Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on my talkpage, please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by Jayjg and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Jayjg insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Wikipedia (first Wikipedia:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know [them] to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Wikipedia is guided by WP:V and WP:RS, not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Wikipedia guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Wikipedia, which is based on consensus. And that is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the issue please. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N, and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article.[1][2] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So stop reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did Fiflefoo, Itsmejudith, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Slp1 and Nathan. That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and Bongomatic wouldn't opine on the issue, saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part omitting Count Iblis here, Bongomatic, who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and Yehoishophot Oliver on the talkpage. Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: "A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance." I have no opinion in this particular case. As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for facts, it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- Zsero (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since Jayjg has forgotten to do so, I posted at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that this discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this.

The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs found on reliable sources are considered reliable. PDFs found on blogs are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly not a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)?

About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. Shlomke (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. Debresser (talk)

And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have it exactly backwards. Zsero added the blog link on October 1. There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on October 1, 2009, by Zsero, was it not? And it was reverted in the very next edit, was it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason why I included preprints links in this article and in many other articles: accessibility Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous blog is an accurate representation? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. Shlomke (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the problem with it being defunct? Asimov is also "defunct": he is dead. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as Who then was a gentleman? suggested.Shlomke (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? Shlomke (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the blog is a copy to what both sources are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. Shlomke (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the discussion at WP:RS/N. Aside from the fact that WP:V and WP:RS specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Wikipedia editors, btw, don't count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you review the consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com, which was exactly the opposite of your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. Shlomke (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Wikipedia is not based on rules. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly haredi newspaper. And neither source is even necessary; the article already has links to a reliable book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" 289 results come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B'Tefila" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The Agudas Chasidei Chabad Library lists them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim 52,800 results. 40,600 for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? Shlomke (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a vanity press? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate is reverting on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our policy. Grsz¹¹ 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice.   pablo_hablo. 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "Debresser's post above..." A couple of minutes later, Debresser moves that post below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a different Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he moves it under his again, and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that the "Debresser's post above" I refer to is *not* the comment you inserted *after* mine. Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to remove his post from its relevant place. This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something either of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable.

In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly.

• Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it.
• Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument.
• Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not.

Thus, the real issues seem to be

1. Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that.
2. Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source.

And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? Shlomke (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. Deborah Lipstadt, for example, who is an expert on Holocaust denial, has a blog, which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. Shlomke (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the document link can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing, which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Rejects community input"). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA, and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one forum shopping is Jayjg, who started out on the talkpage, met unanymous disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage all editors apart from Jayjg want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again Jayjg with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). Debresser (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was unanymous disagreement on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no clear consensus (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "unanymous disagreement on the talkpage", you must mean the three Chabad members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in WP:V and WP:RS. Taking an RS issue to the WP:RS/N board is not "forum shopping", it's recommended procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement of three editors does not give you rights to do whatever you want with a page. It was not, nor will it ever be forum shopping for Jay to have gone to RSN and here.

Agreement on an obscure article by most of the only editors that edit it does not give them the right to walk over policy. If that was the case, then several thousand articles that have been previously deleted wouldn't have been. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Secondly, there was clear consensus at RSN. Three dissidents who were trying to control the article don't count. Only uninvolved editors count in the matter, and consensus among those uninvolved editors was that the sources were not reliable. Consensus doesn't require that the original dissidents agree with everyone else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say clear consensus, do you mean about the blog or the book? Shlomke (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book is found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just put it in external links. Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- Atama頭 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sanctions the community can take against editors why say blatant lies in WP:ANI discussions? Because if so, this is the time, and this is the man. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • The consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com was mainly about using the blog as a reference (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? Shlomke (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd suggest starting a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will leave it to those who want to use the book as a second reference. I'm fine either with or without it. Shlomke (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a WP:RS (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. Black Kite 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) Shlomke (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy WP:Why not?, an extention of WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's a reason we have WP:V and WP:RS. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see WP:ELNO, number 11. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per WP:ELMAYBE if it's not being used as a reference. -- Atama頭 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.Shlomke (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• [3] "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• [4]: "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• [5]: "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as [6] "Wikipedia is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus [7]. He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline [8] .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Wikipedia:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added [9], [10], [11], [12] (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today [13]. Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this [14].

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Wikipedia, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Wikipedia readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Wikipedia, including Wikipedia user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago [15] where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Wikipedia's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and [OMCV]) just a couple weeks ago [16]" was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia"--can you identify a single other proof in Wikipedia that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"[17]
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, [18], he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Wikipedia needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Wikipedia can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Wikipedia should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Wikipedia can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Wikipedia's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Wikipedia's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Wikipedia should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.

I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.

While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.

The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Wikipedia, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post above is mostly wrong:

1. Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap.[19] While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
2. Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston[20] p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
3. As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see [21]. You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
4. Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
5. Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
6. I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Wikipedia based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
7. Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Wikipedia is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
8. Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.

You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.

1. CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
2. Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
3. Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
4. Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
5. The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
6. Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
7. Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
8. Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.

In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likebox (re item 2), Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:

I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.

(Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smale is talking about the Jordan curve theorem, which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work.

In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for differentiable curves is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day.

But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for continuous curves without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for continuous curves requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss.

When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is uncharitable at best to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.Likebox (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Wikipedia to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:

If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Genocide debate

To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.

I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.

I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Wikipedia project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited User:OMCV to comment here.[22] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.

OMCV and I have no more dispute.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's editing against past consensus with a goal of changing this consensus in the future. I only persist in doing this when consensus is absolutely ridiculous, and must change if this project is not going to become a joke. I shall not reach any agreement with you on anything.Likebox (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:

If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.

This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)

I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that.

Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this nonsense? There are two pages in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, History Wars presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page Godel's incompleteness theorems does not present a proof.

To Dmcq: The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on User:Likebox/Gödel modern proof. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should expect from any editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" [23] -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).71.139.6.70 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I said I would stay out of this but I understand the exacerbation that 71.139.6.70 is expressing all too well. I felt that way when I was searching for support or arbitration when dealing with Likebox. I also disagree with Count Iblis on a number of issues. Likebox's problem behaviors as an editor require no provocation and make it difficult (perhaps intentionally) to discuss content, if you don't think this is true please review Quantum Mysticism's talk page and my talk page in detail. Based on discussion on this page, my experience, and a number of Likebox's own claims he plays the long game. I think any voluntary reforms will be disregarded once those who would hold him accountable have moved on (as I would like to do now). Considering all of this, I think Carl's suggestion is interesting, in the end we only want Likebox to display the "kind of behavior we should expect from any editor". The suggested restrictions should come with clearly defined and progressive sanctions. With reasonable sanctions that can be feasibly enforced Carl's proposal would be a significant restriction on Likebox's problem behaviors, which is all we really want to target. A clause concerning civility should also be added and I think it would cover the major issues. This would be much better than my original request for a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem.[24], [25], and [26]. After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be.[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits [33], [34], and [35] are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of "replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999" and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at Hollister riot and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were doing that well before I arrived on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of Dbratland pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. Hooper (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. Hooper (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF does not work that way. You are blatantly, repeatedly violating the policy of AGF, and it needs to stop.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AGF states that it is fine with proof. This article is my proof. Hooper (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Jvmphoto blocked for making legal threat. Guy looking into any relevant article/BLP issues. Best to handle this through email etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Wikipedia community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No guy, he's not well respected in the tech community. With the attempt to buy linux for $50K, his continuous ranting on the lkml, his theft of Novell's property and the subsequent attempt to sell it to Microsoft(which got him a a beatdown in court) and his uncontrollable hunger to file really strange lawsuits http://scofacts.org/merkey.html, he's a laughing stock. For the record, I was User:Vigilant. I have not editing wikipedia in a long, long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Wikipedia, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was someone else, the threats to sue and legal liability made by this guy aren't specific to location. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – article fully protected for 1 week - editors to attempt to reach consensus, I will remain on standby to assist.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) is once again propagating WP:POV and WP:OR, this time in Afghan Mellat. He is deleting sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the Socialist International, proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. Tajik (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the article's discussion page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the NSDAP regime of Adolf Hitler's Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? Tajik (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

User:Tajik is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. [36], [37] He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and meatpuppeting. [38], [39] Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Wikipedia to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Wikipedia can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--119.73.4.170 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned User:NisarKand. This has been confirmed by admin User:Alison here: [40]. However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support User:Ketabtoon. He did the same in Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor (and of course vice versa). Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fully protected Afghan Mellat for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--119.73.6.149 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a passer-by without any knowledge of the article itself: Firstly, "Social democrat" is not necessarily the same as "socialist", nor is there any guarantee that a legitimate social democratic party is a member of the socialist international. Secondly, a mere fascination with a certain ideology does not equal support for that ideology. The claims made by Tajik may or may not be correct, but the reasoning used in his comment is definitely faulty.88.77.186.196 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – MFD closed as delete, user advised not to use signatures over 255 characters as this is considered disruptive and carries with it the risk of being blocked. –xeno^talk 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer (talk · contribs) has a signature which is based on an unsubstituted template. After numerous warnings and threats on his talkpage, from myself and a couple of admins – Rd232 / Stifle – (stretching back well over a month!), he was finally induced to change it. Whereupon it became 836 characters long, taking up 9 lines of my widescreen computer. He also insisted on using the (bright yellow) tag as the subject heading of every thread he started.

I informed him of this on his talkpage, where he responded with: My signature is [...] a measly twelve characters, and Don't tell me a five-line string of characters is nine lines long [...] HOW DARE YOU try to fool me. This message was signed with (you guessed it!) the unsubstituted template.

Given that he has ignored and quibbled with repeated requests to shorten his signature length so that it is fewer than 255 characters, and fits in the box at Special:Preferences as per WP:SIG, and that he has not edited Wikipedia at all (save for arguing about his sig) for over a week, may I request that he is blocked until he explicitly agrees to start obeying our policy? I'll inform him of this thread. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used language like "HOW DARE YOU" because I can't believe for one minute your computer is widescreen when it takes up nine lines (Mine's also widescreen, and it takes up five lines) which means either yours is not a very good widescreen or you are lying through your teeth. Also, the reason for the truncation is to prevent too long an end result (which is what I've done). Given that, I'm not sure what I'm here for, especially that I cannot get that any more condensed.--Launchballer 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is his trick... keeping the template and manually substituting it afterwards. And, for your information, it is taking up nine lines of my 1280x800 screen. If you want a screengrab, I'll take one. I am not "lying through my teeth". Block still requested. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're screendumps, not screengrabs. Here's mine:

--Launchballer 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing five-and-a-half lines of code, and that's at 1650x1050 widescreen - clearly too much. Please reduce your signature to something that fits within the 255-character limit, or else someone may have to do it for you. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you can find a way of shortening it WITHOUT touching the implemeted effects or removing the links, I'm happy to change it. But I don't know of any way.--Launchballer 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what I've said. The code is far too long and has to be trimmed. You need to create a signature that fits within the limit; that may well involve giving up some of the features and links you've implemented. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting 8 on this standard-res monitor. I was pushing four when I started my RFA and was criticized there for sig length. Do yourself a favor and trim down the code. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, here's my screengrab (don't be so petty about the term, Launchballer, and read this webpage). Count the lines yourself... I took the liberty of numbering them in the diagram to help you. And every other Wikipedia user manages to have their signature at a reasonable length, you are not a special case, you can too. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's seven and a bit here. Launchballer, your signature has too many links. Too many effects. There is no need to "condense" your sig - cut it down, because it's disruptive. A block is coming from someone if you don't respond constructively.  GARDEN  20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts, not helped by the fact that adding a template and then substituting it afterwards doubles the number of edits you make to a page, which is itself ridiculous). Launchballer, you don't need all of the following (a) a fancy font (b) colours (c) class=explain (d) links to your contribution page (e) links to your email. Simple links to your user and talk page will do to start with; then add anything else you want until you reach 255 characters; then stop. It's simple, really. Otherwise, you will be blocked until you agree so to do. Bencherlite^Talk 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) whose signature is the least fancy of all of those on display...[reply]

(stop edit conflicting already!)I have a 1360x768 resolution, and it takes up 7 lines of text for me... that's extremely excessive... I subst my sig, specifically from here, but I actually make an effort to keep it 255 characters or under... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your current sig is more prominent than the text itself; Wikipedia is primarily about content not contributors, and your apparent ego is interfering in our writing of an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about mine, or Lauchballer's? Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was talking about Launchballer's, sorry for unclear antecedent. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a consensus here that the signature needs to be shortened; Launchballer, shorten your signature immediately or you will be blocked until it is changed. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I would be the first to admit that my signature is long; I use a substituted template to manage and preview the code, it stands out, and probably takes at least four lines on a standard resolution such as Jeske's. However, my signature is still under 255 characters, nor do I sign with a transcluded template, which is expressly forbidden by the signature guideline. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours takes up more like 3 in toto. Mine's 208 characters, and takes up 2½ lines.-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x3)Lauchballer, when you have to call out the end of your sig so others know where to start editing, it's too big. Besides the fact that it's not very useful. I'd make an attempt to contact you on your talk page but it's pretty hit-or-miss to click on your sig to find it. So, not only is it over the char limit, it fails to be a useful addition to the talkpage. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry if I've just triple edit conflicted anyone, but I've left a notice on Launchballer's talk page telling him to change his sig or be blocked. With unanimous consent here, it seems there's more than enough support for such a block if he continues to refuse to change his signature. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block, change the template he's using to standard sig, then protected it until it can be bot-subst'ed. Wikipedia is not designed for WP:PEACOCKs. Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible he stopped editing; his last edit was over an hour ago. I would hold off on a block until we see him edit without chainging the sig. Other than that, I agree with my esteemed colleagues above - when you need a warning within the sig, it's too much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have also had to change my signature, here is some advice. You do not need to declare the same colors four times, only once. Same with bold. Also, use the words red and cyan instead of the hexidecimal codes. See my sig if this confuses you.   Nezzadar ☎   20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try something like this:

Launchballer

• Or, even better, something like this: Launchballer (talk). The more outlandish the signature, the less likely it is that people are going to take you seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Disagree I know of plenty of admins and trusted users with funky signatures. Atama, Tinuchurian, raeky, Durova, NuclearWarfare, etc. He is entitled to his quirkyness as long as it follows the rules.   Nezzadar ☎   23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually a few years back with this basic sig the idea was to have something just a little bit different--slightly different shade of blue from the usual signature, different font that still displays well on most browsers. Eye-catching rather than flashy. And fwiw, a bad sig is more worthy of a trout than of a block. Let's get back to work. Durova³³² 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've taken this to MfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, it might be a good idea to get one's name noticed for the quality of one's contributions and insights, rather than the length of one's signature. ;) Durova³³² 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the user's signature code page down to 270 characters (the software limit is 255). The appearance is maintained but the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments are gone. I think the MfD can be ended if the user can live with this change, and agrees not to make the code any larger. Perhaps protecting the signature page could enforce that somewhat. Equazcion (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD seems to be heading for an outright delete anyway, which is probably for the best considering that it's crept back up by about 50% since you pared it down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh and this is why I keep this page on my watchlist. I love the smell of chaos in the morning. Good luck solving this without a few MfDs, I tried. Equazcion tried. Durova suggested a trout instead of a delete, and... drumroll please... nothing.   Nezzadar ☎   13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have since taken it down. Not to 255, but please bear in mind how high it was to start off with.--Launchballer 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember ... it must fit within the box on your My Preferences page. To paraphrase a famous trial: "if the sig don't fit, you must MfD-it" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sig he signed with above is 247, so it's acceptable (we don't include the timestamp in char limit). –xeno^talk 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag's signature | isn't so short either.

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

 – Signature pared down, warning re: disruptive signature use issued. –xeno^talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Discussion returned to talk pages Leaky Caldron 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]