, you on one side, and three on the other. Thats a "majority". While it's not a vote, you have yet to convince the three other editors of the value, necessity and validity of the claims you have made (if one, or all three depending on the time). Many (perhaps most) of your edits to the article have been variations on the same thing, when a objection is made, and discussed on the talk page, you frequently insert the information again without resolving the issue. You keep adding information that is being objected to, so your edits keep being undone. I would do the same reverts. I wouldn't say you have created false statements, however your sources have largely been dismissed by several editors for either not backing up the claims, or not being reliable by wikipedia standards. Additionally you have added statements which rely on interpretation and are not supported by direct claims in the sources you have used. Again, these were discussed and dismissed , but you still added them back a few times before changing tact. Yes the series is based on a french fictional work, but you have yet to provide reliable and accurate sources that prove beyond a doubt WHY it was renamed (at least one source was given that suggested it was renamed "just because"), and/or support the importance you are placing on the claim and it's relevance. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Find a reliable (by wikipedia standards), accurate source that states in a straightforward direct manner that isn't open to interpretation, and states the importance and relevance of the fact to the article and we can discuss it on the talk page first. You know your claims and sources are being monitered and have been requested to discuss them first, but keep ignoring it.

We get it, you think the information is relevant and important, but your methods are what is concerning people, not the desire to add information. You've dug the hole for yourself by ignoring simple, reasonable requests and constantly making the same edits even though you know they are of a concern to other editors. If you stop making the same edits over and over again while ignoring the concerns and bring sources to the talk page before adding them, you'll find people more receptive to your wish to add the information. Forcing the claims in against the talk page comments s not helping your case. You can reword it as much as you like, it needs proper sourcing. Get proper sourcing that leaves no doubt over the meaning or importance of the fact and we can sort something out. You haven't been able to do that, which is why your edits are undone. If you would keep to the talk page until there is some form of agreement over the content, it would be in everyones best interests and the article history would not look such a mess, and people would give you the benefit of the doubt. The bulk of the entire article was largely re-sourced, rewritten and expanded in less time then you have been making the same edits to the page for. If you dropped the forcing of the issue, you'd be taken more seriously, and not considered to be disrupting. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I once came up with half-a-dozen sources to make my case and still I was rejected. I find them reliable and they state more or less the same thing: that the name of the main character was changed when published or broadcast outside of Japan. At the moment Lupin III includes the following statement: "However Monkey Punch did not ask permission to use the character's name, leading to eventual copyright issues with the Leblanc estate" and the source that it refers to adds that "because of this, United States companies translating some of the Lupin III movies had to use a different name such as "The Wolf" (a rough French translation of "Lupin") or as "Rupan"." All that I am trying to do is point out that it was not just in the US but also in the country where the name "Lupin" came from. OK, I cannot go into the nitty-gritty details of why the name was changed, but from contact with people close to the matter it would appear to be a sensitive issue, so why cannot we just specify the facts of what happened? Anyway, what constitutes "proper sourcing" these days? IMDB is no longer seen as reliable to some people, and I've recently discovered a BBC report which contradicts several other reliable sources like the French Figaro. So where does that leave us?--Marktreut (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources you gave were fan sites or other sites that don't qualify as WP:Reliable sources (Lupin Encyclopedia is useable as it's written by a recognised expert - the site owner has many credits for Lupin reviews on AnimeOnDvd/Mania.com, which is a relible source) . Each source was given clear reasons as to why they weren't suitable. The ones that were reliable didn't actually support the claims made or conflicted with other sources used for the same statement. Even with the explanation, you reinserted the exact same references after they were removed despite the discussion) The english language renaming is well documentated in multiple books, magazines and reliable websites, and there is enough evidence to prove that it was done for that reason and what the changes were. It's also relevant for the english wikipedia. The French issue doesn't have this wealth of reliable sources, at least none have been offered that we can agree on. Theres also a question over how necessary the info is (is it relevant to the english audience?) which can be fixed with the right source. IMDB is almost entirely user edited/submitted, such sites are almost never considered reliable. The BBC is one of the biggest news organisations in the world, and isn't user edited. I understand why you feel the information is necessary, which is why I've been asking for better sourcing and details from the beginning, rather then hearsay, rumour and interpretation of random individuals. Again, this is for the talk page. Keep the information in any form off the article page until we can agree, and that will be taken as progress. I'm open to keeping discussion going until everyone is happy, but the insertion of the info when you know we aren't agreeing with it's form isn't helping the article and is just getting people would up. Especially when the details are of some debate. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned they are reliable because they prove the point: Lupin III was renamed "Edgar de la Cambriole" which I know for a fact having watched the TV programme in France back in the 1980s and more recently the DVDs released in France. It's even shown on the lupinencyclopedia.com site where under "Known Aliases", they list the variations of Lupin III's name in a number of countries. No, these are not actual aliases that he himself adopts on his travels, they ARE the names by which he was renamed when his show was broadcast abroad. Ask Luis A. Cruz, the webmaster, if he could confirm that this is the case. As for the relevance: well, the most famous character in French literature is renamed when a series inspired by him is broadcast on French TV — as Quasirandom put it, it is of scholarly interest.--Marktreut (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to jump in and perpetuate an adversarial atmosphere since a change in Marktreut's edits is noticeable over the past few months (evolving into a relatively more collaborative tenor). To be fair to the other editors here, however, it must be noted that this has not always been the case. Marktreut until recently, regularly used very non-reliable sources (fansites mostly) or no sources at all. While he/she says that he/she never knowingly provided false information, that isn't the same thing as following WP sourcing guidelines. As for OR, it is fair to say that the majority of Marktreut's edits (especially in film Plot sections) are just that (OR), specifically his/her comments, observations, and interpretations unsupported by any sources (reliable or not). It is difficult to quickly identify them in a review of his/her contributions, however, since she/he rarely uses edit summaries (despite numerous requests from other editors to do so), but they are there.

In fact, this brings us to the heart of the matter. It is understandable that editors will add OR, Trivia, and unsupported material to articles until they fully understand the importance of using sources, but Marktreut continued to do so long after she/he had been alerted to the issues by other editors who initially took very collaborative approaches to her/him. Just take a look at Marktreut's Talk page to see how often the same issues resurface (and this list is far from comprehensive):

• "Since you've put it back again, I've tagged it with 'unreferenced' and 'trivia' tags, if you'd care to read the relevant policies." 13 July 2007
• "And how do I do this "original research" ? By contacting Miller himself ? I think he has better things to do that confirming minor details like this, but which might still be of interest to enthusiasts." 4 October 2007
• "My main objection is not the trivia nature of the section but the fact that it is all original research." 7 December 2007
• "If you copy or merge text, you need to attribute it accordingly. You appear to have cut the sexual interpretations section from Batman and pasted it into Robin, without noting what you did. If you did cut and paste, then we need to fix that to comply with the GFDL. It's not a huge problem and I don't mind doing it if you confirm whether it was a cut and paste. In the future, when you do so, it's best to leave an edit summary like, Incorporating material from ARTICLE, version per time-stamp of this edit." 16 December 2007
• "Unless you can source that opinion in the words of a reliable secondary source, it's original research because you're analysing the comics, prohibited under policy." 28 May 2008
• "In regards to your undoing the removal of uncited and specialtive information, we cannot connect the dots. We cannot fill in the blanks left by a lack of sources. If we do not have enough to include a connection, then we do not make that connection." 30 May 2008
• "Please read the policy on original research. An editor cannot make personal assumptions about anything, not unless they're plain as day" 20 October 2008
• "...is the result of much original research and understandably lacks pertinent credible sources." 14 February 2009
• "but everything else needs to be supported by a reliable secondary source....Can't believe you went and reverted immediately after you must've read this without discussing with those offering to work with you." 13 February 2009
• "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Continuing to restore uncited trivia, substantiated because *you* (rather than a cited reliable source) think it's ironic -- i.e. presenting original research -- is disruptive, especially in light of your failure to respond to the rationales for excluding this content at Talk:Murder_on_the_Orient_Express_(1974_film)#Kevin_Bacon_and_other_trivia" 12 February 2009
• "Then that is original research, which does not belong here. I have seen the anime and read the straight-Japanese manga. You are not Public Enemy #1, why don't you just learn from your corrections and move on, that's how I learned. :) You can only make your self Public Enemy by breaking Wikipedia's rules." 13 April 2009
• "Dude, are you trying to get banned?" 16 February 2009

Until recently, Marktreut usually responded just once to other editors' questions and objections, frequently complaining about how WP's Guidelines sucked all the fun out of the articles, and then went ahead and re-made the changes or reverted without any justifications based on WP standards or attempts to reach consensus. I'm sure a number of editors found they had to follow Marktreut around and check in detail every edit since lack of edit summaries made it difficult to know what was changed. This, regrettably, has resulted in the adversarial relationship we have today. I am uncertain as to the path to a resolution since Marktreut's track record is unencouraging, but, as I mentioned above, there is evidence that she/he is paying more attention to using reliable sources, and the increased use of edit summaries is doing much to forge a more collaborative relationship with the WP community. Certainly, Marktreut's industry is laudable and welcome when it is productive, so I can only hope that s/he continues to work more amicably with other editors. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a perfect example of what's at issue. Today, while this discussion is active, Marktreut re-adds controversial material at The Great Escape (film). The bare statement, "Tunnel 'Tom' was discovered on the 8th September 1943, long after any Independence Day celebrations", appears to be an attempt to point out that in the film the tunnel's discovery occurs during the POWs' Independence Day party while, in reality, that particular tunnel's discovery occurred in September. Marktreut is concluding, therefore, that the writers must have changed the chronology for dramatic purposes. S/he does provide a source, which, although reliable in character, does not meet WP Guidelines because it does not directly support the conclusion. The website only says, "On 8 September, when 85 meters long, 'Tom' was discovered", and does not address the film adaptation at all, which is needed since the article is about the film, not the actual escape. Marktreut is synthesizing this conclusion, which is not permissible.

Many of us have committed this sourcing transgression before, but most of us learn how to apply the OR and Synthesis guidelines through our own research and more frequently through the assistance of other, more experienced editors. More to the point, Marktreut should be very well aware of this guideline since it has been brought to his/her attention numerous times over the past couple years, and specific to this particular article element as well. But for some reason s/he persists in ignoring the guideline (and s/he admits to fully understanding the guideline - today!). That's the thing I can't figure out. We won't even go into the issue that the same copy has been placed in the article without context or clear relevance/connection to the Production section, even though that's been pointed out to her/him before. What's more perplexing is that Marktreut chose to not participate in extensive discussions about this and related material with other editors for months despite being specifically invited to participate. Again, the increased attempts at explanations (edit summaries) are appreciated, but the persistent desire to add and re-add unsupported trivia to articles in the face of guidelines and other editors' opinions is troublesome. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record I am a "he". In the case of the tunnel discovery in The Great Escape (film) I have not specified "that the writers must have changed the chronology for dramatic purposes", I've simply put in the facts. This film is a mixture of fact and fiction and it would nice to know how they vary — McQueen and his motorcycle being the very least of the fictional elements. That is what I really cannot comprehend: why some people are so much against the inclusion of facts which are based on good evidence. Why should such initiative be classed as "OR"? If we are to refer only to third-parties who confirm something like "Tunnel "Tom" was not discovered on the 4th of July as shown in the film" then WP will be reduced to a shadow of its former glory and it would not be worth the trouble of contributing. Repeating what others say is just dull, repetitive and pathetic. And it can hardly be OR if good and reliable evidence is presented to back the case we are trying to make.

As for the other matters that "173.72.136.143" raises from my talk page, all that I can say is that most of these matters have been settled: either I or the other editors dropped the matter, reached an understanding or else decided that the whole thing was making a mountain out of a molehill. "173.72.136.143" has somewhat failed to note that there have been instances where I and others have sorted things out amicably example 1, where I did not insist on having my own way, example 2 where the other editor accepted my case and example 3, where I agreed that just three images were necessary for the article.

I must say that I find it rather suspicious that "173.72.136.143" has not registered under a proper username. From his/her (I strongly suspect "her") contributions page it appears to be that my edits are a favourite target. In fact there appears to be a large amount of paranoia here that feels very familiar.--Marktreut (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ridiculously obvious implication is beyond inappropriate and borderline uncivil. As usual, when you are in the wrong, you descend to attacking your fellow editors rather than sticking to the issues at hand, which is your edit warring, your continued dismissal of consensus because of your own personal believes, and your continued spurning of attempts to discuss the issues and administrative efforts to deal with your misbehaviors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, it was just a thought, that's all. I'm sorry. Still I think that it would be appreciated if "173.72.136.143" would use tags more often rather than simply undoing the work just like that. I mean, that is what they are there for: to show that the contribution is not necessarily untrue but requires a back-up. As for my "edit warring, [my] continued dismissal of consensus because of [my] own personal believes (!), and [my] continued spurning of attempts to discuss the issues and administrative efforts to deal with [my] misbehaviors": well, all this is because I am trying to present real-life facts and others are denying them. As pointed out above: WP:CON states that "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote" but on "attempts to convince others, using reasons" and (to go back to the original source of this problem) you have not convinced me that the issue of the character Lupin III being renamed when broadcast outside Japan is trivia or should not be mentioned in any way, shape or form — on the contrary, I'm the one who has presented evidence that this was the case, have tried to come up with a compromise and it's hardly trivia for reasons I have already stated.--Marktreut (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of User:HarryAlffa

This user is engaged in a slow edit war on the Trans-Neptunian_object article against consensus reached on the talk page. He is trying to insert a questionable line into the lead of this article (see diffs [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] and the last one [51].) Despite being told multiple times by multiple editors that he is wrong, he obviously decided to push the desired change by edit-warring. I want also to point at the uncivil behavior of HarryAlfa on the talk page, which has made any further discussion with him all but impossible (see [52], [53], [54]). I am asking an (uninvolved) administrator to take necessary measures. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As you may see from the talk page, it is quite clear that Policy dictates the inclusion of the alternative name. Really it shouldn't be this difficult to explain simple reasoning to people, but some people! Yes multiple members of the same group have told me, certainly, but none has offered counter-reasons to my reasoned debate! WP:Concensus, "we work to a system of good reasons", not by counting votes. If anything the other editors should be chastised for their unreasonable behaviour - which is disruptive. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion of your behavior not of content issues. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

tag-team reverted by User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz

The sectionTrans-Neptunian_versus_trans-Neptune on the talk page was started by me, 20:36, 5 June 2009. User:Ruslik0 never took part in the discussion. I ended that section on 14 August 2009 by starting an RfC on the subject.

User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz tag-team reverted the 'alternative name' from 17 June to, well present.

Reversions with no attempt at communication on the talk page;

• Serendipodous [55]
• Ruslik [56]
• Ckatz [57]
• Ruslik [58]
• Ruslik [59]

Further reversion with no attempt at communication on the RfC;

• Serendipodous [60]
• (With simple nay-saying on talk page RfC) Ckatz [61]

Reasoning wins out over democracy. The inclusion of the alternative achieves concensus. Policy.

I have also been accused of personal attacks. I have attempted to bring reason and intelligence to the fore. Who objects to reason and intelligence? Charles Dickens was accused of libel over Oliver Twist, because some men believed the book was about them - which said more about them than they realised. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When a single editor gets into an edit war against multiple editors, the single editor always loses. Unless you can persuade them that you're right, you aren't going to get anywhere, and won't accomplish anything except eventually being blocked for disruption. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I, however, think that 1 week is too short, taking into account that two previous blocks failed to prevent further disruption. Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "Plaxico" can get extraordinarily fixated on a single word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me allude to an edit by the editor: I'm saddened to see Wikipedia editors apparently still unaware that the number of hits reported in Google searches is a quite useless number, despite Google making no secret of the fact that it estimates the number and uses several mechanisms that throw it off. It is a fallacy — one that has been recognized by experts in several fields, including linguistics, for several years — to use that number when deciding anything at all about the usage of a word or phrase. Wiktionary editors, in comparison, have long since switched away from counting Google hits to using linguistic corpora (which are what some of those mystery abbreviations that one might see in the Beer Parlour, Tea Room, or RFD are all about) — and, of course, using concrete quotations, doing actual research rather than counting Google hits. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Google is generally a poor measure of significance. HarryAlffa tried to insert "Trans-Neptune" on the basic of a Google search. After it was explained to him that his search results were wrong he still continued to insist on inclusion of this very rarely used term. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further action?

I suggest that it may be time to consider a community ban for HarryAlffa. He has a long history of disruptive editing and insulting everyone around him who doesn't agree with his views. His unblock request actually summarizes his behavior quite nicely—in it, he insults everyone who was involved in this row, calling them stupid and claiming they lack the intellect to understand his views. He was doing this on WP:LINKING previously, which caused his previous block. He clearly doesn't like the way WP works in practice, and isn't interested in playing nice with other editors. I'm not sure why we should continue to accommodate such an individual. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad requested move close

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560 § User:Una Smith

I believe the the recent close of this move discussion is a bad close and needs to be changed. Clearly from the discussion there is no primary topic and following the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline that the extended discussion shows that there is no primary topic. Based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this should have been closed to move Durham (disambiguation) to Durham. This action would in fact be supported by the no consensus close. Since there is no consensus for a primary topic, there is no clearly accepted primary topic. The only case made for keeping the current settlement as the main name space was that it is the oldest. That is simply a fact and does not by default make it the primary topic. I'll note that I could not find the closer listed as an admin. If that is in fact the case, then that editor should not have closed a discussion like this. The closer also participated in the discussion. No consensus on moves does not equate to leaving pages were they are when how to handle that case is clearly covered by a guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a requested move discussion is to assess consensus for the proposed move; clearly there was no consensus in that discussion. It wasn't really appropriate for Ohm's law to close it after having participated significantly in the discussion, but its unlikely anyone else would have come to a different conclusion. Nathan ^T 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is acceptable to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. Procedural problems aside, there really seems to be no consensus to change the status quo there... ultimately, the local consensus is what really matters in a disambiguation issue. I personally agree with you that there is no primary topic and hence a change needs to be made - but the consensus there does not seem to exist. ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to either rewrite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or enforce it. We are at the point where if dedicated supporters of an article don't want the dab page where it belongs, they win. What should be there based on the guidelines and what is best for the encyclopedia are not valid considerations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

nah, we don't need to rewrite anything. Let's not turn into what the folks arguing over the name of the Catholic Church article have created. All that needs to happen is that we keep talking to people.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And, actually, the history shows that it was originally closed by Chzz. Also not an admin, but oh well. Ohm's law changed the archiving method and then signed the close message. Nathan ^T 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• First things first: I didn't close it. Nathan is correct about my involvement in the discussion there, so I wouldn't have closed it regardless. All I did do is clean up after... Chzz, who closed it and tried hiding it or something. The funny thing is that my opinion is that the page should be moved! The whole BS about Una Smith occurring probably destroyed the whole process, that time around. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with starting another discussion. Since this one closed without consensus, we could keep goig until there is consensus. There are several people who are involved who seem to clearly misunderstand exactly what is being proposed, anyway (Ii seems soe think we're trying to rename the town, or something!)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that the incident with Una probably scuppered the discussion (it discouraged me from taking part properly and I would have supported the move), but it's probably best to wait a bit before reopening the discussion so that the people involved can cool off. Nev1 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  True. I'm not about to reopen anything, regardless. The only thing that brought me there at all was the RM anyway, since I participate in those discussions just to waste time between real editing. I have my opinions just like anyone else, but these things rarely actually bother me, one way or another.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi there. Sorry to come in late, nobody told me about this. No problem; I expect that was just a misunderstanding, due to the closure and the kind fixing by User:Ohms law.

I did indeed mark the discussion as archived, but I certainly didn't try to 'hide' anything. My intent was purely to avoid endless rhetoric. I thought that I had made that clear, with the notice I added;

I'm sorry if anyone feels that this was inappropriate. Please consider the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I would have had no problem at all if you had undone my changes, or you could have simply asked me about it.

If you wish to continue the discussions, then of course you should do so, and the previous comments are of course there, for all to see. If there is a consensus to move the page, then I will be just as happy helping with that as I was to help try to mediate a little.

And yes, I am not an admin, but that really is beside the point.

Thank you for your understanding,  Chzz  ►  10:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion was part of the WP:RM process, and thus should not have been closed by someone who expressed a strong view in the discussion. Kanguole 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Helpful new template

For admins wanting to deal with vandals, trolls, and other unsavoury types in a more modern, internet-meme-based way, I present a new template: {{Lolblock}}

Simply use this on the page of any annoying user, and watch all adminship-related problems go away! ;) Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• ROTFLMAO! OMG, this is a hoot! I've lamented the loss of another funny block notice...this one takes the taco! WOOT! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it April 1 on some distant corner of the world? But you're right. This would get rid of all adminship-related problems - you won't be an admin anymore :D ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, poo...didn't think about that...! I'd love to use it juuuuuust once on a really deserving soul, however. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the greatest template I have ever seen. Kudos Shoemaker's Holiday. - Javért ^Talk 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you *might* be able to get away with using this on some 4chan vandal. Maybe. Iz teh awesome, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

4channers would say that caturday macros have correct spelling and grammar, so they wouldnt like the icanhascheezeburger style macro. 87.115.88.250 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I say all Grawp socks should be tagged with this. Or is that just me? — Σxplicit 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(So...what? Everyone everywhere, then?) HalfShadow 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the first things I thought of. A few other chronic vandals could use it as well. What's that they say about "great minds?" --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As anyone who looks at the template will now notice: we can has TfD. Cheers! lifebaka++ 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have a cheezeburger. Javért  |  ^Talk 06:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can has lolblock? Awickert (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Awww, I waas half-hoping to wake up this morning to find myself blocked with that template sprawled across my talk page. But you don't always get what you wish for ... ;-) Awickert (talk)

Okay Awickert, you asked for it. (Just trying to make another Wikipedian happy.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there an alternative here to removing everything copied from other articles & replacing it?

Interesting, I was going to post this at AN because I've bothered this board enough and just want advice, not action, but this big red notice came up when I hit save that made it clear AN was the wrong place. So, here goes, sorry guys to bring another issue so soon.

In the new article Timeline of the Bible (which maybe should not exist and certainly has problems) a clearly good faith editor has copied material from other articles without attribution. I've told him on the talk page that it must all be removed and then replaced with the appropriate edit summaries. I can't see any other way to avoid breaking our copyright, can anyone else? Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could use dummy edits to credit them, if you can be sufficiently diligent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 09:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the {{Copied}} template you can use on both the source and target talk pages to point towards the source histories. MLauba (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What worries me about talk page templates is that they can so easily be deleted, and if you don't know they were there you're not likely to find them. Now dummy edits, that's an interesting idea, how would you indicate what you'd copied? Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done this when I've created an article out of part of another article and forgotten to say where I'd copied the prose from: You hit the edit button and in the edit summary identify the spot in the article that has been copied and say what spot from what article it was copied from. If it isn't clearly describable as a paragraph or section, you could remove the copied text with one edit and immediately restore it with another. Whatever the process, the only important thing is that it's clear. -- Noroton (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could even do it simpler and still satisfy the attribution requirement: making one or two null edits just indicating the various articles this was copied from and hint at the {{copied}} templates on talk in the edit summaries, that way someone who looks for the attribution will know that the talk page is supposed to have these templates. This has the further advantage that should one of the source articles suddenly be up for deletion, the deleting admin will be alerted to the issue of attribution and take the appropriate measures. MLauba (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Having some familiarity with these attribution issues, I posted suggested edits at Talk:Timeline of the Bible#Copyright problem. For anyone interested, Help talk:Merging#Best practice is a fairly recent discussion, where Moonriddengirl originally wrote {{Copied}}. If there's a better page to discuss intrawiki copying and attribution requirements, I'd appreciate a pointer. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Need revisions deleted

I don't remember the email address to send these requests to. This is a low-risk situation anyway so I'm just gonna post the links here. Someone please delete them as they contain personal contact info:

• --removed links now that email was sent to oversighters--

Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mailed the oversighters. GrooveDog (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Purposefully including one's own contact information and not requesting its removal does not normally fall anywhere near the oversight or revision deletion policies. I would hope an oversighter would turn such a request down. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Sorry. The information was provided by an anonymous user who probably doesn't realize the implications of posting such info here, so I thought this request was appropriate. Equazcion (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually (I can't see these revisions, since they were hidden by oversight), if this content was put up by minors, then we usually do oversight it. See Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

need help accessing entry

hi. could someone please try to go to the entry for Bodie, California? all I get is a blank page there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

worked for me for at least the top two reversions in the history. Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:72.53.86.52

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks for spamming ELs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is making a series of edits with the phrase "grammer methoo.com was rv", most of the edits include removals of ', changing its to it's (incorrectly in most cases) and null edits. I only noticed because they edited two pages on my watchlist. They have just come off a week long ban and have not learnt their lesson, or how to spell grammar. I have given them a level four vandalism warning, but given the odd nature of the vandalism (and that they are editing when I am asleep) I thought it might be worth having a second pair of eyes on them. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I just reblocked for 2 weeks -- since they just came off a block, I thought that escalating spam warnings would be process for the sake of process.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats from a company lawyer

Not long ago I created an article about the company Hottrix. About a week ago, I got a somewhat friendly letter from a lawyer who worked for the company. The lawyer made no threats at all, he only explained a few details to me about the company that contradicted what I had written in the article. Since then I had edited the article to remove information implying that a particular person was a CEO (this was based on my misinterpretation of some sources I had read).

Today some information was directly removed from an editor with the same name as the lawyer who had emailed me. This information was backed up by reliable sources in the article. The edit summary said, "removed reference to marital status and club ownership due to pending litigation and potential defamation claims - no relation to Hottrix, LLC - attorney Jason H. Fisher, Esq. 213-891-5143.)" Saying that the information was removed "pending potential defamation claims" looks like a clear legal threat to me. -- Atama頭 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One wishes someone would contact this Jason Fisher - he even left a phone number - just to know what is going on. 128.226.130.90 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He needs to be asked to clarify his comment. I can't see anything problematic in the text he removed so if he can't give a good reason for the removal it should be reverted. I'm not sure what he said should be interpreted as a legal threat, it sounds like there is litigation with some 3rd party, rather than him threatening litigation against us. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} Well, he has a talk page. It's not clear to me that he is threatening legal action against Wikipedia or referring to entirely unrelated litigation, and I will ask him to clarify. I wall also notify him of this thread, as he should have been already. Rodhullandemu 17:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem: [62]. It's about Sheraton's act. Soxwon (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ecx4)I left a welcome and a note at just about the same time Rod did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Could whoever contacts him also please advise him about how to contact OTRS. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I see no reason to revert the removal -- it's personal info about the founder in the company's article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't either, honestly. I appreciate the extra info about the company that the lawyer added. My only concern was the legal threat which seemed to imply to me that any attempt to add information to the article about the inventor of iBeer and other Hottrix apps on the page would lead to a lawsuit. I understand now that he was saying that there is already a legal case going on, he wasn't threatening to start a new one. -- Atama頭 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you were using a reliable source and reporting only what you honestly thought to be factual and did so without the intent of deflamation, then there generally isn't a concern. Liable/Slander laws, as I understand it from my business law classes, are written such that you have to have intent to do harm and knowingly state something that is incorrect. I do agree that the legal action might be against the source from whence you obtained said information, but again that would be against the original source, not those who (in good faith) relied upon it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's much easier to base a case on English law, though it's practically impossible to do so unless you have a lot of money. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice and setting me at ease. My off-wiki communication with Mr. Fisher has been cordial but this is the first time encountering anything on Wikipedia that might even hint at legal problems so I was hesitant to proceed without some other input. I suppose just talking to him on his user page couldn't have done any harm before I brought it here. -- Atama頭 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

The subject of this aricle is back editing the page after several blocks, using the same editing style as before: unexplained reverts, removing unflattering sources, adding self-promotional text, etc.

currently editing as User:Californiason and 170.170.59.139.

previously blocked accounts:

User:Tonytonyb

User:Daphnaz

User:Michaeledean

70.233.8.130

and a dormant unblocked account at User:Brianq

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonytonyb/Archive for the sock case page and User talk:Michaeledean for the most recent block. Is there any point in starting another sock case all over again? Hairhorn (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not 100% convinced on the IP address; at the least the IP may be a shared address used by other editors, and only very recently picked up by the Tonytonyb/Michaeledean character. The person that has been operating these sock accounts and disrupting the Brian Quintana article does so almost exclusively, editing only that article and related ones. The IP shows a wide range of interests that would indicate to me that it may be an unrelated person. The Californiason account has not been terribly active, and I would agree that the IP and Californiason are the same person; but I am not 100% convinced of the connection to the Tonytonyb account. Tonytonyb and Californiason could very well be two different people, but who know each other. Without a CU, I don't think the behavioral evidence is yet strong enough to tie it to the Tonytonyb person. I would recommend filing a SPI report and asking for a Checkuser. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further problems; the WHOIS on the 70.233.8.130, which is most definately TonytonyB/Michaeledean comes up with a Plano, Texas location while the 170.170.59.139 comes up with Ventura, California. Not sure if Checkuser can dig deeper into the IPs used by the now-blocked accounts, but this seems to locate to very different places.--Jayron32 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP 70.233.8.130 is a Kinko's, it's hardly surprising that there is a wide range of posts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but under that logic there is no reason to block it then. Plus, it appears to be a Kinko's in California, while the other cited IP is a AT&T address from Texas. I think if someone from Texas wanted to go to Kinkos to edit Wikipedia, he could find one closer to home... --Jayron32 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't specifically ask for a block. The editor in question is the subject of the article being edited (or someone with an extremely close COI); this person lives in or around Los Angeles. The fact that there is one geographically anamolous IP with edits made in July doesn't change the fact that User:Californiason and 170.170.59.139 (an IP from California) are evading blocks, in particular the one most recently put on User:Michaeledean. Hairhorn (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard VanU's mass deletion of stubs

I thought that this deserved to be brought to some attention, as something surely isn't right here. Please note that I am not scolding the editor, nor suggesting he be scolded, but only hoping to bring some light to this situation and other opinions on whether this should be done.

A discussion was brought up at the Village pump proposals: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Have a bot autodelete any stub article of less than 250bytes if not edited in X months, which had next to no support for both the proposal of having a bot do it, as well as the proposal to delete said articles. Despite numerous arguments against the idea and an overwhelming consensus to leave those articles alone, User:LessHeard vanU has been carrying out the deletion of literally hundreds of pages. Many of these are being overturned, which begs the question as to

A) How legitimate the reason for deletion is

B) Whether admins can just arbitrarily speedy delete pages that don't meet a set criterion that isn't laid out in any policy or guideline.

C) Whether its appropriate to set out an arbitrary requirement for small articles to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, and potentially delete those that do not.

Thoughts? I let LessHeard VanU know, so you may wish to wait for his take on the situation first. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotchecking a half-dozen of his deletions, I can find nothing overtly wrong with them. Admins delete lots of stuff very quickly all the time; I can clear through about 3-4 articles/minute when clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD. True, these articles had not been tagged for speedy deletion, but they certainly could have, and if they HAD been, they would likely have been easily speedied ANYWAYS. No need to go through hoops here, admins are given the deletion tool and trusted to use it, and I don't see that any of these articles would NOT have ended up being deleted had anyone bothered to go through the extra step of tagging them and waiting for someone else to delete them. I sometimes delete an article for A7 or other reasons when I come across them, even if they are not previously tagged. I don't see a real problem here. --Jayron32 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to Q. B is "yes". Though (in my mind) it isn't best practice, there is nothing 'wrong' with speedying something which hasn't been tagged, so long as it actually meets a speedy criteria. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that many of these pages rather obviously don't meet any speedy criteria. LHVU seems to be under the false impression that places are subject to A7 (quite a number of these deletions), among other things. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ammending my earlier comments, and checking some more of them, there do clearly appear to be some problematic ones which are clearly NOT speedy-eligible. For example, Choc Bay was deleted under the A7 rationale, but being a "geograpic location" is NOT a valid A7 reason, and that reason should only be used to delete a VERY narrow set of articles. I have now also seen several other A7 or A1 deletion reasons where he is clearly stretching the defined criteria for those deletions beyond reasonably. I think that he needs to stop deleting articles under the wrong reasons; many of his articles I do agree do qualify under A7, but far too many do NOT, and this needs to stop. --Jayron32 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I already raised this a while ago on LessHeard vanU's talk page - User talk:LessHeard vanU#Disambiguation, while a number of the pages do meet the speedy criteria, others do not such as A44 autoroute, Albright, Alberta, A377 highway, Adams Landing, Alberta - which has already been restored by another admin, Calinaoan, Chembenyouba etc. The village pump discussion pointed to above was clear that being a very short article should not be grounds for speedy deleting the article. The quantity of these deletions also make it impractical to take them all to deletion review, which would be the correct location if it was just one or two deletions. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I count 59 deletes out of 324 stubs reviewed to date (are there any undeletes you could note, for my ongoing benefit?); that is around (the first 30-40 stubs are "X in (year)" type lists, which are dependent on other articles, so I ignored them then and for this guesstimate) 20%. If I can finish reviewing the 1500+ stubs listed then I may delete 300+ of them. The remainder I am generally either redirecting to the parent article, which usually has the sources missing in the stub, placing an unreferenced template on the stub, or transwikiing the content (to Wiktionary every time). Of those that I have deleted some have had an unreferenced template since 2007, notwithstanding I am looking for stubs that have only been unedited for a year. Per Wikipedia:REDLINK it is stated that redlinks provide greater stimulus for the creation of content, and I am cutting away those two sentence stubs which are no more than a definition of the term (per WP:NOTDEF) or a unreferenced population guesstimate and elevation. While WP:STUB says that such articles can be the basis for growth into encyclopedic articles, I am working on the basis that anything not edited in a year is pretty much at the bottom of peoples to do list.

Regarding the discussion at the village pump, I now acknowledge I was wrong to suggest autodeletion of such stubs - since a lot of them are good search criteria to be redirected to a more encompassing article, and some still have that untapped potential. Some of them, however, do not even have that potential. If the subject does, then hopefully somebody with a reference book or two will be the proud author of a new WP stub article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is the overextension of CSD criteria to justify speedy deletion of lots of articles which just do not qualify for speedy deletion. Autoroutes, villages, bays, and other geographic features do not qualify; if you want, tag them for PROD and let either another admin delete them or give interested editors 5 days to fix them up. Speedy deletion criteria are narrowly defined for a reason, and should not be over extended. I would have no problem with speedily deleting articles without being tagged priorly, if the speedy criteria actually DID apply. The deal is, you are clearly using speedy deletion criteria to delete stuff where the criteria do not apply... --Jayron32 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletions so far that I can see are Adams Landing, Alberta, Beigo, Beres (mythology), Columella (botany), Christian Democratic Party of Lebanon, Choc Bay, Ayshcombe Baronets and Ashby Baronets. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayshcombe Baronets, a disambig page to one redlinked member? Christian Democratic Party of Lebanon, a party that only appears in Wikipedia and mirrors in Google - where the named leader has some ghits under Christian Democratic Union - and might be wrong (I gave some detail in the delete summary)? Ho hum... I initially was deleting geographical mini stubs using CSD#A3 (no substantive content), but considered "substantive" to be a judgement call - but I suppose I can use the rationale in a PROD. I am pleased to see that the other undeleted articles have subsequentley grown a reference or two, but would they have done so if I had not deleted them? Since, hopefully, a PROD will create a similar response I will be content to do that (and I will not action them after 5 days, to ensure that there is a third party review). I propose that I only continue with my review after this matter has been resolved and a working practice for me established - whether that discussion continues here or on my talkpage I will leave for others to decide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to stop. Now. Many of these being deleted are simply not speediable nor should they be. Looking at the cache for example of this one which is a small village that would not be touched at all. There's nothing wrong with such content. Moreover, almost all of the geographic examples deleted apply to areas outside the English speaking world which reinforces systemic bias massively. This isn't acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Chopan Ata, from a nineteenth century Russian sketch. (Before restoration).

Mausoleum of Chopan Ata, from a nineteenth century Russian sketch. (After restoration).

This is problematic, especially if the principal focus is to be geography. Many parts of the world are underrepresented so their geography coverage is far from adequate and stubs do not receive frequent attention. The examples here come from a world heritage site in Uzbekistan. Due to competing transliteration systems I was unable to understand the available sources well enough to expand relevant articles and use the image in mainspace (the odds of committing a good faith factual error were just too great). Checked Category:Wikipedians in Uzbekistan, which has only two members, and left an inquiry for the one who was active. Have received no reply since March. Our gaps in coverage are significant: this year it has been possible to write DYKs for the natural lakes which the Suez Canal intersect, the westernmost point on the continent of Africa had no article until I wrote it, and roughly twenty percent of Africa's national parks remain redlinked. Substubs for these topics aren't ideal but they're better than nothing. It's very worrisome to see mass prodding on a formulaic basis. Unless one is exceedingly careful, the large scale result would include reinstatement of considerable systemic bias. Durova³⁰⁶ 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sometimes I wonder why we even have criteria for speedy deletion, since so many admins seem to take it upon themselves to make up their own. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Where there's a will, there's a way. The CSD criteria are intentionally strict, but I don't think they are applied in isolation or capriciously; but they still have some flexibility. There is always the remedy of userfication once the deficiencies have been pointed out, and Deletion review otherwise. This is a wiki, where anything may be undone, and everything is open to discussion. If admins are persistently abusing CSD, that's a cause for concern, but I would prefer to see specific examples of this rather than a vague assertion. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it is frequently a bad idea for admins to directly speedy delete things they come across that seem speedy deletable, rather than speedy tagging them. Of course there are exceptions for really obvious speedies, but anything where there is a substantial judgement call whether it really is speediable ought to get two opinions: speedy nominator and speedy-reviewing admin. Additionally, in at least some of these cases PROD would clearly be more appropriate than speedy. Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's plainly destructive to delete articles on notable battles which blatantly doesn't satisfy A3, such as the one on the Battle of Halani, which is very significant in the history of Pakistan. There's more likeliness that information be put in an article when it's a stub, even if a "sub stub", that when it's a redlink and there's a big red warning at the top of the edit window with text like "... deleted ... no indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". Cenarium (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual merit of the deletions, but I'd just like to point out that deleting lots of stuff outside normal channels then being somewhat recalcitrant about it is the fast track to losing the bit. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is very often something very wrong about deleting things that have not been tagged, and its time we prohibited it, in order to keep admins from making mistakes like this, and acting in defiance of policy. I do not trust any one person, myself included, to be right more than 90% of the time. This is much too great a risk, and the only way of lessening it is to require two people, which gets us down to 1%, which is probably as low an error rate as feasible. There are in fact n umber of admins who do apply CSD capriciously. Some of them are even wikifriends, people I respect otherwise. I don't want to come here and start accusing them. As Arb com as said, no admin is expected to be perfect. To protect us, as well as the contributors , and the content of the encyclopedia, we need reasonable checks. Anyone who objects to having others routinely check their work, by working in a two step process, probably does need their work checked very much indeed. I have a lot of derogatory terms i could use here, but I'll refrain, if only because some of the worst offenders are , as I said friends. I've done it wrong too, from time to time. I say this not because i think I'm better or more accurate than they, but because I know that i probably am not. We cannot act single handed except in very limited cases. I'm not too proud or self-confident to just tag articles like everyone who isn't an admin, and I do not really trust anyone who thinks it's a over-harsh restriction and attack on his authority or knowledge.

I see LHVU has agreed to stop, and use prod, which is exactly right, though I remind people that the period for prod is now 7 days, not 5, just as AfD. for now. It's time to change the rule so that neither he nor anyone is in danger of doing it again. It will avoid such disasters as deleting an article under A3 that reads "'Cavans is a unit of mass in the Philippines used for cereal grains equivalent to 50 kilograms". This may not be a sustainable article, but it is not deletable as no content. Indeed, if one can tell that it might be a directory entry, it intrinsically has some content!. I see in his log many towns deleted under A3, that still remain deleted. I think it appropriate to undelete such articles without formal deletion review, as clear mistakes. But I don't mean to emphasise his deletions in particular.

Each time the rule to eliminate single-handed deletions has been proposed, it has gotten strong support except for the objection of a few admins who want to continue to have the right to delete whatever they like however they like. This doesn't mean they are necessarily doing deletions wrongly, but none of us should be in a position where we could take the chance. None of us are good enough. None of us are sufficiently trusted. Admins who argue this way bring us all into disrepute. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principal, but I'm not sure that the error rate goes that low. You assume that errors in tagging and deleting are uncorrelated, both across individuals and serially. This may sound pedantic, but it's important. If errors are serially correlated (that is, seeing someone tag something makes me much more likely to delete it) and correlated across editors (that is, me and LHvU are likely to make the same kind of errors both in tagging and deleting) then the advantage evaporates. Along with that advantage goes one of the stronger arguments for mandating that articles see a tag before they get deleted. Those of us arguing against such a rule aren't just doing it out of selfishness and we don't bring the admin corps into disrepute. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Comics

For those who like to keep an eye on articles for potential vandalism, you might want to add Marvel Comics in light of today's news.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• lol disney. Had my heart in my throat for a sec. Thought Stan Lee had died. Glad to hear that wasn't the case. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I'd rather have Stan Lee dying than what actually happened :( ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Aye. Last thing we need is cutesy crap in comics nowaday... waitaminit! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sigh. That's like the Asteroids movie. what's the possible story line? Blue guy rescues forest animals from fat russian mario. The end. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Ohlsen

Resolved

 – autobiography deleted by request of editor who began the article

Could an administrator look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Ohlsen-Artist featured in the Borås Tidning, pleae? The article is written by the subject, who is now requesting speedy deletion because she feels the delete tag will make people question her credibility as an artist. Jafeluv (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedied as G7. Normally I don't like speedying articles while at AfD, but I didn't see the point of causing what appeared to be angst in the subject in order to follow policy. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick response. Jafeluv (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

How abut a courtesy blanking of the AfD page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community, may potentially cause harm: for example, emotional distress. Didn't she ask to have the article removed because the feels the tag will make people question her credibility? Won't the AfD discussion do the same thing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Do it if you want. AFDs are noindexed by default, so someone looking her up will have to go to her userpage, then her talk page, then the AfD. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the thing is, a proper discussion might have shown her notable. I'm not sure. The way we deal with the subjects of articles here can be very rough sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

could somebody block an IP

84.240.27.89 (talk · contribs) seems like a single-purpose sock, taking part in edit warring on Polish-Lithuanian articles. It has no useful contribs, and the only talk post is in Lithuanian ([63]). I'd block the IP myself but as I've reverted it in the past it could be seen as abuse of admin power, so I am asking for another admin to review the IP behavior and hopefully block it for a few months. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:BITE talking to the person should be the first step unless you have evidence of sockpuppetry. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, what about the edit-warring noticeboard?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Review and possible block IP

One user keeps adding unsubstantiated claims to Stargate_Atlantis and Robert_C._Cooper that Robert C. Cooper stole some core concepts for SGA from a guy from Vancouver. The IP is 24.85.147.254. The user has been repeatedly warned not to add this content without proper references. Requesting an admin to review and possibly (probably) block the IP. The IP does have some constructive work in the past, but not to the pages linked above. Examples of adding unsubstantiated claims are all of the user's contributions to the two pages above. - EndingPop (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those edits are cited to a blog, are a big WP:BLP worry and could even be taken as attack edits. They can be reverted on sight if the edit summary cites WP:BLP and if it keeps up, please tell an admin or bring it up here again. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User

Resolved

 – Account blocked

Hi. I am requesting some sort of block for this user: Not a cockpuppet. The name shows that he clearly understands at least part of Wikipedia, and all his edits have been vandalism. Username also inappropriate. Apart from that... Alan16 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton indefinitely blocked the account at 00:58 for vandalism. It would be quicker to got to WP:AIV for blatant vandalism next time. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, Alan16 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like to draw attention to this series of edits. We're used to all kinds of behavior from this editor but I think this goes beyond the pale to WP:Hound. Note the pointy use of edit summaries, [64], [65] on the intervening edits. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should just point out that I fixed the formatting error when responding to the question, but in doing so I do not endorse the content (my opinion is that it is somewhat childish, but ignoring it probably serves the project better than taking the bait). Rockpocket 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems too trivial to concern us. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes with the recent conflict around this user, what is one more? This is clearly disruptive, clearly a violation of civil, and clearly a continuation of counter-productive behaviour by this user.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a peaceful POINT warning. I don't know if more is justified - but am not going to take any action on my own beyond a metoo on Chillium's note. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Europe

This complaint cover several issues. If this is not the appropriate place to file this complaint, please direct me to the proper venue - thanks. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Background On August 27 I saw a tag on the European identity and culture section [66] of the Ethnic groups in Europe article stating that it was unsourced and that the date was from July 2008 - well over a year. Upon looking at the history of the section, there had been no work on it since then with the tag still in place. I removed the tagged section in question [67] under WP:RS, WP:OR and other reasons, and described my actions on the talk page[68], believing that it detracted from the article.

On August 28, Slrubenstein reverted my edit [69] claiming that it was not POV and that I (Dinkytown) should do the research on the subject. [70] I did not revert his edit but again explained my reasoning as to why it should be removed. After some discussion, I told them of my concerns that the section was POV, but most importantly this section had no sources and had been tagged as such for over a year. Mathsci stated that "...and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush".[71]

I told them that I would give them 48 hours for them to start bringing some sources to the section before I would move it to the talk page, as per WP:HANDLE. [72] I told them throughout the entire discussion that this was not personal and that we all should just be concern with getting sources. I told them that no debate can occur until there were sources to talk about, therefore, we need to have sources for this statements.[73]

They admitted that they did not have the sources. "I do not have them, but I know that these are the majore (sic), verifiable, and significant sources on..." [74] and "I do not have the time to do the research..." [75] A year has past and no one has found the time to do the research.

Instead of working on the section, both Mathsci and Slrubenstein carried out personal attacks on the talk page against myself and anyone else that disagreed with them. "Yalens remark is silly." [76] and "Yalens, you have Wikipedia backwards. What do you think facts are, anyway? Do you think they are the truth?"[77]

I told them that this section should be moved off the article and worked on in the talk page and get the sources which supports the claims here. [78] I was threated that if I did that "...if you did that, you could in principle be blocked for disruption." [79]

After 24 hours, I informed them that I will be moving the section to the talk , under WP:HANDLE to work page because of the abuse that has been going on. [80].

Mathsci reverted the material [81] claiming that “…this editor is being disruptive” and threatened... "...You are likely to be blocked if you continue edit warring and making threats..." [82] and threatened using different words: "This was advice, a mild warning: it was not a threat." [83] and notified Slrubenstein, an administrator to consider this action, to which he agreed and supported the threat. "I agree and share your hope!" [84] He also notified other people of this threat against myself. [85] As of August 31st, he has threatened other people with the same unjustified statement: "I'm afraid you will be blocked if you continue arguing like this..." [86]

This dispute had been tagged with POV and no source tags for over a year and still no sources attached to them. [87] Mathsci and Slrubenstein were also involved in the previous debates that occured over a year ago. [88]

To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status.

Additional threats

Mathsci has drawn attention to my ethnicity (Sami) as I describe on my homepage, something that had nothing to do with the page or the section in question.

"BTW this was the article at its weirdest [89](citation his) - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :)" [90]

When asked what he meant, he up-loaded the attached photo of a Sami woman on the talk page with this statement:

"This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :)"[91] Photo here

Mathsci described negitively a photo of a Sami woman which had no relavence to the article. I can only assume that this statement was used to describe my ethnicity in a derogatory way, and therefore a personal attack on my ethnic background, which had nothing to do with the article in question.

Mathsci’s also stated that I was "edit warring and making threats...". [92] In the two days of editing the section, I made only two edits, both for two different, good faith and stated reasons. I was not edit “warring” as Mathsci describes. I have never made any threats to anyone on any Wikipage.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Humor me; can I have the Cliff's Notes version? Tan | 39 02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to cut it down now. Dinkytown (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Better? Dinkytown (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So Mathsci mocked you with the hilarious image on the right? If you want seriousness, please just "link" it, not "show it".--Caspian blue 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Mathsci and Sirubenstein both agree that Dinkytown has a valid concern, but object to setting a rigid 48 hour deadline. I think they would both like to handle this cooperatively but object to being shoved: if you shove people, they automatically shove back, even if you are shoving them in the right direction. It also appears to me that Sirubenstein is trying to put the onus of doing the necessary research on Dinkytown, which is improper -- the onus of sourcing is on people who want to maintain material, not on people who question it -- but I still feel that it would be better to try to handle this less aggressively. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not too concerned with sussing out a personal attack by Mathsci (and maybe I am wrong in this), I am concerned that unsourced information is being shoved back in after a year of being tagged. From my perspective of WP:V, a core policy of our project, this information should indeed be removed until valid reliable sources can be found. Anyone agree? Tan | 39 03:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I told them that as long as there is progress,that fine. But they said the same thing a year ago until people just gave up, and then the disputed section remained with no sources. It then becomes their personal blog. I suggested to move it to the talk page, but they refused. Dinkytown (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that; I suggest the next step be to let these two editors respond on this thread. Slrubenstein states, "What matters is significant views from verifiable sources." How he can argue to replace this material without refs and state that is puzzling. However, like everything, there's two sides - I assume you've invited them to this thread? Tan | 39 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. I could wait. Thanks for your opinions. Dinkytown (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact no deadline for improving an article, and pushing people to do it by a fixed time is not constructive. We are already too much oriented towards immediate action and immediate replies. Everyone has the responsibility to help find material. There are hundreds of thousands of unsourced or inadequately sourced sections at Wikipedia. We should first deal with the actually questionable material, of which there is plenty. I could easily challenge 100 of them an hour, and it would take about 50 times that work for people to fix them. Using good policies indiscriminately is an effective way to harm the encyclopedia Is there some reason why this particular section is particularly problematic ? After one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?! Pushing this way -- & then coming here when they rightly object -- seems a little POINTy. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree, as I tend to do with you, David - no offense intended by that, more of a wry comment. Well, a tiny bit of offense intended because sometimes I think you are the fly in the ointment simply because you like to be the fly in the ointment. I'm probably wrong there. Anyway, what's pointy is pushing to keep this stuff on Wikipedia after a year of being tagged. Policies back up Dinky's edits; they don't back up keeping the material. You say, "after one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?" I say, the 48 hours is lenient - hell, this should have been removed ten months ago. WP:V is a core policy and allowing material to stay on without sources is wrong. Also, what's wrong with Dinky's way of going about this - removing it to the talk page to be discussed, etc until valid sources can be found? This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing with virtually all challenged unsourced material - especially after a year of opportunity. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of other articles with this problem - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Invalid argument. That you could easily challenge 100 in an hour? Invalid argument. Tan | 39 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dinkytown, if other editors want to try and save a major section of an article from deletion, then giving them more than 48-hours is probably a more productive approach. That said, SLRubestein's and Mathsci's threats of a block are worrying. Dinkytown does have policy on his side. Moving uncited text to the talk page is not a blockable offense. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To be clear Dbachmann (talk · contribs) intends to rewrite this section, as can be read on the talk page. Cla68 is wrong (not the first time [93]). There have been no treats of a block -just advice and warnings. So far several editors have entered the disussion there - Dbachmann, Slrubenstein, AnwarSadatFan, Varoon Arya are for sourcing/rewriting the material. Similar problems have arisen in the lede of Europe, where the some of the same sources were mentioned. In the case the persistent complaint was by TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later identified by admins as a sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg. Similarly the definition section was carefully written with sources following persistent attempts by another user to express a point of view about transcontinental country. Dinkytown, without naming sources, just removed the section wit these comments. [94]. Instead f collegial discussion, he started a subsection setting a 48 hour deadline for improvement. [95] The material has been there since early 2007 (written by A.J.Chesswas (talk · contribs))\when the article was called European people, before it was renamed European ethnic groups and extensively rewritten by Dbachmann. Similar material appears in Europe, in that case very carefully sourced. The other user who has taken Dinkytown's point of view is Yalens (talk · contribs) who has been unreasonable in discussions when presented with lists of sources. Here is his latest reply to Slrubenstein, who has been extremely patient.

So, wait, its NPOV by definition if it states a source. Ahoy, let's all state the Mein Kampf as Neutral Point of View then! I love the logic here! (and seriously... I really fail to see how... ah, well, this is pointless, nobody is going to read this trash of a page anyways). Any fool can say that whether its published or not doesn't determine its neutrality. I find it funny you go by such illogical criteria. The fact is that this is SUPPOSED to be a factual encyclopedia, not one based on imaginary things by a long list of authors with their own Pan-European-nationalistic-and-heavily-opinionated-point of views that are anything BUT Neutral Point of View. If you're going to say it as "some people say", with references, that's fine, but the whole page proclaims these things as verified, universal truth, which it isn't. And further more, the page is full of things like "the culture of Europe is influenced by Central and Eastern European romanticism"... Central and Eastern Europe ARE Europe, are they not now? And it goes onto things like the Rennaissance, which was a Western European phenomenon, somehow being generalized to a whole continent. Not even your pan-European nationalist authors can verify that, yet its right there anyways! The whole section is a bunch of generalizations and non-Neutral Point of View. I don't care about things like PhDs, plenty of ridiculous fascists had PhDs. What matters it that this is CLEARLY nothing but opinion, no matter who says it.--Yalens (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked Yalens to refactor these comments and hat he risked being taken here if he continued using the talk page as a WP:soapbox. That I presume gave Dinkytown the idea of starting this section. Both he and Yalens have not discussed sources in any shape or form. Interventions like this appear every few months on Ethnic groups in Europe and with slightly lesser frequency on Europe itself, probably because it is on more watchlists. Incidentally Dinkytown mentioned the picture of Sami people in the current article after I mentioned the old picture in the gallery. He wrote:

"You" made a reference to my user page. I never threated anyone. I just stated my intention to what I will do and the reasons why. There actually is a time limit: see here. Everyone will agree that a year is way too long, if he or anyone else has the sources on hand, then 48 hours should be enough. The time should be short as the content is disputed. If more time is needed, then they should state so, otherwise it should be moved off and worked on there. If you are talking about this photo? Yea, I like it too. There is only one question that will never be answered: Does he have two wives? Dinkytown (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the last remark. I pointed him to the right image, saying I knew nothing of the marital status of the woman. Dinkytown brought up my response here: as far as I'm aware, his own remark could be offensive to native Lapps reading wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent suicide note

A_life_to_remember is about to be speedied but someone ought to look into this and contact the proper authorities. He's also posted it on his user page at Moosie.hm (talk · contribs). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on an AFD

After I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations, User:Abductive said "User:TomCat4680's notion needs to be completely ignored--not even counted as a vote, since this is not a vote." My vote is just as good as his. This is a blatant personal attack and I want him punished. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack.

We do not "punish" people.

You forgot to mention that you deleted his comment, something which you shouldn't have done.

OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Abductive's comment was in relation to TomCat's assertion that all government agencies are inherently notable. Don't know if that would help anyone in swiftly dealing with this issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That discussion belongs on the aforementioned AFD. This is an ANI about a personal attack. My rights are being denied here and all you care about is the fact I deleted 2 sentences of text that I considered offensive. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It WAS a personal attack. I have the right to vote on any AFD I want. Saying my vote doesn't count is against the rules of AFD's and I had every right to remove it. Stop ignoring the issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've told Abductive it wasn't appropriate, and the closing admin will ignore that sort of commentary anyway. Again, everybody, AFD is NOT a vote but a discussion. Would you mind if we move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion matters just as much as everyone else's. We all have equal rights here and just because he disagrees with me it doesn't mean my thoughts should be ignored. I think he deserves more than a slap on the wrist. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)